[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES T. WALSH, New York JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida CHET EDWARDS, Texas
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama SAM FARR, California
KAY GRANGER, Texas ALLEN BOYD, Florida
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full Committee,
and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are
authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. Valerie L. Baldwin,
Brian L. Potts, and Mary C. Arnold, Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 5
Page
Overview......................................................... 1
Army............................................................. 81
Navy............................................................. 143
Air Force........................................................ 7
Quality of Life in the Military--Spouses......................... 237
Quality of Life in the Military--Senior Enlisted................. 283
U.S. Pacific Command............................................. 363
U.S. European Command............................................ 435
Housing Privatization............................................ 487
Unexploded Ordnance.............................................. 597
Testimony for the Record......................................... 715
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-779 WASHINGTON : 2002
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman
RALPH REGULA, Ohio DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TOM DeLAY, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM KOLBE, Arizona MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama NANCY PELOSI, California
JAMES T. WALSH, New York PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
HENRY BONILLA, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
DAN MILLER, Florida ED PASTOR, Arizona
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr.,
Washington Alabama
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
California JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM LATHAM, Iowa SAM FARR, California
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri ALLEN BOYD, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KAY GRANGER, Texas STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
JOHN E. SWEENEY, New York
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2003
----------
Wednesday, April 17, 2002.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WITNESSES
DOV ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
RAYMOND DUBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Committee will come to order.
The subcommittee meets this morning to complete its review
of the President's budget request. I want to welcome our panel,
the Under Secretary of Defense, Dr. Dov Zakheim, and the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment,
Mr. Ray DuBois.
We look forward to hearing from you. Without objection,
both of your prepared statements will be entered into the
record. And I, too, have some words that I would like to give
for the record. And I hope all those little people writing
notes in the back take this down.
By now everyone knows that I was gravely disappointed by
the 15 percent cut the military construction account suffered.
This disappointment was even more of a blow given that the last
year's statement by the administration that the fiscal year
2002 budget was the initiation of an aggressive program to
renew facilities and to break ``the current cycle of pay me now
or pay me later much more.'' This budget request, however,
contradicts that assertion and confirms that we are back to
``business as usual.''
Consider the impact of the reduction. Operational and
training facilities are reduced $580 million, or 37 percent.
Maintenance and production facilities are cut $635 million, or
59 percent. Community facilities are reduced by $196 million,
or 51 percent. R&D facilities are reduced by $151 million, or
82 percent. And funding for troop housing, medical, utility,
administration and supply facilities are reduced as well.
Now consider the following information about the condition
of DOD's inventory: The recapitalization rate goes from 83
years to 150 years.
I do not think we will all be around then, Doctor.
The most recent installation rating report shows that 68
percent of the Department's facilities are rated C-3, which
means they have serious deficiencies, or C-4, which means the
facilities cannot support mission requirements, and the average
age of the facilities is 41 years.
Now, John and I might think 41 years is not that old, but
in the facilities world that is a little old.
Frankly, these facts to me are nothing less than
embarrassing. Even worse, in my opinion, they do a disservice
to our troops.
Despite these facts, Congress is told that Secretary
Rumsfeld is committed to putting adequate resources into the
military construction account to permit facilities to be
brought up to standard. Of course, this commitment is not until
around 2006 or 2007.
Frankly, gentlemen, I, for one, am very skeptical.
To justify the cuts, the administration puts the onus on
the Congress for not authorizing the BRAC legislation until
2005. To say the least, I find this argument less than
compelling. What makes this year any different than last year?
There was not any BRAC authority last year, yet there was a
$1.0 billion increase in the military construction account. How
is it that it is not prudent to level funds for military
construction because there is not a BRAC authority until 2005?
During your testimony, I hope you address this
inconsistency.
I have also heard that the administration ``passed the
buck,'' in effect blaming the Service Components for presenting
them with less than an adequate budget. Though I realize the
Services contribute to the process, I am equally aware that the
Service Secretaries answer to the Secretary of Defense. And I
have a lot of respect for the secretary and his force of
personality. If the Secretary wanted to maintain level funding,
he could have issued a program budget decision, PBD, that
ordered it done.
The argument is further diluted given the fact that the
Army presented $90 million of projects that were executable and
important in carrying out their missions, and yet those same
projects were deferred for no apparent reasons.
These projects were appealed to the highest levels, yet the
appeal fell on deaf ears. Maybe we have to get some hearing
aids, I am not sure.
Listening to these stories, frankly, is extremely
frustrating to this chairman.
It is only fair to mention the bright spots in the budget.
Dormitories are being constructed at a rapid pace. Overseas
construction funding is up, and I am glad to see that. I am
especially pleased with the level of host nation funding
committed by the Republic of Korea and want to commend the
administration on successfully negotiating a 50 percent ROK
contribution.
I might say, I think a former appropriator staffer had a
lot to do with that.
Finally, housing privatization is moving forward
aggressively. If all goes well, financial transactions will be
in place by 2007 that will eventually result in eliminating
inadequate housing. This is a goal of which we can all be
proud.
I am also pleased to note the sustainment, restoration and
maintenance account increased by $500 million, but I note that
while the amount is appropriate, I am frustrated that the
majority of these funds will be spent in sustaining decrepit
buildings. As I mentioned earlier in the statement, one could
question whether sustaining 69 percent of the DOD's inventory
at the C-3 or C-4 level is really a good investment for
taxpayers.
Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary, you are in the middle of
putting together the 2004 budget. It is my hope that you will
reconsider the approach you took this year. Our troops and
their families deserve the best, especially now that they are
putting their lives on the line every day.
I will now yield, after those words, to Mr. Olver for any
opening statement he may have.
Mr. Olver. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. After that
statement, there is not an enormous amount to be said perhaps.
Maybe it is all been said, but not everybody has said it.
Thank you.
Mr. Hobson. I think with the Defense Department, John, it
is not inappropriate to just keep saying it over and over
again. You just hope that someday it, kind of, pervades through
there.
Mr. Olver. I would not hold my breath, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Anyway, Mr. DuBois and Dr. Zakheim, thank you very much for
being here.
You know, I thought last year's budget procedures were
little unusual, but I have a feeling that the last thing I
really understand was the 2002 regular budget that passed
somewhere around the middle of October or thereabouts. From
that point, it becomes very much more complex.
We have had the regular MILCON requests transmitted by the
President for this year. And like the chairman and me, he has
given a very good description of what one gleans from that. I
was not happy with the level of the requests in that instance,
because it does not anywhere come close to meeting the level of
needs or an evolution of the implementation of correcting those
needs that the chairman and I have seen as we have traveled
around. The needs out there are clearly much greater.
We are still trying to get a handle on the comings and
goings of the MILCON projects what were funded or that the
Congress, at least, expected to be fully funded in the 2002
DERF, the Defense Emergency Response Fund, which was the big
bill that passed, of course, a few days after 9/11. Then, last
year, of course, was an unusual year; there is no question. But
the expenditures of those 2002 DERF funds is ongoing.
Then we have a 2002 supplemental, which is currently before
the committee, but it, to at least myself and I think the
chairman incredibly, has no military construction projects
within it at all.
And then there is the President's amended budget request
which came in a month or so ago for an additional $10 billion,
which is not even technically before this subcommittee, but
does include some $565 million of military construction, and I
think that might be called the 2003 DERF, Defense Emergency
Response Fund, for this year.
Now, I think those who have been witnesses here before,
sort of, know my predilection to ask for data in a spreadsheet
format. I do have the feeling that in our role, which is both
an appropriations role and an oversight role, that we need to
understand the big picture, which can--I see the big picture by
seeing all the details in a pattern and being able to see the
pattern of that picture.
And I must say, once we get past the 2002 regular budget,
which passed, as I say, around the middle of October of last
year, I see nothing that gives me a big picture of this. I do
not know. I do not see this pattern, and it is a very different
pattern, each one of these bills.
It seems to me that you, I suspect, will tell us that less
is more. I do not believe that is the case. We are spending an
enormous amount of money, and the pricing of it or the
following of it is not at all easy to do. Maybe it is difficult
for you as well.
Anyway, I will have questions how the construction needs
have developed, how they have changed, how the adjustments have
been made in response to the changing pattern. I think the
committee needs to know how you chose to do some MILCON and in
one or another of the vehicles or which you chose to do none
in, others why you included clearly defined MILCON projects in
submissions intended for other subcommittees. With the funds
and the requests coming in at an unusual rate in various
legislative vehicles, I may have to ask for another
spreadsheet.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Gentlemen.
Statement of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
Mr. Zakheim. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olver,
members of the committee. I have a written statement. I also
have a written oral statement. I will do my staff the favor by
giving you most of the written oral statement. But I am going
to every once in a while interrupt myself and try to address at
least some of your concerns up front, because the basic premise
that I am operating from is two-fold. First of all, we are not
out to tell you that less is more. Less is not more, number
one. Number two is I think we all share the same concern, it is
a question of how you get from here to there.
So, bearing that in mind, I am going to go through some of
these points. But we start off in the same place and I think my
colleague, Deputy Under Secretary Ray DuBois, shares this view
with me.
Again, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to
discuss the military construction component of President Bush's
fiscal year 2003 DOD budget request. And, I will do my best--I
am already interrupting myself, as you can see--to address some
of your concerns about the 2002 supplemental as well.
Going back to the basic request, we believe it supports the
President's commitment to revitalize and transform our defense
posture at large, forces, capabilities and infrastructure so
that we can indeed counter the 21st-century threats decisively.
And that is the longer-term aim. When we talk about the
21st century, and we are talking in the year 2002, you are
obviously talking longer term. We have to balance that longer-
term aim with immediate requirements, especially the war on
terrorism, and the need to improve the quality of life for our
military people and their families right now.
As with all the appropriations accounts in the fiscal year
2003 budget, in our military construction request we had to
make hard choices because of other pressing requirements. We
were not spared these hard choices just because our
Department's budget topline increased substantially.
Let me just walk you through again, although some of you
have heard this before, what the $48 billion increase really
came out to be.
Mr. Hobson. Can we have abstracts?
Mr. Zakheim. I will be happy to give it to you. I think you
may have it, but we will get you copies of it.
Mr. Hobson. We will enter that for the record.
Mr. Zakheim. By all means.
The enacted budget in fiscal year 2002 was $331.2 billion.
If you add inflation to that, that is another $6.7 billion.
Then there were must-pay bills: $14.1 billion worth of must-
pays which included the over-65 health care accrual, that was
about $8.1 billion, the civilian retirement and health care
accruals, another $3.3 billion, and the pay raises, $2.7
billion.
Then we have a category we call realistic costing: $7.4
billion for realistic weapons costing. We have had a chronic
habit of underpricing and basically low-balling programs up
front, and then having to come back to the Congress and say,
``Could you help us out?'' And it totally distorts the way we
program our acquisitions.
We put in more money for readiness. We put in more money
for depot maintenance; that came to $7.4 billion.
You then add to that the cost of the war. As you know,
there are two parts to that. There is $9.4 billion that is
programmatic--and I know you have some questions about the
accounts, and I will do my best to answer those, Mr. Olver.
Another $10 billion is essentially a conservative estimate of
what maintaining the current level of effort in Afghanistan
would involve. As Secretary Rumsfeld has said, that would not
carry us through all of next year.
If you add all those up, you actually have more than used
up the $48 billion. The only way we were able to do more with
that, to get about $10 billion for requirements, was by making
program adjustments of $9.3 billion. When you make those
adjustments, which we did, you netted out at $9.8 billion for
new money for new requirements. So I think it is very important
to understand that if you are not talking about $48 billion,
but you are talking about just under $10 billion, then you are
making choices in a very constrained environment.
These changes did allow us to increase the 2003 military
construction funding above our previously planned level--what
we had previously planned, and I underline that. We believe
that the budget does support the facilities and the quality-of-
life requirement for our armed forces.
I will walk you very quickly through an overview, with
which I know already just from your remarks you are quite
familiar, but let me walk you through it anyway, with your
indulgence.
The request for military construction and family housing
totals $9 billion, funds over 300 construction projects at more
than 185 locations. It will enhance our sustainment and
modernization of existing facilities. It will enable us to
replace facilities that are no longer economical to repair. It
will address environmental compliance requirements and will
continue caretaker efforts at closed bases. It will fund new
construction that we addressed as critical, most notably to
support new weapons systems coming into the inventory.
I have to emphasize that the $9 billion total is the second
largest requirement in the past six years. It was exceeded only
by last year's unusually high level; 2002 was the exception
over the past six years. Although our request is $1 billion
lower than last year's 2002 request, it really does not in any
way imply or mean to imply an easing of our commitment to
revitalizing our infrastructure. We added $1.6 billion to the
2003 funding that had been anticipated in the budget request
for 2002 originally. The budget clearly supports our critical
requirements and missions.
The Secretary of Defense's strong commitment to facilities
revitalization is demonstrated not only in our carefully
crafted military construction and family housing program, but
is also reflected in our funding for sustainment. That funding
has increased, as you mentioned Mr. Olver, by not a small
amount. So too has funding for modernization--the sustainment
restoration modernization, with the abbreviation SRM, which
appears in the operations and maintenance title and not in
military construction title. Funding for that category totaled
$6.2 billion. As you said, it is a half a billion dollar
increase over last year's request. It includes $5.6 billion for
sustainment alone to keep our facilities in good shape.
We had to make difficult choices, because of the demands
for the war on terrorism, especially within the operations and
maintenance accounts, which in many ways bear the brunt of that
war on terrorism. Nevertheless, we were able to fund 93 percent
of the Services' facilities maintenance requirements. That
represents an increase over the 89 percent provided in last
year's budget. It is also significantly higher than what was
budgeted in the previous few years, such as fiscal year 2000,
when we met only 78 percent of our facilities maintenance
requirements.
We have $225 million in this budget over and above last
year's budget for military family housing construction
privatization. We are on track to meet the Secretary of
Defense's goal of ensuring adequate housing for all our
military personnel and their families by 2007, which, as you
noted, Mr. Chairman, is three years earlier than was originally
planned.
We are also achieving greater benefit from our housing
funds, because by joining forces with the private sector--and
again, I know this is a major concern to the subcommittee--we
will be leveraging our investments to provide quality housing.
In fiscal year 2003 we are planning to obtain about 35,000
privatized housing units, which is nearly twice the number of
privatized units obtained to date. Based on the privatization
projects that have been awarded so far, we estimate the DOD
investment was leveraged at about eight to one, which is pretty
good.
Our 2003 funding request for privatization projects is $195
million to provide about 24,000 housing units. If you apply
that eight-to-one ratio or leverage rate with our $195 million
investment, we should be able to obtain $1.5 billion worth of
quality privatized housing. In other words, we are stretching
our money as far as we can. This leveraged return must be
factored into the overall value of our military construction
budget.
It is also important to note that the $9 billion proposal
for military construction and family housing does not include
$565 million for military construction requirements as part of
the president's 2003 request in the Defense Emergency Response
Fund.
Mr. Olver, I will, if you like, go into more detail about
why, it appears there and not in the basic budget.
This added funding would enhance DOD efforts to protect
against terrorism attacks on DOD installations around the
world.
Finally, a critical component of our plan is the
congressionally approved 2005 base realignment and closure
round, the BRAC round. We hope this round will achieve the
needed 20 to 25 percent reduction in DOD infrastructure. With a
successful BRAC round, our planned funding through fiscal year
2007 will be sufficient to achieve by that date Secretary
Rumsfeld's strong goals for facilities recapitalization.
My notes do not tell me to tell you that there are any
delays due to BRAC.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr.
Olver and the members of the subcommittee again for the
opportunity to be back here to describe our plans to sustain
and revitalize DOD facilities.
As I noted at the outset of my remarks, this budget will
enhance the quality of life of the service members and their
families. It will strongly support current requirements and
missions and will enable the needed long-term streamlining and
recapitalization of DOD facilities.
I urge your approval of our request. The Department and I
are ready to provide you whatever details you may need to make
these important decisions.
Again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olver, members of the
subcommittee, I really do recognize your concerns. I do not
assert, and would not assert, that less is more. We are serious
in trying to meet these concerns because we do not question
their validity. The issue for us, as it always is, is getting
from here to there, and we are doing the best we can. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Doctor.
Ray?
Statement of Mr. Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Mr. DuBois. Chairman, Mr. Olver, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, as many of you know, I visited some 52
installations since I have taken this job, 18 of which had been
with you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Olver, and some of the members
here. Of course, Fort Hood in Texas and Tyndall Air Force Base
in Florida.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, you might remark that the Tyndall people
just arrived in the room. They are all here. They showed up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DuBois. I was down there with the President some months
ago. Mr. Farr, I am going to visit Fort Worth at the end of
May. That is how my schedule looks.
Mr. Olver. What language are you learning?
Mr. DuBois. The language?
Mr. Olver. For the DLI visit.
Mr. DuBois. Oh, I see.
Mr. Hobson. You could visit Wright-Patterson, too.
Mr. DuBois. We will figure it in.
But I think it is important to recognize that, as Secretary
Zakheim has indicated, that no matter what year we are talking
about, no matter what kind of delta year over year, whether it
is in MILCON or any one of the five major accounts, competing
priorities did result--different competing priorities did
result from September 11.
But it is true, as Dr. Zakheim has said, that quality of
life remains a very high priority for the Secretary of Defense,
as well as the President, especially in terms of housing and in
terms of basic allowance for housing and the compensation
factor, as well as, of course, our reliance upon the private
sector with respect to housing privatization and utility
privatization.
As Dr. Zakheim said, we have increased the MILCON funding
for housing in fiscal year 2003 by over $222 million, but it is
not just for housing for our families; it is housing for our
unaccompanied or single troops. And in fiscal year 2002 we
constructed and revitalized about 16,000 barrack spaces, and
this year, in 2003, we plan to construct and revitalize almost
14,000 spaces.
Now, I am not as facile with numbers as the Defense
Comptroller to my left, however, I think it is important to
recognize that with respect to sustainment, restoration and
modernization, when one considers the ingredients to--resources
invested in our infrastructure, that is to say, new footprint
construction, which is MILCON, restoration and modernization,
which is MILCON, but there is also O&M funding for restoration
and modernization, O&M-like funding for sustainment, and there
is family housing construction improvement and then there is
family housing maintenance.
Those are the six basic ingredients that focus on
infrastructure and quality of life. I did not talk about BAH,
did not talk about the improvement in targeted salary
increases. I am talking about addressing just issues pertaining
to infrastructure. Year over year, if you include the Defense
Agencies, you really only have a reduction of some 3 percent if
you calculate it in that basket of ingredients, if you will.
Now, it is true that the recap rate--that is to say, the
metric that we use at the DOD level--does go up year over year.
The current rate--fiscal year 2002 rate--we achieve
approximately 101-year recap rate. The current rates, given the
fiscal year 2003 budget, does go up to 150, but, as Dr. Zakheim
said, the FYDP does require that it reduces to 67 by 2007.
I also want to point out, because there has been some
question as to the calculation or the division between
restoration and modernization and sustainment, the majority of
MILCON projects--in fact, over 60 percent--are for restoration
and modernization of mission-critical requirements, not for
sustainment, although the sustainment funding rises and has
risen and continues to rise this year and in future years.
I think it is important to note in my opening remarks
here--make a reference to BRAC. The Secretary, in working with
you all in Congress, is appreciative of the fact that we do
have a BRAC in 2005. It is arguably the most important
transformational initiative in terms of infrastructure that the
Secretary will manage here over the next several years.
In that regard, and I think it is important to reiterate
what Dr. Zakheim said, that we have not deferred any MILCON or
other O&M installations and environment-type projects in
anticipation of BRAC. The fiscal year 2003 budget request
reflects the priorities identified by the Service Secretaries
and the Service Chiefs to support their critical missions, as
they are currently configured.
Now, it is true that the Secretary will kick off the so-
called BRAC process--the BRAC analytical process here in the
next couple of weeks, and I look forward to briefing you all in
private or in open hearing about how that BRAC process will be
kicked off.
Mr. Hobson. Boy, I do not look forward to that.
Mr. DuBois. You do not want to go over that?
Mr. Hobson. No, I said I do not look forward to it. We are
going to have to do it, but I----
Mr. DuBois. Painful, though it is, it is a necessary fact
of life.
Mr. Hobson. Like a policy; that is the part I do not like.
Mr. DuBois. The last point, and it has been purported in
the press over the last couple of weeks, that the Secretary is
considering some proposals with respect to encroachment which
is, as you know, an issue that is increasingly important to the
Department, especially in terms of our test and training
ranges. We anticipate submitting to the Congress, with our
fiscal year 2003 defense authorization language, some requests
pertaining to clarifications of current statutes. And when that
is transmitted to Congress--I believe it will be done either by
the end of this week, early next week--I look forward to
discussing the details with you and your staff.
So, again, in closing, I appreciate this opportunity. I
know it is a hearing that we should have had perhaps four or
five weeks ago----
Mr. Hobson. Was not our fault.
Mr. DuBois [continuing]. But it is an important hearing,
nonetheless. And Dr. Zakheim and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr. follows:]
Mr. Hobson. You heard what I said? It was not our fault.
Mr. DuBois. I heard what you said.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Mr. DuBois. Was not my fault either.
Mr. Hobson. No, I know. Notice Dov is not saying anything.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Zakheim. Give me a break, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. No, I am not giving you a break. I have got you
where I want you for a moment.
Mr. Zakheim. You can even kick me under the table.
Mr. Hobson. Let me mention a couple of things and then we
will get to the questions.
First of all, none of you mentioned the fact that the
footprint in Europe and the footprint in Korea is coming down
and it is going to contribute to the savings in here. We all
talk about the BRAC here, but what is happening in Europe--and
you do not have to respond to that, but I think we all agree
that that is something that ought to be put in here.
A couple of quick things. On page three of your written
testimony there are a couple of things that--under the medical
projects, and I think one of the places you all need to work at
is the funding on medical and how we arrive at this stuff.
Because, first of all, it really ticks me off that we are
paying a $10 million claim at Elmendorf, not--it did not happen
on your watch, but, you know, those people are still there who
made these mistakes. I do not know that we have ever gotten
after this architect on this deal and we are paying $10
million.
Secondly, you guys talk--tell me how many beds are in the--
maybe you do not know this; I do--how many beds are in the
hospital at Wainwright and how much money you are spending on a
facility that some people felt could have been done a better
way.
But I understand, you know, there is some politics in this,
but frankly, if it is a 30- or 40-bed hospital, and it is going
to be $215 million, that to me is a lot of money, especially
when you are doing one in Spangdahlem for $40 million, which is
a whole hospital, and this one is $215 million. I do not know
whether it is an apples-to-apples or not. But this whole
hospital thing, the more I look at it, frightens me the way we
go about it. And I hope you all are looking at that.
Mr. Zakheim. Let me start, and Ray will correct me; how is
that?
You know, Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time you have
raised this with me and we have discussed it. On these two
projects and, in fact, on one or two others that we have
discussed, I told you I would look into them. I did. Obviously
these are projects that I inherited, as you acknowledge, and so
then the question becomes what do we do at this stage.
I have felt, and this was after some consultation with you
and getting your advice, that it was terribly important to send
the signal to people that we would not interrupt projects in
the middle, which would create a total waste of money, but that
we would scrutinize what was done very, very carefully.
I have made it very clear to the people in question that
are on top of these projects that you are deeply concerned
about, that you and I have discussed, and that my people in the
Comptroller's office are watching them carefully, and that it
is not going to be a free ride.
But to interrupt things in the middle I do not think does
the taxpayer any good either.
Mr. Hobson. But it comes back that we have got truck
contracts where we are paying, because the contracts are not
drawn correctly, we have got--and this is not in this
committee--and we have got these kinds of contracts where we
did not protect ourselves very well. And I am worried about how
we do these contracts and why we spend so much money on these
kinds of facilities.
But, you know, we are just sending messages here that this
kind of stuff has got to stop. This is just--I mean, when we
talk about we do not have money to fund this or we do not have
money to fund that, then I see $10 million going here at
Elmendorf, that $10 million could have gone for a quality-of-
life child care center someplace or another hospital someplace
that we did not have to do.
So that is my point there. And I do not want to beat this
to them. But I am worried about two other things that I want to
mention to you.
One, I am very concerned--and you do not have to answer
this right now--this privatization of utilities is a very
ambitious program, which is probably not going to be
executable. But I am worried that because it is not going to be
executable in the way everybody thought they were in the
beginning that we are going to make some dumb deals. And I am
going to have some people looking at every contract we have
made on utilities and every proposed one, because I do not want
to make any dumb deals.
Thirdly, in Korea we have come a long way since we have
been there. The speaker has been there and agrees with much of
the stuff that we have talked about. The e-mail thing is not
resolved yet, and if there is any problem I want to get that
done under Schwartz's watch, and we do not have much time on
that. General Schwartz has been a great guy there, done a great
job.
But the separate rations thing, I know everybody wants to
avoid that, but if you want to avoid that then figure out a way
that young people do not lose and that you do not have to
interview five people to get one when they go on a PCS change
to Korea for a year and they go to Kosovo and Bosnia on a--what
is it?--six months, and it is not a PCS change, and their
families do not lose. It is not fair to send a young person to
Korea and they lose. It is just not right.
And we need to figure out how to do that. With all the
money we spend, to make 37,000 people in Korea second-class
citizens is not right. And I am going to harp about it in this
committee, I am going to harp about it--I am going to continue
to harp about it in the big committee until we get this done.
But I would like as much of this stuff--we are going to
have a great general take over General Schwartz's place, I have
met him, Ray has met him--but General Schwartz has been really
up tempo on all this stuff and I want to make sure we get as
much of it done while he is there.
You do not have to respond to any of that right now if you
do not want to, but I want to get it in the record.
Mr. DuBois. I can just quickly, on the overseas basing
issue, you are quite right, the Land Partnership Plan in Korea
reduces, if we are successful, if the Koreans meet their
obligations.
Mr. Hobson. Well, the Koreans were sitting here and I told
them I do not want anymore--they are not here now, but they
were sitting right over here, and I said, ``You know, we are
not doing our part this time until you do your stuff.''
Mr. DuBois. There is definitely built into the contract--
small ``c''--obligations and commitments which, when not met,
slow the process down. They have an incentive. We will reduce.
We will close 16 bases; we will reduce three of the bases to
one, to I think an end state of some 21 or 22 installations in
the Korean Peninsula.
With respect to Europe, as you know, we are reducing 13
bases in the Hanau area to one. But the more important thing
is, the Secretary of Defense himself, and the Deputy following
up on the Secretary's initiative, is reviewing the integration
and rationalization of all overseas basing strategies. Each of
the CINCs have now submitted interim reports. I am about to
sign out to the Congress an interim report in this regard
pursuant to your request that we get something to you in April.
On the hospital construction issue, an issue that you
raised with me early in my career in this job, it turned out
that there was a disconnect between the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment and
the Comptroller. We put together a management team--a cross-
service and interdisciplinary management team to address this
issue. So Dov and I and Bill Winkenwerder all have this under
focus.
Utility privatization: You are absolutely right, the
original plan, as promoted and promulgated by John Hamre when
he was Deputy Secretary, is unexecutable. We have reviewed it.
I have hired an individual SES to specifically manage the
utility privatization initiative.
Mr. Hobson. Not a former Enron guy.
Mr. DuBois. No, sir. Actually the former chief of engineers
for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command. But he has--and
I, and the Installation Policy Board, as well as the Assistant
Service Secretaries for I&E, have come to the conclusion that
it was unexecutable, and that while we had some 798 RFPs on the
street, we should not force them into a box that said
``complete by date certain,'' which was last year.
The important thing to recognize is that we have to put out
a realistic date to complete at least a goal, and it is now
looking like--and this is an informal comment, insofar as that
I have not gone to Pete Aldridge to get formal approval of
this, but it looks like the end of 2004 may be a realistic
target to complete, or at least to award contracts. As we both
know, awarding contracts, whether it is housing privatization
or utilities privatization, does not indicate completion dates.
The fourth area that you have raised, Korea, when you and I
were both out there, clearly the separate rations issue--and as
a former Army enlisted man, I can tell I am very sympathetic to
this issue, although it is not in my portfolio. But the issue
of Internet access for the troops is something they do have
influence, involvement over. I talked to Tom Schwartz about it.
It is still high on the list to be accomplished.
Mr. Zakheim. I would like to just add a couple of things,
Mr. Chairman. First, you mentioned in passing that we had
achieved a new host nation support arrangement with Korea, and
you said it was a former member of your staff, but I will name
her, my deputy, Tina Jonas, who did a first-rate job in working
for me to make this happen. I had told her, ``You get me a deal
where it is 50/50,'' which is the best deal for an American
taxpayer, and she delivered that. I think that this signals a
degree of commitment on the part of the Republic of Korea that
will also translate into what Ray was talking about, and your
concerns about implementing the plan.
One other point, and I think it is very important to
emphasize this, Ray mentioned that our staffs are talking to
one another. I do not know how the previous holders of both our
respective offices worked on these matters, but as I think you
know, Ray and I worked very, very closely on these issues.
Mr. Hobson. I know.
Mr. Zakheim. We are in constant--literally daily
consultation. We are not going to let things fall through the
cracks this time.
Mr. DuBois. I moved my office from one side of the building
to the other to be closer to him.
Mr. Zakheim. Yes, so he could ask me for more money.
Mr. Hobson. Let me mention one other thing, and then I am
going to stop. At the Military Installation and Facilities
Subcommittee hearing regarding the defense Authorization Act,
you stated that the Secretary was committed to adequately
funding the military construction budget, though this
commitment will not kick in until the fiscal year 2006 or 2007.
Of course, as I mentioned in my statement, we have heard this
before, and I want to get this on the record.
What makes this promise different from the others we have
heard in the past? What are the out-year projects for the total
MILCON budget? And frankly, are you guys committed to pressing
the Service Components to maintain this level of funding? And
what are you going to do if they do not present adequate
budgets to OSD for consideration?
Our problem is we keep getting these commitments year after
year. We have been here--you know, you have been here before,
we have been here before, we are here long. We--everybody
always wants to press things in the out-years, and the out-year
becomes the real year, and it is--well, we have got to continue
it out again, and we never get the out-year.
Mr. Zakheim. There is a difference. And the difference is
that when Mr. Rumsfeld came in, he said facilities
recapitalization was a priority and we bumped it up in the
budget amendment significantly. In fact, a number of your
concerns reflect the fact that we are down from the 2002 level,
and you mean the amended budget level, and then what you all
did with that.
So you have a record of someone coming in and immediately
putting money in. Had it not been for 9/11, I would venture
that the way that the services looked at priorities would have
been somewhat different. I mean, we clearly have a different
set of circumstances.
The fact is that the Secretary up front has said, ``I am
committed to recapitalization, to put money in to bring the
recap rate down.'' We know it is gone up again.
Mr. Hobson. But what are you going to do if they do not
present adequate budgets to you guys for consideration?
Mr. Zakheim. We will review those carefully.
I am constrained from discussing the actual give and take
of budget negotiations, as you well know. But I think I can say
generically, and Ray DuBois will confirm this, that there were
cases even this year--even in this year where we did not come
in as high as perhaps we would have liked, and certainly as you
would have liked, that we put money back in that we felt was
appropriate for several projects.
Mr. Hobson. Are you stating you are going to hopefully have
to do that again if they do not approve right?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, I hope I do not have to. And I hope that
they will do more. All I am saying is, we are committed to
carrying out the Secretary's promise. He made a promise. He
keeps them.
Ray, do you want to add to that?
Mr. DuBois. I can only say that, as the Deputy Under
Secretary for Installations and Environment, and not the Deputy
Under Secretary for tanks, ships and airplanes, this is the
preeminent responsibility and obligation that I have, that
along with Maury McCurren and Nelson Gibbs and A.T. Johnson and
the three Services.
The Congress by itself can help me a great deal----
Mr. Hobson. We are trying.
Mr. DuBois [continuing]. By making these points as you do
in these hearings and in your private conversations with the
Service Secretaries and the Service Chiefs.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I am going to move on to John. But, John,
before we came down here I pressed these people pretty hard on
chem demil too. And we are not done with that yet, but we are
going to have some meetings about that.
And I am going to have John sit in with me on some of that
too.
John.
Defense Emergency Response Fund
Mr. Olver. Well, thank you. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
It is hard to know whether one should be talking about the
big picture or try to get hold of a few details. And I prefer
to try to see the whole.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am really worried
and a good deal skeptical about how all of the various requests
come together in a coordinated program, because we have--there
are three that are before us now: We have the regular request--
the 2003 regular request that has been submitted; we have new
supplemental for 2002 which is before us--before the Congress;
we also have a submitted DERF for 2003. Those come on top of
the 2002 DERF which was passed, but is in implementation.
I hear from staff that OMB really had no idea what was in
the DERF 2002 funds, how those were being spent. Although, I do
not know that anybody there would admit that.
I have also heard that the actual spending for this account
is still changing the appropriation from back right around
seven months ago, right after 9/11, the first one that made it
through.
I even heard that what the Services were starting out on
one course and instances got virtually to the point of
obligation of funds, which takes a certain amount of time and a
certain thinking process and prioritization process, when it
was pulled back and the money was stopped and used for other
things.
Can you tell me anything about the process that has been
going on with that DERF 2002 fund? I mean, basically, Dr.
Zakheim, you are the one that we have to--you are the one guy
that we need to be able to count on to have a big picture of
how these things are drawn up and how they fit together.
Mr. Zakheim. Absolutely. First, in terms of OMB oversight,
apart from the fact that right now we are having regular
meetings with the senior OMB personnel to watch exactly this
issue, we provide a monthly report to OMB that indicates what
has been expended up to that point. And I would note that we
are actually, relative to, I believe, every other government
agency that receives money in the supplemental, we are
expending at a higher rate, and closest to the predicted rate
that we had laid out.
So they do have oversight. They--any changes such as the
ones you noted, and some of them are quite well known, for
instance, in the case of Pakistan, we gave back $188 million to
OMB which transferred it to State, so that they could transfer
money to the government of Pakistan. Obviously, I just told
you, we transferred it back to OMB. Those kinds of changes are
not made by some kind of sleight of hand. That is number one.
Number two, in terms of the relationship between the 2003
DERF, the response fund, where there is $565, roughly, million
worth of military construction, and obvious question, well, why
isn't it in the military construction account?
The reason is the same reason that procurement is not in
the procurement account, and R&D is not in the R&D accounts,
and that is we put this request together at the very end of the
budget process. It was--there was literally no time to peel
away each programmatic onion and place it in the right
appropriations account category. And therefore, it all showed
up in the operations and maintenance category. It does not have
to be there, but that was the best we could do in the time
available. And so that is why that is there, in fact.
The only part of the request of the 2003 DERF that indeed
belongs in O&M is the part of the $10 billion for the
Afghanistan contingency. The rest of it is programmatic.
Mr. Hobson. What about the $100 million? I mean, that is
what he has--the Army was hit especially hard by the recall of
funds, because they had $100 million in AT/FP projects in the
DERF ready to execute. They did not get the $100 million, as I
understand it.
Mr. Olver. This was ready to be obligated, I assume, and
that was pulled back at that time.
Mr. Zakheim. I will get you an answer for the record on
that. My understanding is that any monies that were made
available--at least this is how it was represented to me--when
we made any changes at all, were monies that had not yet and
were not imminent immediately executable and, therefore, were
available to be moved around.
We are not taking--to my knowledge, and I will check it for
the record, we have not pulled money back from projects to be
executed.
[The information follows:]
A total of $113.5 million of Defense Emergency Response
Fund (DERF) was withdrawn from the Army's force protection
program to finance higher priority shortfalls in the military
personnel accounts. The Army has taken steps to work around the
deferment of some of their lower priority force protection
efforts, which will be financed at a later date from funds
requested in the FY2003 President's budget.
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)
Mr. Olver. I am sort of trying to interconnect what you are
saying what we are talking about here with what Mr. DuBois was
saying about SRM. I guess I do understand that SRM,
sustainment, restoration and modernization, can be found in
either of the two budgets, either in O&M or in MILCON. I guess
when it gets to the point when restoration is no longer
possible, then it becomes a replacement and that at least is
findable where we are.
I do not know what status those things are in, but it leads
me to ask a slightly different question, which is the Army. The
Army has instituted a regional approach to the management of
maintenance funds, because there has been a feeling, I think,
that installations maintenance has always taken a back seat
when base commanders controlled it directly.
And it seems to me that that process--is that part of what
is going on here? Although normally you would expect that
process to be pulling things away for what is an immediate
priority, not the sort of thing that they would be moving on a
set of immediate priorities as in the pullback that has
occurred there. It sounds almost as if these are contradictory
approaches.
And I guess I am curious whether you think that there is a
lesson. Is this being used as a test to see whether this works,
and how is it going to be followed and then moved to other of
the Services?
Mr. DuBois. The Secretary of the Army's decision to create
a centralized installation management system, wherein an
installation commander goes to a regional commander, goes to
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment and the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, is, in my estimation, a good move.
Now, that is not going to be implemented until the 1st of
October; i.e., the first day of the next fiscal year. Like
anything in a large organization, there is a certain
bureaucratic inertia and a certain amount of end-game play.
Mr. Olver. It is not implemented, so there is no connection
to this. In fact, I would have seen an almost opposite----
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Relationship.
Mr. DuBois. But I will say this, the other two military
departments are watching it carefully. The Navy is, sort of, in
a halfway position. They have regional installation managers,
but then the responsibility goes to major commanders. The Air
Force is strictly a major command-oriented installation
management construct. The Army has moved, in my view, in the
right direction.
How will it end up operating? In the final analysis, the
true requisite is going to be, will the SR&M dollars,
especially those that are in the O&M accounts, be more properly
managed--or to put it in a blunt, pejorative way--not be stolen
from? That will be the true metric in the next fiscal year. And
trust me, I will watch it very carefully.
Mr. Hobson. So are we.
Mr. Olver. Okay, I will pass on and come back later.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Chet Edwards?
Mr. Edwards. If we were debating on getting pensions, I
would not have any points or questions today, but I did not
hesitate to criticize the previous administration on that
subject and good intentions for quality-of-life issues were far
higher than their actual dollars committed, and I do not want
to hesitate from raising those criticisms with this or any
other administration as well.
I would like to make four points and then a couple of
questions.
Point number one is, you both have a very difficult job of
trying to make a $1.5 billion cut not look like a cut. You both
do it extremely well; as well as could be done. [Laughter.]
I also know you are both personally committed to trying to
help improve the quality of life, but I would like to make the
not-so-profound comment that a cut is a cut is a cut.
Mr. Hobson. If it quacks, it is a duck, right?
Mr. Edwards. If it still quacks, it is still a duck.
Point number two: Secretary DuBois, I appreciate personally
your credible commitment to going out and visiting
installations, looking for creative ideas for quality-of-life
improvements and our military will benefit from that purposeful
commitment. And I mean that deeply.
I also appreciate your honest comment that we are looking
at a situation of competing priorities here. We all understand
and respect the situation dealing with 9/11 and the war against
terrorism. No one would question that priority. I will very
briefly say, I find it stunning, while we are talking today
about 60 percent of military families living in housing that is
so inadequate it does not even meet basic, low DOD standards,
that tomorrow on the floor of this House we will be debating
the extension of a permanent tax bill that in the second 10
years would take--if you count interest on the debt--$7
trillion out of the federal revenues. I will leave the debate
on that issue to tomorrow on the floor.
But when we talk about competing interest, I think, in
honesty, that is one of those competing interests, not just the
war on terrorism, which costs much less than that.
The third point: Secretary Zakheim, you say in your
testimony that this is the second largest budget in six years.
Let's also be correct in adding to that statement that if you
account for inflation, this is the lowest MILCON budget in 10
years; in fact, 50 percent below the Reagan years, 15 to 20
percent below the previous administration's spending levels,
and 10 to 15 percent below the last couple of years, if you
account for inflation.
And based on your previous testimony, $48 billion really is
not all that much of an increase for defense if you consider
inflation, we cannot ignore that same point once we start
debating the impact of budget. So we all know the numbers, and
inflation is a real factor, a real cost. And so, what we are
really talking about here is a 20 percent-plus cut in MILCON
funding.
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
My next point: Privatization, which I have supported
strongly for five or six years now, even against some in both
parties not the present members here, but previous members of
this committee opposed it, and I believe in it. But I want to
make it clear that at least for one person, I do not think
privatization was ever intended to be a rationale for cutting
$1.5 billion from the military construction budget. Rather, it
was intended to recognize the fact that we have 60 percent of
our military families living in substandard housing, and we
ought to significantly improve that. And I am disappointed that
privatization is now being used as rationale to cut funding
rather than do what we all intended on this committee, which
was to increase dramatically our commitment to quality-of-life
improvements for our military personnel.
The question that I would like to ask you, Secretary
Zakheim, is when you say, and I quote, this budget clearly
supports our critical requirements and missions, considering
the fact that 60 percent of our DOD families live in
substandard government housing, doesn't that undermine that
statement?
Mr. Zakheim. It goes to all three of your points, and I
would like to address those. First, as I said, I do not make
any claims that less is more or less is even the same.
Mr. Edwards. I understand.
Mr. Zakheim. That is number one.
Number two is, I did not say in my testimony nor would I
say that privatization is some kind of excuse or cover for not
funding MILCON. What I said was something quite different,
which was that there is a tremendous degree of leverage there,
which is a mitigating factor in a situation that obviously we
would have hoped would have been different.
The fact that we made choices in that there were priorities
we felt that were more urgent in no way implies or is meant to
imply that these other concerns, military construction,
adequate family housing, adequate facilities, are in any way
unimportant, or that we do not--that we are not concerned by
the fact that we could not come up with more. I do not want
those two confused.
We are committed to privatization, we think it is
important, we think it does mitigate the impact of a reduction
that clearly took place. You are absolutely right. Inflation is
inflation is inflation. I am not going to try to fudge those
numbers.
We are committed to the troops. We are committed to their
living in decent facilities. After all is said and done, I
admit, given the size of the defense budget, $9 billion is not
huge, but given the GDPs of most of the world, it is not
trivial either. We are putting money in to the most urgent
requirements; that is addition to the operations and
maintenance funds that we have talked about. And again, we are
committed, because were we not so committed, then the budget
amendment in 2002 prior to 9/11 would simply not have had the
kind of increase that we had.
There is a commitment here and there is a concern, and the
concern is sharpened by the very points you have made.
Ray, you want to add to that?
Mr. DuBois. I do not think there is another group of
members of Congress than this subcommittee that has been more
positive and supportive when it comes to military housing
privatization. But that, as you point out, is only one tool.
I just returned from Italy, visited the new Aversa-Naples
facility.
Mr. Hobson. I got an e-mail on your visit.
Mr. DuBois. It is extraordinarily impressive. And I recall
the one metric that Admiral Holmes, the senior naval officer
there, gave me as an indication of why it is so important to
make proper investments in military housing: The detailers in
the Pentagon in the Navy are now assigning themselves to
Naples, which 10 years ago never would have happened. People
were trying to stay away from Naples. There are many tools that
we have in our management basket.
Mr. Hobson. Just like they are in Korea, right?
Mr. DuBois. Exactly. There were, and I think it is
important to note this, as I said in my testimony, that the
cumulative program total end of fiscal year 2003, in terms of
privatized units, is projected to be nearly 65,000 units. That
is an amazing achievement in a rather short time.
But that is not the only thing that we have to be aware of.
We have to be aware of how many MILCON dollars are we going to
ask for and appropriately invest in this regard. The President
and Secretary Rumsfeld are committed to that. You all, however,
your chairman at least, did caution me, one of my first days
after I was appointed to this position, that moving too
quickly, negotiating contracts that do not sustain and maintain
appropriate levels of housing, is not the right approach
either.
I think this is prudent. We have increased at Kirk. We went
down to Fort Hood and saw, arguably, some of the worst housing
in the Army. And that 5,000-plus-unit privatization project,
which, as you know, is under way, is going to be, I hope, a
great example of what we are trying to do, trying to
accomplish.
Mr. Edwards. I will just conclude and save my other
questions for the next round. But I was just saying that I know
where you are coming from. I know your commitment. And I accept
that we ought to be sure we have prudent contracts. But I would
say that any suggestion that trying to improve the quality of
military housing too quickly would be a serious problem is akin
to the debate last year about were we reducing the national
debt too quickly over the next several years.
I do not worry about that concern too much, in terms of--if
we had another $1.5 billion or $2 billion, I think we all know
we could--any of you who visited Korea, anybody who visited any
military installation anywhere knows that we could spend that
money efficiently, effectively, to improve the quality of life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you are making another point too, which I
made earlier--made before. Privatization is only one tool.
There are places where the numbers do not work and we have to
use MILCON dollars for those.
Mr. DuBois. Well, and we have to re-scope projects and
combine projects so that the economy to do it----
Mr. Hobson. But not everywhere.
Mr. DuBois. That will not work anymore.
Mr. Hobson. Now, I do not want to build the old,
traditional MILCON housing. I want to build to community
standards.
And I think, Ray, you should get credit too. Frankly, had
it not been for you, I am not sure Fort Hood would be under
construction today. So I do not want to be negative about
everything. But I think you personally kicked the heck out of
that tire, until it got rolling. And had you not been there--
and that is why it is important that we all go around and look
at this stuff--had you not seen it, and we were all sitting
here in Washington, it might not have happened. If the speaker
had--if I had not gone to Korea, if the speaker had not gone to
Korea, and Tom Schwartz had not been in Korea, I am not sure
that would have changed.
But it is changing. And it has changed dramatically. There
has been more MILCON put into Korea in the last three years
than in the last 15 total. And that is really outrageous, that
that is happened. But it is not all your fault. I understand
the other problems in that.
But, you know, Chet is right. And I have fought this
before. We are going to continue to fight it. And I think this
game that goes on, that we will then put in all this additional
money and take it from someplace else, is really not fair. But
that is what happens.
I have told before--the two projects in the President's
bill from my district are absolutely--if those are the two
greatest priorities of all the issues, of all the situations
that my district, the people that submitted those should not be
promoted. Because I can tell you, I can go and find--and I am a
novice, compared to what they are supposed to be--I can find
better programs to put in the President's budget. And this idea
in the media, that somehow down there, what comes up here is
correct always, I think is--there are three branches of
government. OMB is not the only branch of government existing.
[Laughter.]
And I will put my number of times on bases, and my living
on a base for a short period of time, against some of the
people at OMB who have never been in the Service and who make
these silly decisions, in my opinion, on some of the stuff that
we do and do not do.
You do not have to respond to that, because I do not want
you guys to get fired. [Laughter.]
They cannot fire me. Only the people of the 7th
Congressional District can fire me.
But I am going to continue, and so is this committee--all
of us here are committed to improving the quality of life of
the young people in the Service. And when I see $10 million or
$40 million in a big bill going to pay claims with contractors,
I get really frosted.
Sam.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo the concerns of
the others that have spoken before me. And I would like to just
mention to Dr. Zakheim, because I know Mr. DuBois has at least
traveled with this committee. That I do not think there is a
committee in Congress that hung together better, in a
bipartisan fashion, than the four of us Democrats who did not
miss one single meeting. We have been to every one of them. We
travel with the chairman.
And what we learn--I mean, what it is really all about, is
the military we look at it from the bottom up. Because we live,
and talk to soldiers and the men and women in uniform, and
people on bases. And when you think about their military
mission, it really is about their military life, and it is
about quality-of-life issues.
And so I think what shocks this subcommittee so much is
where the President puts in a $48 billion increase in defense,
and then cuts the quality of life by $1.6 billion. You wonder
what the priorities in defense are all about.
I think Mr. Edwards pointed out that you point out in your
statement that you made $9.3 billion in savings to allocate
toward our highest priorities. The highest priority of the
President is a tax cut.
Mr. Zakheim. Well----
Mr. Farr. And I just think that there is a need to realize
that the morale of the soldiers is really about quality-of-life
issues. It is about housing. People will talk more about
housing than anything else. They will talk about health care
and delivery. Right now, we have a shortage of doctors
participating in TRICARE Prime. They are not going to provide
service to any of the soldiers in uniform, because the
reimbursement rate is so low in our area, which is lower than
San Francisco Bay Area and yet the cost of living is higher.
There are consumer issues. And you talk about energy, and
the best way I think to address the energy issue is what you
did in California: You started metering all military houses, so
that the soldiers on-base have to deal with the same consumer
issues that the soldiers off-base have to do.
So I think that the priorities seem to be mostly, new
weapons systems coming into the inventory. This subcommittee
does not attract lobbyists for weapons systems; they are not
sitting in this room. But if you do not provide for quality of
life, you are not going to be able to recruit the people who
are going to operate those weapons systems.
This is the message. It is not the new weapon they are
going to be able to use in the military. That is not what you
are showing on television. It is essentially, you know, how
families can be raised on a military base. And I think that my
concerns about your statement, particularly, in
recapitalization of costs from base closure, I can tell you
from base closure, you are not going to recap anything.
We end up giving away this property, rightfully so, or we
end up spending an incredible amount on cleanup. Your request
for BRAC cleanup to this subcommittee, just a few weeks ago,
was underfunded cleanup costs at Fort Ord already over $300
million. The budget for this year for the entire nation is $545
million. I do not know how you are going to reach the cleanup
schedule for this year with such limited amount of commitment
to clean up.
So, I think what you are hearing from this subcommittee is
that we are a little chagrined that we can see a defense
buildup at $48 billion and yet a cut of $1.6 billion in this
subcommittee's responsibility.
Mr. Zakheim. Congressman, a couple of points. My written
statement, my oral statement, addressed military construction
family housing. It did not address quality of life as a whole.
Quality of life begins with the pay increase. Quality of life
includes reducing the basic allowance for housing, which is
going to be eliminated by fiscal year 2005. We are on track for
that.
Mr. Edwards. The out-of-pocket?
Mr. Zakheim. The out of pocket. Quality of life includes
the $22 billion we are putting into health care, of which $8.1
billion is for retirees over 65 who will have access to
TRICARE.
So, if you actually aggregate the total quality of life--I
mean when someone comes into the military like to anywhere
else, they are looking at the package. The package exceeds $100
billion. We have the best paid, best cared for military in the
world. That is why it is the best military in the world. That
is why recruiting and retention is looking good right now.
Now does that mean that we have done enough? No. Neither
Ray nor I are making that argument at all.
But I think, if we are talking about quality of life in
aggregate, there is no doubt that quality of life means
training, because people want to do meaningful things and train
properly for it. It means pay. It means all kinds of benefits.
It means retirement benefit. And it means the world's most
expensive health care benefit.
Frankly, I would commend this subcommittee for being
bipartisan, because we in the Department do not look at defense
as a partisan issue anyway. So we look at it the way you look
at it.
But when you ask around, you know very well morale is very
high right now. And morale is high for several reasons. People
know what they are doing. People like what they are doing, and
people feel that the government cares about them.
Mr. Hobson. I am going to get to that before we are over,
because it is not in some places.
Mr. Zakheim. It is not in some places. There are pockets,
and there are pockets of problems.
Mr. Hobson. And there are reasons for that that you guys
could handle. Not you, but the Army could handle. And they are
not.
Mr. Zakheim. I am simply saying in aggregate, does that
mean there are no pockets?
Mr. Hobson. That is probably true.
Mr. Zakheim. Of course, there are pockets. No doubt about
it. I do not disagree at all. We are trying to fix those. We
are trying to plug holes as quickly and as best we can.
But when we say other priorities, number one priority was
pay for people, without doubt. A major priority was health
care. It is an entitlement for the over-65. It is a huge cost.
But it means something to somebody, no question about it. So
there is that element.
Meters, by the way--all the privatized units have meters
now. So we are moving in that direction.
Again, you raise points that are fundamentally valid, but I
think one has to place them in a larger context. And when you
do place them in a larger context, you see that we are, indeed,
doing our best to be responsive. That in no way allows us or
should allow us or do we intend for it to allow us to cover up
on those areas that need fixing. What needs to be fixed we have
to fix and we will fix. We are trying to do a lot of things at
all the same time.
Even in terms of the weapon systems, and you quite rightly
say, this subcommittee does not deal with the weapon systems,
but you ask that 19-year-old out there whether they want a
newer weapon system or an older one, whether they want one that
will work or might that might get them killed, and the answer
will be uniform on that one.
Mr. Farr. My wife wants a new car.
Mr. Hobson. She got it. [Laughter.]
Tyndall Air Force Base? I mean, Representative Boyd?
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to shift gears, Mr. Chairman, slightly. I noted Mr.
Olver's comments when he started asking his questions about,
and I want to quote; big picture versus getting a hold of a few
details now. Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Olver do a great job in
a visionary way of talking about the big picture, and we
appreciate your leadership. What I want to do is try to get a
hold of a couple of details.
And I want to start by asking Mr. DuBois a question. And I
want to tell you that, I have a problem and I think that you
can help me solve the problem here today. And I would like to
solicit your help on solving that problem.
There is a piece of property that is owned by the Air Force
in Lynn Haven, Florida, that was a fuel depot--World War II
fuel depot, and it has not been used by the Air Force since the
1980s. And we have been working with the Department of the Air
Force in getting it cleaned up and that process has been moving
quite well.
Last year the Bay Defense Alliance held a series of
meetings with the commander of Tyndall Air Force Base,
Secretary Dishner and the Air Force Real Estate Office,
regarding the transfer of that Lynn Haven property to Florida
State University. Prior to the House passing the 2002 defense
authorization bill, the Air Force was provided a copy of the
proposed language and the real estate office signed off on the
proposal, as did the base commander. So you can imagine my
surprise during the conference when the Air Force came forward
and opposed the transfer.
According to the letter that was provided to the Armed
Services Committee, the base commander was the reason the Air
Force objected, because he believes that the property could be
sold and developed as residential property. I personally talked
to the base commander, and that is absolutely not the case. I
mean, it is not the case that he opposed the transfer of the
property.
What I would like for you to help me do is find out exactly
who within the Air Force or what organization within the Air
Force is opposed to that transfer. And the reason I bring this
up today, Mr. Chairman, is because a month or so ago I asked
this question when the Air Force people were here to try to get
an answer, and we have yet to receive a response from the Air
Force on this issue.
So, Secretary DuBois, I would greatly appreciate it if you
could help me solve this problem, while getting me some
answers. I would like to get to the bottom of this, quickly,
because as the 2003 authorization bill moves, we would like to
act within that bill.
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Boyd, I will report back to you. I was
unaware of that particular situation. But certainly, if the
facts are as you state, it is troubling at worst, and even more
so.
Mr. Boyd. I would greatly appreciate that. And again, I
consider this to be a problem that has been going on now since
December. We actually first called--my office called the Air
Force last December about this issue and tried to find out who
was opposed to it, and we had been unable to get an answer up
to this point in time.
Mr. DuBois. Did you pose the question to Mr. Gibbs, the
assistant secretary for the Air Force for I&E? Do not worry, I
will.
Mr. Boyd. But we, in writing and at this hearing, posed the
question.
Mr. DuBois. If you sent a letter, I am going to ask that
your staff fax me a copy or give me a copy today.
Mr. Boyd. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, do I have additional time?
Mr. Hobson. Sure.
TYNDALL AFB
Mr. Boyd. I think the other question probably, Dr. Zakheim,
would go to you. Again, this in the form of getting a hold of a
few of the details. And I apologize to the chairman and the
committee for being somewhat parochial here, but maybe that is
our job; if we do not, nobody else will.
In the 2001 budget, this subcommittee provided $10.8
million to resurface the runway at Tyndall Air Force Base. You
shake your head like you know about this issue. And the reason
we did that and have tried to provide other facility upgrades
at Tyndall is because about a year from now we expect to bed
down the first F-22s at Tyndall Air Force Base.
Obviously, bringing the F-22 in there requires, as you can
imagine, some extensive facilities work related to maintenance,
storage, runways, fueling, all these kinds of things that may
require different kinds of facilities than we have there now.
We found out last fall--and we actually found out when we
were informed by a pilot at Tyndall Air Force Base--that the
project was started, and they ran out of money before
completion, about halfway through. I do not know whether some
of the money went someplace else, or what not. And we
understand how these things happen.
I think the troubling thing, the thing I would like for you
to comment on is, in the FYDP, what we have done is we have put
the completion of that runway into 2006 year. Now, I do not
really understand that. I mean, the F-22 is bedding down in a
year from now, in 2003. Talk to me a little bit about
priorities and how we can move that out to 2006 when obviously
it is a project we have already started, should have been
completed, and it is not. That is my question.
Mr. Zakheim. I will have to look into it and get you an
answer for the record, unless Ray has some better insights.
Generally speaking, when it comes to runway and similar
footprints, I know the Air Force tends to be pretty urgent
about that. There was the case a few months ago that I worked
out with the chairman precisely on that kind of issue. So I do
not want to----
Mr. Hobson. Not in my district. Overseas.
Mr. Zakheim. Not in your district either, for that matter.
That is right, Mr. Chairman.
So I will certainly look in and get an answer for you.
[The information follows:]
Tyndall AFB
This project is not required for F-22 beddown at Tyndall
Air Force Base. The project in question, to upgrade portions of
the runway and aircraft taxiways at Tyndall Air Force Base, was
funded in fiscal year 2000 using military construction (MILCON)
money added to the President's Budget Request by Congress. That
project, while important, was not a high enough priority for
the Air Force to include it in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request. So, we were pleased that the Congress was able to add
it to the budget, during its authorization and appropriation
process.
Also in fiscal year 2000, the Congress rescinded $56.2
million from the MILCON program, with direction that we should
not cancel any projects in order to manage the rescission. Air
Force construction bids for the Tyndall airfield project came
in approximately $2.0 million under the program estimate (the
amount appropriated by Congress), so we used that bid savings
to help offset the budget rescission and award other fiscal
year 2000 projects.
As this project progressed to construction, the Air Force
discovered a discrepancy in the design documents. Specifically,
the existing asphalt overlay on the runway proved to be thinner
than identified during the design. This discovery drove an
increase to the contractor (and subsequently the total project)
cost to complete. Unfortunately, since the bid savings were
used to award other fiscal year 2000 projects, the Air Force
decreased the scope of the Tyndall project in order to complete
the (most critical) runway repair portion. In adjusting the
project scope, the Air Force deleted less urgent taxiway and
taxiway shoulder upgrade work and included that work in a new
project requirement, currently programmed for in the fiscal
years 2003-2007 future years defense program for fiscal year
2006 ($2.2 million).
But my instincts tell me that the Air Force, on something
like that, is not just doing something off the wall. But let me
get you a right answer on----
Mr. Hobson. The problem is that it costs more when we do
it--when we finish it up than it would have cost to do it the
first time.
Mr. Boyd. We talked a little bit about this in the previous
hearing, about the communications and the fact that our office
had to find out actually from one of the pilots and not from
the Air Force. I am not going to harp on that today. We have
talked--the chairman was very blunt in his remarks to the Air
Force folks about that. We would like to have better
communications.
Mr. Zakheim. I will get you--I will certainly get you an
answer for the record. And if it is not satisfactory, do not
hesitate to pick up the phone and tell me, ``You have not
answered my question.''
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
apologize for trying to get a hold of a few of the details.
BRAC
Mr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I do not
want Congressman Farr to think I did not answer one of his
questions, but you mentioned BRAC today, and I feel that I owe
you an answer.
GAO, as you know, is not part of the Department of Defense,
to put it mildly. GAO has just issued another report on BRAC,
and it said that the savings up to now, the net--net of costs,
like environmental cost, are $16 billion, and the steady-state
annual costs on the basis of the first four rounds are
predicted to be--and actually, I think they say ``are''--$6
billion a year.
The BRAC 2005 round is projected to be roughly as large as
the first four. And if that indeed turns out to be the case,
then you are going to be seeing roughly double the savings.
Now, those are estimates, but the $16 billion is the number
that GAO came out with. I have heard over the years people say,
``Well, you know, no one has ever given a BRAC figure.'' GAO
has just given one. And that is net of environmental costs.
Mr. Farr. I think there are savings. Obviously, when you
close something, you do not have the salaries, you do not have
the operations. But the idea that you are going to gain savings
from selling the land or you are going to gain savings--what
you end up doing is having the incredible costs in cleaning up
land because you have, you know, been negligent. And those
costs are far greater than anyone expected.
And I think the bureaucracy is what we have seen with a lot
of base closures. If there is a model, it is what we saw down
at San Antonio at Brooks Air Force Base. They went around BRAC,
and they looked at base operations and the use of the land and
made a deal. And I think, frankly, if we engaged in that type
of involvement between local communities and military bases, we
could come up with a re-use plan much smarter than this.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you should remember, that deal did not
come from any of the services. That deal came out of this
committee. And it would not have happened if I did not sit on
both committees. We would have still been squabbling over that.
Mr. Farr. But that was a smart way to do it.
Mr. Zakheim. I agree. We do not preclude those kinds of
things. I am actually going further. In a way, you are
reinforcing my point. Because the net savings presuppose the
best estimates we have now--and GAO has its own estimates--GAO
does not come to us, necessarily, to buy our estimates--on what
the environmental cleanup should cost.
So that, to the extent you pull off another Brooks, you are
actually lowering the costs and increasing the savings.
Mr. Hobson. But I do not want to pull it off. You are the
folks who do it.
Mr. Zakheim. I did not mean you. I meant, ``to the extent
one.''
Mr. Hobson. We should not have to. That should not be me
having to intercede in every one of your horrible fights.
Mr. Zakheim. I am only giving you credit, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. I know. Well, you guys did use it as--in some
submission, you did use it as one you want to do.
Mr. Zakheim. Yes.
Ray, do you want to add to that?
Mr. DuBois. I just wanted to say I met yesterday with Dick
Wright from the Fort Ord SMART team, pursuant to your urging.
And I was very impressed with what has taken place in the
community with respect to Fort Ord. And I said, how can we
replicate this kind of an approach?
Mr. Farr. Send Dick Wright everywhere.
Mr. DuBois. Sir?
Mr. Farr. Just send Dick Wright everywhere. He is a great
ambassador.
Mr. DuBois. Clone Dick Wright. [Laughter.]
But, as you know, the so-called cost to complete, with
respect to environmental remediation of all prior BRAC
properties, is estimated to be $4.2 billion. That is not an
insignificant number.
But when you also look at the steady-state savings, as
certified, at least agreed upon, in the aggregate by GAO's most
recent report, over $6 billion a year, even the cost to
complete is subsumed within one year of aggregate savings.
Now, we did increase the BRAC environmental remediation
request year over year by $30 million, to $520 million. That is
true, that last year Congress did plus-up that account by $100
million; not an insignificant plus-up, I might add.
Mr. Hobson. Probably got fanged by OMB and the pork barrel
people for doing that. Sorry.
Mr. DuBois. Do not want to comment on that. But it is a
significant issue and one that, you know, how long will it take
us to complete, given a $4.2 billion bill at $500 million to
$600 million a year, well, the mathematics say that you will be
through it in the next five or six years.
But it is BRAC 2005 that I am concerned about, and lessons
learned that Dick Wright mentioned to me yesterday about what
happened at Ford Ord, and how can we put into place disposal
methodologies that will reduce the time from closure to
disposal or conveyance.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. I want to say something I probably should
not say, but I am going to say it anyway. They put out a pig
book. And I think some of the stuff in there does deserve to be
in there. But I am just furious that a shoothouse in Okinawa--
two shoothouses to train our young people so they can save
their lives when they have to go into urban warfare combat, and
housing for Korea are considered in the pig book. I mean, any
credibility that pig book had with me goes dramatically down.
Besides that, they did not put my name next to them. People
in the Congress put those in because we were trying to help our
young people defend themselves and their quality of life, and
to put those in there just totally outrages me.
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
Now, I got a question for you. Language included in the
President's budget submission withholds $84 million from the
Army for the chemical demilitarization program unless it meets
certain ``milestones.'' The Army was unaware of this language
and could not tell us what it meant. Because it came from OMB,
we are turning to OSD--I love all these--to explain it to us.
What are these milestones? Why are they included in this year
and not in previous years? What is the practical effect of
these milestones? And, frankly, could these milestones slow
down or impede U.S. compliance with the chemical weapons
treaty?
Mr. Zakheim. Mr. Chairman, I know this is a major concern
of yours, and we have discussed this on a number of occasions.
I am, frankly, not as mystified by the language as others may
be. It does read like English, quite frankly, and it simply
says that the Army has to notify the Senate and the House
committees, the Appropriations Committees, that it can meet the
milestones. That means that it basically has a plan that it
believes it can execute. Quite frankly, and particularly
knowing your concern about executing things and having plans
and having them done right, I think it is in the interest of
all that they have that.
And once that plan has been put together----
Mr. Hobson. But the milestones are not spelled out.
Mr. Zakheim. But the Army can spell out milestones. This
does not say----
Mr. Hobson. It says OSD and OMB do the milestones.
Mr. Zakheim. But the Army will, obviously, propose them,
and then we would work with OMB to simply say, ``These will
work.''
Now, you know, we do work with OMB. If we did not work with
OMB we could not put out a budget. I have been on this job for
10 months, and I have helped put out two full budgets and one
supplemental, a budget amendment and three emergency
supplementals, and obviously I was not able to do that by
myself; we had to do that with OMB. So I think we do work with
OMB. We do not share the same letters, we do not share the same
personnel and we do not sit on the same side of the river, but
somehow we do manage to put these things out.
In fairness to those people, we will work with them. And
Ray DuBois will have a major involvement in this, as will Mr.
Aldridge, that we will get milestones out there that are agreed
on and that would justify the $84 million. It is doable.
Mr. DuBois. I think, Mr. Chairman, the real issue here is
that last bullet: What is the practical effect; could these
milestones slow down or impede? As you know, the entire
chemical demil program has been problematic for a long time,
and that is why the Congress asked Pete Aldridge, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to, quite
frankly, take it over, take it back from the armories.
Now, the Army still has major equities here. The two
particular issues, or places, Aberdeen, I believe, and Newport,
Indiana--Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and Newport,
Indiana, that are the focus of the so-called reduction in
spending, my conversations with Dr. Fiori indicate that the
Army recognizes the situation and is going to search for
reprogramming dollars to handle it.
It is not an answer to your particular question. As Dr.
Zakheim indicated, the milestones may be reviewable, if you
will, by the OSD, but they are milestones that Dr. Fiori--he is
going to put on the table.
Mr. Hobson. I want it moving. We have got some real
problems with this, and rather new simpler solutions than
spending all the money they were going to spend, if they are
correct in what they want to do, and they got stopped.
Mr. Zakheim. We recognize and share the concern. And we are
not----
Mr. Hobson. Congress has a lot of concern about the chem
demil stuff and the way we found it. And we need to--there is
something sitting out there festering, but we need to move.
Let me switch to another subject. You know, we are talking
about this infrastructure and stuff, but it seems that the
Service Components always find a way to pay for new mission
requirements, while their crumbling infrastructure continues to
fall apart.
For example, this year, the Air Force spent almost $290
million on bed-down of new weapons platforms to the detriment
of their existing infrastructure that received only 47 percent
of the available funds. Next year, however, the Air Force plans
to require that the cost of bedding down new weapons systems be
included in the total cost of new system platforms.
This package will, in effect, augment military construction
funds that can be directed to improving the existing
infrastructure. What is your opinion of this initiative? Should
it be applied to any other Service Components? If the Services
adopted this approach, could their military construction
budgets be decreased accordingly, and what would OSD suggest to
protect MILCON funds from being redirected?
Mr. Zakheim. I will simply say that this is ultimately
something that Pete Aldridge, as our acquisition executive,
really has cognizance over. Ray DuBois works with Mr. Aldridge.
Ray, I do not know--it is not really your area either, but you
might have----
Mr. DuBois. Well, I think it is important to recognize that
the Services have been directed, but when you put together a
long-term life cycle budget for a weapons system, you have got
to take into consideration what MILCON impact is going to have:
whether the airplane is not going to fit the current hangars.
Do we have to build new? Do we have to redesign the doors? That
is--however my understanding those are still MILCON dollars.
What the program manager--let's take the Joint Strike
Fighter, for instance--has to lay out for the senior
acquisition executive in the United States Department of
Defense, Mr. Aldridge, what MILCON impacts are inherent in the
life cycle of that weapons system.
It is still MILCON. It is still jurisdiction of this
subcommittee. And if designated as such, the program manager,
or in this case the Secretary of the Air Force, cannot take
from MILCON and put it into buying another airplane in the
abstract.
Mr. Hobson. In the abstract, yes.
Mr. DuBois. MILCON dollars, you know that it is fenced.
Mr. Hobson. Let me switch to another subject. Last year,
the Armed Services Committee authorized additional rounds of
BRAC. From an appropriations point of view, we expect
significant increase costs of what will be BRAC obligations.
What do the out-year budgets reflect as far as increases in
the BRAC account? Are these increases on top of increases to
regular military construction accounts? Do you expect more
joint bases as a result of consolidating functions, rather than
eliminating real estate? And how do you discipline the Services
to be a little more purple, if purple is the right color?
Mr. DuBois. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the
Secretary of Defense--I drafted in the so-called kick-off memo
to the Secretary of Defense--and Mr. Chairman, in the opening
remarks of that kick-off memo, it talks about the necessity to
do a comprehensive cross-Service analysis.
We--25 years ago, when Secretary Rumsfeld and I were in the
Pentagon, most installations, if not all, were single service,
single mission. Today, we have multiple service, multiple
mission installations. One that you and I visited, I believe--I
am trying to think--perhaps it was with Congressman Weldon--it
was his Corpus Christi Naval Air Station.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, we were there.
Mr. DuBois. I guess we did go there together. And on which,
of course, is the Corpus Christi Army Depot.
There is no question in my mind that in order to accomplish
a 20 to 25 percent reduction in excess capacity in terms of our
total DOD realistic footprint, you are going to have to look at
multi-service, multi-mission installations. I do not know any
other way around it.
And that is why the Secretary is also--as opposed to the
four prior rounds of BRAC, the Secretary intends to personally
lead this exercise, number one.
Number two, he is not going to depend on--if it is the
right word--each individual Service to do their own individual
BRACs and then present them independently of each other to the
Secretary for ratification.
Mr. Zakheim. I would just add this is clearly ``green
eyeshade'', but it is important to you, Mr. Chairman, and to
the subcommittee. You had asked in the report language for a
new program element for joint use projects. And we have got
that now.
Mr. Hobson. Good.
Mr. Zakheim. So that is there. I will just review the five
new ones in the 2003 request for those who may not remember or
have seen those. There is one naval air station in Atlanta,
which is Air Force, Army--this is the BEQ Air Force, Army, Air,
National Guard, Army Reserve. That is $6.7 million.
The joint reserve base--naval air station, joint reserve
base and hazmat storage facility, Army National Guard, Air
National Guard, Army Reserve $2.7 million.
In New Orleans, runway taxiway extension, $14.6 million,
Army National Guard, Air National Guard, Army Reserve.
In Norfolk, Navy Marine Corps Reserve center, $4.8 million,
Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve.
In Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas, the Army Reserve--armed
forces reserve center, $14.6 million. That is the Army,
National Guard and Marine Corps Reserve. So this is clearly
something that is building up momentum.
Mr. Hobson. And I just want not a joint building but some
other things you can do at Rickenbacker, which is not currently
in my district, but is going to be in my new district. I moved
a Navy--built a new Navy facility--moved a Navy facility in
line with the Air Force, Air National Guard facility, so that
they now use the same chow hall, they now all use the same
medical facility, and so you do not have this, you know, one
sitting way off here and a whole infrastructure around it.
You can have one base infrastructure and everybody can work
together. They wear different uniforms. You have different
missions, but you do not duplicate a lot of the services.
We are also trying to do this in a lot of armies that we
are doing around the country today. One of the things we need
to look at is, you know, Reserve and Guard could probably use
some of the same facilities in the same buildings in a more
community-related facilities that we are doing. The Marine
Corps can be--where we got Marine Corps Reserve facilities,
they could be integrated, so that they can use different times,
different facilities, because they do not use them. Some parts
use them every day, parts of it, but they do not have to be off
in separate facilities where you have got two light bills and
all this kind of stuff. And we need to look at this, because
these dollars are very precious to go around.
John.
Mr. Olver. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Let me just follow that question on BRAC one step further.
You are beginning to prepare, if you have any time--just trying
to understand the spread sheets on the things that are already
before us--a 2004 budget. The BRAC process is one where you
have to spend money to make money, to earn money, to save money
somewhere along the way. When does that really begin to reflect
and when we will begin to see money in your budget submissions
in anticipation of the BRAC process?
Mr. Zakheim. We wait a little bit on that one. The reason
is, that you cannot have the commission prior to calendar year
2005, you cannot really start the closure process until 2006.
Mr. Olver. Until 2006. So we will not see any money in the
budgets until fiscal 2006?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, you cannot do anything that----
Mr. Olver. Planning for that?
Mr. Zakheim. You cannot do anything that anticipates
closures of things. You do not know what is going to close. The
rules are very, very clear on that one. We cannot anticipate
anything, quite frankly. And so, there is nothing we can ask
for, at least to my knowledge.
Isn't that correct? Is there anything we can ask for? I do
not think so.
Mr. Olver. Should the FYDPs reflect in any way what the--
the FYDPs, of course, go on for some years.
Mr. Zakheim. Well, beginning in 2006 there will be a
reflection----
Mr. Olver. There should be in the FYDP for 2006 some
reflection.
Mr. Zakheim. But even that, let me tell you exactly what we
have in here. It is about $3.2 billion, which is what we
estimate will be a generic cost associated with BRAC in 2006.
Mr. Olver. So you are already planning.
Mr. Zakheim. Exactly.
Mr. Olver. Your $3.2 billion in 2006?
Mr. Zakheim. And $5.6 billion and change in 2007. But you
do not know it is there. These are totally parametic, generic
estimates.
CHILD CARE CENTERS
Mr. Olver. Okay. Let me got back to slightly higher level
of specificity, more specific than I have been earlier. In the
budget submission for this year, if I remember correctly, there
are only two child development centers.
Mr. Zakheim. Right.
Mr. Olver. With the high rate of deployments, it seems to
me there is a higher pressure upon the spouses that are left at
home with the children involved here. And I am surprised that
we would be having fewer rather than more child development
centers. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Zakheim. Yes, sure. Basically, what you have--and I
actually have a chart that, if you like I could get to you--the
child development center levels have, fluctuated, as have a lot
of other related quality-of-life facilities development. For
example, we have two in 2003. We requested four in 2002, and
you added four to that. In 2001 we requested four, but in 2000
we requested two. So they fluctuated over the years.
Mr. Olver. I suspect they have been a typical add for us.
Mr. Zakheim. No, no. This is what I am saying we requested,
as opposed to what you added, okay?
Mr. Olver. So you do not think this is an unusual number,
essentially?
Mr. Zakheim. That is right. It is within the bounds.
Mr. Olver. Are these rated? Are these rated on the C-1, C-
2, C-3, C-4 characterization?
Mr. Zakheim. I believe they are. But let me just add one
other thing, because, it is not just a matter of child
development centers.
The need for child development centers, for example,
depends, on where people are located. The urgency, for
instance, of having child development centers in major
metropolitan areas, where there are a lot of them available, is
clearly quite different from, that for, a facility where there
is nothing really around. So one has to bear that in mind.
And, of course, we are talking about children, we look at
schools. Now, in 2003 we are requesting funding for 13 schools.
In 2000 we requested funding for six schools. In 2001 for nine
schools. Last year for 13. So again, we are somewhat higher on
schools. We are somewhat low on child development centers.
Schools, again, are a function of the district or a function of
what is available outside the base and so on.
So when you take it into that larger context, the request,
which may not be ideal from your perspective, nevertheless
falls within the bounds of what we have done in the recent
past.
Mr. Hobson. Did you ever think about how much money you
could save if you did not have DOD schools inside the
continental United States?
Mr. Zakheim. We have heard that argument made to us in the
past. And quite frankly, it very much depends on what is
available as an alternative. The military families very often
appreciate the fact that they have those schools. It is a
contextual issue, as you know, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Olver. Do you know if these two sites of the
development centers are C-4s or C-3s that are being replaced?
Or are these where there were not development centers there in
the first place?
Mr. Zakheim. The latter. These are new development centers.
Remember, child development centers in general are a relatively
new phenomenon. We were not building those 30 or 40 years ago.
Mr. Olver. But we do have an ever larger number of married-
with-families personnel and personnel who are being deployed,
more and more instances and more complicated.
Mr. Zakheim. That is right, and so, again, one looks at----
Mr. Olver. I am still not certain that that represents an
adequate number.
Mr. Zakheim. All I am saying is that there is a context,
and many of our bases are near major metropolitan areas where
child development centers are otherwise available, and there
are those that are not. That is why you get this fluctuation.
But again, two is within the bounds of what we have done in the
recent past.
NATO
Mr. Olver. Let me ask a couple questions in relation to
NATO. In the president's request, there are a couple of
projects for NATO regional headquarters, one of them in Spain,
one of them in Greece. Now, I do not know that our security
investment program covers all our costs in NATO countries, and
I am surprised and not particularly happy to see that--the
decision to establish regional headquarters, at this particular
time. We are going to have to pay for these through the
investment program, I assume.
I do not know, if this one of those things that your part
of the decision is to have them do this? Or do you just get the
bill to pay?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, I get every bill to pay, as you know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olver. Are you part of the policy decision here?
Mr. Zakheim. The Policy Office makes the decision, and it
is done, obviously, in consultation with the NATO people. As
you know, there are efforts to refocus NATO and make it more
efficient, more relevant to the post-Cold War world. I will get
you an answer for the record that I hope will be more detailed.
Mr. Olver. Well, this one that I just asked has to do with
the present budget. But coming down the road, we are hearing
that we are likely to have quite a large expansion of NATO, as
many as a half-dozen additional countries, and comparatively,
these countries that are being talked about are poor as church
mice compared with--I was going to use a different
characterization, but that one will do--compared with most of
the Western countries and certainly with us.
What kind of implications are there for that? What kind of
costs is that going to lead us to in the near future? I guess
they are not yet appearing, but they must begin to appear as
you think about the next budget that you are----
Mr. Zakheim. There have been some analyses done.
Mr. Olver. How much of this cost do we have to pick up?
Mr. Zakheim. That is not clear yet, because in general it
really does become a function of which countries you are
talking about and where they are located. The candidate
countries are spread all over the map in Eastern Europe.
Mr. Olver. But the one thing they are poor as church mice
essentially.
Mr. Zakheim. They are not exactly as well off as Western
Europe. I think that is accurate. But I would not hazard any
estimate that presupposed the particular set of countries
coming in as a high-risk estimate. What I will do for the
record is go back to my Policy colleagues, talk to them, and
see if I can give you a better feel for this.
But I would say, as one who used to make these kinds of
projections in the past, that it really is totally a function
of what countries you are talking about.
Mr. Olver. I am very curious what this group, additions,
adds to the effectiveness of NATO, if any. And really, sort of,
a comparison of what the investment program--the costs to the
U.S. of the investment program had been in the previous
expansions of NATO, which we apparently, sort of, skimmed the
cream in the first round, and those economies are considerably
better than the ones that are still under consideration when
you get farther eastward.
Mr. Zakheim. First of all, I suspect that the candidate
members would not like to be described as something less than
the cream.
I will get you, for the record, those numbers that I can,
in terms of what the cost was.
[The information follows:]
In terms of what the benefits are, obviously the benefits
are not dollar benefits. They are benefits in terms of
stability. They are benefits in terms of integrating countries
that had basically been on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain
for a half-century.
Mr. Olver. You know, we are already hearing that there is a
great deal of concern about the enormous gap between the well-
off countries in NATO and the American military situation. It
is hard to see once that gap--the gap between those who have
been the established, older members and these newer members,
particularly ones who have been talked about as you have got
coming in--is at least as great, probably far greater, than the
gap that has now grown between us and those. It is difficult to
see the policy rationale here and what it is in effectiveness
of NATO that comes from this process.
Mr. Zakheim. A couple of things. First, I would say this.
If you actually look at the disparity of wealth, or size, or of
military contribution to NATO, you can go back to say the 15,
or the 16, when Spain came in, and you will see a gap between
Portugal on the one hand and the United States on the other.
And Iceland does not even have a military, and they are part of
NATO.
So, clearly, NATO is there for a lot of reasons, and
different countries contribute in different ways. Some have
contributed over the years--Iceland is a good example. During
the Cold War, Iceland was a major facility for us. It was, you
know, the famous GIUK gap. Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Iceland
was terribly important, and it drove the Soviets nuts, because
it was there. Was a barrier to their submarines and their naval
forces.
So different countries bring different things to the table.
That is point one.
Point two is, not all of the candidate countries are at the
same place economically. Some of the Baltic states are actually
doing pretty well. Quite well. Other states are not. It is a
mixed bag, it is a mixed bag from north to south, it is a mixed
bag within the north, within the south, it becomes a function
of a lot of different areas and concerns.
There have to be NATO standards for people to get in. There
are net standards that are being set, and if the standards are
not met, the candidates do not come in. That is one of the
reasons why I cannot predict which countries are coming in,
because there are a slew of standards, and countries are going
to be evaluated on the basis of those by the current NATO
members.
And finally, the percentage of cost sharing is going to go
down, since by definition there will be more countries
contributing. I will get you an expanded answer for the record,
sir, on what it has cost us so far, but I think the consensus
within NATO is that bringing in the first three countries was a
good deal.
Mr. DuBois. I think it is also important to recognize that
no matter what new countries are invited in and how NATO
expands, there is no direct correlation between that and what
MILCON dollars are spent in those new countries. In fact, to my
knowledge, we have not built ``new NATO bases'' in countries
that have----
Mr. Olver. Well, maybe my whole question is a bit beyond
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee from that----
Mr. DuBois. But I think that your MILCON will play----
Mr. Olver. Is there a plug similar to the plug that you
mentioned in 2006 in regards to BRAC?
Mr. DuBois. That were specifically driven by the expansion
of NATO? No.
Mr. Zakheim. No, there is not. And again, one could see
where our percentage contribution could actually go down. So it
very much is a function of what countries are coming in, what
expenditures are being made.
Look, if we are not building facilities in these countries,
and they are contributing something, then one could make the
case. All I am saying is, there is no way to predict right now.
There is not the plug to my knowledge.
Mr. Olver. Okay, I withdraw it.
Mr. DuBois. But two points I think need to be made. On the
INSIP account, anything that I have learned on my trip to
Europe, is that we benefit more on the basis of the INSIP total
investments for our purposes than we actually contribute to it,
number one.
Number two, with respect to MILCON projects at headquarters
NATO sites, the Navy--there are a total of eight projects in
this budget request, totalling $55.62 million. Now, they are at
NATO headquarters sites. For example, you mentioned the ones in
Greece. But the Navy has its own BEQ for our naval personnel,
and a support facility for our naval personnel, a dependent
school for our personnel, and a medical and dental clinic--
these are all in Greece, at the NATO headquarters, for our
personnel. So we have--in your jurisdiction, in this
subcommittee, there are specific MILCON dollars, yes, that will
be spent at NATO headquarters sites, but for our folks.
And the one in Turkey is a dorm, mission support facility
that the Air Force has requested for $4 million at the NATO
combined air ops center at--I cannot pronounce it--Eskisehir.
But the joint subregional headquarters in Madrid, again, it
is a BEQ--excuse me, it is a Navy exchange, a morale, welfare
and recreation site for $2.73 million. Again, it is for our
folks.
Mr. Hobson. Chet?
SCHOOLS
Mr. Edwards. Two questions, Secretary Zakheim. In your
testimony on page 3, you talk about the 13 schools for
dependents. In that budget, or anywhere else in the defense
budget, do we take into consideration that one direct impact of
our privatization policy is to bring an enormous increase in
the number of students onto our installations. For example, at
Fort Hood, which, again, I enthusiastically support--their
estimates are that they will have to build three new schools.
Is it the administration's intention that the local school
districts ought to have to pay for the total cost of building
those new schools, or have either of you, perhaps, looked at
that real problem--again, a direct result of a change in
policy, which we supported? I hope we can find some way to
address that.
Mr. Zakheim. I think you know, the Army offered land for
building the new schools. But the school construction is not
supposed to be funded with privatization funds. Since the
housing projects are phased over time, you are not going to
need those schools immediately.
We do support the construction of new schools at Fort Hood,
we are going to provide the land, we do not have adequate
funding right now to build a school. But we are working with
the local school districts, and will work with them, to
identify a solution.
There is a need; we recognize that, and we have to figure
out a way to meet the need.
Mr. Edwards. Because when you say that schools are not
going to have to be built immediately, I am not sure that is so
correct in the Fort Hood case. And my concern is that the whole
goal of this, yours and ours together, is to improve morale for
our Service men and women and their families. We improve their
housing, which I think will make a difference.
We undermine that morale increase if they have to have
their kids bused off-post, halfway across town. With the new
security requirements on our installations, it is much harder
to get on-post and off-post. So we are going to create some----
Mr. Hobson. The school district can build a mock house.
Mr. Edwards. The school district can, but I guess the issue
in most of these cases, again taking Fort Hood as an example
since that is the largest case of RCI, is that they are a
property-poor school district; one of the poorest in the state
of Texas on a property tax basis. So Impact Aid has been a key
part of their funding, but all of a sudden they are estimating
having to build three new schools.
They just passed a $100 million bond package, which is
incredible, the largest they have ever passed. Pretty amazing
that they did it. It is a fairly low-income, middle-class
community, but I do not think they had enough money in there
for all three schools on the post.
And it just seems like we should not put our heads in the
sand and say, ``This is not a problem,'' or, ``We do not have
any responsibility for it.'' Because it is a direct result of
RCI.
Now eventually, to be honest and fair, eventually they will
benefit because these Part B students, some of them will become
Part A. So ultimately, the operational funding increase will
help the schools. Perhaps there is even a creative way to
project some of those increases and help them now with
construction costs, and take that out of their Part A funding
later.
I do not know what the answer is but it is a real problem.
It is going to affect seriously the morale of the parents if
their kids are either in huge classrooms, 40, 50 kids per
teacher, or they have to be bused halfway across town.
Mr. Zakheim. No, I think everyone agrees that we have got
to find some kind of solution. You are right, the county has a
problem. Obviously, you cannot tax homes on government
properties, so it does not have that kind of tax base for that.
We do not want to take the money out of the project funds and
put it into schools: That is just robbing Peter to pay Paul; it
does not do any good.
We are offering up the land, and my understanding is that
the Army is going to be working with the local district to see
how it can fix it.
Mr. Edwards. Everybody is saying we are going to try to see
how we can fix it, but I am waiting for specific solutions.
Mr. Zakheim. We will go back to them and see what they are
doing, and whether we can be of any help.
Mr. Edwards. I was hoping maybe the BAH increase above
expectations might have opened up some money that you could at
least consider, if you get to choose--I do not want to put it
houses versus schools, but if it is going to fix up this extra
park or build a school so kids do not have to get shipped 20
miles across town, we might look at the possibilities. I know
we are not going to solve that problem today.
I just ask your help so these children will not have to get
bused halfway across the community. I would welcome any
creative ideas, and I would like to work with you. I know there
is not a simple solution. But I do not think saying that local
folks are trying to work on it is a solution, because they may
not have been given any options that provide us a solution.
Second, and I ask this quickly, is I would like this just
to be in writing, but Secretary Zakheim you talked about we are
on a seven-year track to, reach Secretary Rumsfeld's goal of
seeing all military personnel and their families living in
adequate housing. That assumes there is a track, and it assumes
we are on that track.
Could you send to this committee what the track is?
[The information follows:]
Military Housing
The Department is working toward our goal of eliminating
inadequate family housing units in 2007. All the Military
Services, except the Air Force, have funding plans to meet or
exceed this goal. The latest Air Force Family Housing Master
Plan provided to Congress on August 31, 2001, reflect
achievement of this goal in 2010, which is a two-year
improvement over its previous plan. That plan indicates that
approximately 15,000 inadequate housing units remain after FY
2007. The Air Force continues to analyze the feasibility of
moving achievement forward to 2007.
The following table reflects the FY2002-FY2007 DoD-wide
Milcon funding currently programmed to eliminate inadequate
family housing units through renovation, replacement or
privatization. Also displayed are the estimated inventory of
inadequate housing units and the estimated drawdown of those
units, per fiscal year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MilCon Funding ($M)................................. $1,177 $1,341 $1,453 $2,265 $2,046 $1,895
===========================================================
Inadequate Housing Units (Beginning Year)........... 167,766 142,704 101,695 85,248 59,610 36,450
Inadequate Housing Drawdown......................... 25,062 41,009 16,447 25,638 23,159 21,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No similar goal to eliminate inadequate barracks has been
established. However, the Department has been working to
replace or renovate its permanent party gang latrine barracks
by 2008 to advance quality of life for the unaccompanied
enlisted personnel. These gang latrine barracks are revitalized
to the Department's 1+1 construction standard. This
configuration provides a module consisting of two bedroom
spaces, sharing a bathroom and service area. The Services have
already met or are on track to complete this revitalization
effort by 2008. The FY 2003 budget request includes $1.2
billion to replace/revitalize gang latrine barracks and high
priority basic training, transient, and deficit barracks
requirements. The Department is considering whether to
establish a revitalization goal for barracks similar to that
established for family housing. Additionally, the Navy and Army
are examining options for using the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative authorities to improve DoD's
unaccompanied housing inventory.
Mr. Zakheim. Absolutely.
Mr. Edwards. How many substandard housing barracks? I think
the chairman referred to this, but very specifically, how many
of those are barracks? How many are housing? Is it a straight
track, or is it one of these tracks that goes like this, and
year six and seven drops off like----
Mr. Zakheim. We will get it to you. It is not a quick
dropoff.
Mr. Edwards. Because then we have something by which to
measure next year, the next year and the next year.
Mr. Hobson. And we would like the privatization of barracks
too.
Mr. Zakheim. We will get that to you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Great. Thank you both. Thank you both for what
you are doing.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow
up on this discussion that is not only BRAC but a follow-up on
Mr. Edwards' comments about housing. What I see happening in
the West--my experience obviously is in California--that real
estate is becoming so expensive in California that we are not
going to be able to afford to have soldiers live off the local
economy. We are going to really need to do what I think we
originally did, which was house them on bases.
And I think that the RCI is a good way to build attractive
housing and a smart way to do things. Because I think
government is the best tenant you can have.
But what I am concerned about is that we are not really
committed to thinking about the dynamics of encroachment, the
dynamics that you mention in your comments, the dynamics of
having to move people to utilize our government-owned land more
effectively.
LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DUE TO ENCROACHMENT
And two things come to mind. Allen and I both sit on the
Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. What we are very
concerned about is the loss of productive agricultural land due
to encroachment. It seems to me that there is a two-fer here
and I saw it at Lemoore Air Force Base out in the San Joaquin
Valley, north--near Merced, where the city of Lemoore is
growing toward the naval base.
What the Navy did was work with the local land trust, ag
land trust, and buy up all that land and put it in permanent
agriculture. So that the city, essentially, is stopped from
getting closer. It is a great buffer zone. It is a win-win,
because the farmers keep their land in agriculture.
And it seems to me that you ought to really engage with
agricultural land trusts on these buffer issues around the
United States, that there is great opportunity. I am sure it is
not just with the ag land, it is probably with a lot of other
sensitive land that could be put into permanent easements.
Mr. Boyd. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Boyd. Some of the states have really done some
innovative work in terms of conservation easements, development
rights. They are really going over very well and they are
popular with the ag community in areas. I believe the federal
government even has a program. But I would just inject that it
is something that--it is win-win situation.
Mr. DuBois. There are several different specific examples
over the last couple of years wherein the Army, in particular--
and I am reminded of the situation in Fort Bragg in North
Carolina and the situation at Fort Huachuca in Arizona--where,
working with local farmers and ranchers, land-owners,
conservation easements have been bought. The Fort Huachuca
situation is the San Pedro River water recharge issue.
We have proposed, in our MILCON 2003 authorization
language, two specific provisions that would streamline the
ability of the military departments to work with both local
land trusts, local governments, local land-owners and NGOs,
like the Nature Conservancy, to not only invest and buy
conservation easements, or actually accept land for these
purposes. It is another land-use control mechanism.
Mr. Farr. Could you get us some information on that?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. We are very excited about that.
Mr. DuBois. We will do that.
Mr. Farr. I applaud that. The other issue is a question to
you, Ray, about the base ops contracts. You know, we have
proven in Monterey that the Defense Language Institute--and I
hope the Naval Postgraduate School will soon be on board--to
contract out for limited services to the local public agencies.
Principal Deputy Assistant Army Secretary Prosch wrote me
on December 12 last year, expressing his support of this
demonstration, because he recognizes it takes advantage of
local community excess capacity to provide municipal services
to the Army installation.
I am not sure, did you propose permanent extension of that
authority in your fiscal year 2003 budget? If so, why not? And
can we get that permanent extension? We have got to get it into
the authorizing mark.
Mr. DuBois. As you know, last year we----
Mr. Farr. You did a broad brush, and I think that was--I
mean, it was every base, I think, it was too broad and OMB
rejected it.
Mr. DuBois. Right. I will answer your question for the
record. I continue to try to convince OMB that this is a very
valid and very valuable approach to reducing base operating
services costs and to engage the local community in that
regard.
I will answer your question for the record.
Mr. Farr. Okay. Well, I need--we need some discussion with
Chairman Saxton----
Mr. DuBois. Saxton, yes.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. To get that authorized.
The last part of that question is--and I would really
encourage--and I think you are on it--is this whole concept of
how you can integrate the community out there to be a better
partner. I think it is part of this consolidation of bringing
the Services together. What you have found is that there is too
much duplication, and that is why we have base closure and
realignment.
But I also think that there is a second concern, that there
is an awful lot of unnecessary need to protect that base as
being totally federal from everything that happens. And so you
do not take advantage of the community resources that are
around the base to do base operations. Or, in areas you have
done an incredible job of maintaining your bases, both, where
you have cultural assets and you have environmental assets. I
mean, the U.S. Park Service has been very complimentary of the
way the Army has maintained their bases in that sense. And I
think that we need to engage wherever possible if we are going
to have the civilian community appreciative of our military
services and our military bases.
And I think, unfortunately, we are moving in just the
opposite direction with this threat security, where we are
essentially now building bigger fences and having more
fortification. I think you are going to end up defeating what
we are trying to do, which is to have sort of a town/gown
relationship, to having more isolation. ``Well, that is, we do
not know what goes on there, it is all a mystery.''
I have lived in a community with three or four military
bases around me and never knew what was on them because I could
not get on them. It was not that it was impossible, just that
it was always fenced off and you had to go through guards. And
I think last year the Naval Postgraduate School hosted the Bach
Festival because the building they traditionally use is being
renovated. The Navy had a great win-win. And now they cannot do
it because of the security issue.
Mr. Zakheim. If I could, I was actually at the Naval
Postgraduate School not long ago, and I had lunch with the
mayor of Monterey and a whole group of local officials and
local newspaper people. So please allow me a couple of
observations.
The first is that, you are right, that, especially in the
last few years, there has been a tremendous degree of community
outreach that was not here maybe 20 or 30 years ago. It was not
even there when I was last at the Pentagon 15 years ago.
I think, just from the people that I spoke with, there is
an understanding that we have got to get our security act
together, because that is in everybody's interest. I also
recently spoke to 50 mayors and city council chairmen, mostly
small-town mayors, from around the country, and they all feel,
as you well know, that they are part of this war on terror,
they are vulnerable to it, and that we need to work together to
make sure that our populations are protected. Ordinary people
also understand that we have got to secure the military
facilities.
On the other hand, there is an understanding on the part of
the Department that we do not want to close out the populations
around the bases because otherwise, again, the terrorists have
won, they have changed our way of life, and we do not want that
to happen.
Mr. Farr. We certainly do not want a one-size-fits-all, and
that is one of the difficulties I think you are having in
trying to administer security where, in different communities,
the risks are different.
Mr. Zakheim. I do not disagree at all. We are working our
way through something that nobody anticipated on September 10,
and it is going to take a while. You know, we have not fought
on our own territory in a very long time. No one has any
memory--living memory of it. So what is really needed is good
will and understanding.
I think we have the understanding of the folks in the
communities around the bases. By and large people in base
communities, as we all know, are very supportive.
Mr. Farr. I met with a lot of local leaders at a Homeland
Security forum at the Naval Postgraduate School two weeks ago.
One of the things that I think you are beginning to hear is
that there is now, sort of, a pulling back. You know, it is
almost they think there is too much security, because not much
has changed.
And the same thing is happening in airports. Passengers are
up, but now they are starting to complain that maybe there is
too much security.
I think that we have to make that transition and there has
been no sign of it. We do not have any sign of it here in the
capital much less at home. Without necessarily fortifying
everything, we have to get back to, sort of, a reasonableness.
Members of Congress were talking the other day. I mean,
what we have seen in the Middle East, particularly what we have
seen in Israel. We think we can assume some more risk. We
cannot stop everything. Certainly cannot stop a terrorist
bomber. But we--you ought to be more cost-effective with our
risk analysis, and doing something that allows people to feel
secure but not intimidated.
Mr. Zakheim. It is a delicate balance. You are right that
there is a situational context. The problem, as you well know,
is that, God forbid if there is another incident, everybody is
going to say, ``Why wasn't there more security?'' We do not
want to create a situation where we invite an incident.
So it is a balance here. We want to make sure that the
terrorists understand that there is no profit in trying to do
something in the United States. We want to make sure that our
citizens feel protected, that our military is protected and at
the same time that we retain the kind of society we were on
September 10.
It will take time--it is a shakedown cruise. It is going to
take some time until we get it right. But from everyone I speak
to that is involved, the intent is to provide the security
without disrupting the way of life. Part of that way of life
has been that over the last 15 or 20 years, there has been a
really ramp up in the interaction between local communities and
the bases that are within them. And we want to preserve that as
best we can.
Mr. Farr. Well, I understand all that. But I will tell you
as a politician who has to deal with a lot of other issues,
civilian issues, the communities are starting to complain. We
have got all these drive-by shootings. Where is the emphasis on
that? And for people who live in those neighborhoods that is a
much greater threat to them coming out of their houses than any
terrorist activity.
They see our government responding to terrorist activity,
but they do not see our government responding to youth
violence. And so there is a proportionality here that we have
to bring back into the entire country, not just to military
bases.
Mr. Hobson. Did you paint that runway while I was aground?
Mr. Boyd. No, sir, but we found out how much it will cost,
I think.
Mr. DuBois. It is a usable runway.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things that I have learned since being on this
subcommittee is that when I get done with this career that I am
in now, I figured out what I do not want to do. I do not want
to go into the Pentagon and be one of those people that has to
appear before Appropriations Committees defending the budget.
So I say that to compliment you guys. You have a very tough
job. And have to understand a lot of issues.
I want to bring up a new issue that will not be in the form
of a question. You can comment on it if you like. It is one
that I am going to talk to some people about, including the
chairman, in the coming months.
TYNDALL AFB
The 1st Air Force is located at Tyndall Air Force Base. As
you know, the 1st Air Force oversees air defense forces in the
continental U.S. and is a component of the North American Air
Defense Command. Following September 11, the 1st Air Force
Operation Center has been pushed to the limits because of age
and size of that current building. Prior to September 11, there
were 50 people permanently housed in the 1st Air Force Ops
Center. That number went to over 300, maybe 350, during the
months that followed. And we think it all settles out and the
OPTEMPO is finally established, we are looking at 150 permanent
personnel there.
We have got a serious infrastructure issue there, you know,
housing those people in a place where they can do their work.
The current building is simply inadequate and needs to be
replaced as soon as possible.
You also may know, that the commander of the 1st Air Force
currently is Major General Larry Arnold who is one of the three
individuals in the United States with the authority to
authorize a shoot-down of a commercial, civilian aircraft by a
military aircraft. That is, I think, pursuant to September 11.
I am going to make it one of my priorities to try to see
that we get the proper facility down there. I wanted you to
know--it is a new issue; I am not complaining or anything. I
just want you to know that this is something that we need to
deal with. And you can comment on it if you like. If not, we
will move to the next issue.
Mr. DuBois. I do not have anything particular on that.
Mr. Zakheim. While I am here, I can say that. You know we
have a supplemental that we sent up for fiscal 2002. There were
a couple of criteria that had to be met before anything could
be included in that supplemental.
One was that we could only ask for things that were related
directly to the war in Afghanistan and Noble Eagle at home. The
second was that whatever we were asking for had to be
executable in fiscal year 2002. That really goes to a larger
question, which is yours, sir, namely, what about MILCON in
this sup?
The answer is that because as the design requirement, it
would not be executable in fiscal year 2002. Therefore, you are
not seeing anything in the supplemental along the lines of what
you might be describing, or other similar projects, because
this is really for urgent operations and programs that will be
needed, spent on, and executed by September 30, 2002.
Mr. Boyd. Okay, I guess that is a warning.
Mr. Zakheim. It is not a warning. It is just a fact, an
explanation.
Mr. Boyd. Now, when you start talking about supplemental I
thought maybe you were going to suggest that we ought to head
in that direction. But I think you suggested just the opposite
if I understood you right.
Mr. Zakheim. I am not telling you where to head, sir. That
is for you to decide. I am just telling you how it was put
together.
Mr. Boyd. I guess my other question----
Mr. Hobson. Can I add something to that, before you go on
to something else?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. We have checked on that. It is in the FYDP, but
we are asking to see if they cannot move it up. We have already
asked that, on your behalf.
Mr. Boyd. Have I asked it? No.
Mr. Hobson. We have asked for you.
Mr. Boyd. Good. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And it is being looked at.
Mr. Boyd. I raised it just to make sure that everybody
knows it is an issue.
The other thing falls in the category of big-picture stuff,
and I wanted to direct this to Secretary DuBois. It comes in
the area of environmental clean-up. I know that, particularly
for some of the Services, that there has been a de-emphasis of
recent on R&D on the environmental side. Can you tell us, are
you satisfied with the progress we are making on the
environmental clean-up side, across the Services? Do we have
adequate technology, or if we do not, are we doing what we need
to do to develop the technology, or is that technology coming
from the private sector? This is a general big-picture
question.
Mr. DuBois. I think we did touch upon this in the UXO
hearing that you all had a month or so ago. We--the Department
of Defense invests some $100 million in environmental
technology of one kind or another. A rather significant amount
is being focussed, because of my concerns with UXO, on
detection and removal of unexploded ordnance and unexploded
bombs, some of which are buried in some of these places, as we
are finding out, much to our horror.
Is that enough money? It is our considered judgment that it
is the right amount of money. I will say this, that each
service, at least the Army and Navy, also made technological
R&D investments in this area. The Air Force had zeroed it out a
couple of years ago, and now----
Mr. Hobson. I am keenly aware of that.
Mr. DuBois. I have had discussions with the new
undersecretary of the Air Force, Pete Teets, and with the new
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Environment,
Maureen Coats. And we, as well as Nelson Gibbs, her boss--we
are--how shall I say?--I am strongly urging the Air Force to
reconsider this issue. To be a partner with the other two
military departments and OSD in this regard, I believe that,
coming from 25 years in the private sector, and watching
carefully R&D dollars in the information technology arena, that
they are, by and large, well spent. For every effectively spent
dollar in R&D, we probably avoid spending seven or eight down
the road.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you very much for your answer.
Mr. Hobson. You better look in the big bill, too, because
in the big bill they are killing R&D. In my opinion.
Mr. Zakheim. You think we are killing R&D? I am not sure
about that at all.
Mr. Hobson. In certain places.
Mr. Zakheim. Maybe even selected items, because the R&D
numbers have gone up, including the science and technology
account.
Mr. Hobson. Depends how you look at it.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
Mr. Farr. I have one question, Dr. Zakheim. I represent the
Defense Language Institute. The colonel out there told me that
the demands on Persian-Farsi have increased. DLI responds to
the Services' request. They are short about $2 million just in
that program, that happened in the last several months. Would
you look into that for us, to see if there are adequate funds
there?
Mr. Zakheim. Sure.
Mr. Farr. What happened is that this request came along
late--it ought to be in the supplemental. We have half a dozen
new languages that are being taught at DLI in the last few
months. And to recruit those professors, a lot of the exotic
languages, to recruit them, to put together a curriculum, to
put the whole thing together in a relatively short number of
weeks has really been a remarkable feat.
Mr. Hobson. And there are people in the military that can
speak those languages, but they are not always in the right
places. Now there was a young troop in--down at Guantanamo, who
was assigned to Guantanamo, and he is not a member of the--from
the school Sam and I visit, who had had antiquated facilities.
He is not from there, but he is in the Service, and they
pressed him into being an interpreter, but he went with being
in the hospital. He was doing great stuff.
Mr. Zakheim. I will look into it for you. I can say this,
that at the highest levels there is tremendous support for what
is being done. As you know, because DLI is in your district,
there has been a traditional emphasis on Romance languages, and
to some extent on German, and some on Chinese. But when you are
talking about either the Central Asian languages, or even
Arabic, there just has not been enough of that. And yes, there
is a big push in that direction. I will certainly look into it
for you.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hobson. We heard a lot of people in Bosnia and Kosovo
who were not graduates from there, and I--we should have had
more graduates but they did not have them. They were contract.
Let me go into something I am really upset about.
[Laughter.]
And I talked to you about this earlier. I mean, this budget
got put together--one part of the Service that traditionally is
one of the most unfunded parts of the Service got whacked
again. And it just drives me nuts, for a couple of reasons.
Once--I do not know whether you guys were aware of this when
this was done--but the budget, when it was racked and
restacked, or whatever you call it, Army Guard and Reserve got
cut by 75 percent. The question here is, is this an
administration policy? I do not think so.
But of all the Services that really suffer, first of all,
it is the Army. Second of all, the Army Reserve and Guard
always are behind everybody else and they have the worst
equipment, and I think your personnel policy is really
shortsighted, and your call-up. This is not necessarily a
problem of this committee, but it does affect MILCON in the
future, and how we spend funds.
And I hate to keep saying this, because the Army people get
upset with me when I do this--when I use this comparison. The
Air Force has figured out how to handle people in a call-up;
they do not call them up for long periods of time. We are going
to have a huge problem when these people come home of staying
in the Guard. People are already losing their jobs in the
Reserve. They are losing their jobs because of the manner in
which you called them up. I am not picking on you personally.
But the manner in which this has been done and the manner in
which this is being implemented is going to cost us a fortune
in retraining when we start all over again.
And you already cannot operate the Army without the Reserve
and the Guard. You do not have enough military police. You do
not have enough people--and some people will tell you that we
have taken it down too far to continue all the stuff we are
doing. But to treat the Army Guard and the Reserve by a 75
percent cut, when they already--you go out and look at their
trucks, you go out and look at their equipment--the worst
equipment is there.
And that is not true in the Air Force. The Air Force has
integrated itself. And they do not call their people up. And I
have tried--the TAGS across the country have tried to talk to
the Army about this, and it is like talking to that wall. They
do not want to listen, they do not care. It is going to cost us
a fortune.
And I tell you, it is like everything else we lose. This
came out of people's pockets, this money, people would start
looking at it smarter. Because you are going to have a huge
retraining. You have got a huge--just a huge problem.
And I will give you an example. One of the things I am
still concerned about, Doctor, is that a lot of these
projects--this $100 million that I talked about earlier, a lot
of those were executable in 2002. They were fences and other
types of things like that that could have been done. I was in
the Air Guard, but I feel for the Army Guard and the Army
Reserve. We have done a disservice to these wonderful people.
I have been called up. I know what it is to be called up
and sent away for a year. But when you are sent away for a year
to guard a facility in Newport, Indiana, and there are no
facilities for you to live in, no quality of life, nothing, and
you see no future, and then you hear that you might be called
for another year, if you think people are going to sign up and
people are going to stay, somebody is lost in the building, and
is just walking around in circles.
Because it is just not fair, and it is not right, and it is
not cost-effective. And it is going to cost you all in lots of
things down the road.
I am going to keep preaching this in every forum I can get
to, till we get somebody to listen, and not only listen, but
act. I can tell you, TAGS all over the country have talked
about this. It is a very high priority with them. But nobody is
listening and acting.
And some of this $100 million can be in there too--that
would send a good message, but the policy needs to be changed.
And I am so frustrated by it because we talked about this
when it started, I have talked about, I keep talking, I keep
chirping about it. And I do not like to get mad about it, but I
do not know any other way to do it.
You know, some people tell me, when we got into the problem
on Guantanamo, somebody said, ``Gee, why does he have to carry
a hammer?'' Well, let me tell you something: If you do not have
a hammer, nobody listens, until you bang somebody in the head
someplace and threaten certain things.
And, frankly, I guess some of the stuff that we asked to be
changed down at Guantanamo is being changed. We should not have
had--my point is, we should not have had to ask for that to be
done, that should have been within the department. But it is
getting done.
I do not know how much of this you can change in this $100
million here, when you look back at what is in it, but somebody
needs to go back and look at this 75 percent cut, because it is
just not the right thing.
Mr. Zakheim. A couple things. First, as you said, we do try
to be responsive. This year we went to the Services and
basically allowed them to make their priority choices.
It may not be satisfactory to you, but nevertheless the
2003 request, when compared to the pre-amendment request for
2002, is actually higher, significantly higher, and higher even
after inflation. In 2002 the plan originally was to ask for
about $224 million. You then amended it up to well over $600
million. This year's request is just short of $300 million.
Maybe it does not satisfy you, but it reflects a trend in the
right direction.
This does talk to Service priorities. I hear what you say.
We are going to look into it. We will be happy to look----
Mr. Hobson. But the Army was cut by--the Guard and Reserve
were cut by 75 percent.
Mr. Zakheim. I am not arguing with the number.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I just want you to state that you are not
arguing the number. It is. It is a real number.
Mr. DuBois. It is a fact.
Mr. Zakheim. It is a fact.
Mr. DuBois. Fiscal year 2002 as appropriated.
Mr. Zakheim. As appropriated. I am talking request.
Mr. Hobson. Gentlemen, gentlemen, we are talking about the
government of the United States. I do not care whether it is
appropriated or not appropriated, it was a fact that the money
was there, and it is the government's money, whether you guys
put it in or we put it in, and it is cut 75 percent. Now, are
you telling me we have got to go back in and raise it back up?
Mr. Zakheim. No. What I am saying no, on the contrary.
Mr. Hobson. It does not show much of a--let me put it this
way. Whether it is 75 percent or 50 percent, we can play with
the numbers. The worst facilities, the worst equipment, the
worst operations is the way the Army treats the Guard and
Reserve, of the reserve components, and to do this and then
call them up does not send the right messages. And then to call
them up in the manner in which they called them up and the way
they are treating them after they are called up is not the
right way to maintain it.
My problem is, it is penny wise and pound foolish, because
the next couple years you are all going to come back and say,
``Whoa, have we got a problem in the Army Reserve. We have got
to go through this recruiting program. We have got to have this
big thing because we have lost all these people.''
Proper personnel management and proper equipment management
would mediate a lot of the problem you are going to have. And I
do not know if they tell you this stuff, but if you get below
the officer corps, and there are a lot of officers that like to
be called up because they get points for retirement and they
make money, many times more than they make in their private
job; not true of the younger troops and the people we need. And
if we have to go out and retrain all these people again and go
out and encourage enlistments and do all this other kind of
stuff, it is going to cost us a lot of money.
I am trying to avoid all that money, and this kind of thing
just exacerbates the problem.
And I do not expect you to have to--you do not have to
defend it. The numbers are there. The facts are there. If you
can get people to go out and talk to these people they will
tell you. I have been there. They will talk to me because I was
a guardsman. If I can get rid of all the generals that are
around with me, they will talk to me, and they will tell me,
and they will call me afterwards, and they will do that to
other members when they go to these places. They will tell us.
And we get letters, we get phone calls, I get e-mails--well,
not from Korea, because I cannot get an e-mail from Korea.
[Laughter.]
But I get e-mails from other places.
Mr. Zakheim. I hear you, Mr. Chairman, and I will talk to
some of my colleagues. Look, we share the concern. We do not
want people in the Guard and Reserves to be unhappy because we
need them.
Mr. Hobson. And they are doing great work.
Mr. Zakheim. I will talk to my colleagues about that. We
will be back to you. We do try to be responsive.
Mr. Hobson. And, you know, this is our--first of all, I
have great respect for both of you. I mean, it does not appear
like it sometimes when we are doing this. But you have tough
jobs, you were very kind to come up and listen to us and react
with us, and we have shared some things, and we do, I think
more than it may appear in here, we do all work together, the
committee works together, to try to get this stuff done. But if
we do not air it out here then it just stays inside certain
scopes, and people need to know that we are working. You are
working, we are working. Sometimes we have a difference of
opinion how to get there, but our goals are the same, all of
us.
Mr. Zakheim. We agree.
Mr. Hobson. Anything you want to say, or you just want to
get out of here?
Mr. Zakheim. I will say thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
would like to thank the members. And I do want to reiterate
what you just said: Our goals are the same. It is a very
bipartisan subcommittee. We are all trying to do the same
thing, we are all trying our best, and we appreciate the
concerns and the strength of feeling that we hear.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
Wednesday, February 27, 2002.
U.S. ARMY
WITNESSES
HON. MARIO P. FIORI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT)
MAJ. GEN. ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MAJ. GEN. JAMES R. HELMLY, COMMANDER (TPU), 78TH DIVISION (TRAINING
SUPPORT), U.S. ARMY RESERVES
BRIG. GEN. MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. The committee will come to order.
Our hearing this afternoon focuses on the Army military
construction program, including family housing, base
realignment and closure, and the Guard and Reserve, which seem
to be left out of the Army's budget.
Our witnesses this afternoon are Dr. Mario Fiori, Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; Major
General Robert Van Antwerp representing the Army; Major General
James Helmly representing the Army Reserve; and Brigadier
General Michael Squier representing the Army National Guard.
I guess this is your last hearing, sir. You do not have to
go through this again. Your life is going to get back to
normal.
It is a pleasure to have everyone appear before the
subcommittee this year. We look forward to your testimony in
our third hearing on the construction program for the Army,
Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
It is known by many that I am not happy with the
department's fiscal year 2003 budget request for military
construction and family housing. The request is $1.5 billion
below last year's level. The funding level, along with the
sustainment, restoration and modernization funding level result
in the department's overall facilities recapitalization rate
increasing from 83 years to 121 years.
I find this lack of investment in infrastructure
unacceptable when there is a proposed increase of $48 billion
in overall defense spending.
We hoped to get an explanation on the formation of this
budget at our overview hearing this morning, which had to be
canceled due to a rescheduling conflict of Dov Zakheim.
Consequently, those questions will have to wait until another
hearing date can be rescheduled.
My main concern at this afternoon's hearing is, again,
overall funding levels. The Army's construction request is $286
million, or 16 percent below last year's level. The Army
National Guard account decreases by $304 million, or 75
percent. And the Army Reserve account decreases by $108
million, or 65 percent.
Although these funding levels are a disappointment, there
is some positive aspects of this request. I had to find some.
The request for barracks construction is $185 million above the
amount provided last year. $138 million is requested for
construction of facilities in Korea. This amount is
approximately $16 million more than last year's level. And
frankly, I am glad to see it there because Korea is an
abomination. The request for the family housing accounts remain
at last year's level at $1.4 billion.
We look forward to hearing your testimony on this budget
request and what you might have to tell us about how we can
work together to improve the facilities where our soldiers
work, train and live.
I want to say another thing. There is a lot of stuff--I
read a lot of articles--and I am going to write an article back
to some guy--about the military and pork. Well, let me tell
you, I looked through the Army's budget and I do not see one
project in the Army for the state of Ohio for the National
Guard or the Reserves. Not one. Now, you tell me that there
isn't one and then I put it in and it is called pork.
There are other times when the services will come to me and
say, ``We can't get this in down there, but can you help us
out?'' And then I hear grousing from the Defense Department
about it being pork.
Most of the stuff we have done has always been in the FYDP.
We always get a 1391 before we do them. So I am a little tired
of hearing some grousing and some stuff being fed to guys
writing articles about pork in the defense bill.
And I will tell you, I go on more bases than some of the
officers and some of the people who put these things together.
And if we want to go to pork, I will go to one of my favorite
places to show pork that the Army is doing, which I think is
absolutely outrageous. But I am not going to get into that
today. And there are a couple other places where I can show
great pork by the Army. Now, they do not call it pork because
they hide it. Or the Air Force or the Navy or the Marine Corp;
I am not pulling punches on that.
But I just think it is silly for us to get into this name
game. You know, I am willing to go to Arizona and look around
some things in Arizona and some other places that are designed
as pork. But when I save AFIT, at the Air Force Institute of
Technology, and it is considered pork, when a four-star tells
me that he wanted it saved, I get a little upset. So, if I am
upset about it and people are listening, fine. Because I am.
And I am tired of programs. There are certain programs that
we lose $30 million or $40 million--this is not in your
bailiwick--but we lose $30 million or $40 million because
contracts are not drawn right or something happens beyond that.
Those are the kinds of things I think are outrageous.
And there are some pork barrel projects; don't get me
wrong. I have had some fights over those and fighting some of
those.
So, I just wanted to tell you that before we got started
today just to set the tone a little bit here. And now I will
let John say anything that John wants.
John.
Opening Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Well, I am feeling crotchety, too today.
[Laughter.]
Glad to see you all again. I think we have had all of you
except Dr. Fiori. And so I am going to be very interested in
the testimony that he adds to this process. Maybe he will
resolve all our problems here, including the chairman's
problems.
I feel as deeply as the chairman does, but, you know, I do
recognize that the Army is facing some serious challenges. You
are prosecuting a war against terrorism. You are trying to
provide adequate force protection for troops and their families
in some difficult places. You are dealing with and trying to
correct what I continually find is a significant backlog of
facilities that are below standards. You are implementing, or
trying to, again, major transformations that are immediate and
long term.
So, these have some pretty heavy implications for the
military construction bill we have before us this year. And I
must say I am not buying the smoke screen that the reason why
we have been cut rather substantially on the military
construction--because I do not see any diminution at all of the
needs--that that is being done because we are waiting for the
next round of BRAC. I do not think that that is probably the
reason at all. Among these challenges, the Pentagon has other
priorities beyond the jurisdiction of the subcommittee at this
time.
So, I am deeply concerned about this budget because I think
that some of our major needs are not adequately addressed. But
I am looking forward to hearing what you may be able to tell us
about how we can help you address the military construction
problems that the Army has.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Let's see, I guess, Dr. Fiori, your written
statement has been entered in the record, but I would like you
to please summarize your testimony for us.
Statement of Dr. Mario P. Fiori, Assistant Secretary of the Army (I&E)
Dr. Fiori. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. We are all here very pleased to tell you about the
budget and comment briefly and highlight some of the programs
of the budget.
We have many challenges in front of us. Our goal is to
ensure that all garrisons, throughout the world, have an equal
and outstanding level of service for our soldiers and their
families. As I have visited selected Army installations, I have
observed the progress that has already been made. I attribute
much of this success directly to the longstanding support of
this committee and your staff.
The Army's overall budget request for fiscal year 2003
supports The Army vision--People, Readiness and Transformation,
and the strategic guidance to transform to full-spectrum force
while ensuring warfighting readiness. It reflects a balanced
base program that will allow The Army to remain trained and
ready throughout Fiscal Year 2003, while ensuring we fulfill
our critical role in the global war on terrorism.
Our military construction budget request is $3.2 billion
and will fund our highest priority facilities and family
housing requirements. In fiscal year 2002, we presented a
budget that was a down payment on our goal to better support
our infrastructure. When we developed this year's budget, in
light of the events that took place last year, we had some very
difficult decisions to make. The need to fund our military pay
raises, Army transformation, OPTEMPO, the war on terrorism,
increases in health care, and other key programs were all
included in the decision leading to our request. Thus, the Army
budget provides the best balance between all of our programs
including military construction.
A few critical areas in our military construction request
include The Army transformation at Fort Lewis, Fort Wainwright
and Fort Polk. We have eight projects for $195 million included
in the program to ensure transformation continues to progress
as envisioned by our leadership. We are continuing to validate
our construction requirements and schedule in projects so they
best match our deployment schedules.
The transformation includes not only projects for the
Active Army, but also to support the activation of the Army
National Guard units that are scheduled to convert to an
interim brigade combat team.
Army family housing is a success story this year. We are
now on target to eliminate inadequate family housing through
construction or privatization by 2007. Our budget includes $180
million for Residential Communities Initiative, to continue
acquisition and transition of the 11 installations currently
underway, and seven new installations for a total of 50,000
housing units.
RCI is a great success story. I visited Fort Carson on
Monday, and I am delighted to report that the program is three
months ahead of schedule and now has 338 new units occupied and
500 units renovated. The Army certainly appreciates your strong
support in making RCI a reality. I am pleased to advise you we
are also joining forces with the Navy at Monterey, and the
Coast Guard has asked us to assist them in New York City. The
combination of privatization and construction will meet our
goal of fixing family housing three years earlier than we
reported last year.
A portion of our Military Construction, Army, and our
family housing construction program this year is dedicated to
overseas construction. Seventy-five percent of the overseas
military construction request will be used to provide better
barracks for almost 3,000 soldiers mainly in Europe and Korea.
We are also constructing new facilities to support the
Efficient Basing, East initiative in Germany, which will
consolidate 13 small installations into a single installation
at Grafenwoehr. Two projects in our request will finalize The
Army's construction requirements for the Efficient Basing,
South initiative in Italy, which will station a second airborne
infantry battalion at Vicenza.
Mr. Hobson. I was just there at Vicenza for the reflagging
of that unit. It is very impressive. General Wagner does a
great job.
Dr. Fiori. Each project is vital to maintain a suitable
working and living environment for our soldiers and families
overseas. At the end of Fiscal Year 2003, we will have 106,000
of our permanent party single soldiers, which is 77 percent of
our goal for barracks modernization funded. Our strategic
mobility program, at the end of this fiscal year, will be 100
percent funded.
We will have completed all base closures and realignments,
and in the next two years will concentrate very seriously on
the final phases of disposal of these properties.
And the Army National Guard anticipates that 30 of the 32
weapons of mass destruction civil support team facilities will
be initiated.
As stewards of Army installations, we oversee other
programs, including our operation and maintenance funding for
sustainment, restoration and modernization. This year, we have
requested almost $2.4 billion to fund maintenance and repair,
which is 92 percent of our requirements.
In 1998, the Secretary of Defense set a goal to privatize,
whenever economical, all utility systems on military
installations by September 30, 2003. We are fully committed to
utilities privatization and, to date, the Army has privatized a
total of 25 systems. For Fiscal Year 2002, we have proposals
for 109 systems under procurement, and we expect to complete
privatization for at least 35 in this fiscal year.
Our enhanced use leases, real property exchanges and energy
saving performance contracts all contribute to taking care of
our installations. This year, we initiated a pilot program,
which Congress approved, to contract our first five years of
maintenance within the contract for three of our military
construction projects. This will ensure adequate maintenance
for the first five years and set a precedent for future
construction projects.
I want to conclude by telling you about one of the most
important initiatives in the facilities area: the way in which
the Army manages installations. Last year, the Secretary of the
Army approved the concept of centralized installation
management through a regional alignment.
We will implement this new management structure on 1
October of this year. A top-down, regional alignment creates a
corporate structure, with the sole focus on efficient and
effective management of all our installations. It frees up our
mission commanders to concentrate on readiness.
They will still have an influence on the important
installation decisions, but not the day-to-day headaches. We
believe centralized management will also enhance our ability to
integrate active and reserve components and to develop multi-
functional installations to support the evolving transformation
force structure.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing our
work and will always remember: ``Quality of life--first.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mario P. Fiori follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. We are going to put that up on a
wall one of these days when Barry gets around to us down here.
[Laughter.]
You want to have----
Major General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. A statement by General Van. Do you
have something you want to say?
Statement of Major General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr.
Major General Van Antwerp. Sir, I would just like to maybe
comment on a few issues, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
First of all to tell you today on average we have about
124,000 soldiers deployed overseas. We have an additional force
supporting the war on terrorism of about 14,000 deployed around
the world. And then we have 10,000 National Guard that are
supporting the states; an additional 26,000 Guard and Reserve
that are called on to support the war on terrorism. A lot of
them you see when you come into the Pentagon and see the guards
there. All doing an incredible job.
So one of our challenges today is to provide for the well-
being of those soldiers that are away from home station, take
care of their families where they are.
There is no question that the Army today feels that our
installations are readiness platforms, and they are very
important to the readiness of the Army. And there is an
initiative by the Chief of Staff to put together a strategic
readiness system that incorporates installations. Up to this
point we have had what we call the Installation Status Report,
and it was really done separately from the Unit Status Report.
The chief is blending those two so that installations are
figured into the readiness of the Army. So that is a real plus
in the area that we deal in.
I want to just give you a sense of our future facility
strategy and what the guidelines we're being given by DOD. One
is to improve the quality of all our facilities to C2 by 2010.
Another part of it is to get on a 67-year recapitalization
ramp, Mr. Chairman. You said this year it is at 121 in the 2003
budget. We need to get on that ramp for 67 years by 2010, and
we are targeting that as we work our POM. We are also supposed
to reduce the deficit to C2 in the next 20 years.
And then, finally, is to fund our new mission requirements.
As you know, the Army is transforming, and there will be
considerable mission requirements there.
Just one word on anti-terrorism force protection. In this
year's budget we have $350 million, that is the 2003 budget, in
O&M dollars. Those are basically to work the access control, to
work cargo inspection, in-transit security and generally the
security on the installations. We are also working to come up
with the other requirements it will take for the long term.
And, finally, I just want to say one thing about the land
partnership plan that is ongoing in Korea. As you know, without
BRAC authority they are doing something that is similar to what
BRAC did; they are closing a number of small installations,
allowing those installations to go back to the Koreans in
exchange for greater land masses around the installations that
we want to keep that are enduring.
Mr. Hobson. I just want to be sure that we do not give back
and then the other part never----
Major General Van Antwerp. Anything we need.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we do not give back and the other part
does not happen. In the past, one of the problems we have had
is that we do our part and then it takes years and years and
years and the other part just never, kind of, quite happens.
I also would like to see us do a program, which I suggested
to General Schwartz, like the Navy did in Naples, Italy, where
they got the host country private sector to build a facility
there, which was total housing, which we will not probably do
there. But they built a facility, we leased it from them, and I
think we have an option to buy at some point, but we leased it
to them and they built it, they used their money, and we leased
it, similar to what we do here in our privatization stuff. And
the Navy has already got a model, and I think General Schwartz
has sent his people over to look at it.
Major General Van Antwerp. Yes, we have talked about that.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I am just concerned that we have a
tendency to negotiate and we do not do a very good job of
negotiating, and we wind on the short end of those deals.
Major General Van Antwerp. Good caution, sir. And as we
look at the exchange, I mean, we need the new location to move
our soldiers to. So we are going to have to have those locked
in first, before we turn anything----
Mr. Hobson. Well, that has not always----
Major General Van Antwerp. It has not always happened. I am
working on that.
Basically, in 2003 we have six projects for $138 million as
part of this land partnership program. And, sir, that is all I
wanted to amplify on Dr. Fiori's statement.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you should amplify there are 37,000
people, I believe approximately, in Korea, which we do not take
very good care of. And I do not think it should be this
committee that should be the one carrying the torch on that,
although we have been. It should be the Army carrying the torch
on that. And it has not been in the past as strongly as, I
think General Schwartz has done a good job on that point.
If anybody has not seen his tape, they ought to see his
tape. He has got tape.
General Squier.
Brigadier General Squier. Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the subcommittee, as you indicated earlier, this is
my----
Mr. Hobson. I guess I should have gone with the two-star
first. But you are sitting in between there. Sorry, go ahead.
Statement of Brigadier Michael J. Squier
Brigadier General Squier. As you implied, this is my final
time in this current capacity to appear before this committee,
and I really appreciate the opportunity. This is actually my
fifth time.
We are a pretty busy Army National Guard, as General Van
Antwerp has implied. We have forces deployed in Afghanistan,
Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, as well as doing force protection in
Europe, and force protection here in the country. And, of
course, you are aware of our activities in the airports; and
our participation in the border mission is still being debated
right now.
On behalf of all of the men and women of the Army National
Guard, I appreciate the opportunity to present our budget for
2003. The budget request is an endeavor to provide quality
installations and continue to integrate the initiatives such as
the Army division redesign, which is part of transformation for
the Army, transformation itself, to include setting up an IBCT
in Pennsylvania, the Army National Guard facility strategy as
part of the Army's facility strategy; continuation of our
weapons of mass destruction, and, of course, the numerous force
protection initiatives that are important to us all since the
endeavors of September 11.
We are working diligently to determine the security of our
unique communities, over 3,000 armories and numerous other
facilities in more than 2,700 communities in all of our 54
states, territories, District of Columbia.
Your support of the Army National Guard Weapons of Mass
Destruction/Civil Support Teams in Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002
has enhanced homeland security and will go far to benefit the
31 states in our missions to support our citizens at home.
We are currently validating the force protection
requirements that I alluded to earlier with the Army to
determine the best protection for our facilities for the
future.
Our fiscal year 2003 military construction request of
$101.6 million will support programs that I just outlined in
both the transformation and in facilities strategy.
The focus on Army division redesign setting has been
ongoing now since 1996. The program converts up to 12 brigades
at a cost of, for this request, $26.8 million to transform one
facility in Alabama and North Carolina and two projects each in
California, Texas and Nebraska.
The rest of our major military construction budget request
is $55.2 million for five mission projects as part of the
facilities strategy. Included are two projects in Wisconsin,
which will replace part of an existing United States property
and fiscal office complex. This particular complex is made up
of 23 buildings ranging in year of construction from 1895 to
1980. The new facilities will permit our personnel to perform
the necessary mission tasks, as well as providing fiscal and
logistical support for the entire Wisconsin Army National
Guard.
Also included in the request is the first phase of
construction for administration buildings at Barber's Point
Hawaii. These units are currently housed in the pre-World War
II facilities and located in the Diamond Head State Monument
Area. Renovation at this building at Barber's Point will
benefit both the soldiers and the State of Hawaii. Upon
completion of the project, buildings within the Diamond Head
Monument Area will be vacated allowing the area to revert back
to a semi-wilderness condition.
Finally, as part of the Army's facility strategy, we are
requesting a readiness center at Summersville, West Virginia,
and phase one of an armed forces reserve center in Kansas. This
facility will be shared with the Marine Corps Reserve and the
counter-drug office for the State of Kansas.
General Van Antwerp has mentioned the centralized
installation management process. We in the National Guard,
because of the nature of what we are, will not be playing in
that initially. But we will be evaluating it as we go through
that with the Army to see the values and applications for the
future.
The Army National Guard is a viable and ready part of the
Army and seeks to remain so with modern facilities and higher
quality of life that are a foundation of readiness for our
future.
I thank you for this opportunity. I will be followed by
General Helmly and look forward to your questions.
Mr. Hobson. General.
Statement of Major General James R. Helmly
Major General Helmly. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee. At the risk of waxing
into informality, may I just note that I was in General
Squier's shoes several years ago and believed incorrectly that
I was escaping. So Mike could come back----
[Laughter.]
Major General Helmly [continuing]. As a late-round recall.
[Laughter.]
Of course, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, to represent the Army Reserve here today.
The demographic realities of the Army Reserve dictate the
need for a widely dispersed inventory of facilities. This is so
because, similar to the Army National Guard, but unlike the
active component of the Army, we are required to take the
facility to the soldier, rather than the reverse where we move
the soldier to facilities for training and housing.
As such, we are situated in more than 1,150 locations
around our nation and overseas with more than 7,600 structures
having an average age of over 40 years. The six Army Reserve-
operated installations add another 2,600 structures to that
inventory and on those installations, the average age is
approximately 47 years.
In general terms, as was noted by the members of the
committee, these facilities, similar to the Army Guard and the
active component, are now, ``showing their age.''
As it relates to facilities, the Army Reserve has adopted
clear priorities and an innovative strategy. Our priorities are
to focus on providing essential facilities to improve readiness
and soldier well-being, to preserve and enhance the Army's
image across America on Main Street USA, and conserve and
protect our facilities, particularly important subsequent to
the 11th of September.
Inherent in all of these efforts is an unwavering desire to
promote and maintain in the Army Reserve employees, family
members and soldiers' pride in themselves, what they do and
what they mean to our nation.
Our facilities strategy includes three basic and principle
thrusts: military construction, full facilities revitalization
and real property exchanges. All three work in tandem to drive
us toward the Army goal by significantly impacting
approximately 18 to 25 locations per year for new constructions
or major renovations.
Our MILCON budget request for fiscal year 2003 considers
the highest priority Army Reserve requirements. The request
seeks almost $49 million in Military Construction, Army
Reserve, and would permit construction of four new Army Reserve
centers in the states of Nebraska, New York, Texas and Virginia
to replace essential but outdated and inadequate facilities.
It would also permit a new addition to a North Carolina
reserve center, a new Marine maintenance facility for
watercraft in California and a battalion dining facility at
Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.
We also request $2.8 million for unspecified minor
construction to satisfy critical emergent requirements, and
approximately $7 million for planning and design funds to
ensure continuously viable military construction programs
through the FYDP period.
The second major thrust of our strategy is to use
sustainment, restoration and modernization, or SRM, funding in
a focused and directed way to accomplish full facility
revitalization, which is a holistic renovation of an existing
facility similar to the barracks upgrade programs within the
active component of the Army.
Full facility revitalization buys us approximately 25
additional years on facilities that would not otherwise be
addressed with military construction funds in the foreseeable
future. We are currently able to accomplish three to five of
these full facility revitalization projects per annum.
The final major thrust of our strategy is to maximize the
number of real property exchanges, or RPXs, which is a rapidly
growing means to gain new facilities. Real property exchanges
are cases wherein we realize new facilities as a result of
exchanges of existing property with other public or private
concerns on quid pro quo basis and at no cost to the American
taxpayer.
Long-term resource constraints in both military
construction and SRM have combined to accelerate deterioration
of our valuable facilities and infrastructure.
Our fiscal year 2003 budget requests also include
approximately $173 million for SRM, which equates to 91 percent
of our Army Reserve annual SRM requirement.
We also respectfully solicit your support for SRM as an
essential adjunct and enabler to our construction program.
As it relates to the Army's move to centralize installation
management, the Army Reserve is integrating its management
capability fully in the form of an Army Reserve support
directorate in General Van Antwerp's Office of the Assistance
Chief of Staff for Installation Management.
The directorate will function in a fashion similar to that
of the Army's new regional directorate that will focus on all
Army Reserve interests worldwide. The Army Reserves
appropriations will remain intact and under the purview of the
Chief Army Reserve as required by law, as the appropriations
director. We fully support the secretary of the Army's intent
in the centralized installation management matter.
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2003 budget request of $59
million for Military Construction, Army Reserve, and $173
million for SRM are critical for supporting the continued
readiness of the Army Reserve. We continue to remain grateful
to you, your committee, the full Congress and the nation for
the support that you have given and continue to provide to our
Army Reserve soldiers, our most valuable resource, the sons and
daughters of America. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. And now we will turn to questions
from members.
Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EFFICIENT BASING, EAST
Let me ask you first a simple one to get a sense here. I am
certainly, in general, of support of what you call efficient
basing initiatives and changing the footprint, as several of
you have talked about that both in Korea and in Europe. The
initiative in Germany, where 13 installations--or units of 13
installations are being consolidated in a single location in
Grafenwoehr in Germany, are all the MILCON needs for that
consolidation included in this 2003 budget?
Major General Van Antwerp. Yes. This year we have $70
million in the 2003 budget. There is an additional $492 of
MILCON to complete that.
Mr. Olver. $492 million?
Major General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir, that would be
programmed in the out-years. And another $99 million that is
for DOD schools, for commissaries, PXs.
Mr. Olver. So, you are not talking just about the
Grafenwoehr?
Major General Van Antwerp. No, I am talking about the
entire consolidation.
Mr. Olver. So you have $70 million in; will that complete
the Grafenwoehr?
Major General Van Antwerp. No, sir.
Mr. Olver. You will possibly need $492 million to do that
consolidation?
Major General Van Antwerp. That is the estimate right now:
$492 million of MILCON over the FYDP period.
Mr. Hobson. We do not get any money from the----
Major General Van Antwerp. We are working host nation where
possible. Most of the status of forces agreements you basically
turn the facilities back. It is really going to help on the
maintenance. We are maintaining 13 installations, the overhead
required for that, and a lot those facilities we need to either
upgrade them or move out.
Mr. Olver. How many total personnel will be at Grafenwoehr
when this is done?
Major General Van Antwerp. It is essentially a heavy combat
brigade. So, it will be in the neighborhood of probably around
4,000 total.
Mr. Olver. And you are saying it is going to take almost
$500 million to bring those 4,000 people from where they are
spread around in several different places?
Major General Van Antwerp. Some of it is training
facilities also.
Mr. Olver. Then let me ask another question. What you are
doing for this year, the $70 million that is in this year, is
this all training facilities, the combat readiness kinds of
things? What is left over for phasing?
Major General Van Antwerp. Basically, there are pieces.
There is a barracks for $13 million in this year's $70 million,
utilities infrastructure is $47 million to set everything in
place for the follow-on construction, and then site prep of
about $10 million. What we needed this year to be in phase was
$130 million, but because of budget constraints we are down to
$70 million for this year.
Mr. Olver. So, there is very little of the consolidation
can occur as a result of this. This is what you are intending
to do over a series of years for that one combat brigade. Oh,
my goodness. That has blown my mind about the amount that is
entirely necessary and how extensive this one particular
initiative is.
Let me go on to something----
Mr. Hobson. John, one thing you might do is do a cost
analysis that would help in this. If you are spending, say,
$500 million, what you are going to save from other things, X
amount of dollars, and then people will be a little more
comfortable with where you are. I think that would help a
little bit, John, I hope.
Mr. Olver. I am sure it would. Something might help.
Dr. Fiori. We are getting an independent check and it will
be ready sometime, hopefully, in March. We do exactly that. We
have done that already, but we are getting it independently
validated.
Major General Van Antwerp. It basically eliminates about
5.7 million square feet of facilities, and so most of those
facilities need to be replaced at the new location. But a lot
of those facilities are in C4 condition; what you would say not
mission capable. So that is, kind of, a magnitude of it.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Let me call one other line here. September 11 has caused a
great deal of rethink at the Pentagon and here on the Hill,
obviously. I am just curious whether the military construction
budget, since that happened then, your budget was in process
upward. How much reprioritization went on in the development of
this 2003 budget that we now are seeing? Can you give a sense
of what that might be, somebody?
Major General Van Antwerp. Actually, before 9/11, the Army
had already started to look at our force protection and our
terrorism needs. There was enough indication. So we convened
some teams that put together the requirements in more detail.
Basically, our strategy was, even without 9/11, to have the
ability to restrict access on our installations, protect key
facilities, to look at those places like chemical
demilitarization sites where we have storage of chemical
facilities that needed protection.
We did adjust some. We are still working the requirements.
But basically what you saw in 2002, the use of the DERF funds,
the MCA projects in that, and the $350 million that is in the
2003 budget are projects that have come out of that analysis. I
do not know if that gets to----
Mr. Olver. Well, I was not particularly aware. It certainly
was not a major thrust, as far as I could tell, the business of
force protection and access and things of that sort prior to 9/
11. But you are saying that was already in process in some kind
of a way.
Major General Van Antwerp. Much of it already was.
Mr. Olver. So it is a little difficult, then, for us to
assess. I was trying to get a sense of how much 9/11 changed
the way the budget is, the budget that is coming to us this
year from what you were planning to give us prior to that.
Major General Van Antwerp. I would say it has changed,
there is no question, it has increased it and it has increased
the tempo by which it was going to be done. We were going to
phase it over a number of years to be able to restrict access,
for instance, and now we have brought that in, very close in.
So it definitely increased the 2003 requirement.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING
Mr. Olver. How much money out of the $40 billion of
supplemental funding that was provided last fall, basically
October, has been given to you to do what would be military
construction things?
Major General Van Antwerp. Military construction, we had
about $56 million military construction, but altogether for
anti-terrorism, force protection, it has been about $900
million.
Mr. Olver. And that has already been allocated?
Major General Van Antwerp. It has been allocated out to our
installations.
Mr. Olver. Is that all Army? $900 million, is that to Army?
Major General Van Antwerp. I meant $900 million.
Mr. Olver. Out of the $40 billion, that has already been
allocated to the Army. How long will it take to actually do
those items? This is going to be expendable. It has not been
expended yet clearly.
Major General Van Antwerp. A lot of it has been expended on
installations, the protective barriers, the guard houses. Quite
a bit. And also some of it has been used for contract guards
overseas, because we are allowed to do that.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Fiori and Generals, thank you for your testimony
and your service to our country and to our Army.
I respect the testimony given today. You know, it
reinstills what I always felt about the Army. Whatever you are
given, whatever dollars, whatever resources, you are going to
stretch them as best as any human can and tell the best story
about the resources you have.
MILCON BUDGET--FY 03 VERSUS FY 02
You know, Dr. Fiori, your statement I think is excellent,
but it is what is not in the statement that I guess concerns
me. If I could turn to page 13, if you could look at that, I
would like to ask how these numbers compare to fiscal year 2002
by each category.
If I just listened to the testimony today and I did not
have some semblance what the Army budget was, frankly, I would
come away from this testimony thinking that the Army just got
the best deal it has ever gotten in the history of the United
States. You got the best military construction budget and
everything is great. We are going to meet all of our standards
by 2007 for housing. We are going to do all this and that. And
we are doing a lot of good things. But I am afraid this may
tell some of the good news, but does not tell the whole story.
So could I ask you, Secretary Fiori, and perhaps, if
necessary, the budget people, can you just quickly tell me,
next to the column ``new construction $27.9 million for 2003,''
what was that number for 2002, and just run down that list, and
then tell me what the percentage change that is Army family
housing.
How about just giving me the bottom-line numbers? I would
like to look at the bigger picture, the bottom-line numbers for
Army MCA compared to last year; is it an increase or a decrease
from the fiscal year 2002 appropriation?
Dr. Fiori. Oh, it is a decrease from the appropriation,
sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Now could I find that in your report
anywhere?
Dr. Fiori. I did not compare it with last year.
Mr. Edwards. How much of a decrease is it percentage wise?
Dr. Fiori. Sixteen percent.
Mr. Edwards. Sixteen percent?
Dr. Fiori. From the appropriation, yes.
Mr. Edwards. And if you add, say 3 percent inflation or so
on top of that, it is approaching a 20 percent cut despite all
the good news in here.
I am telling you, and this is not lodged at any of you
individually because I am absolutely certain none of you would
tell me that this was the request that you sent over to OMB.
But, I am reminded of a former governor of Texas who once told
me--and this was not the President but a previous governor--he
said this guy came into his office and said, ``You know,
Governor, I just want you to drown your opponent in this re-
election,'' and went on and on about how he wanted him to drown
his opponent. And finally gave the governor a check and the
governor looked at it, gave the check back to him and said,
``John, with this, I can't even get his toes wet.''
I feel like we have got these great narrative goals and
things we are going to accomplish. But bottom line is it takes
money to improve barracks, it takes money to deal with the
terrible infrastructure needs that are out there. And we are
talking about in effect, a 20 percent cut in your overall
budget. It was interesting, you know, I could not find that
anywhere in the statement.
Again, I am not blaming you. You are putting the best
possible spin on what is a difficult situation. I hope we can
end up helping with it. But I agree with the chairman, I hope
we do not end up getting attacked by the Department of Defense
for trying to get you back up to budget level that I am sure
you initially tried to ask OMB for.
LOW MILCON BUDGET
May I ask, is it safe to say that this was not the budget
that you presented to the OMB as representing the true needs of
the Army for fiscal year 2003?
Dr. Fiori. We negotiated the budget in-house where we did
all the trade-offs. And even our President's budget that we
submitted, it was higher than this year by $300 million.
So even that, you know, we were debating. And as I
mentioned in my oral statement earlier, there were lots of
trade-offs made. And my problem, being a beginner in this whole
process, or watching how it was done, it was really done in an
open forum with the Chief and the Secretary participating. And
the budget we came in with, I do not think has been modified by
OMB.
Mr. Edwards. So I have to go back to Army soldiers across
the world and if they show me the barracks they are living in I
can say that, you know, ``Your leadership of the Army said you
didn't need----
Dr. Fiori. I did not say that, sir. But in our barracks
program and in our housing program, we are pretty much on
schedule. I was pretty pleased by that.
Mr. Edwards. I am thrilled by----
Dr. Fiori. But there are some things that obviously need to
be done. There are a lot of places where our people work that
need to be improved. There are always needs. But the need has
to be balanced with other needs that the service has.
Mr. Edwards. I understand. You are doing as you did in your
testimony. You are presenting an honest, positive spin on what
I think is a very, very--I do not know of any other federal
agency that had come before a Appropriation Committee or
subcommittee and say ``We are thrilled, we only got cut by 20
percent.'' And I respect you for that. But it may be this
subcommittee's effort to try to improve it.
Let me just ask one last question because I think my time
is up for this round. You mentioned that 77 percent of the
soldiers live in barracks that meet Army standards. That means
23 percent live in barracks that do not meet modern standards.
What number would that be? How many soldiers would that be
Army-wide that are living in inadequate, outdated, below
standard barracks.
BARRACKS
Dr. Fiori. These are permanent party barracks that we are
talking about; soldiers are stationed there and live there on
the base. This does not include the student barracks and
others.
Major General Van Antwerp. All together, 100 percent is
161,000 barracks spaces. So it is essentially 23 percent of
that.
Mr. Edwards. Twenty-three percent of 161,000----
Major General Van Antwerp [continuing]. Are inadequate.
[The information follows:]
Higher ranking soldiers are allotted two ``spaces'' so the
161,000 barracks spaces translates to approximately 138,000
soldiers that require housing. With the funding requested in
the fiscal year 2003 budget, there will be approximately 32,000
soldiers still in inadequate housing.
Mr. Edwards. So about 35,000 or so are living in
inadequate, substandard barracks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. I am going to do an add-on to you that I do not
want to wait for it, because it goes with this thing. Let me do
this now. What amount did the Department of the Army send in to
the comptroller? What amount did the comptroller send to OMB?
Where there any PBDs that decreased the Department of the
Army's request to OSC or OMB? Can anybody answer that?
Major General Van Antwerp. To my knowledge, and not to
speak for Mr. Zakheim, but I do not think that OMB reduced the
amount that was sent over.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you have got the question. If I can get
answers to those.
Mr. Farr.
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CENTRALIZED INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
Mr. Farr. I have five questions and I will just take them
as time allows. The first question goes to your proposal in
your testimony about centralizing the installation management.
This seems like a very practical thing to do. I represent the
Defense Language Institute in Monterey. The Defense Language
Institute never seems to get any projects on FYDP list. I think
they get buried by TRADOC. And I want to know whether----
Mr. Hobson. And you and I do----
Mr. Farr. That is right. If it was not for the chairman and
ranking member, there would be no millioin projects at DLI. And
I think since 9/11 we have now discovered DLI is a very
valuable asset to the Army, as well as to the entire country.
The question goes to how this centralized installation
management allow us to get projects on the FYDP? Is it going to
speed it up? Is it going to be less bureaucratic?
Dr. Fiori. Well, we are going to try to, for one thing,
audit the DLI. We are looking at bringing our RCI program for
housing out there.
Mr. Farr. No, I mean, will centralization allow for a one-
stop that is going to be faster and more expeditious?
Dr. Fiori. We are going to look at the flow of the
programmatics, but ultimately we are going to end up again in
General Van Antwerp's office as far as the military
construction requirements go. The way they are going to be
developed is each of our regional directors will assimilate all
his regional garrisons and work on prioritization there. And
then he will recommend it to us. It is very similar to what we
are doing today with our military construction.
In that particular garrison, that is exactly what would
happen. DLI would go to our regional director, and then it
would come up to us.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Farr. Okay. I am advised that no military construction
projects for DLI have been approved in the FYDP for almost a
decade. We need new classrooms, we have needed new barracks,
now we are going to do the RCI projects. You know, since 9/11 I
understand that there are now 18 new languages that the Army is
going to be training in. Until I saw this request, I did not
know even half these languages were even spoken. But, where is
the backup to housing and to provide classrooms for these 18
new languages?
Dr. Fiori. Sir, I do not have an answer. I will try to find
out for you.
Van, do you have anything?
Major General Van Antwerp. I know that there is an
evaluation being done at the facilities, and we are going to
take that on in the 2004 to 2009 POM, and we will have a
facilities reporter there in the next several months. The IG is
responsible for the language training of the Army, and they are
the ones that say, ``We need these 18 languages.''
Mr. Farr. Well, we have the capacity, you own the land.
When you closed Fort Ord, you saved a lot of it. You could go
over there and build. There just has not been a willingness to
do that.
Major General Van Antwerp. They are assessing the existing
classroom space to see and if there is additional space----
Mr. Farr. You are going to need it. In other words, it is
not rocket science.
That is why I am wondering whether this is a new process of
making the decision? You now have a big mission for this great
school. DLI has testified before committees here that the
capacity is there, even for the intelligence issues that have
been raised on languages. Sort of a school within a school.
But it is never been a capacity issue. I think sometimes
the Pentagon thinks it is because of the expensive real estate
out there, but they forget that there is still a lot of
military property available.
But the difficulty has been and what this committee has
experienced is the process--from knowing there is a problem to
addressing the problem--something gets lost. And if it was not
for this subcommittee going out and visiting the school and
particularly the chairman taking a personal interest in it. You
know, force readiness is going to depend on communication
skills and understanding of languages.
DISPOSAL OF ARMY PROPERTY
My other question is, the testimony on page four, Mr.
Secretary, refers to the 200 million square feet of surplus
Army property being disposed in 2003. I do not know how you are
work in 200 million square feet. How many acres are you getting
rid of? Do you know what that translates into acres?
Dr. Fiori. Well, obviously we are talking about office
space rather than acreage in this particular thing.
Major General Van Antwerp. This is the facilities
description?
Dr. Fiori. This is the facility side itself that we are
talking about, we are locating that many square feet.
Mr. Farr. Does that include the BRAC actions of 1991, 1993
and other years?
Major General Van Antwerp. No, it does not include BRAC
acreage.
Mr. Farr. Does not. This is outside of BRAC?
Major General Van Antwerp. Right, right. In BRAC, we have
not disposed of a lot of acreage. We disposed of about 115,000
acres, which is about 46 percent of the total required for
disposal under BRAC. So we have another 133,800 acres to
dispose of yet.
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Major General Van Antwerp. And the primary reason for those
is environmental considerations.
Mr. Farr. Could you break those figures down between what
is BRACed and what is not BRACed, and what----
Mr. Fiori. What we just gave you, sir, is all BRAC. The
numbers that the general just gave you are BRAC numbers. In our
BRAC program we expect that we have to get rid of 250,000
acres.
Mr. Farr. But the 200 million square feet is just----
Mr. Fiori. That is office space.
Mr. Farr. Yes. That is not BRAC?
Major General Van Antwerp. No, it is not BRAC acreage. It
is facilities based on installations that we are not closing
under BRAC, and that are excess facilities.
Mr. Farr. And they are not being passed on to anybody.
Nobody is going to receive that. They are not excess property
in the sense that they go through a disposal process.
Major General Van Antwerp. Excess facilities do not go
through a disposal process, but we look at clearly where we
might have needs for those facilities. Like right now, we are
finding, when we mobilize Guard and Reserve forces, we need
spaces on the installation for those. So we relook that, what
is excess all of the time, to see that we do not tear things
down that we are going to need to turn over and use in the near
future.
Most of that is in the World War II wood category and
really needs to be torn down. In some cases, to make room for a
new barracks project----
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Major General Van Antwerp [continuing]. And other
facilities.
DISPOSAL OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROPERTIES
Mr. Farr. Now what I do understand clearly from your
testimony is that your planning to have all of the BRAC
property cleared before the next BRAC round? All disposed of?
Dr. Fiori. We are going to work hard at getting a lot of
that additional 153 percent that we have, we are going to try
and get rid of a lot of facilities.
Major General Van Antwerp. This next----
Dr. Fiori. We are going to expedite our environmental
cleanup. We are going to look at the whole holistic picture and
see what each of our facilities are that we have to get rid of.
It is something we need to do. It cannot be accelerated. I
have actually hired someone that is going to be concentrating,
a very senior guy, just to pay attention to that so we can
dispose of the entire property.
Mr. Farr. Well, see, what I think is so encumbent upon the
Army to do this expeditiously----
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Because our colleagues, and more
importantly the communities they represent, who are
interrelated through the National League of Cities and county
supervisors association--the local electeds--are going to ask
the ones who have experienced the BRAC, ``How's it going?''
And I think you are going to get a very negative report
card because it has taken so long. It is not because the end
result is not a good one. It is just that the process is so
long, so cumbersome. Not all your fault; there are a lot of
environmental issues there.
But we can make BRAC--because I think we know we have to do
it--we can make BRAC less painful and less difficult,
politically and cost wise, if we can engage the communities in
allowing them to know what is going on at these bases. I have
urged our governor in California to do an assessment of every
military installation in California.
The states ought to know what there is there. And not only
what the real estate is, but what the fixed assets are, because
often you do not take those with you. And you will end up with
communities like we saw in San Antonio with Brooks Air Force
Base, where the community came in and said, ``We would like a
partnership with the Air Force.'' So essentially, it did not
make it BRAC-proof, but it certainly did everything up to that,
I think.
That was a smart partnership. And if we could encourage
communities to partnership with bases, you would not have them
screaming about, ``Do not close it under any circumstances and
not in my backyard.'' And you might end up finding ways to get
revenue for the Army that you have not ever thought of before.
I think we have a total lack of involvement in the local
political process with the military. You know, the ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. Because if you announced
the closure, instead of everybody saying, ``Well, we are going
to do everything politically possible to stop it,'' which is
what happens here, to saying, ``Well, we do not like it, but we
see all kinds of opportunity for us to engage in this closed
base. And maybe, as you did at Fort Ord where you downsized it
and now there is a need for additional housing, it is going to
work out fairly well.'' But you know, that was 10 years ago.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE--FORT ORD
So the opinion on Fort Ord if you ask local electeds, is
they are going around saying to other people, ``How's your base
going?'' and they say they heard about Fort Ord, I think the
local opinion would be, Do not ever go through it. It is a
mess.
So whatever you can do to expedite and to engage those
bases that have not been closed yet in getting a more town-gown
relationship, I think is absolutely in the best interest of the
Army and the interest in your long-term mission.
Dr. Fiori. It is certainly a lesson learned. And the
secretary and I certainly discussed how to include this faster.
And in our planning for future BRACs, we are certainly going to
include that very specific issue in detail.
One of my goals in trying to get rid of this stuff now is
so we do not have and have shown what we can do in an efficient
manner with what we still have left to give to the communities.
So, I agree with that.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to try to get another round if we
can here.
Virgil.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NON-CITIZEN MEMBERS OF U.S. ARMY
Mr. Secretary, this is a question relating directly to your
testimony. How many non-citizens are members of the United
States Army?
Dr. Fiori. Sir, I will have to find out. I do not know. I
will report back to you.
[The information follows:]
Non-Citizen Members of the U.S. Army
There are 85 officers and 9 warrant officers (94 total) who
are non-citizens in the United States Army. There are 5,454
enlisted that are not U.S. citizens. A total of 5,548 personnel
that are non-citizens in the United States Army.
Mr. Goode. That is my one question.
Mr. Hobson. Kay.
INTERNET USE IN KOREA
Ms. Granger. Yes, I had the opportunity to finally get to
Korea and see some of what we had heard about insofar as the
housing and whatever. And although we have had hearings and
seen pictures, it was much worse even than I had expected. And
I think we have been making some inroads from this committee in
improving things there.
But one of the things that General Schwartz talked about
was Internet connectivity and hardware, because there are so
few that can bring their families over, or I would think even
want to bring their families to those facilities. But to have
daily e-mail contact with their families. Where are we with
that process? You know, I was impressed with South Korea and
what they have done with Internet. So it did not seem like it
should be that difficult. Where are we on that process, sir?
Dr. Fiori. Well, one thing I do know is that our chairman,
Mr. Hobson, certainly helped us a lot with the status of it. We
have been working very closely with our country people. But the
details, I really have lost track of. We are going to have to
give you a delayed answer.
Mr. Hobson. I will do it.
Dr. Fiori. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hobson. I think that as we speak, Microsoft and the
Army are together. Microsoft has offered, I think gratis, their
services to the Army to rectify this problem. That looks to me
like they will be done--and it shows you how smart some of
these people are. You know, we were going to go through this
big, expensive hardware deal. And they came in and sat down and
in about 20 minutes the guy says, ``No,'' he says, ``I think we
can tap into''--of course, this is non-secure stuff--``we can
tap into South Korea and put lines all over South Korea.'' We
can tap into those lines. We can put up these mobile or non-
fixed asset up on places around, and people can get their
Internet service that way off the South Korean lines that are
there.
I think it is working pretty well now. We had a little
glitch, but I think it is back on track.
And I think you are right, I think that is a very strong
quality-of-life problem in Korea. The thing I just do not
understand, and this is what I do not understand, is why this
comes out of this committee to fix that and why it took the
services so long to do it.
And then when they came with a program it was going to be
very expensive. And the program we are going to do, I think, is
going to be far less expensive. And that should have come out
of the Army doing itself and assessing what the quality-of-life
problems are.
But that came out as the result of a trip, because when I
went there, I said to some of the Army people, ``What about the
Internet?'' And they said, ``Duh.'' But if you talk to the
young people there it is just like the movies. Nobody talked
about the movies. We charged young people, we keep them on base
in Okinawa and keep them on base in Korea, and we charge them
for movies because the movie industry gets a great rate draw
from our services that I think is outrageous. And I hope
somebody listens to that, but nobody has so far.
And so who winds up paying for the movies? The kids we want
to keep on base, the kids we have got single overseas that we
do not let them take their families. And then we wonder why
some kids get in trouble or why people have trouble with
divorces and they cannot communicate.
I know, Brigadier General-Select Sinclair is working very
hard on that with General Schwartz as we speak. And as late as
two days ago, we were poking at this thing to try to get it
done. And I think the Army has gotten the message. I will be
very frank with you, I think the speaker's trip to Korea was
very helpful that you were on in bringing some of these issues
out.
Major General Van Antwerp. As soon as they get the wireless
network like the Blackberries that people have today, they will
go in and they go into the fixed lines. But it eliminates the
need to have any hard wire in one of our buildings, which is
great.
Mr. Hobson. That was the original proposal, right? I do not
know much about that stuff, but the Microsoft guys did.
Ms. Granger. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. I am going to ask three real quick questions.
And I would like to come back if you guys want to come back.
But we have got a few minutes here.
ARVIN PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Hobson. Last year, the committee amended authorization
language for the West Point gym. The new authority provides a
total of $102 million for the project. Will the $102 million be
sufficient for completion of the project?
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir, it will.
Mr. Hobson. General Van?
Major General Van Antwerp. Well, you never know when you
get into construction. You know that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Hey, I am telling you--hey, guys, guys, this
thing started out, you know, we changed the language for what
you guys said it would be and what the bid said it would be.
And there is a reprogramming coming over I said I would sign.
Major General Van Antwerp. It is more than sufficient.
Mr. Hobson. I am just, you know----
Dr. Fiori. I have been really anxious in trying to get that
document over to you. As a matter of fact, it has been sitting
up and languishing in the OSD house. I hope it does get here as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Hobson. I do not know about John, but I told them I
will sign it when it comes over. But that better be the last
one and you better hope I am not here if it changes.
COMMISSIONING
On the commissioning program, you have talked about and I
think I would just like to reinforce it, do you think there are
strong benefits to using that program, the commissioning
demonstration program that you are doing? You talked about that
a little bit, one of you did.
Dr. Fiori. Well, I did. I brought it up. It has a lot of
potential. I would like to see how it is going to work. We are
doing three more this year. And I really did not ask for any
additional ones beyond just the three.
Mr. Hobson. Are you going to ask for additional authority
on that? Do you need----
Dr. Fiori. We would like to do a whole bunch more because
obviously it works. I do not have to worry about them. I could
use the internal funds for other things. And having to use
contractor do it and be responsible for the five years of
maintenance. I would not want him to take advantage of that by
building a bad facility and then fixing it with the funds.
GUARD FACILITIES--NEWPORT, INDIANA
Mr. Hobson. One thing I am concerned about while I have got
you here and everybody here, you know, I do not know what we
are going to do long term in a place like Newport, Indiana.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. You have got National Guard there, and I am
sure you have got Reserve in places like that elsewhere. That
is an isolated place with no amenities, and you have got people
called up out of their jobs. They are motivated, but their
living conditions are not very good, to say the least. Have you
seen where their beds are and where they have to go to the
bathroom, take a shower down the street in a trailer? Where
they eat is not bad, but it is not the most pleasant place.
You can do that for a few months. And you are going to have
to rotate people. But if you continue that as a long-term
mission, and I mean three or four years until you can get that
place where you do that system on that stuff that is in there,
that is too long, in my opinion, to keep those people and to
keep that unit on an OPTEMPO like that.
Same way with the people you are using--and you are housing
them. That is why I bring it up here; I am going to bring it up
in the big committee, too.
NATIONAL GUARD--FORT KNOX
But the same way at Fort Knox, which I went to Fort Knox.
You are using people who have high-skilled jobs, you take them
down there and you take their weapons away from them--you know,
you let everybody else have their weapons, but not the National
Guard, which is a problem. And you have them checking cars.
This is not their basic skill level. Their skill levels are
much higher than this.
Housing is a problem. Housing, of course, is a Fort Knox
problem. And I have only been to those two, and it has got to
be a marriage. In the same way now most of the people in the
Air Force you put in motels and stuff, but that is going to
come down, too. Those are problems.
PUEBLO--HOUSING
Dr. Fiori. Definitely are, sir. You know, I saw the housing
yesterday at Pueblo, which has another Army National Guard unit
from California and Texas in there. They are having these men
living in cubicles of six per. That is the best we have. We are
looking at other ways to expand. Of course, I cannot shut that
place down for at least two years.
Our goal, of course, is to at least come to
demilitarization facilities or get them shut down as soon as
possible. We will be putting a program together to accelerate
it. That still does not answer the question on a place like
Indiana, where the resources are limited. And, you know, after
you visit it and I visit it, we may make some headway, but I
cannot give you a report right now though. I will give you a
report on the Indiana one.
Mr. Hobson. My problem is just not those. My problem is
that you are going to have a morale problem over a period of
time, and you are going to have these families that are not
expecting these long terms. And as long as you can fill them
with volunteers, too, that is another--this idea of calling
people up, a whole unit up for a year; if you can fill it with
volunteers so that they go in and to the mission and then come
back out, it is a lot easier than calling up somebody and
having half of them sitting around doing nothing some place.
Major General Helmly. If I may, the Army is surveying those
sites. Initially, we are designating some sites as austere
sites where we will leave those soldiers on six-month rotation
as opposed to the soldiers being there for an entire year. And
that is to recognize the specific issue that you just referred
to.
Dr. Fiori. The other thing that would really help us, of
course, particularly when you mentioned the Guard force, or
sentry forces and such, I know we put in last year and probably
we are going to do it again, legislation to help us in that
area to allow us to hire professional people and professional
contractors to take care of our Guard force, which we are
somehow forbidden from doing right now.
Mr. Hobson. One of the things that would help, too, is some
help.
We have got five minutes or seven minutes to go vote. We
will go vote and come back because some people have more
questions. We will try to get this done as soon as possible. We
will stand in recess for about 15 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hobson. Why don't we start back up even though my
ranking member is not here? I do have one member of the other
party here, and he has some questions he would like to ask.
So, Sam, you are up.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. If Chet comes in, he has got some questions he
would like to ask.
UXO--SMART TEAMS
Mr. Farr. I just want to, for the record compliment the
department and the secretary on creating the SMART team. The
SMART team is headed by the work of a retired military officer
named Dick Wright. And I think Dick is a great--I have never
watched anybody in front of a group of people handle tough
questions about UXO cleanup and to be able to facilitate the
angry concerns of a community versus the need to do the right
thing and bring all the environmentals together.
So I am here to praise the work of his leadership of that
SMART team, and I hope you will use him. I know Congressman
Manzullo told me it was the best thing that ever happened to
his district was bringing that team in.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AT FORT ORD
You are working at Fort Ord on UXO and environmental
restoration activities at BRAC installations. And in that you
give a figure of $149 million as being budgeted for this
activity this year. I think our subcommittee is going to have a
separate hearing on UXOs, but $149 million is just not going to
reach the bases that you are trying to clean up.
We are spending about $22 million per year for UXO cleanup
at Fort Ord. Ray Fatz testified at our congressional panel in
Monterey in August that the estimated cleanup for Fort Ord was
about $327 million.
In light of that, how can $149 million reach the number of
bases that you need to clean up this year? And I am wondering
if you could just work with those numbers to show me where you
came up with that figure, and how much of that is going to be
allocated to the activities at Fort Ord?
I do not know exactly how many bases you are dealing with,
but again, it goes to the earlier point that if these bases are
not cleaned up prior to the next BRAC go-round, that will be
the headline of all the newspapers, is that they have not even
been able to complete what they----
Mr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr [continuing]. Put up in the past before they even
started a new round.
Mr. Fiori. The UXO certainly is an issue. I talked to Ray
today and it is not a pretty picture no matter how you cut it.
On this sort of funding level, we are going to have a good 80
years before we get one of these places cleaned up.
Right now the money we are using predominantly is to find
out the extent of the problem in most cases, and find some
technologies on how to alleviate the problems. And then we do
have to practice those, as I mentioned to you and I am really
pushing to concentrate on. So we are trying to focus on a
cleanup, a physical cleanup in those areas.
It is a tough issue. And there is no easy solution, except
we are trying to organize ourselves in a manner to become more
efficient and have a central control. Installation management
will help us also at Monterey.
I have gone to enough places where I have asked the
question, ``So you are going to be finished with chem demil.
What else do I have to dig out?'' And, you know, it is like the
deer in the headlights. ``We haven't done it yet.'' It has been
the lack of funding in a lot of the areas to find out the
extent of the UXO problem.
Van, do you have anything else on it?
Major General Van Antwerp. We will get you the figures,
sir, on what is being spent at Fort Ord, in particular. But my
focus of the task paper here is that we spent a total of $318
million since 1992 already.
Mr. Farr. At Fort Ord or totally nationwide?
Major General Van Antwerp. At Fort Ord.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION NATIONWIDE
Mr. Farr. Well, then that goes to the question of this
budget year, how are you going to do that with $149 million
nationwide this year?
Major General Van Antwerp. Well, we have about 26
installations. We have closed 112 and realigned 27. And of
those 112 we closed, there are about 26 installations that have
the brunt of the environmental cleanup remaining. They have
been closed so they are in a mothball status, but not disposed.
So we are looking at several things. We are looking at a
fixed-price remediation contracts where we get a developer in.
We are looking at several alternatives some of which Dick
Wright is really making a contribution there.
But we have phased this. Frankly, as we look out into the
program, we have got about $236 million that is going to be
programmed beyond the 2008 period. So some of these sites are
going to be pump and treat for 30 years.
Mr. Farr. I understand that. And once you have decided that
you have those types, the EPA requires that you have to have a
proven technology in place, then you can transfer the property.
As long as the surface is clean and the technology you are
using underground for remediation of contaminated aquifers and
everything is proven technology--and you have done that. I
agree with that. But that is just an O&M cost after that.
The thing I am getting to is you have got two proposals
here. One is that we are going to do a buy-out. And I like that
idea. You did that at the Presidio in San Francisco. And it was
an expensive buy-out. It is going to be expensive. There is no
way in the world that $149 million can even be--you cannot have
a dime in that figure because that is a----
Major General Van Antwerp. I think it is $100 million at
Presidio, for instance, for the buy-out.
Mr. Farr. Yes. The chairman is going to schedule a hearing
on UXOs. I think this is an account that nobody has really got
any understanding of how you are going to get there from here.
Your money is too little. The problem is too big.
And the difficulty is you cannot just fence these things
and walk away from them, because you have got the huge
liability issue and you are always going to have that. But you
have then got the public relations thing and, ``What the hell
is this all about? This base closure isn't base closure. There
is no use of the property. We cannot get access to it. The Army
just says they are going to clean it up and they don't because
they cannot afford it. They just put a fence around it and walk
away.''
And it is an Army responsibility because no other service
has the skills to do the UXO. I mean, this is your bailiwick.
So perhaps not at this hearing, but at the next one that
the chairman has, we can get into this account and really
figure out how you are going to budget for UXO in the out
years.
Major General Van Antwerp. We have looked at all those
properties, done the characterization. We are refining those in
some cases. So we have a fairly good sense of what it would
cost to do the cleanup. But as you say----
Mr. Farr. But it is not reflected in that figure.
Major General Van Antwerp. Well, this is what the budget
would allow, frankly. As we put the budget together--because it
would take a much larger portion if we are going to take care
of that in say, a four-year horizon or it, sort of, depends on
what your horizon for clean up is and what we can afford. It is
an affordability thing. The requirement is bigger than $140
million, no question.
UXO CLEANUP
Mr. Farr. But it is an affordability issue that goes to
almost everything else. How are you going to come to Congress--
and we have already acted on your request--not your's but the
President's request for another BRAC round in 2005. The big
issue is still going to be out there from today to 2005. Well,
what about UXO cleanup and is the Army committed to it?
So you can say we could not afford it in year 2002. In 2003
when we are doing this budget, we just could not fit it in.
What kind of statement is that to every base out there and
every community, including Washington, D.C., that has some of
this UXO problem, that we are really dealing with it?
Major General Van Antwerp. Well, I think, right now our
target on the wall is not to have all of these cleaned up from
UXO by the time the new BRAC rounds. Every BRAC round we got,
we did not have the former sites in the earlier BRAC rounds
cleaned before the next round. We are still doing some out of
the 1991 round.
I understand. I mean, I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Farr. It is not rocket science. What needs to be done
at least is a schedule saying, ``We are going to clean up so
many acres, so many properties per year that will be released
for reuse purposes. And on that schedule you can see that there
is a light at the end of the tunnel.''
But I am not sure that that schedule even fits in with $149
million if you are going to do in any reasonable way. We would
like you to clean up on an acre-by-acre, not square-foot,
basis.
Major General Van Antwerp. With this $149 million we are at
about 46 percent of the acreage that we are going to get
another almost 20 percent out of this $149 million, because we
have done a lot of work on those. It is not that we are
starting cold on those now. But to get to the 100 percent, as
you say, it is a long process.
But we can lay that out for you, what we expect to get with
this $149 million or what we expect to get every year.
Mr. Farr. Appreciate that, because these questions are
going to come up at a later hearing, and it is good preparation
for that.
And the last, if I may, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
I would really like to see, Mr. Secretary, about how to
optimize the public relations of base closure and base reuse
and base cleanup; it all fits together.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
The one issue you are going to find, particularly in the
West, and I think it is going to hit the East Coast. You know,
we have bases where people are. And the places, the towns and
communities where people are, are now becoming the most
expensive communities in America, particularly in California.
Why that is an issue to the Army, affordability in a
community, is because no matter where you are training people,
you are hiring a professional civilian community to work with
it. Particularly in our area, it is languages. Or in the Navy,
it is the post-graduate school, it is university professors.
The civilian community needs housing to live in. And we
have never had enough housing on all of our bases to house all
of the military personnel or even the civilian community that
work for the military personnel, on military bases. So we are
going to have to rely on private sector housing. Housing is
selling in California at $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 for a
home--you know, the home you grew up in. And on the salaries
that we are earning, even members of Congress cannot qualify
for loans on those houses.
So land is going to be the most valuable asset we have. And
I think there needs to be some long-range planning on how are
we going to house the people that the military needs to house
for its mission, not just men and women in uniform but for the
civilian professional community and for the workforce. We are
going to have to use military land to do that.
And as we face another BRAC round, perhaps some of that
land ought to be set aside for housing. Maybe it is not needed
for the mission any more, but it is going to be needed for
military housing. And you are going to have to clean it up and
do all of those other things because that housing is now going
to have to meet local and state codes and environmental
standards. And so it has got to be a higher standard than
historically the military has had to live up to.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE PROPERTIES
So there is going to be some cost in it. And my whole point
is that this cleanup, this BRACing, this housing, all of these
demands out there are all interrelated. And there are some
attitudes in Washington, ``Well, when we have a military asset,
we have land, we ought to sell it for the highest and best
use.''
The minute you sell that land you are not going to put
affordable housing on it. Whereas, as you give it away or as
you reuse it or put it in some kind of housing trust, it is
used for a public purpose, and that purpose, I think in most
cases, is what I am suggesting--to help the overall military
mission.
But the right hand and left hand have got to start
discussing it. And as a new BRAC round comes around, I think
you ought to look at the assets and say, ``Well, this asset may
not be appropriate for the military mission; we may need to
consolidate or move or close. But we certainly may have another
use for this property that is in--that is particularly for
housing.''
Dr. Fiori. One of our mainstays in turning over all of the
property is working with the local reuse authorities.
Mr. Hobson. But he has got people who we are giving it to
and then they turn around and sell it for a half million
dollars an acre. And that is part of the big----
Mr. Farr. Exactly. The reason they are selling is because
they need income--the above-ground contamination and the fact
that everything on the base does not meet code, that the
infrastructure has totally got to be rebuilt. There is no tax
base on the base. The teardown of the buildings, which are lead
and asbestos, are on the local dime. And essentially they have
no pot of money that they can access to do all of the
responsibilities they have. So the only solution is to sell the
property that they have been given free. And they are allowed
to do that.
I am fighting them and saying, ``Wait a minute, don't sell
this property because we need to build all the housing I just
talked about.'' And I am having people in the military tell me,
``We need now this housing.''
When the base was closed, the Defense Language Institute
was not at full capacity. It had 2,000 students; it is now
4,000 students. The Naval Postgraduate School, which has a
capacity of about 2,000 students was at about 1,200 students.
It is now at 2,000 students, many of whom are foreign officers.
So the demand for the missions of those two schools that
have not been closed, and hopefully never will be, is housing
that we should never have downsized.
So somebody in the Pentagon was not thinking about the
future of these missions and other services and this housing
need. And frankly, we were not thinking about it in 1992. But
in the year 2002, it is the number one issue for everybody in
California. I do not care if you are a doctor who wants to go
out there and start a practice--you cannot hire people. We
cannot hire anybody because there is no affordable housing.
Our communities are going to fall apart. And if the
underlying community falls apart, the mission of the military
there is going to certainly fall apart.
So I am pleading with you--and I know our subcommittee has
been on top of it and this chairman has been so excellent in
this, because he understands this better than anybody else in
Congress. We have the ability, and you have it because you
control the dirt, to do things that are necessary in modern
times that have historically never been necessary in base
closure and management of land and contracting out for base
operations and doing the RCI and inviting the private sector in
and challenging them.
I mean, there is nobody making any more land. I do not
think we ought to ever sell the land. I think we ought to go
out and just lease it all. And you know, you and I have talked
about that. I do not even think we need to put up money for
this stuff, except out in a remote area where no private sector
will go.
But I think the Army has been afraid to engage the private
sector in solving some of your problems. And we have got all
the assets. All the marbles are on our side.
I talk to contractors. I said, ``When you build an
apartment house, do you know you are going to get 100 percent
occupancy the first day?'' They say, ``Oh, absolutely no. We
have to pay a lot of marketing fees and we have got to go out
and attract people. We have to make sure that we can hold this
property for a year without rentals because we don't know when
anybody is going to move in. We don't know if anybody is going
to buy the houses we are going to sell. We speculate on it. We
think we have got a pretty good idea.''
But in the military, you have got 100 percent occupancy the
minute your project is completed. Where is the risk?
Dr. Fiori. Well, I certainly agree there. That is a pretty
good deal.
Mr. Hobson. And they are getting better in the financial
packages they are putting together, I think, today that what
you were doing when I got here a couple of years ago.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE--LOCAL REUSE AUTHORITIES
Dr. Fiori. We are. But the fact is, we are still working in
each of the base closures with a local reuse authority. And we
have to honor lots of the wishes there. And we are finding
ourselves in other places, not Fort Ord, where, one of the
communities is suing us because the other community wants to do
it. We are being broken between the communities as we try to
cooperate with them.
So we do not have total control over how these places are
going to be used because of that, because we have been given
this guidance that we have to work with these communities. It
is a tough issue.
Mr. Farr. Well, there are two sides to base closure. There
is the Washington side of what is going to close, and then
there is the disposal side.
Dr. Fiori. That is right.
Mr. Farr. We ought to revise the disposal side because we
now know a lot of good and bad practices. We could revise it
and write a much better bill. I tried to do that. It is
complicated. But if we can engage people in your shops to be
interested in this, we ought to look at the pitfalls of
existing law that prohibit us from doing best management
practices.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Vitter?
Mr. Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. ARMY SOUTH HEADQUARTERS RELOCATION
And thank you, Mr. Secretary and generals for being here.
I have a few focused questions. The first couple are about
the possible relocation of U.S. Army South Headquarters
currently in Puerto Rico. The Louisiana delegation has written
Secretary White about this asking for information and updates
because we would like to compete basically to meet that need if
it moves. I know there is other interest, particularly from my
Texas colleagues.
Mr. Hobson. Florida, Georgia, Mississippi----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Vitter. I was not claiming to give you the whole list.
Mr. Hobson. There is a whole list.
Mr. Vitter. And so you have a lot of letters of inquiry,
including from Louisiana.
Last year in the Senate appropriations bill it actually
contained report language on the issue directing the Army to
provide the House and Senate Appropriation Committees the
results of the study on the issue and any further updates.
So, where are we on that?
Major General Van Antwerp. First of all, right now we are
studying what the mission needs of SOUTHCOM, that is the Army
component USARSO, the support staff. NRG3 is taking that on.
In addition, DOD is looking at what we call the Unified
Command Plan to see are all the existing CINCdoms, including
SOUTHCOM, going to be the CINCdoms that we need for the future.
So we have got a couple of big issues that have to be solved
first.
If it is decided that SOUTHCOM remains, then USARSO is the
component that will support that. The feeling right now from
the commander there is that they ought to come out of Puerto
Rico. There are perhaps other places where you can support the
down-range part, and that is really what they have, the Central
and South America effort, just as well as they could from
Puerto Rico that would be easier to get workers.
And part of the problem there is we have had a moratorium
on military construction, for one thing. We have a $25 million
housing project we have been unable to build down there. So,
provide the quality of life.
Mr. Hobson. Why?
Major General Van Antwerp. Because of Vieques. It is a
Senate hold on that construction. So, we have been on a freeze
essentially.
So, if we are not able to provide for the well-being, that
is one of the reasons we have looked to relocate. But there has
been no decision. The secretary has not said, ``Okay, relocate
them.'' He has asked us to put together some criteria by which
we can evaluate relocation sites, anywhere from their ability
to do the mission, the building to deploy that force from a
power projection standpoint; are they near a major airport?
Mr. Vitter. What is the time line for the threshold issue,
deciding the big issues, which in turn decide whether or not to
relocate?
Major General Van Antwerp. This I do not have officially,
but I think most of those big decisions will probably be done
by summer or fall of this year.
Mr. Vitter. And then if those decisions point to
relocation, when will the specific criteria for looking at
areas around south or wherever appropriate be decided and
available?
Major General Van Antwerp. I think we are working that
criteria right now. I think the next steps would be that if it
is decided they would move, the secretary would make an
announcement on the movement, and then we would put the
criteria out and ask folks that meet that criteria to respond.
So, we would envision a number of states responding.
Mr. Hobson. The first question to answer is, will you still
have a CINC for the south? That is the very first question.
That is under serious review.
Dr. Fiori. That is why it is going to take until summer.
Major General Van Antwerp. And that really is beyond Army.
That is a DOD decision on that.
Mr. Vitter. Well, I just want to remind you all of our
specific letter to keep us in the loop. And all we are
requesting, our course, is an open process and thorough and
complete knowledge of the public criteria, and an opportunity
to respond to those criteria.
Major General Van Antwerp. Our secretary says that it will
be full and open and that we will publish that criteria. And
there will be a period of time to respond and then we will cut
it off and make decisions.
Mr. Vitter. A follow-up question you touched on. I am not
sure I completely understand it. Since fiscal year 1999 there
have been MILCON appropriations to the Puerto Rico site that
total about $26 million, and you mentioned a hold on some of
that. And there are a bunch of different categories of these
appropriations: child development center, housing, part of it
you mentioned Army Reserve center, an elementary school, et
cetera and I can give you what I think is a summary of all
that.
STATUS OF MILCON ON HOLD
What is the status of all of that and how will a decision,
say, within six months, that the site is moving, if that
happens, impact those appropriations and those projects?
Major General Van Antwerp. Most of the things you listed
are on hold, but the biggest project is the housing, I think,
of all of those. I would presume if we decide to relocate
USARSO to another location that we would not press forward with
any of that construction; that we would relocate to another
site.
Mr. Vitter. And would it be the general Army plan or the
presumption that those resources would move with the unit, with
the headquarters?
Major General Van Antwerp. That would be our hope. Of
course, those which are particularly authorized and
appropriated projects, we would have to come back, much like we
have done with Efficient Basing, East.
Mr. Vitter. What is not on hold? Let me ask the question:
What is moving forward?
Major General Van Antwerp. I have to take that for the
record and get back with you on the specific things which are
not on hold.
JOINT USE FACILITIES
Mr. Vitter. My final area, which is a completely different
topic, joint-use facilities. As you know, a lot of the
congressional leadership this side and the Senate side, have
been pushing to reform the budgeting process to better account
for and plan for joint-use facilities. And there are some
specific Senate subcommittee direction that I am sure you are
aware of.
What is the status on that? When are we going to get to a
point that we can actually have a separate budget category for
these joint-use facilities so that we can plan for them and
encourage them better?
Dr. Fiori. Congressman, I will let each of the components
address it, because we have different activities.
Major General Van Antwerp. They are joint looked at in a
couple of ways. One is inter-service joint. Another is joint
with our own components. And a lot of our facilities are ready
and we will let Mike talk about the Guard and Reserve. But a
lot of our facilities we are building right now we are looking
at deployment facilities. We are looking at those facilities
that would be joint use between our components.
Mr. Vitter. Right. I was talking about inter-service.
I didn't even realize that, you know, different parts of
the Army----
[Laughter.]
Major General Van Antwerp. Now OSD, we have a process team
that is working this. And we have been told to come up and look
at possible pilots for joint use, inter-service. And so we are
doing that right now.
We have some places where it might make sense in the short
term, like if you go to Fort Bragg, you have Pope Air Force
Base contiguous to it with has just a fence line the middle.
But there might be good joint-use projects there.
So we are first looking at those that are really almost co-
located. And then we are looking at larger opportunities. But
the services owe DOD some pilot sites where we can do this. We
are still waiting on their guidance. And they have not put a
budget category. They are saying eventually they will put a
budget category to incentivize this. We do not have that yet.
Dr. Fiori. It is in 2003. We do not have anything in MILCON
for joint service.
Mr. Vitter. Is it an active project to create that type of
separate budget category?
Dr. Fiori. DuBois who is my OSD counterpart, we have
discussed it a lot. But it is at the discussion level.
Mr. Vitter. Okay.
Dr. Fiori. And we are trying to look more at the facilities
that are co-located and how we could get those two people
working together. I mean it is tough enough to have cultural
problems internal to the house. To force that boundary seems to
be pretty difficult for some folks.
Mr. Vitter. Well, that is true. On the other hand, you can
take the opposite view. You start changing the way we budget
and the culture might rush to change in response to that. And
that may be the quickest way to encourage the culture to
change. And so I just, as one member, like to encourage
innovative thinking about that type of budgeting because it is
clearly something we need to do to make the most of our
resources.
Dr. Fiori. I do know that Mr. DuBois is working on the
guidance and trying to get this going. And he has given us a
few votes over the last couple of months. We have been in the
debate process, frankly, just to give us a little guidance on
how to go about doing it.
Mr. Vitter. And again, final thought, if you wait for the
culture to change, change the structure, it will never happen.
If you change the structure, particularly the budget
structure, you are going to create a bidding center for the
culture to change. Or you could if it is done right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Do you want to take over the hearing for a
couple of minutes? I need to step outside.
Mr. Vitter. Okay.
Mr. Hobson. And I will be right back.
Mr. Vitter [presiding]. Okay, Mr. Olver, I believe you have
some additional questions.
Mr. Olver. Yes, thank you very much.
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT
I will try two different lines here just a little bit. The
secretary has announced the plans to realign the headquarters
and centralize the installation management.
Now can you tell me, is that reflected in this 2003 budget
proposal or is that just the moves farther down the road?
Dr. Fiori. It is not clearly reflected in this year's
budget. What we are doing this year is to prepare. The budget
we submitted will be the budget we are going to live with, but
what we are going to do is shift the coding of the budget; if
you want to change the culture you have got to change who gets
the money.
We are in much discussion. General Van Antwerp could give
you a long brief on the progress that we have been making
working with the major commanders to divide the
responsibilities and with the responsibilities the funding that
we have allotted to those responsibilities.
So it will not affect the 2003 budget in that matter at
all. But the planning process and how much is going to be under
our new organizational control is something that is being dealt
with right now. That is a very difficult organizational thing
they are tackling.
Major General Van Antwerp. We are funding base ops and
RPM--SRM at 90 and 92 percent of the DOD budget. What the
central installation management will do--right now we have 21
MACOMs and 14 land-holding MACOMs that all have withholds on
that money. When that money is sent down to the field, those
MACOMs withhold dollars to use for contingencies, to use for
mission-related activities if they have to. And then they
sometime during the year will probably replenish it back to the
base ops and SRM.
But what you get when you do that is you get a pool of
dollars that goes like that. And a lot of them do not get back
to the installation garrisons until August, September. So they
have not had the use of those maintenance funds in a steady
flow.
So one thing that the centralized management will do, there
will be a withholded DA that will be a fraction of what it is
on aggregate of all those MACOMs that withhold today.
Mr. Olver. We have had the impression that a lot of money
ends up going not to where it was intended to go from time to
time.
Major General Van Antwerp. This will fence those dollars
that are appropriated in base ops and SRM will definitely go to
those functions. They will not go across----
Mr. Olver. And that management tool you expect to be in
place----
Major General Van Antwerp. In place 1 October.
Mr. Olver. 1 October.
Major General Van Antwerp. When this budget hits, that will
be in place that those base ops and SRM funds will be fenced.
They will not be able to be used for mission functions. They
will be used in the base ops and the maintenance and repair. So
more of those dollars are going to go for what they were
intended.
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT--EFFECT ON GUARD AND RESERVE
Mr. Olver. So is it expected that Guard and Reserve
programs will be included in this management reorg and
consolidation?
Major General Van Antwerp. Essentially the same philosophy
that those dollars will be fenced--I let my two companions here
talk about it. But the answer is, as far as the dollars that
were intended for base ops and SRM, they will be treated the
same way in all of the services. The organizational structure
for the Guard--because of the way the Guard, frankly, has their
states and all the different facilities on those states, they
are not wrapped up. But they will use their base ops and SRM
dollars for base ops and SRM functions.
Mr. Olver. Well, maybe I am the only one that would sense
that this was related, but we have gone through and established
that the budget for the Army is down, as far as MILCON is
concerned, by 16 percent. But the budget for the Army Guard is
down by 75 percent and for the Reserve is down by about two-
thirds.
Now, if that is what is in that budget as to where money is
expended, that is a rather major shift of what last year's
budget was away from Reserve and Guard kinds of things. And you
cannot chip those back: This budget is as indicated. Your
management tool is not going to--that is hardly even-handed,
although you may say that--that would imply, I suppose that the
department feels that the Reserve and the Guard, you know,
remain hugely over-funded.
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Or not needed.
Mr. Olver. Or not needed or something. What does it imply?
Major General Van Antwerp. I guess I would have to separate
MILCON from the base ops and SRM dollars as far as talking
about centralized installation management. The MILCON will
take--you know, it will be--those lists will be produced as
they have been in the past that an installation would forward
that MILCON request.
Today what happens, the Guard and Reserve and the active
all compete, if you will. We have project review boards at
which those projects are competed based on Army requirements.
And as you know, we have been going after the permanent party
soldier barracks and strategic mobility. That has been about 70
percent or more of our program in recent years.
Mr. Olver. Well, but does that then imply that you believe
that the management tool here of consolidation and centralized
installation management, essentially the whole pattern, that
that does not have so much to do with MILCON's budget but
rather with the pulling in budget on the other side; that is
where the controls come, that is where the savings are or the
efficiencies or what that you expect to get?
Because once we have indicated where these monies are going
to go project wise, you can't then change it to other places
anyway.
Major General Van Antwerp. MILCON it is fixed, you cannot
adjust where it goes. But in the SRM dollars, the base ops
dollars and the maintenance dollars, if you will, there is
flexibility in that.
I will tell you that all three components are funded to the
same level for base ops and SRM that--now the MILCON,
obviously, is not funded at the same percentage level. But the
base ops, the part that provides services, pays salaries and
the part that does maintenance of facilities is funded at the
same percentage of requirements.
LOW MILCON BUDGET
Mr. Olver. Okay, well then that probably puts additional
focus on what I gave as the numbers of 16 percent down for the
whole budget, but 75 percent down for Guard and two-thirds down
for Reserve. It seems to me that that is a pretty imbalanced
budget. And there must be some set of reasons for that
imbalance.
Major General Van Antwerp. Part of it is last year, if you
looked at a glidepath starting the last three or four years up
through 2001 and skipped 2002 and went to 2003, you would find
there that the 2003 budget, if you take 2002 out, is the
highest budget we have had in MILCON in recent years.
So in one sense, there is a glidepath coming up. The
difference is we were plussed up $700 million in the 2002
budget. And frankly----
Mr. Hobson. By this committee.
Major General Van Antwerp. By this committee and we are
grateful for that. But we did not start----
Mr. Olver. And you expect us to do it again somehow?
Major General Van Antwerp. Well, we did not have room in
the Army budget to start with the budget we got in 2002 with
your addition as a floor, frankly. We kept the same glidepath
we had had as if we would not have gotten that plus-up. But it
is an increase over 2001. So it is on a glidepath up. But we
did not take the 2002 budget as a floor as we built this
budget. There was not room in the Army budget.
We had health programs. We had the pay raise. We had
OPTEMPO increases. We had transformation. And I mean, that is
our internal budgeting, but there were a lot of markers for
those dollars.
EFFICIENT BASING, EAST
Mr. Olver. All right. Can you tell me what you expect to be
the savings per year for the consolidation in the East Command
in Germany?
Major General Van Antwerp. Yes, sir, I think we do have
that.
Mr. Olver. I think maybe the chairman had asked, but I was
only half paying attention, for a cost-benefit analysis.
Dr. Fiori. Well, he wants a more detailed analysis than we
are prepared to give right now, which we are going to give you.
Our budget----
Mr. Olver. Do you have a sense of what you think the
savings are going to be per year?
Dr. Fiori. But they are not the whole big picture that the
chairman asked for, and we are going to give him that. But just
as an example, we are going to close 12 installations and the
thirteenth is going to be partially closed. So we are going to
eliminate a major amount of our office and building footprint.
240 to 270 positions are going to be eliminated, somewhere
between $9 million and $12 million. Our annually recurring base
ops we are expecting to eliminate $23 million.
Mr. Olver. Annually recurring base ops?
Mr. Fiori. Yes, for those 13 places.
Mr. Olver. And the savings there is then $35 million per
year?
Dr. Fiori. $23 million for the annual recurring, or
eliminating positions by about $9 million to $12 million. Of
course, we are going to put the positions elsewhere. We are not
really saving, we are just moving them someplace else.
Major General Van Antwerp. Because we have 13 garrisons we
are taking down into a single garrison. So most of this is in
the running the installations.
Mr. Olver. That is why I wanted a study.
Mr. Hobson. Give me a better idea.
Major General Van Antwerp. It is about a $30 million
savings if you add it up.
Mr. Olver. I was wondering how many years we would have to
stay there and whether we were really planning on being there
that many more years.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Major General Van Antwerp. We are doing a check on our
analyses that we have. And we are getting that independent
analysis, as I mentioned earlier to the chairman, we will have
it by mid-March.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Thank you all.
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION
Mr. Hobson. I have got two things I want to do. You do not
have to answer this right now, but if you can that is all
right. The budget submission would withhold $84 million from
the Army's budget for chem demil unless it meets certain
milestones. Can you explain this position and what it does and
does not do and why it is in there?
Dr. Fiori. Well, it is hard to explain what the motivations
are of the people that put it in there. OMB did that, of
course. It certainly was not my submission.
It will really tie me down tremendously. As you know, I am
working hard on accelerating the program, where I need
additional funding besides the 2003 funding. I am coming in
with additional money for 2002 to accelerate the budget.
We are still evaluating the words and seeing how it is
going to affect us. I think it is a little bit over micro-
management in the system.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we need to talk about that and see how it
can work, because I think this chem demil is a disaster waiting
to happen out there if we do not get into it. We need to look
at technologies. We do not want to do things if technology is
not there, but we have to do some things any way----
Dr. Fiori. Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. To make sure that we--when I went
over, I had never seen anything like I saw. But I went over to
Newport, Indiana, and looked at the Butler building with this
stuff sitting in there.
Dr. Fiori. Sure.
Mr. Hobson. We are so lucky. We are so fortunate in this
country that some guy wasn't out there hunting one day and
thought, ``I think I will test my rifle out here and just take
a shot at that unoccupied building over there.'' Because we
would have had a major, major disaster even though it is out in
the middle of nowhere. And that kind of thing sitting around
frightens me.
UTILITIES PRIVATIZATION
So I just want to say to you we want to work with you on
this. Our committee put extra money in as you know, in the
supplemental, to try to help you. And we do that.
And the last thing I want to mention to you, I want you to
know that we are going to ask for some help at looking at your
contracts on these--I am not against it. I wrote the Forrestal
bill that you guys all killed me on some years ago, to try to
deregulate the--in the previous administration they went after
me. They came out of the administration then they changed their
mind. I do not know what happened. But anyway, everybody went
nuts when I tried to privatize the utilities some years ago.
But I want you to know we are going to look very hard at
those contracts in all of the services. I want to make sure
that--I have had trouble with contracts. And I want to make
sure that these contracts are appropriate and have not gotten
us into trouble in long term, if it does not work we cannot get
out or things of this sort.
And so I am going to have somebody look at those. I am just
warning you ahead of time so that you know to get your t's
crossed and your i's dotted, that we are going to be looking at
those contracts.
I do not want to sneak up on you and have you say I did not
tell you about it.
Dr. Fiori. One thing we have done in that regard, we
basically only use two people to write our contracts. One is
the Corps of Engineers, the other is the DESC, which is the DOD
energy folks. And we have really standardized those and taken a
lot of your RCI comments and----
Mr. Hobson. Well, what worries me about it is we have some
private sector guys out there that are a little sharper
sometimes than we are in drawing those contracts, and with the
recent problems with certain energy companies, I want to be
sure that we are, you know, really cleaning those things. Not
about any personality things, but just that, you know, that
contracts stand up under scrutiny now rather than somebody
looking into them.
So I hope you guys are back looking at them. You know we
had to go back and fix, you know, And some other things we have
to fix. we have had problems with truck contracts.
I keep talking about this because we put all of this money
in there. I do not want to lose the money or have claims and
things of this sort or wind out that we made dumb deals.
Dr. Fiori. Well, we----
Mr. Hobson. You do not either. I know you, you are----
Dr. Fiori. We certainly agree on that, sir. Certainly the
Enron failure--and we only had one contract with Enron. And
they are protecting us quite well, actually. We have everything
done except for the sewers completed. And that is about 80
percent completed. And the bond company is finding a new
contractor to finish it for us. So it will work out okay.
Mr. Hobson. As long as the contractor is not broke, you are
fine.
Dr. Fiori. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And the problem today is reinsurance not just
in this situation. But the reinsurance companies that are out
there that were handling all of these bonds and things that--
Dr. Fiori. As you also know, we have hired another man that
is a senior executive service person to take over our
privatization. And he has a background that is really quite
well-founded in that. And he just started on Monday of this
week, working in my organization.
Mr. Hobson. Good. John, do you have any more comments? And
was Sam finished?
Okay.
Well, we thank you very much. If you have any other
comments you would like to make----
Dr. Fiori. I would like to make two comments if I may, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Sure.
Dr. Fiori. We appreciate the help you can give us----
Mr. Hobson. We have five minutes on the vote, so you have
got to go fast.
Mr. Fiori. Well, thank you very much. I would appreciate
and I will accept the help in the chem demil area, because we
are working hard to accelerate it and to solve the other one,
that you alluded to, that exists in our National Guard
facilities. And you know that was a stop-gap measure. And we do
need help in the future. And if the General has any other
comments, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Hobson. He has been there. He knows.
All right. Well, thank you all very much.
The hearing is adjourned. Thanks you for your time. I did
not think it would go this long, but that is all right.
Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
U.S. NAVY, U.S. MARINE CORPS, U.S. NAVAL RESERVE
WITNESSES
H.T JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL JOHNSON REPRESENTING THE U.S. NAVY
BRIGADIER GENERAL (SELECT) RONALD COLEMAN REPRESENTING THE U.S. MARINE
CORPS
REAR ADMIRAL NOEL PRESTON REPRESENTING THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. John and myself are still
recovering from our brief trip, which at times did not seem
very brief, and when we get back here it is hard to get
orientated again.
Our hearing this morning focuses on the Navy military
construction program, including family housing, base
realignment and closure, and the Reserves.
Our witnesses this morning are H.T. Johnson, assistant
secretary of the Navy for installations and environment; Rear
Admiral Michael Johnson, representing the Navy; Brigadier
General (Select) Ron Coleman, representing the Marine Corps;
and Rear Admiral Noel Preston, representing the Naval Reserve.
It is a pleasure to have everyone appear before the
subcommittee this year. Secretary Johnson and Brigadier General
(Select) Coleman, we welcome you in your first appearances
before this committee.
As I have stated at every one of our hearings this year,
and will continue to state, I am very disappointed in the
department's fiscal year 2003 budget request for military
construction and family housing. The overall request is $1.5
billion, or 15 percent below last year's enacted level.
Today we have the opportunity to discuss the Department of
the Navy military construction request, which is down $231
million, or 21 percent from last year's level. We look forward
to hearing how the Navy plans to restore and modernize its
shore infrastructure at this funding level.
I am pleased to see that the funding request for the Naval
Reserve construction account and the Department of the Navy's
family housing is at last year's enacted level.
I was also pleased to learn that the Department of the Navy
fully funded its base realignment and closure requirements for
the fiscal year 2003, which was a change from last year, I
might add.
I believe our hearing this morning will be a very
productive and good hearing. There are many quality-of-life
programs and topics that I look forward to learning more about
today.
Among them are the Department of the Navy's plan to expand
their privatization efforts to unaccompanied housing. This is a
big deal. We need to talk about that.
The home port ashore program, that will provide housing
ashore for sailors who are currently required to live aboard
ship, even while in home port, which, again, I think is a
really new concept.
And the Department of the Navy's plan to reduce long-term
facility maintenance costs through expansion of the Navy's
commissioning demonstration program.
Once again, we welcome you, and we can look forward to what
you have to tell us about how we can work together to maintain
and improve the facilities where our sailors work, train and
live.
At this time, I will yield to John Olver for any opening
statement he might have.
We are having a little trouble orientating our sleep
schedules. We are waking up at odd hours. But I think we will
get over that. Even at John's and my age, we will handle that.
John.
Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Normally I would
feel able to make less structured remarks, but this morning I
really am not able, so I will simply read these.
I also want to welcome you, Secretary Johnson, in this,
your first appearance before the subcommittee, and I am looking
forward to your testimony.
Like the chairman, right now my mind--and I am afraid most
of my body--is still on our visit to Afghanistan, which
coincided with Operation Anaconda. And our losses there are
tragic, and my deepest sympathy goes out to all their families.
Still I am confident we will prevail in this action and
that our losses will not be in vain.
In the upcoming fiscal year, the Navy is facing many
challenges, including continuing its important role in the war
on terrorism, working to provide adequate force protection for
our sailors and their families here and abroad, both on land
and on the sea, and dealing with a significant backlog of
facilities that are below standards.
Obviously, these all have tremendous implications for the
military construction bill, and we are looking at a Navy
Department MILCON request that is $238 million below the fiscal
2002 level. That is something like a 20 percent cut.
I am very concerned that this request is inadequate to
properly support our sailors and their families, and I am very
concerned about this budget and look forward to hearing how we
can help you address your military construction problems.
So thank you for being here, Secretary Johnson.
Mr. Hobson. Before we start, let me say one thing
editorially. And I wish you were with us, Sam, because we
needed your valuable picture-taking abilities.
We just got back from Afghanistan, and I want to talk a
little bit about that. The military thing is going to take care
of itself, we will do fine there. But the humanitarian part and
the government infrastructure in that country is the worst I
have ever seen anyplace in the world. Sam and I went to
Honduras some years ago, after the hurricane hit there, but
this was worse than anything I have ever seen.
And we went to an orphanage that has in the total facility
about 1,000 young kids. We went to a hospital for children that
is in just deplorable condition. It breaks your heart to go
through it. The whole town of Kabul is in ruins. It is a true
war zone. It is like pictures you have seen of Berlin after
World War II. It is just totally bombed out.
This was not done by us, most of it. Most of it was down in
the civil war, and then by the Taliban.
And we were in-country longer, I think, than any other
CODEL has been, and we drove from the base at Bagram into
Kabul. And I did not see one animal other than a couple of guys
on donkeys along the road. And there really was not anything
growing. They were getting ready to try to grow some stuff, but
it is almost an arid land.
And we are going to be probably working there a lot longer,
I think, than most people believe at this point, because if we
leave there too soon--and I am editorializing for not this
committee hearing right now, but for people who are listening
out there--we are not going to be able to leave there, I think,
as fast as everybody thinks we are, in various roles, because
that country does not really have any structure that I can see.
And if we pull out, I think the structure's support is probably
gone. And it will go back to what it was just a few months ago
if we walk away too fast again, because it is deplorable.
So with that lovely note, Secretary Johnson, your written
statement has been entered in the record, but why don't you
please summarize, Secretary, your testimony for us?
Statement of H.T. Johnson
Mr. H.T. Johnson. First of all, I would like to welcome you
back. We appreciate your going out and seeing why it is we do
all the things that we do to prepare for Afghanistan, as well
as homeland and other defense.
Mr. Hobson. This is turning into the Johnson and Johnson
program.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. You guys going to form a company or something
here? [Laughter.]
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Also recognize your comments about
humanitarian.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I would like to
introduce my partners here. Rear Admiral Mike Johnson is the
commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. He is
representing the Navy today. He has a role with the Marines and
the Navy service. He has 32 years service. He has been leading
NAVFAC since October of 2000. He has a wealth of hands-on
experience in the Seabee business. You have heard of Adak,
Alaska----
Mr. Hobson. Yes, awfully well.
Mr. H.T. Johnson [continuing]. Desert Storm, the Panama
Canal and the Balkans. So he brings a great wealth of
background to us.
Admiral Noel Preston is the deputy director, Naval
Reserves. He has 30 years service in the Navy. He has been in
this position just a short time: June 2001. Naval aviator.
Anti-submarine commands. He was deputy commander of the Joint
Task Force Southern Watch, southern Iraq, for a while.
On my left is Brigadier General Ron Coleman. He is wearing
colonel bars to confuse you, but he is a brigadier general. He
has 31 years service in the Marine Corps. He had prior enlisted
time in Republic of Vietnam. He is a logistician. He has six
daughters.
Mr. Hobson. He has also been a school teacher. He has a
great career. He and I talked about this some time ago. I mean,
first of all, it is very difficult to become a general officer,
but to have a break in service and come back and be an enlisted
person, and with all the problems you have with whatever they
call this thing of where you are too long--heavy in age and
rank and all this kind of stuff----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. To move up like he has done is
really a great credit not only to him, but the Marine Corps,
because there are only--what?--80 general officers. See, you do
not think I know all this stuff, but I have been checking up.
There are only 80 general officers in the entire Marine Corps,
and for him to be one speaks well for him and also the Marine
Corps.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. He served in Shining Hope. That was in
the Balkans. So he has been in logistician positions at a
front. And he is leading Facilities for the commandant. The
commandant has told me personally that General Coleman is to go
to every base and get the feel.
Before I begin, I would like to say how much we appreciate
the support of this committee, certainly in the Department of
Navy. I would like to highlight a few parts from my prepared
remarks, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, you have already done
some of those, so I will skip through these.
We are pleased with our overall budget for installations.
We have $9.3 billion, which is higher than the last year; we
had $8.9 billion in 2000. So from an installation standpoint,
we have an increase.
We have tilted our installations spending toward the top
priority in the Navy, and that is our sailors, Marines and
their families. There are a total of $375 million for family
housing construction, which is up 15 percent. We will build
1,100 new homes and renovate another 3,100 existing homes.
As the chairman mentioned, we are also placing a great deal
of emphasis on bachelor quarters. We will build 4,452 spaces
for bachelors.
As the chairman mentioned, we have 31,000 sailors who do
not have a room ashore. We call it home port ashore. And we are
committed to bringing them ashore by 2008. We have been able,
because of some availability of quarters, to do it in Guam and
also in Pearl Harbor, and the results have just been
phenomenal, as you can imagine.
Mr. Hobson. I am interrupting you, but do you need any
statutory authority to continue that program or expand it?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir, we do on the PPV, and we will
talk about that later.
The lowest quality of life is our sailors who live on the
ships, even in home port, and we want to improve that.
We also have added $269 million to better sustain our
existing facilities. It is one thing to build new ones, but we
have to sustain them once we build them. This is a new metric
and we think it is a good metric. We always argue about
metrics, but we believe this one is pretty straightforward.
The part that you mentioned earlier on our military
construction, it is $948 million, and 21 percent below last
year. Last year was $1.1 billion, but last year was an anomaly.
This year is higher than any in the past six, except last year.
So we have had a steady increase. We are very pleased to have
had the peak last year.
We also have, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, $261 million
in the BRAC cleanup. We have not just focused on BRAC, we have
had a good cleanup on our active bases too. That is important,
to continue the cleanups, whether you are going to excess a
base or not, and we have done that.
We have moved forward on the BRAC, getting back to that,
and making great progress. As we have discussed in the past, we
are trying to transfer property as quickly, and properly
cleaned, of course.
Several years ago, the secretary of defense established a
goal to eliminate inadequate housing by 2010. This year, he
accelerated that to 2007. The Navy service will meet 2007 for
adequate family housing. The Marines will do it two years
earlier, in 2005. And the Marines have really leaned forward,
and when they meet it, 95 percent of the housing will be in
public-private partnerships. So they have really embraced that,
and the Navy is embracing it also.
Mr. Hobson. The Marine Corps does not do 1 plus 1, the Navy
does the 1 plus 1.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. That is in barracks, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. But I just want to----
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. But you do not?
Brigadier General Coleman. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Where does that come in your figures?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. The next one here. Well, I have already
talked about it on barracks, but as we go forward with PPV,
jumping ahead, we have to look at their standards and the
Navy's standards, and as we have discussed before, if we do
public-private ventures we will probably use a percent of the
basic allowance for housing, and it will be different for the
Marines and the Navy because of different living arrangements.
General Coleman will talk to it, but the Marines very
properly want to built teamwork and camaraderie, so they want
two people to a room and a bath, whereas the DOD standard is--
--
Mr. Hobson. Are you telling me the 1 plus 1 does not do
that?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. The 1 plus 1, you have two rooms,
singles, and a shared kitchen, shared bath.
Mr. Hobson. Do you get less camaraderie that way----
Mr. H.T. Johnson. In our plan, we will have----
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. And less--what was it, what do you
build?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Camaraderie and a spirit of teamwork.
Mr. Hobson. Camaraderie and esprit de corps; you do less of
that when you have 1 plus 1?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir, and the PPV will have four in
there, two rooms, two to a room, two baths.
Mr. Hobson. I am just chiding you, because I think this 1
plus 1 is overdone, but that is all right.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
On the public-private ventures----
Mr. Hobson. I know what gang latrines are. We just saw gang
latrines in Afghanistan.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. I am surprised they had them at all.
Mr. Hobson. Well, they have them. But do not get me into
that, because the Air Force was using the Army's stuff, and I
think the Army should be using their stuff. And the Air Force
went out and got a bunch of the Army--these boxes of latrines
and showers, and the Army got them after the Air Force got
them, and they are actually Army stuff. But anyway, that is
another story.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. On public-private ventures, we have
privatized at six locations for 6,600 homes. We have a
solicitation for another 1,800 homes at two locations and plans
for 12,000 at seven others.
As the chairman has mentioned, we are working hard to find
better ways to provide better quarters for bachelor members.
And this is moving along well, and we hope to talk to you as we
go forward on waivers we will need to move forward on the
public-private ventures for barracks.
In closing, I would like to mention one other thing, and
that is so that you know that we: number one, want to have good
facilities; number two, want to sustain them; and number three,
we certainly want them to be safe. But also we work the energy
end. This year the president passed out four awards for energy
across all departments. The Navy got two of them, the only two
in the Department of Defense. We are very proud of that and
look forward to continuing it.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
Admiral Johnson make some brief comments.
[The prepared statement of H.T. Johnson follows:]
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be
back before you again to discuss the Navy's 2003 MILCON budget
request.
As mentioned, I am Rear Admiral Mike Johnson, the commander
of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, representing the
Navy side. I would like to make just a few additional comments,
amplify a couple of areas mentioned by Secretary Johnson in his
opening statement.
As you know, coupled with mission accomplishment, our
people are truly our most important priority, and truly mission
accomplishment and people are inextricably linked, and one
outcome determines the other.
As the secretary mentioned, we are 31,000 sailors living
aboard ship, about 25,000 of those home ported in the U.S. and
Italy, another 6,000 in Japan. And these sailors, like all
sailors in the Navy, endure that austere lifestyle aboard ship
while it is underway on the deployments.
While the ships are in home port, we truly do need to offer
them a better place to call home, similar to their married
shipmates and all of their shipmates ashore. It is truly a
major quality-of-service issue for each of us, and we are
programming and executing projects that will resolve that
challenge.
We also need to come up with some innovative ways to
expedite that, and the secretary has alluded to that, and we
will perhaps talk a little more about that today.
This year's budget does include 760 rooms for shipboard
junior sailors who would otherwise be living aboard ship while
it is in home port. Our goal is to get them all off, to get
them off by 2008, and to have everyone, not only afloat, but
ashore, in the 1 plus 1 by 2013. And that would help lessen a
little bit that divide between our single sailors and our
married.
Protection of people while at work and at home has taken a
little different twist since September 11, obviously, and I
want to assure you that our facility projects are designed to
meet the latest anti-terrorism force protection engineering
standards, including shatter-resistance glass, building
hardening, perimeter protection and structural reinforcing--
that progressive collapse aspect of it. We employ the standards
under local conditions based on the threat analysis.
An example of what that does is that wedge in the Pentagon
that had those upgrades, and it obviously protected life and
limb.
Integral component of readiness are our facilities and
infrastructure. It really is the launch platform for our
sailors and Marines to deploy them to carry out that mission
accomplishment. And there are places where they leave their
families, and it is where our sailors, Marines and their
families do live, work, train and relax, and we are committed
to vesting the resources into that ashore readiness.
There are no quick fixes to correct the infrastructure
deficiencies we have lived with. It has grown over the years.
We absolutely must stay the course and continue to balance the
available funding against not only our facility lives, but
across the rest of the department with the competing
priorities.
We need to sustain the facilities in the proper state of
readiness, we need to fix the deficiencies, and we need to
achieve that recapitalization goal of 67 years.
Continued support by Congress, the administration, this
committee is obviously vital in improving the condition and
supporting fleet readiness now and truly into the future. We
sincerely thank you for the continued support both you and your
staff have given the Navy and Marine Corps team.
I am not much for slogans, but one that has, kind of,
caught my attention, ``mission first, people always,'' and that
is what we have been talking about this morning and that is
what we need to continue to talk about.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. The motto of this committee is, ``quality of
life first.''
General.
Brigadier General Coleman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as stated, I am
Colonel Ron Coleman, assistant deputy commandant for
installation and logistics at Headquarters Marine Corps. It is
a pleasure to appear before you today.
First I would like to thank you, sir, for the kind words,
and the honor truly is in serving, sir. I would also like to
thank you and the committee for your ongoing support for Marine
Corps military construction.
Facilities are a critical component of our readiness to
fight and win the nation's battles. Top-line constraints over
most of the last decade forced us to defer investment in areas
that did not have an immediate impact on near-term readiness.
We sustained our combat readiness at the expense of
construction because we had no other option. These were painful
decisions because ultimately combat readiness is more than just
a well-trained and equipped Marine.
As stated, I visited all Marine Corps bases and spoke with
Marines and their families. I am pleased to report that Marines
and their families are more optimistic at this time than any
time in the past.
Family housing, bachelor housing and operational facilities
construction supported by this committee has begun to become
visible to our Marine Corps installations. However, there is
still work to do.
Our fiscal year 2003 military construction, family housing
and Reserve budget provides over $500 million. Our proposal
will support our most urgent requirements for readiness and
quality-of-life construction. Operational and training
facilities will support aircraft maintenance, weapons
maintenance, and add essential recruit training opportunities
at Beaufort, Parris Island and Cherry Point.
Camp Pendleton will be able to implement further
improvements to its potable water system and Quantico will have
new barracks and new weapons maintenance facilities.
Overall, our program will continue to provide in excess of
$50 million for new barracks construction. I am happy to report
that the fiscal year 2003 administration supported the
commandant's request to increase family housing construction by
19 percent over fiscal year 2002.
With fiscal year 2003, our budget, we will be able to state
that at every Marine Corps installation there is either
demolition, restoration or rebuilding of all inadequate
housing. Every dollar you spend for our facilities is an
investment that pays long-term dividends in the readiness,
retention and mission accomplishment.
The Marine Corps thanks you, and I thank you for your
continued support.
Mr. Hobson. That includes Quantico now, right?
Brigadier General Coleman. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Preston. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the committee. Thank you very much for letting me
come today to represent Admiral Totushek and our some 88,000
Naval Reserve sailors.
First of all, I would like to thank you for your support in
fiscal year 2002. You provided your Naval and Marine Corps
Reserve some $53 million in budget request and congressional
adds, and it supported our sailors and Marines as they carried
out our nation's missions. On behalf of our sailors and
Marines, thank you--Reserves.
Our budget request for fiscal 2003 totals approximately $52
million, of which $36 million are Navy Reserve projects. We
believe these projects are well aligned to CNO's top five
priorities and Admiral Totushek's top five priorities for the
Naval Reserve.
Without going into detail on the projects, again thank you
very much for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and
thank you for the support you have provided our sailors and
Marines in the past.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, sir.
We are going to go to Sam Farr first.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank the ranking
member, Mr. Olver, for allowing me to go first. I have to chair
a California meeting today at 10 o'clock, but I do have some
questions.
First of all, I want to say two things. I want to really
thank you, as colleagues of yours, for two of you going and
others, going to Afghanistan. I think it is very important for
members of Congress to see what is going on there, and I cannot
think of two people with a better background to go to really
put it into perspective. And as one of your colleagues, I am
proud of you and I appreciate it.
And I will tell you, when I heard the news breaking over
the weekend, I was really worried about you, and I am glad you
are home safe. And thank you.
And for the men in uniform, thank you for serving. At a
time when the nation is looking at you for such leadership, it
is really encouraging to see the talent and the commitment you
have, not only to the mission, but to improving quality of
life, which is what this committee is all about.
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
I just really have two questions, Mr. Secretary, and the
first is to let me put it in shape. Last year the House Armed
Services Committee expressed the concern of whether the
Pentagon had sufficient numbers of officers with technical
education in science and engineering and technology.
The committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to review
future officer education requirements and determine how the
unique facility you have at the Naval Postgraduate School in
Monterey could be more effectively used for those requirements.
And I have just visited and had review of the new courses,
the schools within schools, that are just phenomenal. I mean,
NPS is doing things that no other university in the United
States is doing in integrated engineering and command
integration. It is phenomenal to see. And I think the students
are really charged.
The problem is that the classroom space, called Spanagel
Hall, that the Navy put that on the list for the FYDP in 2006.
I appreciate you doing that. But I have been advised by your
staff that Spanagel Hall has outlived its service life as a
classroom. I have been in the building; it is falling apart.
The heating and ventilation does not work; it is broken down.
The building leaks. Even though you have tried to patch it and
all that kind of stuff, the ceiling tiles are--with asbestos
mastic, continually dropping. And I could go on and on.
But I think that point is noted in your testimony, that you
mention classrooms as part of what is necessary to enhance
quality of life for the nation's Sailors and Marines and
civilian employees.
So my question is to explain to this committee how the Navy
determines its priorities. I am really concerned that with the
status of this building that it is so far down the 2006 FYDP.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. First of all, we recognize the importance
of the Navy Postgraduate School, and we also recognize the
historic setting and historic buildings and so forth. And we
are working very, very hard to maintain the history but at the
same time move forward. And we intend to do that with Spanagel
Hall. Of course, that was an old building that has been
deteriorating. We look very carefully at all of our priorities
and we have placed that in the 2006. But we recognize the need,
as you talk about.
Perhaps Admiral Johnson can answer some of the technical
questions.
Mr. Farr. Well, the issue is that I am very interested in
seeing if you might speed that up. There are a lot of new
programs the Navy is engaged in at the Naval Postgraduate
School. That is the space they are using. But they are just
growing out of the space. It is not worth putting the
technology infrastructure into that building that we need with
these new programs.
And so, what I think what is going to happen is your
mission execution is in jeopardy because of inadequate
facilities. And perhaps what we ought to do with Spanagel Hall
is fund it at a level consistent with the mission requirements
and bring that infrastructure up to what the academic mission
requirements are.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. As you noticed, this year we did increase
the overall funding for Naval Postgraduate School.
Do you want to add some comments about the Spanagel Hall?
Mr. Hobson. Oh, I thought you were going to say if Sam
wanted to add something, he could do that. [Laughter.]
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. I think we have--everyone
admits that that facility, looking at a cost/benefit,
renovation, trying to fix it is not in the best interest. The
project you are referring to is, kind of, a two-year, two-phase
project.
Mr. Hobson. How much money----
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Currently, it is about $50
million, plus or minus.
There are some good aspects to it. Besides having the
platform to do a lot of this technical pieces, the teaching, it
also takes 210,000 square feet and reduces it to 160,000 square
feet; still training the same amount of people but making it
much more efficient.
When you work all projects up through--I think you are
probably aware of some of the process, but it works out that it
competes against the rest of the projects in the Navy. And with
a limited pot of money, everything, kind of, fits into where we
can best afford it with the competing priorities.
Mr. Farr. Yes, I have watched how you have increased the
mission requirements out there and got it high-tech. And you
have had all the admirals out there doing interesting studies,
and the Secretary and the CNO are really using your school.
And so, on the one hand, the academic mission is really on
a fast pace, and yet the facilities that house that mission
seem a lot slower. And I just want to engage in this dialogue
because I think perhaps we can find innovative ways to speed
that up a little bit.
And before I go--and, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
letting me go--I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. You know,
the thing that Congress members fear most is BRAC. You served
on the commission. We lost some things in my district under
that decision, but I think you have noted that there are
savings, management savings, that we can achieve.
And I appreciate, in your testimony, that you are asking
for the demonstration authority that the Army already has,
where they can contract out for base operations.
And I just wondered whether you are familiar with a program
in Monterey, where you have the Army with the Defense Language
Institute and the Navy with Naval Postgraduate School all
within the city limits. The Army has contracted with the city
to provide base operations at a savings of $2 million
annually--audited savings; this is not just projected, it is a
fact.
And since you are asking for that demonstration authority,
would you do that with the Navy, as well, rather than--I think
you wanted just the long-term facility maintenance where it is
built and then maintain it kind of like a warranty on the
building. But would you expand that to other base operations,
as well?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Sir, if we had that authority, we would
use it. Whether we would use it there or not depends upon the
circumstances and how it works out.
Mr. Farr. Well, are you going to be asking for that
authority? That is the question.
I was not sure in your testimony whether you were just
asking authority for--it says here, ``to allow a single
contractor to design, build, operate and maintain facilities
funded with military construction funds; would allow an
additional demonstration project to seek and reduce life-cycle
costs within that one facility.''
Would that--was your interest also extending that to other
facilities where it was cost-effective for the Navy to do that?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. We are looking overall at what we can do
smartly. And what has been done at Monterey is certainly
something--that is not what we are asking for here. And Michael
will explain that in a minute.
But that has to do with we and the Army go about it a
little differently. They have the right to keep the contractor
in a maintenance role, and that is what we are asking for
there, which is not unlike what you are talking about.
Mr. Farr. Okay.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. I am very familiar with the language
school. I was probably the person who saved it many years ago,
and I understand the need for it, and it has been multiplied.
I also understand the closeness of those two organizations
and the need to get them closer.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. It takes time, unfortunately, though.
Mr. Hobson. Has anybody looked at the Brooks Air Force Base
model as a model for the Navy to look at?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. There are really three quick
pieces. The reference you are referring to there is the design-
build-operate-maintain piece, and that is looking at a military
construction to do a facility, to do a building. And that
contractor that designs and builds would be responsible, as
well, for operating and maintaining it for the next five years
all under that one appropriation.
And to do a contract vehicle, that would incentivize them
to reduce the total ownership costs by reducing the five years
of operations and maintenance and try to incentivize what they
design in the way of sustainable development and the quality of
materials and the quality of workmanship they put in it,
because they have to operate and maintain it for five years.
Hopefully that would go on for us in the next 45. And that is
for a facility.
I think some of the things you are referring to are more
into elements of the BRAC 2005, but it was the pieces of the
Efficient Facilities Initiative that the administration was
working with.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. And that is a Brooks City Base.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. And that is the Brooks-type
examples. And one of the areas that I think we are going to
take a hard look at is Monterey and what is up there and how it
might work out.
A third element of that--and I think we talked about it
last year--was more innovative use of enhanced leasing and that
relationship. And we have focused a lot on the bike paths and
the lakes and the golf course and parking and some other
things. September 11----
Mr. Farr. Changed a lot of that.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson [continuing]. Stifled some of
that for now. And I think that we are still--we have not given
up on that, but I think we are looking at other ways to do it
and still live within the anti-terrorism/force protection----
Mr. Farr. Well, I appreciate very much--appreciate your
commitment to it. So we will not get BRACed in 1995--I mean
2005. [Laughter.]
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Sir, we have not done anything with
respect to 2005. [Laughter.]
It certainly did not influence our MILCON in any way, from
the Department of the Navy standpoint.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you.
Mr. Farr. And I will talk to you--I have a lot of
questions--I would love to talk to you more about your trip,
too, after this.
Mr. Hobson. John, do you have any questions you would like
to ask?
HOMEPORT ASHORE
Mr. Olver. In the home port housing program, I think that
you have indicated that 31,000 sailors are to be served by
this. Is that all meant to be barracks, or is that a mixture of
barracks and family housing?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Sir, the family members already have
housing.
Mr. Olver. So it is all barracks.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. It is all singles.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir. And the 31,000, 6,000 of those
are in Japan, and once we do it here, we think Japan will
provide that 6,000. So we are talking 25,000.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Now, what portion of the 31,000 is
provided for in this budget request?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. We probably could not answer that. In
this particular request, there are 754 rooms--bunks, if you
will. And that is the first installment. But we already have
some at Pearl Harbor and also at Guam.
Mr. Olver. That have already been done, the 31,000?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Then if they have already been done, or they
have been provided for but not yet built they are done?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. They were done on a space-available
standpoint. At Guam we had some excess housing.
Mr. Olver. Excess----
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Housing, family houses, that we could
make available.
In Pearl Harbor, we did a dormitory. And when we fill the
dormitory, we use the priority of bringing the sailors ashore.
So that is not the long-term solution. That was an interim one.
And we wanted to do that for a couple of reasons. As you
might imagine, the master chiefs were concerned they would lose
control of the sailors if they let them go ashore. They found
just the opposite. So it has proved itself.
The number we can provide you for the record, if you would
like, sir.
Mr. Hobson. John, if I could interrupt, were you going to--
Guam is coming back up as a--they are bringing a bunch of
submarines out there. This is classified, but I know they are
going there. Is that going to help or inhibit your ability to
keep this kind of housing here?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. We eventually will have to build bachelor
quarters for Guam also, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I think that is part of John's point
here.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Each area has, sort of, a
unique environment. You have to look at what is there, what was
there before, what did we keep, what excess capacity we might
still have that is in good shape. You might be able to
accelerate some of those moves while you wait to build and do
other things. Family housing can be permanently diverted to
bachelor housing if you have no family housing need.
Guam only had a tender, I believe, as the only ship out
there, and now will have two to three submarines as well.
Now, we have always provided for submarine crews when they
are home, as well as squadrons and Seabee battalions and that
sort of thing--mine warfare ships. But these are the larger
ships that we had never provided before.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. These 31,000 are the last, I call them
disenfranchised, people in the armed forces that do not have a
room ashore.
Mr. Olver. Well, you have puzzled me. If we have made
available spaces that are down at Guam and Hawaii, then those
were done over and above the 31,000, or before the 31,000
number is calculated. Aren't you talking about the 31,000 are
the ones that are left to be done?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. No, sir. 31,000 is the total. We have
been able to do some at Guam and some in Pearl. And then there
are 754 new rooms.
Mr. Olver. Okay, so 31,000 does not represent a number
which is the remaining needs, then.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. No, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay, fine.
I have a table here in your testimony, Mr. Secretary, on
page eight in your testimony, which has the Department of Navy
barracks construction request. It has Norfolk getting 500 units
and Bremerton, Washington, 264, which was the closest thing I
can come to something close to the 754--I think it is actually
764 units between those two. It seems to be the--am I right
that those two, Norfolk and Bremerton, are the places that the
760 units----
Mr. H.T. Johnson. I know Norfolk is, and I assume
Bremerton--would provide that for the record. But these are the
total barracks, which has 754 for bringing----
Mr. Olver. Well, what is then--are the other spaces
included there? Are those renovations of current space existing
as opposed to home port space?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Let me try to take a shot at
it.
We have had an ongoing bachelor program for a number of
years, both renovating those that are economically amenable to
renovation and new construction, targeting now the 1 plus 1
standard.
In the last couple of years, everyone stepped to the plate,
that those most disenfranchised are the ones still aboard ship.
That is an additional requirement, and it was put at the top of
the list because they are in the worst condition. And the
31,000 is the overall requirement that we are now working
against to try to reduce.
And the plan is to try to get them ashore as quickly as we
can, using some assignment policy differences, and continue to
build, so that by 2013, 2014, we will have everyone at the
standard, but to get them ashore by 2008 into some much better
homes for them.
And it is a mix of using the BAH authority that you gave us
for E-4 and above, looking at private sector for those. But
really looking at the E-1s to E-3s predominantly, the ones that
are on their first enlistment, the ones we are still
culturalizing to the military environment and that sort of
thing. And we have a pretty steep hill between now and 2008 to
do a lot of that. And the secretary had talked a lot about the
PPV for bachelor quarters, and I think that will allow us to
expedite that.
And the two that are referred to here are Norfolk and
Bremerton, the 764. Within the overall program there are also
some Marine Corps numbers on that table. And the 764 will house
about 1,500 folks, as we bring them ashore, of that number.
I was in the Atlantic Fleet a couple of years ago as the
N46 at Fleet, and we had a very aggressive program up and down
the coast, doing all sailors ashore. When you go to the sailors
moving ashore, you are looking at the fleet's concentration
areas. You are looking at a Norfolk. You are looking at a
Mayport area. You are looking at Ingleside for the large-deck
ship. You are looking at San Diego. You are looking at Puget
Sound. You are looking at Pearl. You are looking at Guam. And
you are looking at Japan and Gaeta for the 6th Fleet flagships.
Mr. Olver. Well, let me, as long as I am on it, I really
would like to try to understand this table. The table on page
eight is all of the requests for barracks housing that is
funded in this budget, is that correct?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Navy and Marine Corps.
Mr. Olver. Navy and Marine Corps. The 760 represents $72
million of that. The rest of is apparently--let me see if I can
formulate this in a way that is fairly simple to answer. Are
the other items in there not items that go against the goal of
getting home port building for 31,000 people?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. That is correct.
Mr. Olver. That is correct.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. I believe so.
Mr. Olver. So the others are housing which are
replacements, which are not related to this home port approach?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. They are related to housing
the rest of the sailors ashore.
Mr. Olver. Okay. All right.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. It has been an ongoing
program.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. You are right, sir.
Mr. Olver. All right. Then let me ask this. I think--it was
my impression that the effort on the 31,000 was an effort--when
did we start that?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. We just began it maybe last
year.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. This is the first time we have any----
Mr. Olver. Well, how many of the 31,000 have already been
previously taken care of then?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Only the ones at Pearl Harbor and Guam.
And we can give you that number; we do not have it here, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay. When is the date at which--what is the
goal date for finishing that program?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. 2008, sir.
Mr. Olver. What, then, was the date that was mentioned a
couple minutes ago, 2014?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. That is that larger group
that is represented here along with moving them off of ships.
That is those people that are assigned to shore that we have
always been working on. And we have added the moving them off
of ships to shore at a higher priority right now, to try to
make it happen very quickly. And we will continue over the next
10, 11 years to build barracks to get everyone into the right
standard. But to get them off of the ships quickly at a
different assignment standard.
Mr. Olver. Okay, well, let me just accept the 2008. That
will make it simple.
We are talking about the 2003 budget and providing for 760
of 31,000. There is a small number, indeterminate at the
moment, that have been taken care of, probably, in Guam and
Hawaii. I do not know how many exactly, but it is clearly not
more that a couple hundred probably. Whatever it is, it does
not much matter, I do not think, to my point.
This budget is providing for 760 out of 31,000, roughly,
that are there. How are we going to get, by the year 2008, if
there are only five budgets left--2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and
2008--to get to the numbers that are involved here, how are we
going to do that with this kind of budget? This goes to the
inadequacy of this budget for meeting the goals. We will be
talking about this 20 years from now.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir, but the funds are in the out-
years to do that.
Mr. Olver. And we do not have other things that have to be
done, continuing--are you expecting to ramp up these budgets?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir. And we also expect to use the
public-private partnership approach with these sailors, as well
as the Marines.
Mr. Olver. Has that been--is that being done? Has there
ever been an effort to combine family housing with barracks
housing on the privatization deals, or are these all still
intended to be totally separate? Is there some reason why they
must be separate?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. We are presently staffing a proposal that
would allow us to do public-private partnerships for barracks.
It would be the first time we have done that. And we would like
to bring those two together, the family housing and the
barracks, in our services.
Mr. Olver. Into a single combined deal? Is that what you
are saying?
Mr. H.T. Johnson. In some cases, sir. If we were doing a
privatization at Miramar, we would do housing and bachelor
quarters with the same approach, with the public-private
partnership.
Mr. Olver. And the home port, the only--I think the two
places that you mentioned in the home port deal was to be--our
approach was to be done offshore, the only two that I remember
were Italy and Japan.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir. We only have ships at home port
at a few places around the world.
Mr. Olver. Not Naples?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Gaeta is where the 6th Fleet
flagship is. The rest of the ships are deployers that deploy
and then come home. Japan, at Sasebo, Yokosuka are pretty much
the two home ports over there. Guam. And there is also a
flagship home ported in Bahrain.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, I am afraid we are going to have to go to
Bahrain. There is a lot of stuff in Bahrain. We are going to
have to go. [Laughter.]
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Unfortunately, that is a long way too.
Mr. Olver. Staff points out that we are intending to do
30,000 in five budgets of privatization of barracks, when we
have no experience in the privatization of barracks.
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. Let me whittle it down a
little bit: 31,000, you have to subtract the 6,000, gets you to
25,000.
Mr. Olver. Where does the 6,000 come from?
Rear Admiral Michael Johnson. The 6,000 is predominantly in
Japan with a little bit in Italy. So we are looking at, in the
States--in Japan, you have the Japanese Facilities Improvement
Program, where the Japanese government works with us to provide
their money to build facilities in Japan. So we will work with
them to do that piece.
The 25,000, if you look at what we have done, which I think
is a little higher than a couple hundred, but we will get that
number for you--you look at the 1,500 that are in here and the
764 rooms, there is a start there. We will blend military
construction funds with public-private ventures, leveraging
other money.
And the piece of this is some of the legislative changes.
Right now we are prohibited from combining them because of the
way the bachelor and family housing improvement funds are
established. As the secretary mentioned, we will be working on
some legislative changes to try to deal with that in some areas
where it makes sense. Not everything would necessarily be a
blend of family and bachelor.
Mr. Olver. Well, I think I am just not a very cooperative
witness here today. [Laughter.]
And so, I think maybe I will just stop there.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we will come back. We can do another
round.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. To me, sir, your questions were right on,
sir. And you picked out a couple things that were obvious that
we had not even picked out. So we appreciate them.
Mr. Hobson. Let me editorialize for a minute. I saw Admiral
Blair's staff guy come in out there, Randy. But I wanted to say
this, and I forgot to say this when the Army came, but there
are two things happening that I do with a lot of sadness. There
are two people, two CINCs that I think have given great service
to this country. Admiral Blair is going to retire here shortly,
and I think he has done a great job. And he is one of the most
outstanding people I have ever met.
And also another great person, outstanding general officer,
General Schwartz is going to retire. And in that theater, we
are going to lose a great wealth of knowledge in a very short
period of time from two people who I think, in their own
personalities, are different sort of people, but they have done
a great job for the defense of this country in those areas and
for the people who serve underneath them. They have both done a
great job. And I am really sorry to see them retire.
And frankly, this is one of the problems I have with the
military. We retire these people in the prime of their life.
You and I think they are very young guys. And all of a sudden
they are gone, and we lose that knowledge in our services.
So it just occurred to be as I saw Randy out there that I
wanted to say something about that publicly here.
BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
General, I want you to talk a little bit about the Marine
Corps and their attention to the barracks privatization at
Quantico and things of that sort. Because I do not think there
is hardly a building at Quantico that we should not do
something to--and other places. So do you want to talk a little
bit about that, sir?
Brigadier General Coleman. Yes, sir. Sir, with what we have
Quantico certainly is a good-news story. It has gotten a lot of
attention, a lot of needed attention, and we really are going
to fix Quantico.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, I would say it is about time, sir.
Brigadier General Coleman. Yes, sir. It really is, and
there is certainly a lot to be done.
But family housing-wise, with the increase in BAH, with the
combining phase two of Pendleton and Quantico, we the Marine
Corps, believe that we can fix Quantico with 2003 funds. We are
presently working that. We have already had some conferences on
it already.
But we are extremely confident that, with 2003 funds, all
family housing on Quantico will either be restored or new
housing. All the old housing will go down to include the metal
housing, sir. We have gotten approval to hold on to one metal
house, and let the rest of them go.
So Quantico is certainly a good-news story.
Mr. Hobson. That is the old Lustron they used to call it.
Brigadier General Coleman. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
There is still some need for work with the infrastructure,
some of the old buildings. But for family housing, we will take
care of family housing, and we also are going to do a pilot
program too--the Marine Corps is going to do two--one at Camp
Pendleton and one at Quantico, on privatization of the BEQs.
Not really sure how that will work out, but the commandant
has said he is willing to give it his best effort and give it a
shot.
Mr. Hobson. Well, we are going to be looking at those
contracts, as you know, and working with you on it. And I might
say there are at least two I can think of rather powerful
members of Congress interested in that. I think Mr. Murtha is
interested and also Mr. Young. So I would say it is not only
this committee that is interested, there is another committee
that is very interested in those programs. So somebody is going
to be looking over your shoulder to make sure that those are
done correctly for the people that you serve and you serve
with.
Brigadier General Coleman. We have made great strides, sir,
and we appreciate, we really do, the attention we are getting.
The Marine Corps, when you all came to visit, we only showed
you what we thought were the nicer things.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. We are changing that in all the services,
we are changing that. We do not--and I have tried to tell
people, ``When members of Congress come, do not show them the
really good stuff, because then they come back and tell me,
`Well, why are you doing this stuff? Everything is fine.' ''
And I am saying, ``You did not see it all, and you only saw the
good stuff.''
So you need to see where you need help. But I think your
natural pride is you want to show the good things, and that is
good, but people need to understand that it is not all that way
and that they get a distorted view. But there is a natural
pride, and you do not want to hang out your dirty laundry, but
you have to sometimes in order to make sure we can clean it up.
Brigadier General Coleman. We appreciate that.
Mr. Hobson. I have been very encouraged by getting on with
this home port ashore program. I think that is going to help
morale a lot with the troops. As they come off of these ships
after being out there for a long time, to be able to come back
to something that they feel is their own and they can operate
out of us is, I think, a good morale.
PIER REPLACMENT PROGRAM
One of the things that I think is a big-dollar ticket for
you people in the Navy is the pier replacement program. And I
do not mean peers leaving, as I talked about before. I am
talking about piers that ships dock to.
And you have a lot of problems every place I go. You have a
problem in Hawaii. I do not know about Guam. Guam might be an
example of something where we BRACed, sir, and now we are going
to de-BRAC or whatever a lot of it, I would suspect. And maybe
in the short run that was a good program.
I do not know whether we have actually--it would be
interesting for somebody--and I do not want to spend a lot of
time on this, we have other things to do money-wise. But it
would be interesting to do the cost/benefit analysis, somebody,
as to whether that was an appropriate thing to do.
But I guess nobody really knew. You guys are supposed to
have these big thinkers out there that are supposed to figure
out what is going to happen in the future. And here we de-
BRACed Guam, and we knew at the time we were going to have
problems with Okinawa. And we knew about it, that we may have
to restructure it, and we knew about the threats and we know
long term where our problems are possibly going to be.
So it is, kind of, interesting that we BRACed it and now we
are probably going to have to use a bunch of it, not only in
the Navy--I do not blame it on just the Navy, because it is
going to carry with it, I think, the Air Force and some other
people.
But you want to talk a little bit about the pier
replacement program? We have, apparently, a vote on it we are
going to have to go to.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Sir, we have done some good work down at
Norfolk, and it continues. I will let Admiral Johnson talk on
that. But we recognize what you are saying, and we try to
prioritize all of our infrastructure.
Piers are something that, if you are going to have ships,
you must have good piers. We found at Norfolk that, not only
are the piers deteriorating, but the support structure that
goes along with the piers: the power and so forth. As we
rebuild the piers, we can make the support structure more
efficient and also certainly work better.
Mr. Hobson. We have a short period of time here. I am going
to give you some questions for the record.
Mr. H.T. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. I am concerned about these NATO regional
command headquarters and about how much they are spending and
where they are going. I have some problems doing some stuff in
a country that will not let us land in certain circumstances--
and I do not want to get into that--and certain people who have
not been real cooperative on certain types of things. And we
are going to spend a bunch of money on NATO headquarters? I
want to know who is helping us with the money on that.
Because I will be very frank with you. I am not really
excited about--you are the executive agent, but somebody is
going to have to come and convince me a lot more on some of
this stuff before I am going to spend a bunch of money on it if
I can do anything about it.
Because when I see some of the stuff that is going in here
and when I see a budget request, $1.2 million for two flag
officers' quarters, I got a lot of problems. That is a lot of
money. So somebody is going to have to convince me on this
stuff, and you do not have to do it today, but--that is enough
on that.
We only have about nine minutes left.
John, you can submit questions for the record, and I do not
think we have to come back unless you want to come back after
this vote.
Mr. Olver. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
reinforce your comments. That was another reason I got bogged
down on something else I was having difficulty and still am a
bit befuddled by.
But on the NATO headquarters, I am truly puzzled why we
would be putting new NATO naval headquarters in Larissa and
Madrid. It does not seem to me, from my understanding, that
either of those has been particularly cooperative places for
our recent activities by NATO. And I was curious how much money
was in this budget for those and how much each of them in its
total was going to cost.
So I certainly am wanting to reinforce what you had to say
already on that point.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, we only have five minutes.
Mr. Olver. That will be enough for the time being.
Mr. Hobson. And you can submit any questions for the record
that you want, and so will other members who cannot get here
this morning. There is a lot going on.
We thank you very much for coming over this morning.
[Recess.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Hobson.]
Homeport Ashore Program
A major Department of the Navy quality of life initiative is the
homeport ashore program. The goal of the program is to provide housing
ashore for approximately 31,000 sailors who are required to live aboard
ship even while in homeport.
Question. How much of the fiscal year 2003 budget request targets
this program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes two projects
that will address homeport ashore: P-293 at Naval Station Norfolk for
$37.31 million (Increment I) and P-301 at Naval Station Bremerton for
$35.12 million. These two projects will provide a total of 764 1+1
rooms. Based on the Navy's planned assignment policy for homeport
ashore of 2 personnel per room, these two projects will provide space
for approximately 1,500 shipboard sailors.
Question 2a. Provide an estimate of the number of bed spaces to be
provided with MILCON funding.
Answer. In addition to spaces programmed through fiscal year 2003,
the Navy intends to pursue traditional MILCON funding for 20,200
shipboard Sailors. This equates to 10,100 1+1 rooms based on the
planned assignment policy of 2 per room.
Question 2b. Provide an estimate of the number of bed spaces to be
provided with host nation funding.
Answer. The Navy is pursuing funding via the Japanese Facilities
Investment Program to provide funding and facilities for 5,700
shipboard Sailors who are homeported in Japan.
Question 2c. Provide an estimate of the number of bed spaces to be
provided through the use of private financing authorities.
Answer. Under the current program, all of the bed spaces will be
provided through military construction. However, the Navy is currently
developing a pilot project for Norfolk where there are 6,910 shipboard
sailors.
Question 2d. Provide an estimate of the number of bed spaces to be
provided with existing capacity.
Answer. 2,100 spaces have been provided to shipboard Sailors
through existing inventory in Hawaii and Guam. Additionally, two fiscal
year 2002 military construction projects have been funded to provide a
total of 776 1+1 rooms. Based on the Navy's planned assignment policy
for homeport ashore of 2 personnel per room, these two projects will
provide space for approximately 1,600 shipboard Sailors.
Question. What is the total cost estimate to complete this program?
Answer. The current cost estimate to provide space for 20,200
shipboard Sailors via traditional MILCON is approximately $950 million.
Use of privatization efforts will reduce the MILCON cost. However,
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) expenditures will increase. The
additional BAH expenditures have not yet been calculated.
Question. How much will the Department of the Navy rely on use of
private financing authorities to meet the goal of this program?
Answer. The Navy is developing a pilot approach for the use of
private financing authorities to improve living conditions for single
members. Based on the outcome of the pilot, the Navy intends to use
private financing authorities wherever it is financially feasible to do
so over the long-term.
Pier Replacement
One of the significant challenges facing the Navy is the inadequacy
of shore facilities, particularly piers and related infrastructure, to
support the fleet. The Department's Installation Readiness Report notes
significant and serious deficiencies in this area.
Question. How does the fiscal year 2003 budget request address
these deficiencies?
Answer. The Navy's fiscal year 2003 MILCON budget request includes
$91.43 million to address pier and wharf deficiencies. These projects
include work to replace piers, upgrade pier utilities, and improve
existing piers. Projects in the fiscal year 2003 budget request
include:
Replacement Pier @ Navy Auxiliary Landing Field San
Clemente Island;
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades @ Naval Station San
Diego;
Recapitalize Bravo Docks @ Naval Station Pearl
Harbor;
Ammunition Wharf Improvements @ Naval Magazine
Indian Island;
Increment II of Pier Replacement @ Naval Station
Norfolk;
Upgrade Electrical Distribution @ Naval Station
Norfolk;
Waterfront Revitalization @ Naval Station Bremerton.
Question. What is the Navy's goal for eliminating inadequate pier
infrastructure?
Answer. Each Fleet CINC has either developed or is in the process
of developing Regional Shore Infrastructure Plans (RSIP) for waterfront
facilities within their area of responsibility. Initial baseline RSIPs
are anticipated for completion at all Navy waterfront facilities by
August 2003. Upon completion of all RSIPs, Navy can then determine its
Total Facilities Requirement (TFR) for all waterfront facilities, to
include pier infrastructure. TFR can then be used to determine the
investment necessary to revitalize inadequate pier infrastructure. Once
the investment strategy has been determined, the actual time period
required to revitalize all pier infrastructure will be dependent upon
construction duration (typically 18-24 months), operational
requirements which will be a constraint for scheduling, and
availability of funding. At Fleet concentration areas such as Norfolk,
the process of fully replacing or revitalizing waterfront
infrastructure could take approximately 25 years.
Question. What is the cost estimate to modernize the Navy's pier
infrastructure?
Answer. As the ``regional shore infrastructure plans'' are
finalized in calendar year 2003, the Navy will have a detailed cost
estimate to modernize the Navy's pier infrastructure.
Commissioning
The Department of the Navy is seeking authority to expand the
commissioning program developed by the Army. This program allows the
first five years of maintenance funding for a newly constructed
building to be included in the cost of construction.
Question. What are the benefits of this funding approach?
Answer. The Department supports extending the Army's pilot program,
as it will allow the services to reduce life cycle costs for its
facilities. Specifically, this program will:
Reduce operational risk;
Incorporate life cycle costing and commissioning
within facility acquisition;
Facilitate overall project continuity in terms of
cost, scheduling, and quality;
Improve constructability, maintainability,
operability;
Improves warranty service;
Provides an immediate trained work force;
Provides for long-term cost stability and
predictability;
Assures quality of mechanical and electrical
components;
Creates incentive for builders to provide more
reliable and better quality products and services.
Question. Would this funding method reduce long-term facility
maintenance costs? If so, how?
Answer. By funding the initial operation and maintenance needs with
MILCON funding, the Department of the Navy can ensure that operation
and maintenance needs are funded and develop a benchmark for how much
it will cost to operate and maintain the facility after the initial
MILCON-funded period expires. As the contractor would be responsible
for the operation and maintenance, the contractor would build and
install quality components to reduce life cycle costs.
Question. Is this type of program used in private sector business?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How many projects would the Department of the Navy like
to include in the program?
Answer. The Department of the Navy would like to apply this
principle to at least 3-5 projects per year.
NATO Regional Command Headquarters
The Navy, as the Executive Agent, is responsible for providing the
facilities necessary to support two new NATO Regional Command
Headquarters in Europe--one in Larissa, Greece and the other in Madrid,
Spain.
Question. What type of facilities is the Navy responsible to
provide at these sites?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is responsible for providing
support facilities at these locations such as housing and other
community support facilities. Facilities that support direct
operational requirements will be provided via NATO.
Question. How many projects will the Navy have to provide at these
locations and at what cost?
Answer. At this time, the Navy does not have plans to provide any
other facilities beyond those included in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
Question. Will the Navy have similar responsibilities at other
locations in the future?
Answer. If NATO stands up headquarters units at which U.S.
personnel will be assigned, the Department of the Navy will be required
to provide support facilities at those locations where it is the
executive agent.
Question. The budget request includes $1.2 million for two flag
officer quarters in Larissa. What is the square footage of these units
and do you believe the cost of these units is appropriate?
Answer. The square footage of the two flag officer quarters in
Larissa are 2,955 net square feet per unit. The cost of these units is
consistent with OSD construction cost guidance. The project includes
additional costs related to anti-terrorism and force protection
construction standards due to the strategic location of the new NATO
headquarters at Larissa.
Recapitalization Rate
OSD's goal is to recapitalize the Department's infrastructure every
67 years.
Question. What is the current recapitalization rate for Department
of the Navy facilities?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate for Department
of the Navy facilities is 122 years.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2003 budget request for Department
of the Navy infrastructure increase or decrease the recap rate and by
how many years?
Answer. The recapitalization rate for Department of the Navy
infrastructures increases from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003 by
16 years (fiscal year 2002 = 106 years; fiscal year 2003 = 122 years.
Question. When does the Department of the Navy expect to reach a
recapitalization rate of 67 years?
Answer. Based upon the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget Future
Years Defense Program, the Department of the Navy's recapitalization
rate in fiscal year 2007 would be 69 years.
Housing Goal
The Department accelerated its goal to eliminate inadequate housing
by three years--to fiscal year 2007.
Question. How will the Department of the Navy accelerate their plan
to eliminate substandard housing by 2007?
Answer. The Department of the Navy will accelerate the elimination
of its inadequate housing through a combination of public private
ventures and traditional family housing construction funding. Based
upon the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget Future Years Defense
Program and planned public private ventures, the Navy will meet the
goal of eliminating its inadequate housing by fiscal year 2007. The
Marine Corps will exceed the goal and eliminate its inadequate housing
by fiscal year 2005.
Question. How much will the Department of the Navy rely on housing
privatization to meet the 2007 goal?
Answer. The Department of the Navy will rely greatly on housing
privatizations to meet the fiscal year 2007 goal. The Marine Corps
plans to privatize 95% of its family housing inventory. The Navy plans
to privatize 32% of its family housing inventory.
Question. Is there an estimate of how much additional funding would
be required over the next four fiscal years to meet the 2007 goal?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps have sufficient funding in the
fiscal year 2003 family housing budget request and Future Years Defense
Program to meet the goal of eliminating all inadequate housing by
fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2005, respectively.
Question. How many family housing units are in the Department of
the Navy's inventory? How many of these units are considered
substandard?
Answer. As of the beginning of fiscal year 2002, the Navy has an
existing inventory of 59,485 owned homes; 22,169 of the owned homes are
inadequate. The Marine Corps has an inventory of 23,252 owned homes;
16,298 of the owned homes are inadequate.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Hobson.]
[Clerks note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Farr.]
Future Plans for the Naval Postgraduate School
Question. With more students coming to NPS as directed by the House
Armed Services Committee FY 02 committee report, and the growing
international student enrollment, please tell the subcommittee what
future modernization projects the Navy is considering for NPS?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Future Years Defense
Program includes the replacement of Spanagel Hall with new, up-to-date
facilities. These new facilities would reduce annual operating costs,
increase educational effectiveness, and provide a physical environment
more appropriate to the level of the education expected at the Naval
Postgraduate School. Increment I of the project will provide a 35,055
square foot facility while increment II, will provide a 123,208 square
foot facility. Specifically, this project will provide for flexible,
high technology spaces for computer-intensive medium laboratory
functions, classrooms and administrative offices to meet the combined
requirements of four academic departments. Existing building 232 will
be demolished upon completion of the new facility.
Demonstration Language
I appreciated your acknowledgment of the success of the
demonstration language under Section 2869 of the National Defense
Authorization Act that has been used by the Department of the Army at
the Defense Language Institute that has resulted in audited annual
savings of more than $237 million.
Question. Would you support the use of that demonstration authority
at NPS and to the Navy in general?
Answer. Yes, I support this demonstration authority. The NPS
explored this concept with the City of Monterey, but the discussions
did not, however, result in a specific project at that time. Some of
the flexibility offered by this demonstration authority has already
been provided throughout the Department. I anticipate a greater effort
in outsourcing functions throughout the Department, in which local
governmental entities shall play a significant role.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mr. Farr.]
Wednesday, March 6, 2002.
U.S AIR FORCE, U.S. AIR NATIONAL GUARD AND U.S. AIR FORCE RESERVE
WITNESSES
HON. NELSON GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
MAJOR GENERAL EARNEST O. ROBBINS II, THE AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID A. BRUBAKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT DUIGNAN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, AIR FORCE
RESERVE
Statement of Hon. Nelson F. Gibbs
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good afternoon. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2003 budget
request for military construction, military family housing and
dormitories.
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson. The Committee will come to order.
Our hearing this afternoon focuses on the Air Force
military construction program, including family housing, base
realignment and closure, and the Guard and Reserve.
Our witnesses this afternoon are Mr. Nelson Gibbs,
assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations and
environment and logistics; Major General Ernie Robbins, the Air
Force civil engineer; Brigadier General David Brubaker, deputy
director of the Air National Guard; and Brigadier General
Robert Duignan, formerly at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
deputy chief of staff of the Air Force Reserve.
Secretary Gibbs and General Brubaker, we welcome you to
your first appearance before the subcommittee. These other guys
have probably briefed you on what this is like.
I have a couple of things that they want me to say here,
and then I had a couple things I really want to say.
I want to thank the members for being here.
As I have stated many times, the department's fiscal year
2003 budget request for military construction is a great
disappointment to all of us on this committee and of the
Congress.
Of all the reductions proposed in the request, the deepest
cuts come in Department of the Air Force accounts. The total
Air Force military construction program is down $837 million,
or 53 percent, from last year's level. This funding level
renews a trend by the Air Force of under-investing in military
construction because of higher priorities in the modernization
and readiness accounts.
An additional concern is that about half of this reduced
funding request will be allocated to new mission projects.
These projects are important and must be funded to support our
next generation of weapon systems, such as the F-22 and the C-
17.
And I might say that we saw some evidence of the good work
the C-17 does in our recent trip when we looked at those bases
and saw in, I think it was probably K-2, that everything they
had in there we brought in, everything we have in Kyrgyzstan,
you know, we brought in in aircraft. And actually we flew on C-
130s, but we saw C-17s.
But my concern is that fewer dollars are being allocated
for current mission projects, these types of projects that help
revitalize our existing infrastructure by replacing or
upgrading facilities and alleviating long-standing
deficiencies.
I am looking forward to hearing more today on how this lack
of investment in current infrastructure impacts the Air Force's
recapitalization rate. The department's goal is to recapitalize
its facilities every 67 years. We are getting pretty close to
that number.
And I am looking forward to hearing more about the choices
that were made by the Air Force in formulating this request,
and when will we see a reversal in the Air Force's philosophy
of using the construction accounts as a billpayer.
On a positive note--I just had a discussion with somebody
at the Defense Department saying I never say anything nice. But
I do not think my job is to say all the nice things; my job is
to point out where I think there are problems.
But I want to say, the budget request for the Air Force
family housing is $125 million above last year's enacted level.
And I want to commend you for this proposed increase and
congratulate you for staying the course of ensuring our
military personnel and their families are provided the quality
of housing they deserve.
I want to say one other thing. John and I, we viewed a new
base that the Air Force has built in Kyrgyzstan. And the
general there, the one-star there--I forget what his name is,
but the one-star was very proud of his base. He took us all
around his base, and he has done a good job of setting it up.
And his motto, which I thought was very interesting and a
very good thing--he is very interested in quality of life. And
he said, ``Our motto is, number one, wash your hands,'' and
then he paused and says, ``with soap.'' And that is the motto
all around the base, to be clean, neat and orderly. And this
base is that.
And it is a real credit to the Air Force, what they have
done there. They even had Speed Queen best quality washers and
dryers set up already. The thing that really got me, though, is
they are using some Army equipment that I wish the Army would
use. You guys stole--got it somehow, and the Army did not get
it, for the sanitized showers and the sanitized toilets at the
restrooms that they have, which really make a big difference in
the ability of people to maintain their health.
And also, they set up a great chow hall there. It was on
concrete they put down in just a few days, and it was, I
thought, as nice a facility as you would see on any base here,
they had set up there. And they have done this in about 30
days, 30 days, which was a great facility and I am sure it is a
big morale booster to the troops that are there.
And they are also making a lot of local purchases, which is
very important to that economy over there. We have done about
$8 million in Kyrgyzstan, which has been more open to what we
have done, allowed more types of missions to be flown out of
there, than we have in Uzbekistan. But the local purchases and
letting our military people get into the town and spend some
money is very important to that economy there.
And all our young men and women in all the services are
doing a great job. I want to once again say--I said this in the
big hearing this morning. There are 80-some Marines guarding
that embassy in Kabul that are doing a great job, and if you
look at the picture in the New York Times, there are two of
them standing behind us when we were there.
But that is not the most secure building in the town, the
only one I saw painted, belongs to a certain agency and it was
in better shape than the embassy. But they have been there, I
think, longer than the embassy has been back.
At this time, I will yield to Mr. Olver for any opening
statement he might have.
John.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to welcome you, Mr. Secretary, to this, which I
believe is your first appearance before this subcommittee. I am
looking forward to your testimony also.
I was also on this trip, which the chairman has described,
to Afghanistan, along with seven other members of the Congress,
split almost evenly between the two parties. And the images
that we carry away from that are extremely vivid, both in the
destruction to the country, and also in the morale and the very
strong belief on the part of the people that we met at the
various bases of all of the different services in the job that
they are doing and the importance of it. So that was a very
strong image.
We also happened to be at the air base of Bagram in the
middle of Operation Anaconda, and I just want to say that the
loss of Sergeant Chapman and Airman Cunningham, as well as the
losses that have been suffered by the Navy and the Army, are
tragic, and I think I can speak for everybody here in all of
our deepest sympathies going out to the families of those who
have given their lives.
The Air Force is facing many challenges, it seems to me,
right now: a very active role in the war on terrorism,
obviously, adequate force protection and for your personnel and
their families, a significant backlog of below-standard
facilities among others. These all have tremendous implications
for the MILCON bill this year, and yet we are looking at a
construction program that is down $837 million: 53 percent from
last year's enacted levels, as the chairman already said.
So, I am deeply concerned about this budget, and I am
waiting to hear how you plan to meet those challenges that I
cited and the others which are also significant. I did not try
to cite all the possible challenges, obviously, but there are
very significant ones. And I am curious how you can plan to
meet those challenges.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, John.
Secretary Gibbs, your written statement has been entered in
the record, but we would like you to summarize your testimony
for us, and then after that we will do some questioning based
upon the way members came in the room. So, carry on, sir.
FAMILY HOUSING
The Air Force's total military construction and family
housing programs play a vital role supporting Air Forces
operational needs, workplace productivity and quality of life.
This committee's support for these programs has remained
steadfast over the years. Last year, the Secretary of Defense
made a commitment to transform the Department of Defense
installations and facilities into those required for a 21st-
century military. Given the ever-present competing priorities,
the Air Force has developed an executable and fiscally
responsible plan for getting its facilities on a path to
recovery.
The Air Force's top priorities within this year's
president's budget are to sustain the facilities that already
exist, enhance the quality of life by improving housing for
both single and married members, complying with existing
environmental statutes, and supporting new missions and weapons
systems.
For fiscal year 2003, the Air Force is requesting over $4.2
billion to invest in Air Force facilities and infrastructure,
the same level as submitted in fiscal year 2002 budget request.
This includes nearly $2 billion for sustainment, restoration
and modernization to maintain our existing infrastructure and
facilities; an increase of over $360 million from fiscal year
2002.
The budget request also reflects the Air Force's continued
commitment to taking care of its people and their families.
Their welfare is a critical factor to overall Air Force combat
readiness and the family housing program, dormitory program and
other quality-of-life initiatives reflect the commitment by the
Air Force to provide its people the facilities that they
deserve.
The Air Force is requesting $1.5 billion for family
military housing, of which $677 million is to replace more than
2,100 worn-out units at 23 bases and improve more than 1,700
units at 11 bases. This request also supports privatization of
more than 4,500 units at five bases.
To improve the quality of life for the Air Force's
unmarried junior enlisted members, the Air Force is requesting
$135 million for its fiscal year 2003 dormitory program, which
consists of 11 enlisted dormitory projects at nine State-side
bases and one overseas base.
The fiscal year 2003 request also includes $644 million for
active force military construction, $53 million for the Air
National Guard and $32 million for the Air Force Reserves.
Included are 25 new mission projects totalling over $287,284
million. This includes investments to base the F-22 Raptor at
Nellis Air Force Base for operational test and evaluation and
at Langley Air Force Base, the home of the first operational F-
22 wing.
Finally, this year's request includes new mission projects
to support B-2 forward operations in the United Kingdom and at
Diego Garcia, basing of the Global Hawk unmanned vehicle at
Beale Air Force Base and expanded aircraft parking at Naval
Station Rota in Spain and at Ramstein Air Base in Germany.
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee for its
continuing strong support of Air Force military construction,
family military housing and dormitory programs. With the
Committee's assistance and support, the Air Force will meet the
most urgent needs of its commanders in the field, while
providing quality facilities for the men and women who serve in
and are the backbone of the most respected air and space force
in the world.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Nelson F. Gibbs
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you.
C-17
Are you guys going to talk or you going to let him do it?
You are not going to introduce your wife? I will if you will
not.
Ernie brought his biggest supporter here today if he would
ever get her a fireplace. But other than that, Donna is here
with him today and we thank you for coming and your support of
the Air Force.
So I am going to go to questions. I understand there are
two studies on C-17s and where they are going in the Reserves.
The Air Force is doing one and then we have ordered one. What
is the deal on that?
Brigadier General Duignan. The site surveys that were done;
are you referring to those?
Mr. Hobson. Yes.
Brigadier General Duignan. Those have been completed both
at March and Wright-Pat, the ones that were directed by the
legislation.
Mr. Hobson. But is there another one going on someplace
else?
Mr. Gibbs. The C-17 basing strategy is working its way
through the structure of the Air Force. Air Mobility Command
(AMC) owes the last recommendation into the Secretary, and we
expect that the announcement of where additional basing will
occur on the C-17 sometime in the near future.
Mr. Dicks. In what year?
Mr. Hobson. He did not say.
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, I would believe it is this year, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Hobson. Sure.
Mr. Dicks. You have C-17s at McChord on the West Coast and
in South Carolina. And then there is going to be another base,
is that the----
Mr. Hobson. Well, there was a direction in the big bill and
this bill that they look at a base in Ohio and a base in
California. Is that correct?
Mr. Gibbs. There was legislation to that effect, yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. That does not mean the Air Force follows
legislation. They just, kind of, go off and do--and the Defense
Department, kind of, goes of and does what they want beyond
that.
These are Reserve bases.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. I got you.
Will there be other active duty bases?
Mr. Hobson. That is up to them.
Mr. Gibbs. I expect so, sir. There is current authorization
for up to 180 aircraft. Eighty-two have been received. One
hundred and twenty are under contract. There are appropriations
for the next 60. And by the time that comes, I am sure that the
announcement will have been made as to where those additional
aircraft will be based.
Mr. Dicks. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FAMILY HOUSING
Mr. Hobson. John, we will go to you for questions.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I noticed that you have not specifically said this in the
testimony today, Mr. Secretary, but in the Air Force budget
briefer which we all get, I guess, somewhere along the way,
there is a change in the time line for meeting the Office of
the Secretary of Defense guidance on elimination of substandard
family housing units--changing the time line there. It has been
revised to 2007 to 2010.
Can you give me some idea of what the reason for this delay
is? I am not aware that that is a delay that is being carried
across the other services. It may be, but I picked it up here.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. When we looked at trying
to execute the entire program to upgrade about 46,000 houses
between now and fiscal year 2007, we could not get there,
largely because we would have to displace so many families that
there is not enough spillover housing, if you will, available
to relocate families into while we are taking housing out of
the inventory and doing the renovation on them. We calculated
somewhere between 9,000 to 9,500 additional families that we
would have to displace if we were to move that time line
forward to 2007.
So it was not so much a matter of funding, although that
obviously an issue. It would take another almost half a billion
dollars to move everything forward. It was really a matter of
being able to do that without totally disrupting the lives of
another 9,000 families.
Mr. Olver. Do you propose that it be done by privatization?
Major General Robbins. Part of it will be done.
Mr. Olver. Part of it would be but not all.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir, that is correct.
We now, counting what we have in the budget before you, we
will privatize about 27,000 units across the Air Force.
Mr. Olver. Counting what is in this budget anticipating
that this is funded----
Major General Robbins. That is correct.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. You will have done 27,000.
Major General Robbins. Correct, out of an inventory of
103,000.
Mr. Olver. Okay, 27,000 would be ended, there would be
still 45,000 substandard?
Major General Robbins. That includes some of what is going
to be privatized. Some of that substandard will be renovated or
replaced through privatization. And some of it will be
renovated or replaced through military----
Mr. Olver. You have to be clear with me; I am a little
foggy here having just been around the world twice, it seems,
and dragged through knotholes along the way.
But the 45,000 that you mention is over and above. Those
are the substandard----
Major General Robbins. Within the 103,000 there are----
Mr. Olver [continuing]. That do not include what is in this
budget.
Major General Robbins. They do include what is in this
budget. We have approximately 103,000 in the inventory. Of
those, 45,000 to 46,000 are considered inadequate.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Major General Robbins. And between now and the year 2010 we
will bring all of those inadequate units up to standard.
Mr. Olver. How many substandard units are we going to deal
with in this budget?
Mr. Gibbs. Something approximately 8,300. In total, in this
budget, we are talking about replacing 2,100 units, doing major
renovation on 1,700 and privatizing 4,500. Not all of those
4,500 are substandard. I do not have the detail----
Mr. Olver. So you do not know offhand----
Mr. Gibbs. No, but when we privatize----
Mr. Olver. What I am trying to find out here was whether we
are counting the ones that are included in this budget in the--
--
Mr. Gibbs. In the 46,000, yes, sir.
PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Olver. Okay. How many then had we previously funded for
privatization over the last several years, roughly? Maybe this
is too intricate. I need to get a sense of how this pattern
fits together when you are really planning it, you are planning
for several years in the future.
Major General Robbins. I have the numbers here.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Major General Robbins. From fiscal year 1998 through 2000,
we had 6,300 units that we were going to privatize. And then in
2001, another 5,672 units to be privatized.
Mr. Hobson. How many of those did you do?
Major General Robbins. So far, none of the fiscal year 2001
projects have been awarded.
Back to the 2000, four of those projects have been awarded,
four more are under solicitation right now, and one is in Ready
for Procurement (RFP) development.
Of the four fiscal year 2001 projects, 5,672 units, all of
them have solicitation under development right now.
And in last year's program, fiscal year 2002, we had 12
projects, a total of 10,500 units are involved in those 12, and
they also are under development.
Mr. Olver. Those are under development, but none of those
are in construction.
Major General Robbins. That is correct. Only four are
actually under construction right now.
Mr. Olver. I guess the real question there would probably
be, is it possible, given the history of how long it takes to
get these done----
Major General Robbins. Right.
FAMILY HOUSING CONVENTIONAL AND PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Whether one can even do it by 2010,
rather than worrying about whether one can do it by 2007 and
why we have been pushing that off.
I wonder if it is possible, there must be some sheet of
paper somewhere, almost--what do you call those? A flow chart
or something----
Major General Robbins. Spreadsheet.
Mr. Olver. Spreadsheet.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Spreadsheet that shows how many you think should
go by conventional and how many by privatization over the years
to get to your goal at the end of 2010. Is that somewhere----
Major General Robbins. We have it.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. On some spreadsheet that you give
for the whole process?
Major General Robbins. In fact, it is probably in the row
behind me.
Mr. Olver. He will get you that.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Family Housing Conventional and Privatization
At the beginning of fiscal year 2003 the Air Force will have 23,000
privatized units, 33,000 adequate units, and 46,000 inadequate units.
Of those inadequate units, host nation funds will revitalize 3,400. The
following table identifies the use of MILCON and privatization to bring
the remaining 42,600 units up to an adequate standard. It should be
noted that the share of units to be revitalized using MILCON versus
privatization is a fairly dynamic number at this point in time. As we
experience more success with privatization and as economic/security
issues are resolved, we expect more privatization candidates to
surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of units revitalized through 2,100 4,700 4,500 4,300 4,700 7,000 6,300 4,500
MILCON.................................
Number of units revitalized through 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Privatization..........................
Number of inadequate units remaining.... 36,000 31,300 26,800 22,500 17,800 10,800 4,500 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Olver. Let me ask that for the future and I will pass
on to others until another round perhaps.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Skeen, do you have any questions you would
like to ask?
HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. Skeen. Yes, I do, Mr. Secretary, and as you know,
Holloman Air Force is located in my district. The survival
equipment shop--was condemned a year ago, but it does not
appear in the budget. Can you give me a status of correcting
this?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. That project at Holloman
is in the Air Force future years program. I believe it is in
the fiscal year 2006 program today.
Mr. Hobson. How much is it?
Mr. Skeen. What, for the cost?
Mr. Hobson. Yes.
Mr. Skeen. $4.6 million.
Mr. Hobson. That might make it.
Mr. Skeen. It is just easy, it is critical, you know.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. Well, it would be easier if they put it
in. I understand. But that might be one that could be added at
some point, although I know that the administration does not
want any adds to anything, and I assume you guys do not want
any congressional adds to anything done. If I understand the
administration's position, is that whatever we add is bad,
whatever you guys do is okay, but I do not think that is going
to happen.
But I just take the moment to discuss that a little bit
here at the hearing, because there is another agency around
here that tries to say everything we do is bad and everything
other people do is good, and I just want to send a message that
I think we have some understanding of what goes on some of our
places.
And, frankly, certain things would be gone in the Air Force
today if we would have listened to, you know--let me just say
this. People come and go in administration, people come and go
in the Air Force, and there are different people there around
and have different priorities.
There was one secretary of the Air Force that if that
person would have had their way, the Air Force Institute of
Technology would be gone today, even though the four-star at
the time did not want it gone, and everybody who wore a blue
suit did not want it gone.
So, I take umbrage at this attitude that--I think there is
some congressional wisdom that lasts longer than people that
are in these jobs for short periods of time. I think Joe would
probably agree with that and most of the members of this
committee would agree with that. And we have to live with this
stuff after everybody has gone. After Ernie retires, and Donna
gets her fireplace someplace, I still have to live with all the
things we have worked on here or not worked on.
And there was a time when the Air Force did not want to do
any privatization in housing because the guy who was leading
the Air Force did not want to do it. Now the Air Force has
gotten into it, and all the other services. It was not you. I
am not blaming you. That guy is gone. He is off and making big
bucks. And we are all set here, still having to deal with the
problem.
So, this is not just an Air Force problem. This is a
problem of wherever we are.
Go ahead. You got another question, Joe?
Mr. Skeen. Yes, I do. The approach lights at Cannon Air
Force Base have needed replacement for years. Yet they are not
scheduled for replacement until 2007. And since this is a
safety of flight issue, can you provide me with any status?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. The Cannon approach light
project is in the Air Force future year defense program in
fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Skeen. $1.0 million?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Any other questions, Joe?
Mr. Skeen. No. I came here to gripe a little, and you let
me gripe.
Mr. Hobson. I griped a little bit, too.
Mr. Skeen. No, thank you for the recognition and the
interest.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Joe.
Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be glad to
yield my time to the Chairman to continue his discussion of our
constitutional prerogatives. [Laughter.]
I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. I also hope that
the Pentagon does not play the game of saying, ``Well, those
guys on Capitol Hill are going to take care of MILCON, so we
can underfund that.'' Some year the worst could happen: You
might actually get what you asked for.
I do want to thank all of you for your service to our
country.
And specifically, I would like to ask the question
regarding the amount of resources in your military construction
budget necessitated by September 11 and additional force
protection expenditures. It seems to me that the Air Force has
taken a double hit. First, your military construction budget
request is down dramatically. And then secondly, even if it had
been leveled amount of funding, you are losing money because
you having to put some extra money in the force protection.
FORCE PROTECTION
Can you tell me how much, specifically, is necessitated in
spending out of your MILCON budget for force protection?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. And, in fact, as you know,
we started including the Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (ATFP)
design features, if you will, into our Military Construction
(MILCON) with this budget. And so, fortunately we had already
incorporated roughly 1 to 3 percent of each project's programed
amount for splinter protection, structural reinforcement and
that sort of thing. So, we were a little ahead of the game.
Subsequent to 9/11, there were a couple of projects that we
asked for through the Defense Emergency Relief Fund (DERF) and
got funded. One, thank you very much, sir, the Dover mortuary,
was not an ATFP issue, but it was a cost of war, certainly,
which was funded. And then some projects in Southwest Asia,
which were again funded as part of the 2002 supplemental.
In 2003 there is another DERF request being formulated
through the OSD folks and we have about $200 million in MILCON
for ATFP types of projects in that Air Force request that has
gone down at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
I think the point to make here is that our MILCON
submittal, our 2003 budget that is before you, was not
decrimented in order to accommodate that. This would be added
to----
Mr. Edwards. Assuming you are going to get that in a
supplemental?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. We are hoping it is.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Hobson. Is that true of the Guard and Reserve also? Do
you cover all of it?
Major General Robbins. Sir, that is the total force. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Hobson. Includes the total force. Okay.
PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Edwards. One last quick question then. In terms of RCI,
maybe it is not a quick question to answer----
Mr. Hobson. They do not call it RCI.
Mr. Edwards. In terms of--what is it called in the Air
Force?
Mr. Gibbs. Privatization.
Mr. Edwards. Privatization, whatever you want to call it,
how is that going? What is going well? What are the problems or
questions that are still out there unanswered?
Mr. Gibbs. It is taking too long. There are too many layers
of review that the projects have to go through, and we are
working on attempting to streamline that process. We are about
six months behind where we thought we would be or should have
been at this point in time, and basically it is our internal
problem, and we are working on that.
In terms of the privatization overall, General Robbins
commented about the 26,000 units that are in there. The chief,
shortly after he came in, asked for the base coms and link
commanders to go back and review all of their bases a second
time, regarding privatization, the possibility of including
more in that.
There are a number of those working through that process,
that we are working on now. So we would expect that when we
come back in 2004 that we will have identified additional bases
that we can do privatization of the family housing also.
Mr. Edwards. As the Army has in some cases, are you using
request for qualifications and then picking the contractor, or
do you design the project and then put it out for the lowest
bidder?
Mr. Gibbs. We use some of both.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. All right.
Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Just one question. Can you tell me where you
are on the process of determining where the Joint Strike
Fighter training squadron will be based and what are going to
be the MILCON requirements?
Mr. Gibbs. The latter part, the MILCON requirements, no, we
have nothing on that indication now.
And in the Joint Strike Fighter, for permanent basing, to
my knowledge, that study has not been started. There currently
is a study that got under way quite recently under the auspices
of the joint services to look for training bases. We are
probably about 12 months away from having completed that.
But I do know that they are in the process to go out to
begin the surveys of the individual bases.
But that part, the basing for training, has started
recently.
Mr. Hobson. I think Norm left.
Sam.
Mr. Farr. I am going to pass and let Allen----
Mr. Hobson. I think Mr. Walsh is next.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your service.
GUARD AND RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
I have a question, Mr. Gibbs. I noted born in Rochester,
New York; it is right down the road. Clarkson University.
Mr. Gibbs. Up the road.
Mr. Walsh. My question, sir, is--and you may have covered
this earlier, and I missed your opening statement--the budget
for MILCON for Air Force is $4.2 billion for facilities and
infrastructure. And yet for Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve, it is $85 million. Those two components have more than
50 percent of the Air Force's war-fighting capability and
comprise about 25 percent of the work force.
Could you explain your rationale for that seeming
disparity?
Mr. Gibbs. I will give, sort of, an overview and then let
General Robbins talk about it more specifically.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, you are going to give him the tough job?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Ernie always winds up with the tough job
here. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. He has more experience.
In putting together the philosophy, the structure behind
what we are going to do, a determination was made that what we
have to do is we have to fix what we have first, we have to
stop any hemorrhaging. And therefore this basic decision was to
fund the sustainment piece at 100 percent. And also overarching
that was we were not going to cut back on what we were doing.
We wanted to maintain it at a specific level, and we also have
the requirement for the new missions that came up.
So when you get to the specific MILCON budget, when you get
those pieces, what happens next is the Air Force has a very
extensive prioritization for MILCON projects for existing
activities and existing bases. And I have reviewed that and
looked at it, and it is a total force structure.
The Reserve and the Guard flow into that process, just as
do active bases, and how they then fall out of the process then
becomes much more mechanical.
Ernie, did I leave something out?
Major General Robbins. Well, just everything you said was
correct, and that there really is no attempt in terms of
equitable distribution across major commands, of which the
Guard and Reserve are major commands, for all practical
purposes. Having said that, when you look at what the physical
plant is in the Guard, Reserve and active side, the MILCON
distribution ends up to be almost exactly on par with the
relative percentage of physical plants.
For example, the Guard this year in our budget has got
$53.5 million in MILCON, which represents 8.0 percent of the
total Air Force MILCON request. And they happen to have 7.9
percent of the physical plant and the Air Force, so they are in
proportion.
Mr. Hobson. Are they more efficient?
Major General Robbins. Sir? No. Well, if so then let's talk
about the Reserves. They have about $32 million in our budget,
which is 4.9 percent, but yet their physical plant is only
about 3.8 percent. So, again, we are talking decimal places.
And so proportionate to the size of their facility plant,
which is what we are worried about here. And that by the way is
exactly the 20-year average before adds.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, you added that part, right?
Major General Robbins. Yes, I did.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to recess for a few minutes so we
can go vote. Members have some other questions.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hobson. I think Mr. Boyd is next.
Go ahead.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Gibbs and gentlemen, thank you for your
service to the country. As a former lieutenant, I am always
honored to be sitting at the same table with general officers
and I mean that very sincerely. I respect what you do greatly,
and what you have done with your own personal careers.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE SURPLUS PROPERTY
I want to ask, Mr. Secretary, a couple of questions that
relate to specific items in the Bay County-Tyndall Air Force
Base area. The first one has to do with a fuel depot which is
awarded to surplus property in Bay County. Over the last couple
of years, I, along with community leaders, specifically the Bay
Defense Alliance, held a series of meetings with the commander
of Tyndall, Secretary Dishner and the Air Force Real Estate
Office regarding the transfer of this Lynn Haven Fuel Depot to
Florida State University.
The Air Force has been working for years to get this
cleaned up. We are about there now. We are about ready to be
able to dispose of it. We had been specifically working with
the Real Estate Office regarding this transfer, and prior to
the House passing the defense authorization bill, we provided a
copy of the language that we wanted in the bill to the Air
Force.
The Real Estate Office had signed off on that proposal and
the language that we proposed was put in there. Much to my
surprise, when we went to conference, we found that the Air
Force opposed this transfer. When I attempted to find out why
they opposed it, we found a letter that was provided to the
Armed Services Committee that said the base commander objected
because he believed the property could be sold and developed as
residential property.
I personally spoke to the base commander and he let me know
that was not the case. I think we have a situation down there
unfolding that could be, sort of, a black eye for us if we do
not resolve it. I hope everybody will lay their cards on the
table and see where we can go from here.
I know you were not there at the time. But I would like to
make you aware of this situation and see if you can get some
answers to this committee about why the transfer was opposed
and then see where we can go from here. Because it is my belief
that if there is any attempt by the Air Force to develop it for
residential property, that will be strenuously objected to by
the community, and we will have a problem.
Mr. Gibbs. Sir, I appreciate you bringing it to my
attention. I was not familiar with it. I will be shortly, and I
will report back to the committee. I may not be able to answer
your question directly about exactly what happened, but I can
talk to you about what is going to happen.
Mr. Boyd. All right, and I think that is the most important
part.
[The information follows:]
Tyndall Air Force Base Surplus Property
Lynn Haven is an Air Force property that was permitted to the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) initially under an Army administered
permit (No. DACA01-4-75-128) in July 1974, and currently under an Air
Force permit (USAF/AETC-TYN-4-97-003) that expires 30 June 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed Tyndall AFB on the
National Priority List on 26 April 1997. This listing included Lynn
Haven. DLA expects to complete its remediation of petroleum
contamination in December 2003. The Air Force will complete the
remediation of any remaining non-petroleum contamination no later than
2012, and any remaining long-term monitoring activities by 2017.
The Air Force and Department of Defense have not determined the
property to be excess, nor am I aware of any plan to consider such a
determination in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Chairman, if I have more time----
Mr. Hobson. Sure.
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE RUNWAY
Mr. Boyd [continuing]. The other issue is two years ago, in
fiscal year 2001, this committee provided $10.8 million to
resurface the runway at Tyndall Air Force Base. It came to my
attention just in the last couple of months--and I received
this information from one of the pilots at Tyndall--that the
job was half completed and they ran out of money.
What I would like to do is get an update on that. And also
say that that is probably a bad way for us to find out, from
the pilots. If you have problems like that, you probably need
to work with this subcommittee a little bit better.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. We awarded the project
exactly as appropriated. And, in fact, there was a low bid. A
local contractor won the project. When they began to remill the
surface of the runway, they found that the asphalt that was
there was not uniform. You know, long story short, there was a
lot more work required than was specified in the contract.
Unfortunately, once we had awarded the project, we took the
remaining dollars, which was about $2.2 million, I think, that
is $2 million plus, and applied it, like we always do against
other requirements in the Air Force. So by the time these
design problems came to light, and construction problems came
to light, and there was no money left to expand the scope of
work. Air Education and Training Command (AETC) has put that
$2.2 million project back into the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) to complete the work on the Tyndall airfield.
So it was an unfortunate circumstance, a bad design,
frankly. But we were at the point of no return in terms of
those dollars.
Mr. Hobson. But doesn't anybody go out and test the asphalt
before they do it?
Major General Robbins. Well, yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. If you are going to do a concrete project, or
something in concrete does somebody do a core drill.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. I said this was not a
pretty story.
Mr. Hobson. Did they promote the guy? That is usually what
happens.
Mr. Boyd. I guess, Mr. Chairman, the question is what do we
need to do from here to----
Major General Robbins. Well, like I said, the completion of
the work that is required is in the 2006 FYDP, the AETC budget.
Mr. Hobson. That means you probably have to do one of the
things that nobody here in the Administration at OMB likes us
to do. And you will probably get criticized by somebody in the
other body for doing an add and a pork barrel project.
Now, there is a question of whether the airfield is
adequate or not. But it will be designed as a pork barrel
project someplace. And you will probably be criticized by OMB
for our doing it, but it will probably be done.
Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, may I interject here?
I am puzzled. You have done part of the work. That
resurfacing or reconstruction of the runway is partially done?
Or is the runway still usable?
Major General Robbins. The runway is usable. We just did
not complete the upgrade portion of the taxi way and some of
the edges of the pavements, shoulders.
Mr. Olver. Why is it put back in the 2006 FYDP for the
completion of a project which is clearly something that you
really would not like to sit out there like it is sore thumb on
a doctor for the next four years would you? I would have
thought that the Air Force would want to get this one done so
that it is not sitting there to bring it back up in people's
minds again and again.
Major General Robbins. As noted in Mr. Gibbs' opening
statement, we have a lot of requirements that we cannot reach.
And this falls into the category of current mission so many
requirements, so little money.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. But let me say this again. And I am going
to say this to Mr. Gibbs, you need to take this back to your
bosses down here. If this happens to get in the bill, I do not
want to hear anybody down there say it or anybody in the other
body coming in and saying, ``Gee, you guys moved something up
in the 2006 budget, that is a pork barrel project for
Tyndall.''
First of all, if they would have done it right in the
beginning it would not be there. And then the powers that be
down there do not put it in the bill. And then we take flak for
putting it in.
So a strong, clear message to the big guys, stop messing
around with us on stuff like this. This is a game that is going
on both places and it ought to stop. And we ought to stop this
bickering back and forth.
A guy left today because he spoke the truth and he was
fired, and I do not like it. And I am telling you, I do not
like it, not to you, but I am telling to the guys down there,
and I have already told them, I do not like it. Because he
spoke the truth about this stuff and stood up, he is gone.
The next time I get a hold of the other guy in the other
department, I want him to explain to me about this particular
process right here. I will ask him specifically on this one.
And I will ask him on a couple others. If he is doing his job,
then why isn't he taking care of this stuff? And I am tired of
it. I will tell you, I have just about had it.
And let me be frank with you, I think the Democrats have
been pretty good at not saying the stuff I have been saying,
because I would have been saying a lot more if I were in their
shoes, and it is not right.
Norm.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
B-2 BEDDOWN
I noted in the budget that the Air Force's Global Strike
task force, you are going to be building B-2 aircraft hangars
at Royal Air Force Base, Fairford, United Kingdom, and B-2
aircraft parking pads at Diego Garcia. This has been something
that we have been working on in the Defense Subcommittee, and
this will give us the ability to take the B-2s from Whiteman
and go to either Diego Garcia, Fairford, England, or to Guam.
And, you know, it just cuts down these tremendous sorties that
you have to fly from Whiteman, and so we will be able to
forward-deploy the B-2 in the future, but we have to support
these military construction projects.
Mr. Hobson. But it also means, if I can interject, that you
can use the plane more efficiently because you----
Mr. Dicks. Right, cut down the sorties.
Mr. Hobson. Well, yes, and you can do the things you have
to do to the aircraft to get it back up in the air better and
faster there.
Mr. Dicks. Exactly.
Tell us a little bit about this project, if you could.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, it is specifically for what you described
that, to reduce the amount of flight time that is now needed
for the B-2 to operate from principally its sole source at
Whiteman in Missouri. It will allow us to have greater over-
area coverage wherever we may need it.
In Diego Garcia, basically, it is to construct an apron
upon which to put a temporary shelter, which will be there a
long time, a long, very long time. And in England it is to get
it closer to theaters of operation there to cut down on the
turnaround time.
Mr. Dicks. The money will be provided in 2003, how long
will it take to finish them?
Major General Robbins. Sir, I have to get for the record. I
do not know what the construction period is on this, I really
do not.
Mr. Dicks. Would it be very long or----
Major General Robbins. Well, I do not--particularly the
ones at Diego should not, since it is purely horizontal work,
it is a matter of pouring concrete. But, as you know, it is a
long pipeline to get materials out to that island.
Mr. Dicks. Right.
Major General Robbins. But I would think less than a year
to construct those for sure. And then the Fairford one I am not
sure. We will have to get it for the record.
[The information follows:]
The B-2 Aircraft Parking Apron Phase 1 project at Diego Garcia will
require 15 months to construct. The B-2 Maintenance Hangar/Apron
project at Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford will require 19 months to
construct.
Mr. Dicks. I mean, if I could just get a piece of paper
from somebody just to explain this to me, I would appreciate
it, because this is something I have taken an interest in and
worked with Darlene Druyan on, and try to move this thing
forward.
The other thing I thought was a pretty good piece of news
in here was your, I think rather aggressive, approach on
privatization of family housing. Now, the chairman has done a
great job of reviewing these projects for the Congress, and
maybe he has already said something about this, but it says
here that in addition the Air Force is on track to award eight
projects in the next 12 months that will result in an
additional 9,000 privatized units across the Air Force.
Can you tell me a little bit about this, and how many you
are going to be able to do over the next five years? Because
with MILCON down, this is the only way we are going to get the
housing that we need. And I think this is a pretty good way to
go.
Mr. Gibbs. Sir, we currently have plans to move forward on
approximately 26,000 units for privatization. I did comment a
little bit earlier that Chief Jumper last fall asked the major
commands (MAJCOMs) and base commanders to take a second look at
the suitability for locations for additional opportunities of
privatization.
Those reports have come back in. There are additional bases
now that we are currently in the process of reviewing and we
expect to, by next year, be able to add on top of the 26,000
that are currently in the plans.
Mr. Hobson. If I could interject, this is a change in the
Air Force. The Air Force had been somewhat resistant to
privatization, had done a few to, kind of, pacify us. But I
think there has been a change in the Air Force. This is not
directed at anybody here, because it was not you guys. I know
where it was. And they have now, I think, are getting more
aggressive in this, realizing that this is the only game that
is really going to get us anywhere in the long term.
So, they become a player for both the Army and the Navy,
and the Marine Corps. Even the Marine Corps has become a better
player.
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Dicks. You say here five-to-one leverage on the
military construction investment from housing privatization.
How does that work? Would you explain that?
Mr. Gibbs. What that is referring to in there is the cost
to get the privatization. It is not the ultimate cost. We are
not accommodating for that.
But before we can even get an upgraded house out of the
privatized process for effectively an up-front cost of $1
compared to an up-front cost of $5 in order to have the housing
done through military construction. Because under the military
construction, we have the cost of the construction.
Mr. Hobson. But you know, there ought to be some places
where there are no costs.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, there are.
Mr. Hobson. I mean, Norm, when they say five-to-one, what
you are doing is buying the deal down to make the numbers work.
With the new Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and at certain
locations, it is going to be no cost at all, because where else
in the world do you get the ground? I mean you are an
accountant, you know this stuff better than anybody. Where else
in the world do you get a deal where somebody gives you the
ground, and then on the other hand, gives you a permanent
paycheck to get the money so you do not have to put in the
vacancy factors that you do in any other deal?
So there ought to be a lot of, I call them deals; my staff
does not like me to use the word ``deal,'' but in the real
world we call them deals. Lots of people call them
transactions. But in the real world, sir, there ought to be
places where--there are some places where it will not work. I
understand that. But in most cases--in a lot of cases, we
should not have to put any money in.
For example, the Army's doing that at, I think, Fort Meade.
It is such a great piece of real estate in such a great
location that we are not going to have to put any money in
there. We are about five years later than I would like to be on
the project, but there have to be places like that in the Air
Force.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, there are. Those numbers are the historic
ones. And the Air Force has gotten smarter as they have done
more good deals.
When I talk to accountants I call them transactions. But
when I talk to you here, they are deals.
And over time that is improving. The later ones we do, we
are much better negotiators, and we do get some that are
effectively at zero cost to the developer to take it over.
There are still some internal costs, and we have some design.
And as the construction goes on, we still have responsibilities
for inspection, maintenance and managing. So, there is a cost
to go forward; they are not totally free. But, you are correct,
it is a nominal cost and it is not per se a cost of putting the
houses into the ground.
Each one gets better than the last.
Mr. Hobson. Are McChord or Fairchild on these lists at any
point yet?
Major General Robbins. Not up to this point, sir. I do not
know they are in the out-year or not. Well, I think I have a
list here that shows total out-year programs. I am going to
have to get it for the record. I do not have it.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Goode?
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have just got one question. It comes from a citizen in my
district.
He heard the debate on campaign finance reform and one of
the arguments against prohibiting non-citizens from
contributing to federal election campaign was the fact that
branches of the military had non-citizens as members. So, I
would like to ask the assistant secretary, how many non-
citizens do you have serving in the United States Air Force?
Mr. Gibbs. Sir, I do not know. I will get that number for
you.
Mr. Goode. Okay. We will not have to send you a letter. You
will send it to us.
Mr. Gibbs. No. We have heard it.
Mr. Goode. All right.
[The information follows:]
There is one officer and 2,901 enlisted members on active duty who
are ``Registered Immigrant Aliens.''
The governing Air Force instructions on this matter are:
(1) For enlisted personnel: Air Force Instruction 36-2002 (Regular
Air Force and Special Category Accessions) and states minimum
eligibility standards:
1.4 Enlisted Program Requirements. Applicants must meet specific
enlistment program requirements announced by Headquarters Air Force
Recruiting Service (HQ AFRS), and be a:
1.4.1 United States citizen, or
1.4.2 United States national born in American Samoa or Swains
Island, or
1.4.3 Lawfully admitted resident alien who possesses an alien
registration form (I-551) issued for a period of 10 years, or
1.4.4 Foreign national citizen of the Federated States of
Micronesia or the Republic of the Marshall Islands; and
(2) For officers: Air Force Instruction 36-2005: ``Officers must be
a U.S. citizen.'' All regular officers must be U.S. citizens according
to law (Title 10) and according to Air Force policy. Reserve officers
must be U.S. citizens according to policy only (waiverable in extremely
rare circumstances); not according to law. The one officer in the Air
Force who is not a citizen is a medical officer (non-line/reserve
officer) who has been in since 1 January 1990. He applied for
citizenship two years ago and is waiting for the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to finish processing his application.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Vitter?
Mr. Vitter. Nothing right now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Hobson. John?
B-2 BEDDOWN
Mr. Olver. Well, I want to go back to the Diego Garcia bit
for a couple of minutes. Sorry that Mr. Dicks is not here now.
But the $17.1 million, is that the only item in the budget
for Diego Garcia? And that is for the aprons and hangars. How
large is the hangar? Is that for one or two, or three or four
or whatever B-2s?
Major General Robbins. The Air Force project is for two. It
is a hanger.
Mr. Olver. That is in Britain.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. And on Diego Garcia?
Major General Robbins. And on Diego, it is a slab, a
concrete slab, capable of housing the temporary shelters. So,
there will be no permanent----
Mr. Olver. I see, there is no intent to be permanent there.
Okay, now what has the role? Is there any permanent, then,
change in the role of Diego Garcia since 9/11? You are talking
about a temporary. Is that the only temporary thing planned, or
do you have other things coming along?
Major General Robbins. We have nothing that I know of in
the Air Force budget for Diego Garcia other than this project.
I do not know what the Navy may----
Mr. Olver. So its relationship has not been changed
fundamentally? But just put that in in order to be able to have
a platform from which to operate B-2s for what we see in the
near future.
Major General Robbins. We have temporarily deployed B-52s
and B-1s out of there during this operation, but no B-2s
because of the lack of any facilities big enough to hangar
them.
Mr. Olver. This is one of those places that I have not yet
had a chance to visit, and I may never have a chance to visit.
In fact, I might never even until such a time as the Chairman
has run out of places to go. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Where is that?
Mr. Olver. Diego Garcia?
Mr. Hobson. Oh, trying to get there.
Mr. Olver. He is right. It is way off in the middle of the
Indian Ocean, somewhere.
How many people do we have in Diego Garcia?
Major General Robbins. Sir, I do not know. It is a Navy
installation.
Mr. Olver. Oh, it is a Navy installation?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. I should have asked them earlier in the day,
then.
Major General Robbins. We deploy people through there to
conduct operations, and then when the operations end we pull
them back. There is a small Air Force contingent there for
aerial support.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Well, I can find out how many we have in
the way of deployed people there running that installation for
the Navy.
Mr. Hobson. There are some other countries there, too.
Major General Robbins. It is owned by Great Britain. And so
there is a United Kingdom (U.K.) contingent there.
Mr. Olver. Well, the rest of my question was going to be
what, sort of, readiness rating does this installation there
have; whatever installation you, the Air Force, run there?
You don't have anybody there?
Major General Robbins. We do not own any real estate there.
The Navy owns the real estate that is on the island.
Mr. Olver. Okay. So all that----
Mr. Gibbs. I am not even sure the Navy owns it. The United
Kingdom owns----
GUARD PROJECTS
Mr. Olver. All right, I will save those questions for the
Navy.
Let me just ask you one other thing. There was a press
report just the end of January, I guess it was. And what it
said was that the top National Guard officer in West Virginia
had spoken to the press indicating that there were $900 million
in federal construction projects at two Guard facilities in
West Virginia. One of them was identified. He identified it as
Martinsburg Air Base close to finalizing a $400 million
project. And the rest of the comment was that there was another
$500 million federal project is ``this close'' to being
finalized.
Is anything you can say about these Guard projects
supposedly or that you would wish to say anything about them?
Mr. Hobson. He may not be able to say all he wants, but----
[Laughter.]
Brigadier General Brubaker. I know that they are
anticipating some changes in force structure perhaps. I know
that also these are not all Air related. Some of them are Army
related, I believe.
Mr. Olver. Some are Army related?
Mr. Hobson. Were they in the previous bill?
Brigadier General Brubaker. No, I do not think they were in
any bill.
Mr. Olver. They are not in any bill yet?
Brigadier General Brubaker. No, they are not in any bill
yet.
Mr. Olver. That would be a pretty major thing of a Guard
facility, $400 million for Guard places.
Mr. Hobson. West Virginia. [Laughter.]
Brigadier General Brubaker. I think some it is speculation
on the part of the state.
Mr. Hobson. Is the answer, General, for West Virginia Air
or Army?
Brigadier General Brubaker. It is Army.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
The one, as I mentioned, is specified as Martinsburg Air
Base.
Mr. Hobson. What is there now?
Brigadier General Brubaker. They have C-130s and that
mission could change.
Mr. Hobson. C-17s?
Brigadier General Brubaker. Did I say that? [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. It is obviously a base that is probably not
going to be in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)? Is that
what you are telling me?
Mr. Olver. It might be cheaper to do it that way. When it
is larger aircraft, it takes up a lot of space and there would
not be room to put other things.
Is it typical to have two bases--I guess I do not want to
go there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. That depends on where it is and what day it is
and the historic--I mean, some of this stuff goes way back.
Some of the bases have changed from active duty to Reserve or
active duty to Guard. For example, Wright-Patterson today is a
Reserve unit. Rickenbacker is a Guard unit. They were both on
the same base at one time. And Wright-Patterson, for example,
which is a very large base, has no active duty flying unit
today. One of the oldest bases in the country in the Air Force
has no active duty. The last active duty got sent because
somebody had to give up something. It had nothing to do with
mission or cost-effectiveness.
And this is another thing that really bugs me, while you
are on this, John. We move things sometimes just to move them.
It took me eight years to figure out why the 4950th ever moved
from Wright-Patterson to Edwards. I thought that it was some
big secret deal that was going to, you know, save Edwards and
do all this kind of stuff. And finally, a three-star retired
who had been at Edwards and there and everywhere else and he
finally said to me, ``Look, it was a very simple decision.
General Yates had to give up something.'' And so we spent
millions of dollars at a time when everybody was griping about
how much money we did not have, to move something to another
base because he could not give up Eglin and he could not give
up Edwards, so he gave up Wright-Patterson.
But it had nothing to do with cost-effectiveness of what we
were doing. It was so somebody could say that they had given up
something too like everybody else had given up something. Which
I think is, kind of, like scoring in the things you do to bring
it back to the real world here now. We do stupid things because
of this--it was supposed to be a good idea. But sometimes
business versus--I mean, we do dumb deals sometimes because we
are worried about what the scoring effect is going to have from
OMB.
And we ought to get OMB into the real world on a number of
things. And one ought to be scoring. And it is not their fault;
they inherited this thing. And you know, we ought to understand
that we should not do a dumb--and I do not--you know, you are
an accountant. We should not do a dumb real estate transaction
simply because of scoring.
And I have had this fight with other services. I have not
particularly had this fight with the Air Force. But of where we
fight over scoring that makes us put a whole bunch of money
into something because of scoring or we do not do the deal
right.
AIRCRAFT LEASE
For example, I do not think--this is not you guys in this
committee, but I do not think the deal we are doing on the
airplanes--on leasing the airplanes is right. We ought to draw
that in a way that is cost-effective. And if we have to have a
repurchase agreement in it, put it in, because that is what we
do in the real world.
But we do not do it maybe because it is scoring. That is
baloney.
I am sorry, John. I am on your time. Go ahead.
Mr. Olver. Well, you have done very well with my time.
[Laughter.]
DOVER AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. Hobson. Well, can I say something nice because
sometimes Marybeth beats me up because I do not say anything
nice about you guys. But I do want to say--and Ernie, I beat
him up every once and a while.
But anything I have done was not directed at him, because
he is a great fellow and the Air Force has done a good job on
things. And one he did do a great job on and I want to talk
about is the Dover mortuary, because that is a difficult
subject for people to deal with.
There were some people who did not even want us to go up
and visit the place. Mr. Murtha said, ``You are going to go
visit it?'' And I told him if he thought--if you think my wrath
is bad, you know what, Mr. Murtha will be worse.
We went up and looked at it. And unfortunately, that is a
place we have to have. And it should be in a quality that is
respectful of the people that we bring back to there as well as
the people who work there.
And frankly, it was not respectful of either. Although the
people who are working there are lovely people and doing a
great job, they were asked to work under circumstances that
were unhealthy to them and not respectful, in my opinion, of
the families of the loved ones who had been killed.
And as a result of some good work, and I want to thank
General Robbins for this, we are going to take care of that
facility. And it is going to be done in such a way that is
respectful so that we do not have television cameras intruding
upon the way we take those remains into the facility and that
they get the dignity that they are entitled to.
And General Robbins worked this very hard, and I want to
thank him for getting this done; and, frankly, for getting it
done in which looks like going to be a very timely fashion.
This is not going to take forever. Construction is going to be
complete by the early spring of 2003, which I think is going to
send some good signals on construction in the Air Force and
other services to be able to get this done. And we are going to
use--I think I suggested the tilt-up thing when I was there. We
are going to use some type of construction things that we do in
the private sector.
And I want to thank you personally, General Robbins, for--
this was before your time, Mr. Gibbs, but I want to thank him
personally for moving this forward in such an expeditious and
quality fashion.
Major General Robbins. Great teamwork.
Mr. Hobson. And I do not know if this will be your last
time here or not, maybe you do not want to face it again, but
if it is, I thank you for all you have done; and if it is not,
I will look forward to seeing you back here.
I want to ask a question about something I think is very
exciting that you are doing, because, as people will know, I
have had some difficulties with this area and even changed the
law to do this; and this is the general officers quarters.
GENERAL OFFICERS QUARTERS
The Air Force budget request proposes constructing the
first general officers quarters (GOQs) using the new size
standards for housing. I could never understand why nobody ever
asked for new housing for general officers. We just wanted to
waste a whole bunch of money in old stuff. And I could not
figure out why that was. And finally somebody said to me,
``Well, it is because you can only have a new house at 2,150
feet.'' And I said, ``I got it, we are going to get that fixed.
And then we ought to start doing some of this.''
And I am glad to see that you are getting into this. Maybe
you can answer a couple questions. How many does the Air Force
propose constructing? What do you think the square footage of
these are going to be? And each one does not have to be a
cookie cutter. What are the benefits of constructing general
officers quarters to the new size standards versus renovating
existing units? And do you have an estimate on the long-term
savings associated with these projects?
Major General Robbins. Okay. I can answer all but the last
question, because I really do not know the long-term O&M
savings. As you say, we put good money after bad in many cases,
and I do not know how much that might have been.
Mr. Hobson. It is a lot.
Major General Robbins. It could be.
In the budget before you there are projects which include
eight GOQs scattered around the Air Force. One of our favorites
is the one at Osan, which is----
Mr. Hobson. Oh, yes.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. That is in this budget
request.
Mr. Hobson. General----
Major General Robbins. Heflebower.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. Heflebower will not be there.
Major General Robbins. Is gone. That is correct. He will
not enjoy that. But future commanders of 7th Air Force will.
All eight of them are programmed at the 3,300 square feet,
net square feet, that was our range----
Mr. Hobson. Do you think that is appropriate?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir, it is the midpoint of the
range. We went out to the National Association of Home Builders
and asked them what an executive with this type of income, this
type of responsibility would typically have in the private
sector, and that is how we, kind of, developed the midpoint.
But one of the things that I think general officers do more
of than even corporate executives sometimes, and that is you
have a certain amount of local community functions that you
have to do that a lot of people in the business world do not do
to the extent that you have to do with the local community and
things of that sort.
Major General Robbins. We included that in this 3,300-
square-foot programming target, and we added 10 percent to that
for four-star quarters. So, for example, you will see two four-
star quarters at Peterson included in the budget, and they will
be allowed to program 10 percent above that for those two
quarters, just for the very purpose you mentioned, a special
command position four-star in official entertainment.
Mr. Hobson. He does not need 16,000 feet----
Major General Robbins. No, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. Like we got one----
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. We know where that is.
Major General Robbins. Yes, we do.
Mr. Hobson. Been there, haven't we.
Major General Robbins. Yes, we have.
Mr. Hobson. Cost you a vacation that Donna--to Hawaii
because he had to go with me, and I did not want him to go, but
the chief wanted him to go because they were worried about what
I was going to do. But I did not do anything bad.
Major General Robbins. And she, kind of, liked Hawaii
without me. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. You got there late, I think.
So are you going to design these so that they reflect, for
example, if you are in the Southwest----
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. It is going to look like
Southwest?
Major General Robbins. They will be compatible with the
architectural standards at the bases where they are going to be
built. So they are not cookie cutters, it is just that we are
telling them to program at 3,300 square feet, plus or minus 10
percent.
Mr. Hobson. Do you have any idea of approximately how much
per square foot you are going to----
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir. I do have that somewhere
here.
Mr. Hobson. You knew I was going to ask that.
Major General Robbins. Well, I had the cost per the unit.
So they are averaging about $250,000 per unit, so do the math.
So, that comes out to what? About $80 some.
Mr. Hobson. That is right, because you do not have the land
in there.
Major General Robbins. That is right. Now that does not
include the cost of the utilities up to them or if they have to
fix the street. It is the cost of the housing unit itself. Is
that right? About $85 a square foot. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And they are going to be first class? I mean,
these are going to be test models, so we do not want to build a
bunch of junk.
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And we want to build stuff that we are going to
be proud of for these officers to live in because we are going
to get a kick back--I mean they are going to kick us back, I do
not mean money. But I mean they are going to get upset if we do
not build these right. And it is going to hurt the program in
all the services if we do not do this.
But, I think while we are doing the housing for other
people, we need to do this. And it is better than wasting all
that money on just dumping it into these old houses, and still
having old houses when we get done.
So, I am pleased to see you all getting on with that.
Wherever we can we ought to do that.
There was one other thing else I was going to ask you.
Well, I still want to try to privatize the dormitories. And I
am upset about the dormitory down at Lackland that I saw. It
has a big cost overrun in it. I do not think the construction
is what it should be. You know the one we looked at, the one
near where my barracks used be. My barracks is where the Burger
King is today. We didn't even know what Burger King was when I
was on active duty, but that is long ago.
But, has anybody looked at that facility since then?
Major General Robbins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. The reason I say that is you have another one
in the budget. And if we are going to mess that one up as big
as this one got messed up, I am not sure I want to do it. And I
do not say you messed up, you have a contractor problem, I
think.
Major General Robbins. Actually, I think it was a
combination of design and construction. And you are right; we
actually have two other projects to go in there that we are
going to combine into one. We are going to go with a larger
contractor. Quite frankly, that was one of the problems. We
believe that the contractor who did the first one, was perhaps
over his head.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Major General Robbins. So, I have talked to AETC as
recently as today on this very topic. And we will never paint a
galvanized rail again. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Well, you know, these are just things,
when I go through these things I just have enough knowledge to
be dangerous. But we had a big overrun on that one.
Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that you
both understand on the Tyndall runway issue that we have
received a briefing from the Air Force folks pursuant to our
call to them to talk about that. And during that briefing we
were told that actually it was 2005 in the five-year plan, but
that seems to have changed now. But, maybe we can fix that some
way or another.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, it is going to get fixed. It is a problem.
COMMERCIAL AIRLINES
Mr. Boyd. Mr. Secretary, there was an interesting
discussion about Diego Garcia and now Lebanon. There is a
command and a facility whose role has changed significantly
since 9/11 and that is the 1st Air Force, which is housed at
Tyndall Air Force Base. And I assume the committee understands
that the President has made the 1st Air Force commander--and
you understand this better than I do, he is one of 3 people
that now has responsibility to make decisions whether to shoot-
down a commercial airliner.
But as a result of those additional responsibilities, we
now have 440 people at the 1st Air Force Operations Center.
Prior to 9/11 that number was 168. I understand that the final
personnel force is scheduled to be in the neighborhood of 350
people. We have many of our folks there working off of card
tables with their laptops. This is truly an issue that we have
to figure out how to resolve in terms of our facility and space
limitations.
I am going to make an attempt to try to get that facility
built as quickly as we can. Would you care to talk about how we
might work on that together and get that done as quickly as
possible?
Mr. Gibbs. I will make a brief comment and then General
Robbins may want to add to it. In the process as I learned this
fall and winter going through it, in terms of the
prioritization going into the model, the individual wing
commanders and Air Force commanders basically do the
prioritization.
And then as it flows up through the model and I do not know
particularly where this one currently would reside. But
generally, that is the practice that we are attempting to
follow; to have the people in the field who are using have a
very, very strong amount of input as to how projects get
prioritized and how General Robbins, when he refers to it is in
for 2005, it is in for 2007, that is really the process that
does that.
We are--certainly from the secretariat are not inclined to
interfere with that.
Major General Robbins. That is correct. And there is
starting to be an echo effect here, but that project also is in
the FYDP. And it is out in the 2006, 2007 years. There was some
discussion between the Guard and Air Combat Command as to which
command might program that.
Mr. Boyd. What does that mean now?
Major General Robbins. Well, as Mr. Gibbs said, the Guard
prioritizes its MILCON requirements and Air Combat Command
prioritizes its projects. And so there was some discussion as
to which of those two bodies ought to address that in their
priority list.
We, kind of, reached an impasse and said, ``At this point,
we will just stick it into the Air Force budget and later worry
about whose FYDP and prioritization line it goes in.'' Because
quite frankly, when you are out in the 2006, 2007 time frame as
you are building your out-year program--if you look at the Air
Force FYDP, there is a lot of MILCON headroom in there. And so
really as to whether it is in the Guard or active line right
now is not particularly important.
But they are aware of the requirement. And again, it falls
into the category of current mission. And as you have heard
several times during this hearing, there is not a lot of
current mission MILCON other than quality of life, dormitories
and family housing that got funded because the new mission
requirements pretty well consumed MILCON.
Mr. Olver. May I interrupt? Why would you call that current
mission? It sounds to me as if it is a new mission that has
been added to the responsibilities of that base.
Major General Robbins. No, sir, 1st Air Force has been
there for, I do not know, six, seven years, sir.
Mr. Olver. But I mean----
Mr. Hobson. It was just expanded.
Major General Robbins. They have had the mission. It is a
matter of how many people they have brought in to conduct that
mission because of the new----
Mr. Olver. Did it have responsibilities for escorting
civilian airliners and deciding which one might be shot down?
Major General Robbins. No, sir. When I speak of
responsibility, I am talking about defense of North America.
And that has been a mission that the active force pretty much
transferred to the Guard, not in total. Maybe you could help me
here. But pretty much it is a Guard mission and has been for
many years.
Mr. Olver. I guess I am surprised by this conversation that
the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense,
whatever the combination is have reached some decision as to
where that responsibility should be. I should think they would
be rather annoyed to know that that is not properly funded.
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force is teaching me some terminology as
I go through here also. And I think the way I would
characterize it back there, it is not a new mission. It is what
they would refer to as increased Operation Tempo (OPSTEMPO).
And what they are doing is doing more of what they did. And I
am assuming in your particular case, that is why there are more
people in there than any one particular time.
Brigadier General Brubaker. That is correct. It is an old
mission with much increased demands, much increased.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Well, we do things with semantics.
Mr. Hobson. And I want to ask three things. Some of that
relates to that.
Are you finished, Al?
Mr. Boyd. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. We will come back if you want.
First of all, you have a very ambitious utilities
prioritization plan. It says the goal is to award all contracts
by September 30, 2003, which I do not think is possible.
Second of all, I wrote a bill called the Forrestal bill
that was roundly criticized by a lot of people about five years
ago. And everybody went and stumped on me and said, ``This is
not the way to go,'' and killed the bill. OMB actually killed
the bill at the time.
And now we are all rushing out to do some things that I am
concerned that we do not get into contracts that we later
regret, and that we do not draw the contracts in the right way
that if we have to get out of this and revert back to something
else. And plus, what are we getting for these? Are we getting
new infrastructure? Are we just giving away what we got and
they do not fix up the old?
As part of the original deal that I worked on was we were
going to get new infrastructure if we privatized these things.
I am sending messages not only to you, but to the other
services here, because they all write this stuff down and share
it back someplace in I don't where, but we are going to look at
every contract to make sure that we do not have contracts that
if we terminate it will cost us more than what we were doing in
the beginning, and that we have ways out of these deals and
ways into these deals and what do we get for them.
And I do not think, if this is the right date that you are
shooting at here. With all the other stuff you have going on, I
am not sure that this is a realistic date.
And are we doing this same thing like with--oh, I don't
know, you do not have the utilities. Guard and Reserve
generally do not have utilities; they are probably more on
municipal airports and stuff. You might have some isolated
stuff.
You do not have to answer this now, except that I have a
long question here on privatization, and I just want to put
everybody on notice, I am looking at this. And I am not against
it, but I do not want to get into some dumb deals again that we
cannot handle in the future.
I am also concerned about this word ``mission sensitive,''
and I am trying to figure out how I find out those things that
are mission sensitive that we are postponing, not just in the
Air Force, but in all the services. And you all have different
terminologies and different ways of saying these things, but
there are other things that are mission sensitive that are put
out to 2006, 2007, they get on a FYDP, and the hope is, I
guess, that we come along at some point and pick them up.
But I am trying to figure out what are those mission-
sensitive things, because if we are going to do projects for
members and things of this sort, or if we are going to be
forced to pick up things that you guys cannot do and I got to
find a way to find the money, I need to know what are the most
important ones, and I need to figure out what has been pushed
out by your inability to convince, wherever it is. I do not
know how this all stuff is done, but it is almost like to me it
is done in, you know, some, I do not know where, but a star
chamber somewhere.
But I am concerned that we fund the right things. If some
of these things are mission sensitive and you cannot find the
money to do them and we have to do our duty as a Congress here
to make sure that this is right, that we do the right things
and not do some of the things that some people want to
criticize us for simply because it is in a member's district or
some of this sort.
And I am willing to do that, but we have to know as a
committee where those are and how we can be the most helpful to
you. I am willing to take the wrath of the newspapers, and I am
willing to take the wrath of certain agencies of this
government and certain members of the other body to do the
right thing, but I got to know what they are. Or we will do
some things that maybe are not--I mean, not knowingly, but we
might not do some of the things we should be doing to help you,
Mr. Gibbs, and these gentlemen and the other services do their
job. So I want you to know we need to look at that.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
Then, the other thing, the last question I am going to ask
you is the one I started off with, and I do not think you guys
have answered it yet. Why is your budget so low? I am not going
to let you get out of here without taking a shot at that. And I
think you ought to do that, Mr. Gibbs, since you are the guy
who talks to the star chamber.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I get beamed up occasionally to do that.
Mr. Hobson. You and Mr. Traficant. [Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbs. Basically, the Air Force took the approach that
it was going to request for 2003 what it requested for 2002.
And within that set of priority there was a shifting of
priorities with that. It was a very overt decision to say, ``We
need to fix what we currently have, we have to put more money
into the sustainment piece.'' And when we are at the basis of
saying keeping it level--that is what the overall
prioritization would say within the Air Force--it came at the
expense of creating new footprint for existing missions.
And the additional monies went into the sustainment, went
into the quality-of-life projects. We continued on what is a
very sound program for dormitories to complete their
rejuvenation, replacement, whatever you want to call it, over
the planning period. And that was the overall decision of the
Air Force and its philosophy of going forward.
And the fallout of that, the changing of priorities, and
the manner in which we approach the same problem, the fallout
of that is that specific new military construction program did
not get the funding that it had gotten in previous years.
Mr. Hobson. What does this do to your recapitalization
rate?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I personally have a problem with that as
metric.
Mr. Hobson. I agree.
Mr. Gibbs. No, I understand. And I have talked to some of
the people that have. And to specifically answer your question,
it makes it higher.
Mr. Hobson. But it is an arbitrary number. It is just like
a lot of other things that we do, like this scoring thing is an
arbitrary thing that somebody figured out. At some time it had
a good purpose. I think this probably served a good purpose.
But, you know, you are going to get stuck, getting whacked
because your numbers have gone way up. And then the next group
of guys are going to come and say to you, ``Mr. Gibbs, you
know, you did not do a very good job on your recap rate.'' And
you are just going to go, ``Oh, my God, here we go again.''
And you know that is no fun.
Mr. Gibbs. No, it is not fun. I have to talk to it from the
perspective of we did a very specific assessment of what needed
to be done. And our conclusion was that sustainment was more
important than replacement in terms of new footprint.
And I cannot really give you a better answer than that. It
was done on a specific basis. The recap rate computation is
directional. At best it is going to move substantively up and
down each year as we can move forward in the recapitalization.
Mr. Hobson. Let me mention something to you along that
line. There is a building in Offutt that was supposed to be
done. And you have not been around long enough to know this
yet. I do not know what year it is in, and whether some of
these things if they are in a year then we do these other
things so they get pushed out another year, you know, things
bump out down the road.
And also are the contracts or the stuff that was done last
year, for example, is that proceeding?
Let me give you an example in the Guard. Not to be
parochial, but this is an example, I want to make sure these
are: There is a pad to be built at this Springfield
International Guard base. Is that proceeding to contract? Is it
going to get done? Or do you guys decide to flip that to
another year?
And they almost completed the one at Wright-Patterson for
the C-17s in the future, C-5s or whatever.
John.
Well, I should say this. A little bit of my emotion today
results not at you folks. You have done a good job running the
service as it is. If something happened today in the
administration that I am not real happy with and has nothing to
do with you guys. But it does have something to do with the
process and the ability of people to speak their minds.
And it does come back to this idea of none of us are always
right. The administration is not always right; the departments
are not always right; and we are not always right. And we have
our constitutional duties. But we have to learn to work with
each other a little better. And I want to do that, and I want
to do that with you, sir. You have all got a good background in
this stuff. But we need that. We need to work on these things
together. There is mission-sensitive stuff we need to know.
We need to take a shot at maybe trying to privatize some
barracks some places and that presents a certain amount of
problems, I understand. I still like the thing that the Air
Force has done with where it generally locates its
privatization.
I think the one thing I agreed with General Ryan on is he
tried to place most of his privatization stuff close to the
gates. So that if we had to fence those off in the future or it
did not work that, you know, we would have less problem. I
think that helps in bidding the projects.
Also I think that the Brooks experiment, I hope, is going
to prove useful to other services. We have talked to other
services about using that model which the Air Force did.
And I am hoping that model works. Because if Sam Farr were
here he would tell you that that is a way to work with
communities that is a lot faster than other types of programs
we have on the books. So that one needs to be monitored and
make sure that it is correct, because it is a massive project
that transfers much of that property back to the community and
creates other types of jobs that we are losing in the services
back to there.
Last thing, this does not necessarily have to do with you
guys. But I had somebody call me yesterday about the work force
shaping that is going on. And there is apparently at Wright-
Patterson and there is some--this is not under you. I am not
sure. I do not think this is under personnel, but there are
some problems with the work force shaping that is coming out.
And there are specific dates and somebody is looking at about a
week of one and they can take advantage or not take advantage
of the--this is a program to get some older workers out so we
can bring some younger people in. And there has been some
resistance within the military of doing this.
And I am trying to do it as a test program to--private
industry would do this in a moment. The government has a lot
more problem with getting into this. But I think, hopefully, it
will work out to be a good--and again, scoring has some
problems with this. But I am hoping that it works out better
for the services and you get a more robust, newer--and you do
not wind up with all people my age or younger, slightly
younger, drawing checks.
Mr. Gibbs. I do not have problems with people your age.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, I know you do not. I looked at where you
graduated and so did I. But, and so did John.
But I am just sending you that message. I had some phone
calls on that yesterday. And this is not really your bailiwick,
but it affects your facility somewhat.
So John, do you have anything else you would like to ask?
Mr. Olver. No.
Mr. Hobson. If not, we thank you very much for coming.
Hopefully, this will get easier.
Wednesday, February 6, 2002.
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE MILITARY--SPOUSES
WITNESSES
BOBBIE BECKMAN, SPOUSE OF CSM WALTER K. BECKMAN, USA
MARIE-CHRISTINE KEMP, SPOUSE OF LCDR DAVID S. KEMP, USN
PHYLLIS McLEAN, SPOUSE OF MAJOR DANIEL J. MCLEAN, USMC
DEBORAH DOUGLAS, SPOUSE OF MSGT BRIAN DOUGLAS, USAF
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. The Committee will come to order.
Welcome to this first hearing of the year. I am pleased to
see all of you here.
And Mrs. Robbins, there are no fireplaces given out here
today. That is an inside joke that you all have to ask her
about.
Tell Ernie he arrived too late. I missed him in Dallas the
other day. He was on a program after me, but I had to leave.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I would like to mention a
few housekeeping matters. First, the hearing schedule we have
developed for the year is demanding, but the pace enables the
subcommittee to mark up a bill in May and be on the floor in
June, and potentially finish in time to send the president a
final package before the August recess. Initially, the
administration will probably ask Congress to consider a
supplemental spending package sometime in March, which will add
to our work schedule, and I am hoping add some money to our
bill.
Finally, as part of the subcommittee's oversight
responsibility, I intend to inquire about the process DOD is
using to determine which projects are funded with the $40
billion supplemental appropriations enacted in December. At the
moment it appears that there is no process for making these
funding decisions, and I worry that bases are spending scarce
resources with the false hope of being reimbursed through the
Defense Emergency Recovery Fund (DERF) account.
The last item I need to address is the budget request which
Congress received Monday morning. In short, the request is a
great disappointment to me, because the military construction
budget is reduced by $1.5 billion. DOD's defense is that
additional funds should not be invested in installations that
might close in the base realignment and closure process
scheduled to take place in 2005. Likewise, the administration
argues that the sustainment account is increased by $466
million, reducing the need to recapitalize existing facilities.
I take exception to these arguments, and let me speak a
little candidly about that. There are many enduring
installations that will not be closed in a BRAC because of
their strategic importance to our national defense.
Furthermore, the service components did not consider BRAC
informally in their budget requests. Thus using BRAC to defend
the request is a red herring.
Simply providing additional funds to sustain decrepit and
outdated buildings and facilities, though necessary, is
shortsighted strategy at best and a waste of taxpayers' dollars
at worse.
The administration wants to transform the Department of
Defense. It is my opinion that successful transformation of DOD
is hinging on having an infrastructure capable of supporting
the new missions created by the transformation. There is little
in this budget that supports a move in that direction.
The bright spot in the budget is the military housing
account. It is increased $225 million. Likewise, the BRAC
account is fully funded, and that is a change. Obviously, the
subcommittee will be focusing on these issues when the
comptroller and the deputy undersecretary of installations come
to testify later this month, which brings me to this hearing.
This morning we will hear from the spouses and this
afternoon from the senior enlisted service members. They will
testify on the same subject: quality of life for the military.
We will focus on two primary areas: work environment and home
environment. We are going to ask all the witnesses questions
about their individual experiences and the collective
experience of their friends and colleagues.
Also, like the member in uniform, military families serve
their country just as devotedly, loyally and unselfishly, and I
think even sometimes more unselfishly. This is the second year
we have asked spouses to testify about their experiences, and
for one reason: When John and I visit installations it is very
often the case that wives will give us the unvarnished truth
about the conditions of their families.
I currently have an intern in my office that I met her mom
and her sister in the commissary in Korea. I got everybody else
away and we talked about some things. And then, later on I ran
into her dad, and he said, ``My daughter needs to be an intern
some place,'' so. But we learn a lot of things by just talking
to the spouses.
This morning's hearing gives Congress a way to learn more
about how we can improve their experiences and it also gives us
time to say thank you for the service to our country.
I want to introduce our witnesses, and if they want to
introduce their family members they can do so, and they can
take whatever time they want to take. Bobbie Sue Beckman will
represent the Army. Sue is currently serving as the president
for the Fort Hood area Enlisted Spouses Club, and is vice
president of the Fort Hood Band of Angels. And I think Chet
probably knows who she is.
I can tell you that the housing seminar that I just
attended in Dallas, they gave me a big coin--it is about as big
as the one I got in my office--from the Fort Hood people. Some
of us have been to Fort Hood and we are very excited about that
project.
Marie-Christine Kemp will represent the Navy. Marie-
Christine and her family live in Chesapeake, Virginia, where
her husband is the officer in charge of naval support activity
in Norfolk. She is active in many spouse groups, including the
USS Reed Wives Club.
The Marine Corps witness is Phyllis B. McLean from
Woodbridge, Virginia. Phyllis is an RN; one of my favorite
professions. I wrote the nurse practice act in Ohio when I was
in the legislature. Her professional positions have ranged from
staff nurse to director of nursing. And anybody who has ever
been in the hospital knows that the most important person
there, sometimes is not the doctor, most times it is the nurse
who comes in and really helps you.
Deborah Douglas representing the Air Force, and her family
have been stationed at Pope Air Force Base for eight years,
have four children, including twin girls, which is quite a
chore, but fun.
I will now turn to my ranking member, John Olver, for any
statement or comments he wishes to make.
And let me say this, John has been a wonderful ranking
member of this committee. We work together. We have been all
over together looking at various bases around the world and in
the United States. And I very much appreciate the relationship
John and I have and the whole committee, but also the staff
relationships that we have here. We try to run this committee
without any distinction as to party and I do not think we have
ever had an argument over that.
Our main goal here, and John will tell you this too, is to
improve the quality of life for people in the military that
they can have the same things, the same quality that they would
have if they are on the outside. We do not want to treat you as
second-class citizens. And John and I are here to make sure
that we improve the position that you all find yourselves in.
With that, John?
Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, Chairman Hobson. Correction
to what you just said. Turns out that we happen to be about the
same age, although clearly we do not look the same age, the
chairman and I. But I just cannot keep up with him on these
trips, so I do not go on quite as many as he goes on. He
manages to visit a few more than I am able to do.
But I am, sort of, surprised, Mr. Chairman, that you have
not struck a coin for this occasion for the people who are
testifying today.
Mr. Hobson. They got one yesterday.
Mr. Olver. Oh, they got one yesterday. [Laughter.]
All right. I am already behind. Always behind.
Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to also welcome the witnesses. We all
depend upon the testimony and your experiences as spouses and
the experiences that you, as the ones who keep the family
together, I think, in very large measure, find as members of
military families. We depend upon that testimony in order to be
able to improve conditions for everybody. So it is a very
important day. It is one of the most interesting hearings that
we usually have.
We all understand that it is not just the service members
that make the commitment to serve the country, but the entire
families along with the person who is actually in the service.
I also need to take this opportunity, as the Chairman has
also done, to comment on the President's Budget request. While
the family housing accounts are given a small increase, as the
chairman has already pointed out, the facilities that we need
to respond to the current and future threats under our military
construction budget are cut by $1.7 billion. Each of the
services takes significant cuts.
While last year we found billions of dollars in unmet force
protection requirements as we traveled around and got
indications, after 9/11 in particular, of the kinds of needs,
the proposal for force protection here in the president's
budget as submitted includes only about $100 million that you
can attribute to those force protection kinds of purposes.
I think that the argument given in the budget submission
that we have to hold back on military construction until we see
the result of the next round of BRAC in 2005 at the earliest is
really, sort of, ridiculous.
The proposal, by the way, also affects military families in
a number of ways, even more direct, immediate way. There are
going to be fewer teachers that are helping children to learn
to read and fewer kids that are able to enroll in the programs
for Head Start at our bases. There will be fewer police on the
streets off base, where more than half of our military families
live. Just as a couple of examples.
Noticeably missing from this submission is any information
or indication about the case for supplementary spending for
fiscal 2002. The Pentagon and the State Department have already
completed their analysis of those needs and they have stressed
to the White House the need to move quickly. I can only assume
that the Office of Management and Budget is withholding the
supplemental requests in order to avoid making large additional
requests for foreign assistance and the Defense Department at
this particular time, while the main budget request has
substantial reductions and, in a good many cases, eliminations
in hundreds of domestic programs. But that is all part of the
$1.7 billion in the reduction in force protection and in
projects in military construction remains there as a glaring
point.
Now, I want to thank the Chairman for bringing this group
of witnesses together. When we have traveled, as he said, we
have gotten often the most interesting and most useful
testimony out of the spouses at some of our locations. And I
expect that you will give us the unvarnished truth, as well.
That perspective is very important. So I hope that you will
feel free to just tell it like it is. And that you will not
even necessarily stay on what are strictly military
construction issues, because we really cannot expect that
families will know the arcane rules of subcommittee
jurisdiction here on the Hill.
So please we do have communications. And, in fact, of
course, the Chairman I do not think said that, but he is on the
big Defense Committee and where there is Subcommittee
jurisdiction problems, he takes what he hears here and what is
necessary to take to the other committee, he takes to the other
committee and works on it there, as well. So please give us
what you can.
I am certain that you have the same concerns as other
Americans: decent housing, decent working conditions, good
health care, educational opportunities for your kids and
economic security. So I am looking forward to hearing what you
have to say. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, John.
The Republicans are all off at a mandatory conference,
which I did not go to. But since they are not here, I am going
to give the other members--I do not want to prolong getting to
you, but if there is anything anybody feels they want to say,
they can.
Norm is also on the big committee with me, so we go in and
kick them around pretty good.
So if there is anybody who wants to say anything right now,
you can keep it short so we can hear their testimony. Or do you
want to wait?
Sam.
Mr. Farr. As I was reading the statement of Mrs. Beckman--
and we were able to visit Fort Hood last year--I would be very
interested in your comments on the RCI effort.
Perhaps all of you could comment on this. I notice that you
pointed out that you had to pay for paperwork to have cleaning
done in your homes; that in Hawaii it was obvious that you
would not pass quarters clearance unless you hired a cleaning
team. And cleaning teams charge $15 to $20 simply to fill out
the paperwork.
Is that true on other bases? I mean, I am not sure we are
very familiar with what are the requirements for expenditure to
do clean-up and maintenance, and why the costs are so high.
Because one of the things we have been looking at in committee
is how to contract with local communities to essentially do the
cleaning that local communities do anyway. Any perspective on
that I would appreciate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Anybody else?
Mrs. Beckman, I think you are going to be first, so you
want to introduce your family that is here. You need to put the
microphone up to your mouth, because they will yell at you like
they do me when I do not turn mine on.
Mrs. Beckman. I have my husband here. He is the 4th Brigade
sergeant major at Fort Hood, Texas.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Go ahead.
Mrs. Beckman. I would just like to thank you for giving me
the opportunity to come here and put my views across on the
quality-of-life issues for the spouses, especially on Fort
Hood. Thank you.
I have submitted my written testimony for the record.
Mr. Hobson. And we will accept that, but do you want expand
upon that? Go ahead.
Mrs. Beckman. Well, I was just going to say thank you for
this opportunity. The reason I have submitted mine is I believe
we all do not have our testimonies with us today so this way it
could be put in.
CLEANING FEES
Mr. Hobson. You want to respond to Sam's question?
Mrs. Beckman. It was not in Hawaii, that the charges were
for the clean teams. It was at Fort Bliss, Texas, and probably
were going through the sergeant major's academy.
Mr. Farr. Is that common that you have to----
Mrs. Beckman. It was at the time, yes.
Mr. Farr. I mean, on all bases?
Mrs. Beckman. Now, I do not know.
Mr. Farr. Do bases do inspection of your homes to see if
they are clean?
Mrs. Beckman. Yes, sir. They do.
Mr. Farr. And the cleaning is either up to you to clean the
house up, or to hire somebody to do it.
Mrs. Beckman. Correct.
Mr. Farr. And if you hire somebody to do it, does it have
to come off an approved list of people who are----
Mrs. Beckman. Yes.
Mr. Farr. Is it a service provided at the base? You cannot
go out and just hire somebody that you want to hire to clean
your house.
Mrs. Beckman. They have a list of cleaning teams, and you
pick from that list. You can narrow it down by inviting a few
people to come in and look at the quarters and see what they
would charge you.
Mr. Farr. What is the going rate usually?
Mrs. Beckman. At Fort Hood last year, the going rate was
$100 per bedroom.
Mr. Farr. Per----
Mrs. Beckman. Per bedroom.
Mr. Farr. Per bedroom for what? Cleaning?
Mrs. Beckman. For cleaning. And it just depend on who you
chose. If they did the outside of your quarters, then they
added more money to that. If they had to do extensive work, you
know, like, heavy oven cleaning, for example, that would
include extra charges as well.
Mr. Farr. Minimum wage is about--what?--$6 an hour now.
They paint the place?
Mrs. Beckman. No, sir. They do not paint.
But I have heard that at Fort Hood, we have the new RCI
program starting, and that they are going to change that. And
they will have someone that can come in and do the cleaning
through their program, and that the charges will not be as high
as if you were to go out and hire a cleaning team.
Mr. Farr. Well, I am just shocked at that figure.
Mrs. Beckman. It is pretty high.
Mr. Farr. I do not think we pay that in a month to clean
our house.
Mrs. Beckman. Yes, sir. My neighbor, when she cleared out
her quarters, cost her $350.
Mr. Hobson. What rank were they?
Mrs. Beckman. He was an E-7. She thought she was getting
off good at $350, because she had been quoted at $100 per
bedroom and she had a four-bedroom, and they were going to
Germany, so their time restraint was restricted.
And that goes for, like when we were at Fort Bliss, that is
what the problem would come into. You had academy students
going through the sergeant major's academy there. So they were
there for six months. So to clear their quarters and be able to
go to their--sometimes their first duty assignment as a
sergeant major--ours was in Hawaii--that, you know, you had a
certain amount of time to be able to get from point A to point
B. And so you just paid the cleaning team to be able to clear
and get out.
Mr. Farr. Are the cleaning team federal civilian employees?
Mrs. Beckman. I do not know that answer to be honest.
Mrs. Douglas. I know for the Air Force it is contracted.
Mr. Farr. Well, that is a contract we ought to look into,
Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Ms. Kemp, do you want to introduce yourself and
any family members you have here today?
Mrs. Kemp. Unfortunately, my husband was not able to
accompany me, as he is at home with my three small children. I
have a guest with me. This is a good friend of ours, Lieutenant
Commander Don Schusler, here with me. So a little support.
Mr. Hobson. I guess what all of you decided to do is submit
your written testimony and go to questions; is that you want to
do?
Mrs. Kemp. Just a very brief introductory statement.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. You have anything that you want to say?
Mrs. Kemp. Just to give you a little bit more background,
once again, my name is Marie-Christine Kemp, and I have been a
Navy spouse for nine years. During that time, we have been
stationed in Monterey twice. We have been once in San Diego and
once overseas as part of an exchange program with a foreign
navy where they do not offer services or housing to their
members, so it is a very different experience.
Mr. Hobson. Where were you?
Mrs. Kemp. We were in Toulon, France. We served on a French
destroyer.
And currently we are in Chesapeake, Virginia, having also
lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, stationed at Naval Station
Norfolk. I lived on-base and off-base, and I used all of the
support services that the Navy provides, so I feel like a lot
of experience across those areas. And I am honored and pleased
to be here to answer all of your questions this morning.
So thank you very much.
Mr. Hobson. Mrs. McLean?
Mrs. McLean. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I have with me my husband, Dan McLean, and my son, David
McLean. I would like to thank the members of the Military
Construction Subcommittee.
My name is Phyllis McLean, and I am married, obviously, to
Major Dan McLean, United States Marine Corps. I have been a
Marine Corps spouse for 23 years, seven years as an enlisted
spouse, and 16 years and counting as an officer's spouse.
I have lived with my husband at bases and duty stations
across the United States and Okinawa, Japan. I would like to
thank the subcommittee for holding this important hearing on
quality-of-life issues and for giving me the opportunity and
honor of testifying on the behalf of Marine Corps spouses
around the globe.
Although I can only speak for myself, I hope that my
experiences as a Marine Corps spouse will enable the
subcommittee to gain some insight into the lives of my fellow
spouses.
Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
appear here today, and I welcome any and all of your questions.
Mr. Hobson. You will be happy to know that since Valerie
went to Quantico, I told Mr. Murtha, Quantico is going to get
fixed. 8th and I is going to get fixed, and Pendleton, I think,
is going to get fixed. Hopefully, right away, but I think
everybody will be pleased with what we are going to do there.
And that is one of the real benefits of going around and
visiting these places. Valerie came back and kicked the can
over, and then Mr. Murtha went down, and Mr. Young went down,
and it is going to get fixed.
Mrs. Kemp. Great.
Mr. Hobson. Mrs. Douglas?
Mrs. Douglas. Good morning. I am here with my husband,
Brian Douglas.
Mr. Hobson. Tell us what Brian does.
Mrs. Douglas. Brian is a pararescueman in the Air Force. I
do have some testimony here, if that is all right.
Mr. Hobson. It is okay. Everybody can do what they want. It
is fine. You have to do what you want to do; that is why we
have you here.
STATEMENT OF MRS. DEBI DOUGLAS
Mrs. Douglas. Okay. alright.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished panel
members. It is such an honor to have been asked to meet with
you this morning. I hope I am able to convey some of our needs
as far as the family members go.
My name is Debi Douglas, and I am the wife of a
pararescueman. My husband is stationed at the 24th Special
Tactics Squadron at Pope Air Force Base, and we have been there
for eight years.
Brian has been in the Air Force for 22 years, and we have
been married 21 years. We have four children. We have a
daughter, Stephanie, who will be 20 soon, and she is a
sophomore at University of North Carolina (UNC)-Chapel Hill. We
have a son that is 17 years old who is a junior in high school,
and then we have twin daughters that are 13-year-olds.
My father was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy for 27
years, so I am a product of the military. Started out my father
was stationed in Hawaii. That is where I was born. We traveled
throughout my 19 years of living at home, until Naval Air
Station (NAS) Jacksonville, where I married my husband.
One of the main things that I wanted to talk with you about
today was education. I am really concerned because of what my
children have been put through as far as the moves that we have
made. Whenever you move, you are not always able to have a say
in what type of system that that particular state or county
has, and so basically we are at the mercy of that particular
county or state.
One of the things that they have is called four-by-four
block system. Have any of you heard of that before? It is where
in one semester, the children--and this is for high schoolers--
they have four classes, and those classes are 90 minutes long.
So usually there will be two core classes and two electives.
Well, where this comes into play is if you happen to move
before you graduate and you go to a school system that does not
recognize this four-by-four, there have actually been instances
where children cannot graduate on time because they do not
recognize those credits.
When I found that I was coming here, I passed the word
along to a lot of friends that have since--we were stationed at
Hurlburt Field with a lot of people have since moved around,
and quite a few of them are at Moody Air Force Base now. And
they have the same thing down there, not in the Department of
Defense (DOD) schools, just the county schools have this four-
by-four. And I got an e-mail from someone that said that that
is what was happening to them. Their son would not graduate
when he was supposed to, because they would not recognize some
of the credits.
So that is one thing that I do not know if you can do
anything about, but that is just something we have to deal with
as parents, when we move our children around.
Let's see, the other thing is my daughter, as I said, goes
to college at UNC-Chapel Hill. Well, we have four children, so
we do not pay for our daughter's education up front. She has a
Stafford loan and Stephanie will be paying for her education
when she graduates.
Well, when we moved here, we have a home, so we are
considered residents of North Carolina, and she gets in-state
tuition. If Brian receives military orders, once we leave here
he will have to pay out-of-state tuition, and that will go up
about $12,000. I find that to be really unfair to Stephanie,
because she is going to be the one paying for her education
just because her father (permanent change of station) PCSs to
another state.
I am hoping that maybe some type of waiver can be
instituted; something that can be done for these kids. Like I
said, I do not think it is fair to Stephanie that she should
have to pay that extra money.
Mrs. Douglas. Well, if that is the case, I think maybe
Allstate should look into that, because that is all it is doing
is penalizing the kids for their father's, or sometimes
mother's, job in the military.
Another thing I would like to bring to your attention as
far as education goes is, when my husband enlisted in the Air
Force in 1980, there was a new program called VEAP, Veterans
Education Assistance Program. And in this briefing my husband
received, they did not express the necessity of putting money
in the program, and did not explain that if they did not put
money in the program, that was basically declining any
educational benefit.
Mr. Hobson. And he did not have any money when he
enlisted----
Mrs. Douglas. Exactly. It is not a very realistic program,
because when we first got married, Brian's paycheck was not
even $300 every two weeks, and our rent was close to $200 for
the month.
Mr. Hobson. Mine was $100 for a month as an airman. $108,
was not it, Carolyn?
Mr. Dicks. That was a long time ago. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Yes, I know. We had muskets then.
Mrs. Douglas. So, anyway, it was not realistic for airmen
to be able to even put any money in that type of program.
So, of course, they saw that was not a good thing, so they
took it away. But now Brian cannot buy into the GI Bill, and
Brian will not have any education benefits when he retires from
the Air Force.
Mr. Hobson. Although I showed him a way if he moved to Ohio
we could pay for all their education.
Mrs. Douglas. Housing is another concern. When we first got
married, Laughlin Air Force Base was our first base. Brian had
one stripe, and we were not allowed to live on-base because
housing was so short. Basically, at that point, it was rank has
its privileges.
I just left home; my father was an E-9 living on-base. And
even my parents could not understand how we could be forced to
live on the economy when an E-9 could sufficiently take care of
themselves on the economy.
So, I do not know if that is changed or not, but I would
hope that it should be the younger airmen and sailors that get
the housing before the rank.
We are very lucky at Pope Air Force Base, that it just
built a lot of new housing; and I think they are continuing on
with even more housing. The bad part is, it is still not
enough. Because we are surrounded by Fort Bragg, which is one
of the biggest Army Posts there is, they do not have enough
housing. So that forces those people to look for housing and,
Air Force members are looking for housing. And I believe that
that overinflates the real estate within that area, because it
is very expensive to live in the Fayetteville area.
So I am hoping that those things can change for the Army
and for the Air Force, so we do not have to go out and look for
housing off-base.
When we did get to Pope, they told us it would be a two-
year wait; and sure enough it was, because we built a house, we
were in it for a while, and then they called and said, ``We
have a house for you.''
So right now the wait, they say, is anywhere from four
weeks to 24 weeks, which is a whole lot better than it used to
be.
We have----
Mr. Hobson. So did you sell your house, or move on-base?
Mrs. Douglas. No, we decided to stay in it, just because we
needed to build up some equity. And if we sold it, we probably
would have lost money on it.
Mr. Hobson. You are going to tell them about the commissary
too, are you not? Because people listen. Even though it is not
in our jurisdiction, tell them about the commissary situation
at your base. They have got a new one, and----
Mrs. Douglas. Oh, yes, okay the commissary. Fort Bragg has
a large commissary because they have a large population. Pope
Air Force Base is smaller, and we had a small commissary.
Well, because Bragg is so big, they built them a second
commissary. When they did that, they took away Pope's
commissary. So we do not have a commissary on-base anymore,
even though it was a small commissary.
And General Casey was our base commander at the time, and I
know he fought for it. And we even had petitions to try and get
our commissary to stay open. But whoever these petitions were
sent to, it did not work.
But it is a big hardship on the families that do live on-
base, because there are airmen that live on base that do not
have cars. And I do not know how these moms are toting, you
know, their two and three children to get to Bragg, which is
about five miles away.
So I do not know, like I said, if you can do anything about
that, but----
Mr. Hobson. I was just talking--there are people listening;
they write little things down, so.
Mrs. Douglas. All right.
Another place I would like to talk about on-base is our
chapel. Our chapel is the fourth-most visited building on-base.
Unfortunately, it does not receive the attention it deserves.
There are water spots, wallpaper that is peeling, paint that is
peeling. It is just not the kind of place that it should be.
The grounds of the chapel are in need of professional
landscaping and lawn care.
I feel like the chapel is a place where families gather
each week, and it should be suitable for all those that wish to
assemble in the Lord's name. It is not. It really does need to
be fixed up.
Let's see: TRICARE and dental. The dental plan, we found--
okay.
Our oldest daughter needed to have her wisdom teeth
removed. So, being that we have the military insurance, they
made us a little bill. Come to find out, they do not cover
anesthesia. They expected my daughter to go and have her wisdom
teeth pulled without anesthesia. So we paid the deductible,
plus we paid for her anesthesia. So I question some of the
plans that we have.
My son is getting ready to have his wisdom teeth out. So I
will be hoping that maybe that will change sometime soon. I do
not know. But I thought that was pretty ridiculous.
Mr. Hobson. I think it will.
Mrs. Douglas. Let's see. I had written several other things
down, but I think I will just wait and hear if you have any
questions for me, and I would be happy to answer them.
But the education thing was really something that I wanted
to bring to your attention as far as what these children have
to go through, you know, when they are uprooted every few
years. Anything to make it easier on them.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you very much.
I will let people who were here first have any questions.
Let's see, we will start with, John.
John, do you have any questions you want to ask at this
time?
Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, again, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
again for your comments up to this point.
I am curious, Mrs. Douglas, in your biography by the way, I
only have in front of me a written testimony from you, Mrs.
Beckman. I do not know whether my pile is complete. I do not
read very fast and I have not been able to read even that with
care here, it arriving this morning.
But, Mrs. Douglas, you, in your bio, it indicates that you
were once stationed at Adak in Alaska. How old were you then?
Mrs. Douglas. Let's say fifth grade through seventh grade.
Mr. Olver. It is a little bit difficult to describe the
difference, but Mrs. Beckman has indicated that there have been
vast differences, vast improvements in the quality of life over
a 27-year period at--I do not know that you have been at Fort
Hood all those 27 years--have you?--but wherever. How many
years have you been at Fort Hood?
Mrs. Beckman. Three and a half years.
Mr. Olver. Three and a half.
I would be curious, what sort of difference you have seen,
if you can remember? Perspective has changed, too, because now
you are a mother with college-age kids. And from what you were
when you were a 12-year-old or whatever it was at Adak. I would
think that would be a rather primitive deployment.
Mrs. Douglas. Well, at the time it was only Navy personnel
on the base; since it has changed. But as a kid it was
wonderful. They had the Quonset huts out in the tundra. For
part of our, I guess, recess you would call it, our teacher
used to take us on hikes up through the tundra and we would get
to go through the Quonset huts and things. It was a lot of fun.
They had something called the Adak National Forest, because
it is a volcanic island, nothing grows. These trees were like
five feet tall, and I believe they are still probably five feet
tall. So, like, 12 trees was their forest.
Mr. Olver. Well, it goes to show that it is all a matter of
perspective, does not it? My goodness.
Ms. Kemp, you have indicated that your husband had been
part of an exchange program with the French navy.
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. How long was he involved in that?
Mrs. Kemp. Two years, sir.
Mr. Olver. Two years. Ah-ha. And you were there, you went
with him?
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Can you give us a sense of what the quality-of-
life programs available to the French navy were compared with
your sense of what is available for American Navy personnel? I
would be very curious about it.
Mrs. Kemp. I would be pleased to share that with you.
We had a wonderful experience on our tour in Toulon. Their
attitude is that quality of life is very important, and they
choose to address it from the tack of higher pay. They do not
provide any services on base whatsoever for family members.
When you go to a military base in France, what you find are the
military structures, the piers, the ships and the buildings
that support those, and that is it, okay?
So when we lived in France we lived out on town. And there
was no access to any kind of support at all through their
military, in that perspective. However, their pay was at such a
higher rate that it was affordable to live out in town and to
have all the necessities that you needed for your family.
Mr. Olver. And does that mean that during that exchange you
were afforded pay----
Mrs. Kemp. We were given a COLA.
Mr. Olver. Which is similar to what they were getting, and
then went ahead and did it off-base in whatever way you could.
Mrs. Kemp. Exactly.
Mr. Olver. I think that would be characteristic of a--I
mean, France is a large country, European standards. But it
does have off-shore dependencies and they must have some
special provisions that you would see in various of their
dependencies around the world; it would be different, maybe,
from what happens there on the mainland. But, I guess, in the
smaller countries that would work.
Our people get deployed in various places all over and move
from place to place. And we have gone much more about trying to
provide for people in that way.
It is a little bit difficult here. Mrs. Douglas, you
focused rather extensively on education and several different
items related to education. But, you know, we deal with housing
and we deal with child care and fitness and recreation.
Mrs. Beckman, you had commented about the problem of having
not much--for teenagers--not much provision. We may provide
child care at school, but not much in recreation or activities
for teenagers. Centers for activities for teenagers are a
problem all over. You used to have them busy from dawn till
dusk on farms three generations ago, but we have not done
nearly as well as probably we ought to.
I would be curious, among the things, including health care
and the long deployments and so on, if each of you might
indicate what were the ones, particularly where we do not have
written testimony--which are the issues that are most concerned
to maybe Mrs. Kemp and Mrs. McLean, in particular.
And if you, Mrs. Beckman, want to focus, because I know you
have covered a lot of ground in a sequential, kind of, a way, I
could take the sequence as your order of priority. But I would
like to see where could we make the greatest--I guess the thing
I would like to answer is, where can we make the greatest
marginal gain in quality of life for military families by what
we do here? Because there is not enough money to bring
everything quickly up to any one particular standard.
Mrs. Beckman. Well, for Fort Hood, for the spouses that I
have talked to, the biggest impact that they have said they
want changed is for their pre-teens and the teenage kids. It
keeps them off the streets. It can build them to want to be
soldiers themselves. It can help their quality of life as
adults.
We at Fort Hood have a program that we are starting, a
pilot program actually, it is called BOAT: Better Opportunity
for Army Teens. And that they would like to, kind of, base on
the BOSS program, which is Better Opportunity for Single
Soldiers. That is an avenue for our teens to actually teach
themselves to be better adults. They have influence by adults,
but the teens are actually going to run this program, and they
are going to come up with their own bylaws and constitutions
for that program.
So that is a quality-of-life issue for myself, because I
remember when our kids were teenagers, that that was pretty
hard. When they were youths, you know, the schools had
activities for the kids. But we rarely had anything for our
older children.
Not all high schoolers are athletes; you know, into the
sports arena. There are some students that just want to be kids
that do not get involved in some things. And maybe if they had
a place that they could get involved in, it would be more
focused toward community service more than sports service.
But at Fort Hood, we have some very awesome teens, and they
are very excited about this opportunity for them to be able to
have something that is theirs.
Mr. Olver. Thank you. I think teens really can be awesome.
Can you describe something that you think would make the
most marginal difference for you?
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir. Coming from the mid-Atlantic region,
which is the largest Navy military concentration across the
board, we have a lot of issues with the quality of our
facilities, because we just keep growing, as far as the
military in this area.
And one of the biggest issues we have is the quality of our
child developmental centers. There has been no money for
maintenance since the early 1980s.
And there is one in particular that I can speak to, Oceana
Naval Air Station. It is sad; I do not know how else to
describe it to you. There is a 300-child waiting list for this
particular CDC, and that is pretty typical across the board in
our area.
Oceana Naval Air Station is in Virginia Beach, and this
particular CDC, it is in a cinderblock building, and it is very
similar to the chapel that Mrs. Douglas described, but perhaps
even worse. The walls are falling down, the ceiling tiles are
falling down on the children, and the tiles are separating on
the floors. There ares not even wash facilities in all the
rooms for sanitation, as far as diaper changes and potty
training and things of that nature. There are not toilets that
are appropriate for the children in all the rooms. There are
open areas of the pipes and the electrical systems that are not
behind walls or coverings. The area when you walk in has no
awnings.
The whole parking lot, which is very small, is in a flood-
prone area, so it is often flooded, just from the rains. There
is a modular building that they were given a few years back to
help with their size. And it is an old building, an old
modular, that also has a lot of water damage and rusting areas.
And these are right in the classrooms where our children are.
And the greatest need in these areas is for the infants.
There is just not the accessibility to civilian child care for
the 0- to 2-year-old age range. They are just not out there. So
when we are required to go out on town, besides the fact that
we are paying more money, there is nobody who is offering care.
There is just not enough places for our very small children,
and particularly the infants and the toddlers. I mean, there is
a huge, huge, huge need, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Do you know whether that is--excuse me for
getting into this----
Mr. Olver. By all means.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. But I wrote the day care law in
Ohio, so I just know enough to be dangerous about it. And my
sister owns seven day care schools, and she did not like the
law I wrote, but she is doing fine.
Do you know whether the base commander has asked, or where
this is on his priority? Or the previous base commander?
Because, frankly, if that were in the private sector, it would
be shut down.
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And most of the new day care--I have not seen
the Navy that much, but in the other services I looked at, the
day care we are building is better than it is on the outside,
the facilities and the operations. But we must have instances
where it is not. And that is what we need to know, and we need
to know, because I looked through the list for Virginia. And if
you look through the list for Virginia that the administration
signed off on, it is huge----
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Makes me a little upset. But I did not see that
day care facility on there at all, so we are going to look at
that. And that is why it is important for you to tell us these
kinds of things, because we cannot see it all.
Mrs. Kemp. I understand.
I cannot, obviously, speak to the commander's priorities,
but I can tell you that they have requested MILCONs in the
past, and they have not received them----
Mr. Hobson. For that?
Mrs. Kemp. For that, yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Well, could I have a look at that----
Mrs. Kemp. It has not come because--go ahead.
Mr. Olver. Could I, just for completion, get Mrs. McLean to
give the thing that you think might provide the best marginal
gain?
Mrs. McLean. I think looking back, as an enlisted wife and
now as an officer's wife, one of the issues that constantly
comes up is housing. My family has, the majority of the time,
lived out in the community, out in town. And the reason for
that is because, once we get to a new duty station, the housing
usually is not available. The wait is not a short one.
An example would be Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. We have
been stationed there twice; each for three years. And the wait
for housing was 18 months to two years. When you are there for
three years, by the end of two years, you are settled out in
town. And the idea of picking up and moving for a year and then
having to pick up and move again in another year is quite a
disruption.
So even when we moved here, the thought of housing almost
really did not cross my mind, because we know it is not
available in a timely manner.
Housing that we had lived in, in the past, which has been
infrequently, has been appropriate. Our housing overseas was
quite appropriate but, again, the wait, at least for us, was
six months, which means that we stayed in a one-room hostess
house for 30 days. I found that a little bit difficult. My
husband went off to work with the only vehicle we had. My son
went off to school and I stayed in a one-room accommodation,
not knowing anybody, not knowing where to go. It was difficult,
obviously, to communicate with anybody.
Mr. Hobson. Was that at Kadena?
Mrs. McLean. That was at Camp Foster.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Mrs. McLean. Within 30 days, we had found a place out in
town. And one of the first questions they ask is your rank,
because then they can adjust the rent that they are going to
charge you, accordingly.
So we lived out in town for six months in a small
apartment, by American standards. By Japanese standards, it was
quite large. And the military provided furniture for us, until
we received our large shipment, once we got on to base.
Living out in town initially was not very comfortable, just
because you did not know anybody, you did not know where to go.
You did not know how to speak the language. And even moving
about was difficult because, once you obtained a vehicle, a
second vehicle, you were on the other side of the road on the
other side of the car. It was a big culture shock. Once you got
over that and settled in, it was okay.
We got into base housing within six months and that was
just at tremendous difference. The camaraderie, making friends,
and everybody is in the same position. Everybody, kind of,
looks out for one another. So once you get on base, it is
absolutely great. And my memories of Okinawa are actually more
positive than negative. But initially, that initial six months,
was pretty tough.
The DOD schools overseas versus within the United States
were absolutely wonderful. The technology that they had within
the classroom was exceptional; nothing that we have seen here
in the United States in the community schools. The activities
they had for the children, the field trips, the cultural
experiences were just phenomenal and I cannot say enough about
the DOD schools that my son attended while we were in Okinawa.
So by far, I think that the main thing on my list would be,
especially for the lower ranks, and what I remember what we
went through as enlisted, would be to make housing available as
quickly as possible for members of the service.
Thank you.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to go by how people have showed
up.
Chet.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for coming. And the single most important
thing I want to say is what everyone else on this committee
would want to say--just thank you for your service to our
country. Whether you have worn our military uniform or not, you
are every much as part of our national defense effort as those
spouses who have worn the uniform.
As someone who does have the privilege representing Fort
Hood, I see on a regular basis the sacrifices we ask our
spouses to make and military children to make. And our country
cannot thank you enough for that.
I hope that this committee will continue its leadership
efforts, under the great leadership we have, Mr. Hobson and Mr.
Olver, to fight hard for quality-of-life issues. It is going to
be a tough struggle this year. As you know, the budget that
came out yesterday recommends $1.5 billion cut in military
construction programs and I hope we will turn that around.
I would like to ask a couple of questions on this round
anyway. My first one to Mrs. Beckman, since you are a
constituent of mine, you are the president of the Fort Hood
Area Enlisted Spouses Club and you gave me an idea just
speaking a minute ago, that I never thought of before. I have
met with our uniform leadership. I try to meet with enlisted
soldiers and try to meet with spouses. I have never had a
meeting specifically with the children of military families.
Can you, through your spouses' club, put together a
meeting, if I could come down to Fort Hood, where I could have
a room with, say, the teenagers only? You pointed that out as
one of the real challenges. Something where I could meet with
them, where they would not feel intimidated by leadership in
the Army or even, perhaps, where they could just speak openly;
do you think something like that would be possible?
Mrs. Beckman. Yes, sir. That could be arranged.
Mr. Edwards. I think that would be very, very helpful and I
will follow up with that.
Secondly, to Mrs. Kemp and you, Mrs. Beckman on child care,
I have got a 6-year-old and a 4-year-old, so I have gone
through some of the challenges, not to the extent that you have
and others of you have.
Mrs. Douglas, I know you have a compelling story, having
four children and two children with medical problems, your
husband is away in Korea for a year and then deployed 280 days
the next year.
What do families do--enlisted personnel especially--if
their children cannot get in the child care and they do not
have a grandparent in the neighborhood or the community? What
do they do? How do they cope?
Mrs. Beckman. What I have found is that they have been
going out and looking for a provider off post because at Fort
Hood, we do have a list of providers off post that are
certified child care providers; so they go to that list. And
sometimes if you work on post and you got to off post for child
care, you are just leaving your off post, where you are close
to work, and going off post to drop your child off and then
coming back on post. And right now, with our security, it is
hard to get back on post because you are waiting in line now to
get on post.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
Mrs. Beckman. So that is the areas that we have found.
Mr. Edwards. Good point. And if you cannot afford to have
two cars--Mrs. Kemp?
Mrs. Kemp. I would say that we have some of the similar
opportunities. There are home child care providers. There is a
program that is done by the government for that. However,
again, being in an area of the high concentration of military,
there is just not enough of them. And it is, again, much more
challenging for the very smallest children.
I have a 7, 4, and a 3-month old. And I know that those
enlisted folks try the CDC first. And then if they are forced
to either go to a home care provider, either on-base or off-
base or to one of the civilian day cares; those will be the
next thing. But again, costs will increase, every time you go
off-base, so that is a big issue for them, and then drive
distances. And then I know that if they cannot find anybody,
then you have to say home, and you know how important those
second incomes can often be.
Mr. Edwards. Absolutely. Final question. We have about one
minute, in respect to the time, for other members, Mrs.
Beckman, you mentioned in your testimony a program to train
spouses to be certified child care providers. Is that going on
at installations all over the country. And if so, there is a
problem when you move from state to state? Do you have to be
re-certified in a new state?
Mrs. Beckman. My children are grown and out on their own.
From what I have been told on Fort Hood is that there is, like,
a small class that they do go to, even though they have been a
provider in another state. It is just, kind of, like what the
new regulations or updates for that state would be.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Very good.
Thank you all. Thank you for what you are doing for our
country and for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Sam?
Mr. Farr. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank
you for having your wife here today. I am looking at the----
Mr. Hobson. That is going to cost me big money, because----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. I am looking at the resumes of these women and I
am thinking there is a lot of similarity between them and our
wives and our lifestyle. And maybe someday we ought to have a
hearing for the wives of politicians about quality-of-life
issues.
Mr. Hobson. I am in big trouble now, Sam. [Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. I admit it. We all may be in trouble, but it may
be something we really need to do. I mean----
Mr. Hobson. We would probably have to have a closed-door
hearing for that.
Mr. Farr. I have a question. I notice that two of you are
licensed. Mrs. Kemp is an occupational therapist and Mrs.
McLean is a RN. In your opinion, what are the percentage of
spouses working in the civilian community or on-base if there
are jobs?
We always hear about the number of families in the military
now, the increase. I think Mrs. Beckman pointed out that in the
old days, the Army said, ``If we wanted you to have a family,
we would have issued you one.'' And we do not think about this,
what you do in the workforce, because you are always being
transferred. So is there a high percentage of spouses that are
working at the same time?
Mrs. McLean. I think as the years have gone by, I have
noticed that more women are working. I think if financially
they can stay home for a year with children, they choose to do
so; if financially they cannot, they use child care services,
if they can afford to do so, to go back to work.
I have always worked. I enjoy my job. I just do not think I
would never not work. It is just a part of me. Even when I was
in Okinawa, although I did not work full time, I chose to work
on a substitute basis as a nurse and as a school teacher.
I just think if women can stay at home and be financially
secure within the family unit, they do so. But if not, I think
more women are going out to work today.
Mr. Farr. I have a follow-up question, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Kemp. And I think it fluctuates greatly. I think it
fluctuates across the ranks and I think that it fluctuates by
location, as well.
I, on the other hand, have chosen, as much as possible to
not work, so that I could be home with my kids when it was
available to us. The burden of child care often outweighs a
part-time job, and I was not willing to work full time with
small children. That was a choice I made in my family.
We know lots of people whose spouses need to work, or who
choose to because, like Mrs. McLean, it is a part of who they
are. And they should be able to do that if they need to.
So I would say at least 50 percent, just to throw out a
number.
Mr. Farr. My follow-up question is that, Mrs. Kemp, you had
an opportunity to live in the housing in my district. I drive
by it all the time. You lived in Monterey after the military
closed the base, in the leftover housing that the military
kept. As I recall, that is pretty old housing. And weigh your
experiences so that--I guess we want to hear more on the
negative of that kind of housing, and compared to other housing
you have lived in; do we need to upgrade that?
And, lastly, I guess what I would always be interested in
from any of you is the decision politicians have to make--to
narrow all your issues down to a couple of priorities. And I
would ask the generic question, and you do not have to respond
now, but in your other responses, what is the most important
thing that we need to do in quality of life? Is it housing? Is
it child care? Is it teen centers? Is it health care? In your
experience across the board, was there one issue more glaring
than any other?
Mrs. Kemp. Okay. I can speak directly to Monterey. I would
say, yes, that Monterey has some of the older housing that I
have seen across the United States. Typically--and I am sure
that the other wives can say the same thing--they are too
small, they are falling down, they are crowded, they are on top
of each other. Many are not handicapped accessible in any
shape, way or form, for any kind of an exceptional family
member. So those are big issues.
As far as what is the most important thing, I think it is
hard to answer, because we need to have all of these pieces. I
know that there is not money for all of them right now, so
perhaps it is easier to look at it on a regional basis. In each
region, in each installation, what is their greatest need,
right now, at this time?
Right now, we have some wonderful family housing in the
mid-Atlantic region. You guys have provided us with a lot of
money in the recent years and the housing where I am is
wonderful. There is not enough of it, but it is certainly a
vast improvement over what we had. And Monterey does not even
come close to the things that I am lucky to have now, where I
am.
But where we are, like I said, the CDCs are at the bottom.
So that is how I feel I can answer that question best.
Mr. Hobson. Any other comment?
If not, Mr. Boyd.
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing and, ladies, for coming and testifying.
Like Mr. Olver, Mr. Chairman, I only had Mrs. Beckman's
written testimony. We did have the bios on the others, but I
assume that we will have copies of the written.
Okay. Mr. Olver and I were in the driver's seat here by
ourselves.
Listening to your testimony made me somewhat reflective, in
some sort of a sentimental way, about my own experience. My
wife and I got married about the same time I went on active
duty in the Army in 1969, and I was just curious about, Ms.
McLean, your comments concerning housing. I remember the no
credit cards, the one car, the really ratty housing that we had
to find out in the community, because there was not housing
available on the post. But I do not think it was quite as bad,
because I remember I had only an eight-month stay at Fort
Leonard Wood. You ever been there?
You are lucky. [Laughter.]
And then they got housing. So I know that the situation has
deteriorated since 1969 and the Vietnam War. Thanks to the
efforts of the chairman and ranking member and others, maybe we
are reversing that trend.
I have two questions. Mrs. Douglas, you brought these
issues to the table in your comments, but you said that there
was an issue of college in-state tuition fees. You owned a home
in North Carolina, but you understand when your husband gets
assigned to some other assignment that your daughter will lose
that in-state status even though you own the home and your
established residency is there. Walk through that if you could
please.
Mrs. Douglas. But when we PCS, when we leave the state, we
will no longer own that home, so we will no longer be in-state
residents. So because Stephanie is a dependent of ours, she
will also fall under, you know, whatever state we will be in,
you know, when we move. So, that is what they have told us.
Mr. Boyd. Well, you have a permanent residency in another
place?
Mrs. Douglas. Florida is our permanent residence.
Mr. Boyd. Well, that is good since it is Florida.
[Laughter.]
I hope it is in North Florida.
This, obviously, is an issue that, Mr. Chairman, I do not
know if we can deal with. Maybe we can; maybe we cannot. It is
something we ought to consider. I know those requirements are
established by the state, and in many cases, they are probably
established by the individual institutions, universities, in
some states. But it is something that we certainly ought to
look at.
The other question I have is one that you raised of the
four-by-four classes. And I would like to hear others, too, if
you have any comments on this. The reason I want to hear more
about it is it just came to my attention recently that Bay
County, Florida, which is the home of Tyndall Air Force Base,
is considering going to the four-by-four system. And we
normally try to keep our noses out of the local school board's
business, but maybe it would be a good time for us to enter
this fray.
Talk me through a little bit more about that. I have not
heard a great deal about it being controversial.
Mrs. Douglas. I had not heard about it before, either.
The school system we were in just had the regular courses,
you know, seven classes per day. They just started this two
years ago. And it is not a bad thing for the county, because
the children that live in that county, you know, have the
luxury of staying in that county for all four years. But being
military, of course, you do not always have that same luxury.
What happens is, the credits are based differently,
because, just say, you only complete one semester, and then you
PCS to another state that does not have this--or even another
country, because it is not always statewide.
What happens is, let's say my son had taken English and
algebra the first semester; he has completed those things.
Well, he did not get to take history and chemistry. So when he
gets there, he is half a year behind, because he should have
already been taking chemistry and history.
So that would make it where he possibly could not graduate
if he was in his senior year, which is something we are looking
at. We may be PCSing, and he may have to start at another
school his senior year.
Mr. Boyd. Let me follow up. Do you see the problem more as
the four-by-four class, or the rules of the receiving school
district?
Mrs. Douglas. Well, if they will not be flexible, then it
would probably be on the receiving end, that part of it.
I have not had to experience this yet, but just as I said,
I have the military wives that I am friends with at Moody Air
Force Base, and that county has the four-by-four. And when they
moved from Hurlburt Field and they moved up there, that is when
they found out that their son would not graduate, because they
were--vice-versa, when they moved there, that he would not
graduate because he did not have--and that is what it was, his
chemistry. He did not have enough credits.
Mr. Boyd. Do any of you other ladies have comments or
experiences with this?
Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Norm?
Mr. Dicks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
associate myself with all the comments that have been made here
today about our appreciation for all of you, and what you do
for our country.
I have the honor of representing the Sixth District in the
state of Washington, where we have Fort Lewis, McChord Air
Force Base and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Trident
submarine base Bangor and Keyport.
And that is why I always fight to get this last seat on
this Committee.
Mr. Hobson. And the B-2.
Mr. Dicks. Tell me again; we were talking about the day
care centers, and you were saying there was a list of 300
people waiting to get day care. Is that what you find across
the board: everywhere there is a backlog?
Is there any base you have ever been to where they had an
adequate day care?
Mrs. Kemp. The base that I am currently living on has
adequate day care.
Mr. Dicks. So you can take care of all the kids?
Mrs. Kemp. It is a small base. It is very far out, with a
limited number of military personnel. And so, therefore, they
are able to provide enough spaces.
But it is so far out, that even if we had spaces in a few
of the classrooms, it would be an hour drive for, perhaps, a
service member who was up at the naval station to drive down,
drop their child off and drive back to work, drive down after
work, pick them up and take them home.
Mr. Dicks. You talked about off-base housing. Is it
adequate? I mean, can you get good off-base housing, or do
people take advantage of the situation and just, kind of--and I
have had this problem in Bremerton, my hometown; I complained
bitterly to the local people there that we need to upgrade the
housing, you know, that is being rented to the military.
And tell us your experiences on your off-base housing.
Mrs. Kemp. My experiences in the Virginia Beach/Norfolk
area are that there is not enough off-base housing, civilian
homes available in the ranges that your folks need them.
There is lots of real high-end, large homes that are
available, but not apartments and smaller single-family homes
that fall either within our BAH, which is our housing
allowance, or they are even available if we are willing and
able to put in some of our own money. They are just not out
there.
When we moved to Virginia Beach, we had three days to find
a place to live. The housing list was two and a half years for
a junior officer, and so that was not an option. We went out
into town; there were exactly four houses that fell within a
price range that I could afford, and the rentals were above
anything that we could afford, even adding in money of our own.
So we did have to buy a home, even though that may not have
been our first choice. And it was very limited. And we ended up
buying a home that had a very poor school district. And I then
had to put my son into private school. And that is a very
typical, kind of, experience.
Mr. Dicks. You know, each of the bases is supposed to go
out and inspect the housing in the community, to make sure they
are up to standards. Has that been done on the bases where you
have been?
Mrs. Kemp. I am not familiar with anything like that.
Mr. Dicks. See, that is one thing that some people do not
understand. The bases are supposed to go out in the community
and look at the housing and make sure that it is up to
standards. And sometimes that does not happen. And maybe that
is something our committee should take a look at too, Mr.
Chairman.
I agree with you on this; I think this is a major issue.
What about Boys' and Girls' Clubs? Are there any Boys' and
Girls' Clubs on defense bases? A YMCA? I mean, anybody else--I
mean, whoever wants to comment can--no Boys' and Girls' Clubs?
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, we do have some in the mid-Atlantic region.
Mr. Dicks. That are on the bases for the kids?
Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir. They are on the bases. They are run in
the youth centers. They are very respected.
Mr. Dicks. I would think we might want to look at that, too
because, you know, the government does put some money into the
Boys' and Girls' Club, which I think is well worthwhile for
after-school things.
I mean, certainly I think the bases would be a fantastic
place to have those kind of facilities. Maybe we ought to----
Mrs. Kemp. They are very popular where we are.
Mr. Dicks. Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for coming here today. We appreciate
it.
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Skeen?
Mr. Skeen. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Hobson. Do you have any questions you would like to
ask, or any comment that you would like to make?
Mr. Skeen. Yes, I have a comment.
Mr. Hobson. Carry on.
Mr. Skeen. I want you to know that this is a hallowed
situation with this committee. This is the Agricluture
Committee's Hearing Room--where I first became Chairman. I just
want you to know that this beautiful building--this room is
well decorated, because I had the Agriculture Appropriation's
ladies decorate it.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Skeen. So, thank you for letting me sit in. Ladies, you
are doing a good job. It is a good thing and you get things
done right. That is what my wife tells me all the time.
[Laughter.]
But I just wanted you to know this is a hallowed hall; that
the military is very important to us, too, in New Mexico.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good piece of work.
And with that, I am going to get out of here and go let
some other group of folks come up here to talk. You have
certainly done a good job of telling us what the situation is.
And the women really run the Army.
Have a good day. My time is up. And I want to get the heck
out of here before I get into more trouble.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, thank you, Joe. [Laughter.]
Mr. Skeen. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Hobson. And we thank you for your service over the
years, too.
Mr. Skeen. Ladies, thank you. Have a good day.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Joe.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this hearing. I think it is real important that we hear
on these quality-of-life issues. And you all are the ones who
keep the military running, and we appreciate what you are
doing; but we appreciate your input.
And I appreciate what our Chairman and Ranking Member have
been fighting for. They really have been fighting to improve
quality of life; and we have been seeing some, hopefully,
improvement as the money is increased. Hopefully we can do
better this year; we have some concerns.
Let me ask a couple questions to clarify some things, and
go back to the day care issue. I have a granddaughter back at
home, and one of the sources of day care sometimes is--I am not
sure this is the right word--black market. A woman who has
children will take care of other children in their home.
Is that common on military bases? Is that even legal, to
get paid to take care of an extra couple of kids? Or is there a
black market--and ``black market'' may not be the right word to
use, but----
Mrs. Kemp. I can answer to that.
It is very common to have home care providers, is the term
that we use.
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mrs. Kemp. There is a system in place that is--I am not
sure if it is a DOD or a government, but it is definitely a
program where women can be certified to have children in their
home. And it is also possible off-base, out in the civilian
community.
But yes, I can tell you that there are plenty of women out
there that are doing it who have never been certified. And if
you are spouse who needs to work, you will find whatever place
you can to put your child, and it happens all the time.
Mr. Miller. But if you are certified you can do it in your
base housing. I mean it is limited how many you can handle, of
course----
Mrs. Kemp. You can do it in base housing. You have a
structure. It is very strict; it is a wonderful program. They
are inspected regularly. They have to provide certain types of
foods and cleanliness, and they have a limited number of
children they can take by age. It is a wonderful program.
Mr. Miller. For paying for that, the base day care
program--there is a fee for it, but I assume it is very heavily
subsidized.
Mrs. Kemp. The CDC is on a sliding scale based on your
rate, yes.
Mr. Miller. Okay. But if you go to a private home, you are
paying what--you know, they feel--Mrs. Douglas, a question you
mentioned, and clarify with me, where do you claim resident?
And you mentioned Florida is where is you are a resident, just
because you are based there now. But I guess you are in North
Carolina now, is that right? But you still kept your Florida
residence?
Mrs. Douglas. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Is that common that you frequently will keep a
residence in one state as you move around, and you, kind of----
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Douglas. It is for tax purposes.
Mr. Miller. Is that----
Mrs. Douglas. Well, we were stationed in Florida for 10
years. We were at Eglin Air Force Base and we were at Hurlburt
Field. So we were there.
Mr. Miller. What address do you use in Florida? Or do you
have an address?
Mrs. Douglas. No. We do not have an----
Mr. Miller. Just do it for your taxes.
It is just not the military that claim Florida. We
appreciate it because it, you know, you have no inheritance tax
or state income tax.
Mrs. Douglas. Well, we want to go back to Hurlburt Field
after we finish here, so.
Mr. Miller. Is that true with lots of families, they just
keep--is Florida a popular one because the tax issue, is that
it? Or do you claim your parents?
Mr. Hobson. Chet, you better jump in: Texas is too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. No income tax.
Mr. Hobson. You will find the states that do not tax the
military, but the rest of it is there naturally. You will also
find people retiring near major facilities that have hospitals
and commissaries and BXs and that do not tax; am I right?
Mr. Miller. Let me ask one. All the years that each of you
have been with the military, have you seen in recent year a,
you know, improvement in its quality-of-life issues. I mean, we
have seen an increase in the total dollars flowing out of this
committee, but are you actually seeing it happen not only at
your bases, but at the other bases? And what are you seeing
that you think--have you seen a turnaround in the past decade
or so?
Mrs. Beckman. I believe that we have. We have been in the
military 27 years with my husband, and then I was a military
brat, as well. I believe housing has improved upon what it used
to be. There is still a long way to go, but there still is a
lot of improvement.
At Fort Hood alone, some of the quarters that we have there
for our family members were built in 1947. The quarters that I
live in now were built in the 1970s. But they are improving
them.
So, yes, they are coming up in housing areas, as well as
the child care, because it used to not be that we had those
kinds of things. And youth services, we did not have those
years ago. Programs out there just for the spouses alone were
not available. So we are moving up. It is just that we need to
expand upon what we are moving up.
The Army is getting larger. The family members now that are
coming in are no longer just single soldiers. These soldiers
coming in have got families of their own; some of them two to
five kids. And that is very hard for a family on a private's
pay when you have two to five kids.
And I think one of the reasons that they do come in is
because we are improving. It is just not real, real fast, but
we are improving. And it is a good quality of life for them.
They know that they got a pay check and they know that
eventually they will get their housing. And they are going to
be taken care of; their families are going to be taken care of.
So, yes, our quality of life is improving.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Anybody else wish to add?
Mrs. McLean. I think I have to concur with Mrs. Beckman.
Over the years I have see improvement in quality of life in
base housing. We did use child care for a while, and during
that time it was excellent. We have also seen an improvement in
health care, and I think I closely scrutinize that; as a nurse,
my expectations may be a little bit higher. Even in recent
years I have seen that improve.
The one thing that I have to say or make a comment on is,
within the hospitals. Recently I was a patient at DeWitt
Hospital, and the care I received there was excellent. The care
that I received as an outpatient at Walter Reed was excellent.
And some of the clinics that we go to for acute care, the
military personnel that I have seen there, treatment has always
been appropriate.
The downfall that I see at some of the clinics are some of
the contracted physicians that are brought in. It almost seems
at times difficult to hold their attention as to what your
needs might be.
So I cannot really say enough about the military people
that I have received health care from. The only negative thing
I have to comment on is, some of the contract physicians that
are brought in: Some of them leave a lot to be desired.
But definitely there has been an improvement in quality of
life within the military.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. You should read a report that we have had--I
will send you each a copy--concerning the licensing of
physicians and contract physicians and that relating to the
military. I hope that these recommendations are followed, and
some of that should improve.
Also the commander of that facility, wherever it is, is
directly responsible for those contract people. And if they are
not executing their duty then, you know, that is where we come
in.
But that we have looked at the licensing of physicians, the
licensing of other professionals. And the fact that many of
them were not required to maintain their continuing medical
educations and their continuing licensing procedures. And that
is now changed. And everybody should be up to snuff in their
specialities that are on a base.
Now, that does not always mean they are going to do it
right, but it is a step forward than where we were.
And everyone will be duly licensed. There are no more
licenses that are suspect anymore in the military or in the VA
or in the Indian Health Service. That should have changed, and
changes within the last year.
So if you do not see it, you need to come back and tell me,
because we try to fix these things, but if we do not hear back,
we do not know.
Some guys actually want to pull a surprise on writing about
this, and to the military's credit, instead of running and
hiding or defending, they said, ``We do have a problem and we
are going to fix it.'' And we have been watching to make sure
it is fixed. So if it does not get fixed, this committee needs
to know about it and the authorizing committee needs to know
about it. We only whack them on their money, but we have some
other persuasions that we use and we try to make sure that the
authorizing committee knows what we are doing, and the big
committee that I am on.
Robert.
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today.
I came in a little bit later to the hearing, so some of
this you may have already addressed in some way. But for those
of you who do live on-base, I would just like some of your
thoughts on the current physical conditions of your house and
what are your thoughts, inputs how you would rate it, and just
a little brief overview of what you would like for us to know.
Mrs. Beckman. I live in a nice community. Like I said, the
housing where we are at, it was built in the 1970s.
Overall, they are nice, it is just that now they are
starting to shift. So now that they are shifting, pipes are
getting little holes in them. Last week, actually, we had pipes
leaking between the walls, so you had water coming--I could not
find it. It was on the floor, but it was not coming from the
ceiling. And I never thought that it was coming from inside of
a wall. And they said that, kind of, helps with the fact that
the pipes are old and that the house is starting to shift now.
Because the floors are starting to have a slope, which makes
your tiles start to crack.
But they have been very well about coming out and doing
their piecework of putting this piece back together and that
piece back together. So I think with the new RCI program that
we have at Fort Hood that probably as that program kicks off a
little more, it will get a little better. But I have had no
problems when I have to get maintenance done. They are there to
do it.
It is just that they have said that it is money on just
them not being able totally take something out and replace it
and putting something new in there that they have to just keep
fixing that old thing or keep just doing the patchwork on it.
But overall, they are just old, and once they start doing the
new face-lifting and things like that, it will probably get a
little better.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. We might say that the RCI project is one
the Army is doing--some members may not know because they have
not been there on this--I do not know if you went with it or
not to Fort Hood, but Fort Hood is going to get about 5,500
renovated and new facilities; almost the total base is going to
be privatized in housing.
So it is going to be the Army's first--well, they did Fort
Carson but it is not as big--but Fort Hood is the biggest one
so far that the Army, that we put forth.
There is one in Norm's district in Washington that the Army
has. It is about 4,000 houses, and Fort Meade is about 3,500.
And that will be almost all new. We are trying to get more new
wherever we can rather than just renovating, although Fort Hood
is a little different in that respect.
So there are some big changes. The Air Force is doing some.
Navy is doing some. They are generally a little smaller,
although the Navy is doing 3,300 houses as we speak at San
Diego. And I feel like I live in Monterey, because Sam is
always on me about Monterey. We have been fighting that for a
long time. It costs me too much whenever I go back there in the
bill.
But those are some changes that you are going to begin to
feel as we move further into this program. But go ahead and
tell him----
Mr. Aderholt. Anybody else have any insights they would
like to share?
Let me just ask, Mrs. Beckman, you had mentioned that when
you called, they would have to fix the pipes; are those usually
responded to in a reasonable time?
Mrs. Beckman. Yes, sir. They usually will respond between
48 and 72 hours. Depends on what the urgency is. In the
quarters that I have, if I had, like, you know, a faucet in the
bathroom was leaking, if I can turn the water off, I do not
find that an emergency because I have a backup rest area. But
for some quarters, they do not have that, so it would be an
emergency. But they are very well keeping their word and coming
in between 48 and 72 hours. Unless it is really, really
extensive.
With my quarters when I had the leak, they could come in
one day and they bust the walls out--we had three to five holes
where they finally started cutting the walls, looking for this
leak at. Then they came in and they patched it, and now we are
waiting for them to come back and do the painting over that.
Mr. Hobson. You also have to remember she is the sergeant
major's wife too. [Laughter.]
Mr. Aderholt. What about the rest of you in terms of the
time between the call and actual someone coming up and----
Mrs. McLean. My most recent experience with quarters was
between 1995 and 1998 when we were stationed in Okinawa, and I
have to concur with Mrs. Beckman. The few problems that we did
have, the response from maintenance was in a timely manner. And
we also had an opportunity to use a maintenance closet for
small needs. If we needed new light bulbs, or whatever you did
not have but needed, the military would provide for you to go
down and check those things out at no cost and repair it; it
was yourself with something you could do yourself.
But normally, I think we had one issue that was an urgent
matter. There was some wiring or an outlet that we were
concerned about, and they were out in a timely manner. So, no
problem there.
Mrs. Kemp. I can also concur with that. Currently in the
base that we live on right now, they come usually within 24 to
48 hours, and again, depending on how quickly the emergency
level of the situation.
I also found in Monterey where the houses were much older
that it was, kind of, the same thing. They were fixing the
older structures just to maintain them, but again, they always
came out in a timely manner. We always felt confident that if
we had a problem in our homes, that they would be fixed, and
that is a really positive thing.
Mr. Aderholt. Mrs. Douglas, do you have anything?
Mrs. Douglas. It has been a while since we lived in base
housing.
Mr. Aderholt. When you were there----
Mrs. Douglas. When I was there, things were fine. The only
complaint I had was when we moved from Kirtland Air Force Base,
I was several months pregnant, and our daughter was 2\1/2\.
When we got to Eglin, they would not let us have a three-
bedroom home, because they did not count my unborn child as a
person. So we had to move in a two-bedroom house, and then when
the baby was born, then we got to move again, so we can be in a
three-bedroom house. So, some of the rules are very strange.
Mr. Aderholt. That is something we probably should look
into. That is a good point.
That is all I have, thanks.
Mr. Hobson. One common denominator might be that the MILCON
housing at your ranks are generally smaller than the community
housing across the board, and we are trying to change that.
Because what we build today, even in the rehab stuff, there
will be the community standard and not to the smaller MILCON
standard, which I think is going to benefit the families if we
get it on-line.
Virgil.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say
thanks to you and express commendation to you. As Mr. Skeen
indicated, you are focusing on the spouses. You did last year
and this year, and I think that is a great help to how this
committee needs to go. And I want to thank you for doing that.
I also want to thank the spouses that are here today for
being with us.
I would like to ask Ms. Beckman, just on your experience,
what percentage of Army spouses and their families cannot get
base housing when they would want it? Just where you have been?
Mrs. Beckman. How many cannot?
Mr. Goode. Yes, just a percentage, 5 percent, 10 percent.
Mrs. Beckman. I did write a figure down. On most, it is
usually from the ranks E-1 through E-6. At Fort Hood, because
we are so large, we carry about 4,000 people on a waiting list
for quarters. I mean, on quarters.
Mr. Goode. And they are all below E-6?
Mrs. Beckman. Yes, that is what I was told. That they are.
We actually have----
Mr. Goode. Now what is the difference----
Mrs. Beckman. I could not put a percentage on there, but I
know that the most sought-after housing bedroom size would be
two bedrooms, and that is a 10-month waiting list for a two-
bedroom. So if you are E-1 through E-6, as maybe 10 percent----
Mr. Goode. Say the cost to a PFC or an E-3 and their
family, by not getting base housing, how much extra would you
say that costs them a month, ballpark?
Mrs. Beckman. How much it costs them to live off post?
Mr. Goode. Yes, out of pocket.
Mrs. Beckman. Out of pocket?
Mr. Goode. Right.
Mrs. Beckman. I would say probably 30 percent out of their
pocket to live off post.
Mr. Goode. Thirty percent more than it would if they were
on----
Mrs. Beckman. Correct.
Mr. Goode. And that counts, as the chairman said, VA aid.
Mrs. Beckman. Because they are taking into the effect that
they are going to be paying electricity, water, their garbage
pickup, those kinds of things. And probably, it depends on how
far they went out, on how much they were putting into gas to
get onto post, so you could factor that kind of things into
them as well.
Mr. Goode. At Fort Hood, how far do most of them live that
are off the post?
Mrs. Beckman. Usually they are not that far out. Maybe 20
minutes, 25 minutes out.
With our new RCI program, the whole goal I am assuming is
that there will be no out of pockets expense for soldiers and
their families. At the most, I think at the present time, in
some of the areas outside of Fort Hood, they might be putting
out just a little more than 15 percent. It just depends on
which area they went to. There are some areas like there
further out, like in Harker Heights, would be a little more,
because the housing there is a little more.
So I would venture to say safely for the most probably 15
percent. If they lived within Killeen Copperas Cove, where the
housing is cheaper. But it depends on what size they got. And
it is like we were talking about earlier with the realtors when
you go out and--I believe one spouse said about her quarters.
You know, they find out what the rank structure is.
You have to remember that with military, military personnel
are the ones that walk around with their rank, years and
paycheck on their shoulders. Real estate agencies, everybody
knows what they make. So there is no avoiding some of that for
housing. You know, when you want to go out and get a house,
they know what you make.
Mr. Goode. Why do not you call them up on the telephone and
just ask them that? Do not even say you are with the military.
Mrs. Beckman. Probably would work.
Mr. Goode. All right.
Mrs. Kemp, what would you say? With regard to your
experiences in the Navy, how many, percentage wise, cannot get
military housing that would want it?
Mrs. Kemp. I can tell you that in the mid-Atlantic region
we have over 35,000 families that would like to have a house,
and we actually have units for less than 4,000 of them.
Mr. Goode. That is 30,000.
Mrs. Kemp. Ten percent. And they vary. And like I said, I
did say earlier----
Mr. Goode. And Ms. Beckman said the waiting list was about
10 months for an E-3. Give me comparable----
Mrs. Kemp. For waiting list? Enlisted housing waiting list
is one to two years, and junior officer housing is two to three
years.
Mr. Goode. Mrs. McLean, what do you say?
Mrs. McLean. I have to be honest to say that recently my
experience with on-base housing is very limited. My family and
I have lived out in the community the majority of the time my
husband has been in service. And my most recent experience was
over in Okinawa, and that for us was a six-month wait.
Mr. Goode. What was the off-base housing like at Okinawa?
Mrs. McLean. It was comfortable. It was small according to
American standards.
Mr. Goode. All right.
Mrs. Douglas, I know you said you have not experienced
military housing much lately.
Mrs. Douglas. No. But I did write down what our Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) is. My husband is an E-7, and our
BAH is $724 a month. Our mortgage payment is $930, plus
utilities. So we figure that we spend over $400 a month out of
pocket just for our house, you know, to live.
I am sorry?
Mr. Farr. You are buying it?
Mrs. Douglas. Yes, we are buying it.
The rent when we looked in that area for something
comparable, that was the cheapest way for us to get a home, was
to buy it, because with having four children--even the square
footage, what we have right now, this is the biggest home we
have ever lived in. It is right at 2,000 square feet.
Mr. Goode. What is your length of the mortgage?
Mrs. Douglas. Thirty years Veterans Administration. That is
the cheaper way to go since we know we are not going to be in
that house forever.
Mr. Hobson. Are you personally liable on that mortgage or
can you walk away from it?
Mrs. Douglas. Well, if we walk away it will foreclose. That
is not very good, is it?
Mr. Goode. Well, I have got a problem at Pinesville, where
that actually happened on the VA loans. That is a lot. And I am
trying to fix that.
Mrs. Douglas. The woman across the street from us was a
single mother in the Army, and she did walk away from that
house across the street.
Mr. Goode. It does not help your credit.
Mrs. Douglas. No. I would not suggest it. No.
But I was just going to say that it is quite expensive if
you cannot get base housing--how much more. And my husband,
doing the job that he does, gets different hazard duty pays, so
I cannot imagine what it would be like for another E-7 to have
to--they would not be able to afford where we live, because
they do not get those extra pays.
Mr. Hobson. Let me give you a real tragedy in that, Virgil.
If you do a PCS move to Korea, which is unaccompanied, your
family is left here and you do not get the same kinds of
benefits that you have been getting. But you are still here and
he is over there. So you get a lot less money and no tax breaks
or anything.
Now, if you go on a TDY to Kosovo or Bosnia, it is a lot
better deal. You get all kinds of tax breaks. You get all kinds
of pay. And you do not lose; because it is not a PCS change,
you do not lose.
Now, I think that is a terrible inequity that we do to
families today, and I think that ought to be changed. And I am
trying to work very hard to change that, because if you look at
where people do not go--the number of people they have to ask
to go to Korea, to get people to go and then we treat them like
that, it just drives me nuts. And we are trying to work on
that. But that happens.
I am sure there are other PCS changes like that, too. The
Navy has some of that same problem when people are out on
ships, and we are trying to work on that, too. Plus when the
people are on ships the single people do not have any place
when they come back off duty.
So these are quality of life. I want you to know that we
are trying to work on those things and this committee is
becoming more knowledgeable about those things.
My active duty experience was when I was a senior in law
school, my wife was teaching school and putting me through, I
got activated and I went to France, but I did not go as nice a
place as you did. I went to Etian, which is still out in the
middle of nowhere. I have been back there a couple of times and
looked at my barracks.
But when anybody is deployed, whether it is a PCS change or
TDY change or whether it is accompanied or unaccompanied, it is
difficult and it is a strain on families. And we are having
this right now in the call-ups that is happening with the Guard
and Reserve right now, we are having a lot of trouble with
that. So it is a problem. And the committee is trying to work
on that.
Anybody else have any other comments? We are running a
little long, but that is okay. This is important. And we use
these as learning experiences for all of us, because, you know,
we try to go out a lot and look at things, but, you know, many
of the people have not been in the service or on active duty.
I think Virgil is a reservist and I think Mr. Boyd was on
active duty, but other than that, in the Congress, generally,
it is a big difference today. And I was not on that long. As
John says, I have got more mileage out of being on active duty
for the short period of time I was as an enlisted person, but I
was not real happy about doing it when I did it. But I am glad
I did now, because I think I understand a little better what
people go through.
When you land in a different country and you do not speak
the language--I never did with family, but I am sure it is got
to be--it can turn out to be a wonderful experience. But I am
sure, as you said, Ms. McLean, the first few months are very
difficult, and especially when you have to wait so long to get
on-base. I cannot figure out why they cannot coordinate that
better. And if you had to wait at your rank, I wonder what even
the lower ranks wait over there. You know, you were probably a
little older and little more mature than some of these young
families, and that is not good for retention when we treat the
young families the way we do. And we need to talk with the
military better about how we handle these things.
The lower ranks being with family as much as they are
today, it is different than when you came in the service today.
That is a phenomena that we have to work with.
When we go on these bases--I was just in Aviano, and there
are a lot of young children there with the families. And, you
know, there are some on-base, some off-base, and how they all
meld together. Now, they do have the DoD schools overseas, that
we only have a few in this country. We are not going to create
a DoD school system in this country. The DoD schools we have
now were built for a very sad reason, which is probably,
hopefully, gone now. We only have six or seven left, I think,
on the continent, most of them in the South; one is not. And I
question why it is not.
Mrs. Douglas. Fort Bragg has some.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, and those were built for a reason, which
hopefully has passed. But there is one in the North that still
exists, which I do not understand why, but it does. It has very
powerful backers.
But in any event, Chet, Sam?
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I know we are tight on time, but
if I could follow up, because this is a great opportunity for
our committee.
It is one that, over the years, we generally have not had
military spouses testify until Chairman Hobson thought of this,
and pushed it over the last several years.
Just very quickly, a couple comments and question. Mrs.
Douglas, there is a Military Family Coalition; former General
Pete Taylor, former III Corps commander at Fort Hood, has been
involved in this. He set up an organization of schools and
military families all over the country to try to address both
the high school problems you have dealt with and the
consistency. Also he met with me recently and mentioned the
problem of tuition for colleges for our military children.
He pointed out something that I did not know. Several years
ago, Congress passed legislation for children graduating from
high school in the District of Columbia. They get in-state
tuition in any state of the country, and the Congress pays for
the difference to the university between the out of state and
in-state tuition.
The question to me was--which was a good one and I am
looking into it--``If Congress can do this for children who
just happen to live in the District of Columbia, why shouldn't
we try to do that for military families and their sons and
daughters?''
My staff is looking into that. I want to find out what the
cost would be. We are under tremendous budget constraints. But
I think you have raised two very good questions, and if you
have not plugged into this Family Coalition you might want to
pursue that. I think you are really going to do good work. I
know Pete Taylor; he is a modern-day version of General Patton
and he will work to get things done.
Mrs. Douglas. Thank you.
Mr. Edwards. Mrs. Beckman, you mentioned RCI in your
written testimony and, as you know, I care about it deeply. I
worked on it for five years. This committee worked on it; it
would not be a reality at Fort Hood today if it were not for
Chairman Hobson and his special leadership in this committee--
Mr. Olver, and all the members of this committee. We have a lot
at stake and invested in this at Fort Hood. When we did the
groundbreaking, the Army leadership said it is the largest
military housing improvement program in the history of the
military.
The future of RCI could well depend on how well it goes at
Fort Hood. I would just plead with you to give me feedback on
what is going well with it, what is going badly, or what
problems are. I am especially interested in knowing the impact
on morale of service men and women. I hope that, as Mr. Hobson
said, as this program begins to develop at Fort Hood, more and
more soldiers and families at Fort Hood will realize this is
going to make significant, positive difference in their quality
of life. But if at some point it is not helping morale, I would
like to know about it.
Maybe I will just finish with this. I would like to ask you
what your general perception is, in terms of speaking for other
service families at Fort Hood. What is their general perception
of RCI? Is it something they really do not know much about yet,
or is something they are excited about, or something about
which they are not quite sure what to think? What are the
perceptions as of today?
Mrs. Beckman. I had some spouses come out and talk to me
about the new RCI program and along with their area of quarters
that are not affected yet. The overall is they are very excited
about it because they have been able to see some progress in
McNair Village, which is our oldest village, which was built in
1947.
They have done a facelift on that by going out and changing
the old ugly-looking brown yucky color that was outside and put
some nice siding up. They have covered the garbage cans sitting
out in the front; they have made a little barrier there so that
is not visible. It is very eye-pleasing right now.
On the inside I got to see an old set of the McNair Village
and the new ones that they have just redone, and they are just
wonderful. They have carpeting in some. The houses are newly
painted. They got nice appliances in them.
The overall right now is that they are very excited about
that, and they are looking forward to the advancement of this
RCI program. There still are questions being raised, because
they are not sure yet about what the outcomes are going to be,
but they are very excited about the new housing.
Mr. Hobson. A $5 million project; it had better work.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Beckman. And they are counting on you to make sure it
does.
Mr. Hobson. Please work with it.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, are you finished?
Mr. Hobson. Sam?
Mr. Farr. I know we have to go vote, but I want to say a
couple of things.
First of all, I hope you understand that this committee is
your consumer committee. And thanks to Mr. Hobson's chair, he
is really taken on these issues about quality of life in the
military. Not just spending money for construction; it is what
the money buys. And so I hope you feel and will tell others to
use this committee to voice your concerns. If there is anybody
that can bust the bureaucracy, we think we can.
A couple of things that I would like to suggest, Mr.
Chairman, and it is out of the same hearing you had last year.
We have done a lot to push the military to do off-the-shelf
buying of equipment and computers and other things. We have not
pushed them much to do off-the-shelf inventory of personnel and
where they are moving to. And it seems to me that a lot of
these questions are about an assignment to move, but on the
receiving end, nobody really knows you are coming, or is
prepared for you. Even in the questions that the staff
prepared, which were excellent, we did not get to half of the
questions.
But the whole idea of spouses looking for employment,
networks and databases and employment advocacy councils, does
the service provide you to use Continental United States
(CONUS) military air flights to look for a job in the new area?
Are military spouses eligible to receive unemployment
compensation?
A lot of these things it seems to me in the private sector
we do. When there is a defense contract letdown--I know in
California we know the company, Lockheed, is not getting a
renewal of a contract whereas Boeing or somebody else may. And
instead of having this massive layoff of aerospace workers who
have been working for one company, the California Department of
Employment, working with the Department of Defense, is able to
transfer all of these employees from one company to another,
because the new company is looking at a big hiring policy for
their new contract.
It seems to me that what we have done in the civilian
sector, particularly on military defense contracts, we have not
done for military personnel in the real estate market. And the
real estate market is all online now; you do not even have to
go to a place to find houses. You know in my area, for every
house that is up for sale, there are videotapes that you can
just call it up and walk through it on the Internet----
Mr. Hobson. Sam, we are doing that in San Diego, I think.
Mr. Farr. We need to do more of that. The military has to
link up with the private sector on military personnel moves. I
think it could make the transition a lot easier.
And as far as you paying a mortgage of $900 a month, if you
were buying the homes that Mrs. Kemp knew in Monterey, your
mortgage would be a minimum of $4,000 a month, after you put
down $100,000 on your house.
Mrs. Douglas. Well, then we would have to live in a box on
my husband's pay.
Mr. Farr. Well, what is going to happen is pretty soon the
military housing, no matter what condition, it is going to be
the most popular housing to try to get, because there is
nothing going be available in the private sector.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, and I hope
we will continue to bust the bureaucracy.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. Let me say this. Sam and I are
working to try to find some affordable housing in that Monterey
market to keep it going on some of the land that we have been
giving away, that they have been marking up and selling off.
Let me thank all of you for coming today. We are going to
have a luncheon with all of you. We may be a little late
because we have some votes to do.
But let me end with this. I think there has been a change
in the command structure concerning quality of life. We had,
last year, for the first time in the history of this committee,
General Ralston came in, Admiral Blair came in, General
Schwartz came in, and they all testified that their number one
issue when they talk to the Secretary of Defense was the
quality of life for the people that they lead, and who serve
with them. And that is a change.
Now I do not like the way the number came out this year,
and we are going to work to make that number better, but I
think it is a sea change, when you see the CINCs coming in and
testifying for the first time before this committee, that that
is their number one issue. And I want to thank them and I want
to thank you for what you do in helping us to make sure that
that is on everybody's mind. And you are very important not
only to your husbands, but you are very important to the
changes in the quality of life by what you did here today, and
we all thank you very much for coming forth and taking your
time to come in and talk with us today.
So with that we are going to end this hearing and you are
all going to go to lunch, we are going to vote, and then we are
coming to lunch with you. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Wednesday, February 6, 2002.
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE MILITARY--SENIOR ENLISTED
WITNESSES
SMA JACK L. TILLEY, USA
JAMES L. HERDT, USN
SGT MAJ MARINE CORPS ALFORD L. McMICHAEL, USMC
CMSAF FREDERICK J. FINCH, USAF
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Sorry I am late. I have been over delivering some messages,
John, in the big committee. There is a closed meeting going on
over there. Going to affect some quality of life in a certain
part of the world that we are all talking about in the paper.
So I thought I would deliver those. I am a little late getting
back, but Jerry was very accommodating to let me talk on that
while we were there.
Let me say welcome to our witnesses today, who are the
senior enlisted advisors in our military.
This morning, we heard from the military spouses. Our
witnesses this afternoon are the senior enlisted, as I
mentioned before. These hearings are continued in the tradition
of the subcommittee's focus on quality of life for our troops,
which is, I think, our number one issue. As I said twice this
morning, the CINCs testified for the first time in this
committee that this was their number one issue, so I think that
changes the order from things that we have had before.
I want to say a couple things that I said this morning, but
I will say them a little differently. I need to address the
budget requests, which Congress received Monday morning. In
short, the request, frankly, is, I will say it again, it is a
disappointment to me, because the military construction budget
is reduced by a billion and a half.
DoD's defense is that additional funds should not be
invested in installations that might close in the base
realignment and closure process scheduled to take place in
2005. I think that is a pretty hollow argument. Likewise, the
administration argues that the sustainment account is increased
by $466 million, reducing the need to recapitalize existing
facilities, and frankly I have a lot of problems with that,
too.
So let's speak very candidly. There are many enduring
installations that will not be closed in the so-called BRAC
process, which I think is a faulty process, having been through
it a couple times before. But those will not be closed because
they have strategic importance to our national defense.
Furthermore, the service components did not consider BRAC
in formulating their budget requests, so its using BRAC to
defend the requests I think is hollow or a red herring.
Similarly, in providing additional funds to sustain the
decrepit and outdated buildings and facilities, while
necessary, is a shortsighted strategy, at best, and a waste of
the taxpayers' money, at worst, in my opinion.
You know, there is a bright spot in the military housing
account; it has increased $225 million. Likewise, the BRAC
account is fully funded. That may be a first; I am not sure.
Obviously, the Subcommittee is going to be focusing on these
issues when the Comptroller and the Deputy Under Secretary of
Installations come to testify later this month. So we are just
sending a few messages so they can hear it a couple times and
maybe they will get it. Or maybe they will not.
But which brings me to where we are today. So we are going
to talk to all of you about some of those things, and I am
going to ask John if he has any comments. He may have stronger
words than me, I do not know, but we will see where we go. And
then we will let you guys tell us what you want to tell us.
And, you know, we have all traveled together before. You do a
great job.
And, with that, I am going to turn it over to my ranking
member, John Olver. We have gone a lot of places together and
done a lot of things to learn more about quality of life. And I
appreciate all of John's support.
John.
Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again this year, I want to welcome the senior enlisted men
representing each of our Services. You are all the same people
who we saw last year, so we have gotten to know you a bit and
maybe you can tell us how we are doing in the intervening
period and in particular where we really need to put our effort
for the future.
This is always an interesting hearing, because we get a
different and valuable perspective on the impact this committee
has on the quality of life for the military.
Now, I am sure that your troops have many of the same
concerns as other Americans: decent housing and working
conditions and good health care and educational opportunities
and economic security. Things are a little bit different than
they were last year.
First and foremost on our minds, we are in a war on
terrorism and each of you have lost service personnel to this
effort.
Second, the President has proposed significant cuts in
spending for military construction, not for housing, but for
the facilities where your troops work and train and for the
hardened facilities, gates and inspection stations we need to
keep those facilities and our service men and women secure in
this new environment.
And each of the Services has taken significant cuts. While
last year we found billions of dollars in unmet force
protection requirements, the new budget proposal for force
protection does not even approach the $100 million mark. So we
are very far from dealing with the true need out there.
While family housing barely holds its own, the other
military construction accounts, which include those facilities
that we need to respond to the current and future threats, they
are cut by $1.7 billion at this point.
And I am afraid of the effects the President's proposal
will have on military families in other ways. For example, the
President's education budget proposes to cut $1.7 billion from
56 programs and freeze funding for 71 education programs,
including teacher quality state grants, which is the main
federal program aimed at raising teacher quality.
In this morning's hearing the spouses indicated that
programs for children are a top concern. With most military
families dependent on public schools, this budget will have an
impact on your children, where they go to school.
Despite the need for greater security since the events of
September 11, the President's budget proposes to cut over $500
million from essential local law enforcement and community
policing programs. For you, with nearly three-quarters of
military families living off-base due to huge waiting lists to
get on-base housing, the last thing we need are fewer police
providing security in their neighborhoods where they are living
while they are serving the nation.
In this hearing today we need your thoughts on a number of
important issues. We want to address the needs of your
families. We want to make certain that the troops have the
right facilities to do their jobs. We want to do everything we
can to increase readiness, and at the same time to increase
security.
So I am looking forward to this hearing and hope to learn
more about how we can help the enlisted men and women serving
our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Chet, is there anything you would like to say
before we get started?
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I have not quite
put into words what I want to say about the proposal to cut
$1.7 billion out of military construction this year. In the
days ahead, I think I will be able to pull together my
thoughts, because I feel so strongly about it I would just make
a few comments today.
In my opinion, there can simply be no rational
justification for a $1.7 billion cut in military construction.
It does not pass the smell test. It does not pass the common
sense test. It certainly will not pass the most important test,
which is the morale test of our service men and women.
What kind of message does it send to our servicemen and
women when just a few months ago this Congress could vote to
give a $1.5 billion tax rebate to IBM that they did not have to
do a single thing to earn, and in order to pay for that, we are
going to have to cut military construction by $1.7 billion?
Let me say up front that President Bush is not only my
President, our President, he is also my constituent. I have
great respect and admiration for him. And I think he has the
interest of our service men and women genuinely in his heart.
I think the President has been ill-served by some budget
crunchers somewhere, perhaps in the bowels of OMB, who have
come up with this; the very people who have not heard the
testimony we have heard year after year about the sacrifices
our servicemen and women make, the kind of deplorable housing
we too often ask them to live in. I am confident with the
bipartisan cooperation of Congress we will help turn around
this terribly ill-advised effort.
Should anyone in the Administration listen to our
testimony, I would remind them of an experience I had just a
couple of years ago in the previous Administration, where we
had just passed a significant pay raise and other benefit
improvements, quality-of-life improvements.
I went home in December and was asked by a Fort Hood
soldier at a Rotary Club speech, ``Sir, why did you all take
out of one pocket what you put in the other?''
And I said, ``What you talking about? We just gave you all
these benefit increases.'' And I thought, you know, this would
be a plus and improve morale.
He said, ``Sir, we just found out that the basic allowance
for housing was going to be cut.'' And it totally undermined
all the goodwill created by the salary increase.
And my fear is that, you know, with the most significant
pay raise in 20 years, we quickly undermine that if word gets
out we can afford to vote for a $1.5 billion tax rebate for
IBM, $250 million, by the way, tax rebate for Enron as part of
the stimulus package we voted on a few months ago, but we
cannot afford to provide more day care for privates who are
trying to serve their country, or for the mother who is having
to take care of the children because her husband is thousands
of miles away fighting the war against terrorism.
I just cannot believe in my heart that this was President
Bush putting this proposal together. I hope we can find out who
the people were responsible. I would love, Mr. Chairman, to get
that person, or that bean counter before this subcommittee at
some point and let them even begin to try to explain the
rationale for this.
But with the kind of leadership you have shown, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Olver, I am confident we will turn this around
and not do serious damage to the morale of our service men and
women.
Mr. Hobson. I hope you will show up to the hearing on
February 27; it might be interesting.
Let me say this: We did fix that BAH problem. It did not--
--
Mr. Edwards. I remember, you and I worked on that.
Mr. Hobson. It did get fixed. As well as others did.
If there are no other comments, I want to introduce the
four people here today and make a couple comments.
From the Army we have Jack Tilley, Sergeant Major of the
Army. From the Navy we have James Herdt, Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Navy. And I guess this is his fourth and final
appearance. As we were talking at lunch, he is a real short-
timer.
Maybe they will extend you; I do not know. They did some
other people on the way here.
And from the Marines we have Alford J. McMichael, Sergeant
Major of the Marine Corps. We have Chief Master Sergeant of the
Air Force Frederick J. Finch. And it is his third and final
appearance before the committee.
I want to thank you gentlemen personally for the service
you have done. It has been a pleasure to get to know you, not
just here, but in other things that we have done as we have
traveled around the world and see the respect that the people
in the military have for what you do for them, because you are
their eyes and ears in telling other people about--not only the
command people, but other people about what the problems are
out there.
So without further ado, you have testimony I think you have
all submitted for the record. I will ask you to make any
comments that you would like.
And we will start off, I guess, with the Army, Sergeant
Major Tilley.
Statement of Sergeant Major Jack L. Tilley
SMA Tilley. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
subcommittee members. I am honored and privileged to be here to
represent soldiers of the United States Army.
And what I would like to do first is introduce Command
Sergeant Major Lackey, who is the senior non-commissioned
officer of the United States Army Reserve, and Command Sergeant
Major Lever, the senior noncommissioned officer of the National
Guard.
We work very closely as a team, and so we are all here
together as a team.
A year ago, I told you our nation had the best Army in the
world. And in my opinion, that was validated by the tragic
events on September 11th. The Army and all branches have proven
themselves fit, motivated, and trained and ready to defend our
country.
You know, the war on terror really began just a couple
miles from where we sit right now. And I tell you, I am proud
of what I saw that day, and I am proud of the soldiers I saw
who put themselves, certainly, in harm's way.
I doubt I have to say that much about the Army and what we
are doing right now. We are stretched as thin as we have ever
been.
To start, routinely the Army has about 124,000 troops
stationed overseas in places like Germany and Korea and Japan
and Italy. That includes another 9,000 Army reservists.
A year ago I told you the Army had about 30,000 troops
deployed away from their homes and families. Today that number
is nearly 50,000 soldiers, to include about 11,000 National
Guard, and some 10,000 reservists.
Beyond the Balkans, Sinai, Kuwait, Philippines, there are
troops in more than 60 locations, such as Central and Southwest
Asia, Turkey, Tunisia, East Timor, Cambodia, Vietnam, Colombia
and other places.
But closer to home, the Army to date has more than 15,000
Army reservists and National Guard engaged in homeland defense,
and another 2,000 soldiers that have been mobilized for force
protection in Europe.
The key number not reflected here is how many active duty
troops are needed to secure their own posts and facilities and
are not available on a daily basis for just normal duty within
their command.
As an example of that, in January, our Forces Command was
using about 4,000 soldiers a day to secure about 11 major
installations. That number, of course, fluctuates, based on the
threat, and it does not include our law enforcement personnel
helping with force protection. Again, that number can jump as
much as 11,000 or 15,000 on any given day, again, based on the
threat.
But today I mostly want to come here and thank you on
behalf of the soldiers and families. And we talked about the
$1.7 billion for housing, and I was just made aware of that
this morning. But I really wanted to come here and thank you
for all the things I see going on in the Army right now. A year
ago, we really laid out a number of concerns in a number of
areas. Today, the news is good in each one of those areas.
The first one is pay. It is the best pay raise that we have
ever received in the last 20 years. The latest raise certainly
sends a strong signal, and I really wish that you could be with
me when I travel to different installations and they talk about
how much that pay raise means to them. Soldiers are happy, and
they are talking about it.
There is still a ways to go, but I feel free we are going
in the right direction. It is a great boost, and everybody
certainly enjoyed that targeted pay raise.
The word is getting out about housing too. Army-wide,
families sense that commitment. And we are moving in the right
direction. I just hope that we certainly do not slow down.
RCI is also tracking very well at Forts Meade, Lewis, Hood
and Carson. We are on the right track with RCI and we need to
continue.
There is no question about that, but the clear signal about
that, and I need to point out to you, the last set of quarters
that I lived in as a sergeant major with 29 years in the Army,
was 950 square feet. And now just think about that after 30
years of service to your country: big deal. But we are doing a
lot of things at Fort Carson, and we are starting to make a
difference, and we need to continue to focus on those things.
We talked just a few minutes ago about BAH. I am getting a
lot of positive feedback on BAH, and soldiers appreciate what
you are doing to assist them. About half of our families live
off of military installations. I guess if I had one concern
about BAH, sometimes when we get a raise on BAH, the landlord
raises the rent for soldiers, and that is a concern.
Also, I have visited new barracks and construction and
renovation sites of last year. It is still either feast or
famine. Either it is a newly renovated facility, or it is a
poorly maintained building, 30-plus years old.
The 2009 goal to fix our barracks minus Korea is
attainable. That commitment is visible and certainly
appreciated by all soldiers within the United States Army. But
I still have some concerns.
SOLDIER HOUSING IN KOREA
Mr. Hobson. Why minus Korea? Everybody always says, ``minus
Korea,'' and it really ticks me off.
SMA Tilley. Well, first of all I do not think it is funded
correctly right now in Korea, but about getting it completely
renovated as far as the funding for the billeting in Korea.
Mr. Hobson. That is what I need to know.
[The information follows:]
SMA Tilley. Yes, sir.
And I need to tell you, I was in Korea in 1987. They have
made a lot of improvements in Korea since that time, but they
are still not where they need to be. When you talk about
soldiers living in Quonset huts and jammed in with about 25 or
28 people, that is a little tough.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to have to ask you to hold for
just a minute, we have got eight minutes left and we will go
vote and then we will come back.
Let me say one thing before we go. I bet you have never
been to Newport, Indiana, it is really out in the middle of
nowhere. The closest Wal-Mart is in Clinton, which is about 10,
15 miles down the road.
You have got National Guard troops over there, because I
have been there. And they are really sparse, out in the middle
of nowhere, and, you know, so there is duty, unusual duty going
on all over by everybody right now. It is really a different
situation than I have ever seen before.
I mean, we are guarding a building that stood there for 40
years, out in the middle of nowhere. And if anybody had a 30.06
rifle it had gone right through and put all this stuff out
there and suddenly we are guarding it after 40 years. So it is
a different world right now.
But I want to just ask you to hold for a second, so we can
go vote and we will come right back.
Mr. Olver. Before we do that, because we do have a couple
of minutes, I just want to say--``minus Korea,'' because I had
just jotted down ``minus Korea,'' when you broke in, Mr.
Chairman. But in Korea, the President's proposal on the housing
side, seems to put in a lot of money. There is a total of $190
million in the President's submission for Korea, improvements
in housing and a couple of DoD schools and dormitories and
things like that.
I am more concerned in Korea, at the moment, about some of
the other force protection issues in the bases and the base
facilities themselves, other than the housing. That seems to
make a substantial step in Korea, at the moment. I am far more
concerned, actually, about the fact that there is nothing
proposed in that budget in Japan for either housing or those
facilities.
Mr. Hobson. No e-mail fix yet either.
SMA Tilley. Yes, sir. I have got that covered right here in
a second. [Laughter.]
[Recess.]
Mr. Hobson. Why don't you go ahead, and we will go ahead,
because I do not want to hold you guys.
SMA Tilley. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out, Sergeant
Major Lever came up to me while you were gone, and said, ``Hey,
look, I do not know if you know it or not: I am going to be up
in Newport this weekend on Saturday.''
Mr. Hobson. Tonight?
SMA Tilley. And visit.
Mr. Hobson. Tell him I said hello. I was there. I gave them
donuts from Young's Dairy Farm. [Laughter.]
RESERVE COMPONENT UTILIZATION
SMA Tilley. But, you know, we are very concerned about the
National Guard and Reserves, and we are really focusing on the
force protection, and the fact that some of their quarters are
not good enough. And so we are looking to make sure we improve
them as much as we can.
Mr. Hobson. Well, while you bring that up, let me just
shoot one other thing in it. This is just for general
consumption; does not relate to you guys.
But one of the things we need to look at, I do not think we
need to have all these people up for a year. If they can do
this stuff on a volunteer basis and fill these missions, you do
not need to have a whole bunch of people sitting around back at
posts some place doing nothing. If you--and this is true of the
Guard and Reserve across the board, if they can fill these
positions and do these missions with volunteers, then I do not
see the reason for holding these people for a full year sitting
back at a post at home.
Let them go to work, and if you need them, then you rotate
them through. But it seems to me that it is not cost-effective
to keep these people out there, because you are going to find
that it is a morale problem when you talk to some of these
people.
And I have been to a number of activated Guard positions,
Reserve positions since this has all happened. And having been
one, I can tell you when you are activated, if you are going to
be activated, it is a lot better to go overseas where you feel
you are doing something, than if you are just sitting around in
your home town while everybody else is going to work, and you
are sitting out there going to the base. So I think that is
something.
A lot of these people who do these activations are never
activated. They do not really know what that is like. I can
tell you what it is like. Even though it was a long time ago,
it is still the same trauma on the family, and it is still the
same trauma on the person that it was then. And there are ways
to do that work; that will keep that morale up. Those kids up
there I think have pretty good morale. The kids at Fort Knox
are a little different, and that is another problem.
And most people need to be treated--if they are reservists
or Guard, and this is pretty good especially in the Air Force--
it needs to be seamless when they go on. And for the most part
it is. A couple places it has not been: Fort Knox is one you
need to look at.
But anyway, I am sorry. Go ahead, Sergeant Major.
QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS
SMA Tilley. Sir, I just wanted to start off by saying I
still have concerns about overseas locations, Germany, Hawaii--
especially Korea. You know they have made great progress in
Korea since I was there as a first sergeant, but that was in
1987. You do see construction, but it is isolated construction.
We need to continue to focus, again, not just in Korea, in all
of our installations: on barracks, gyms, dining facilities, and
we talked about that before, Internet services. That is
important for soldiers.
Also, the sustainment restoration and modernization funding
this year was funded at 91 percent. The last couple of years,
we were funded at 68 percent. Now I think I commented last
year, at the current funding it would take us 157 years to
maintain our installations. But right now we have about an $18
billion backlog on our military institutions.
And also the medical facilities--I mean TRICARE. It is
important to families--and noting that there is more
satisfaction across the Army; I hear less and less questions
and concerns about TRICARE. Better quality, reduced out-of-
pocket expense.
But I have to be honest with you, and we know that
improvements are attributed mostly to funding. It just needs to
continue to watch on funding for TRICARE and I want to thank
you for that.
A year ago I said we could not get the job done without the
Guard and the Reserve. And that is so much true today. There is
no question about that. I would ask you and your colleagues to
remember our Reserve Component soldiers and their families, and
the sacrifice and the dedication that they have.
Also we cannot overlook the importance of their civilian
employers while they are away from their jobs. We need their
support for our troops, where they are deployed for either that
year, or whatever the length of time is.
I would ask you for support in adjustment to the
entitlements and benefits given to the Reserve Component
soldiers. I think that we ought to always take a look at that
and see what we can do to make it better for those soldiers.
Another group of people that we cannot forget is our
nation's veterans and retirees. Each time I get around them, I
thank them for what they do. And I would ask you to thank them
every chance you get, and consider the issues and requests that
they put before committees like yourself. They built the Army
that is serving us so well and have sacrificed so much for our
country.
Overall, we are doing well. We are making our recruiting,
and re-enlistment goals. Really, today, there are a lot of
issues that are going to come out. I just want to come here and
thank you.
But I would also like to say, we are not yet perfect in any
of these areas. I think we need to continue to stay focused on
that--especially on MILCON. There is still a long way to go,
but there have been a lot of visible improvements that I see as
I travel around the Army, and it certainly makes me proud to
see soldiers with the new billets or family housing.
We are focused on the war at hand, and we are ready to do
any missions given us. You know, I am proud of this country. I
am certainly proud to be in the Army and to be a soldier. And
we know who we are fighting against and we know who we are
fighting for.
I thank you, and I really look forward to answering your
questions today.
The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Jack L. Tilley
follows:
Mr. Hobson. Thank you.
Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer James L. Herdt
MCPON Herdt. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
distinguished members of the Committee. Once again, thank you
for the opportunity to speak on behalf of sailors and families
of our great Navy. This is, as you mentioned, my fourth and
final opportunity to testify before the committee before I
retire from active duty in April. It is my distinct pleasure to
thank you on behalf of America's Navy families serving around
the world for taking the time to listen and respond to their
concerns, as you have.
I especially want to thank you for your unfailing support
of our service. In the nearly four years that I have been
serving as the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, I have
noticed measurable improvements in the quality of life and
quality of our Navy. In that short time, the overall quality of
service of our enlisted sailors has been greatly enhanced by
those improvements. With your help and the help of the entire
Congress, and especially this committee, as I said, we have
come a long way in the past few years. The retirement plan has
been vastly improved by allowing service members the option to
choose. Pay table reform builds incentives for highly talented
young sailors to consider making the military a career.
While there may not have been enough money in the budget to
pay every junior enlisted enough to live a comfortable
lifestyle, it is important to show them that a life of service
does not continue without adequate compensation for our career
sailors.
Your help in the area of sea pay reform, allowing all
sailors to receive sea pay from the moment they begin their sea
duty and the authority to begin moving our junior single
sailors ashore, has made a significant impact on the quality of
life of all enlisted sailors.
Your enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill and
implementation of TRICARE for Life are significant quality-of-
life factors for those who choose a life of military service.
I want you to know that your investments are paying
dividends. Thanks to your support in these and many other
areas, our Navy has met recruiting goals for three consecutive
years. Additionally, our first-term sailors are re-enlisting at
a rate that can only be defined as the best ever. The momentum
is definitely moving in the right direction, and I am sure your
continued support will keep us on the course for success.
As in previous years on the job, I have traveled
extensively to visit sailors and hear their concerns. Just two
weeks ago, I visited sailors aboard the ships in the northern
Arabian Sea, doing their part in Operation Enduring Freedom,
and they are performing admirably. You could not ask for a
finer or more proud group of young Americans to be defending us
today in our war against terrorism. I shudder to think what
might have happened, had we not taken the steps to treat our
volunteer forces as the true professionals they are.
The Navy, along with all of American society, continues to
grow more technologically advanced. Sailors today have the same
skills, the same education, real experience and discipline that
would be an asset in any civilian business. Sailors today
rightfully expect at least the same level of respect and job
satisfaction as their peers who choose to work in the private
sector. They also expect comparable opportunities for success
and growth as their civilian counterparts. The patriotic young
Americans serving today do so by choice, and like all armed
services, the Navy is a career, not an alternative.
Any corporation understands that to retain the finest
employees, they must provide competitive wages, room for
growth, and a high degree of job satisfaction. As an all-
volunteer force, the Navy is no exception. Our sailors expect
and deserve to be treated as valued professionals, and we must
do our very best to fulfill our commitment to provide
competitive compensation and the best living and working
conditions we can for our service members.
When President Bush signed the 2002 defense authorization
bill, he said, ``We can never pay our men and women in uniform
on a scale that matches the magnitude of their sacrifice. But
the bill that he signed reflects our respect for your selfless
service.''
In saying that, the President summed up how many of us feel
about our service. It is that level of respect that we in
uniform really appreciate. I encourage you to continue
investing in our enlisted people with the same level of
commitment that you have demonstrated in the recent years.
Sailors enthusiastically send their thanks for your
continued congressional support for full funding of housing
allowances, reforming sea pay, and continuing to close the pay
gap between military and their civilian counterparts, just to
name a few.
While sailors and their families appreciate the recent
improvements in monetary compensation, they must continue to
maximize every opportunity to improve all aspects of military
service, ranging from improving housing quality to ensuring
first-rate working conditions and reducing maintenance
backlogs.
A continued support for fully funding BAH to 100 percent
for military families was a great step toward enhancing our
service members' quality of life. This year, we were able to
reduce the out-of-pocket requirement for housing for service
members who reside in civilian housing from 15 percent to
nearly 11 percent. Our goal is to have the out-of-pocket
expense reduced to zero by 2005.
Ongoing public-private venture initiatives and other
military construction projects are bringing us closer to
housing our country's defense in a more deserving manner.
As my time is limited here, I will submit a detailed
written testimony, and have.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement, and I am pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
The prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer James
L. Herdt follows:
Mr. Hobson. Fine. I think we will get to those at the end,
but we want to thank you for your service, sir----
MCPON Herdt. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. For many years.
Sergeant Major, you are up.
Statement of Sergeant Major Alford L. McMichael
Sgt Maj McMichael. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to the members of the committee, once again it is an
honor to appear before you and have the opportunity to speak to
you about the conditions of the facilities and how these
facilities impact the Marines and the families of our Marines
throughout the Corps around the world.
As I come today, I tell you that we still have 172,600
Marines in our active duty forces, but we also have 107,000 of
them that are in our operational command, with 37,000 Marines
today forward-based, forward-deployed or forward-stationed
doing our nation's business. We say that because it is very
important that I tell you that the quality of life of these
individuals have a great impact on their families. With 161,900
family members, we have 68,800 spouses, with 92,800 children
that goes with these service men and women that serve our great
nation.
It is important that we concentrate on the quality of life.
And, as you know, the quality of life for our Marines and
Marine families is still a priority for the Marine Corps,
because we constantly believe in taking care of our families as
we do those that wear the uniform.
During our quality-of-life surveys that started in 1993, we
found out some things that were much needed to improve the
quality of life for our service members in uniform. And then in
1998, we still found that we were not doing as much as we
needed to do, because there were still comments about privacy
and room and things like barracks space and things of that
nature.
But I am very excited about the 2002 quality-of-life
survey, that we will use this year, that should kick off within
a month in the United States Marine Corps. I am excited about
it because this survey has been structured so that it will ask
the right questions so we will know the right matters to try
and find the right answers to do the right thing for our men
and women and their families as they serve this great nation.
With that said, I would like to talk about, first, the
quality of life for our housing. In the Marine Corps, we look
at housing in two parts: family housing and single bachelor
quarters.
When we looked at our family housing, with about 25,000
units that we take care of around the world, during our first
survey we found that there was about 18,000 of those quarters
that were considered inadequate. And then by 2001, in
September, we found that we were able to say that we were down
to about 16,298 of those quarters that were still inadequate.
With your support, and with our commitment to these houses,
we know that we will be able to eliminate about 1,600 more
during 2002, and another 1,000 by 2003.
This means that we are really focused in listening to what
our Marines and our Marine families are telling us about the
inadequacy of where they live, and where their families have to
be housed.
It is important that you understand that 64 percent of our
Marine family live off the installations, with 36 percent of
those that live in Marine quarters or other service quarters.
And 26 percent of those live in Marine-owned, or Marine-leased,
or PPVs, which is public-private venture for our Corps.
When I talk about public-private venture, it is important
that I tell you that it is a program that is being utilized in
the Marine Corps in the right places and giving us great
results.
One of our public-private venture programs that is now
being managed today with our partnership is in Camp Pendleton,
California. And I am tremendously proud of what we are doing
with that program. With about 712 units being affected by our
public-private venture, 200 of them are within renovations, and
another 312 are replacement houses, with 200 more being new
buildings for our public-private venture. This is a great
success.
What it tells our family members and our men and women in
uniform is that they no longer have to hear it or see it in
writing, they have a vigil that they go in and off the bases
and stations to see this construction going up. And as they
started to move in of October of 2001, it was a great success
for us.
As we look at our family housing, it is very, very
important that I say to you that the money that has been
allotted for it--about $89 million throughout each year--91
percent of those funds have been allocated or used for enlisted
family housing. And I am very proud of that, because it was
definitely needed.
When we talk about our single bachelor houses, those are
the ones that we manage about 93,000 of them around the world.
And when we looked at those, we found that we had about 16,000
of those that were considered inadequate.
Today, with your help and your support, and the leadership
of our Corps, we are about 3,700 of those inadequate houses
still in our inventory between Hawaii and the CONUS.
But I feel that what is important, even though we committed
ourself to $50 million a year, $64.3 million has actually been
used each year to get rid of the inadequate housing.
One way we have been able to do that and reach that is
because we worked so hard to get the waiver of a two-by-zero
configuration. And when we say two-by-zero, we really mean that
we are talking about our junior enlisted Marines, those that
are in the pay grade of E-3 and below, that would live in a
room together to build camaraderie and cohesion to continue
with the culture of our United States Marine Corps.
And we have found that it is working quite well for us. And
we ask for your continued support, to let that waiver be so
that we can continue to reach the process of getting rid of
inadequate quarters by the time frame that we would like to see
it by 2008; and the time frame for our family housing by 2005.
We also have facilities that we are working on. But before
I move to the facilities, let me say this to you: that the
funding that went to our single bachelor quarters, 100 percent
of that funding has been utilized in enlisted bachelor
quarters. That is a major improvement for taking care of our
own.
As we say in the Marine Corps, ``officers eat last.'' And
when we take care of them in that fashion, they get to see the
importance of what the leadership care about the great men and
women that they are serving their leadership.
When we look at our facilities, as I said to you before,
last year in March, we have facilities that are still cold in
the winter, and it is hot in the summer, and still wet and
damp.
But I can also tell you, with your help and your support,
and the commitment of our leadership, we have been able to move
forward with some great facility projects. Maintenance
facilities are going up. Training facilities are going up.
Weather facilities are going up. Barracks are going up. Child
development centers are going up around our bases and station.
As well as business centers from Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point,
Miramar, Camp Pendleton: all across the United States Marine
Corps. And we are very proud of what we see.
Even the Marines know that when they go to work, they have
quality facilities to work in. But when we do those, we cannot
forget our reserve component as well.
With the 185 Reserve centers that stretch across 47 states
within our Marine Corps, we still have 75 percent of those
Reserve centers that are 30 years old; and 35 percent of those
are 50 years old.
That legacy, that life is wearing thin. What it is saying
is that we have modern equipment, modern technology, that is
being taken care of and worked on in facilities that are not
capable of taking care of the electrical needs or the computer
needs, or trying to fit modern tanks and trucks and other
equipment in here to work on.
So we ask for your continued support, as we move forward to
upgrade the infrastructure, upgrade our facilities where our
men and women have to work each and every day.
These things are very important, but we still have high
priorities for quality of life. We have a quality of life that
will still rank up there with pay, compensation, housing,
health care, infrastructure and community relations. These
things are still priorities for our Marines and their families.
I know we are short on time and I have submitted a written
statement for the members of the committee. But I would like to
say thank you for what you are doing and I ask for your
continued support, so we can get to where we need to be, so
that we can no longer talk about the need, but we can talk
about the things that they have that they had needed.
And to the chairman, I would like to say thank you very
much, sir, for what you are doing for the men and women in
uniform. You have been more than just a sunrise, you have been
a sunshine for the men and women that wear this uniform.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Alford L.
McMichael follows:
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Sergeant Major. I would like to tell
you that because of the staff and a couple of visits by a
couple of other congressmen, besides me, Quantico is going to
get fixed and there is going to be more stuff and Pendleton, so
you can feel pretty good about that. And 8th & I is getting
done.
But 8th & I is, I think, truly a treasure of this country.
But more important to me is where you all live in Quantico and
Pendleton, because that is your life blood out there.
And we are going to fix that, are not we, Valerie? Yes.
So I think that is gotten done. I told Mr. Murtha and Mr.
Young we are both very instrumental in that. I would like to
take credit for that. I only send them there. [Laughter.]
You know, I think it is important that we take care of
everybody's housing, but those were some things that were on
our agenda and I think they are going to get done for you, sir.
Chief Master Sergeant, this is your last time, too, so we
thank you for your service. And what do you want to tell us
about the Air Force?
Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Frederick J. Finch
CMSAF Finch. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon and good
afternoon to the distinguished Members of the Committee. It is
an honor for me to be back with you again today to discuss
issues affecting the men and women of our United States Air
Force and their families. And it is also a--before I get
started too much--a special thanks to you for going around and
visiting our airmen and their families around the world this
past year. I have gotten reports that you have been out and
about and, well, that is a nice thing.
While, I have submitted a written witness statement for the
record, I would like to touch on a couple of issues that are
covered in that.
As you know, many of our airmen are presently deployed to
remote locations around the globe defending our nation's
security interests. In fact, I visited members of our total
force team, deployed to seven separate countries, so far, this
calendar year, and I am here to report that they continue to
work very hard in service to America. Therefore we believe
those serving on active duty, members of Air Force Reserve
Command and their Air National Guard Counterparts deserve a
standard of living, at least equal to the Americans that they
support and defend.
MILITARY PAY
We make great strides toward improving the quality of life
for our people and I truly appreciate the support of Congress
and, in particular, the Members of this Committee. In Fiscal
Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, as you know, and
has been stated earlier, our airmen received the largest pay
raise that we have had in two decades. And we have targeted
additional dollars towards the mid-level and senior
noncommissioned officers' which has also been a welcome change.
While there is still more work needed on the enlisted pay
table, I think we are moving in a good direction to better
match compensation to the demands that we place on our
experienced mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers.
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
Recent improvements in the basic allowance for housing, or
the BAH, as you mentioned, have reduced out-of-pocket costs for
maintaining an off-base residence to approximately 11 percent
of the national median housing costs, as you understand.
While, this is a vast improvement to the 15 to 19 percent
that we had just a couple of years ago, we must continue to
make incremental increases to BAH funding, until we can
eliminate the average out-of-pocket expenses. As you know, we
cannot feasibly expect to house all our military members and
families on our bases, but we can establish comparable housing
compensation for them to make up that difference.
RETENTION RATES
This has been an outstanding year for the Air Force in
recruiting. But unlike our sister services, retention has still
been a problem for us. Prior to implementing stop loss, which
you are familiar with, our first-term retention rates had
stabilized, but we continue to fall short on our second-term
and our career airman retention goals. These are the people
that represent our experience base. For us, these are the
skilled technicians, the trainers and the deployers who are
vital to meeting mission requirements.
While stop loss has temporarily helped us meet current
requirements, retention is still a major concern, and
unfortunately there is no single solution that will fix it.
One issue that has come up during my travels and is
discussed among the senior leadership in the Air Force is the
current manning requirements for real-world operations. The
demands to support both current contingencies and homeland
defense have required us to take a hard look at the force
structure that we have. Even with improved recruiting and
retention, we expect to have a mismatch between the people and
resources we have available when compared to the missions our
Nation asks of us.
EDUCATION BENEFITS
Another issue affecting retention is enhanced educational
benefits. The education concern most often raised by
noncommissioned officers relates to the 49,000 Air Force people
currently without Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Many appreciate
the recent legislation authorizing the transferability of
benefits to a select few in critical skills. But I must add
that those without Montgomery GI Bill access, and others, of
course, tend to view this as a widening of the wedge between
the haves and have nots on the Air Force team.
The Air Force is very appreciative of this Subcommittee's
efforts to improve the mission support facilities along with
housing for our military members and their families. Thanks to
your support, in fiscal year 2002 we saw improvement in our
facility recapitalization rate. However we are still
significantly beyond the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
facility recapitalization goal of 67 year. I am told that
currently at a rate of about 118 years in the recapitalization
rate.
FAMILY HOUSING
I also believe there is a direct correlation between safe,
affordable housing and being able to recruit, motivate, and in
our case retain top-quality professional force that we need in
the Air Force. The Air Force owns or operates about 103,000
homes and leases 7,100 additional units. We continue to strive
to meet our current Air Force family housing master plan, and
are on track to meet the 2010 revitalization goal. As you are
aware, we are pursuing a balanced approach, using both
traditional military construction and the privatization
authorities that you have given us. Within the next 12 months,
we anticipate awarding privatization projects at eight
locations.
During my travels, I've toured privatization projects at
both Lackland and Robins, and the feedback I have received back
from the airmen who have been there, has been pretty positive.
The service members like the new kitchens, the modern style,
the garages, the extra amenities in the housing area such as
swimming pools, and community centers have been well received.
DORMITORY MASTER PLAN
Our Air Force dormitory master plan outlines how we will
meet the goal of providing single airmen, classes E-1 to E-4, a
private room on base, and replace our worst dorms by the year
2009. With the current level of funding, we are on target to
meet this goal. For us, dormitories serve as more than just a
place to house single airmen. They help us transition our
youngest members into the operational Air Force.
FITNESS FACILITIES
The importance of fitness is also tied to readiness, and it
is vital we provide our people with functional facilities. We
project by fiscal year 2005 that only 42 percent of the fitness
facilities that we have will meet Air Force and DOD standards.
CHILD CARE
Affordable child care is also a significant concern among
many Air Force families. Currently, we meet less than 65
percent of our child care needs, and this has placed a
difficult strain on our single parent and our many dual-career
families that we have on our Air Force team.
Ultimately, the Air Force leadership strongly believes that
quality of life directly impacts recruiting and retention. I
thank you for your support in our efforts to provide a
reasonable standard of living for our people.
Before I conclude, let me add that this will probably be my
last time, as you mentioned, and it has been an honor to
address this Subcommittee and get a chance to work with you.
One of the things I have learned, during tenure here as the
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, is that many of our
troops in the field really see us as all as the ``they'' in
Washington. So therefore when one group or someone improves
life for the troops, we all move up a notch in their eyes, and
I appreciate that, as it is very helpful for us.
Of course, it is a double-edged sword too, and we also have
to explain the decisions of folks here sitting at this table,
to those who do not care for these decisions or those who
believe they have been left out of something. Ultimately, I
consider myself blessed to have served as Chief Master Sergeant
of the Air Force during a time when the members of this
Committee, and others in our national leadership team,
sincerely wanted to improve the quality of life for our
military members. So I thank you for that.
Of course, they do deserve our attention and our support.
We ask them to serve long hours in places that are often
unsafe, far from home. We ask them to commit their heart and
soul to the service and their country. And unfortunately some
of our members pay the ultimate sacrifice.
But on behalf of the men and women who serve in America's
Air Force, thank you for your leadership, and for allowing us
the opportunity to discuss issues and concerns in this open
forum.
I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Frederick
J. Finch follows:]
Mr. Hobson. I will go down the line of members. John, do
you have any questions you would like to ask?
Mr. Olver. I am trying to organize.
Mr. Hobson. Let me go to Chet.
Mr. Edwards. No, no.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, okay. [Laughter.]
TROOP DEPLOYMENT FIGURES
Mr. Olver. I want to just clarify a couple of things. To
Sergeant Major McMichael, you said there were 37,000 forward-
deployed Marines. And Sergeant Major Tilley, you said that
there are 124,000--I think that would be roughly overseas, or
something--that must be roughly the same definition--forward-
deployed.
SMA Tilley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Either of the other two, Finch, Herdt, do you
have an idea of what one would give us a comparable number in
each of your places? Basically, I am trying to get at what the
percentage is in each of these.
MCPON Herdt. Yes, sir, I will take that question for the
record, to provide you with an accurate count on our number
that are forward-based. And that is how we term it: ``forward-
based.''
But I can tell you that, on any given day, we have upwards
of 40,000 to 45,000 that are actually deployed away from their
home port.
Mr. Olver. Forty-five thousand, roughly?
MCPON Herdt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. So it is going to be something--getting the
definition exactly correct is probably not critical. But if I
have got them in the right ballpark of what the total--may be
each of you might give us----
MCPON Herdt. I think this is critical, if I could----
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Using Reserves and Guard where we
have Guard and so on in those numbers.
MCPON Herdt. It is critical, I think, as you point out,
that the definition be somewhat accurate. When I say
``deployed,'' I mean out on, you know, exercises or actually
out on six-month deployments.
If I add in the number of people that we have stationed in
places like Japan, Korea, Italy, Bahrain and so forth, people
that are permanently stationed there on PCS orders, the number
will be, I think, somewhat short of the Army, and probably
higher than the Marine Corps.
CMSAF Finch. Comparable, probably, to the Air Force.
I do not have the exact number here. And I will be happy to
take that for the record, and we will get that back to you.
[The information follows:]
Air Force Military Personnel
During fiscal year 2002, the Air Force deployed an average of
29,500 military personnel (23,700 active, 3,800 Air National Guard, and
2,000 Air Force Reserve Members) around the world. In addition, over
73,000 active duty airmen are currently forward-based on permanent
Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) assignments.
CMSAF Finch. When we look at deployed, we talk about
forward-deployed, we can also define those who are away from
their families over in some bare base environment. Plus there
are a number of people who are in Korea and serving remote as:
overseas.
Mr. Hobson. Let me clarify that for you, too.
Some of this is not a full Permanent Change of Station
(PCS) deployment. A lot of these are 90-, 120-day rotations in
and out. And how you do this is a lot different, because PCS
and Temporary Duty (TDY) and some of these other things are
different in different Services. And so it is a little hard to
get apples to apples.
Mr. Olver. And it might be that one is looking for what is
the average forward deployment, or whatever is the comparable
definition of those.
One of the reasons I asked it, was that I had somebody
recently who was complaining about the amount of money that was
being spent on the military. And they were very annoyed at the
number of places that we are involved.
And Sergeant Major Tilley, you were commenting about the
number of places. And we all know that we are involved in a lot
of places, and we are likely to continue to be involved in a
lot of places.
And I asked him, ``Well, how many do you think we are over
there?''
And he was saying, ``Well, we have got about a million
people forward-deployed.''
And I said, ``I do not think it is more than a couple of
hundred thousand: maybe 250,000.'' I do not know exactly what
it is going to come out, but I do not know that I need to know
the exact number, but it was of some interest here, as this
came up.
PAY AND BENEFITS
You have given somewhat different testimony from the women
that we had this morning--the spouses. In this case, we
happened to have all women as spouses. I am looking forward to
the day when we have a woman in this group and a man in the
other crew of the spouses. And someday that will happen. It
will take a while for those proportions to get around to that,
I imagine.
But it seems to me thinking about it, that there are two
categories. There are categories of things you can do that
affect everybody and instantly affect everybody, which are
retirement benefits and maybe the educational benefits that you
are talking about, Finch, are the educational benefits for the
member, him or herself, I take it.
CMSAF Finch. Yes.
Mr. Olver. And interestingly that the women, the spouses,
were talking about the educational benefits for their kids. And
so the issue that, say, pay and retirement benefits and the
basic allowance for housing, the BAH, are ones that we can make
a change here and suddenly put the pay up 15 percent for
everybody, or 3 percent or whatever it happens to be. And that
gets distributed immediately.
Much of what we were getting for them was from differences
of issues which are located and about to be fixed on a point-
source basis, in essence. The day care centers, the child
development center, where that is the schools. The teen
activity center, big bases where there are lots and lots of
teens, what do they do? We have done something for the younger
kids through day care and so on, but we have not really perhaps
done very much at the top end of the scale, and fitness is a
very locus-oriented thing.
Among those things, it seems to me that if we wanted to
judge ourselves by what impact we have had as a Committee or
the Congress as a whole over a period of time, the report card
is a report card that looks at how did we do on recruitment
goals and how did we do on retention goals. Over the long haul,
how we are able to do on recruitment goals and how we are able
to do on retention goals.
Now, you spoke something about both of those, I think, but
mainly about the retention goals.
The rest of you did not speak about that, and I would like
you to think about it, and I will ask you to respond, now that
I have laid it out, when I get my next round, having now taken
a certain amount of time to lay out the question, because then
I am going to come back and ask what are the things that we
could do at least on those if you could add to it, where could
we make the most impact in what we do. We do not have to talk
money. There are so many choices. On improving those
recruitment goals and those retention goals. But I need to know
how we have been doing on that first. So much for that.
Mr. Hobson. Chet?
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have three questions. Sergeant Major McMichael, did I
understand you correctly to say that we still have facilities
that are cold in the wintertime, and if so does that refer to
housing facilities that we cannot keep comfortably warm in the
wintertime?
SGT MAJ McMichael. The facility that I speak of is the
facility that our Marines work in daily, that they do repair,
and they do maintenance, and the billions of dollars and
millions of dollars that they are supplying.
And I say that because it is important. We can spend
billions of dollars on equipment, regardless of what we buy,
and it will have very little value if we do not have great
people behind them. And if we put those great people in
facilities that will be conducive to their morale and their
need to work effectively, then that billion dollar equipment
then becomes effective for defending this great nation.
We still have housing, as I said, both single barrack
bachelor quarters and family housing. As I said, we had 18,000
at one point, but that went down and we had 16,000 single
bachelor quarters that were inadequate.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
SGT MAJ McMichael. But with your support from this
committee and the leadership of making commitments to that, we
are drawing it down. But, yes, we still have those facilities.
Mr. Edwards. Still have great needs out there. So those who
would argue for a $1.7 billion cut in military construction,
they could not be arguing from the basis that we have already
taken care of all the needs of our military servicemen and
women and their families.
Sergeant Major Tilley, let me ask you. You said there is an
$18 billion backlog in MILCON. Is that, if you add up the
backlog in all services?
SMA Tilley. No, I am just talking about the Army.
Mr. Edwards. Just the Army.
SMA Tilley. Just the Army, sir. I am really talking about
infrastructure. When you visit a military installation, you do
not maintain the dining facilities, the gymnasiums, the motor
pools, and that infrastructure where we have not funded it
correctly for a long time, that is where our problem exists.
And so we need to make sure that we try to clean up that
backlog as much as we can.
OPERATIONS TEMPO
Mr. Edwards. Let me ask you something that ties pretty
directly into what this committee does, what its
responsibilities are in regard to housing and quality of life.
Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO), you have all discussed that; we
know that is a serious problem. There have been proposals
within the Pentagon, floating around the last year, to suggest
taking down the Army by two active duty divisions. There have
also been some proposals saying we really ought to increase the
total population of the Army and force structure.
Can you just tell me, given the present OPTEMPO rates in
the Army, if we were to--assume we took down two active
divisions in the Army, what would that do to OPTEMPO and
quality of life for military families, and on the other hand,
what would happen if we were to increase the end strength?
SMA Tilley. Well, the one thing--and that is really tough,
because, you know, I cannot get in to what size the Army should
be.
Mr. Edwards. Sure.
SMA Tilley. That is the responsibility of the Chief of
Staff of the Army, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of Defense. But I would just simply tell you, since 1992, I
have been more deployed now than I ever have for the first 20
years I was in the Army. In fact, I think on two occasions I
was gone at least a year each time.
So what would it do? It would have an impact on retention
in the military. I mean, it would cause a tremendous amount of
problems. I mean, we deploy enough now. And I cannot think of
a--I am going to give you an example. That is probably the best
way to do it.
As I was in Saudi Arabia about two years ago and I was
walking around, I saw this soldier leaning up against a
building. It was a sergeant first class, a senior
noncommissioned officer. And I said, ``How are you doing?''
And he said, ``Aw, not very good.''
I said, ``Geez, can I help you with something?''
And he said, ``Well, not really. You cannot.''
I said, ``What do you mean?''
He said, ``Well''--and this guy was clearly upset. He said,
``I have been deployed eight times to Saudi Arabia since the
war.''
I said, ``Well, Jiminy Christmas, I cannot believe that.''
And then he said something else that certainly bothered me.
He said, ``And because of that, I just lost my family.''
And that is the bottom line. And so the answer to your
question, for me is pretty simple, and not just for the Army,
it is for all Services. If, in fact, we continue to march as
fast as we are, those kind of things are going to happen. And
those may not be the things that we see.
I mean, I deployed to Bosnia for a year. It is the same
thing. You are gone from your family for such a period of time,
it really does affect the military.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you for your comments.
Let me just conclude with a quick observation. I wish all
of you could have been with me, Congressman Dicks, Mr.
Bereuter, Senators McCain and Lieberman had a trip. We went to
Munich for the 38th annual defense conference they have had
there. And there were 35 to 40 defense ministers there from
throughout Asia and Europe. Next to fighting the war on
terrorism, the biggest concern was that the quality of the
people and the technology in the U.S. military has gotten so
good and so far advanced beyond our NATO allies that they had
serious concerns about the ability to integrate U.S. forces
with NATO forces.
And I just mention that as a compliment to each one of you
individually, to your families and to all the service men and
women that you represent with your presence here today and your
lifetime of service. Thank you for making us proud of the
quality of our U.S. military. We are deeply grateful to you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Before I go to Sam, let me make a comment. On
this eight times to Saudi Arabia, that should not have
happened, because there are rules on that. And we just--for
example, we had something changed, I think, where if you went
to Korea for a year, you could immediately be assigned to
Bosnia or Kosovo. And I raised objection about that, because
they ought to be able to at least stay some time in Continental
United States (CONUS) before they have to do those. I mean, I
think they changed that.
But there are supposed to be rules about tracking your
deployment and how often you can go and your ability--now,
there is certain Military Occupation Specialities (MOSs) or Air
Force Speciality Codes (AFSCs), that they will probably violate
that or get a waiver on, but most of the time, there is
supposed to be a certain amount of time that you spend before
they can do that to you again. And that is something we need to
watch.
There are these anomalies, like I just found out about the
Korean one, which just seems--you are PCSed to Korea and then
they send you on TDY to Bosnia or Kosovo, it is not quite fair.
Now, I do think at some point we ought to talk about the
overall size--somebody ought to talk about it; I am not sure it
is this Committee--that we can do it; we provide the funding.
But somebody needs to look at the size of the force if these
kinds of things are happening. The size of this force may have
been brought down too low overall. And somebody needs to look
at the configuration of what it is.
And while I am sending messages, since there are lots of
ears in the room, let me suggest that I still think we have
37,000 people in Korea and we have abandoned them. And some
people do not support, I do not believe, well enough those
kids. They are our kids. And we strand them over there and make
them second-class citizens. And it is not fair and it is not
right. I do not care who knows that I think that, because there
are a lot of other people who think that. And if I have my way,
before I am gone from here, we are going to treat them fairly,
and we are going to treat the kids in Europe fairly on their
MILCON, and we do not, either place.
Now the President sees--the Administration has, kind of,
gotten the message, all of a sudden, because they have put in
more, I think, this time than they ever had before. And now our
job is going to be to try to hold it. So I am just sending some
messages, because there are lot of ears in the room and it is
easier that way than any other way.
So with that, Sam, you have my tie on.
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Nice tie.
Mr. Farr. Thank you for your tie. But you were not born on
the 4th of July. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really appreciate the testimony and your being here
today. And Sergeant Major McMichael, I heard you give a tribute
in the Rotunda to the Navajo codebreakers.
SGT MAJ McMichael. Yes, sir.
Mr. Farr. Well, I want to tell you, I have been in that
rotunda and listened to Presidents and Vice Presidents,
Speakers of the House, Senate leaders, religious leaders. I
have never heard a better tribute given, ever, by anybody than
you gave that day. I was so proud of our country and what you
were doing in congratulating and honoring those people we have
kept secret for so many years. I really appreciate. I was so
proud of you that day.
SGT MAJ McMichael. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hobson. Sam, that is his wife sitting right behind him.
I will bet she was proud, too.
Mr. Farr. Well, I will tell you, do not ever get into an
oratory debate with him. He speaks without a note and he can
outwit you anyway. So maybe there is a career for him in
politics after the military. [Laughter.]
QUALITY OF LIFE AND EQUIPMENT ISSUES
I have a real tough question, but it is a question we are
faced with. We have to solve every problem in the world, right?
We fund the United States government. And it is always a
question of tough choices. And particularly with a defense
budget. It is, you know, big defense, and there are two sides
of it. There is the side of labor force, which is the men and
women in uniform, and there is the equipment side of the
military hardware.
What I have noticed here in Washington is that, when it
comes to the quality of life and the issues relating to the
labor force, to the men and women in uniform, nobody is allowed
to lobby for them. For the retirees and veterans, there is a
big lobby. But for what you talk about in this committee, there
is no lobby out there. Yet, when it comes for what the military
ought to buy, the Fortune 500 companies have the best paid
lobbyists on K Street down here trying to sell us that stuff.
So within the military budget, we have to make these
choices of how much we are going to put into procurement and
how much we are going to put into quality of life. I am really
proud of you and the leadership we have within the chairman and
the ranking members to bring up these issues. We will never
have an equal playing field, but at least a forum where these
issues can be discussed.
The soldier you just talked about did not care what you
equip him with; if he has got a broken heart and a defeated
attitude, he is not going to be a very good soldier. So it
seems to me that is what business has to worry about, too--it
does not matter what your stock is selling at, if your
employees are unhappy, you are not going to be in business very
long.
Can you give us some kind of a feeling about how much we
have to commit to meeting these quality-of-life issues that are
going to make you better soldiers, versus how much hardware we
have to buy?
SGT MAJ McMichael. Sir, over the last four years, I have
watched this process and have learned a great deal. I am not a
bean counter or a green-eyeshade guy, but I do sit in meetings
where these things are discussed. And I think your observation
is about right on target.
Mr. Farr. I would make one minor modification to it. I see
it as a three-part decision process. It is the people pot that
you talked about. It is the current readiness pot, the services
that the taxpayers have already bought and paid for. And then
it is the future readiness piece.
My view of it has always been that you can give a mediocre
sailor the best equipment in the world to operate, and you end
up with a mediocre weapons system.
You can give a top-notch sailor a mediocre weapons system,
and they will make it perform admirably.
It seems to me that ever since the end of the Cold War, we
have been on a diet of meeting a bogey, over the last decade or
better. And we have put well-meaning people in positions of
having to make these tough choices, and they put the pants on
one leg at a time every day and go to work and hope to do the
very best that they can. And they are faced with making these
choices.
I think over the last four years, we have made wonderful
choices in the personnel arena. I think we have gotten it about
right to be honest with you. I wish we could have had more, but
I am not sure we could have had measurably more without
affecting the other two so miserably that we would have a lot
of well-paid people with nothing to operate, with not enough
equipment to operate, or very old equipment to operate.
So this is a continuous struggle that is not likely to
change over the years of trying to get the right mix between
people, taking care of what we already have and getting the
right stuff for our future force. That is how I see it.
CMSAF Finch. I would like to add just a comment or two to
that. I agree we use different terms basically saying some of
the same kinds of things. We are forced to choose between
modernization, readiness and taking care of people, and
sometimes maybe, in past years, we have lost sight of the
people part of the weapons system, and if we do not fix this
piece, we could have nice equipment but nobody there to do
anything with it. So you have got to figure out how to make all
that balance.
We also have come to have an expectation--and certainly we
want to continue to do this--that in any war we fight, we want
to win 100 percent to nothing, and so that also means we have
to increase the use of technology.
And the leadership is trying to choose between all of
those. I think retention boils down to three things really:
One is people have to know they are doing important stuff,
and if we do not give them the right equipment, they will not
value the jobs that they are doing. They will not think that we
take that seriously. People definitely want to be appreciated
for the kinds of work that they are doing, and if we do not
show them in some quality-of-life kinds of things, they will
think that we are asking much more than we are willing to give
to support them.
And they need some reasonable expectation that their family
is going to be taken care of. If we do all these kind of
things, we will continue to find the right balance.
For us in the Air Force, when it comes to balancing all
these things, we have taken quality of life and looked at
facilities, infrastructure and housing and we have developed a
priority basis. This way you can talk to anybody in the
leadership of the Air Force to receive what the housing and the
dorm priorities should be, so that as we continue to fund
initiatives, we will move in a good direction.
And we cannot just focus on one at the expense of another.
We have to take a balanced approach in continuing to move us
forward.
I am happy to say in the last few years we have been moving
up and not moving down. And as Jim Herdt has said, I think
there was a time that we were trying to defend everything, and
we were trying to figure out how to hold onto things. And the
troops tend to view this as moving in an upward direction.
The question I ask them is, are we better today than we
were a year ago? And the answer I have had in the last couple
years is yes, we are trying to recover and that is a good
thing.
SMA Tilley. I would just like to add to what both of them
said. First of all, I have been in the Army a long, long time.
And I remember the first tank that I was on. It was an old 48.
And I associate that because I was back in Vietnam in 1967. And
I think about what we have to do as far as transforming our
military. And he talked about people. If we do not transform
our military, what we are going to do in the end is lose
soldiers' lives.
One of the things that I have to do is go to a hospital
every time a soldier is hurt or killed or wounded and talk to
their family members or the soldier in the hospital.
And I was over there the other day and I talked to two
soldiers. One lost his arm, one lost his leg. One was an
Explosive Ordnance Disposed (EOD) accident and the other one
was some kind of hostile fire where he had lost his arm and
ripped his chest open.
So I say that because if we are not allowed to transform
the Army, to have the kind of equipment that we need, in the
future, unfortunately, we will lose a lot more soldiers' lives.
And that is why it is important for us to change.
And when you talk about quality of life and the things that
we need to do, we have about 48 things that we associate with
quality of life. We are not just talking about equipment. We
are talking about pay. We are talking about housing. We are
talking about communities. We are talking about education. We
are talking about development for all of our young adults that
are in the military with their family members. And so it is
just not one thing that you can put your hand on. It is
everything that you need to continue to focus on to push
forward.
Mr. Farr. What is very interesting is we travel to these
different military bases with this subcommittee. It has been my
impression--and I live in California and represent a lot of the
Silicon Valley area, in Monterey and Santa Cruz County. But the
impression I got is that, frankly, young men and women in
uniform in the military, and particularly those with families,
are really living at a better quality of life than their
counterparts in the civilian sector even though they are making
a lot more money. With all that money in the private sector,
they do not have the quality of health care. They do not have
the quality of child care. They do not have the quality of
physical fitness. They do not have access to commissaries. I
mean, they got Costco, I guess; that is the civilian
commissary.
But it is very interesting. And I have used that when I go
around to high schools to try and encourage students because
there is not the pressure to join the military that there was
when we had the draft when I was young. I think we ought to be
doing a lot better job of recruiting by offering what that
lifestyle is in comparison to what it is in the civilian
sector.
All these dot-com companies make you think you are going to
be a jillionaire out there. You cannot afford a house. You
cannot afford child care even though you are making a pretty
good salary. So, I think we lack the ability of explaining
exactly what improvements we are making to the military quality
of life.
But also with the economy now, we have got to vote on these
things like Star Wars. I am always going back to the basics. I
played football in high school. And I remember we never lost a
football game, but we got cocky every time we won by a big
score. And our coach would always go back every Monday and say,
``Okay, now you are going to learn how to run, block and
tackle. That is all this game is all about. No matter how good
you get, you have got to go back and learn the basics.'' And I
think that is what we forget that the military: men and women
in uniform are about the basics of the military, which is
investment in people and the morale of those people.
Your observation about equipment, we have that same problem
in public schools. It is often said that what is the value
system of America if you send the kids down to a mall that is
full of the latest technology and music and color and you walk
into a public school and it is 1950s technology and a pretty
sad place to be. Where is our value system? Is it all just
about going out there and making money, or is it about getting
an education.
And I really appreciate your comments.
SMA Tilley. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Sam, do you have anything else?
Mr. Farr. No. I just want to follow Sergeant McMichael's
future political career. [Laughter.]
Mr. Olver. What district are you in?
Mr. Hobson. I hope it is not mine.
Mr. Olver. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you have things that
you want to follow.
Mr. Hobson. No, go ahead.
EFFECTS ON RECRUITING AND RETENTION
Mr. Olver. As the others have spoken after I did, I was
wondering if my whole analysis had been blown to pieces. I am
not sure. I think maybe I could just expand. You know, I am
trying to understand this. There is a lot of different stuff
that comes together and I am trying to be able to think about
it in a broader context.
So the idea that really the--it is a retention issue, the
retention and the recruitment. There is such a lot of word of
mouth that goes out from all of our military personnel. So you
are not going to get recruitment if the word of mouth is not
good, it is bad.
Now, it turns out that most of those big, broad things like
pay and BAH and retirement benefits and even educational
benefits for members comes out of what the big committee does,
which the Chairman is also Senior Member there. And one of the
members on my side of the aisle is the number two Democrat
there: Norm Dicks. And so they are able to do something about
that.
But that has a big part, I think, hearing what Sergeant
Major Tilley was saying here on--has a big part on those
retention issues.
But what we do in this Committee is mostly because it is
the Military Construction Committee. It is mostly those point-
source sorts of things. So we have a, kind of, a peripheral
affect on top of these big aspects. And I guess I would be
curious if you have a sense, among those point-source issues,
you try to do things in an even, kind of, way and things are
fad.
Well, for a period of time it might be fitness centers are
the fad. And then another time it is child development centers.
And there must be, in your view, since you have seen a lot of
what is going on--two years, and Sergeant Major McMichael, you
are three years, I guess and the other two are with us four
years and your last year--over that period of time, are we
bringing all of these up somewhat? Or are there some of those
point-source kinds of issues that have been neglected in the
process and we need to put some work on those in particular?
``POINT SOURCE'' IMPROVEMENTS
What would be the places that we could make the biggest
marginal benefit in our recruitment, retention goals? And maybe
you would like to speak to whether you have seen really
benefits on the recruitment side and on the retention side in
each of your services in the years that you have testified
before this committee.
SMA Tilley. The answer is on the recruitment, I told you
before, we are doing very good on recruitment. We are
recruiting the kind of soldiers that we want to come into the
military. And we also set up a lot of things within the Army
that are well being associated. Our well being focuses on pay,
compensation, education, housing, continuous education for
soldiers, fitness, workplace environment, that kind of stuff.
So we have groups within the military that focus on the kind of
things that you were just talking about.
And so when new recruits come in, we are trying to educate
them about the kind of things that we have in the United States
Army to help them to be a better family. So I think we are
focused on that.
The one thing you did talk about was child development
centers. Now, that is always a continuous problem. One is
because of the amount of times that we are deployed, is it open
long enough? Do we pay the people who work in the child
development center enough money? Do we have enough of them? And
usually, the answer to all those is no, because we are deployed
a lot more.
The other question that you talked about--initially when
you asked your question about the Reserves and Guard, it is--
you know, they blend in real good. Again, they are deployed
just as much as we are. You cannot tell if it is a Guard or
Reserve or active duty soldier. We are all just blended in
together doing what we have to get done.
But the Army is focused on those things. But I guess your
question is if there is one thing--there are so many things, it
is hard to pick one. The one thing I do hear quite a bit is
child development centers for family members.
MCPON Herdt. Sir, to address your general question first,
are we making a difference? Are we bringing everything up, sort
of, equally? I would make a flat statement. In 35 years in the
Navy, I think I have seen more improvement across the board in
the personnel area of quality of life and quality of service
over the past four years than I saw in the first 31 years.
Now, that is a bold statement to make. But I have had a lot
of reason to reflect here recently as I get close to
retirement, and I believe things have changed dramatically from
1998. And I do believe that over the years we have been able to
bring things up in, sort of, an equal way.
And yes, there is point sources out there. There may be a
child development center in one place, a single sailor center
in another that maybe we did not get the right percentage of
resourcing into. But I think by and large we are doing
wonderfully.
I will tell you one of the things that I think made a big
difference over the last four years, in the Navy in particular,
and that was BRAC moves, where we relocated and we had money to
go in and build from the ground up new facilities. Our Naval
Aviation Technical Training Center down in Pensacola is a great
example of that. The Nuclear Power Training Command in
Charleston is another one where they are designed from the
ground up and done--you know, we were not in the fix-up mode.
We actually built a quality place.
Now, the RPM issue has lagged behind. And if we are not
careful, those places are going to look old pretty quick.
Mr. Olver. RPM is maintenance?
MCPON Herdt. Real property maintenance.
The backlog that the sergeant major mentioned, we all have.
Mr. Olver. After we build things, we never provide for its
maintenance.
Mr. Hobson. People steal that money. They steal that money
and use it for other things. And we do not have any control
over that. I am trying to get control over that so they do not
steal it, so they use it. That is why we wind up with these
places.
Any property owner will tell you, if you do not maintain
it, it is going to be junk. And everybody robs Peter to pay
Paul on those places and then we wind up with junk.
Excuse me, John. [Laughter.]
MCPON Herdt. If there were one area in the Navy that I
would tell you that if I had extra money that I would like to
do faster is we have finally made the decision that we are
going to move sailors off their ships in their home port. We
have, as a routine matter, a situation where sailors live in
living conditions that they brag about to everyone when they go
to sea. And they expect to live as we do when we go to sea. We
live very close together because space is a premium.
But the idea that we are finally going to move those single
sailors off of their ships, junior sailors, in their home
ports. We have a plan to do that. We are short about 24,000
beds to be able to do it. But we have a plan to build to that.
And it is my great hope that, as we move over the next five
years or so, that we make sure that we get the money to do it.
And if we speed up anything, that is where I would speed it up.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Hobson. I think there is some privatization
opportunities in that. But there has to be some understandings
of the BAH and the BAH needs to be specially tailored for that
particular situation. But we are moving in a direction on that.
We are also going to move in a direction of privatization of
barracks so we can get you better barracks.
There is some culture problems within the various services
about that and how we do that. This is not a question about
jobs. There is some control factors existent within it, but I
think we can work through that.
But we are never going to get enough money, in my opinion,
to get this stuff up to standard through the MILCON Committee
alone. And we are getting smarter in the housing side of it, in
the facility side, and not just in barracks, but in buildings
that we operate out of to perform our missions. Some of those
buildings can be privatized, and some of the old buildings can
be used in a different manner. And we have to get the people in
the building and the commanders all thinking outside the box of
new ways to handle this problem. And we are getting there. It
just, you know, takes a while.
And the housing, I think, started, then the barracks are
going to start, and then we have got to look at these other
buildings down the road, and we just have to keep pushing
people to think outside the box a little bit so that we get you
to those buildings that are adequate and I showed pictures on
the floor in Europe of where we are using World War One horse
barns in the Army to fix automatic weapons, rocket launchers
today, and the trucks do not fit in, and the motor pool
situation if they were here would be condemned, and the EPA
would be active. We are asking people to work in those
conditions.
Now we are going to have to figure out some of that is
going to be MILCON. Some of it is going to have to be the
private sector. And we have to figure out the mix, and the
people that we all talk about who plan this out--the Congress
will not be able to do this in itself. We are not set up to do
it. We can help you implement it, but we have to have you all,
your guys down there, people down there, figure out the process
and how we move in it.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hobson. I think that is where you are going.
MAINTENANCE AND FACILITIES PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Farr. On the privatization, I know we have really done
a lot for construction and moving into new buildings. I think
we ought to also challenge the military to think outside the
box on maintenance.
We have done something with the Defense Language Institute,
which is TRADOC managed, where the entire base operations is
run by the city of Monterey. They have saved the military about
40 percent of the costs of when they had to do it themselves,
and the quality of maintenance has gone way up.
The director of our housing authority in Monterey County is
a retired military housing person, and he tells me that with
the staff he has from the housing authority that they can
provide a much better level of service at a higher quality to
the military, but nobody has ever come and asked them, to
participate.
I am not suggesting that we need to privatize the
maintenance, but I do think we need to look at what other
public maintenance activities are already going on in the
region, and allow the other public entities to compete for
price and quality work. And that would be a little thinking
outside the box.
Mr. Hobson. They are looking at some of those things. They
are also looking at utilities very heavily, because their
infrastructure is bad in utilities, and we do not have the
money to fix them. We may have to privatize some of those, but
we have got to make sure we get the contracts right. I keep
reiterating we have to be smart in how we draw contracts. And I
am going to go meet a guy here in a minute who wants to talk
about that, because I have criticized some of the contracts in
some of the places. And he is not too happy with me.
And I just want this last thing on quality of life and
everything. As we do these things, we need to make sure that
what we do is correct, and the next generation looks back after
all of us and does not say, ``Boy, you guys entered into some
dumb deals. You just created another HUD problem over there, in
whatever you did.'' And I do not want to do that. Nobody on
this committee wants to do that.
So we are urging people to think outside the box and move
forward but make sure that--I call it underwrite--we underwrite
the projects in a manner that 10 years from now, 15 years from
now, or 50 years, when somebody looks back and says what we
did, they said, ``Gee, those people thought it out and they did
it right.''
Times may change, but, for example, in the housing we are
going to need in certain places in the future we need to have a
way to get out of these transactions at the right time. Things
may change on how soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen
live in the future. They may live more on the economy than they
do now. Some services do not want that as much as other
services want that. You know, it is just different cultures,
and we have to deal with those.
And those are all things that we do not have the
legislative authority on that, but we can affect it by asking
questions, and we can affect it by the funding that we do. And
I hope all of you get out of this--and I do not know whether
John has anything else or not--but my last comment is, I hope
you realize that this committee is dedicated to trying to help
all of you do your jobs. But we need your help by your
assisting us, by sending us things, telling us things and being
forthright about the problem. Because sometimes we will act out
of ignorance, and then we will not do it in the right way. If
we have the knowledge, we will try to do it in a way that makes
a difference.
And I think privatization is a good example. Everyone
thought we were opposed to it when we started down the road. I
was not opposed. I was just trying to learn about it. And as we
learned about it, we figured out that there are different ways
to do this. In each service, you have a little different spin
on it. But in the end, our goals are all the same.
And that is what we want. We really value the things that
you tell us. We value the work that you do, and we want you to
know that if you need us to go someplace or do something or
look at something, members of this committee are willing to go
and look and learn.
And I thank you for your time today and your service over
the years. To both of you who will not be back, and you guys
will be back and we will get you again. Let us know not just
now but as we go throughout the years, you have done as we run
into each other, let us know what is working, what is not
working, and what we need to try to fix.
And with that, we thank you all for being here today.
Meeting is adjourned.
Thursday, March 7, 2002.
U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND
WITNESSES
ADMIRAL DENNIS BLAIR, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, PACIFIC COMMAND
GENERAL THOMAS SCHWARTZ, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND/
COMBINED FORCES COMMAND; COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES, KOREA
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone.
Today I am pleased to welcome Admiral Dennis Blair and
General Thomas Schwartz to the hearing. Last June, John and I
hosted, a CODEL that visited their areas of responsibility, and
we had a wonderful experience. We learned a lot about the
peculiarities of their particular commands. Only after
traveling from the U.S. to Hawaii, Okinawa and Seoul did I
fully appreciate the monumental size of the Pacific theater.
Consider some of the countries in that region: Japan, China,
Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and India. It is a region
that is vastly important to the United States economically and
militarily.
I really want to thank both of you for hosting us on that
trip and frankly I want to commend you both on the jobs that
you have done for this country.
Today is the last time we will hear from these two great
officers in this forum. I would like to take a little time to
introduce them. It is going to be a very difficult time when
you lose two commanders of this stature in the region or at any
time in this country, but especially two people who had a
partnership for some time now.
Admiral Blair has been a marvelous Commander in Chief and
has been a force at the Pentagon pushing for more military
construction funds, something I personally appreciate. Admiral
Blair is the 19th officer to hold the position of Commander in
Chief U.S. Pacific Command, the largest of the unified
commands.
In addition to his many accomplishments, he has been a
recipient of several personal decorations including the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters and
Defense Superior Service Medal. His commands include the USS
Cochran and the Kitty Hawk battle group.
His forte is intelligence gathering. I guess that is
because he is an intelligent guy. I do not know. Diane will
know more about that. In fact, a recent article in the
Washington Post stated that the president reached every support
provided to him from Admiral Blair. In short, the admiral is a
force, and a we appreciate his contributions to our national
security. He was actually my choice for another job, but that
did not happen. But, you know, as I told him, I am not going to
be a United States Senator either, and I never thought I would
be here, and he probably never thought he was going to be an
admiral.
You know, it is an interesting time and we really
appreciate what you and Diane have done for this country. And,
you know, time goes by awfully fast. I think probably when you
were going through training you never expected these days would
get there. And I can tell you, being at the age I am and being
in Congress, you wonder, you know, when your time is. You guys
get a date, we do not get a date; we just get people who go out
there and whack us. [Laughter.]
Admiral Blair. And we honor you for it, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Like Admiral Blair, General Schwartz faces the
challenge commanding the theater that must be ready to go and
fight tonight. General Schwartz is a wonderful advocate for his
soldiers. He is a war-fighter with an incredible career in the
military.
Let me describe a few of his personal decorations. General
Schwartz has been awarded the Air Medal Distinguished Service
Award. In addition to this award he received the Silver Star,
Bronze Star and Purple Heart demonstrating his valor in service
to the United States. The country is truly fortunate and
blessed to have the dedication and commitment of General
Schwartz.
I have to tell you one story here. We were in Korea, and we
were walking through a barracks, and there was this young troop
who had just arrived. I mean, he was really fresh. And all
these congresspeople were walking through the room, and I said,
``Have you ever seen so many congressmen before?''
And this kid said, ``No.''
And I said, ``Have you ever met a four-star general.''
He said, ``No, I have never seen a four-star general except
in the movies.''
I said, ``Well, here, meet one right here, General
Schwartz.'' [Laughter.]
And, of course, you know, Schwartz is such a big guy and
his four stars are shining everywhere. We have some great
pictures, John, as you know, of the North Korean guys looking
in, and they were not looking at all the rest of us, they were
looking at General Schwartz up there with all these stars on.
And we were all getting a little nervous about what was going
to happen when we were out there.
But there was a great colonel up there. I do not happen to
like 9 millimeter sidearms. This one special forces guy told me
they just make people mad. [Laughter.]
And this colonel and I got into an argument about he, kind
of, liked his. But he knew more about it certainly than I did.
He was a pretty good guy. And I think as long as he was there
you were probably pretty safe, sir.
You know, I think whatever would have happened, both of
these people would have been successes in whatever they did in
life. And I think they are really standouts today because they
not only were there themselves, but they had two spouses that
really supported them and will tell you that we do not get
through this life very well. I know E.J. would be nothing
without Susan. [Laughter.]
And people say Carolyn is 70 percent of my vote.
But I guess the thing that is troublesome to me, and I know
that life goes on, but both of you have been such great
advocates for the people that are in your command. And the
people really respect you in the commands.
And I think if you look at this part of the world, it is a
better place today. And one of the reasons it is maybe not as
volatile right now is because you two have had such a great
partnership. And the people that work with you have had such a
good morale that I think you can both say that the commands
that you have had are better today because you people were
there and did your jobs to such a high degree and fought for
your people, fought for your commands and to get the right
stuff.
And not everybody can say that. But you were certainly two
people at the right time, at the right place, together to get
this done. And it is nice to see the Army and the Navy, kind
of, getting along. And we had an Air Force guy there once in a
while, too, behind you trying to work it.
But I really want to tell you, you can sense that. We sense
that. I think everybody who went to your region sensed that.
And your military personnel, no matter what service they were
in, both of you, they sensed that. And I think the allies in
the area realized that they could not divide you two; that you
had a unified command. Your different personalities, you
approach your jobs differently. But you both are people who are
result-oriented.
And I just want you to know that I am sure all the members
of this committee share this and I want you to know that I do.
We thank you for your service. And we appreciate you coming
this morning. We are going to miss you both. I hope you stay in
touch. I know Schwartz is going to be bugging me for West
Point. [Laughter.]
But we really, really, truly thank you for your service to
this country.
And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Olver.
Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is difficult, when the chairman has gone through such a
fine series of sincere and gracious remarks, to figure out what
there is left that I might say. But, we are politicians, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olver [continuing]. I have to give it a try.
I, too, want to thank you very much for the service that
each of you has provided. I do understand, or sense, that this
is probably the last time that either of you will testify
before this subcommittee in the roles that you have filled so
ably over the last several years.
As the chairman said, we had an opportunity to visit with
you about nine months ago and had a good chance to see the kind
of challenges that you faced at that time. He has made fine
comments about how wonderful you work together, what we have
not seen is these places where I am sure there were some
clashes. And you might want to elaborate on those somewhere
along the way. But maybe not in this particular forum.
Mr. Hobson. Certainly not on the record. [Laughter.]
Mr. Olver. I have to say, General, that we just came back
from another trip out to the central part of Asia, the other
end of the silk route, more or less. And I am beginning to
understand that each command seems to have its own kinds of
mantras. The chairman has already mentioned that yours was,
``Ready to fight tonight,'' and we heard that all over in our
visit to Korea last year.
In Central Asia this time the mantra that we heard was,
``Wash your hands with soap.'' The commander there again and
again was telling people, ``Wash your hands with soap.''
Mr. Hobson. No, it is, ``Wash your hands. With soap.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olver. Okay. You see.
I hope this committee has helped you make the areas under
your command better places for the people to operate, and I
trust that that has been the case. I think you are, sort of,
giving us exit interviews--in a sense. The one thing that is
happened here is 9/11, and I would be extremely interested to
know what the challenges are, what the changes are and how you
have already prepared for that, and how we can help there as
well.
Thanks again for your great service to this country.
Mr. Hobson. We have a little ceremony that we have to do
here. Today is a special day, we understand, in the life of
General Schwartz. And I have tasted these earlier today before
you got here. [Laughter.]
So for you we have a little birthday donut.
[Applause.]
I want you to know, I did not wait for you to get here
before I ate my donut. But they are okay, I checked them out.
General Schwartz. Okay, I will make my wish. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Mr. Hobson. Gentlemen, your written statements will be
entered in the record, and we would like you to summarize your
testimony before us, but before I do that, Ms. Granger has--no,
go ahead. No, it is fine.
Ms. Granger. I would just say the same thing, and I want to
add, I did not get to make the trip with the chairman, and I,
of course, made the trip later and saw very clearly what you
all have done.
And I want to say to you how much we appreciate your coming
to us and saying, ``This is what we need.'' Oftentimes we do
not hear that, and it is very frustrating to us to try to
provide the needs when someone sitting in front and saying,
``We do not need things.'' You did not, and you said, ``This is
what we need,'' and we have tried to fulfill that.
And so I want to tell you how much I personally appreciate
that as a member of the committee. It has been very, very
helpful to us. And I know we have not done everything that
needs to be done, and so I hope as you leave here you will say,
``And do not forget,'' and make sure we know what the next
priorities are so we can fill them.
Mr. Hobson. One other thing you might mention is what you
said when you were in Turkey. What did you tell those guys in
Turkey?
Ms. Granger. I told them it was like living at the Hilton.
[Laughter.]
You know, as they were showing us the needs, I just said,
``Let me tell you, I just returned from Korea, and it is like
you live at the Hilton,'' that I saw some real needs there.
Mr. Hobson. So I just wanted you to know, you picked up
another advocate.
Ms. Granger. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
I just was not completely sympathetic.
Mr. Hobson. So, with that, you gentlemen, Admiral, I guess
you are up first.
Statement of Admiral Dennis C. Blair
Admiral Blair. All right, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. This is your last time.
Admiral Blair. Last shot, yes, sir, with the committee. I
would like to thank you for your kind words, but I would also
like to say that we deal with numbers of members of Congress,
and you all are the ``get out there, get your hands dirty''
type, which I think does the best for our country. And the trip
that you just got back from Afghanistan, six hours ago, or
seven hours ago, is an example of the dedication that you have,
and all of our people notice it when you come out there.
As you were there in Afghanistan, if you looked up in the
sky, you saw aircraft flying from the U.S. Pacific Command on
missions. There were airplanes that were home based in places
like Japan, Okinawa, even Alaska.
If you had been able to go down south, you would have seen
ships who were launching those airplanes and carrying out other
missions, and they were from places like San Diego, Pearl
Harbor, and Guam.
You may have met some Marines who had been in Camp Rhino.
They were from Camp Pendleton. And, of course, all of their
families are back there worrying about them and waiting for
them to come home.
Beyond supporting those operations in Afghanistan, we have
our part of the global war on terrorism in the Pacific, and our
mission is to eliminate Al Qaeda in the Asia-Pacific region and
to make it a very unfriendly place for other terrorists to
come. And we are fighting this war from many of those bases
that you visited.
And the key to success is a relentless pursuit of these
terrorists and an unprecedented cooperation with our allies and
treaty partners. That is the big difference between before
September 11 and after September 11. Before September 11, we
were building bigger fences, we were getting more standoff
distances; after September 11, we are going after them and
making them worry about their safety and their lives.
We have had some initial successes in our part of the
world. You may have read about recent arrests in Singapore,
Malaysia and the Philippines, and these arrests eliminated
parts of a network in Southeast Asia which was threatening our
forces and our embassies and the host nations.
We are providing advice, training and material assistance
to the Philippine armed forces in their efforts to eliminate
the Abu Sayyaf group. This is a group which has had links to Al
Qaeda in the past. It holds two American missionaries hostage
right now.
Our joint task force, which is there advising them, is the
largest military operation that we currently have ongoing in
the war on terrorism in the Asia-Pacific region.
Even assistance and support operations are dangerous. It
was less than two weeks ago that we lost eight soldiers and two
airmen when a helicopter went down on its way home from a
mission.
While some of our forces and I would say a relatively small
part of our fighting forces and a lot of our intelligence
effort and our headquarters effort is engaged against
terrorism, we are continuing to keep the peace in other parts
of the Asia-Pacific region.
General Schwartz's troops that you are very familiar with
are keeping the peace on the Korean Peninsula. Other parts of
the Pacific Command are keeping an eye on the Taiwan Strait.
They are exercising and operating with their allies and
partners in other parts of the region in order to keep it a
quiet place where peaceful development can occur and to
continue their success stories of Asia which have taken place.
I can tell you that overall in the Pacific Command
readiness is high, morale is high. But at the pace of
operations that we are now experiencing, it will not be long
before we begin to show some wear. The wear will be on our
people their families and on the bases from which we deploy.
We have to be ever-vigilant to make sure that those people
that we are so proud of live in housing and operate from
facilities that we can also be proud of. Your committee has
been in the forefront of making that slogan a reality.
This war on terrorism is going to be sustained; our
president has told us about it. Everything I know about these
terrorists makes me believe that we are going to be after them
for a long time to come.
And so, one of our priorities is increasing the security of
our bases. Force protection has always been important, but it
is even more important after September 11. Among our components
in the Asia-Pacific region, including General Schwartz's
forces, we have identified over a billion dollars worth of
force protection projects necessary to bring the whole
infrastructure up to standard.
In this year's funding, we funded the highest-priority
ones, the ones that we really need to take care of. But we need
to, over time, sustain that funding so that eventually they are
the sort of bases that we can feel good about the protection
of. And these are things like roads that are in the wrong place
or gates that need technology in order to inspect truck cargoes
and just some of these long-term improvements.
We are now taking care of these issues with people,
primarily reserve component people, to our inconvenience and
inefficiency in our activities. And over time, we have to
reconfigure our bases, which were built in another era, for the
safety required in this era.
Our overall strategy--the war on terrorism, deterrence on
the peninsula, all of the other things we do--rests on a basis
of base-forward-deployed forces, a command and control
structure on top of that that can move information around the
theater quickly, and then a strategic mobility infrastructure
so we can get the right forces on a rapid basis to the places
that they are needed.
So we need the modern war-fighting headquarters like the
new one we have at U.S. CINCPAC, for which I am very grateful
to this committee. It will be finished in December of 2003, and
it will be able to command the forces as they should be
commanded and controlled.
But you also saw the other headquarters buildings at the
Army Pacific, and Pacific Air Force. They have to be replaced
and renovated, respectively. And our Marine and Special
Operations headquarters also need new command centers, but we
have not even put those in the program yet. These are not
cheap. We put a lot of particular information technology in
them, and we build the buildings around the----
Mr. Hobson. Are these in the FYDP? They are not even in the
FYDP?
Admiral Blair. The Air Force and the Army are in the FYDP;
the Marine Corps is not. The Marine Corps Pacific is not there
yet, sir.
And then, as you all know better than anybody else, it is
not just building the new buildings, it is keeping up the ones
we have. And the replacement backlog, we stopped the growth
over the last couple of years due to, primarily, congressional
adds, but it is going to go back up unless we keep working on
the SR&M budget.
The good news in the Pacific is that our allies pitch in
here to help us support our forward-base forces. Japan and
Korea together will spend $942 million this year to construct
facilities for U.S. forces that are based in their countries.
Japan, of course, is the largest single contributor of any
ally. And, due to General Schwartz's efforts, there is good
news in Korea about the increase in their contribution, and he
will tell you about that.
As you know, out of the budget, we have spent about $20
million for the Army Corps of Engineers, and that was to
leverage the money spent by Japan and Korea in order to design
and make sure that those projects meet our specifications.
So let me finish up by mentioning several projects which
are on the books for the future, but which did not quite make
it into the cut for this year's budget, because there are
things that we have to sustain the momentum on. And although
General Schwartz and I will not be here, our successors will
need them.
This war on terrorism has highlighted the crucial
importance of intelligence. We have incredible people doing
that job. They are doing it in inadequate and vulnerable
intelligence centers, and we are missing opportunities to be
able to do more.
We have done the initial design work on our Pacific
Security Analysis Complex, which will take two of our
facilities--our Intelligence Center, Pacific, and our Regional
Signals Operations Center--and put them into one state-of-the-
art building, in a very safe place. And that will keep us ahead
of the threat for many years.
This complex is an idea that will require cooperative
funding among the Intelligence Committees, and this committee.
We have had visits from the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence staff and, Speaker Hastert. I believe you were
there, Congresswoman Granger, and saw one of the facilities. We
have good, I think, understanding of what we need. But it is
going to take some creative work in order to determine which
money comes from which pot in order to fund this. But it is the
right thing for the Pacific, and we need to start in fiscal
year 2004, when our designs are at a better stage.
Then, finally, the schools for our kids overseas. The
Department of Defense Education Agency received a report card
last year, and it fared very well. It does a better job than
most school systems in the United States. It was particularly
strong in minority student achievement in the schools. In fact,
it was the best of any school system in the country. And that
coincides with the feedback that we received from our parents,
servicemen, and from our commanders.
But in the near term there are three schools that were not
able to make the cut for this year and they need funding. Our
first priority is an elementary school at Camp Humphreys, for
our kids who are there in Korea. And then, in fiscal year 2004,
we need two schools in Guam. We need a high school for all of
the high school students in Guam; Navy and Air Force. And we
need an elementary school in the southern part of the island
for the Navy.
Mr. Hobson. But now, Guam was a base that was BRACed, at
one time, is that right?
Admiral Blair. We BRACed part of that base, yes, sir. And
where the elementary school in Guam is now located is in a BOQ
building, which was right on the edge of part of that BRACed
area in Agana. It appears, we went too deep in Guam with our
closures. It is the last piece of land in the west that we own.
It is United States owned. It is going to be a lily pad for
moving out. And we need to work on it.
Mr. Hobson. Have you said that to the powers that be that
are down there now?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Do they know this?
Admiral Blair. And, in fact, if you read current defense
plans, they direct us to conduct a study of basing another,
either deployable or permanent, air wing overseas. And we are
looking at Guam as the location for that. The Navy is moving
three submarines to Guam. So the momentum is--I mean, Guam went
down like this, and the momentum is definitely back in the
right direction. So, I think we have support within our
building, within the Pentagon for increasing Guam. We just have
to get the right pieces in the right place.
Mr. Hobson. But, apparently, they are not ready to fund it,
is that right?
Admiral Blair. The schools did not make the cut. And I wish
they had. We fought hard, and they have just been postponed.
Mr. Hobson. How much was that, total schools?
Admiral Blair. For the school in Camp Humphreys, it is
about $7 million. For the two in Guam, it is about $35 million,
$40 million. So it is about $80 million for the two schools in
Guam.
Mr. Hobson. Well, for all the note takers in the room, I
will make this statement at this time, which, if you were here
yesterday, I made. What happens in this situation, is if we
take care of that, we are going to be accused by OMB of being
excessive spenders, and not playing on the team. And if they
could, they would probably fire us. And then there will be
some, in another body who will accuse us of doing pork barrel
projects.
And I would like to serve notice to all you people who go
back and report to all the powers that be, down there, who
right all these notes down, I hope you very carefully took down
my statements. And I hope somebody from down there will come at
some point and explain to me what is going on, because I do not
know.
And I said this yesterday on a runway at Tyndall that if
the member takes care of that runway as it should be and as
they hope it will be, then he will be accused of not--well, he
is a Democrat so they--I do not know what they will do to him.
But maybe they will show up in his district and try to take him
out.
But it just seems to me that there is something going here
that is not appropriate to go on. And this ought to be in a
much more refined dialogue than we are having to carry out this
way.
And so I wish someone would begin a dialogue with the right
demeanor, instead of everybody taking shots at everybody like I
am doing now, somebody would sit down in a rational fashion.
Maybe it has to be in the leadership or somewhere.
But this is not healthy for you all. You should be able to
come here and tell us exactly what you did. And you are both
short-termers, so it is okay. [Laughter.]
But I know you guys, you would have done it anyway. But
people should not fear in telling us what their problems are,
because it is only in that way that we can help. And we have
three branches here trying to work together to get this stuff
done. And we should be working together rather than taking
potshots at each other on this sort of thing.
Because we all have, frankly, the same end goal. And that
is to perform these missions to the best you can. And if we are
not all on the same wavelength, then we are not getting that
done. And I am hoping that somebody gets the message. Because
if they do not get the message pretty soon, then we are going
to have to go to the floor of the House and then the media. And
all this, is just not healthy. But so far nobody has listened.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I mean, this will be
my last time before this committee. But I have been watching
this business for a while and we have discussed it. Readiness
funding gets high attention. Of course, building new ships and
planes gets high attention. Pay gets high attention. But we
just have not developed a hook for the bases, piers, posts and
stations. They are always something that, sort of, if you have
money left over, you spend it on that.
And you are right. The time has come, we cannot sustain
this forever. We cannot patch the roof, we have to replace it.
We have to pay attention. I will tell you, only subcommittees
that have names like MILCON on them spend their concentrated
time on it. So I am going to be moving on and cheering from the
sidelines.
But I would like to say to all members of this committee
that you all are our champions for this. You are the ones who
do it. We can talk and we get in various forms of trouble with
our bosses and that is okay. But you all are the ones who make
it happen.
And I just would encourage you to continue what you have
done for our men and women and their families. It is very
important. It is noticed and it is the right thing to do.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Dennis C. Blair
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Fortunately, my bosses so far every year have
been willing to step up to the plate and make substantial
changes in a positive fashion. But I do not know how long that
is going to continue if this constant sniping goes on. And I do
not mean you when I do that.
So with all that, General Schwartz, I hope you are going to
tell us about some of the quality-of-life things such as the
movies and the e-mail.
But actually, before you start, they were pretty good to
Korea, the administration. Just so I say something good because
I get in trouble if I do not say something good, too.
But they did do a better job than I have seen in the past
in funding some things for Korea in the administration's
budget. So we cannot be totally critical of what they have
done. And there are barracks and things that the other body has
said in the past that they would not mess with. So we have
pretty much the whole--find the way of that language is to hold
them to it. But go ahead.
Statement of General Thomas A. Schwartz
General Schwartz. Thank you very much, sir.
Let me just start with this. I want to thank you, Chairman,
committee members very much for everything that you have done.
It has been monumental really, the best word I can use to
describe what you have done to help Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
and Marines where it really matters. And back to what Admiral
Blair said, these things fall out in the priority sometimes. We
just do not seem to get at them. And they need to be moved up.
Under your chairmanship in this committee, they have been
moved up. And it has been very significant and noted by our
people.
I guess the best thing I think of is results not reasons.
We used to have that saying when I was coming up. I would see
it on mottos with companies, battalions and everything, but it
really reminded me of this committee because you make things
happen.
And the results are out there. It is on the record, and it
is noted and appreciated by our people so thank you very much.
You know, just to make a comment that you alluded to
earlier about Admiral Blair and myself, you know I have been
serving the country for 35 years, and I have been in a lot of
teams and a lot of partnerships, but I can tell this committee
that our personal relationship, professional relationship has
been one that has been enriching, rewarding and actually
believe it or not, Admiral Blair and I have not had any
clashes.
We have worked together. We have talked together, and we
moved our commands together. And I am tremendously proud of
that relationship, and I just wanted to comment on that.
Congressman Hobson, I will cover a few things in a minute,
but I would like to just go right to a couple of things you
mention right there. You have been personally involved with
some of these things. And let me just give you some quick
feedback on it. As far as movies on the peninsula----
[Laughter.]
General Schwartz [continuing]. Every Soldier, Sailor,
Airman or Marine are watching movies at no cost. We have almost
tripled the attendance of movies on the peninsula with family
and particularly the people going are families; kids whose
parents you do not normally take, and now that it is free, they
are going to the movies together. There is goodness in this,
and it is significant. It may seem small. It is huge. Thank you
very much.
Free Internet. We were headed down a path. We are now
engaged with different people to look at how we can do this
cheaply, but in the next two years, we will have free Internet
access for our people. We seeded the initial cost of it, and
over the next few years, we will provide it for our people as a
result of your initiative and a lot of hard work by a lot of
great people.
We have been talking about the pay raise and what
difference it makes, and the hardship tours in Korea. It is
talked about every day. They appreciate it deeply. It is making
a difference in their lives, particularly those back home who
are sacrificing and every dollar makes a difference. On housing
I would just say this: Over the last three years, this
committee, MILCON, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership, we have
had more MILCON in three years than Korea has had in the last
15 years. I think there is no other way to describe it other
than that, so that is quite unbelievable.
Twenty-seven months in Korea this tour, six years almost in
Korea at 35. Loved every minute of it. I will tell you I am
honored of those six years. They stand out as highlights of my
service, and this is an incredible alliance.
General Moon is back here, and I would like to acknowledge
him and Colonel Park. They are here today, and we are glad to
have you. Because we always do everything together. We say we
go together. Thank you for being here today.
We are ready to fight in the theater. You noted that when
you came. It is a fight-tonight theater, and we are proud of
it. And we work on it every day. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
and Marines are proud of themselves. Morale is high. A lot of
the reason is due to your contributions and your efforts here.
They sacrifice a lot. We have had over 100, and I have 175
here, but it is over 100 Congressmen, and Senators from two and
a half years visit the peninsula. We are proud of it. To tell
our story, and to find out and understand and come to
appreciate and help our people.
North Korea, just to comment on them, because everybody
asks me about where are we with them. Well, we are not much
different in the sense that Kim Chong Il continues to build his
military at the expense of his people. That is the bottom line.
He grows stronger while his people suffer. And he is dangerous,
he is adaptive and he is unpredictable. And all of that again
is done at the expense of his people. That is the story and it
surely was one that was repeated by our President when he
visited.
I might add that his visit was a turning point in a lot of
ways for the Korean people. They were anxious, they were
worried about war.
Mr. Hobson. Did you get him and show him all the quality-
of-life needs that we have over there?
General Schwartz. We did not get a chance to show him that
because of his busy schedule, but I certainly talked to him
about it.
Mr. Hobson. Did you give him one of your tapes?
General Schwartz. I should. I will follow up. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. You need to make sure the president gets that
tape.
General Schwartz. We need to forward that tape, because if
we could get him to watch it would be great, and I will follow
up on that.
I am amazed at this alliance every day. Sometimes the
things the Koreans do is not well understood back here, but I
will just give you an example. In Enduring Freedom, when 9/11
hit, the President of that country said, ``I will provide more
support than we did for Desert Storm/Desert Shield.'' He said
that will exceed $500 million. That was his commitment. He is
on a glidepath to exceed a $500 million contribution.
There are about 400 people involved right now in the effort
with Enduring Freedom from Korea: a logistics ship, C-130
aircraft and a medical unit. So we are proud of that.
They are also helping us protect our bases. They have
contributed over 10,000 people in the effort to protect our
camps and stations. You know, we have 85, and so they are
really on a glidepath to help us there.
I would just like to say, last year we had a special
measures agreement, and I think when I was before this
committee we had not concluded it. But they were contributing
$425 million a year, and this is direct dollars that we can use
for construction and CINC priorities on the peninsula. This
year they went to $490 million. The next two years, under an
agreement we have with them to increase by 10 percent, it will
go to $550 million, in the last year close to $600 million.
The Koreans are stepping up to the plate, and we have to be
proud.
Mr. Hobson. You had a good ex-appropriator helping you out
on that, and Tina Joyce, I think, was involved in that.
General Schwartz. Exactly.
Mr. Hobson. So I do not have to worry about that agreement,
because I know Tina.
General Schwartz. She was great, and everybody was great in
this, sir, but most of all, the Koreans were great and they
really stepped up to the plate.
The Land Partnership Plan, if I can just make a comment
about it, it is moving along; we will sign it in the next
couple of weeks. The goal was 15 March; we will either hit it
or be very close.
This is a kind of a guess, and we have done some work on
this, but right now our figures show, when LPP is completed we
will save approximately $70 million to $100 million a year as a
result of the efficiencies achieved under the Land Partnership
Plan. That is significant. That is BRAC-Korea.
I briefed the President of the United States on it. He
recognized it, he was aware of it, he was very proud of our
efforts there and excited about LPP.
Mr. Hobson. My only concern is, and I want to say this with
all due respect to the Koreans, we tend to give up our stuff
and there is an awful long time to get the other stuff. So I do
not want to give up stuff until we know where the other stuff
is. Because we have a bad history of things not happening in
the way we thought they were going to happen and in the fashion
they were going to happen after we have given up land. And I am
very concerned as to how this works so that it does not have
the patterns of the past. Or at least what I perceive to be the
past. And maybe I am wrong on that, but I do not think I am
wrong.
General Schwartz. You are not wrong. We have taken your
advice and I have made sure that the wording of that agreement
recognizes that fact and that it is not piecemeal; that, in
fact, as it goes along if something happens and the reciprocal
thing must happen. And so we think we have guarded against
that. We feel good about it as a result.
Mr. Hobson. And it is going to be on the record.
General Schwartz. And it needs to be in the record.
Mr. Hobson. I am going to be here longer than you guys.
General Schwartz. Sir, the thing I would report to you
about what is going on in Korea for MILCON is it is making a
difference. You can see it when you fly over Korea. You can
start to see the buildings coming up. If you look at the
numbers that I gave you earlier about MILCON, a lot of that is
yet to come, but every one of those dollars means new barracks.
It means new dormitories. It means new UOQs and BOQs for the
enlisted folks. It means dining facilities and housing for
people. And it has helped our morale.
And we are working hard with the OSD. I know you alluded to
that earlier. And we are working with them. And they are
working hard with us. Our services are working hard with us. We
have a lot of support. It is just hard, some of this stuff. But
I will reflect to you that they are doing a good job and they
understand our needs and are working with us.
I would just say a couple of our needs, when it comes to
SRM, sustainment, renovation and modernization, costs, a lot of
times referred to as backlog, by the old name. We still need
help with that area. I mean we are getting the everyday things,
but we are not getting at the backlog things, as Admiral Blair
said. And we need that priority to be raised up so we can get
at some of those shortfalls that are still significant.
The renovation dollars that you have helped us with Hannam
Village have made a huge difference. You saw the difference.
With those millions that you provided, we are in phase three
right now; it is a three-phase project. I will come back to you
and articulate the need for phase three. We do not have those
dollars yet. But we have a plan to integrate them into the POM,
and it looks pretty good. We need your support with that as we
continue to finish.
Mr. Hobson. What about the proposal: using the Koreans like
we use the Italians in Naples?
General Schwartz. Yes, sir. And that is the build-to-lease,
which I was just going to comment on. The progress is great. We
took that model, we applied it to Korea. We put some seed money
down to get all that going, the discussions going, some of the
design going, some of the contract negotiations going.
We do need some additional dollars. In fact, we need some
seed money from you that we have inserted into the 2003
request, and the 2004, 2005 POM to try to get about $12 million
to finish that. It is like RCIC money that we had to do as we
started that program in the Army. We need the seed money to get
this all going. It is about $12 million, our request, sir, is
for that.
But I would report to you, Mr. Chairman, that this thing is
coming right along. But that money we do need and it has been
submitted.
The MILCON dollars again, Chairman, are going just great. I
have listed, of course, by your directive, some of the top 12
priorities we have. I have those. I will submit those based on
your direction to the committee.
Congressman Olver, I think you will be glad to know that we
have I think been very responsible in our environmental
dollars. And I can testify as how we used them and some of our
needs in the future. We do have needs for more money in the
environmental picture. But those needs are submitted and we are
working with the people to get that accomplished.
Let me just say the alliance is strong, as I finish up
here. I am proud of this relationship. I am proud of what your
committee has done and, sir, plain and simple, you are making a
difference. This committee is making a difference and we deeply
appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of General Thomas A. Schwartz
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, gentlemen.
We will open it now for questions.
John, do you have questions?
LAND PARTNERSHIP PLAN
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for the update and summary.
General Schwartz, since your things are closest to the
surface here, since we have spoken last, are all the items in
the budget request consonant with the Land Partnership Plan,
which is close to being signed?
After all that was made up sometime before the land
partnership agreement was completed, and it is not yet signed,
I was just wondering if all those items down the list are
within that time?
General Schwartz. Let me put it this way, Congressman
Olver, LPP is a very comprehensive plan. And it does include
most of our needs over the next 10 years; not all of our needs
but most of our needs. I think some of the environmental stuff
is taken care of, for example, in LPP. But there are some
requests outside of it.
So I think the fair answer is most, but certainly not all
of our MILCON and not all of our environmental, just to use
those two as an example, are totally taken care of, but 80
percent----
Mr. Olver. I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
There is a list here of MILCON items in Korea coming to about
$180 million in the president's budget submission. I do not
expect that we have done everything by any means. That is not
what I am saying. What I am asking is whether each of the eight
items that is here totalling $180 million--which budget request
was in submission stage well before what you are now finishing,
and soon to sign, the Land Partnership Plan. I want to ask
whether every one of those eight are priority items within the
land priority plan.
General Schwartz. Sir, the answer to that is yes, they are.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
General Schwartz. And I might add this, all of those are
going to enduring installations under LPP.
Mr. Olver. Now there is one major piece of this whole
puzzle that remains and that is what happens with Yongsan?
Isn't it in the center of the city?
General Schwartz. Yes.
Mr. Olver. Does it make sense since that is still up in the
air, that we continue doing things? I know we did some thing at
Hannam Village, and the nature of Hannam Village relates to
some degree on what the final disposition is of Yongsan.
General Schwartz. Let me answer it this way, sir.
Mr. Olver. Should we continue to do things at Yongsan in
the meantime until that is decided?
General Schwartz. A great question, sir. When we designed
LPP we said, ``Should we include Yongsan or not?'' We decided
to pull Yongsan out, because it was, we thought, a deal-
breaker. In 1993, we agreed to talk and have dialogue about
Yongsan but it never took place. And the reason it did not take
place is because it is about a $10 billion bill to totally move
Yongsan. So we pulled it out.
Yongsan is a special issue. We have agreed, the Minister of
Defense and I, and we are studying it right now, the whole
Yongsan relocation. We will have a review of the bidding and
options that we can seriously consider by the 15th of June.
But what we have done, Congressman Olver, is we have
continued to move ahead with the near-term construction on
Yongsan. Because what we have done in the past, and we have
really been caught by this, is we always are going to either
close next year, go home or there is some deal in the making so
we will hold off. So we cannot continue to operate that way.
So the near-term projects for Yongsan we did go ahead with.
A couple of housing projects, for example, that are significant
this year. But as soon as we have any kind of a deal that we
think makes sense or we think it is at least feasible for the
future, that we should review the bidding on some of the
projects at Yongsan, then we are going to do so. We will hold
up.
Mr. Olver. So, in essence the answer is that the final
disposition, whatever is going to happen there, will take five
to 10 years to accomplish, or something like that, and you must
do some things in the meantime.
General Schwartz. I think that is a fair way to put it.
If we do Yongsan right now, the initial look at it is a 10-
year project.
JAPAN
Mr. Olver. I see.
Okay. Let me just ask Admiral Blair one thing in your
field. I have read it in the newspapers, and we have gotten a
couple of other indications that the Japanese government has
approved the development of an airfield offshore in northern
Okinawa. Is that true?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. The joint committee that our
representatives and Japanese government representatives
comprised has agreed on a relocation of the Futenma airfield to
Nago. And although we have not dotted the i's and crossed the
t's, it looks as if an offshore fill runway will be the
solution for that.
Mr. Olver. When you spoke of the $940 million that Japan
and Korea are putting in, I guess that is this year?
Admiral Blair. That is this year.
Mr. Olver. This year. Does that include any of the
development of that Nago?
Admiral Blair. No, sir. The $940 million I referred to are
the ongoing contributions to infrastructure program. The Nago
airfield Futenma replacement is part of the SACO agreement, the
Special Action Committee for Okinawa. That is funded by the
Japanese government separately on top of the ongoing facilities
replacement program.
Mr. Olver. But there is no construction yet. What is the
level of opposition to this process within Okinawa? Is there
still opposition or is that settled?
Admiral Blair. There was an election within the last
several months for the little town of Nago, which is where the
new facility will be. The incumbent mayor, who is in favor of
the relocation there, his opponent was opposed; the incumbent
mayor was elected by a very high majority. So there were
elements of a referendum. It was successful. We are moving
forward.
The only issues still there have to do with the business of
whether this facility will be for 15 years or not. We are
working that out with the governor of Okinawa, who wants a 15-
year limit on it, and the government of Japan say that that
does not make any sense, and we are not ready to agree to that.
So that is on the way to resolution.
So the path is clear to the Japanese government paying for
the relocation of our Marine Corps air station. Which I do not
know if you all saw Futenma, but it is like if there were an
airstrip in the mall and you fly over houses.
Mr. Hobson. We saw that it is quite a difficult situation.
Admiral Blair. Right. So that will be moved and Japan will
pay for it.
Mr. Olver. So locally, at Nago----
Admiral Blair. In Nago.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. They want it because it is tourism
for them? Is there a potential block from other
environmentalists in Naha, in the prefectural government in
Okinawa?
Admiral Blair. Very low probability.
Mr. Olver. Very low probability.
Admiral Blair. Very low probability, yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Admiral Blair. Never say never.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I want to carry on with that a little
bit, because Okinawa is a peculiar problem overall.
What is going to happen? You are going to keep Kadena?
Admiral Blair. We have to keep Kadena, yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. What about the rest of this stuff that is down
there? Is that going to move north?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. All that will move north?
Admiral Blair. All of it ought to move north. That hospital
that you saw, which is due for replacement in the next several
years, that ought to be relocated to the north, the housing.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. I got a thought on hospitals, too, that
we can build modular hospitals that are as good as the other
ones. And the Koreans are putting up one in Kyrgyzstan, and
somebody ought to look at that and see----
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. If that isn't something we could
do. And the Dutch put up one in Kosovo, and I took a doctor
from here, a naval doctor to it--you will like that, Admiral--
and he thought it was a fine facility. And instead of going in
and building one of these things that cost us, you know, like
up in Alaska, we ought to look at some of these things.
And they are first-class buildings. These are not like the
Air Force general's house at Osan; these are not prefab
buildings like that.
But as a matter of fact, you will be happy to know, this
goes with you guys, they are going to be a general officers
house at Osan, and it is going to be about between 3,000 and
4,000 feet, and it is in the Air Force budget to do. Because I
told them, you know, ``Just fix that.''
By the way, you might want to know this, it cost $800 to
fix that house, the roof in there.
Admiral Blair. $800?
Mr. Hobson. $800, sir, not what everybody was talking
about. We got some guy over there knew what he was doing and he
go up there and screwed that thing back together with some
things that FEMA has developed, and that worked fine.
Admiral Blair. That is why we love to have your visits,
sir, and you know more about this than all the rest of us.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. No, I just know enough to be dangerous on that
stuff.
But anyway, if we are going to build hospitals, they want
to go all out, and they are going to want to spend $200 million
to build a 30-bed hospital or something. I think we need to
look at some of these things, because there is pretty classy
looking stuff. I guess we will have to look at that.
Just so we have an understanding of the Okinawa situation,
because that has been a long term thing, and it is coming to
fruition. Kadena is going to stay there, and the Marines, and
everything, are going to move north, now, and have this
facility.
And Kay has got a question, she wants to ask, too. And
Robert is coming back. Go ahead.
Admiral Blair. It is more complicated than that, as I am
sure you know. There is the port there, at Naha, which is a big
point of congestion. And there are some other facilities. But
the overall idea, is to have Kadena be the most southernmost
thing in Okinawa. Everything else, over time, as it needs to be
replaced, moves north.
Mr. Hobson. Before she leaves, Kay, let me say one thing.
She was very helpful to all of you, not only in that speech,
but in going with the speaker on this trip. I am glad we had a
spy in there----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. From our committee, who could
articulate to the speaker's trip, and reinforce what was going
on. So there has been a good response, as I understand it. You
might want to talk about what the speaker talked about--if you
have a minute--about the tax stuff, and things of that sort.
Ms. Granger. You know, some people have a political problem
with us making the trip. There is nothing like seeing it. You
know, we have seen the video. I wish you could show the video
to the first lady. I think that might make a little difference
in housing. But it really does make a difference, and
particularly with the speaker there. You know, there is such
limited time, but he really saw, first hand.
And then, because I had been on this committee, I could
talk things about the tax implications, what we are really
doing to people, beyond housing, and buildings, and Internet
and things like that.
So, I was very sincere when I said, we really appreciate
having very specific information about how we can help. But it
did make a huge impression on the speaker, and the speaker's
staff. And that is often times as important, as we all know, up
here, who really does the work are those staff members. So we
really do appreciate it.
Mr. Hobson. So, I think we might see some things happening
on the tax.
Ms. Granger. Yes, we talked about it and made lists. So, we
do listen, and even though sometimes we are tired, and kind of,
dragging through. [Laughter.]
It does not look like it. We really did. All of us made
lists, and said we would follow up on those.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, very much. Any questions you wanted
to ask?
Ms. Granger. I got it. Thanks. I have to go to another
hearing.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, Robert is coming back, at some point. He
has got a question.
Virgil, do you have anything?
SCHOOLS IN GUAM
Mr. Goode. Going back to schools in Guam, I assume it is a
high school and an elementary school. And, did I hear you
right: $35 million and $40 million for each of them?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. Those are the numbers.
Mr. Goode. How many students would be at those schools?
Admiral Blair. I do not have the numbers of students right
here. But that is a school for both the Air Force high school
students in the north, and the Navy high school students. And
it is located, right now, in an old headquarters building. So
they are there now. And this would be a new and proper building
for them.
The elementary school--and I will get the numbers of
students for you, sir--is for the Navy elementary school
students in the south. That is now in an old BOQ.
Mr. Goode. How many Guam residents live on Guam?
Admiral Blair. The total number on Guam?
Mr. Goode. I do not mean military personnel. I mean non-
military personnel on Guam.
Admiral Blair. I do not know that figure.
Mr. Goode. Would they be attending those schools?
Admiral Blair. They would not be. I do not know if you know
the history, but our service people used to go to the Guam
schools. And we worked hard for years to try to improve them,
because, frankly, they just fell short of what they should be.
And then, about four years ago, my predecessor, Admiral
Prueher, with a lot of advice from the people who were
stationed in Guam, decided to pull our kids out of the Guam
schools, and ask the Department of Defense Education Agency to
come in and build the schools.
We put everybody, immediately, the next year, into
temporary schools. And there are three schools on Guam: the
elementary/intermediate north, the elementary/intermediate, for
the Navy, south, and then a common high school. We have been
able to replace the elementary/intermediate school to the
north. It is a magnificent school. And it is the last two that
we need to put into permanent structures.
Mr. Goode. Ball park, on the number of persons attending
the high----
Admiral Blair. The number of students there? Do we have
this?
Mr. Goode. I mean, just a ball park.
Admiral Blair. But let me also say that these facilities
are going to be beefed up. We have done an about-face, relating
to Guam.
Mr. Hobson. They are moving three submarines to Guam that
are not there now.
Admiral Blair. Correct, sometime this summer.
Mr. Hobson. And the Air Force is going to come back in and
probably beef up its situation there. Am I correct in that?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir, certainly.
Mr. Hobson. This has now become a re-energized area. Is
that correct?
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. That is absolutely correct. Guam
is becoming more important to us. And in the high school, it
has 500 students there and in the elementary school it has
1,100.
I have been stationed in the Pacific many times, and Guam
used to be the pits.
Mr. Hobson. They are still out in the middle of nowhere
when you try to get there.
Admiral Blair. But it is a nice place in the middle of
nowhere. Ten years ago it was not. Ten years ago if you got a
set of orders to Guam you wondered what you had done to your
commanding officer.
Mr. Hobson. Sort of like going to Korea.
Admiral Blair. But it is not that way now. The retention in
Guam was better than it was. We are about to consider extending
the tour length there, which will save us money because the
families, especially young families, are doing fine.
Mr. Hobson. So that is a PCS change accompanied?
Admiral Blair. It is accompanied.
Mr. Goode. What I am hearing you say is, no one at all
would want to go there without their families. Well, I will not
say no one at all, but for the service person with their
families, they much prefer having those schools there for their
children.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. They would much rather have the
children going to the proper schools instead of being jammed
into old buildings where you open the door to the bathroom and
you can see that from the hall.
Mr. Hobson. Diane.
Mrs. Diane Blair. On the hallways, you are running into
things in the hallways and you are not a rambunctious third
grader, but the hallways are not even wide enough for, you
know, normal traffic, let alone school traffic. It is very
close to the street. There is no playground area at all.
They are very happy with the switch. Even in the old
facility they are just glad that it is a DOD school now, and
they are not on the Guam school system. But the contrast
between the new building and these temporary arrangements they
have now is truly startling. And I am sure it will make a big
difference, especially with the young families, the 1,100
elementary age kids, how they view their time there.
FUTURE NEEDS FOR GUAM
Mr. Olver. Would you yield?
The foreseeable plans, five years or whatever horizon I see
for Guam, what do you expect would be the increase in the total
U.S. force in there as these things evolve?
Admiral Blair. The three submarines are for sure. We are
looking at small numbers of additional surface combatants,
particularly with theater ballistic missile systems. And we are
looking at the ability, either temporarily or permanently, put
an Air Force wing there.
Mr. Olver. What is the total force of Air Force and Navy
personnel on Guam?
Admiral Blair. Let me get that number, sir. It is on the
order of 3,000 to 4,000.
Mr. Olver. What is the change with the additional
submarines and the wing and so forth?
Admiral Blair. Would add another thousand or so.
Mr. Hobson. Anything else?
Mr. Goode. That is it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Robert.
REUNIFICATION OF NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Aderholt. First of all, let me say good morning. I love
to be here. As one of the members of the committee who had
opportunity to go to the Pacific Command back in May and June,
I was certainly honored to be on that trip. The only thing
about Admiral Blair was that we were cut short on our time with
you one day on our trip to your area. And so certainly we
regretted that. But certainly, we did enjoy our time there.
Admiral Blair. Did you get up early and make some quick
billets in the morning?
Mr. Aderholt. We did. We had full schedules, so. And
certainly, General Schwartz, we enjoyed being over in Korea
with you as well. And enjoyed our time at the DMZ, as well as
other parts of Korea.
Still, I have my photograph that I was presented during
that trip of the difference between North and South Korea in
the lights, the lights that are on in South Korea as opposed to
the darkness in North Korea. And it is certainly a reminder of
the differences between the two nations and how we have
developed over the past several years.
Of course, we are hearing a lot about North Korea today and
especially since the President's comments, but even before
that. Of course, we know the concern of North Korea.
One of the things that we talked about then, at the time of
our visit, was reunification and South Korea's attitude toward
that and how those developments might occur. Just briefly,
could you mention some of your thoughts on that, especially in
light of September 11 and how that may or may not have changed?
General Schwartz. Let me maybe say it this way. Of course,
you know the great hope for all Koreans is that reunification
occurs. That is their dream, that is their hope. There are so
many families that have been separated as a result of the war.
Their deep-hearted yearning is that they come together, have
the chance to see each other before they die. They are getting
older in age, obviously, and so that is what they really want
on the peninsula.
You know, I think I could maybe answer the question best in
light of the President's visit. There was a lot of anxiety
prior to his visit about the possibility of war, and they were
not certain where our President stood. He had an excellent
visit. He was very clear about his convictions, was very clear
about his hope for reunification, about his hope for future
dialogue. And he said there are no preconditions. He laid it
out.
The ball is in the court of Kim Chong II in North Korea.
They know it. I would have to tell you they have not responded.
And we hope that they will, but there is no indication that
they are going to right now.
And so, the situation really has not changed much from when
you left except I think the president renewed the hope for
dialogue, and I think that is good.
Mr. Hobson. Are there votes? Is there a whole bunch of
votes?
Staff. There is a 15-minute vote followed by a five-minute
vote.
Mr. Hobson. All right. Let me run through some questions
here that I want to get on the record, and you guys can answer
them for me if we have time before we go. But I want to get
them in the record.
WAKE ISLAND
Last year, we were able to include about $9 million of the
$25 million budget request to begin improving the
infrastructure at Wake Island. What is the strategic importance
of Wake Island to the United States?
In their budget justification, the Air Force states it
would like to continue a dialogue on the cost-share
requirements of this project. Admiral Blair, do you know the
concerns the Air Force has referring to cost-share
requirements? And you can think about that while I go to
General Schwartz here. Also, if you would talk about the shoot
houses that we did in Okinawa and where they stand, I would
appreciate that.
You mentioned, General Schwartz, the Korean master plan
2010 and one of its components, the Land Partnership Program,
which allow you to consolidate 85 scattered bases into
centralized hubs. I do not know what the MILCON requirement of
that is going to be and the level of funding of the host
nation; I think you talked a little about that.
But also, for the last two years, you have advocated a
leased housing initiative at Camp Humphreys, which I am
interested in also. But I am really concerned about where OSD
is on this concept and whether they have signed off, and after
you are gone and they think I am not a problem, what is going
to happen to it.
The other things is, have there been further discussions
with the Office of Secretary of Defense to increase the number
of accompanied personnel slots in Korea? Who makes this
decision? Is there a time frame during which the decision will
be determined?
And I have some others we will submit for the record, but I
would like you to answer those if you can.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. Let me just go quickly on Wake
Island.
What we need Wake Island for is an absolutely minimum,
bare-bones base which is used in case of in-flight emergencies
and in case of loading at other bases. In September, when we
began to flow forces across the Pacific to Afghanistan, we had
about 30 divert landings to Wake Island.
And we do not need it as a fancy full-up base. We just need
it as a strip strategically located for airplanes to go when
they do not have other alternatives.
The $9 million that you added for us was very welcome. The
total bill is $106 million. There is a program that does that
over about four or five years.
Mr. Hobson. But you know there are people that question the
use of that facility.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir, but the pilots who landed on it in
September did not question it. They needed it.
And the Air Force they are doing it for some of their own
planes, but also for a lot of other planes. And they are
looking for ways to get other people to help them pay the bill.
I mean, it is no secret that we made a decision in the
department that this is an Air Force executive base in
responsibility and I think they ought to just do it.
And also I am fully convinced that if the Air Force has the
responsibility, they will spend not a penny more than they need
to. Because they feel that they need the money for other
things.
So we just have to do it for the overall good of the
strategic deployment of the command and the Air Force is the
one who is stuck holding the rows. And they just have to grasp
it and move it.
Mr. Hobson. It is important for you to articulate that,
sir. Because there are lots of ears around for people to hear.
Admiral Blair. Yes sir.
Mr. Hobson. And if you do not get the story out, then
nobody knows what is going on. So I appreciate it.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir. My Air Force colleagues are tired
of me beating on them and I am tired of them not funding it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. There are some in Congress that also have----
Admiral Blair. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. And it is important for them just to be in the
record, for people to hear that. They are not particular to
this committee, but elsewhere.
Admiral Blair. On the shoot house, the forces we now have
in the Philippines, the ones you are reading about those are
from the first of the first who were trained in the old shoot
house that you saw when you were out there. It is okay. We do
not send them in unless they are well enough trained. But we
have cleared the ground, we have almost completed the designs
and we are going to be breaking ground.
Mr. Hobson. So there are two outgoing. And there is one for
Marines and one for the special forces.
Admiral Blair. Yes, sir, and there is the one for the
special forces.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I do not understand why there is the
dividing line between the two. I mean, those Marine guys did
not feel like they could walk over to the Army one, which was,
kind of, stupid to me, and I had to make them come over because
they had stopped at a line drawn in the sand, which I never
understood. But you know, I invited them over. In other words,
they would not have come over, because I do not think they are
allowed over there, unless they sneak over and look at it.
Which is, kind of, a stupid thing to be frank with you----
Admiral Blair. I agree. I agree.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. Between the two services. Since
there is a Marine in the room and there is an Army guy in the
room, I am going to say that. You want to do your stuff?
General Schwartz. Sir, I can comment quickly on those three
questions you had for me. The MILCON under LPP, as I discussed
with Congressman Olver, is on track. The $180 million he
referred to is part of the LPP. The main point here is if we
can keep MILCON at about the rate it is now, $240 million per
year over the next 10 years, LPP and housing will be on-track
and accomplished.
Mr. Hobson. I am not going to be here in 10 years.
General Schwartz. But near term we are on track.
The housing initiative at Camp Humphreys, you gave us $12.8
million for the 54-plus sets of housing units initial first
phase of Humphreys: on track. The next phase is part of the LPP
and it will track and I am confident it will happen.
As far as increasing the slot of those number of people----
Mr. Hobson. Wait, is there support in OSD for Camp
Humphreys?
General Schwartz. For Camp Humphreys? For the money you
gave us, done deal.
For LPP increased housing, it really leads to your third
question of do we have the support of DOD for increased housing
on the peninsula? I am the one who makes the call in terms of
the cap. Right now the cap exists at about 3,000. That is a
CINC's call. And that is supported by DOD. If I want to
increase that cap under LPP, I am asking for an increase to
5,000.
And if I want to do that, I am in negotiation with them. I
do not have DOD approval, OSD approval on that, yet. I am
working that under the LPP, but it is not a done deal yet.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. And there are no increased slots?
General Schwartz. Not yet.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Do you have anything you want to add? We
have five minutes left.
Mr. Olver. Maybe I can get this through.
My impression, General Schwartz, is in your written
testimony, you indicated that the you are trying to get the
family housing percentage up from 10 to 25.
General Schwartz. 25, yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Is the 25 percent something that has been agreed
to? Is that DOD policy?
General Schwartz. The DOD policy and approval for me, CINC,
my call is 3,000. I am trying to get 25 percent. 5,000 is not
done yet. I do not have that approval yet. It has to be
approved by DOD. It is not there.
Mr. Hobson. Gentlemen, thank you for your service to this
country. And we hope to work with you while you are still
there. We will see you again.
General Schwartz. Thanks a lot, Mr. Chairman.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Farr.]
Personnel Issues
Question. One-third of PACOM 300,000 servicemen and women are
forward deployed. Has that number increased since 9-11?
Answer. Yes, there has been a slight increase to the number of
forward deployed service members since 9-11. Most notably we deployed
850+ personnel to the Philippines in support of our overall GWOT and
out focused initiative with JTF 510. Additionally, we have deployed
over 600 to Diego Garcia as well as other small numbers throughout the
Pacific Region in support of Enduring Freedom.
Pacific Command Budget
Question. Admiral Blair, in your testimony, you state that the
Dept. of Defense thinks the Asia-Pacific is the highest priority
overseas region in the future. If that is the thinking of the
department, please tell the subcommittee the total amount of funds you
would estimate are necessary in Fiscal Year 03 to bring all your
facilities up to date?
Answer. Many facilities have suffered from years or even decades of
restricted sustainment budgets, and even well-maintained facilities
eventually need replacement. Advancing technology and mission
imperatives, such as force protection, create additional demands. My
MILCON program is designed to realistically balance these competing
priorities with budget realities to implement a long-term strategy to
eliminate facility deficiencies. The total fiscal year 2003 portion of
my MILCON program is $1.75 billion. This total is made up of a base
amount from previous funding guidance, and requested additions for
emerging and urgent needs, as shown in the table below. The amount of
the additions reflects the priority of the facility investments being
made in the USPACOM region.
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year 2003 programs......................................... 1,190
Fiscal year 2003 additions........................................ 561
______
Total....................................................... 1,751
Question. Last year, you told this subcommittee that you could not
be able to replace or renovate inadequate housing until 2010. In your
testimony this year, you advance that time line to 2007. Please tell us
how you will reach you goal if your milcon budget continues to
decrease?
Answer. I advanced my timeline to eliminate inadequate family
housing by 2007 to align with the goal of the Secretary of Defense.
Even without the guidance, military family housing is at the top of my
priorities for Quality of Life (QOL) to address as soon as possible. I
recognize the 2007 goal will be a significant challenge and will
require continued Congressional support of key projects. Decreasing
MILCON budgets will make the accelerated goal that much harder.
However, the focused effort by the Military Departments and use of
innovative approaches to eliminate inadequate family housing offer a
realistic possibility of achieving the 2007 goal.
The first approach involves use of Host Nation Funded Construction
to build family housing units. For example, the Special Action
Committee on Okinawa (SACO) recommendations include a $1 billion
portion specifically for new family housing. The topic of funding
family housing using Japanese Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP) is
discussed more completely in response to your question #6.
The second approach uses private capital rather than MILCON funds
to build family housing, then leases the constructed facilities. A
current example of this technique is the Camp Humphreys leased housing
initiative. The Army will follow the Naples Model using contractor
funding to build an entire community with housing, school, clinic,
gymnasium, exchange, commissary, and multi-use recreational areas for
1500 families. The contractor then recovers the capital investment
through lease to the military. The Navy has awarded a Public Private
Venture (PPV) contract in San Diego, California for 2,660 families and
Everett, Washington for 473 families. A PPV in Oahu, Hawaii is planned
over three phases from fiscal year 2003 to 2005 and will provide for
5,000 families. The Air Force is using the PPV approach at Elmendorf
AFB in Alaska and at Hickam AFB in Hawaii to provide 2,808 family
housing units. The Marine Corps is using a PPV at Camp Pendleton,
California to reduce their deficit by 284 family housing units.
Host Nation Support
Question. Admiral Blair, your testimony indicates that the
Pacific Command ``counts'' on allies and partners for some
basing support during crisis. What kind of basing support does
the U.S. currently get from its allies in the War on Terrorism?
Answer. The United States has enjoyed widespread
operational access from friends and allies in the War on
Terrorism. We have made extensive use of U.S. facilities in
Diego Garcia, which are leased from the U.K., as the linchpin
of our Pacific activity. The U.K. has also graciously supported
Coalition partners from these facilities. Other nations, as
required, have provided operational access for aircraft and
ships (both U.S. and other Coalition forces) transiting to
other destinations. India and the Philippines made generous and
almost immediate offers for use of bases and facilities,
although U.S. planning and activity at the time did not require
those facilities. U.S. and Coalition ship port visits have been
supported at numerous locations throughout the Asia-Pacific
including Australia, India, the Philippines, and Singapore.
Question. Japan supports a U.S. presence in the Asia-
Pacific region via the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program
(JFIP). Please tell us what level of support Japan will provide
in fiscal year 03?
Answer. The Japan Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP)
will provide approximately $750 million in construction support
to U.S. Forces Japan in 2003, and annually through 2005. The
exact amount will not be known until the Government of Japan
provides the funding. There has been only minimal U.S. MILCON
expenditures in Japan since 1989 due to the high level of JFIP
support. JFIP has been the mainstay for new facilities in
Japan. The program high for JFIP was $1.1 billion in fiscal
year 1992.
Question. With housing so expensive in Japan, not unlike
California as you noted in your testimony, can JFIP funds be
used for family housing?
Answer. Our main source for family housing construction is
the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP). The JFIP
funds primarily quality of life and housing projects, although
recently the quality of life projects have fallen out of favor
with the Government of Japan. In the 21 years since inception
of JFIP, the program has supplied 10,729 family housing units
and 21,825 unaccompanied officer/enlisted barracks rooms. Other
major contributions include 123 Headquarters buildings, 34
medical/dental clinics, 81 aircraft shelters/hangers, 140
warehouses, 124 maintenance shops, 65 schools and childcare
centers, and 170 million barrels of fuel storage. In addition
to JFIP implementation, the Special Advisory Committee on
Okinawa (SACO) recommendations include a $1 billion allocation
funded by the Government of Japan specifically for housing.
Historic Preservation Issues
Question. Much like your Pacific Command Headquarters, I
also have an historic structure located in my ``Area of
Responsibility'' called the Naval Postgraduate School. It was
built in the late 1800's. My colleagues heard me list the many
infrastructure problems the school is trying to cope with at
the Navy hearing yesterday. Please tell the subcommittee what
suggestions you have to address the costly modernization and
maintenance needs of these historic buildings that must be
preserved but must also function like an efficient and modern
workplace facility?
Answer. The hundreds of historic properties within the
USPACOM region serve as living monuments to our military
legacy, especially within the Pearl Harbor National Historic
Landmark. Modernization of the Pacific Air Forces Headquarters
at Hickam Air Force Base, a historic property due to its role
in the events of December 7, 1941, demonstrates the fusion of
past, present, and future in a single facility. However,
operational use of historic properties is always a challenge
for efficiency and cost control. Approval by the State
Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) is required for any work
associated with historical facilities. In many cases costs are
higher as a result of historic considerations. This is due to
costs required to replace items and materials with that of the
period, higher costs of artisan labor, or just that the
restoration is more costly than replacement with newer
materials. We have found that several actions can help mitigate
the increased cost of managing historical properties. First,
adequate funding for routine maintenance so that more costly
renovations can be avoided. Second, detailed planning and
design of required renovation projects to ensure best
utilization of the facility within the constraints of the
historical designation. Finally, active and open coordination
with the SHPO to avoid confusion about project scope and
purpose, and resulting delays in project approval and
execution.
Korea
Question. The Land Partnership Plan will consolidate 85
scattered bases into centralized hubs. Please give the
subcommittee a status report on the progress of the LPP and the
projected cost savings.
Answer. The Land Partnership Plan is moving ahead. The
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Republic of Korea
have approved the Land Partnership Plan. Our next step is to
begin execution of the plan with land grants from the Republic
of Korea to United States Forces Korea and land returns from
United States Forces Korea to the Republic of Korea beginning
as early as October 2002. We currently project savings of
between $70 million to $120 million annually upon completion of
the plan. Increased MILCON funding or pulling projects forward
to accelerate the plan would allow the command to capitalize
additional savings.
Question. Last year this subcommittee paid special
attention to the appalling living conditions of our military
personnel in Korea that resulted in new housing and barracks.
What impact will these new housing projects have on the quality
of life for our military personnel serving in Korea?
Answer. I want to thank Congress for its support over the
last few years. Your efforts are starting to make a difference
in Korea. Congressional visits, funding support and the
recognition of our unique requirements are well known to our
servicemen and women and are very much appreciated! As many of
you have seen first hand; however, Korea is a ``unique''
theater with unique requirements. There are still many urgent
needs that can be addressed with additional Military
Construction support.
In fiscal year 2002, we received $128.2 million for four
Army barracks, 1,392 soldiers and two Air Force dormitories,
271 airmen, which will greatly improve their living conditions
and quality of life. We also received $12.8 million for 54 Army
family housing units that will provide much need and greatly
improved for our accompanied service members. USFK enjoyed an
increase in Military Construction to support our service
members, but the work has just begun. We continue to make
progress in improving balanced readiness in my command, but
will need your help to continue the good work.
Question. How many more married members will be able to
bring their families with them to Korea as a result of this new
construction?
Answer. As the CINC, I have the authority to establish
command authorizations in Korea and I have currently
established the ceiling at 3,000. The current acceptance rate
for an accompanied assignment to Korea is 65 percent. My real
limitation; however, is that I only house 2/3 of what I am
authorized because I only have 1,979 units of government-owned
and leased housing available. This equates to less than 10
percent of the married accompanied personnel compared to more
than 70 percent of married accompanied personnel who live in
Europe and Japan.
During the initial stages of our housing program, my goal
is to concentrate on improving existing quarters and the
quality of life of those already assigned, and bring more of
the personnel already living off-post into on-post quarters.
This will dramatically improve quality of life, and force
protection. As we move beyond this initial phase of new housing
and we build new housing, we will be able to allow more service
members to bring their families to Korea and we anticipate that
by 2006, we will have housing for the 3,000 authorizations
already established.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Farr.]
Thursday, February 14, 2002.
UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND
WITNESS
GENERAL JOSEPH W. RALSTON
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Meeting will come to order.
Want to welcome General Ralston today. I want to apologize
to you for not having more members here today, but we were up
until 3 o'clock in the morning.
General Ralston. I understand.
Mr. Hobson. Chairman Young wanted to be here. He may be
arriving later depending on the weather. But he is going to
make every effort to be here.
Our hearing today focuses on the military construction and
family housing programs in the European theater. We are very
pleased to welcome back General Joseph Ralston, Commander in
Chief of the United States European Command and Supreme Allied
Commander in Europe, as our witness.
General, as you know, overseas military construction and
the importance of adequate facilities to our troops located so
far from home is and it continues to be one of our top
priorities and one of my top priorities as chairman of this
committee. And I also know that my ranking member shares my
concerns. Therefore, I am very pleased to see that you once
again state in your prepared testimony that improving the
infrastructure in the European theater is your top funding
priority.
I have visited many installations in Europe since becoming
chairman of this subcommittee. Actually, my first trip was to
Europe some years ago.
During my travels, I have witnessed firsthand how the lack
of facility investment during the drawdown of Europe in the
1990s and the increased OPTEMPO over the same time period has
inflicted an enormous strain on our infrastructure in the
region, an infrastructure that is expected to support the
mission and to provide excellent living and working conditions
for service members and their families stations in-theater.
You know, I went over with Whit Peters, because I had not
seen it, the Mildenhall Tower, which I understand is hopefully
under construction as we speak, the World War I horse stables
that were being used to repair, I think, missile launchers for
the Army in them, we are still using them. The Izmir School,
which has a lot of force protection problems, it is right on
the street. And there are a lot more things as you go around
that are a real problem.
I am pleased to see that we resolved the problem relating
to the battalion in moving it south of the Alps. I was there
for the flagging ceremony. It was very impressive. I think
General Wagner is a great leader of troops down there, and I
think they are doing a good job. The site is a little tight,
but Camp Darby would have been an absolute disaster, in my
opinion, as far as any mission in the future and our ability to
build the infrastructure that was probably needed at Camp Darby
was probably behind what we would be able to do, especially
with our difficulties with certain people over overseas MILCON.
So I think it is going to work out. And the people I met
from the Italian government, the local government and the
federal government there, seemed very pleased with the decision
that you all made, and I want to thank you for getting that
decision completed.
The rationale for not investing in facilities during the
drawdown of Europe in the 1990s was, I think, understandable.
We simply did not know what our footprint was going to be. This
debate continues today, despite a significant reduction in the
number of European bases over the past decade. Tough questions
about overseas force structure and the appropriate level of
overseas construction funding require thoughtful and deliberate
analysis, which hopefully will be included in the overseas
basing master plan which will be submitted to Congress no later
than April 1 of this year.
While the debate will continue in the future, we must not
let our service members and their families feel we have
forgotten them. It is this subcommittee's obligation to improve
their qualify of work, quality of life, and even when they are
far away from a member's district, mere geographical location
does not absolve us of our responsibility to these people.
We look forward to your testimony, sir. I think you know
the respect that all of us in this committee and this Congress
have for you and the job that you have done in serving this
country. I know that your tenure will be somewhat short, but
you have done a lot of good things there and I think you will
get some more done before you have been extended. And, frankly,
if there is somebody that is extended, I am glad it is somebody
like you, because you do good work, you will stand up for what
you believe.
And I think the idea that you are here before this
committee again testifies to your desire to improve the quality
of life for the people that are under your command.
So I am going to yield to Mr. Olver for any opening
statement he might have at this time.
And so, John.
Opening Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be
very brief. I think better we should have the time to sleep
here or do whatever we are going to do. We are in a bit of a
shadowy fog of sleeplessness, as has already been alluded to,
and I do not think I need to add to that.
We are very happy to have you here. I recognize and join in
the chairman's comments in a general way. I would say that if
you look around at some of the things that he has mentioned and
at some of the places that I have visited, like Izmir and
places in Italy, Vicenza and Naples, and less so Brussels and
Greece, if you look at those, we have done some things in the
last several years, so it is perhaps sometimes useful to let us
know exactly what is needed.
And those places that we actually visit--and I have been
very lucky to be able to visit a number of places with the
chairman in the last two, three years--that we do actually try
to do something about that, though the budget this year is not
nearly as good as it was on earlier times. The rather severe
cut in the military construction budget, as it has been laid
out in the president's submission as a budget, will put
substantial crimps in our capacity to do that.
So I am interested in what your needs are and perspectives
are. And I thank you very much for being here with us today.
General Ralston. Thank you.
Mr. Hobson. Your written statement, General, has been
entered into the record, but I would like you to summarize your
testimony for us, if you would, please.
Opening Statement of General Joseph W. Ralston
General Ralston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Edwards. It is certainly my privilege to appear before the
committee today.
Before I begin, I would like to tell you how very grateful
the service men and women of the European Command are for the
resources that you provided us last year, in fiscal year 2002.
And it was due to your leadership that our theater received
about $360 million in total funding for military construction
for fiscal year 2002. And as you know, that was a significant
increase over previous years.
This funding was about $250 million for the nonhousing-
related MILCON, it was $15 million for service housing, and it
was about $95 million for DOD agencies.
Now, we are watching very closely on that money that you
appropriated to make sure that it is obligated in a timely way
and done effectively, and I have instituted staff procedures to
make sure that they do not drag out. You have given us the
money; we need to expeditiously get that on contract and make
sure that it is spent properly.
EUROPEAN COMMAND AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
As you know, European Command encompasses a vast geographic
region. It is somewhat misnamed when we say European Command,
because it includes Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and includes all of
Africa that you see in the green there on that map. It is 91
countries that we are involved in.
[The information follows:]
General. Ralston. We have about 118,000 service members. We
have another 20,000 Department of Defense civilians. And we
have over 138,000 family members that are in Europe. You add
that all up and it is about 276,000 Americans that are there
depending upon the support of this committee in terms of their
quality of life.
OPERATIONS
I might add that today we have five combat operations
ongoing in the European theater. Our pilots are flying over
northern Iraq as we speak. We have the troops on the ground in
Bosnia. We have troops on the ground in Kosovo, troops on the
ground in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and we
have the global war on terrorism ongoing. I would be happy to
talk about any of those operations later on if you would
desire.
INFRASTRUCTURE
When I arrived in this command, it did not take long to
realize, as you have stated, that our facilities were in sad
shape and we needed help. And that is why, for the last two
years, I have made this my number one priority with the
Department of Defense, that we need to fix the aging
infrastructure that had been neglected for many years.
I have some pictures I would like to show you, and I think
they are in front of you there.
[The information follows:]
General Ralston. The picture in the upper left-hand corner
shows the conditions in which our single service members
currently live. This is a female shower on a berthing barge at
San Stephano Island, and this is part the La Maddalena naval
facility. We have 50 sailors on shore duty that reside there in
lieu of a permanent barracks.
We are working hard to address conditions like that, but as
you can see, that is pretty sad. And right now it will be 2009
before we get our barracks upgrade program in shape. And one of
the issues that we have is some funding for our barracks
upgrade program that you are aware of.
The upper right-hand photo shows one of our family housing
facilities, and this one is at St. Mawgan in Cornwall, England.
By American standards, we do not believe that we have
overstated our standards. We have said, if a family qualifies
for a three-bedroom apartment, we think they ought to have two
bathrooms. We think they ought to have a stove, a refrigerator,
a washer and a dryer. I do not believe that these standards are
gold plated in any way. But I must tell you that 73 percent of
our Army families in Europe are living in facilities that do
not meet those very basic standards.
The bottom left photograph shows what some of the
underground utility infrastructure looks like. This is at
Ramstein Air Base. You can see the water that comes through the
rusted pipes that are there. And this is one of those things
where people each year have put it off. They can say, ``Well,
we do not really need to fix the water pipes this year, we will
get around to it next year.'' Well, next year comes and it is
put off and it is put off and it is put off, and ultimately
that is what results.
Finally, the lower right-hand photo shows an Army
administrative workspace that is in use at Manheim, Germany.
This speaks to the conditions in many of our working
environments.
Thanks to your help, we have made great strides in our
housing areas, but we have not been as successful in our
working and support facilities. And I ask your continued help
with that.
I have addressed these deficiencies with the Defense
Department, up to and including the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, and I have made
it clear that this was our number one investment priority for
the European theater.
And just like last year, I will continue to emphasize this
point during my posture statements before the major defense
committees of the Congress. Secretary Rumsfeld has been
supportive of our efforts, and the 2003 budget is indicative of
his and the President's support. This budget includes
approximately $575 million for the total military construction
in the European theater. That is a 60 percent increase over
what was appropriated last year.
So I ask for your favorable consideration of this increase
so that we can continue to bring our housing and our work
environments up to a standard more consistent with the quality
of service provided by our young men and women and their
families.
And I might remind the committee that these are your
constituents that are serving there in Europe.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have for opening comments. I
would be pleased to address any of our ongoing operations in-
theater or field any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of General Joseph W. Ralston
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, General.
John.
Mr. Olver. You are going to give me first run here. Well,
Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Hobson. You are my partner.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. You are in worse shape this morning
than I thought you were, I guess. [Laughter.]
NEW NATO MEMBER NATIONS
Okay. General, I would like to ask a couple of questions
for my own information; maybe goes beyond what I have seen thus
far in your testimony, about the relative status of our forces
under NATO.
Do we have a hard presence in the Czech Republic or Poland
or Hungary? By hard presence, I mean, what I understand, what I
am using, in my mind at least, is hard presence in Germany and
Italy and Greece and Incirlik and something in Spain and
obviously Britain and Belgium.
But do we have a hard presence similar to those in any of
the new three, anywhere in the new three?
General Ralston. Yes, sir, we do, although we do not have
in the Czech Republic and we do not have in Poland.
Mr. Olver. We do have in Hungary.
General Ralston. In Hungary we do have. And we set up the
air base at Taszar in Hungary that was a major support activity
for our operation in Bosnia. It is just across the border. But
it is not a huge presence, huge installation, but we have
probably something on the order of 100 troops that we have at
Taszar in Hungary.
Mr. Olver. In that process, have we yet actually built
things that would come under the jurisdiction of this committee
at that location in form of either family housing or barracks
or supply centers or maintenance centers, you know, the kind of
infrastructure that goes on in those hard locations that I have
described?
General Ralston. Mr. Olver, we do not have military family
housing there, because we do not have families at Taszar. We do
have barracks, we do have workspaces and warehouses.
Let me get an answer for the committee so I am exactly
correct. I do not know whether that was done with U.S. MILCON
or whether it was done with NATO infrastructure or whether we
used some existing facilities.
[The information follows:]
The newest North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
countries are Hungary, Czeck Republic, and Poland--all of which
joined NATO on 12 March 1999. To date, United States European
Command (USEUCOM) has not built any permanent facilities with
Military Construction (MILCOM) or other funds in any of these
new countries. Additionally, no NATO Security Investment
Program (NSIP) funds were used to build facilities for U.S.
service members in any of these countries. USEUCOM forces
currently deployed to Taszar, Hungary are using existing host
national infastructure.
Mr. Olver. Let me see if I can express this correctly
today.
In the 16 nations that were there before we added the
three, I suspect that you could look at the populations and the
sizes of the economies and calculate from that some relative
factor that I would like to compare with the participation, the
inputs of those 16 members of NATO prior to the addition of the
three, to get a kind of an average input on the part of those
nations.
And then I would like to ask you the question: How would
the inputs of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary compare
with the average inputs of the older nations? Can you do that
in a relative form for me?
General Ralston. Yes, sir, I can do it in a couple of
different ways. And this is always a dangerous exercise.
But one of the measures of merit that is used is what
percentage of your gross domestic product is spent for your
defense. And we have that data. I can give you from one through
19 who spends the most and who spends the least in terms of
percentage of gross domestic product.
I can do the same thing for you in terms of real dollars or
dollar equivalents which one is the most.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Olver. That would be great. A chart of that would be
wonderful.
Does the fact that there is a presence in Hungary mean that
Hungary has the highest number or the highest relative inputs
to the operations of NATO of the new three?
General Ralston. No, sir, it does not. The reason that we
are in Hungary is for geography, because it was right next door
to Bosnia, and that is what we needed at the time.
Mr. Olver. So it is purely strategic and it does not relate
to that nation's relative inputs to the operations of NATO, to
the operations.
General Ralston. Yes, sir, that is correct.
NATO ASPIRANTS
Mr. Olver. What I am leading to is there is much talk
around about who is going to be added to NATO this year, so on.
What is the level of the capacities of the nations--and maybe
you can do this also in your chart, a bunch of six or eight or
10 who have been talked about as possible entrants--what is the
capacity of those places, by the same terms you are using, if
you like, budgetary terms, I suppose, or in terms of the size
of the economy, what is the relative capacities of those
nations?
[The information follows:]
Mr. Olver. And are any of them up to the level of Poland,
the Czech Republic and Hungary, as you understand it?
General Ralston. Yes, sir, let me give a little background
on it, if I may.
Mr. Olver. Sure.
General Ralston. We have nine countries that have expressed
an interest in joining NATO. They are called the aspirant
countries or aspiring to NATO membership. Each of them has a
membership action plan of all of the things, steps they need to
take prior to NATO membership.
Now, this fall, in November, will be a heads of state NATO
summit in Prague. President Bush will attend there with all of
his other 18 counterparts. And a decision will be made at that
point as to which of these aspirants would be offered
membership in NATO.
Let me, if I may, further explain. As I tell each of these
countries when I go visit them and I get the question, ``Is
country X going to be offered membership?'' I state that when
country X is offered membership is a political decision, not a
military one, and as it should be.
I try to keep us in uniform focused on the objective
military criteria of each of these nations. What is the status
of their reform of their military? Do they have civilian
control of the military? What does their geography mean to the
alliance?
But I can build a case that country X may have maxed the
course on every one of the objective military criteria and
there may be a very good and valid political reason as to why
you would not want them to be a member of the alliance.
And conversely, I can build a case for you that country Y
may not be exactly where we want them in terms of the reform of
their military--by the way, we are not exactly where we want to
be in terms of reform of our own military--and there may be an
overriding political reason as to why you would want them as a
member of the alliance.
So I say that in a very positive sense, and not in a
derogatory sense in any way, that it is a political decision.
But EUCOM is heavily involved in providing objective military
advice to our political authorities on each of those aspiring
countries.
I can tell you that in a general sense we have told those
countries in their membership action plans that they need to
spend approximately 2 percent of their gross domestic product
on their defense, and the aspirants, by and large, are doing
that. And I can give you a chart that will tell you where each
of those aspirants are in terms of their spending.
Mr. Hobson. Chet.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Ralston, welcome.
General Ralston. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. I enjoyed seeing you in Munich at the Munich
Conference.
I might just make a comment, Mr. Chairman, this was the
38th Munich Conference, now called the Conference on Security,
and there were about 40 defense ministers there.
Next to the war on terrorism, the next biggest topic of
conversation was that the United States military force is so
strong, so powerful, so advanced technologically and with the
quality and training of its people that our NATO allies are
worried about being able to integrate the other NATO allied
forces with the U.S. forces.
Mr. Hobson. They need to spend a little more money.
Mr. Edwards. I guess that is correct. I guess it is a good
challenge to have.
But, General Ralston, that is a compliment to you and all
the men and women in our services today, and I thank you for
that.
PRIVATIZED HOUSING
Let me ask you, the reason I was a few minutes late is I
introduced the Army secretary, Secretary White, at a breakfast
this morning, and he mentioned that under the Residential
Community Initiative, which this committee has led the fight
on, the Army will have about $700 million in private investment
put into housing programs this year, to supplement the public
budget.
I assume that is a much more difficult model to try to use
in Europe. Is there any variation of RCI that is being tried or
is working? I know there have been a few efforts made, but
anything to the magnitude of the kind of investment we are
talking about in the Army this year through RCI?
General Ralston. Mr. Edwards, as you mention, it is more
difficult when you get into overseas areas to try to do that.
Having said that, we have tried this, we have some efforts
that are working. And it is country-specific, it is base-
specific. What are the investment opportunities on the part of
the local community?
I can get you a more concise answer on specifically where
we are, but I know we have a privatized housing project in
Italy, for example----
Mr. Hobson. In Naples----
General Ralston [continuing]. That the Navy has worked on,
in Naples, that is an excellent project.
Mr. Hobson. As a matter of fact, if I could interject, and
General Schwartz has had people over there, we had some
problems getting it done. But I think, having said that, it has
turned out to be a good project. And it is an Italian-owned
project that we lease back, and I think we have the right to
buy it at some point.
And I have been there, and it is well built and it has a
school and all that stuff. And I have asked General Schwartz to
have his people look at it, trying to get a Korean model for
that, although it scares some people because that is
accompanied housing there; the Korean model might not be
accompanied housing.
But we have done it, and we might be able to do it
someplace else. I do not know where else they are looking to do
it, but the guy was under house arrest for a while that was
building it, and we had some problems over the land and how he
got hold of the land. But it seems in the final analysis that
at least the people who are there are happy with the results of
the project.
General Ralston. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, you
are exactly right. It is a wonderful housing area. I have been
there, I have talked to the residents. It is very good.
And if I could add a personal experience to this, also
overseas-related, although it was Alaska, when I was commander
there we did an 801 housing project, private housing at Eielson
Air Force Base, 366 units. It was the best housing that I have
ever seen in the Department of Defense, in my 37 years. And the
good news was, it did not take an investment on the part of the
U.S. government to do it.
Mr. Hobson. That was Alaska, wasn't it?
General Ralston. That was Alaska, yes, sir. That is true.
But it was part of the overseas OCONUS account that we have.
But the service members got excellent housing, the community
got the jobs, local builders built the house, and we turn our
housing allowance over for a specified number of years to do
that.
So I think it is an excellent program, and I strongly
support it.
EUCOM FORCE STRUCTURE
Mr. Edwards. If I can follow up with one question that
relates to this. You put in your written comments that one of
the concerns in housing investment in the past has been where
we were going to stabilize our forces, at what numbers and what
areas throughout your command. And that was a good rationale
for Congress not to invest more.
And I am thrilled that the Chairman of this subcommittee
has made an investment in saying that is not good enough; that
we need to help our military families have better quality
housing today, regardless of future decisions.
I guess the opportunities for private-public ventures, as
well as convincing Congress to spend more money on upgrading
housing, depends on the perception of the stability of our
force structure in Europe.
Are we at a point where you confidently say that this level
of force structure there now is where we should be and you
think we will continue to be and therefore we could move ahead
with some more investment?
General Ralston. Mr. Edwards, let me put it this way. I
will tell you what I have told the Secretary of Defense as
recently as yesterday, when we discussed this issue.
I said, today we have just a little over 100,000 troops
forward based in Europe. And as I have stated, we have 91
countries in the European Command Area of Responsibility (AOR).
That is half the countries of the world there. And in my
judgment, 100,000 troops forward-based is not excessive.
By the way, that is 8 percent of the active-duty military
strength in the United States military. I do not believe 8
percent is too big of an investment for half the countries in
the world.
And we have tried to prioritize those installations. We
have tried to prioritize those that are to major installations;
and then those that I think are less enduring, we have come
forward with a plan to close some of those.
The Efficient Basing East in Germany that we worked with
with the United States Army, where we closed down 13 little
installations that we were never going to be able to make the
investment in to give our people the right quality of life, and
then consolidate them to Grafenwoehr Range, where they get
better training. It will be an enduring facility, they will
have hospitals, gymnasiums and housing and all the things that
they need.
So my advice to the Secretary of Defense is that the
100,000 is about right. Oh, by the way, it is halfway to the
Middle East if you need something there. They are one ocean
closer. And so I think it makes sense strategically to have
those forward-based forces.
RESERVE/NATIONAL GUARD CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Edwards. Does that 100,000 include guardsmen and
reservists, or would that be in addition to the 100,000?
General Ralston. That would be in addition to. And as part
of the 118,000 number that I use--and this fluctuates on a day-
to-day basis. If I have a carrier battle group that is coming
through the Mediterranean, it goes up; if they go on to the
Central Command, it goes down. So I will say approximately
110,000, plus or minus.
We do have guardsmen, as you know, today in Bosnia. We have
the Virginia National Guard, the Maryland National Guard, many
different National Guard units are there.
Mr. Olver. Do not forget the Massachusetts----
General Ralston. And the Massachusetts National Guard is
doing----
Mr. Hobson. The Ohio National Guard----
Mr. Edwards. I am sure there are some Texans there
somewhere.
Mr. Hobson. You got the Ohio and the Mississippi Guard at
Incirlik right now----
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. Because I was there.
General Ralston. And without leaving anybody out----
[Laughter.]
General Ralston. I mean the Guard has done an absolutely
superb job in all of these installations.
The numbers are relatively small. In Bosnia today, I am
going to give you a round estimate of about 1,500 Guard troops
that are there.
Mr. Hobson. What is the overall number of people in Bosnia?
General Ralston. Thirty-one hundred. And if I could come
back----
Mr. Olver. About half of them are Guard.
General Ralston. Yes, sir. And I think it is about 60
percent, so it is a little over.
Give me my thermometer chart.
My point is that while the Guard is extraordinarily
important to us to do this, it is a small percentage of the
overall 100,000 that we are talking about.
BOSNIA U.S. FORCE CONTRIBUTION
Since you did not exactly ask the question, but close
enough, I would like to show you our troop levels in Bosnia
here that we have been working very hard on. And this is U.S.
troops.
If I go back to January of last year, just before I
testified before this committee, we had 4,400 Americans in
Bosnia. By October, I had it down to 3,100. Here, in about six
weeks, we will be at 2,500. And my projection for October of
this year would be 1,800.
So we are working very hard on this. We are working this
with our NATO allies.
And this, by the way, in my judgment, reflects more
accurately the situation on the ground in Bosnia. Remember, it
was six years ago when we went into Bosnia with 60,000 troops.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Hobson. For a year.
General Ralston. I am sorry.
Mr. Hobson. The original projection, we were going to go
in----
General Ralston. Oh.
Mr. Hobson. I just want to bring that up.
General Ralston. Yes, sir, I understand.
The Americans were 20,000 troops of that. We were 33
percent of the effort when we started that in December of 1995.
But as the situation on the ground has improved, we have been
able to revise our forces, bring our force levels down. And
today, this morning, we have less than 18,000 total NATO
troops. We have, as I say, 3,100 Americans. We are 18 percent
of the effort. I expect we will be at 15 percent of the effort
by this October.
PERSONS INDICTED FOR WAR CRIMES
Mr. Olver. Maybe if we continue to reduce that number we
will finally find Mladic and Karadzic.
General Ralston. That is an important issue, and let me
address that.
Mladic, I believe everyone in this government and every
other government around the world realizes that he lives in
Belgrade in Serbia. That is not part of Bosnia, we are not
allowed to go into Serbia. And this is something that the
Serbian government has got to step up to and has got to turn
him over to the ICTY.
With regard to Mr. Karadzic, I do not believe that there is
anyone that knows exactly where he is, although we are working
it very hard, and I do believe that we are closing the noose on
that. But he travels continuously throughout the Balkans, and
we are working very hard on that aspect of it.
EFFICIENT BASE EAST
Mr. Hobson. Let me ask a couple questions.
This Efficient Basing East funding is somewhat troublesome
to me.
The budget request includes $69.8 million for three
projects at Grafenwoehr, Germany, to implement Efficient Base
East. Does this funding level allow you to implement the
initiative in the desired time frame? If not, how far does the
schedule slip, and what is the effect on the overall cost of
not getting the amount of money that was originally thought to
be? And did the U.S. Army Europe plan a more robust
infrastructure request in 2003; and if so, why were there only
three projects requested?
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Let me state it this way. The United States Army Europe did
go forward to the Department of the Army with a proposed
funding plan for the Efficient Basing East. And like any plan
that comes in, choices have to be made across the river in the
Department of Defense.
The United States Army Europe's request was not fully
supported. Although it was supported, they did not get all of
the money that they asked for in the request for 2003. As a
consequence of that, it does, in fact, slow down the Efficient
Basing East initiative.
And one of the real benefits of Efficient Basing East was
the fact that once we get it consolidated at Grafenwoehr, the
Army estimates that they will save about $40 million a year in
infrastructure costs once they consolidate. So if this slides
out a year, then that means that that is one year later that
you will realize the savings from the consolidation.
But those are the types of judgments that had to be made at
the Department of Defense as to exactly how much in 2003 could
be allocated to Efficient Basing East.
Mr. Hobson. But you could have spent more and gotten it
done if they would have given you the money.
General Ralston. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Hobson. And it would have probably cost you less if
they would have given you the money to do it right.
General Ralston. If there were more funds available to do
that, we could, in fact, complete the project sooner and we
could, in fact, realize the savings sooner by having done it.
BARRACKS UPGRADE PROGRAM
Mr. Hobson. I am going to ask one more question, you do not
have to answer it, I just want to get it in here, but if you
want to answer it, you can. And then I am going to let John ask
you some questions, and then I think we have a vote, and then
we are going to have to terminate.
I am really concerned about this SRM deal that went on
someplace that members were not really aware of, and I am more
concerned about what happened to the money than I am about the
event. I realize why the event happened, but I am really
concerned. We fight so hard for dollars to be done in Europe,
we got this problem with Efficient Basing East, we got all
kinds of other things that we could do, and then I find out,
kind of, not from you guys, but just in talking to some people,
that mysteriously $100 million moved. And I think it wound up
in CONUS someplace, although it is, kind of, off-shore.
And I am concerned about this whole transaction. And if you
do not want to get into it, that is fine, because I am going to
get into it elsewhere, since I found out about it, but I want
it known that I am not upset about the language in the bill; I
am more upset about how the money got spread around.
General Ralston. Mr. Chairman, this is what I would like to
address. And again, I only found out about this shortly ago,
when I was notified that the United States Army in Europe was
going to lose approximately $100 million out of their barracks
upgrade program in 2002.
Now, it affects me very much because the barracks upgrade
program is a very high priority for me, as we have talked about
here. And so I do not know all of the procedures and how this
happened, other than it was presented to us as a fait accompli
that within the Department of the Army money was moved around
and USAREUR was the net loser in the process.
Mr. Hobson. Well, there are always people listening,
writing little things down, but I am not going to let it drop
there. I mean, I am going to let it drop with you, but I am
concerned about it.
John, do you have some questions you would like to ask?
Mr. Olver. I would like to just follow that one up just
very briefly and then make one other request.
I would like very much to support the consolidations and
the base efficiency initiatives that you are dealing with,
because I suspect that spreading our footprint all over the
place is not a very efficient way to function.
And, clearly, it seems to me, as we expand NATO, if we are
going to continue to expand it and add even only half of that
nine, by some integer, close to half, that eventually one has
to think where the center of your functions ought to be, and
that goes to my question of do we have hard facilities, are we
planning hard facilities or whatever in some of the new
nations.
In understanding the question that the chairman has asked,
you have initiatives, the Rhein-Main, for additional facilities
at Ramstein and Spangdahlem, and you have also some Navy things
mentioned and so on.
Is it only the Army's initiatives that are affected by this
glitch in the budgeting, which I will just use the term
``glitch'' for the moment?
General Ralston. Yes, sir, that is my understanding, that
this was a Department of the Army.
Mr. Olver. And is it only Army in Germany or is it Army
throughout Europe Command?
General Ralston. My understanding is it is Army throughout
the European Command.
Mr. Olver. Throughout European Command.
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. So things that are Army in Italy may also be
affected, or England or Germany.
General Ralston. Yes, sir, that is correct. And as I
understand the problem, as I say, United States Army Europe
just became aware that they have less dollars than what they
had anticipated for 2002, so they will have to prioritize with
what they have remaining. And that is a decision I do not think
has been made yet as to which barracks specifically would lose
the funding.
Mr. Olver. If we do not have that information already in
staff, I would like to know what were the planned projects that
that would have covered----
[The information follows:]
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Location and dollars.
And lastly, since you have shown that, I would like to see,
and maybe you can make it available, where our forward-
deployed--which I think is the term you used, which I think
means everybody in the European Command, since that is off-
shore----
General Ralston. Forward based.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. And would England and Germany and
all the places over there, and Turkey and whatever--what we
have in terms of Reserve and Guard together. Is it fair to lump
them together?
General Ralston. We can give it to you both ways.
Mr. Olver. I guess I mostly care about what are our regular
full-time forces versus our Reserve and Guard forces as a unit
in those various places where they are forward-deployed,
country by country.
And if you have some other things that are happening on a
time scale similar to what you have described for Bosnia, we
may well be doing something like that in Kosovo, and there may
be other bases where your initiatives of consolidation and so
forth mean that there is some movements about, I would like to
see that.
PERSONNEL LOCATIONS
And it seems to me it is quite easily done, country on one
side and time frame on the other side, with two spots in each
country, one for the regular and one for the Reserve and Guard
forces or some version of that.
[The information follows:]
General Ralston. Yes, sir. And we can provide that for you.
Let me give you a general answer.
With regard to Bosnia we talked about right now, because of
the Guard units that we are talking about, we have about 60
percent from the reserve component. But that is something that
changes with each rotation. In April, these units will rotate
back out of Bosnia and come back home, and they will be
replaced by primarily active-duty units. And then that will go
for a couple of cycles, and then the Guard will pick it up
again.
So it will vary from time to time, but I can certainly give
you a snapshot right now.
Mr. Olver. Well, you can see the window----
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. At a particular time.
General Ralston. Right.
Mr. Hobson. A couple of things. I do think that it is
important to note the Texas Guard, with a bigger group, was in
there in Bosnia and worked that.
KOSOVO U.S. FORCE CONTRIBUTION
I was at Bondsteel, and there is still quite a group of
people at Bondsteel. How many people do we have in Kosovo,
General? Do you have a----
General Ralston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. You do not have a thermometer.
General Ralston. In Kosovo this morning we have
approximately 5,300 Americans. That is down from the 7,000 that
we started. That is out of a total of 39,000, overall. We have
not exceeded 15 percent in Kosovo, and so the other nations are
carrying 85 percent of the load there.
Now, as we do this six-month review, I will go back to the
North Atlantic Council and report to the foreign ministers and
defense ministers in the May time period, it is my anticipation
that we will bring the numbers in Kosovo down, just like we
have been able to do in Bosnia.
And do not hold me to this number, but I think by this fall
I should have that number down to around 4,000 Americans, so it
is a significant reduction, in excess of 20 percent, over the
next few months.
Mr. Hobson. I think General Huber is doing a good job
there. He was a colonel when I first met him in SOUTHCOM, I
think.
General Ralston. He is an excellent commander, and I am
very, very proud of him.
Mr. Hobson. I am somewhat concerned about this footprint
problem that we have in the area, because we should get this
footprint implemented. We have been doing this for a long time,
getting ready where we are going to put people over there. And
the longer we do not get it done, the worse the number gets,
the more morale problem you have.
Right now I think your morale is probably pretty good in
most places, especially in Kosovo and Bosnia: people feel they
are doing something, they feel they are important. And we give
them a lot better deal than we do in Korea or some other places
as far as in and out and things of that sort.
INCIRLIK--OPERATION NOTHERN WATCH
I think Incirlik is a modern miracle. To have the tempo
that you have in Incirlik, which is 800 to 900 percent a year,
people living in tents, going in and out, maintaining
airplanes, flying airplanes, Guard units, Reserve units,
active-duty units, all working there together, somebody ought
to write a book about it. Because as far as I know, and I knock
on wood when I say this, we have only lost one airplane in the
whole time, that not to hostile fire. And to be able to do that
with the changes that you have is just almost beyond what you
would ever war plan anywhere, that kind of tempo, and to keep
it up for the period of time that you have.
I will be very frank with you: I am not sure how cost-
effective the mission of Northern Watch is, other than
symbolic, because when you see the number of times we fly, when
you see how much it costs when we fly, the risks that we take,
I am not sure, other than political, whatever that is, that it
is worth the money that we spend.
I forget what the number is, but it is a huge number,
because you have to put up a whole package on any day you can
fly, and you only fly eight days a month, something like that.
It is not as many as we all think it is and there is a lot of
risk, when the Iranians come up and other people come up.
I assume that that is being assessed at the highest levels
of this country as to the cost-benefit analysis on that.
General Ralston. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And it is a very
important issue. Obviously, we have received the mission, and
our people are doing a magnificent job in carrying out that
mission.
And as you know, they have been doing that now for 11
years. It is an extraordinary effort, as you talked about. And
practically every time that our people fly over northern Iraq,
they are shot at.
So it is something that I have addressed with the Pentagon.
Only the Washington policymakers can decide if the benefits
coming out of the mission offset the cost and the risk that we
encounter.
And so that is something that has been provided to the
policy leaders in Washington and they will decide. In the
meantime, we are carrying out the mission that we have been
given.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I want to thank you very much for coming
and sharing these thoughts with us. And it is important that
you come and do this. I know that all the troops out there that
serve underneath you, in your command, this is very symbolic to
them that you come here to this committee, and they take to
heart what you are doing.
I was going to stop there, but I see another member came. I
do not know whether Sam has any questions or not.
Do you have any questions you want to ask, Sam?
I am surprised that Sam is even walking today, he has been
so sick. But I appreciate your coming. We were just about to
wrap up, but I do not want to wrap up if you have some pressing
matter.
Well, there is one other significant event that, sir, if I
could impose upon your time for one more second. I would like
to announce, because in this particular service promotions are
very hard to come by. And when a major gets to lieutenant
colonel, I think that is a significant event, especially in the
Marine Corps.
And Major Norm Cooling is going to become a lieutenant
colonel, and I talked to him yesterday, but I just want to say
in front of the committee, he has done valuable service and we
appreciate working with him. And just hope he does not get the
big head now that he is a lieutenant colonel, sir; I do not
know. [Laughter.]
He has done good work up to now.
But congratulations to you. I cannot say lieutenant
colonel. Major waiting. I wasn't in the Marine Corps. But
anyway, I think it is a significant event.
General Ralston. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for
recognizing Major Cooling, because he is a superb officer, and
I think he is doing great work for the men and women of EUCOM,
working the congressional issues.
And if I may, before we close, I would also like to
recognize the great work that your staff has done in helping us
put together this program and in working through it. And so it
has been a very cooperative effort, and I very much appreciate
it.
Mr. Hobson. Well, thank you, sir.
We could not get it done without staff, and it is a
bipartisan staff. We try to work together on this and make the
dollars that we get work for people.
And it is frustrating sometimes when you find out about
these other things and to see where we are going. But we are
going to keep poking at it till we all get it right. I just
wish you were going to be around longer, sir.
But thank you very much for your service, too, because this
is probably the last time that you will appear before this
committee.
General Ralston. I have quite a while to go, so I do not
know. You might always have another hearing. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. We will call you back for something else. Yes,
but they have extended you now. But, you know, for a guy from
Norwood, Ohio, you have done all right, sir.
General Ralston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. He wants the next hearing in one of the Greek
isles, so maybe we will have that there.
Thank you very much, General.
General Ralston. Thank you.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congressman Edwards.]
On Post Living Percentages
Question. Throughout EUCOM, what percentage of service men and
women are living on post. How does that compare to CONUS?
Answer. The below table provides a comparison of our current
percentages of the service members living on post, broken down by
Service Component, compared with service members living on post in
CONUS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUCOM CONUS
Service (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................................ 65.1 33.5
Air Force....................................... 46.6 33.0
Navy............................................ 49.7 28.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing Costs
Question. For those living off post, what percentage of housing
costs are covered by the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)?
Answer. Unlike service members in Continental United States
(CONUS), service members overseas do not receive the Basic Allowance
for Housing. Instead they receive the Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA).
OHA is comprised of three components: rental ceiling, utility/recurring
maintenance allowance, and the move-in housing allowance (MIHA). Rental
ceilings are computed using actual rents as reported through military
finance centers. Rental ceilings are set such that 80 percent of
members with dependents have rents fully reimbursed. Unaccompanied
members or members without dependents receive 90 percent of the with-
dependent rate. Utility/recurring maintenance allowance is paid monthly
to defray expenses paid to utility companies. Payments fully cover
reported expenses for 80 percent of members. Finally, MIHA provides a
fixed-rate lump-sum payment that reflects average expenditures to make
overseas dwellings habitable (e.g. wardrobes, kitchen and lighting
fixtures, supplemental heating equipment). MIHA also reimburses actual
expenses for legally required rent-related expenses such as rental
agency fees, taxes, etc. Finally MIHA fully covers expenses paid to
enhance physical security of dwellings (where deemed necessary). All
service members and Department of Defense (DoD) employees in the
theater are required to consult with the regional housing office before
entering a rental agreement on the local economy so the housing office
may advise our personnel on allowable and reasonable costs incurred
with the rental agreement they are considering.
Unaccompanied Personnel
Question. What percentage of married service men and women are not
allowed to bring their families to areas within European Command
(EUCOM)?
Answer. Only seven locations in the EUCOM AOR are classified as
dependent-restricted sites. They are Eskisehir, Istanbul and Yumurtalik
in Turkey; Souda Bay, Greece; and the Embassies in Lebanon, Albania and
Bosnia. There are a total of 386 military members assigned to these
eight locations, with the majority (352) being assigned to Souda Bay.
This equates to approximately 0.375 percent of EUCOM's total service
member population who are not permitted to bring their families to
depend-restricted locations.
United States Army Europe (USAREUR), as one Service Component,
reports that there are no permanent Army billets in/under their control
that are labeled as ``unaccompanied.'' However, for the past 18 months
they have been tracking the number of soldiers denied travel with their
families to USAREUR. Over the last 18 months, 544 soldiers, or .9
percent of the Army population in EUCOM, were denied family travel
because of command sponsorship/housing or exceptional family member
reasons. Of those 544, 229 (.4 percent) opted to take a short tour
option and leave their family in the States, while 315 (.5 percent)
requested to be deleted from the assignment. The other Services do not
track this type of data.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congressman Edwards.]
Wednesday, March 13, 2002.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
U.S. ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
U.S. AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
U.S. NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
WITNESSES
RAYMOND F. DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT)
GEOFFREY G. PROSCH, PRINCIPLE DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
JIMMY G. DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
(INSTALLATIONS)
H.T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Good morning; the Committee will
come to order.
The hearing today will focus on the privatization of family
housing in the military.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses: Ray DuBois with
the Office of Secretary of Defense; Geoff Prosch, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army; Duncan Holaday, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy; and Jimmy Dishner, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.
Is everybody here?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, except for a little change there for
the Navy. H.T. Johnson.
Mr. Hobson. Oh, yes, Mr. Johnson. I should have known that.
You were just here.
Before we move into the substance of the hearing, I want to
announce that this is Jimmy's, I guess, last--swan song. And I
want to thank him for really all the assistance you have done
with us and working with us, and for 40 years of service to the
United States. That is almost as long as I have been married to
my wife.
Jimmy has had, you know, quite a career. He is a graduate
of the Citadel, and served on both Active and Reserve Air
Force. In fact, he retired from the Air Force as a brigadier
general.
We will not hold that against you, as an enlisted guy in
the Air Force.
And he has served in his current position since 1995.
And I think everybody on this Committee and everybody in
this room wishes you well in your next endeavor, whatever that
may be, because you are still a young guy by my standards.
Over the last several years, this Committee has focused a
great deal of energy on the privatization issue--that is, kind
of, an understatement, I guess. [Laughter.]
The budget request for fiscal 2003 represents a banner year
for housing privatization because, combined with previously
budgeted projects, the department expects to privatize a
cumulative total of over 60,000 by the end of fiscal year 2003.
The work we have to achieve is monumental, and I hope the goal
can be met.
The members of the Subcommittee have a good working
relationship. Nowhere is our commitment to quality of life
stronger than it relates to good housing. I look forward to
being updated about where this initiative stands today.
I want to thank each of you coming here today.
Let me say one other thing. We have probably focused more
on housing privatization than probably any other committee
around, and probably more than everybody expected--right, Ted?
But I hope that everybody--I think today when we look at
where we are in this thing--when we started out, I think
everybody thought I was out to kill housing privatization, and
that was not true. What I have been concerned about is that we
do this in a way that achieves the goals that everybody wants,
and achieves them in a cost-effective manner, that people do
not look back at what we have done in the future and say, you
know, ``How did these people get to this? And, you know, why
did they do these dumb deals?'' And I do not want to knowingly
do dumb deals.
I came in, kind of, after this got started. It was started
in a different fashion than it is going today. But I think,
still, while there are very ambitious plans out there today, we
really have not completed a whole lot yet. We have got a lot
going, but we have not completed some things to where we really
know where we are on all these.
Some of them we completed did not work right in the
beginning; now they are beginning to work in the way they were
intended. Some of them had to be fixed. But as we go along, we
learn.
Geoff, did you go to the same store almost that I did to
get a tie today?
Mr. Prosch. Bargain basement, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, boy that is--outlet. Brooks outlet.
[Laughter.]
Before I go on, let me recognize our distinguished ranking
member, John, for any opening remarks he would like to make,
and then we will go to statements that you can summarize, and
the full text will be included in the record.
I might say that John and myself just got back from
Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kurdistan, and I do not see any
privatization of housing over there that we would want to model
for here.
We could have used you, Sam, taking pictures.
And John is going to have to leave for a transportation
hearing.
So, John, do you want to----
Mr. Olver. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, we hardly saw any decent housing at all. As it
turned out, there was virtually nothing that was not
substantially destroyed in Afghanistan.
Anyway, all the faces here have been before us before,
except Mr. Prosch. And happy to have you here. I do not know
how long your stint is going to be in this, and I do not know
how long Mr. Johnson is going to come back to this committee if
he gets treated as cavalierly as he has been treated once, at
least, by me. [Laughter.]
Anyway, I do also understand that Jimmy Dishner, this is
your last--probably your last testimony before us. You can
probably hardly wait. And happy to have you in Massachusetts in
the future.
As I have served on this subcommittee, a good deal of our
focus has, indeed, as the chairman has said, been on housing
privatization. The privatization has taken root and, I guess,
has gotten to the point of blossoming. And I think it has to if
we are to meet the goal--but I think a rather ambitious goal of
addressing, as Mr. DuBois has stated in his written testimony,
quote, most of our inadequate housing by fiscal year 2007;
three years earlier than our initial goal of 2010. So I am
interested in how we are going to do that and in what ``most''
means along with in that process what will be left out of the
acceleration and why that is going to be left out.
So thank you all for being here. And I am sorry I do have
to leave in 15 minutes or so, but I imagine we will have a
chance to hear what each of you has to say in the beginning.
Mr. Hobson. Do you have any questions you want to ask them
before I take their statements?
Mr. Olver. I am going to leave those to my esteemed
colleague, Chet Edwards.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. All right. I was going to let you ask
them ahead of time, but go ahead.
Ray, are you going to be first?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Olver, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Farr, we have traveled together
in the past. We have looked at housing at various
installations. It remains a top priority of the Secretary of
Defense to fix. As you point out, Mr. Olver, he has pulled the
goal from 2010 to 2007, 2007. And I think that the witnesses
today will inform you as to how the military departments will
achieve that.
I want to make a personal, if I might, comment. Mr.
Dishner--Jimmy Dishner has served his department and the
Department of Defense with distinction. I might add that his
successor, Mr. Fred Kuhn, who is in the front row over here, is
here today to get pointers from his predecessor.
Mr. Dishner, however, is not leaving the service of his
country. We have asked him to stay on for one year as a special
assistant to help us--Mr. Olver, you may be interested in
this--with issues pertaining to Massachusetts, in particular
Massachusetts Military Reservation on the Upper Cape, and some
of the issues that----
Mr. Hobson. Is that because John Olver is such a problem,
he needs a special assistant or----
Mr. Olver. The Mass. Military Reservation has been such a
problem over such a long time, there has been a bit of a
breakthrough. So I can understand that you might want to have
somebody take a real interest in that.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir. And I have been up there personally,
and we will continue to take that interest. And Jimmy will take
that responsibility on over the next year.
Mr. Chairman, you have noted that this committee--and I
over the last 10 months in this job can heartily concur with
you, that this committee is no question the leader with respect
to the Congress on the issues of quality of life and housing
for our military personnel.
The Secretary wants to ask me to extend his appreciation to
you and to all the members of the House of Representatives to
extend our military housing privatization authority to 2012,
although we do not believe that we will need it.
The last few months, as we all know, has been anything but
normal; 9/11 has changed our country forever. That does not
diminish the fact that the Secretary of Defense is committed to
all of our installations and our infrastructure, especially the
housing for our personnel.
Your busy schedules have allowed you to visit Fort Hood,
Lackland, Naval Station Everett to review the progress of the
department's privatization efforts and to visit with our
service members living there. This action on your part speaks
volumes.
Mr. Edwards and I, before the hearing this morning,
discussed the issue of what is going on in Fort Hood. Clearly,
there is a renewed sense from the enlisted personnel and junior
officers and their families that the Secretary of Defense and
the Congress, working together, are paying intense attention to
this issue.
Mr. Hobson. Let me interrupt a minute, Ray.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. I want to say this publicly. Without your
intervention--personal intervention Fort Hood would have not
gone forward, in my opinion. Had you not kicked at it like you
did, when you did, I think we would still be messing around
with it and I would still get being blamed for holding it up.
And I was not. But I want to say publicly that you
personally became involved in that, and I do not think we would
have gotten it out of OMB without your personal intervention.
So I just want to say that.
Mr. DuBois. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
The President, of course, and the Secretary of Defense have
stated publicly and on more than one occasion how important
housing is, notwithstanding that Fort Hood is near the
President's ranch. We will continue to focus on housing both
domestically and overseas, and I think it is an important issue
to remember.
Our construction budget, our family housing construction
budget of $1.3 billion, our request, is from $1.1 billion in
terms of our request--our amended presidential request in 2002.
It supports traditional approaches to military housing, as well
as privatization to implement our plans to renovate, replace or
privatize over 35,000 housing units in fiscal 2003 alone.
I want to talk in a little more detail, as will my
colleagues at the table, with respect to how we will achieve
that this year, the units that we will contract for
privatization.
This is an enormous task and one that has shown over the
past 10 months an increase--an exponential increase in units
awarded. We have presented to you a quarterly status report--I
signed it out on March 11; I think we will send it to you
electronically--on that issue, and I have--we will hand out a
one-page chart that will give you the 2003 rundown by service.
As you know, the department, in its aggressive pursuit of
this initiative to improve living conditions, we want to: one,
increase housing allowance to eliminate out-of-pocket costs;
two, we are going to increase our reliance on the private
sector through the privatization issue; three, we are going to
maintain the military construction funding, because not all
situations can be addressed by privatization.
I think it is important to recognize that our policy
requires that privatization yield at least three times the
amount of housing as traditional military construction for the
same amount of appropriated dollars. As you know, we have to
achieve at least a 3 to 1 leverage factor, but the projects
awarded thus far reflect a leverage ratio of almost 8 to 1. I
think that in and of itself is a dramatic statistic.
The six privatization projects awarded over the last year
have more than tripled the number of units already privatized.
We have accelerated this program, because, yes, the dedication
and the focus of the secretary and the President; but I want to
call attention to the dedication and the focus of the new
service secretaries in this regard. Also, of course, the
congressional interests and the increased buy-in of
installation, as we call them, stakeholders clearly supports
the acceleration.
You have raised in conversations with me the so-called
post-award management question. Because decent, safe and
affordable housing is such an important component to our
service members' lives, we are taking steps to ensure that
privatization projects which we have already awarded remain
fiscally and physically in good shape for the long term.
To that end, we oversee these projects through an internal
oversight program and document called the evaluation plan or
the program evaluation plan.
The two data submissions we have analyzed thus far--and
this is important--indicate that at this stage--although the
sample is small, at this stage of the program there are no
overall portfolio areas of concern.
Financial data looks good as well. For example, our current
debt coverage ratio--and I know that you have a certain
background in housing and in development, Mr. Chairman, and I
hope this comports with your understanding--our current debt
coverage ratio for all applicable projects is 1.2 or greater.
Now, also my office plans to hold a one-day session,
probably in May, which we would hope that you and/or other
members of the subcommittee, and certainly members of your
staff, will attend.
The service portfolio managers, which are at this table and
sitting behind us, will review in great detail--in great and
perhaps excruciating detail the kind of information we are
gleaning from this evaluation program. Areas for improvement.
Changes in future projects necessary.
In particular we want to improve the deal structures to
provide private sector incentives while maintaining sufficient
government protections which you, Mr. Chairman, have addressed
on several occasions.
In closing, again, on behalf of the Secretary of Defense,
on behalf of Secretary Rumsfeld, I would sincerely like to
thank you and Mr. Olver and the other members of this
subcommittee for your strong support of our military housing
privatization program, both in the United States and abroad,
and I look forward to working with you in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr. follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Johnson, I think, is next.
Let me put something out for all of you before you go on. I
do not know where you fit in the privatization of utilities,
but we are going to have to look at each of those contracts. I
think I mentioned this yesterday, Geoff. And I also have not
heard anything about SHPOs and any meeting of the minds or
long-term understanding among the services and the department
as to their dealings and responsibilities or penalties or
whatever--non-penalties in dealing with the SHPOs, which is
something that I raised some time ago.
So, as you go, you do not necessarily have to answer those
today, but----
Mr. DuBois. Just quickly, utility privatization is within
my portfolio. I have just brought on board Dr. Get Moy, former
chief engineer of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, to
focus specifically on this program.
This program, interestingly enough, is somewhat like the
housing program was four years ago, in that, yes, we have got
to overcome some internal bureaucratic inertia, yes, we have
got to make some adjustments as we go down this path and
learn--gain lessons learned. But we have today--even though we
have only awarded 20, we have some 700 RFPs on the street for
utility privatization.
On these State Historic Program Offices, the so-called
SHPOs, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation--
presidential commission--has just, with the approval of the
president--the president has just issued an executive order
granting for the first time the Secretary of Defense a voting
seat at the table. My Principal Deputy, Philip Grone, sits in
that chair on behalf of me and the Secretary, and we are
working to address some of the issues that you and I have
talked about in the past of difficulties that some installation
commanders face with respect to buildings 50 years or more--
years older or more.
Mr. Hobson. And those coming on-line.
How are you going to do this? Mr. Prosch first?
Mr. DuBois. No, Mr. Johnson is senior.
Mr. Hobson. He is senior? Okay; we do not want to get in
the middle of that. [Laughter.]
Statement of H.T. Johnson
Mr. Johnson. Senior in rank only, if I may speak, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we are very proud
of the leadership you have shown in privatization. Hopefully,
you will see that we have followed your lead and done well.
And in privatization of projects, we want them to meet
several objectives: first to be self-sustaining with long-term
recapitalizations without adding additional money. We would
like there to be a self-sustaining entitlement and good home
for all of our sailors and Marines.
Secondly, we want it to be legally--we want to have a
legally recognized voice in key decisions. We are a partner in
the partnerships.
Thirdly, we would like to have flexibility to accommodate
unforeseen changes in the future.
Fourthly, protection of government interest in case of
default. As a partner, we would become a defaultee--we would
get the default, so the government does not lose.
And finally we want to be consistent with deal forms. I
know, Mr. Chairman, you have listed your deal forms and we
followed those very carefully.
We used a two-step approach. First of all, we request
qualifications.
Mr. Hobson. Those are like Rumsfeld's rules, you know.
Mr. Johnson. Not quite as many.
Mr. Hobson. No.
Mr. DuBois. But just as important.
Mr. Johnson. We request qualifications and developers
present their qualifications then we select highly qualified
proposals--normally four to six. They provide more detail,
technical and financial, and finally we select a developer for
exclusive negotiations. We bought the vision of PPV, public-
private ventures, to fruition to provide higher quality homes
for our sailors, Marines and their families.
We have awarded eight projects for nearly 6,600 homes. We
have leveraged $135 million of Department of Defense funds with
$478 million; we have a leverage factor of 4.5 to 1. But,
again, we are a partner--equity partner up to 50 percent.
Normally deals work between 30 and 45 percent of our equity in
the partnership.
Going forward, we have exclusive negotiations ongoing for
two Marine Corps projects. One is Beaufort Parris Island for
1,600 homes, another is Stewart Army sub-post in New York for
171 homes. We are pursuing another seven projects for 12,000
homes.
Mr. Hobson. One of them is at Quantico, is not it?
Mr. Johnson. That is the next section. Yes, sir, year we
are going to take care of Quantico.
Mr. Hobson. If you do not, you are going to hear from Mr.
Murtha and Mr. Young, I can tell you that.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We have that under control, sir.
A second part, and Mr. Olver and I had a discussion, and I
did not explain myself very well. We have two challenges. One
is bringing sailors ashore in home port. The other one is
providing good homes for everyone.
The sailors ashore there are 31,000 of them. About 6,000
are in Japan, and they will take care of those, so we have
25,000. When we first bring those ashore--and I gave your staff
a breakdown of these--we will put two per room. The long-term
is one per room, using the DOD standard of 1 plus 1. But we are
committed to doing that.
In addition we have some 42,000 Navy, 44,000 Marine Corps
spaces that need to be brought up to the standards. So we are
working on a much bigger problem, but home port ashore is part
of it.
We are developing three bachelor privatization pilots, and
we want to work very closely with you and the Senate on these.
One is in Hampton Roads, which will take care of some of our
home port ashore. Another one is at Camp Pendleton, and it is a
small of Camp Pendleton, DelMar, the very southern part next to
the port. And Quantico will be the third pilot. We have some
details to work out when we come into you and get permission to
go forward on these privatizations.
We want to work with the developers to provide good homes
for everyone in our services.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you and the committee for your
experience, inspiration and encouragement.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of H.T. Johnson follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Geoff.
Statement of Geoffrey G. Prosch
Mr. Prosch. Sir, before I begin my formal remarks, I would
just like to publicly say thanks to your leadership. Thanks for
going to Afghanistan to check on the troops. And as I was
looking at the TV this morning, I saw 101st Air Assault getting
ready to fix bayonets, 10,000 feet, in the snow, fighting from
rock to rock, cave to cave, to take out the last of the Al
Qaeda zealots.
And this program will allow us to reward housing
privatization of Fort Campbell starting next year. What a
wonderful program this is. As I begin my 36-year Army service,
this is the most profound quality-of-life program I have ever
seen.
So thank you for your leadership. Thank you for the
Committee.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I think anybody who visits with these
young people realize that they are the best of the best. And
they are doing a great job, and this country owes them the
quality of life that they deserve when they return home. And
they need to know that their families are safe when they are
gone, because if they are worried about their families' safety
and the quality of life or not having the money to pay for this
or that, then we are going to have, you know, we are going to
have a problem with the people out there.
But we do not have that today. All the people I met, and
John met, when we were there, were very motivated and they knew
their mission. They were trained for their mission and they are
carrying it out.
I am sorry I interrupted you.
Mr. Prosch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you to discuss the Army's residential communities
initiative (RCI) of family housing privatization. I have
provided a detailed written statement for the record, but I
would like to speak briefly about several important aspects of
our program.
I would like to cover three topics: status of the program,
summary of the budget and our key lessons learned.
As you know, RCI projects are complex, multibillion dollar
partnerships that will provide quality communities for our
soldiers and their families. The RCI program is giving us the
opportunity to provide modern homes to Army families much
sooner than traditional military construction methods.
Regarding the status of RCI, our national initial projects
are showing very positive results. The RCI program will
encompass privatization of over 60,000 family housing units in
the United States through fiscal year 2004. Through the RCI
process we attract world-class developers to partner with the
Army, negotiate sound business agreements and increase the
well-being of our soldiers and their families.
I am delighted to report that our first project at Fort
Carson, Colorado, is three months ahead of schedule. We have
338 junior enlisted families in new homes and 500 more families
in newly renovated homes. To date, the Fort Carson development
partner has awarded $64 million in contracts to local
businesses. And we have received very positive feedback in
recent meetings with the Fort Carson families and the Colorado
Springs Chamber of Commerce.
In October of 2001, the Army awarded our RCI project to
Fort Hood, Texas; the largest housing privatization project in
the Department of Defense to date. This projects involves the
renovation and construction of over 5,900 homes for Army
families and provides $2 billion in development over the life
of the project. Our Fort Hood private partner has already
awarded over $9 million in total contracts, of which 82 percent
went to local businesses. And they expect to award more than
$100 million in local contracts over the next five years.
Great progress has also been made with the projects at Fort
Lewis, Washington, and Fort Meade, Maryland. Working closely
with the Army----
Mr. Hobson. You might say on Fort Meade, it is about time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Prosch. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Amen.
Working closely with the Army, our development partners
recently completed plans for construction, financing and
operations to the life of the projects. The Army will transfer
assets and operations to the development partners this spring
at Fort Lewis and Fort Meade.
And, Mr. Chairman, we would like to invite you to those
groundbreaking ceremonies.
Twenty additional projects will be initiated between fiscal
year 2002 and fiscal year 2004. We have completed the first
stage of the solicitation and have identified eight developers
to bid on the next four projects at Forts Bragg, Campbell,
Stewart and Pope. In addition, we have solicitations well under
way for new projects in California, New York, New Jersey,
Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia.
My next topic is our budget. To maintain our momentum, we
have requested $25.9 million for program operations in 2003.
These funds are critical to enable us to manage and oversee the
first four privatized projects, which support 15,700 families;
continue development on the nine fiscal year 2002 projects,
which are 20,300 families; start development at the five fiscal
year 2003 projects, which is 17,400 families; and begin site
studies for six fiscal year 2004 projects, which will touch
10,800 families.
With the above projects, we will initiate housing
privatization to provide better quality homes for over 60,000
Army families. This fiscal year 2003 budget request also
includes $153.5 million for the Army's investment cost for five
additional projects.
I would like to conclude by highlighting some of our
lessons learned. First, the RCI program enhances civil and
military relations and is good for local businesses. Over 70
percent of the developers' contracts are awarded to local and
small businesses.
Second, early and continuous coordination with Army
families, local governments, schools and chambers of commerce
is essential.
Third, our private industry experts provide knowledge and
experience not available in the Army. They add value to the
projects and help us negotiate better deals.
Next, our streamline procurement process encourages
competition and saves money.
Additionally, our projects employ a lockbox concept, which
controls and prioritizes the use of project income to ensure
that Army interests are provided for before the developer
receives any profits.
And finally, we will continue to monitor and apply lessons
learned. We will host our fourth Army lessons learned
conference in Atlanta in April. And in summary, the RCI process
has improved and we are accelerating the program.
In conclusion, Army family housing privatization is a
success story. Your investment, sir, of $62 million for the
first four Army privatization projects is generating over $1
billion in private sector funding of family housing
construction and renovation in the initial development phase
alone.
With the combination of housing allowance increases,
additional military construction and privatization, we are on
target to eliminate inadequate Army family housing by 2007;
three years sooner than we reported last year. Your support of
our fiscal year 2003 Army family housing budget request is
absolutely critical to the continued success of this
initiative.
We are very grateful for your past support. And we look
forward to working closely with you and your able staff to
provide our soldiers and their families the quality residential
communities they deserve.
And, Mr. Hobson, I will always remember this motto: Quality
of life first.
This concludes my statement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Geoffrey G. Prosch follows:]
Mr. Edwards [presiding]. What I would like to do now is, by
unanimous consent, agree to quadruple the budget for all
privatization----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Do I hear any objections?
Chairman Hobson had an important errand for a few minutes,
and I thank you, sir, for your leadership and your testimony
today.
Mr. Dishner.
Statement of Jimmy G. Dishner
Mr. Dishner. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Edwards and members of the
committee, we appreciate the opportunity to find the time to
discuss with you the Air Force's continuing efforts to seek
private sector investment in our family housing modernization
program.
When we testified in 1996, we considered then and now
family housing a retention and recruitment multiplier. Adequate
housing is important to the morale and the whole way of life of
our people and their families, especially in light of the
frequent deployments in the current war on terrorism.
The Air Force is very appreciative of this Committee's
continued support of our uniformed members and their families
by supporting our family housing program both through
traditional Military Construction (MILCON) and through the
privatization authority granted additionally, as you recall, in
1996.
While this program benefits all military members and their
families, it is targeted mainly toward our enlisted members who
occupy 83 percent of government-controlled housing.
President Bush made it clear when he signed the Defense
Appropriations bill in January of this year that he continues
to support critical pay raises and quality-of-life programs for
our military members and their family. Better housing is one of
those quality-of-life programs.
The Air Force is committed to maintaining a high level of
readiness to respond to its many missions around the world that
supports the United State national objectives. However, the
constant high operational tempo and frequent deployments
undermine our authority to recruit and retain high-quality
people. This directly impacts readiness.
I accompanied Congressman Weldon of Pennsylvania to many
services' bases. It showed that housing remains a primary
concern of all our military men and women. They want quality,
affordable housing and a safe living environment for themselves
and their families.
This is particularly important when our operational tempo
requires frequent and often extended family separations. For
this reason, family housing privatization is an important tool
the Air Force uses to directly and positively affect readiness.
The extension of the housing privatization authority
through 2012 gives us an excellent opportunity to fully realize
the benefits from this approach to achieve adequate housing.
The United States Air Force is the most technologically
advanced and powerful aerospace force in the world today. To
maintain this strategic advantage, we must take care of our
people.
To meet these daunting challenges and leverage our limited
resources to meet people, readiness and modernization needs we
constantly look for better business practices. Housing
privatization prudently applied is one such tool in our
toolbox. The challenge is still significant, as some 46,000 of
the Air Force's 103,000 housing units remain inadequate.
Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has published a family housing
master plan to guide its housing investments. The plan is a
corporate, requirements-based housing investment strategy that
integrates and prioritizes traditional construction and
operation maintenance funding with private sector financing
with a single road map. Our latest plan will be published later
this year to provide the road map for the future.
Since the plan was first published in August 1999, the Air
Force has proceeded on a path of a measured balance approach to
housing privatization. I draw your attention that when 1996,
when the law was first passed, this was referred to as a family
housing privatization test. And we found--realized after the
two years, and maximum of three years, that, in fact, the test
was working and we ought to go that route; very significant.
We started with a few select projects looking for successes
and best practices before expanding our efforts. We continue to
learn valuable lessons and are applying them to future
privatization projects.
Integral to this effort has been the establishment of our
housing center of excellence at AFCEE, the Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence at Brooks Air Force Base, augmented by
a staff of professional private support contractors. Our five
PSCs, private support contractors, are fully engaged in
developing the 2002 and 2003 projects and will certainly be
critical in development of future privatization projects.
Last year in my testimony on this subject I highlighted the
success our first privatization project at Lackland. Mr.
Chairman, I am happy to report to this committee that all 420
units of the late Frank Tejeda Estates housing project are
complete and occupied by Air Force families.
In addition, three other pilot privatization projects at
Robins, Georgia, Dyess, Texas, and Elmendorf, Alaska, are under
construction, partially occupied and making excellent progress
toward completion.
The Robins project is scheduled to be completed in June of
this year, three months ahead of schedule. Of the 670 units in
the project, 300 are to be renovated and 370 new units to be
constructed. To date, the contractor has completed 83 percent
of the renovations and new construction and Air Force families
now occupy these units.
At Dyess, construction on 402 privatized units is 70
percent complete. As of January of this year, 24 of the units
have been occupied. We estimate the project will be completed
in 2002.
The Elmendorf project privatizes 828 of units in the first
phase of the project. Of the 828 in phase one, 120 of the units
are complete and occupied. Construction is progressing very
well and the remainder of the new and renovated units will be
ready in phases later this year. Notably, another project for
an additional privatization of 625 units at Elmendorf is
included in the fiscal year 2002 program.
We were disappointed--I personally was disappointed, at
Goodfellow Air Force Base when we received an unacceptable
proposal from the city of San Angelo and the older developer of
the 801 housing there to our request for a proposal for
housing. If you will recall, Mr. Chairman, the 801 housing,
which was excluded by the 1986 law, which says you cannot have
leases over a period of time; it has to be scored in the year
that you do that. Here was our first attempt to try to pull in
one of those 801 housing and put it with the privatized of the
housing and reconstruction of the base. It just did not work
out. The numbers did not make sense.
So we are looking for that first project well in advance of
when these leases start coming up. They start coming up in
2006, 2012, 2011. So that was going to be our test there. We
are now looking for another one. We have 10 of those, by the
way, that are on the books.
All in all, when these projects are complete, the Air Force
will have 6,000 privatized units that represent a great start
as we continue to look for better ways to provide adequate
housing for our people through privatization.
For fiscal year 2003, we have five projects, which include
4,400 housing units at Cannon, New Mexico, Hanscom,
Massachusetts, Maxwell in Alabama, Shaw, South Carolina, and
F.E. Warren in Wyoming. We remain committed to objectively
identifying additional housing candidates.
In addition, we are vigorously scrubbing requirements with
our major commands and their installations to ensure we are
capturing other potential economic privatization candidates.
Let me make one final comment about our housing
privatization program as it relates to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) initiative regarding basic allowance
for housing, BAH. Congress has made positive steps toward
providing the necessary funding to reduce the out-of-pocket
expenses so that our service members can find adequate
affordable housing in the local community. And as you know, by
2005 we are working to reduce that to zero; no out-of-pocket
expense.
This and future increases in the housing allowance which
will cause a reduction--will have a positive effect on future
privatization efforts. As we accomplish updates to the family
housing plans, we will account for any potential variations in
housing requirements. And this includes the five housing
projects at overseas bases where some of our worst housing
exists.
Last week, the Air Force hosted a lessons learned meeting
with our five privatization support contractors; those five
that we have hired in house to bring the projects to us. We
hope to incorporate the lessons and make the programs stronger
by cross-streaming ideas and initiatives between not only the
support contractors but with the other services.
And we also support Department of Defense-level lessons
learned lessons to benchmark the privatization program and
evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
I might add Mr. DuBois has been very, very helpful in
ensuring that all the services share work together, and that
there are lessons learned in this. There is not one way to do
this. There are many ways to do it, and we have three services
doing the total of all those housing deals. Some are Request
for Quote (RFQ). Some are Request for Proposal (RFP). It is a
great way to do that. So we need to continue to share that.
I would like to mention just one item on State Historic
Preservation Offices (SHPOs). That has been a concern in the
Air Force for many, many years. One of the first projects that
we had in family housing, now privatization, which was in 1995,
was SHPO in Louisiana had stated that we had to put the orange
tile roofs on the housing because it was in a historic
district.
And when we read the law on the SHPOs and the designation
of historical properties, it does not say that you must do
that. It says you must consult with them. So we consulted with
them, and we built the roofs with asphalt-impregnated orange-
colored tile; a saving by the way of over $100 a square. A
square is 10 by 10 by 10.
So that is--they are great people to work with and I think
there is a lot more that we could do there.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share
with you the Air Force privatization plans. As you noted, this
is my last testimony before Congress, and in my 41 years of
government service, this has been one of the most rewarding
programs I have been involved in, because of the people not
only beside me but in front of me and those that work in the
building. That has been a great blessing to me.
I thank each of them. You represent the final step, in my
opinion, in stewardship of our services' resources, and we
thank each of you for that.
God bless each one of you.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Jimmy G. Dishner follows:]
OVERSEAS HOUSING
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. One thing you brought up that has
not been mentioned, and I am going to Chet for questions--what
you should think about is the overseas component of housing,
the overseas component of privatization.
I talked with the Army. I talked with General Schwartz the
other day, and they are pursuing a similar program to a very
successful Navy program in--it did not look like it was going
to--some of the structure in the beginning did not look like it
was going to be, but I think after the legalities of it were
worked out, it probably is a good thing. And while it will not
fit everywhere--for example, in Korea we do not have a lot of
accompanied housing and that is basically accompanied housing--
it does provide a model, I think, for--and I think Schwartz's
people went over to look at it. It is a thing that the Air
Force could look at some places.
One thing, staff reminded me at some point with the words
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) out there, I just wonder--
some people are going to look and say, ``Gee, if they do a
privatization at a facility, does that mean it is not going to
be on the list?'' And I think we have to be a little careful
about that, although most of them I looked at are probably
bases that are going to be here anyway.
But it is an interesting phenomena as we go through this
how that plays out in some of these things. As he moves out of
the sunset, I am going to give him the Appropriations Committee
coin here.
Mr. Dishner. I will trade you my tie----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. They had a privatization unit on Fort Ord at Sun
Bay Apartments. The developer bought that out, and actually it
was a really good deal for them. So you can have a closure with
a contract running, and the----
Mr. Hobson. Well, if they are a good real estate deal----
Mr. Farr. Yes.
Mr. Hobson [continuing]. Somebody is going to buy them, I
would think.
Chet.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could ask, Sam, do you have a time constraint?
Mr. Farr. No, I will wait.
Mr. Edwards. You sure? Good.
Let me begin by saying one of the reasons we can meet in
this subcommittee in a small room is that there are not as many
lobbyists interested in pushing for quality-of-life for
military families as there are when you are dealing with $100
billion procurement projects. That is why the chairman's other
Subcommittee room is somewhat larger than this one. And that is
why----
Mr. Hobson. Well----
Mr. Edwards. Understand.
And that is why I especially appreciate the leadership of
all of the witnesses today. Secretary Dishner, Secretary
DuBois, Secretary Johnson, Secretary Prosch, thank you for your
commitment to quality of life that we all know in this room is
so important for our readiness and capability of our military.
As I begin with thanks, as someone who has worked hard and
cared deeply about this program for six years now--it seems
like a lifetime--I do want to thank, on the record, the
chairman for his leadership in this effort. At no point did I
ever think he wanted to kill this program. At every point along
the way, I felt he was committed to seeing if we were going to
do it, we were going to do it right.
And as someone who represents one of the large programs at
Fort Hood, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for making it a
better program through all of your questions and all of your
focus. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for that.
Secretary DuBois, I want to especially thank you for your
involvement, as the Chairman said, in the Fort Hood project. I
know it is in my district. Sounds parochial. But we do have 20
percent of all the active duty Army divisions in the world so
it is significant to the overall picture of the Army.
INADEQUATE HOUSING
I agree with him that the project that might still be in
the debate stage had you not gotten involved and you are a
living example that you can have discussion and debate with OMB
and live to see the----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. And tell about it.
I want to go back to your testimony, Secretary DuBois,
about on page 3 and 4, you say there approximately 60 percent
of DOD's housing worldwide that is considered inadequate. And I
hope that is a fact that does not get lost out there. Over half
of the servicemen and women in our U.S. military, putting their
lives on the line when called upon to do so are living in
inadequate housing. And I think that is 168,000 units, as you
mentioned.
You mentioned on the next page that by 2007--or rather
2010, ``We are going to address most of the inadequate
housing,'' and that is very positive news. I commend you for
your leadership in that effort.
Let me ask you what we mean by ``most.'' Does ``most'' mean
51 percent of the 168,000 units what the present plans project
as being improved, rebuilt by 2007? And do we have a budget
projected? Could you project out what the budget will have to
be for the next five years, counting 2003, in order to reach
that goal?
Mr. DuBois. Let me address the first question I believe
that you are posing here, Mr. Edwards, and that is the ``most''
term.
When this testimony was written, drafted if you will, a
number of weeks ago in anticipation of this hearing, I was
still in discussions with the Department of the Air Force on
making--determining how they could reach the 2007 goal. The
Army and the Navy Departments are reaching it. The Air Force is
slightly beyond it.
I am pleased to say, and I believe that it violates no
confidences to say in open testimony, that the Air Force Chief
of Staff, General Jumper, and the Air Force Secretary, Jim
Roche, have responded positively to some of my comments and
remarks with respect to their programs, and working with Jimmy
Dishner and now with Fred Kuhn, as well as with Nelson Gibbs,
the Assistant Secretary, we believe that the Air Force's
program will be revised to achieve a 2007 goal.
I will not know that for certain until we review, as you
can imagine, each individual project to see to it. So the most
is really almost an assured number, an assured statistic.
Mr. Hobson. But the Air Force's number is not as high to
fix as the Army or the Navy's number.
Mr. DuBois. As well as the Air Force has the lowest goal in
terms of overall privatization of their total units.
Mr. Hobson. Well, they did not want to do any of it to
begin with.
Mr. DuBois. Right. But in this regard, the Air Force is
going to increase its goal, because they see the advantages of
privatization, in no small measure because of what has happened
to date.
And in that regard, as the answer to another part of your
question, Mr. Edwards, this year, 2003, we have a projected
total--and this is a conservative projection total--of contract
awards for over 36,000 more units, which essentially doubles
the program year to date up through 2002.
I have a chart here. There is a minor typo in it that I
will fix, and then I will provide you with the chart. But it
has all the projects that are listed for award in 2003 through,
as you can see here, May of 2003, because we know that there
are always slippage in this program.
The typo is the three California projects in the middle of
the top half of the page, Fort Irwin, Moffett and Camp Parks,
are all being grouped together as one award package, not Fort
Belvoir. So it should have been Fort Irwin with a double
asterisk.
Now, the ones at the bottom of the page are still scheduled
for award in fiscal 2003, but we wanted to be conservative and
we wanted to look--as I indicated, there will always be
slippage. So what I report to you perhaps in October, as I
will, in my quarterly report, we might see some slippage from
the top list to the bottom list and some issues in the bottom
list having been achieved. So I am trying to balance it out.
Mr. Edwards. If I use just simple mathematics, Mr.
Secretary, and take 168,000 inadequate housing units and divide
by 35,000 a year, that is about 4.8 years. That gets us out to
about the time frame you are talking about.
My question is, can we sustain? It has taken years and
years to get us to where we are contracting 35,000 units
approximately this year. Can we sustain that level or something
close to that in the next four to five years?
Mr. Hobson. We are going to find out. I think we will
probably find that out after this year. We have not had that
kind of thing before, and I think it is a question. It is a
good question as to whether, you know, there are going to be
some glitches here and there in them, some protests and some
things of this sort that go through that may mess that up a
little bit, but that means you got to do more the next year.
Mr. DuBois. Right. And you know that in--I believe it was
in 2002 the enacted appropriation--excuse me, 2001, was only
$45.7 million. In 2002, admittedly, a dramatic increase to $322
million enacted. Our 2003 presidential budget submission is a
little less than $200 million, but the Secretary and each of my
colleagues here can speak to their own military department, it
is in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) that they will
achieve this by 2007 with the appropriate amount of investment.
That is the plan.
Mr. Edwards. And how do we--and we might have to follow up
on this after the vote.
How much time do we have?
Mr. Hobson. Well, we are going to vote and then come back.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
I will give you then maybe some time to think about this.
If we are saying we are going to have all of this housing up to
adequate standards, but we are also talking about a BRAC
process to close down, I do not know, make whatever assumption
you want to make, 10 to 20 percent of the installations around
the country, then do we have 10 to 20 percent of adequate
housing at installations that have been closed?
And maybe we could discuss that either on my second round,
Mr. Chairman, when we get back.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, well, why not break now, and we will come
back? Because we have all got some more questions that we need
to ask.
We will go vote and come back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hobson. The room will come to order. Sorry, we had a
vote. Jimmy is around the corner.
Mr. Edwards. Well, I can continue on, Mr. Chairman, or Sam
is back.
Mr. Hobson. Sam and I came back. He disappeared. I do not
know where he went.
You go ahead until Sam gets back.
Mr. Edwards. Secretary DuBois, if we could just go back to
my point--and maybe the reason the term ``most'' is used is to
leave room for housing that you might not update because of the
possibility of a BRAC process. But I assume we do not have a
specific plan to bring every house at every installation up to
standards, knowing that we are going to have a BRAC round the
next couple of years. How do we square all of that in the
planning process?
Mr. DuBois. In the general sense, let me be perfectly clear
about this, there are no investments, MILCON or otherwise, in
our infrastructure, to include housing, which has been driven
by any considerations of BRAC. As a practical matter, we have
not started the BRAC analysis yet.
Now, I think it is important to recognize--and this is a
special aspect, it seems to me, of housing privatization--
housing privatization should not be viewed as either BRAC-
proofing or BRAC-availing an installation. It stands on its own
with respect to its financial construct.
Installations--and perhaps my colleagues might want to talk
about some specifics--installations that have had or are due to
have a housing privatization project, it is there because--and
it is in the contract--no matter what happens to that
installation, the developer says, ``This is a good deal for the
community, for the military first, and should that installation
be realigned, it still stands on its own, it is still a good
thing.''
Mr. Hobson. That is why I do not like to give guarantees.
Mr. DuBois. Right.
Mr. Hobson. Because some of these deals they push for that
guarantee. You have Carson. Carson has a $10 million guarantee.
And I do not think we ought to do that.
Mr. Edwards. Is that a buyout guarantee, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hobson. No. It is a mortgage guarantee.
Mr. Edwards. Some of these cases that we have 50-year
contracts that are locked in, and if you did have a base shut--
there are some areas, for example, in Sam's district that if an
installation shut down housing would be worth more than the
military could ever pay for.
Mr. Hobson. Well, all these have a deal written in them, if
I understand it correctly, which I pushed for, is that there is
a track out of these deals.
Mr. DuBois. That is correct.
Mr. Hobson. And that is why I do not like the guarantee,
because the guarantee hurts that.
Mr. DuBois. We object to guarantees per se.
Mr. Johnson. We have none in the Navy.
Mr. Hobson. Do you have any? You have one. We are very
unlikely to have any more. [Laughter.]
Mr. Edwards. I will pass, since Sam is here, and I will
have a second round.
But, Mr. Secretary, if I could just ask if maybe you could
get your staff to look at that 168,000 unit number and project
out through 2007 how much will have to be spent each year
through 2007 in order to get how many of those 168,000 units up
to standard. And I am not asking that the pencil be so sharp
that it be down to the very unit, but just a broad picture, if
I could, so I could better understand what the future holds.
Mr. DuBois. Very well. I will certainly do that.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
FAMILY HOUSING MASTER PLAN
Mr. DuBois. And I think it is also important to recognize
that in that world of, quote, inadequate units, some of them we
have demolished, some are deficit unit, you know, we have a
deficit in certain places, and some places we have more
probably than we need, and this is an interesting case-by-case
analysis that I work with the individual service on.
Now, each service has a master plan, and that master plan
is provided to Congress, and they are supposed--and it has to
be adjusted year to year, slippage in some cases, but that
master plan lays out how they are going to address, year by
year, how many units, where, to achieve this goal. And as I
indicated, the Army and Navy Departments' master plan call for
2007; the Air Force, I have assurances, will make that in their
next submission.
Mr. Johnson. The Marines will finish in 2005. When they
finish, they will have 95 percent plus of their houses
privatized, which says that self-sustaining entitlement, self-
renewing and all that goes with it. So there should not be a
problem going into the future.
Mr. Hobson. That includes Quantico, right?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will hold off until the next
round other questions.
Mr. Hobson. Sam?
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions,
both for Mr. DuBois and Mr. Prosch.
First of all, I want to echo the chairman's and I think the
committee's feeling, Ray, that, you know, one person does make
a difference over in the department, and you have made a big
difference in being able to break some rice bowls and push some
envelopes.
And I think those of us in Congress who are elected on two-
year cycles feel in some ways that we have to accomplish
everything in two years. So we really appreciate your
diligence. We appreciate the bureaucracy becoming more
efficient. And I think it takes leaders to do that. And both of
you, Mr. DuBois and Mr. Prosch, have been phenomenal in
responding to our needs.
But my question goes to the big issue of DOD. You know, we
have another BRAC coming. We also have a need for military
housing. And it seems to me that the right hand of the military
does not look at the left hand of the military.
In Monterey's situation, you have the Defense Language
Institute there. You have the Naval Postgraduate School, the
Fleet Numerical Weather Center. And what happened when Fort Ord
closed--because of DLI--Army kept some of the base for military
housing. That school was only at half full at the time, half
capacity. So was the NPS under capacity.
Both DLI and NPS are at maximum capacity now. The Army gave
away more land than they needed at Fort Ord. And now the Army
finds itself needing to build some more housing.
In this, I really do believe that there needs to be some
better gauge of total housing need for the military.
Mr. DuBois. I could not agree with you more.
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT
Mr. Farr. And I am afraid as each military service decides
what they ought to downsize, they do not think of what the
impact is on the other neighboring military communities. And
DOD, when they go into BRAC, ought to be looking at the entire
housing needs for all military services in a given region,
rather than just for the Army or for the Air Force or the Navy.
Mr. Hobson. Did not they try to BRAC Defense Lanuage
Institute? Was not it part of the BRAC?
Mr. Farr. Yes. Yes, it was suggested. And then the BRAC
commission found out that certain Senators wanted to move it to
Fort Huachuca. But that location, one, does not have the
infrastructure to receive it; and two, none of the faculty in
Monterey would move there, and third----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. And third, they were going to contract out for
teaching. And the last time they did that was during the
Vietnam War. They contracted with Berlitz and the regular
instructors went on strike.
So you know, there are good reasons DLI is in Monterey.
Monterey is a great place to have it. And I think that the Army
is now convinced that they are getting what they need out of
Monterey, out of the DLI.
But the issue of housing is still critical. I think we are
in a new era of housing. With privatization, we ought to be
building the most beautiful communities in the world because we
own the land, we own the zoning, we own everything. I mean,
there is no other area where you can go in and just build a
housing package like you can on military land.
Also, if that housing ever becomes available to the
civilian community, it will be more valuable. And hey, whether
you give it away or rent it out or lease it out, I think we
ought to be very creative about doing that.
So I think the question is, how do you gauge the need for
housing in DOD? And how often is the BAH formula updated?
I noticed that the BAH for Monterey, believe it or not, is
now $1,100 per month for a two-bedroom apartment. But if you
looked at the real estate ads in any of our local newspapers,
you cannot find a two-bedroom apartment for that price. That is
too cheap.
So how often is the BAH updated? And what is the--how good
is the comparables in determining that BAH?
BAH
Mr. DuBois. It should come as no surprise to you, Mr. Farr,
that when you first educated me about the Monterey situation,
in terms not what an apartment or a condo or a detached or
semi-detached house rents for, but is it available out there?
This made me begin to ask questions of my staff and of the four
services. I used to refer to it as the Monterey situation. How
many other places do we have this? How do we deal with this?
I quickly found out that when I took this job nine, 10
months ago, one of the biggest sore points between OSD and the
three military departments was called housing requirements
determination process. And I said, ``We have got to stop
playing games here. And we have got to start determining on a
more analytic, methodical way, what housing is needed, on-post,
off-post; how do these moving parts all fit together?''
Now, I have out for coordination today the housing
determination requirements. Each of these three gentlemen are
ready. We are negotiating some of the finer points. Now, it has
taken me nine months to get there, but I think we are very
close to establishing an across-the-board, standard way of
addressing this issue.
Now you can imagine, whether it is Monterey or whether it
is Wright-Patterson or whether it is Fort Hood, there are some
local, unique issues. Not the least of which is so-called
commute time. A, B--how wide an area does one take your caliper
and determine BAH? And is BAH the sole criteria? No, we have
got to talk about availability too. We have got to talk about
comparables. We have got to talk about all of these issues.
Now, there is an inherent conflict in the bureaucracy
called the Department of Defense. How much should the OSD, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, dictate to the services how
much should we, on the other hand, allow the services to do
independently of each other? That balance is always ongoing.
But this is an excellent example. And in answer to your
question----
Mr. Farr. We asked for this. We wanted to be, everybody,
consistent because we were having different things----
Mr. DuBois. So the new team has concurred that there will
be one approach, one set of disciplines, one software program
that we--will address these issues.
Mr. Farr. Do we need authorization to do that, or can we
just do that----
Mr. DuBois. No, sir.
Mr. Farr. Thank you. How do you determine both housing
needs and the buildup for the BAH?
Mr. DuBois. The BAH is adjusted and analyzed once a year.
But we are trying to tie these two things together.
Here is another example of, kind of, our bureaucracy.
Housing is in I&E. BAH is in personnel and readiness. Now,
fortunately Dr. Chu, Under Secretary of Personnel and
Readiness, his office and my office are practically back-to-
back. So from a physical standpoint, we also talk about some of
the issues that we share. And this is one of them.
So we are trying to tie it together.
Mr. Farr. It will be interesting how you tie that together.
I would be curious.
Let me ask Mr. Prosch--first of all, thank you for all of
your assistance to our community. You have been really a can-
do, positive voice my military community.
From your testimony here, you, ``Utilizing lessons learned
from all housing privatization projects, we will continue to
shorten the amount of time required to complete a project and
reduce the costs associated with each project.''
Can you go over a little bit of the time line for the RCI
for the military community?
Mr. Chairman, you may remember from your visit to Fort Ord
that the Army did not retain enough housing property. What they
did retain is marginal. I would not want to live in any of that
housing. I think they ought to just tear it down.
So the military really does want to build some new housing
both there and the Presidio in Monterey, the DLI, and they have
gone to an RCI. But I understand it is going to be 18 months
before the contract is signed, and even longer before the
ground is broken. It seems to me that is a long process. And
what does the Army intend to do in the meantime to house its
personnel?
I also understand you are going to do a land swap. You are
interested in obtaining a parcel of land commonly know as the
Stilwell Kidney. That has already been conveyed to the city of
Seaside. And they agreed to swap for another adjacent owned
Army land.
But my understanding is that this land would come part of
the Army's RCI program to create new housing for the expanded
mission of DLI, but when does the Army intend to ask for
legislative authority to swap that land--and do you need it? If
not this year, how can a proper contract for RCI projects be
let if it does not include the housing that we want to build on
the Stilwell Kidney?
So my questions are about the underlying land-swap deals
and the need to go forward in a more expedited fashion to get
the RCI contract let.
Mr. Prosch. Sir, good questions. Before I answer it, let me
just publicly thank you for your leadership. Obviously you have
got your head in the game with those detailed questions.
And we appreciate what you have done to support RCI. We
appreciate what you have done with progressing the Fort Ord
Reuse Authority to try to turn over the land there quicker. We
appreciate the public-private partnership we have with the town
of Monterey, which is a benchmark that the Army uses--we are
trying to seed the rest of the Army with that type of
cooperation.
And we look forward to being with you Friday in Monterey,
to help co-chair with you meetings with the Fort Ord Reuse
Authority to address these type of answers.
The first question concerning how do we speed it up, we
think we can. First of all, as you know, the Ord military
community is combined with the housing on the Presidio of
Monterey and now the Naval Postgraduate School.
Mr. Farr. Yes, let me really compliment you. This RCI
combined two services' needs to provide housing for both. It is
great.
Mr. Hobson. Why are not you using all those houses that are
standing there at Fort Ord? There must be--how many of them are
there?
Mr. Farr. Well, they got rid of them all. They do not own
them. Nine hundred.
Mr. Hobson. Where are they? They are just standing there.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir. They are part of the Fort Ord Reuse
Authority right now. And I will touch on that and that land
swap you are talking about, because there are some houses
there.
Mr. Hobson. I mean, what a dumb deal that was. There must
be--what?--half a billion dollars worth of houses or more
standing there rotting, not being taken care of. We put some
money in it to try to keep them up. Somebody took part of the
and did something with them, some church group or something.
Mr. Farr. Well, what we did is----
Mr. Hobson. But it is outrageous that those things have
been let go like that. I mean, it is just--somebody ought to go
to jail for that kind of--if somebody did that somewhere else,
somebody would go to jail for letting those things sit there
like that and go down. Whoever made that--why did they make
that deal? I mean, I do not know what is in that deal. I did
not see that--I was not here when that deal was made.
Mr. Farr. It was a BRAC decision of where the line ought to
be drawn. But somebody gave the recommendation to draw that
line and put, you know, put that----
Mr. Hobson. I mean, those houses have stood there for how
long?
Mr. Farr. Ten years.
Mr. Hobson. Ten years?
Mr. Farr. Unoccupied.
Mr. Hobson. Unoccupied. And there are housing needs all
over California. I have been harping about that for--since I
became chairman of this committee.
Mr. Farr. Well, what we are now doing is----
Mr. Hobson. Now we are going to spend more money.
Mr. Farr. Well, even the housing that is there that we
retained needs to be improved. And what is planned now is for a
land swap to improve geographical management of the military
compound. Remember, we sold the golf courses there and the land
around the golf courses has value for development for the city.
And for that, let me----
Mr. Hobson. We did not sell it. We gave it.
Mr. Farr. No, we sold it. As an enterprise within the MWR
account, the golf courses had to be sold. You cannot give away
enterprise facility. You can give away housing. You can give
away the rest of the land. But if it is an enterprise for the
military it must be sold.
Mr. Hobson. They will make a fortune off that.
Mr. Farr. Well, the point here is I think we are moving in
the right direction. We are moving positively by looking at the
entire military community locally and looking at their overall
housing needs. And now we have the RCI to do that. But it could
be caught up with this land swap and with just whatever
bureaucracy is in the DOD that prevents getting things
expedited.
So you think it will take how long?
Mr. Prosch. I think we can do it sooner than 18 months.
Let me tell you our milestones. We plan to select a
development partner in June. And that is when we sit down and
do our community development management plan--which takes about
six months--where we jointly, with the community, school
boards, your office, the Chamber of Commerce, to come up with
the best plan for that community. Because it is a 50-year-plan,
we want to make sure it is solid.
Upon completion, we will staff it through the Army, OSD and
OMB. And we hope to get that over to your committee to validate
in about 11 months, in February. So I think if we can sustain
the great teamwork we have, I think we can get that moving
quicker than 18 months.
Mr. Farr. Including the land swap?
Mr. Prosch. Well, concerning the land swap, that is
something that the garrison commander has proposed. And we are
looking into that. We are waiting for the Training and Doctrine
Command to talk to us about that.
I would recommend you and I get a briefing on that when we
are in Monterey on Friday. Because we want to make sure we do
the proper due diligence in the swaps in the best interest. But
if it makes sense, I think we ought to do it. And I think
together we ought to do it before the RCI developer jumps on
board.
Mr. Farr. Well, I think it has to be part of that project.
Mr. Prosch. Right.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Prosch. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. One of the things that concerns me is giving
communities--you know, taking land--Sam has talked about this
before. We give--we have land and we give it to a community,
then they turn around and sell it off and build stuff that
normal people cannot live in. And suddenly, we have given them
the ground and we give them everything else that goes with it.
And I am concerned that when we do this all we do is build
country clubs or shopping centers or whatever.
Mr. Farr. If I can just add to that, I appreciate and I
fully supported a public benefit conveyance and the economic
development conveyance. I think those are best ways to
stimulate the economy.
The difficulty we have in those conveyance mechanisms are
the related public policy issues. I have said many times in
California, this is the largest land giveaway since the
westward expansion in the 1880s, and there ought to be--where
there is learned public policy about needs to really fit the
social needs of a community, we ought not allow this
privatization just to go to the highest and most expensive use,
when indeed that does not solve the community's needs at all.
We have used that land for military needs--military
community needs, and that is proper. But when we transfer it to
these local communities, we ought also to mandate that that
land is to be used for community needs, not just for real
estate development for making a hell of a lot of money.
Mr. Hobson. Part of that may be that we need to talk to the
authorizers about the law. I am not sure that the law they
operated under before does that.
Mr. Farr. We need to reform BRAC, not the process that
leads up to what you are going to close or realign, but the
other side of the formula wherein once you have made a decision
to close a base, what you do with the land is more fully
addressed in the law. That has to be revisited.
Mr. Hobson. And that is part of my next question. Are you
finished, Sam?
Mr. Farr. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. Is that we have had five years of experience
under this deal that we are doing now, and do you all need to
look back and say, ``Okay, what is wrong with this law, what is
right about it, what do we need to fix?''
For example, I will give you one that bothers me, is that
at Fort Stewart I have been trying to fix a problem. Now, you
are going to go in and do an RCI, but it is not going to fix
the problem that is in the community down there. And yet I am
told that, you know, there is something in the law that does
not allow us to do what I think is good public policy for the
community and the base.
What has happened in the past is that people go out and get
VA loans, soldiers do, and then--because they did not like the
on-base housing or whatever--and then they leave town, and the
house sits there and deteriorates after they leave. And they
abandon the mortgage, because they are not liable on the
mortgage, or if there is, there is no equity anyway. So that
house is a blight in the neighborhood. And they have got a
couple hundred of these.
And what I wanted to do is form a housing--and the
congressman from there and I suggested to the mayor they form a
nonprofit and take over these houses, fix them up and lease
them to soldiers over a period of time, which you guys all
complain about that, that that affects your RCI, but you need
to have some thought about the community that you are in and
what you are doing to the community.
And this community has got a real problem with this real
estate within its community that could be taken over and fixed
up, because I do not think Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) does a very good, or the VA does a very good
job of, you know, handling these, because if they did, they
would not be all sitting around like they are today and be a
blight on the community.
So this was a way I proposed to fix it up. Now you guys are
going to go into an RCI, go in and put on all good base
housing, and still the little down there, Hinesville or
whatever it is, is not going to get fixed up. Oh, you are going
to fix up the base and you will bring everybody back on base, a
lot of people back on base, but you are still going to leave
this problem out there in the community, which I tried to fix.
So that is one area that I think somebody needs to look at.
And I think you need to look at some alternatives in the
housing mix to see what kind of deals work and what they do not
work.
And I do not know whether there is any new legislation
needed or not, you do not have to tell me now, but you need to
be thinking about it and you need to go talk to the guys that
do the authorizing to get the kind of things that you need. And
we will try to help and be supportive of that from what we have
seen in the real world.
I do not know that they go out and really look at these
things the same way as we do, because we are into the practical
side of it where, you know, we see the bricks and the mortar
when we do it. But they should be brought up to date as to any
legislative authority you need. I do not know what you need.
If you need it, Ray, you guys need to tell us.
Mr. Johnson. We need some for the bachelor housing, but the
family housing----
Mr. Hobson. You also need some salesmanship on the bachelor
housing, not with me, but there are some other people within
the services, there are some people within the other body, and
maybe even this body, that have some questions for that,
because it is a radical departure.
From the Air Force's standpoint, they do not like to do
anything that is not right on the fence, and most of these
barracks are not on the fence.
You could probably do yours in the Navy because you are
going to build some of the stuff that you are going to do. But
there are some inherent problems in that.
But you need to do some salesmanship because I think there
are tons of people who would really like to get into this and
could build them better.
For example, the Air Force has got a problem with one at
Lackland, a dormitory that has got a big cost overrun on that
we saw. And I do not know what has happened to that thing. And
then they want to build another one. And I am saying, ``Gee, I
do not know if I want to build another one if you cannot build
that one right.''
And I never did find my barracks. It is where the Burger
King was. But--or is now. We did not have Burger King when I
was going through basic.
But those are the kinds of things that we need to look at.
Ray.
Mr. DuBois. I think that the history of privatized military
family housing demonstrates clearly that when you try to
harness the creativity of the private sector you get a better
result, you save the taxpayer money.
Now, you have raised an interesting option, if you will,
link up. And this gets back perhaps to the housing requirements
determination process. When you have housing in the community
that is run down, but were it to be maintained appropriately
and available to the military families in that area, in around
Fort Stewart, Hunter Army Air Field, ought it not enter into
the calculation.
Now, does the private sector sit with the local
jurisdiction, in this case Hinesville and say let's do a
public-private deal here. And to what extent does the Army, in
this case, get involved? I do not know. But you have raised an
interesting idea that we ought to pursue.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I have been pursing this for about, I do
not know how many years now on behalf of that little town. And
I keep bumping into little head rooms every time I--bumping my
head every time I get into it. And last time we got whacked in
the process right at the end and the member got upset that we
were trying to help out his community. I do not even think he
represents this community anymore.
But since I got into it, I am not going to let it go. I
still represent them even though I am in Ohio.
Mr. DuBois. Who owns these houses? I have been trying to
fix this----
Mr. Hobson. The VA.
Mr. DuBois. The VA, they reverted to the VA because of
defaulted loans.
Mr. Hobson. The VA got them all. And they are just sitting
there. And maybe one or so be picked off along the way. But
there is about--there were about 200 of them or something, I do
not know, in this little town.
And I think you need some--well, even if they get the
additional legal authority, they have got to have the will to
do it. And I am not sure that there has been the will on behalf
of the commander down there and some other people to get
involved in it. And I--we need to start working on it.
The other thing at Fort Stewart, and all these places that
you look at, we are talking about housing. But you have got
another big problem, and that is the work force and where they
work.
I mean, you go to Fort Stewart and you got buildings down
there that--and that is just one. I could show you a bunch of
other ones. You all know where they are--where you have got
World War II buildings that have--that they will not repaint
because they have got asbestos in the paint--or lead in the
paint, lead in the paint. And it is chipping off and it falls
on the ground. And then it washes in the sewer or they walk it
into the building or into their cars and they take it home. But
they do not have the money, one to paint it even, because it is
a big deal to do that under all the rules you got, that we
probably put on you. And then to demolish it is a whole other
thing. And then you have got to have another--you got to have
the money to put those people in that you took out of these
buildings.
That is also a critical problem within the military, the
old infrastructure. Not so much in the Air Force, but it is in
the Army and the Navy that somebody has got to look at down the
road not too far. Because once you start getting this housing
on-line, everybody is going to be kicking you out about the
work place.
Allen, do you have any questions you would like to ask?
Mr. Boyd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. See how fast you got on?
Mr. Boyd. Pardon me?
Mr. Hobson. See how fast you got on the agenda?
Mr. Boyd. I apologize. I know all of us have the problem of
hearings. Some, Mr. Chairman, have more hearings going on at
once than others.
Mr. Hobson. I have got to get over there.
Mr. Boyd. I only have one.
But I really only came down to thank these gentlemen for
their service. Particularly to Jimmy Dishner, who I know is
leaving to go on to other responsibilities. You have served the
people of this whole nation well for many, many years. In
particular to me, you have served the people of Tyndall Air
Force Base very well. And I just wanted to come and say thank
you for your service.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONSULTANTS
Mr. Hobson. I have got one question I want to get in here.
And this is really a bother to me. Last year the Army requested
$30 million to pay consultants for the RCI program. The Air
Force requested $35 million. Both numbers which, I think, is
outrageous, just so you know where I am going. [Laughter.]
The conference cut these amounts by $5 million and $8.5
million, respectively, because the costs were not justified
when compared to the $3 million costs the Navy consultants
said.
So you get off pretty easy on this one.
But my concern here is, who are your contractors? What
services do consultants provide? What are the per-hour costs of
the consultants for the various services? Why are the
consultants managing the Army's housing portfolio rather than
Army personnel? What are the performance measures the
consultant must achieve for each service provided? And who in
the hell is monitoring the consultants? What are the
consequences to the consultant if the portfolio does not
accurately monitor their services?
And, I mean, I really think the numbers on these things are
beyond what I ever anticipated. I think you need consultants,
but I do not think the consultants should be in charge of the
program. The consultants were to be the people that you use to
make sure that you were putting the deals right so that the--
and to help you when you got with the negotiations with the
developers that you were not getting taken.
My personal opinion is the biggest takers in this thing are
all the consulting fees that are in here. And then we do a
reprogramming, which I did not like, for $8.5 million, which
just means you took money out of something else that should
have been done someplace, and we pay it to consultants.
I have got a lot of problems with the consultants, with the
competitiveness of how we are picking the consultants. I mean,
do they just walk in and we say, ``Okay, you are the guys,''
and somebody worked here before, and whatever?
I mean, that is a lot of money. You know, how many deals
did we do in the Army?
Mr. Prosch. We have six ongoing right now. And maybe just
one.
Mr. Hobson. We hear a lot of business and I think--why do
not--if we are going to have all the consultants, get rid of
all the Army people and all of the other people. And if we do
not--if we are going to pay all these consultants--you know, do
we need all of them?
I mean, one or the other has got to be in there, but I
cannot see paying $30 million to consult. I mean, it just runs
the cost up on these things.
And $35 million in the Air Force, for crying out loud. You
do not have that many deals. And the Navy did it for $3
million.
How many deals you got going?
Mr. Johnson. $3.5 million for the Navy.
Mr. Hobson. All right, $3.5 million.
Mr. Johnson. Sir, we have two ongoing, but we have done
eight, and we have got some 16 more. So there are a lot
ongoing. And we have our team here, as a matter of fact. Scott
Forrest is sitting behind me. He is in the Navy side, and he
has a staff of eight or nine or so. And behind him is Will
Baumann, he is part of the team, Basile, Baumann & Prost.
Mr. Hobson. Yes, he testified.
Mr. Johnson. They do nothing except work for us and other
government-type organizations. One partner works for the Air
Force----
Mr. Hobson. Well, you are making the other guys look bad.
Mr. Johnson. Sir, we originally had an audit firm, and they
had a different approach to life. We built this team, it is
doing well, and I congratulate them on the good work they are
doing. And we might need a little more money as we do more
projects.
Mr. Hobson. Don't you ask me for $30 million, you are not
going to get it. [Laughter.]
Because I just think somebody needs to look at this. You do
not have to defend what you are doing now, because we have
already done last year, but I am going to look--I am telling
you, we are going to look hard at it, because I think it is
outrageous that we are spending this kind of money on
consultants. And maybe do it in other stuff. I know we pay a
fortune to consultants, but, you know, all they are is ex-
military people that come back and figure out how to work the
deal.
Mr. DuBois. We are aware of the--as some have categorized
it, the extreme concern; others might say the displeasure----
Mr. Hobson. Well, it is not just me. You go talk to the
Senate. They got the same problem.
Mr. DuBois. Right. But I think two things need to be
understood here. We are monitoring consultant costs. I will
defer to my colleagues as how consultants are selected, but it
is important to understand that there are differences in the
way the services do business and there are differences in the
way that they structure their deals, and there are differences
in terms of how much in-house talent they use versus a
consultant--utilize consultants.
I also want to point out, Mr. Chairman, if I might--and I
will take the Army as an example, because they are carrying a
$24 million consulting unit, program to date cost, as I wrote
in my quarterly report--the first four projects--Carson, Hood,
Lewis and Meade--carry probably three, six, 10 of that $24
million versus all the rest of the projects that are in my
report.
Mr. Hobson. They are in infancy. The rest of them are in an
infancy stage. It does not take a whole lot to do them at this
point.
Mr. DuBois. Well----
Mr. Hobson. Carson is not fair because Carson is not an RCI
project, and you guys keep doing that, and I am tired of that.
Because when it goes good you call it RCI; when it did not go
good you call it--what is the name you had for it? What is it?
Mr. DuBois. Capital Venture Initiative (CVI).
Mr. Hobson. CVI. You know, when it was not going right it
was CVI and it is not part of RCI. Then it got good, and then
guys go and give speeches and say, ``Man, is RCI working. It is
the most terrific thing since sliced bread.'' You know, come
on, either call it one thing or another, you know.
When it went back for reprogramming it was called--it was
not called RCI. So, you know, let's call apples to apples here.
Now, it is turning out to be an okay project, second time
around, and if you want to call it RCI, fine, now, because it
is going good, but that was not what it was--that was not the
way it was originally done; you had a whole different concept,
there were whole different people involved in it. You took them
out, put them back in, the Corps was one in and one in, and now
the Corps is in or out, I do not know where it is. That is
another problem with me.
You know, what is going to happen if the $8.5 million is
not approved? Will you get new consultants or have you already
paid them?
Mr. Dishner. No, sir, we would reevaluate then. And we will
not be defensive, because I do not think there is any reason
for us to be defensive.
But I think to go back to the bases, our premise in the Air
Force has always been, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to develop
that expertise in the government. This is a nongovernment
expertise. So we want to bring in those consultants to do it,
and when their job is done they go home. Otherwise, we are
hiring government employees to be entrepreneurs, and we just
felt that there is no need to do that.
Now, if the numbers are too high, we look at it, we say if
we go MILCON our consultant fees, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command (NAVFAC) and the Corps of Engineers, there is no spear,
no barb whatsoever----
Mr. Hobson. You might as well throw a spear at them,
because I am going to throw spears at them.
Mr. Dishner [continuing]. Is 10 percent.
Mr. Hobson. Yes. And that is wrong.
Mr. Dishner. And if we give the housing to the private
sector, we spent 3 percent, including consultants. I mean, it
just does not make--so it does not make sense. I mean, if you
wanted to use that just as your parameter for it. But again,
nondefensive, it is just that why develop a corps of government
employees to make deals?
Mr. Hobson. I do not want to. But $35 million for where we
are in the process is a lot of money for consultants. And I do
not know how many deals you got going, but that is--
Mr. Dishner. Well, we do--as compared to the Navy or the
Army, we do ours--they do partnerships--the Navy does, at
least, excuse me--we do deals up front. And so the bow wave of
those costs are up, and then those peter out. They are not over
$2 million to $5 million over the life of the project, because
they are doing all these--we are talking about 2007, 2006
projects with them and where they are going to be in the FYDP.
So it is not just the ones for 2003 that that $35 million
covers.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I have not seen any lessening in federal
employees as a result of hiring consultants, either in the Air
Force or the Army or the Navy. Now, if somebody can come in and
show me that, then I would be a little--but there is still an
awful lot of folks, when you look at the staffing of these
things, out there that are in the services, as well as the
consultants. And it looks to me like the consultants have been
laid on top of the other stuff, and it is a lot of money for
consultants.
And I--you know, I question, frankly--well, I would like to
see consultants that have built something, have somebody in
their team that has built something, instead of somebody who is
just a bean counter. And that troubles me sometimes when I look
at these consulting teams, they do not have anybody--and one
general got mad at me one day when he came in because I kept
questioning the two guys who were with him rather than him, and
I know he would never build anything, and I wanted to know that
they had leased something, they had built something, they had
some experience other than just sitting in a room and reviewing
a document.
And that does not mean that that is going to be perfect,
but the underwriting of these by these consultants I think is
very important, but I did not want the consultants to become
the major fund-raising organization for accountants.
Mr. DuBois. I think one more clarification, at least in my
own mind, the budget request for privatization support costs,
you know, include other things than consultants, too. So the
environmental compliance with National Environment Policy Act
(NEPA) is an expense, not an insignificant expense. The
appraisals when we go through these kinds of programs. Post-
award portfolio management. There are a number of other pieces
to the budget request not just----
Mr. Hobson. All I see is $35 million.
Mr. DuBois. I know. And so we owe you a better breakdown of
how those--you know, NEPA, which is a requirement, we cannot
escape it, is not an insignificant cost when you go through
these projects.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I just want to make sure OSD is reviewing
these and make sure that we are not, you know, overpaying
consultants.
And I understand--I do not want to build a big
infrastructure inside the services either, but some of them
already got it.
Chet, you have a question?
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, any other questions except one I
will submit in writing.
But I am a long-time enthusiastic supporter of
privatization. I think it is really going to make a difference
in the quality of life in military families.
I have seen one systemic problem that I appreciate
Secretary DuBois, you are looking at such an approach, that I
think could affect Fort Campbell, Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart at
the least, and perhaps some of these others on the list on the
line for privatization.
And that is, because of the size--normally the size of the
Fort Hood project, many of the homes, as you know, they were
tearing down a wall and turning a two-bedroom home, with maybe
no children or one child there to a three- or four-bedroom home
where now there are three, four, who knows, five children.
SCHOOLS
The local school district has done some very detailed
demographic analysis to determine they are going to need three
new public schools at Fort Hood very, very quickly. The
community, which is low-income, below the average median income
in Texas, just passed a $100 million school bond program. I
think they included funds in that for, perhaps, building two or
three schools, but they need help building the third school.
To be fair, ultimately the school district will benefit
moving part A to part B impact aid students. On-post will be
part A. But there is no help under the present program for
construction costs in the schools.
The practical result would be this: While we are trying to
improve morale--that is the goal of this whole program--you end
up having to send first, second and third graders along with
kindergarteners off-post to a school halfway across town with
new security arrangements where it is harder to get on and off-
post. You could undermine the very morale of the service
families that we are trying to help.
And if there is any way the two of you could look at that
and see if there is some approach to solving that problem, I
would appreciate it.
Again, it might help us plan ahead as we look at the other
major projects like this. You know, one possibility--I talked
to General Ellis about this one point--is maybe as BAH is
increased--and I appreciate the administration's leadership on
that--you know, that brings some extra revenues in to the deal
where a school could be considered as a possible development
with those funds.
And if that is a possibility, do we need to change
authorizing language in any way to allow that?
If you can look to Fort Hood as an example of that problem,
or if you have some thoughts already that flow from that today.
If not, if you could look at it in the weeks ahead, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Prosch. Sir, a good question.
Before I answer, though, I would like to thank you publicly
for your leadership as co-chair of the Army caucus for helping
the Army at large and your great help at Fort Hood. We thank
you for the groundbreaking ceremony on Veterans' Day.
And your remarks of, ``It is simply a matter of respect,''
has kind of become the battle cry for the Army now, because it
is simply a matter of respect; if we are going to be flying
these soldiers overseas, we owe them adequate housing.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Prosch. I think the schools are very important. One of
the lessons learned that I emphasize is early coordination with
all the stakeholders. A key stakeholder in the RCI process are
the local school districts.
And we will take this on. We understand that the local
county is floating a bond to construct some new schools. We
want to make sure that we do our part in that.
In the past it is, kind of, been Army tradition not to
participate in the construction costs. But we have increased
the impact aid when the students move off-post. But we are
going to have to look at that and see if maybe it needs to be
changed because RCI is new.
Mr. Hobson. I think some of them already--did you put a
school in it? Somebody has got a school.
Mr. Dishner. We have got a school which--it was not housing
privatization, but the impact of having the school on the base
or nearby and the impact fees which is what really--it has
nothing to do, necessarily, with privatization, except----
Mr. DuBois. We did it in New Orleans, where we provided the
ground, the land.
Mr. Johnson. And we, too, provided the land.
Mr. DuBois. The authorization for housing privatization
does not preclude including a school being constructed in the
deal. The problem, obviously, becomes one of marginality and
finance. How much is it if you are--if you run every project
that is marginal--on the edge, if you will--but it makes sense,
and you throw a school in there, then it does not--do your
totals run on the other side of that line?
But there is no question in the 31 major installations I
have visited in the last nine and a half months, while housing
is certainly important, as is pay and BAH, 95 percent of the
time when you talk to enlisted wives, or you talk to the flag
officer in charge: schools.
Mr. Hobson. But we are not going to build DOD schools on
every----
Mr. DuBois. We are not going to build DOD schools.
We are not in the business of schools, but we are in the
business of being concerned about education of our military
families' children, as any American family is concerned about.
Mr. Hobson. But some of the best families in a school
district are the military families. They take more interest in
their children in school. I wish the other families took as
much interest as the military people do. But to take them out
of that school district also does a disservice to that school
district because they are some of the best people and some of
the best students in those districts.
Since you raised this question, I am going to bring up
another----
Mr. DuBois. These would not be DOD schools that we would
build were we to do so. It would be local schools.
Mr. Hobson. Well, because that brings me to another subject
that I am having looked at right now. There are--there is one
DOD school north of the Mason-Dixon Line left. Somebody is
looking at that right now. And there are a number of DOD
schools left south of the Mason-Dixon Line. And they were built
for a very good reason. This one, I am not sure why it was
built. But the rest of them were built for a very good reason
at the time. I do not know that that still exists. If the
reason for that still exists in those communities, we need to
take some other action.
Mr. DuBois. There is a bigger problem.
Mr. Hobson. But I want to know--I think we need to look at
why we have DOD schools inside the continental United States
today. I understand overseas, but I do not understand it inside
here.
For example, I have a school at Wright-Patterson that has--
it is--does not have any students from outside the military,
but it is a public school within the district. And it is one of
the better schools.
Mr. DuBois. What part in Wright-Pat?
Mr. Hobson. It is in the Riverside school district.
Mr. DuBois. Right, but it is on-post.
Mr. Hobson. Well, yes, it is right----
Mr. DuBois. Right inside the fence.
Mr. Hobson. It is inside the housing area. I do not--we do
not have a--the housing area is not fenced off. I am not sure.
But you know, I am not opposed to fixing some of these
schools up and giving them to the local community after we fix
them up. Because I think it would be important for the school
district to just say, ``Well, here are these kids you got to
take care of.'' And I think Chet is right about sending them
clear across the community.
But I mean, a school district that has got 5,000 families
on it, like Fort Hood does, ought to have some school close to
the base. And we do give different types of impact aid for
people who live on-post versus off-post and things of that
sort. And if that is not adequate, we need to look at those
numbers. But we do not, that is not our Committee. But we need
to influence the committees that do that, because I get
complaints about impact aid every once and awhile throughout--
especially from the Wright-Patterson area.
Mr. DuBois. Sure.
Mr. Hobson. You got another question? I interrupted you.
Mr. Edwards. No. I just appreciate the focus on this
because what is happening is that it is the policy of the
Department of Defense to have housing privatization. And it is
the direct result of that policy, which we support, that is
causing the local school district to have to make a massive
investment in new construction. And while Impact Aid will help
them with operation costs down the line, the construction costs
are a real problem.
Again, if you would look at that, then hopefully we can
come up with a policy. They already have, Mr. Chairman, several
schools of the Killeen Independent School District at Fort
Hood. So they have that.
The demographics astounded me. When all of a sudden you
went from a one- or two-bedroom home to three-bedroom or four-
bedroom home, all of a sudden you get a massive influx of
enlisted families with a lot of children. And it is just--it is
not the kind of planning process a community can normally go
through planning out 10 years in advance. This, kind of,
happened within a year or two. And that is why I would be
grateful of your consideration of how we can address that.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Mr. Hobson. I want to ask the Navy a question.
Does the administration support the process of privatized
barracks? And the barracks privatization initiative depends on
sailors receiving some amount of reduced housing allowance. You
got to calculate what all is going to go on here on the pilot.
And has the amount been requested in the O&M account for the
defense bill? Does anybody know what the costs are? And if not,
when are you going to make the request? And you know, how are
you going to get the legislative authority to do this? When
does your salesmanship start on this?
Mr. Johnson. First of all, the Department of Defense
supports it. But I would like to get Mr. DuBois to tell you
that. The--we are coming forward with a proposal for a pilot.
And when you look at total cost, it is less than the MILCON, so
the money is there, but we have to put it in the right
appropriations in order to complete the pilot plan. And it
would be a partial payment.
The reason for doing pilots is to determine exactly what
levels those ought to be. We are going to try to determine a
percent of BAH across the service, or a room arrangement, and
have one as opposed to several.
Mr. DuBois. We support the various options. And we have
left it up to the military services to pursue in a creative
fashion how they would address the enlisted and Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters/Bachelor Officers' Quarters (BEQ/BOQ)
barracks-type situations from the privatization standpoint.
The Navy has some unique issues. Sailors coming off ship.
When you and I were down at Kingsville, Ingleside, outside of
Corpus.
So we are working with the services to try to come up with
projects that satisfy your criteria and ours and the financial
offices.
Mr. Hobson. Since I kicked the Air Force and the Navy
around, I am going to kick the Navy around cross-wise.
You have got Larissa, you have got a request in to build
two flag officer headquarters. In that budget request, there is
$1.2 million for two houses. I think that is pretty expensive
even though--I do not know what size square footage those are
going to be, but I think that is a lot of money to build two
houses.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. As you know, we are supporting a
NATO obligation here at Larissa, Greece. There are several
problems. One, they have some seismic concerns, and with those
NATO houses we have to build saferooms. I am sure you have seen
those in Brussels and elsewhere. And the supporting items of
$300,000, that includes utility maintenance and site
improvements. The numbers build up fairly quickly. When they
only have two houses, of course, the overhead, as you all know,
is much higher.
We understand your concerns. We share them. We are trying
to support the NATO request.
Mr. Hobson. That does not do it with me. I do not--you
know, just because NATO asked for it--then tell them to pay for
the damn thing. You know, I get tired of our taking the burden
on this stuff. You know, we are supporting the NATO deal; fine.
Why did not NATO support us a little bit in this deal and get
some of our money back with their--because they do not give us
money back on this type of stuff, I do not think. But they
should.
I mean, if we are supporting NATO--as a matter of fact, I
would like a little support--better support from some of our
NATO allies in some of the things. When I find out--sorry, you
got me started on something now--when I find out we cannot land
certain places with the people we are bringing out of
Afghanistan as prisoners and it is a NATO ally, I get a little
uptight about that.
Then when certain people during--when we were in Kosovo and
Bosnia--sending oil up the Danube that I wanted to bomb and we
could not do it. And they are supposed to be our allies, and
then we are going to spend $1.2 million in their--in certain
countries, I have a hard time with taxpayers' dollars with that
kind of stuff.
So these people that write down little things around the
room, so write that down, because I am not real happy with
that. And it is not the same country on the landing; it is a
different country on the landing.
GENERAL OFFICERS QUARTERS
But, you know, fair is fair. And $1.2 million for two
houses, you know, there are not a lot of houses in my district
that go for $600,000--maybe in Sam's, but not in mine. I do not
have Monterey. And when they look at two houses for $1.2
million, that is why some of this stuff--that is why I want to
build--somebody, I forget who, Jeff, is building some general
officers'----
Mr. Dishner. We are down at Patrick.
Mr. Hobson. Patrick--two of them--I am glad to see that
starting. Because I think there is a tendency to say, ``I do
not want to build general officers' houses,'' and that is not
necessarily true. I do not want to dump a bunch of money into a
bunch of old crummy things. But to still wind up with old,
crummy things after you put $300,000 or $400,000 into it, you
might as well build a new one that is functional in today's
world, rather than winding up with a 10,000-foot house that is
not functional.
I hope there is still one sitting down at TRADOC that is
not done. But if you do it, I hope you do it with not the
taxpayers' dollars. They are willing to put $1.2 million into a
house. They have got $900,000 into one before I got ahold of
them down there.
But, you know, this is ridiculous. A general officer does
not need to live in a $1.2 million house or a $600,000 house if
we can build one cheaper--but nice. You know, they are going to
build one at Osan. They are going to build Osan, after we fixed
it for a lot less money than you guys wanted to fix it.
Mr. DuBois. That was the Ohio construction guy going to the
roof--
Mr. Hobson. That is when I climbed in the roof. They are
not used to that. But we fixed it for $800.
But anyway, I have a lot of trouble supporting a NATO
mission for $600,000 a house. And I think somebody ought to
look at that and somebody ought to squawk to NATO and talk to--
is that General Ralston?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir. It certainly is. But they are moving
their headquarters around in general. But we will go back and
look----
Mr. Hobson. Well, they have got some other problems in some
other houses over there too. The vice's, his house is----
Mr. DuBois. We will look at that and bring the numbers back
here. But we hope to be able to have the opportunity to address
this committee from a total MILCON infrastructure standpoint on
the budget----
Mr. Hobson. You may not want to go there with me on the--
because I am not happy with the MILCON budget.
Mr. DuBois. I know, but that is why we need to have the
hearing.
Mr. Hobson. Chet?
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment.
Secretary Prosch, you mentioned something a minute ago that
I thought was very, very important, and I would just like to
emphasize--politically for the future of this program in
Congress. You talked about percentage of the contracts that
have been going out to small or local businesses.
One of the things that could do as much damage to this
program as anything is if members of Congress think that, as
companies come in and as general contractor, they do not give
any support, any services, or any contracts to local
businesses.
You all know better than I do, there is a special bond
between a local community and an installation. That is a two-
way street, and you need to keep those relationships. I think
you have been emphasizing to the general contractors. But I
just would want to encourage that message to be sent out fairly
and repeatedly that, as they are looking, when they can find a
deal that is as good as or almost as good as something they
could buy in another part of the world, look at those local
businesses for partnership. That will, in the long term, help
quality of life for military families on bases.
And thank you, Secretary Prosch, for having mentioned that
earlier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hobson. John.
KOREA
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one thing that has occurred to me to ask, as long as
we have you, Mr. DuBois here, in the privatization of family
housing, we are moving toward having enough units and adequate
units for all the families who are eligible for them in our
system.
We visited Korea last year, where there are a fair number
of families who are there who are off the BAH and who are there
by themselves, and there is no--there is a very small
percentage of housing there for the number of families who
would otherwise be eligible had they been stationed stateside.
We have had them there for a very long period of time. And the
actual percentage of housing that we have for people is
probably less than 10 percent.
Do you know if there is anything, can you give me some
sense of whether there is policy developing, is there a
percentage of our personnel in Korea that we are going to try
to cover over the future which may not be the full 100 percent
of those eligible as families? Can you give me some sense of
what the policy may be developing in this area?
Mr. DuBois. The CINC, General Schwartz, has put forth a
proposal. Right now a company on command-sponsored tours is
limited to 5 percent, as I understand. And there is a focus on
taking care of that 5 percent who choose--you may be in a
command-sponsored tour, but you might decide to leave your
family back at Fort Hood, even though you are in a command-
sponsored slot.
Now, General Schwartz, as we discussed, I think, last year,
is concerned about retention and individual officers who are
given command opportunities choosing not to come to Korea
because of issues pertaining to adequate housing.
The CINC, General Schwartz, would like over time to
increase accompanied tours--although this is not policy yet, it
is his proposal--up to 25 percent.
As you also know, in Korea, the CINC, General Schwartz, has
a Land Partnership Plan that is a proposal to reduce from 41 or
42 installations that the United States military has to less
than 25. In exchange, we would receive host country's
construction for where we move those missions so that it will
not be a MILCON or a taxpayer-supported construction issue.
What we are asking for is certain acreage to those receiving
installations in Korea to allow for housing and other
construction.
Mr. Hobson. They just signed an agreement on it, did not
you?
Mr. DuBois. The agreement, I think, we will do formally
blessed and signed in another week or so in Seoul.
Mr. Hobson. Well, the only thing I--John has raised a good
question. The only thing I would suggest, and I said it when
the Koreans were here and Schwartz was here the other day, I am
not for giving anything back until we see some action on their
part.
In the past when these deals have been done, we do our part
and then all of a sudden there are delays and this changes and
that changes. And we do not wind up getting what we were
supposed to get. And then we have to make another deal and the
Army winds up with the short end of the deal again. And I do
not want to see that happen.
I put everybody on notice on that. And I know the person
who negotiated on our side and Tina is wonderful. But I just
hope that they have not--once again, I hope we do not wind up
we got out-negotiated again and we end up, you know, that we
have agreed to give up all this stuff first and then we are
going to wait for the other stuff. Because that is just not--I
do not know whether we have any oversight of that or not.
Mr. DuBois. Based on your concerns, as expressed to General
Schwartz when you were over there last year, he clearly took it
to heart. Because when he briefed me the other day, there are
triggers. If the Korean government does not do X, they do not
get back Y. It is built into the program.
Now, as I mentioned, in this program, it requires the
Korean government to invest no less than 50 cents on every
dollar--on every MILCON require dollar needed, they have to
come up with that or else we do not do it.
Mr. Hobson. It is a better deal than we had.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. May I just continue that? In your knowledge, is
the number of families--persons who have families roughly the
same percentage, roughly 50 percent or a little over 50 percent
of our personnel in Korea as it is in our whole armed forces?
Mr. DuBois. I am not sure I follow the question, sir.
Mr. Olver. Well, in the armed forces as a whole, we have
singles and we have families.
Mr. DuBois. I see.
Mr. Olver. And roughly the military personnel, 50 percent
or a little bit over 50 percent--I mean, it is moving steadily
upward a little bit, I think year by year, but roughly 50
percent, say, of our whole force. Am I roughly right there?
Mr. DuBois. The whole force is what, single?
Mr. Hobson. Married.
Mr. Olver. No, 50 percent of the whole force is singles and
roughly 50 percent have families, are married or have families.
Mr. DuBois. I think it is higher than that on the married
percentage.
Mr. Olver. Well, that is what I was saying that it is going
upward a little bit and steadily moving upward.
Mr. DuBois. Correct.
Mr. Olver. We can agree on that roughly.
Mr. DuBois. Because when I was in the Army many years ago,
there were--in the young enlisteds, 95 percent of E-1s, E-2s
and E-3s were single. Today that is not the case.
Mr. Olver. Okay. In Korea, the policy is--I think the
policy is that they may have up to 10 percent sponsored, but
there is not adequate housing for 10 percent and that is where
the 5 percent comes out. There is, in fact, only adequate
housing for 5 percent sponsored. Do you know how many are not
sponsored? How many people are taking their people--their
families over in an unsponsored way and they are living on the
community?
Mr. DuBois. I do not----
Mr. Hobson. Schwartz knows that. He has that number.
Mr. DuBois. Geoff, do you have the number? Because mostly
it is Army anyway.
Mr. Prosch. I do not have all that.
Mr. Olver. Well, it is some percentage. I do not know what
it is. It would be good----
Mr. DuBois. That bring their families over and they have to
put them on the local economy.
Mr. Olver. Right. They put them on the local economy.
Now, if you are on stateside, of that, somewhere over 50
percent of all of our personnel who have families, we undertake
to provide housing for them at all stateside.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. And we have inadequate housing of the framework
of 160,000 units yet that we are making major--taking a big
bite out each year. And we will continue to take a bite of
30,000 or so per year for the next several years.
But if you compare that situation with Korea, whatever is
the total number of families, only 5 percent of those are now
able to be taken care of by adequate housing and our policy is
10 percent. Schwartz would like to see it at 25 percent. Would
you like to comment on the relative merit?
I do not expect that in a forward base like Korea--except
for the fact that we have been there and probably will be there
for several more years. I do not expect that it necessarily
would be the same policy that we would follow stateside that we
undertake to provide 100 percent. But 10 percent is a pretty
damn low number and 5 percent adequate is terrible.
I am being given some initial numbers to try to assimilate
here that we do not undertake to provided family housing for
everybody. But if they did not have some opportunities out
there on the economy with the BAH, then we probably would be
trying to provide them. If we are in a place where there is no
housing out there on the economy, we would be trying--it is our
policy to provide 100 percent in such circumstances.
Mr. DuBois. That is really in the United States. The
number----
Mr. Olver. In the United States. I am trying to get a
balance here, get your sense of where our policy is headed. It
seems to me that 5 or 10 percent in Korea is a very poor--is a
very low aspiration.
Mr. DuBois. Understandable that it is a low number. I think
we also, as you pointed out, we have to recognize that 2002 is
certainly different than 1962 or 1972. The situation has
changed in Korea. We have an administration where the President
of the United States is--and a Commander-in-Chief (CINC) and a
Secretary of State who are committed to normalizing
relationships on that peninsula.
But no matter what happens on that peninsula, as you also
pointed out, Mr. Olver, there will be a significant United
States military presence there for as long as we can see.
The question is--the question you are posing is as we take
care of our military families in the United States, should we
not, as we move this percentage up, from a policy standpoint in
Korea, do the same thing? And the answer is, yes, we must do
the same thing.
But the policy of moving up accompanied or command-
sponsored tours is not set yet. What should it be? Five percent
this year, 10 percent next year, moving to 25 percent by 2020?
The Army is still trying to determine what makes most sense.
Mr. Olver. I was hoping that I might get some sense of
where the Army was headed, where you were headed with the
policy on this process.
Mr. Hobson. Well, they have got a problem. While I may
agree and you may agree on this, there is not unanimity within
the Congress in both bodies as to changing that position. And
we have had some great difficulties in trying to change that
number.
So I would hope that the administration would look a bit.
Because I think it really strains some families to--and we need
to have some salesmanship with some people, and we all know who
I am talking about, to try to understand that this does cause
some real strain on, especially young families at very
difficult times in their lives. Especially with not being able
to get separate rations and a lot of other things and e-mail
and things like that, which were taken care of.
But this is--John has raised a very important point that I
hope you all look at and we all try to sell together to the
people who are naysayers on this.
The last thing I really want to say to all of you, I really
want to thank you for Korea for what you have done in the
president's budget for the housing in Korea. It is far better
than I have seen before. And it makes a giant step forward.
Now our job, all of us together, is to collectively to hold
that.
Mr. Olver. It would be enormously greater--enormously a lot
easier for us to hold or to achieve an improved policy in Korea
if there was a policy set at the administrative level that was
clear as a goal along those lines.
And I was hoping I might get you to release something about
what the thinking is of the Department of Defense on the
proposal by the commander in Korea.
Mr. DuBois. We all know where Tom Schwartz stands on this.
He is a compelling salesman and has made a very good argument
within the councils of the Army and the Pentagon. And I--
Mr. Olver. Well, let me then, for what it is worth, put
myself behind you in this request.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir, very well.
Mr. Olver. And I hope you get a CINC that is as good a
salesman for the next CINC because we lose Schwartz in May. And
Schwartz has been a wonderful advocate for the Army and for the
troops in Korea who are the forgotten 37,000 people, including
the Air Force people that are there in the world.
And we do a great job of taking care of people in Europe. I
mean, we could do more there too. But comparative-wise, Korea
has been, kind of, the dog-eared place to go from--and it
should not be. It is not that--it is a good place to serve. But
it is not good when you are away from these young families.
And that is, to me, a very difficult burden that somehow
got placed on this place. And as long as I can remember, since
the 1950s we have been in Korea. And I do not see us getting
out of there any time soon. So we need to make some plans.
And if we did some of this housing, John, in a
privatization kind of way, we could then walk away from it in
the future if we did move out and let it go back to the
Koreans, who, if you look over there, they could use more--I
mean, every time you look, there is another one of those white
buildings going up.
It would be a good thing for their country and ours, if we
left there at some point or reduced our size. It would not be a
burden. So I will just leave you with that one.
I do think that the one thing we have all accomplished in
the last three years is a better--we have got everybody's
attention on Korea better than we have before. And that is a
positive thing for all of us.
So with that, we will adjourn the hearing. We thank you
all. Thanks for coming.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Hobson.]
Housing Privatization Budget Request
Question. The budget for family housing is $200 million higher than
last year while the military construction account is down $1.7 billion.
The Administration justifies the decrease in the Milcon account on
BRAC. Doesn't this justification apply in the same way to family
housing? Or should we assume that the bases with family housing
projects are not going to close?
Answer. First, I would like to make it clear that the reduction in
the military construction President's Budget request is not based upon
a future BRAC round. As I have testified, the reduction resulted from
balancing priorities across the Department. This included many new
requirements such as those resulting form Operation Enduring Freedom
and enhancing security at military installations.
One of the priorities the Secretary wanted funded is improving
military family housing. There is no correlation between the family
housing projects in the FY 2003 budget request and the military value
of an installation. They are based on need, condition of the housing
inventory, and whether our housing privatization authorities can be
used in a cost efficient manner.
In the House report last year, DOD was directed to work with OMB to
compare the current scoring methodology with similar federal housing
programs and to report the findings to the appropriation committee by
March 15. This direction was included in order to foster consistent
scoring principles.
Question. What is the status of this report?
Answer. My office has completed work on the report, coordinated it
with the Office of Management and Budget, and it is currently under
final review within DOD. I expect to send it to the Committee in early
April 2002.
Question. What are some of the findings of this report?
Answer. The report compares the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) with housing programs under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of
Agriculture. It finds that the budget scoring methodologies and federal
accounting procedures for MHPI are fully consistent with those applied
to these other federal housing programs. It also finds that the scoring
methodologies and accounting procedures comply fully with the Credit
Reform Act, the Budget Enforcement Act, and all applicable provisions
of OMB circulars.
Question. What is the Administration doing to encourage the
services to develop capacity and expertise in housing privatization?
Answer. Through the experience of creating, awarding, and executing
the first 16 Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects,
the Services have developed internal expertise and capacity in
disciplines important to housing privatization. Each Service now has
experienced privatization teams in place with expertise in project
management, acquisition, financial management, personnel, legal, and
real estate/housing management. This expertise can be found at the
installation, command, and headquarters levels of each Service.
In order to maintain and broaden this expertise, the Services
routinely hold ``Lessons Learned'' sessions for their installation
teams, conduct ongoing educational sessions, and engage in post-award
or portfolio management. In the spring of 2002, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense will sponsor a third post-award conference to
assess the efficiency of the Program Evaluation Plan and Service's
steps to implement their own portfolio management efforts. The Services
use in-house teams to conduct effective pre-award and post award
management. When additional expertise is required they augment their
teams with consultants, particularly to provide advice on deal
structuring and financial analysis.
Question. Does the Administration support the Navy request to
privatize barracks? Why wasn't a request for the additional BAH made to
the Defense subcommittee?
Answer. The Department of Defense supports extending the benefits
of privatization to barracks. We are reviewing the specifics of the
Navy's proposal and working with them on issues such as paying housing
allowances to shipboard sailors; paying less than the full basic
allowance for housing to members living in privatized barracks;
identifying the appropriate construction standards; and developing
scoring guidelines.
The Navy is developing a pilot proposal for barracks privatization
that requires enabling legislation, which is currently under
consideration within DoD. Accordingly, it is premature to include a
request for additional Basic Allowance for Housing in the Fiscal Year
2003 budget. Any necessary adjustments will be reflected in future
budget requests.
Question. What is OSD doing to speed up the privatization process
so that projects are begun with more alacrity?
Answer. My office, in coordination with my counterparts in the
Services, continues to assess the Department's privatization program to
determine ways in which we can accelerate and streamline the process.
However, each installation is very specific and no one approach fits
all Services. The DoD housing privatization program had awarded 10
projects in 5 years (FY 1996-FY 2001), producing about 7,000
privatization units. Only one year later, we have awarded a cumulative
total of 16 projects producing about 25,000 privatized units. The six
privatization projects awarded over the last year has more than tripled
the number of units already privatized. We believe that we have been
able to accelerate the program because of the dedicated efforts of the
Military Departments, the Administration's support and funding, the
increased buy-in of installation stakeholders, and Congressional
interest and support.
The Secretary of Defense has accelerated the Department's goal for
eliminating inadequate housing from 2010 to 2007. Accordingly, we are
also accelerating housing privatization, but working to implement this
program in a manner that ensures high quality construction and
renovation of military family housing in an efficient manner. Some of
these efforts have included diligent scrutiny and selection of
developers, sound legal documents, and strong oversight and monitoring
procedures. We believe the program has momentum and Service project
privatization plans are moving forward. We are gaining experience and
moving out of the pilot stage into full implementation of this program.
Question. What is OSD's role in reviewing consultant costs?
Are you concerned with the costs of the Air Force and Army
compared to the Navy? Why did OSD approve the Air Force
reprogramming request of $8.2 million . . . funds that were
rescinded last year by Congress?
Answer. We are aware of the concern with the costs of
consultants hired to assist Services with housing privatization
projects and programs. Housing privatization allows a Service
to leverage scarce MILCON appropriations to obtain more housing
than it would under traditional MILCON construction. However,
privatization projects are financially complex; the Services
hire consultants to assist in deal structuring and financial
analysis. The cost of consultants adds to the total project
costs, but supports the Services' efforts to eliminate
inadequate housing by 2007.
House Report 105-647 to accompany the Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 1999, requests the Department report
quarterly on housing privatization projects' status. House
Report 106-710 to accompany the Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 2001, requests quarterly information on the
amount of money spent by the Military Departments and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on contractor support.
The Department provides this information in a single quarterly
report to Congress. Contractor support costs are listed by
project.
When examining consultant costs it is important to also
understand the larger universe of privatization support costs,
into which consultant costs fall. Privatization support costs
are used to pay for items which support the privatization
effort including studies, appraisals, post-award portfolio
management and environmental assessments in addition to
including the costs of the consultants who provide advice on
deal structuring and financial analysis.
With regard to differences among the Services, alternate
approaches to doing business and structuring deals drive
differences in the Services' privatization support costs,
including consultant costs. Different deal's structures require
different degrees of portfolio support.
With regard to OSD's approval of the Air Forces'
reprogramming request of $8.2 million (Congress rescinded $13.4
million last year from the Air Force privatization function),
we determined that the overall Air Force privatization plan to
accelerate the revitalization of their housing by 2007 would be
deterred by this cut. The Air Force provided documentation that
six of their projects totaling 3,929 units (Cannon AFB, New
Mexico; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Hansom AFB, Massachusetts; Andrews
AFB, Maryland; Hurlburt AFB, Florida; and Maxwell AFB, Alabama)
projected for award in FY 2004-FY 2005 would need to be placed
on permanent ``hold'' by this action to rescind. In addition,
the Air Force provided information to OSD that showed the
rescission actually cut more than funding for consultant costs;
the cut affected these other areas; concept development,
planning and oversight costs, and certain project management/
portfolio management; and installation project management.
Question. After five years of experience, are the current
legislative authorities adequate? For example, current law doesn't
allow for the services to purchase existing housing units off a base.
Therefore, at Fort Stewart, the Army wasn't able to acquire existing
homes close to the installation that were in VA foreclosure even though
the installation, the community, and the Congressperson were in favor
of the transaction. Have you considered requesting additional authority
for this type of housing ``deal?''
Answer. We are very appreciative of Congressional action to extend
our Military Housing Privatization Initiative authorities to 2012. The
authorities have proven extraordinarily helpful in improving the
quality of the housing we provide to our military members and their
families. However, as we gain experience with these authorities, we
have discovered areas that could use improvement. Therefore, as part of
FY 2003 President Budget, the Department has submitted to Congress some
proposed changes to the Military Housing Privatization Initiative
authorities which we believe will make them even more effective,
particularly in the area of unaccompanied housing.
With respect to the Fort Stewart situation, we are working with the
Army to understands all the details and report back to the Subcommittee
with a workable solution.
Question. In your opinion, what circumstances would prompt you to
propose using traditional military construction hinds to construct new
family housing versus the privatization initiative?
Answer. We believe privatization of housing is feasible in most
situations and encourage the Services to consider privatization at all
locations. However, there will remain some locations, for any number of
reasons, where military construction (MILCON) may be the preferred
alternative. For example, if privatization yields less than a three to
one leverage of appropriated dollars, or if the life cycle cost of
privatization exceeds the life cycle cost of an identical MILCON
project, MILCON would be the preferred method. Additionally, MILCON is
the preferred alternative in a situation where military family housing
is located on property that is not severable from an installation.
Fort Hood Housing
Question. It took almost five months from contract award to close
the Fort Hood housing initiative. What are some of the reasons for this
delay? Did the developer request changes in the contract? Were there
changes in the financial transaction? Can you suggest ways to
streamline this process for future projects?
Answer. The RCI Program allows for a 90-day transition period in
the schedule. The 90-day transition period begins when Congress
approves the project (and the Army subsequently issues the Notice to
Transition) and ends when deal closing occurs (i.e., assets and
operations are transferred). In regard to Fort Hood, the Army had some
extenuating circumstances that extended this three-month period to five
months. First, an environmental problem surfaced during the transition
period. Excessive levels of Chlordane, an insecticide used to treat for
termite, were found in the soil surrounding family housing. Testing and
remediation plans were developed, and the Army and development partner
agreed to transfer assets and operations October 1, 2001, thus delaying
the closing 30 days. However, financial closing was delayed another 30
days as a result of the September 11 events (our original bankers and
insurers had offices in the World Trade Center). The financial and
insurance markets were in turmoil due to the tragic events and issues
were resolved within 30 days and financial closing occurred November 1,
2001, five months after Congressional approval. In regard to developer
(and Army) requested changes and changes in the financial transaction,
there were no significant changes to the plan that was briefed to
Congress. In regard to streamlining transition, we do not believe that
the 90-day transition period needs streamlining. The development
partner is not guaranteed any work until Congress reviews the project
and a Notice of Transition is subsequently issued. Given the scope and
magnitude of these projects, it is reasonable to expect that the
partners will not want to start mobilization until they receive the
Notice. Also, 90 days is the industry standard for mobilization for
projects of similar scope.
RCI Program
Your testimony states that the RCI program will include 690,000
family housing units by 2004, which seems rather optimistic given the
current speed of the privatization process.
Question. Your testimony states that the RCI program will include
over 60,000 family housing units by 2004, which seems rather optimistic
given the current speed of the privatization process. What is the
Army's oversight strategy?
Answer. Yes, the Army's schedule is optimistic, but attainable. The
first four sites resulted in privatization of over 15,000 units. The
Army improved its acquisition process, and solicitations are currently
underway for 12 additional sites (an additional 24,102 units). In
addition, the Army has sites scheduled for solicitation in Fiscal Year
2003 and 2004, adding 8,178 and 14,692 units, respectively. Although
the Army has had some minor delays, this schedule is achievable,
subject to the availability of funds in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget
request for Army Family Housing.
For the Army's oversight strategy in the RCI program, a
partnership/limited liability company is formed at each installation in
which the Army is a limited partner/member. Representatives of the Army
and the development partner are members of a major decisions committee
that oversees the project. As a result, the Army contributes to all
major decisions in a project. In addition to the partnership and major
decisions committee, there are several other oversight processes in RCI
projects including the following:
The Army retains ownership of the land, and the Army
performs periodic reviews of lease provisions, including those portions
of the project operating agreements that have been incorporated into
the lease, to ensure compliance.
Residual government staffs at RCI installations interface
with the project staff and provide oversight of the project to ensure
all agreements are met.
Resident satisfaction surveys are performed by
independent, third parties.
RCI deal structures have the flexibility build into the
arrangements to allow efficient adaption to changing conditions.
Portfolio and asset management is conducted to monitor the
progress of all RCI projects including execution, finances, and trend
analyses.
The Army requires independent financial oversight of how
all funds are accounted and expended through periodic reviews of lock-
box accounts.
Question. What mechanisms have you put into place to measure the
results of the construction companies and the maintenance companies?
Answer. As part of the evaluation during the solicitation process,
bidders are asked to comprehensively discuss previous relevant
construction projects. In addition, previous business clients/
associates are contacted to provide an assessment of the bidders'
business practices. Subsequently, only those bidders deemed highly
qualified are permitted into the project's competitive range.
In addition to the detailed review during the solicitation process,
fees and returns for development and construction are controlled by
benchmarking them against current industry standards. Also, a portion
of all fees is incentive based and the measurement criteria include on-
time and on-budget delivery, as well as quality components.
Furthermore, all RCI sites have either government personnel or
third-party architectural and engineering firms evaluate the quality of
construction/renovations. Also, the Army's portfolio/asset management
program reviews maintenance and capital expenditures of the project to
ensure sustained, high quality.
Question. What types of reviews are in place to ensure the
financial transaction remains sound?
Answer. The Army is continuously engaged in actively monitoring
project financial stability.
The Community Development and Management Plan and the
final business agreements contain detailed procedures for the review
and validation of plans, performance, and expenditures.
The Army, as a partner in the privatization agreements,
maintains a role in all major decisions.
The business agreements between the Army and the
development partner incorporate performance-based incentives.
The project employs an independent firm to monitor quality
control in construction and services, and independent financial
oversight of how all funds are expended.
The Army maintains a portfolio/asset management function
to review project costs and quality to protect the Army's investments
and interests.
Last year, the Army requested $30 million to pay consultants for
the RCI program and the Air Force requested $35 million for its
privatization program. The Conference cut these amounts by $5 million
and $8.5 million respectively because the costs weren't justified when
compared to the $3 million cost of the Navy's consultants.
Question. Who are your contractors?
Answer. The Army RCI budget request last year for Fiscal Year 02
was $27.9 million. Included in this requested amount was $15.7 million
for consultant services (not $30 million). The actual amount allocated
for the Fiscal Year 02 RCI program (following a Conference reduction of
$7.9 million and an additional rescission of $.2 million) was $19.8
million. The actual consultant funds in the Fiscal Year 02 RCI budget
is $9.5 million. Jones Lang LaSalle, a global real estate management
and investment firm, provides real estate advisory and assistance
services to the Army privatization program. Jones Lang LaSalle was
awarded the contract to provide professional services to the Army
following a competitive solicitation through normal contacting
processes.
Question. What services do consultants provide?
Answer. Consultants provide private sector real estate, financial,
and property management expertise. Specifically, they provide advice
and assistance to:
Develop pro forma models and conduct analyses.
Perform due diligence (i.e., work with government
personnel at installation and headquarters to define the project scope
from a financial standpoint and establish negotiation parameters).
Evaluate development scenarios and financing options.
Prepare installation transition and performance
measurement plans.
Train installation privatization staff for deal
collaborations/negotiations.
Provide the private sector real estate expertise to the
government staff during the Community Development and Management Plan
negotiations.
Provide legal assistance for business agreements and
closings in subject matter areas of the transaction where government
attorneys lack sufficient expertise.
Review and assist in negotiating final agreements.
Question. What are the per hour costs of consultants for the
various services?
Answer. Rates are competitive with those of other firms providing
comparable professional real estate advisory services to the
government. The specific rates are business confidential and
proprietary and, therefore, will be provided to the Subcommittee,
Chairman Hobson, under separate cover.
Question. Why are consultants managing the Army's housing portfolio
rather than Army personnel?
Answer. Consultants do not manage the Army's housing portfolio.
Consultants provide the expert technical assistance to the Army's
portfolio/asset managers to ensure compliance with deal points and
agreements using systems, controls and metrics consistent with the best
practices of managing large, private sector real estate portfolios.
Question. What are the performance measures the consultants must
achieve for each service provided?
Answer. The government's Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)
initiates task orders that describe the work to be performed by
consultants, the period of performance, and costs. Subsequently, work
and deliverables are evaluated by the COR with input from other
government managers at the Army Headquarters and at installations based
on:
Technical knowledge and skills
Initiative and innovation
Quality of deliverables and other work products
Timeliness of work
Accomplishment of task order objectives
Cooperation with government staff
Communications with government personnel and other
stakeholders
Business ethics on the job
Question. Who is monitoring the consultants?
Answer. The government's Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)
is primarily responsible for providing oversight of consultant
performance and costs, and reviews all deliverables and invoices. Other
government personnel who receive consultant support also review
deliverables and work performance, and provide comments/input to the
COR. The Defense Contract Management Agency (Baltimore) also monitors
consultant invoices.
Question. What are the consequences to the consultant if the
portfolio isn't adequately monitored or serviced?
Answer. The consultants may not be paid for unacceptable services,
e.g., failing to perform properly tasked work within expected standards
and timelines, and may be terminated for cause if appropriate.
Question. The testimony asserts that Army consultants have assisted
with negotiating improved deals and putting more money into the
projects for Army family housing improvements. Please explain what this
means and give concrete examples of how specific projects have been
improved by the actions of the consultants.
Answer. Consultants have proven their value-added ability to help
the Army craft final agreements that have terms and conditions more
favorable to the Army and the project than initial, going-in
negotiating positions. As a result, more funds have been made available
to the projects for additional construction, improvements and
amenities. Consultants introduced concepts, analyses and
recommendations, and assisted in negotiations that saved millions of
dollars in fees and returns, which resulted in increased value to the
housing and community projects. Assistance with negotiations required
extensive private sector business acumen, in depth knowledge of
acceptable marketplace deal point parameters, and exceptional corporate
research and analysis to support the Army's negotiating positions.
Examples follow:
At all three pilot sites, final agreements reduced fees
and payments to the developer. At one of the three, the savings were
calculated at $70 million.
At all pilot sites, negotiations significantly lowered the
level of and preference and timing of the return on equity the
developer could expect. At one site, this return was decreased by one-
third.
At all pilot sites, the developer's share of cash flow
splits were significantly reduced. One example of the split to the
development partner was that it was reduced by two-thirds, thus
increasing funds for the project by millions of dollars.
The consultants also introduced the notion of the partner
debt being competitively bid, thus saving the projects additional funds
(again, in the millions of dollars).
Relative to other projects where private sector real
estate experts were not utilized, the savings to the overall government
contribution to the RCI pilot projects is at least $40 million.
Question. Additionally, the testimony states that the cost of
consultant per RCI installation is steadily dropping. What are the
costs of consultant per RCI installation to date, and what are the
costs of consultant per future RCI installation?
Answer. Project savings and cost avoidance, and an expanded number
of projects without a proportionate increase in program-wide support
costs, have combined to reduce consultant costs from an average of over
$4.5 million per project for the first 4 projects, to approximately
$2.2 million for current and planned projects. It should be noted that
consultant costs are a relatively minor expense when compared to the
total scope of these large-scale, complex, billion-dollar real estate
agreements. The Army team is negotiating with skilled private sector
development professionals on 50-year agreements worth $4-6 billion in
cash flow per installation.
Consultants provide the Army with a comparable level of business
knowledge and experience as that held by the private sector developers
with whom the Army must negotiate. This expertise improves the Army's
ability to negotiate with confidence and protect the Government's
interests.
Question. The Army is developing more in-house capability and the
testimony provides some examples of workload transition from the
consultants to the government workforce. What are the savings of moving
these responsibilities to government employees?
Answer. The Army is controlling consultant costs as the program
expands, and where appropriate, reducing reliance on consultants.
Examples of savings and cost avoidance include:
Transferred acquisition in support activities to a
government entity--savings of $130,000 per solicitation.
Eliminated full-time support to installation-level project
management--savings of $200,000 per project annually.
Reduced requirements for policy development/program
institutionalization as the program has matured--savings of $860,000
annually program-wide.
Converted industry forums to self-financing operations
through registration fees to participants--savings of $25,000 per
solicitation.
Expanded the use of government real estate specialists in
lieu of additional consultant support--savings of $150,000 annually
program-wide.
Reduced training provided by consultants--savings of
$140,000 per solicitation.
Applied lessons learned and standardized procedures to
reduce due diligence costs--savings of $100,000 per site.
Eliminated industry marketing efforts--savings of $315,000
annually program-wide.
Applied lessons learned and accelerated procurement to
reduce program management support--savings of $2,000,000 annually
program-wide.
Family Housing--Navy
Question. The family housing operations account has gradually
decreased for the last two years. Is the privatization initiative part
of the reason for the decrease in operations and maintenance budget?
Answer. Yes. The reduction in the number of Government-owned units,
as a result of privatization, accounts for approximately two-thirds of
the reductions made to operations and maintenance accounts in Fiscal
Year 2003.
Question. The Navy requested $3 million in FY 2002 for contract
assistance with the privatization initiative. Will these costs increase
during FY 2002?
Answer. We anticipate that there will be an increase in the amount
of privatization support required during Fiscal Year 2002.
Question. What are the contract costs for FY 2003, and will they
increase? Please explain the purposes for which these funds are spent.
Answer. $7.1 million has been requested in Fiscal Year 2003 to
support both contractual and in-house costs associated with the
Department of the Navy's housing privatization program. $3.8 million of
this request is for contractual support of the program. Contractual
support is provided mainly through the use of consultants. As with
Fiscal Year 2002 costs, there is a likelihood that our requirement will
increase. Consultants support Government personnel in the development
of project concepts, pro forma and lifecycle analyses, proposal
evaluations, negotiations and preparation of business agreements,
transition from Government to privatized operations, and development
and implementation of long-term management practices and procedures.
Question. What are the responsibilities of the Office of Special
Ventures and Acquisitions? How many staff does the Office have?
Answer. The Special Ventures Acquisition (SVA) office is
responsible for the development, management, and execution of
innovative acquisition ventures supporting all Department of the Navy
shore activities. The SVA group supports the Headquarters Marine Corps,
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Navy Secretariat. The SVA office
also provides liaison to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and
the Congress. In addition, SVA works directly with senior executives of
major real estate and financial firms and corporations in the private
sector to incorporate the best industry business practices in
developing programs and negotiating the specifics of individual project
initiatives. The office has a staff of seven, plus an SES Director.
Question. What are the similarities and differences of the services
provided by this office and the services provided by contractors paid
by Army and Air Force? Who are your contractors?
Answer. The Special Ventures Acquisition (SVA) office is
responsible for the development, management, and execution of
innovative acquisition ventures supporting all Department of the Navy
shore activities. The SVA group supports the Headquarters Marine Corps,
Chief of Naval Operations, and the Navy Secretariat. The SVA office
also provides liaison to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and
the Congress. In addition, SVA works directly with senior executives of
major real estate and financial firms and corporations in the private
sector to incorporate the best industry business practices in
developing programs and negotiating the specifics of individual project
initiatives. The office has a staff of seven, plus an SES Director.
Question. What is the Navy's goal for eliminating inadequate
housing? What is the Marine Corps goal?
Answer. The Navy will eliminate its inadequate family housing by
the end of Fiscal Year 2007. The Marine Corps will eliminate their
inadequate family housing by the end of Fiscal Year 2005.
Question. What is the cost of buying-out the inventory in military
construction dollars and through privatization?
Answer. The total cost of eliminating inadequate Navy and Marine
Corps inadequate family housing, solely through military construction,
is $5.2 billion. The cost of eliminating inadequate family housing,
through a mixture of military construction and privatization, is $4.0
billion.
Question. In conjunction with constructing a NATO Regional Command
in Larissa, the budget requests $1.2 million for two flag officer
quarters. Why is the cost of these quarters so expensive? What size are
the quarters? What are the construction costs per square feet?
Answer. The cost of these units is consistent with OSD construction
cost guidance. Factors influencing the costs are the size of the units,
the local area construction cost factor (which is 12 percent higher
than the overall Fiscal Year 2003 program weighted average), additional
costs related to anti-terrorism and force protection construction
standards, the requirement to use U.S. manufactured or factory-built
housing, and the small size of the project (i.e., quantity of housing).
The size of each unit is 3,664 gross square feet (GSF) (or 2,955 net
square feet (NSF)). The total construction cost per square foot,
including building and site costs, is $168/GSF (or $208/NSF).
Question. Has the Navy been able to meet its timeline for closing
privatization deals and awarding the contracts in family housing?
Typically in these deals, are maintenance costs covered by the income
stream?
Answer. For various unanticipated reasons, the actual execution
timeline exceeded the planned timeline. These, typically, were issues
that were not known to the Government at the time of concept
development and events, beyond the Government's control, that arose
during exclusive negotiations. Such matters included changes in lender
requirements, extended negotiations with local municipalities,
adjustments to projects (e.g., replacement vice renovation, siting of
new housing, etc.), and changes by the developer to the members of the
development team, including the builder, equity partner and financing
component.
In Department of the Navy projects, maintenance costs are covered
by the project's income stream. Operating expenses, which include
maintenance services, are paid, first-out, from gross rental income.
The income stream is sufficient to ensure that the housing is sustained
over the life of the agreement.
Navy Barracks Privatization
Question. Does the Administration support the request to
privatize barracks?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is drafting pilot
legislation that would, in addition to using these authorities,
include provisions related to the payment of Basic Allowance
for Housing. We are currently coordinating this legislation
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Question. The barracks privatization initiative depends on
Sailors receiving some amount of reduced housing allowance.
Have you calculated the amount of BAH required for the pilot,
what is it, and has the amount been requested in the O&M
account in the Defense bill? What are the projected costs
should the initiative be institutionalized? If not, why not?
When do you intend to make that request?
Answer. We are presently calculating the amount of Basic
Allowance for Housing required for the pilot projects. Because
we do not anticipate the award of pilot project contracts prior
to Fiscal Year 2004, the amount has not been requested in this
year's budget. The total costs, should the initiative be
institutionalized, will be dependent on the evaluation of the
feasibility of privatization at Navy and Marine Corps
installations. The Fiscal Year 2004 budget will reflect, as
necessary, any costs associated with barracks privatization.
Question. The barracks privatization initiate is dependent
upon a change in legislative authority. Have your forwarded
this request to the Armed Services committee? What is their
response?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is drafting pilot
legislation that would, in addition to using these authorities,
include provisions related to the payment of Basic Allowance
for Housing. We are currently coordinating this legislation
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The legislation
has not yet been forwarded to the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees.
Question. In order for the barracks privatization initiative to be
successful, additional BAH must be requested and appropriated and Title
10 must be amended. What should this subcommittee do with the request
you've made to us for credit subsidy in the event these prerequisites
do not occur?
Answer. Absent the legislative changes, the Department has not yet
made a request for a credit subsidy.
Question. Would you ever assign a family to a barracks and under
what circumstances.
Answer. It is possible that a family might be referred to
privatized bachelor housing in the event that there are insufficient
unaccompanied personnel to keep the housing filled. This would only be
done if it was considered to be in the Government's best interests. In
such a case, the housing would have to be adequate for the size of the
family.
Consultant
In the FY 2003 budget, the Air Force requested $20.5 million for
consultants.
Question. Who are your contractors?
Answer.
Privatization Support Contractors (PSC) who provide direct support
to the major commands and bases in developing the privatization
concepts and advertising the solicitations
--Basile Baumann Prost & Associates, Annapolis, MD
--Jones Lang LaSalle, Chicago, IL
--Ernst & Young, Washington, DC
--PSC Military Housing Company, Salt Lake City, UT
--Kormendi Gardner Partners, Washington, DC
Project management support contractors who provide direct support
to the Air Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) project managers
--Booz Allen Hamilton, San Antonio, TX
Site surveys, environmental baseline studies, etc., for base
privatization projects
--Atkins Benham, Oklahoma City, OK
Proformas, surveys, studies for base privatization projects
--Avila Government Services, Washington, DC
Question. Is this cost for consultants reasonable based on the slow
turn-around for these projects?
Answer. Yes, the costs are reasonable and were determined in a
solicitation for services using the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The
costs for consultant services are not based on turnaround time, but
rather are firm fixed fees for the defined scope of work to be
performed. The primary drivers on cost are the types of skills the Air
Force is seeking, i.e., private sector real estate and financial and
business deal-making expertise. Also, these contracts are for multiple
years, and do have annual price adjustments. Therefore, some
inflationary adjustments are built into basic contract provisions. So,
if a work segment is extended beyond the annual price adjustment date,
a slight increase in fees may result.
The primary cost drivers for delays are usually the need to update
previous products and analyze for current conditions. The most common
example of this type of updating is the economic analysis and proforma
to reflect changes in market conditions and annual basic allowance for
housing (BAH) changes. In addition, we also become more susceptible to
new criteria, policies and changes in emphasis due to changing
leadership.
Question. What services do consultants provide?
Answer. Our consultants provide a wide range of services from the
initial concept development through execution phases of the project.
Some of these services are:
Preparing proformas and other economic analyses on the feasibility
of projects.
Assisting the Air Force in analyzing various alternatives available
to maximize options to match project goals with market opportunities
and provide best value for the Air Force.
Assisting in workshops and meetings, providing expertise to
government leadership and decision makers.
Assisting in documenting decisions, preparing briefings, and other
administrative tasks.
Assisting the Air Force in the development of the solicitation.
Developing the metes/bounds and topographic surveys, geotechnical
reports, etc.
Preparing the Environmental Baseline Survey and Environmental
Analysis.
Assisting the Air Force in the solicitation and proposal evaluation
process.
Assisting the Air Force in finalizing the legal, financial, and
technical documents for transaction and loan closure.
Performing construction inspection of the privatized housing.
Administrative tasks ranging from arranging and facilitating Air
Force wide training sessions, development of execution guides, process
enhancements, website development, and updates, etc.
Quality assurance support in compliance testing, accounting and
financial reporting, document management of the executed privatized
projects.
Question. What are the per hour costs of consultants for the
various services?
Answer. Some of the more frequently used disciplines and hourly fee
ranges are:
Project Manager--$127-357 per hour
Market Analysis--$45-201 per hour
Financial Analysis--$103-201 per hour
Legal Attorney--$150-400 per hour
Real Estate Specialist--$40-275 per hour
Engineer/Architect--$75-201 per hour
Support Staff--$35-110 per hour
The Air Force strives to limit the hours required and negotiates
each task order with the consultant. Additionally, when the Air Force
has the capability to perform the service such as legal services, then
the work is performed with Air Force resources.
Question. Why are consultants managing the housing portfolio rather
than Air Force personnel? Who's monitoring the consultants?
Answer. Consultants are not managing the housing portfolio
function. The Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) has
been assigned the Air Force mission of Portfolio Manager. AFCEE has a
limited in-house staff of civilian employees with expertise in
financial, real estate, legal and engineering to execute the Air Force
portfolio management function. Therefore, consultants have been
retained to assist AFCEE. AFCEE functions as the agent for contracting
and oversight of the portfolio management consultant contract.
Question. What are the performance measures the consultants must
achieve for each service provided?
Answer. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)
contracts are executed through a firm-fixed priced task order with a
defined scope of work, definitive deliverables, and performance
periods. Standards for quality and professional products are specified
in the contract. The consultants are tasked to use industry standard
methods and tools, such as computer software, to ensure uniformity in
data presentation and ease of review, as well as Government tools such
as proforma and economic analysis methodology. Standards are also
established in use of generic legal, financial, and solicitation
documents to ensure a consistently high quality of finished products.
Question. What are the consequences to the consultant if the
portfolio isn't adequately monitored or serviced?
Answer. If a consultant fails to provide anything less than
acceptable performance, they will not get repeat work and could be
terminated from on-going task orders.
All of the Air Force consultant's performance are reviewed and
assessed periodically, depending upon the type of contract vehicle
used. For the Portfolio Management consultant, quarterly assessment of
the firm's technical performance, schedules, timeliness of reports, and
management are made. These assessments are formally presented and
reviewed with the consultant, to include problems encountered and other
comments/issues, as appropriate. The decision to award follow-on task
orders to a consultant is based upon several assessment factors. Among
them are past performance and customer input.
Oversight of the privatization portfolio is critical to assure the
health and well being of the Air Force's investments. Failure to
provide effective oversight of the construction and housing management
activities or inadequate trends analysis could result in housing
communities that do not meet current Air Force standards failing to
attract and retain service tenants.
Question. Of the $20.5 million request for consultants, $7.5
million is for 32 individual contract employees located at each base,
meaning each of these employees is being paid about $180,000/year. What
are the duties of these project managers? How long are their contracts?
Do you have performance indicators for the managers? What type of
oversight do you employ over them?
Answer. The main purpose of the personnel being hired at each base
is to supplement the installation staff during the period from
privatization concept development through construction completion and
initial member referrals or lease initiations. Privatization
initiatives are manpower intensive at the base level. Base-level
organizations are neither normally manned nor have personnel with
dedicated expertise to provide project information and continuity. The
person may be contractor or a term overhire, whichever can be obtained,
who has the required qualifications.
The $180,000 listed typically includes more than just one person's
salary. It also includes direct and general/administrative overhead if
the person is a contractor. In addition, these contracts typically
include costs for travel and associated per diem to support off-site
conferences and meetings; producing and hosting conference events;
developing briefings, reproducing graphics, hand-out materials, etc;
and other specified studies that may be performed by other consultant
personnel or sub-consultants. Further, the $180,000 amount is a budget
estimate and could be less or more depending upon the actual services
obtained.
Typical duties of the contract support staff include providing a
full range of project management services in support of the base's
assigned programs; participate, host or accompany Government personnel
at various formal/informal meetings, conferences, briefings; provide
expert advice, assist and provide guidance to the Major Command
(MAJCOM)/installation on the privatization program; review, evaluate
and recommend actions on various privatization supporting documents,
including environmental, engineering, and financial studies and
reports; serve as the base point-of-contract for informal and general
information/consultation by MAJCOM and base members; participate in
conferences, workshops, forums and meetings in support of the program
including providing briefings, reports, handout materials and minutes
of the meetings, as necessary; monitor and report on project status;
provide other support such as website development, newsletter, hosting
meetings and general support.
Contract durations are specified within the contract and
typically do not exceed one year but can be extended.
Performance standards are established for the work being
conducted. However, the contract establishes initial standards
in the qualification requirement for the contract manager,
ensuring a minimum level of expertise and experience of the
assigned personnel. Further, the contract requires the
consultant to maintain five contract deliverables and reporting
ledgers. These include monthly project status reports,
performance and cost reporting, data repository file,
Government oversight capability and conflict of interest
provisions. The information in these deliverables is
incorporated into quarterly and annual reports to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and Congress.
A Contracting Officer's Representative is assigned to each
task order to provide oversight and management of each task
order. As indicated above, quarterly assessments of
contractor's performance are made on the consultant's technical
performance, schedules, timeliness of reports and management.
In addition, where contract personnel are assigned to base
locations, an on-site Government representative is assigned to
provide the oversight function of the consultant's performance.
Question. in addition to the $5.7 million for program
managers, $1.7 million is for the development and solicitation
of 10 projects. Explain the differences between what this
amount is for and what the project management amount is for?
Answer. The $5.7 million is for contracted support
personnel at the major command, installation, or Air Force
Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), to perform in-
house program management and technical support functions where
existing government in-house expertise is either not available
or insufficient. The $1.7 million amount is for consultant
support to assist in developing the technical, financial, and
legal documents to support the project solicitation. It also
provides the expertise in real estate, legal and financial/
business arrangements to assist the Government in evaluating
developer's proposals, and assisting in negotiating and closing
the transaction. While these services could be performed
together, the program management is more general in nature,
while the project development requires more specialized
expertise, especially for limited duration tasks like proposal
evaluation and transaction negotiation/closure.
Question. Finally, of the $20.5 million request, $3.6 million is
for project management by Air Force staff. Please explain the
responsibilities of this group. Is there duplication between what the
Air Force staff and the contractors are doing?
Answer. The $3.6 million is for Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE) support functions. This includes in-house cost for
civilian personnel, travel, training, equipment, and miscellaneous
support items. It also includes some contracted management personnel to
assist with non-inherently governmental work where the in-house
Government expertise is insufficient. They have assisted in conducting
Air Force wide training conferences, developed marketing tools to
attract private sector developers, established generic documents,
reports and studies to help streamline the privatization process.
AFCEE's consultants also provide a manpower pool for the peaks in
workload, where it would be impractical or impossible to acquire
adequate experienced Government personnel, especially in view of
current manpower ceiling restrictions.
These contracted services do not duplicate the effort of the major
command/base contracted program managers.
Question. In the testimony, it is asserted that the privatization
initiative has ensured returns averaging 5 to 1 for the taxpayer.
Please explain the basis of this return.
Answer. The five to one refers to what is called the leveraging
effect of using private sector funds to leverage our limited
appropriated funds. The leveraging of a project is determined by
dividing the projected military construction development costs for a
project by the Office of Management and Budget scored amount. So, for a
project to have a five to one leveraging ratio would mean that for
every dollar of taxpayers money spent on the project in scored cost,
the Air Force will receive five dollars in private sector development
cost. Overall, the Air Force expects the leverage ratio for some
projects to be much higher and some projects to be slightly lower than
the average.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Hobson.]
Wednesday, March 20, 2002.
TESTIMONY OF A MEMBER OF CONGRESS
WITNESS
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Hobson [presiding]. Our hearing this morning focuses on
unexploded ordnance (UXO). This is the Subcommittee's first
hearing on unexploded ordnance, and we look forward to learning
more about this important issue. Before we introduce our
witnesses for today, I would like to thank Mr. Farr for raising
the importance of this issue to the subcommittee.
Today, we are going to hear from several witnesses. Our
first witness will be the Honorable Earl Blumenauer from
Oregon's 3rd District. Congressman Blumenauer, as many of you
are aware, is a strong advocate for UXO cleanup and awareness
in the Congress.
The subcommittee thanks you, Congressman, for your
leadership on this issue, and looks forward to your comments.
A second witness today will be Mr. Michael Houlemard,
executive officer of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Where is that? I have met you before. Thank you for
appearing before the subcommittee to speak about specific UXO
cleanup and challenge and the lessons learned at the former
Fort Ord.
Our final panel will include witnesses from the Defense
Department who have oversight responsibility for UXO cleanup.
The panel includes Mr. Ray DuBois, Deputy Undersecretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment; Mr. Ray Fatz, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment Safety and
Occupational Health; Mr. H.T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Installations and Environment; and Ms. Maureen
Koetz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Environment Safety and Occupational Health.
The subcommittee would like to welcome all of our witnesses
here today and thank you for taking time out of your busy
schedules to appear before the subcommittee.
Unexploded ordnance is an environmental concern that until
recently received very little recognition. With over 25 million
acres of potentially contaminated land on former military
sites, and a growing number of these properties transferring to
private and commercial use, UXOs present a very real threat to
the welfare of our citizens and communities. In fact, over the
past several years, UXOs have caused an increasing number of
injuries and fatalities to our military members and civilian
population.
Additionally, an increasing number of sites are being found
where water supplies are contaminated with explosive wastes.
We have an Ohioan here today, he used to be head of the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and he knows about water
and contaminants from his previous job. I see him hiding in the
second row back there.
Since this is the subcommittee's first hearing on
unexploded ordnance, we are looking to receive a broad overview
of UXO terminology, definitions and issues. Specifically, we
hope to gain a better understanding of UXO inventory issues,
estimated cleanup costs, technology development and the plans
to mitigate UXO problems in the future.
With that said, I must state that over 85 percent of UXO
funding provided in the Defense Subcommittee bill, a committee
I also sit on, the final year 2003 request for UXO cleanup in
this bill was only $32 million. While this subcommittee needs
to understand overall issues, we must focus on the area for
which we are directly responsible, the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) account. I am very interested to hear about UXO
cost estimates, potential liabilities and any other issues that
relate to BRAC. Also, I would like to hear any general lessons
learned which any of you might have concerning future BRAC
rounds.
I understand that the Navy has some interesting ideas about
transferring the cleanup responsibility and liability to the
gaining entity. I am curious to know how this might apply to
UXO cleanup efforts and how it is possible to transfer this
immense liability.
In summary, we look forward to hearing your testimony on
UXO cleanup issues and your specific insights into UXOs as they
relate to base closure sites.
At this time, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Olver, for
any opening statements, and then to Mr. Farr, who may have an
opening statement also.
Mr. Olver.
Statement of Mr. Olver
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
very much for holding this hearing. This is the first time that
we have focused on the issue of unexploded ordnances. Although
at several of the sites that we have visited on our various
trips out of the country in particular, we have had anecdotal
evidence of what are really quite startling volumes of
unexploded ordnance in places that had not been dealt with.
I think that it is entirely appropriate that we are having
this hearing, in particular in relation to our BRAC closure
responsibilities, though those are basically all State-side,
rather than out of the country. Some of our very worst problems
with unexploded ordnance are outside the confines of the
nation.
I am very interested in how people from the various
services view this, and how we are going to go about it. I want
to thank all of the witnesses here, particularly for the
leadership of my colleague from California, Mr. Farr, in
requesting us to deal with this problem, and for the leadership
of my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. Thanks for being
here.
Mr. Hobson. Sam?
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your having
this hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Olver, for your interest in having the
hearing as well.
I want to thank our witnesses. Earl Blumenauer has been the
champion of livable communities and I think he will be very
pleased to see what the RCI is doing for building really modern
military bases. But you cannot build new ones on old land until
you clean it up. So this hearing is really important.
I especially want to thank probably someone who knows more
about all of these issues than anybody in the United States, as
the person on the ground at the largest base ever closed by the
military, which was Fort Ord, which was a training base from
about 1915 until 1991. Thirty-three thousand people got up and
left. About 4,000 military remain in an enclave, but the
property is experiencing problems with transfer issues, of
which UXO is a big one.
I think the purpose of the hearing is to explore whether
the money we appropriated is being spent right and whether for
size of the problem that we have we appropriate enough.
I can tell you that I have some personal experience with
this issue, some of which involves a beautiful family story for
me. My father passed away a few years ago, but when he was a
young lawyer in a small town, the first case he ever had of
prominence involved two kids on Easter Sunday, back in 1949.
These two children came from a family of 17 kids, five of which
were older brothers in the military. One of the older brothers
had brought home or built a lamp out of a bazooka shell.
The younger kids, who were around 7 years old, ventured out
with their dog on that Easter Sunday to pick some wildflowers
for their mother. They saw just on the other side of a barbed-
wire fence, no signs or anything, a shell sticking out of the
sand, picked it up, thought this would make another great lamp,
and on the way home dropped it. It killed their dog instantly,
blew off the legs of one child and blew off the hands and toes
of the other.
Their lawyer, my father, took the case. At that time, a
historical note, the limit you could sue the federal government
for was $10,000. So my father had to come back here, his first
political move, and lobby to raise the tort liability limit for
the federal government. The newspaper article that the Army has
on this incident shows that he won that case, settling it for
the largest award in the history of the United States at that
time, for $158,000 for these two children.
Well, I was 8 years old at the time, and I grew up with
that story and these kids came to our house a lot. The family
was poor and needed a lot of help and we helped them.
But, you know, 60 years later, and 11 years after Fort Ord
closed, we are still faced with this problem, we are still
having kids climbing over fences and going in and picking up
ordnances. And that is going to be the way kids are all over
the world. You know the old story, we were all young, fences
are to climb over. Now, fortunately, the Army has been able to
find some fences that make it less attractive and very
difficult to scale.
But the fact of the matter is that this is an issue of
quality of life. History shows on Fort Ord that most of the
people who have been injured over all those years were
dependents of military; they are closest to the UXO fields.
This becomes a quality of life issue for active duty military.
It is a public safety issue if it is not cleaned up. This also
creates an incredible liability for the military.
This is an incredible environmental issue because these
items are old, they are rusted, they leach out metals in the
ground, and can contaminate ground waters, and that can make
reuse of an aquifer impossible.
I think that you will find that there is an old story here:
that we have been penny wise and pound foolish. If we are
really going to get credibility for BRAC, the next BRAC round,
the cities that are going to be affected are going to be
immediately calling cities that have had been BRACed and ask
them what their experience has been. I think that of closed
bases that have had cleanup issues, they will tell the next
BRAC wave that cleanup is going to be the major barrier. I
think it can be done a lot better and a lot faster and a lot
smarter, and I think the witnesses will show that.
And I do think that the military has come around. It has,
kind of, been learning as we go with the Fort Ord experience.
Remember, what we do have in place now that we did not have in
the past is that states have adopted a lot of environmental
laws, and therefore you can go into state court and sue, as
they have done at Fort Ord. They can go into federal court and
sue under the laws that were developed for Superfund cleanup.
We have two different cleanup procedures in play here. One
is the federal procedure for Superfund--Fort Ord is a Superfund
site--and the other is a separate procedure for UXO cleanup.
The two get to the same bottom line of responsibility for
cleanup, but the process of getting there is much more arduous
under the Superfund rules. UXO cleanup ought to be able to move
faster than Superfund cleanup.
So I look forward to this hearing and I want to thank you
all for attending.
Mr. Hobson. I was just sitting here, thinking about this
problem we have here in this country, and I was just thinking
when we were in Afghanistan, what a problem the mines and all
the unexploded ordnance are. There are more mines, apparently,
than people and we do not even know where they all are. And it
is scary, because people will get blown up for, I do not know,
the next 50 years or more.
Congressman, the floor is yours.
Statement of Hon. Earl Blumenauer
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Olver and members of the committee. I deeply appreciate the
work that this committee does. You have referenced my interest
in livable communities. And what you have been doing is
pioneering work to make sure that this subcommittee is
providing livable communities for the professional men and
women and their families who work in the armed services.
And Mr. Chairman, you are right, the issue of unexploded
ordnance has global implications. Every day, probably every
hour, there are many people who are killed and injured around
the world, from the Balkans, Middle East, Southeast Asia.
Tragically, some of that occurs in our country. You have the
opportunity, with this committee--and I appreciate that you are
looking at only a small portion, but I am convinced that the
leadership that you have demonstrated in the past can help
break through some barriers, and I think can have dramatic
effects in terms of our addressing this issue.
I have referenced in my testimony--and I will not go over
it, because you are well aware of these statistics, the facts,
the examples and you will have more, in terms of what is
happening in the hundreds of sites across the country dealing
with BRAC. There are more in terms of formerly used defense
facilities. I think at times we get numbed by just having the
repetition, but I have yet to find any state where there is not
a problem. In virtually every congressional district, this
touches people around the country.
Last spring, with Eleanor Holmes Norton, we went up to the
campus of American University in Spring Valley, where we are
still cleaning up. Eighty-four years after World War I, we are
still cleaning up the residue of chemical weapons testing in
the boundaries of the District of Columbia.
And we need your help, not just dealing with the BRAC, but
putting the attention that this deserves. We need to light a
fire under people to give it the attention and the priority
that it deserves and that is in the Department of Defense, but
it is also Congress.
I fear that, we in Congress, are the missing in action, in
terms of the range that this problem faces. First and foremost,
you can document that this issue is dramatically understated,
just in terms of the costs that are involved. There is a GAO
report that talks about the understated costs from April of
last year, that indicated the Department of Defense reported
its liability of cleanup of training ranges at $14 billion. The
GAO report goes on to say that there are Department of Defense
estimates that indicate that range cleanup could be over $100
billion.
I met with private contractors last week who have
projections that go far beyond that, far beyond that----
Mr. Hobson. I will bet they do.
Mr. Blumenauer [continuing]. In terms of the magnitude of
the problem.
And I think Mr. Chairman, I appreciate there may be a
modest amount of self-serving interest, but I do think that, as
we look with people in the NGO community and other
dispassionate observers, we are looking at potentially hundreds
of billions of dollars. And it is a responsibility that is not
going away. This attaches to the federal government.
Delay costs us money. Even if we are going to have
ineffective fencing and education, there is staff time that is
involved in trying to segregate the problem. And you know from
your own experience that there is a huge amount of shuffling of
this problem, as we, sort of, move resources here and there,
and we react when there is a tragic incident, where children in
San Diego are killed as they were in a subdivision.
I am told just a couple of weeks ago there was a new
subdivision in Arlington, Texas, where someone is roto-tilling
in the backyard and finds unexploded ordnance. We move here and
we move there, and there is a lot of time and energy that is
spent, kind of, moving around the deck chairs.
There is an opportunity--you have mentioned this is a
global problem--the extent to which we are able to focus our
time and our attention in a more systematic fashion, there is
an opportunity to reduce the costs of this. There is an
opportunity to bring the unit costs down dramatically through
technology, through competition and greater volume.
It is no secret that if we had a steady predictable program
that is going to be doing more, people could afford to invest
more resources. It would attract more people to the business.
It would drive the unit costs down. And I feel very strongly
that we have not touched the tip of the iceberg in terms of the
value of the property that could be returned to productive use.
I do think it is important to focus not just on the
Department of Defense but on the communities that we have from
coast to coast that have to face these challenges.
You referenced, Mr. Chairman, the notion of what would
happen in terms of further BRAC closing. I am told that we have
10, 20 percent or more inventory in terms of bases that we do
not need. But if--and you are going to hear about the situation
in Ford Ord, one of the celebrated cases--and there is nobody
who has been a more tireless champion than Mr. Farr in that;
the leadership that you and the committee have exhibited. But
11 years later it is still not done. And it is not something
that inspires a lot of confidence on the part of people around
the country who are going to be facing this situation.
We do not want to saddle communities with, sort of,
sacrifice zones where we are just going to have buffers, we are
going to try and ignore it with barbed wire or trying to just
cut people slack.
We have a situation here. We are attempting to have
legislation to help categorize the situation. We are trying to
seek additional money on the big picture. But we think you can
help us focus on the policy questions in a unique fashion. Is
the UXO cleanup factor delaying property transfer where
transfers are pending? How prevalent are these delays? Coaxing
out some statistics about the impact of UXO hazards that affect
base closure decision-making process that we are going to be
seeing in 2005.
Are there concerns that UXO that will somehow avoid people
moving forward with BRACing a facility because of their concern
that they are going to be opening up a can of worms, and so
they are going to keep an inefficient facility, because it is,
in fact, too dangerous to close?
I think these are appropriate questions for you to help us
focus in on.
I believe that we have some of the finest men and women in
the world who are working for us in the Department of Defense.
And if we give them an assignment like dealing with terrorists
in Afghanistan, they train with time, energy and resources and
they do the job. I think we need to give the same grant of
authority and resources to the Department of Defense to get at
this problem. And you can start with the problems, the slice
that you have with BRAC. If, at a time when we are spending
over a billion dollars a day for the Department of Defense,
unparalleled costs that are being assigned to the military, if
in this climate we cannot allocate enough money to clean up
after ourselves, whenever will we do the job?
You have the leadership and resources here to help us
focus. I appreciate your willingness to have this hearing
today. I look forward to maybe sitting in a corner and----
[The prepared testimony of the Honorable Earl Blumenauer
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Are you going to be able to stay?
Mr. Blumenauer. Would you mind if I monitored?
Mr. Hobson. No, I would like you to stay and we could
probably interact when we hear the other panels.
The one thing I would like to suggest for thought in this,
as we go through this, I am wondering if somehow--and I just
want everybody to think about this as we go through it--but
when we have been able to get these facilities over into the
private sector, we have been able to get--it takes so long--
what I hear from people, it takes so long to get stuff out into
the real world. If one of the things we could not do better,
rather than trying to make this a military campaign, which in
some cases gets bogged down and cumbersome, if there is not
some way we might figure out, if the money is provided, that we
get it out of the military situation, which is not really their
bailiwick; they seem to put the stuff down. I guess they should
have the responsibility for getting it back. But if we would
not be able to get it out faster and get the properties sooner
into the public domain to create jobs in the future if we had a
better plan that maybe the private sector working with the
military could get it out of there.
One of the things I look at is Brooks, as to how we were
able to get Brooks out. Now, I do not know what the range--if
they had ranges or stuff and they did not have this problem, or
DESC in Dayton, I went in to DESC this week, and I have more
private sector--now, it is not a huge facility, but it was very
controversial when it was BRACed in Tony Hall's district. We
have more private jobs in there today--what I call ``real
jobs''--than we did government jobs. And so the whole society
has changed on that. These jobs are not dependent now upon the
federal government whims of programs in and out.
But the mayor kept yelling at me to get him the property.
Now, that was not even my district, but I helped him do it,
because Tony and I worked together.
And I think Brooks is going to be that way. The faster we
can get it into the private sector hands. So we all might think
about it as we go on to our people and as we talk about the
experiences that they have had at Fort Ord or maybe lessons
learned that we could do better.
So you are welcome to stay around. I hope you do.
And now, Mr. Houlemard, your written statement has been
entered in the record, but please summarize your testimony for
us.
And you might remind me how long ago it was we were out
there, Sam. Was that about four years?
Mr. Farr. Three years ago.
Mr. Hobson. Three years ago?
Statement of Mr. Michael A. Houlemard, Jr.
Mr. Houlemard. Two and a half years ago, you were there,
sir, in the fall of 1999 or so, you were there.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I, too, want
to express my appreciation for your willingness to hold this
hearing. And on behalf of the mayor of Seaside, Jerry Smith,
the mayor of Marina, whom you also met, who is the chair of our
board, Supervisor Edith Johnson and Mayor Jack Barlich of the
city of Del Rey Oaks, I just would like to extend on their
behalf their appreciation for the ability for us to comment on
the very deep concerns we have about ordnance and explosives,
called UXOs, sometimes called munitions removal, sometimes
called remnant munitions. In this case, all of those are the
terms that we concern ourselves with here.
Our reservation, as Congressman Farr pointed out, was
closed in 1991, and we still have a considerable amount of
property to be able to transfer. It was a very large
installation, it is 45 square miles.
Mr. Hobson. You do not have a map of that, do you?
It might be interesting, if somebody could see the map,
because it is a big installation----
Mr. Houlemard. You can always count on the Army, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Well, that is true.
Mr. Houlemard. As I mentioned, Fort Ord is 45 square miles.
And when we talk about, you know, the United States Army has
indicated that there are thousands of acres that still have
ordnance and explosives, to fence an area like that is at a
considerable cost. And what we have found is that fences do not
work. And I will talk about that a little today.
When our installation was closed, we found that we wound up
with all kinds of small business closures, vacancies, an array
of other problems that included unemployment and economic
distress of varying types. We have designed a plan that is
quite workable. It is visionary. It includes research and
development facilities, commercial facilities and housing to
support it. And those facilities can only be accomplished if
they can be done in a safe way.
We are finding that the proximity of ordnance and
explosives--and Mr. Chairman, you are looking at a map behind
you which shows in red stripes the major area where we find
ordnance and explosives. All the area in red on that map are
also areas designated for future development where ordnance and
explosives are still present. In fact, the United States Army
is doing considerable removal actions on surface ordnance and
explosives in some areas immediately adjacent to the populated
community.
Mr. Hobson. Where is the place where all those houses are
vacant and some people claim there is--although I do not think
it is true--that there is ordnance underneath? Do you know
where that is?
Mr. Houlemard. There is some housing on the map, in the
yellow, on the northern part of the map. It was where you, sir,
and Congressman Farr toured the base. That is the Patton and
Abrams Park housing of the former Fort Ord. There is some
evidence that there were mortar ranges that were in that area,
there were practice rounds used in that area. And the United
States Army has found those and removed them. It looks like
those areas will be able to be transferred free of problems.
The principal problems, as I mentioned, are the areas that
are either in striped red or red on that map above you.
The civilian reuse of this base is completely and totally
dependent on the United States Army's ability to remediate
these ordnance and explosives areas. In our reuse, we have
faced or overcome a number of major issues, which have included
the heavy cost of converting these installations to civilian
use. We have also had to deal with problems arising from legal
challenges to the cleanup. But most importantly, it is the
complex, multi-agency oversight that is involved with the
ordnance and explosives cleanup that causes the greatest
problem for us.
As my colleagues in the Army put it, it is the long pole in
the tent, of being able to do military base transfers on former
ranges.
However, our concern is not so much for reuse; it is for
safety. As Congressman Farr has mentioned, just within a few
yards of existing populated areas, we have in-land ranges,
where young children wind up going into the ranges and find
ordnance and explosives. In fact, as Congressman Farr--some of
those incidents have resulted in serious injury in our area,
and just recently some young children from Fitch School in the
city of Seaside wandered into the in-land range and went under
the fence. We talk about how high it wants to be, one of the
Army folks told me that the best fences they have probably are
only a 75-second deterrent because children have the ability to
go under fences.
As a consequence of their going into the range, they picked
up a number of practice rounds of grenades that they picked up
from the in-land range just not too far from their school,
brought them back to the school, took the grenades--practice
grenades threw them against the wall of the gymnasium because
they were imitating soldiers. And these 11-year-olds could have
just as easily picked up grenades lying right next to the
practice grenades which were high-detonating explosive grenades
which would have caused a serious event.
When that happened, the United States Army recognized that
it had even more of an exposure for liability than it had
before, and did much more to try to improve fences. And we have
an active education program to try to solve that.
But I just want to reiterate the fact that you cannot just
fence these installations and let them go. The fencing really
does not work when you are proximate to existing populations.
To address all of these concerns, Congressman Farr asked
the United States Army to think about doing these kinds of
activities of ordnance and explosives, the multi-agency
sequential processing, to try to do it in a teamwork, kind of,
fashion. And you will hear more detail about this later, I am
sure, from the United States Army.
But the Army put together the strategic management,
analysis, requirements and technology team, sometimes called
the SMART team, or smarter-than-the-other-folks team----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. Hopefully.
Mr. Houlemard. Hopefully. And actually, I think the
``hopefully'' should be affirmed. That SMART team has done
extraordinary work with being able to get agencies to look
together, rather than sequentially, rather than in disparate
ways, at the same issue and try to find solutions. The problem
has been the absence of adequate technology and adequate
resources to address the solutions. That is our view.
We have often heard the excuse that OE clean-up is subject
to annual appropriations and competes with many other
priorities. Three times we have visited upon some of you asking
for restoration of locally initiated resource requests for
ordnance and explosives at Fort Ord.
We do recognize that there is a disconnect between the many
bureaucracies that have to deal with this, and we have tried to
work at the local level, and appreciate Congress' efforts to
get early transfers and to think about how the military can
work directly with local communities to solve the issues.
At Fort Ord, the complicated mix of removal technology
needs, the protection of habitat under the Endangered Species
Act, and worker safety issues combine to have a very major
potential cost implication to the process at Fort Ord. I am
sure we are not distinct in that regard, but we have a unique
combination of issues that are unlike others.
We have even heard that what is happening at Fort Ord with
respect to court challenges and others may have precedent
impacts elsewhere that affects us.
We also want to point out, it is not just enough to clean
the areas that are going to be made available for use, we have,
beyond that, explosive safety arc issues, where, in some cases,
some of our explosives on in-land ranges may have an impact
several hundred feet into adjacent property. So we have
concerns about that.
We have a capital, in terms of money, resource concern that
has to do with the many requirements that are imposed on the
cleanup process by other federal agencies, absent the resources
necessary to implement those activities.
As we understand it, the Army's appropriated resources are
scarce and dollars spent to accommodate other agencies'
requirements often do not directly contribute to the
remediation at Fort Ord. The failure to provide those
appropriations to other agencies is of great concern to us, and
we are very concerned that that will be another problem if you
intend to do closures in the future.
Under all such circumstances, we believe there are only two
results that are possible, where the agency that is responsible
for providing for the soldiers, for munitions and for training
is also responsible for providing a budget for ordnance and
explosives. There are only two things that can happen: either
the Army's scarce resources wind up being drained with
significant overlap, or the community winds up unfairly
burdened with extended, long-term cleanup processes. We are
even hearing that our ordnance and explosives cleanup might
take till 2012 or longer. That is scary to us, because we have
kids that are not necessarily safety-minded these days.
This inherent conflict unfairly pits the folks within the
United States Army issue against issue. It does the same thing
with Congress; it is issue against issue. And for us, it seems
a concern, because if you were an attorney, you could not
represent both sides of this issue, but yet you are asking the
military to do exactly that.
In effect, we are asking three things. One, we believe that
it is important that Congress provide consistent, reliable and
dependable appropriations for this kind of UXO remediation
work.
We also think there are legislative issues that need to be
considered, that bring both balance and coordination to the
disparate laws and processes that exist amongst the various
agencies tasked with playing some role in a part of this
process.
We also believe that there needs to be an increase in
appropriation levels to allow for the maximum use of the best
and most current improved technologies with respect to
detection of ordnance and explosives. In our case, we find at
Fort Ord that much of the technology that is being used is aged
and really has not been developed.
When you are talking about, as Congressman Blumenauer and
Congressman Farr have said, $100 billion potentially, or even
$15 billion of potential exposure, it certainly makes sense
that a portion of that be dedicated toward improving the
technology of detection because certainly long term it is going
to affect the liability of the federal government for future
accidents and future problems.
In conclusion, I want to note that our particular concern
is for safety and for current and future users of Fort Ord, as
well as for habitat and for the folks that are adjacent to Fort
Ord. We are committed to ensuring that the decisions regarding
the cleanup of UXO consider all of the issues related to
compliance with federal and state laws, our community reuse
plans, the technology strengths, cost and most importantly, as
we all hear, the protection of human health and the
environment.
We think balancing these needs is very tough. When we speak
of homeland security these days, we locally think that it must
also be considered that our homeland security must consider
what the parents in Seaside and Del Rey Oaks are thinking about
when they think of the terror of having ordnance and explosives
just a few hundred feet away from their homes.
[The prepared statement of Michael A. Houlemard, Jr.,
follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Thank you. We are going to recess now and go
over and vote, and then we are going to come back. And we will
have our next panel.
I would like to say that since you were talking about the
technology, before we go to vote I want to make this statement,
when we were going into Bosnia I met with some young people in
the Army, and I said, ``Why do you have that rope and that
hook?''
And he said, ``Well, the rope is a problem, they have
lengthened the rope and I do not think I can throw it that
far.''
And I said, ``What do you do with that?''
He said, ``Oh, that is how we find land mines, sir. I throw
that rope out there, I fall on the ground after the hook hits,
and then I wheel it back in.''
They probably did that before World War I or back in World
War I and they are still doing it in the Army. Now, there are
some other technologies, but that is still a deployed system in
the Army, if I am not mistaken. And if you have thrown one of
those hooks, it is a lot of fun.
We will be back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Hobson. The hearing will come to order.
I think you are not Mr. DuBois but that is all right. We
will give him a lot more trouble than you are probably going to
get.
Sam, do you have a couple of questions you want to ask?
Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Houlemard mentioned that there were a lot of other
federal agencies and state agencies that weigh in, and I
thought that maybe he could give some examples.
Also, it is not just an issue of cleaning up or raking up
the land. It is also a big debate as to how deep do you have to
clean? How clean is clean? It has incredible ramifications. I
would ask him to point out two of those examples.
Mr. Houlemard. I do not have all the numbers with me,
Congressman, but the agencies I was talking about that we work
with almost on a daily basis include U.S. EPA, California state
EPA which includes the Department of Toxic Substances Control.
We do work for the Agency for Toxic and Disease Registry as
well. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Hobson. They have to be very helpful.
Mr. Houlemard. Yes. And the Bureau of Land Management as
well.
Many of those agencies, because they are either land
recipients or they have authority, have asked the Army to
increase the level of cleanup or increase the depth of cleanup.
In fact, just last week, in one of our SMART--strategic
management analysis requirements and technology: SMART--one of
our SMART team meetings, or ``Sort of Smart Team'' meetings, we
heard testimony from the Bureau of Land Management.
They have great concern about taking property from even
another federal agency without it being cleaned to a depth that
they know can be used for passive recreational uses. And so
that is something I think they are----
Mr. Hobson. Did they give you any?
Mr. Houlemard. I think that is between agency to agency.
Mr. Hobson. That has to be----
Mr. Houlemard. And that is one that we do not get into as
much. We are concerned because it is property that is adjacent
to our community, but that is just one example.
A real cogent example, I think, of where we have costs at
Fort Ord that are affected by agencies is, in California our
EPA and the Department of Toxic Substances Control gets
involved whenever we ask for an early transfer that you were
talking about early to try to get property early. That requires
the governor to sign, and it requires advice from our agencies.
In our case, we have a burn requirement in order to clear
party. You cannot get to the ordnance and explosives safely
without burning the vegetation. If you use mechanical means,
there is a potential for explosion. If you use robotic means,
you can blow up the robot. And it is literally impossible for
worker safety to get in to remove ordnance and explosives
without burning this vegetation.
That burning creates smoke which we all know is unhealthy,
and some folks have concern that that smoke is unhealthy and
there may be things in it. We have no evidence that that is the
case, but because of those kinds of concerns, and the lawsuits
that come from the burning process and the local community
concerns, to remove vegetation at Ford Ord costs something like
$4,000 an acre, where elsewhere in the state the California
Department of Forestry can remove vegetation and burn for $12
an acre.
That is nearly $4,000 that could be used for ordnance and
explosives removal that winds up going into this detailed burn
program. And, Congressman, I know you have great concern about
that.
Mr. Hobson. He was a former legislator in California. He
could probably handle some of that.
Mr. Houlemard. I would also like to point out another
example of where it might be best if we consider how not just
the regulatory agencies affect cost, but how our partners in
the private sector will also affect cost.
And one of our projects in the city of Del Rey Oaks, where
there is a commercial project that is proposed, the United
States Army has gone in and cleaned the property. And after
cleaning that property, they wound up going back in to clean it
again, because they found several samples, discovered more
ordnance and explosives than they anticipated in the future.
And as yet the developer on the property and the financial
entities that support that developer had not had a chance to
review that process.
And now that the financial community is involved, they are
indicating great concern not just for the immediate property,
but the explosive safety arc of what happens adjacent to that
property. Which now means, before we can get property into
effective reuse to create jobs, to build the recovery, to
create new housing, we still have to go back and do more work.
And so the cost to do this several times over multiplies
geometrically rather than arithmetically.
I think if we think about this on the base cleanup teams,
thinking about having local reuse authorities, developers and
financial community involved so that you do the cleanup one
time, that efficiency will help us all. It means that you know
you are cleaning it up for its intended use, you know that you
have the liability issues addressed and that you have somebody
on the other end that can use it.
What we often do in the cleanup process now is we point to
an area that we know is concerned. We burn it and we clean it
to a depth of 12 inches, and we find out later that that does
not work because all of the foundations are going to be three,
four and five feet. And as a consequence, we go back and have
to clean that property to depth. And so it is important that
there be coordinated efforts between the private sector, the
local reuse authority and the military branch that is involved
in the cleanup process.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Chairman?
You are suggesting that for cleanup purposes, perhaps we
should create at each base a team of end-users, of at least
local folks who are going to be end-users. I mean, I had not
thought about that, but that is a really interesting idea, and
you are absolutely right; if you end up with lenders saying,
``We cannot lend in this project because of liability.'' The
Army has one standard, local building ordinances on how deep
you have to clean is another standard, and earthquake safety in
California is yet another standard. So I agree, there is a
problem.
Mr. Hobson. We probably ought to do this in the BRAC thing.
But also I think what we ought to do is look at where we are
doing ordnance now and instead of just continuing to fire, we
ought to have plans as we are firing as to how we are going to
clean that up when we clean it up, which we probably have not
done, and I do not know whether we do that or not. I know the
Air Force does when they bomb. I am not sure the Navy does when
they bomb. But the same problems the Air Force had when they
occurred could happen to the Navy, but I do not think they have
taken note of that.
But the same way on ranges, where we are doing outdoor
ranges. We may want to think about in the future, do we do
outdoor ranges? Now, some people are keeping them because they
do not want to clean them up, but maybe we ought to start
thinking about how we begin to clean ranges and how we go away
from maybe outdoor ranges, which I am considering at a base I
have. But there is a cost associated with that, but the overall
cost--and this is where you get in trouble.
I am looking at this right now in a situation where I have
a range, it is an outdoor range, probably should not be there
anymore, it has a lot of cleanup in it, versus an indoor range
which costs a lot of money to build, but in the long run, if
you do not have to do a lot of cleanup after it, it is probably
cheaper. But we do not like to spend the dollars because the
dollars up front are more precious right now and somebody else
will follow about the problem down the road.
And so it is something somebody ought to be looking at. I
guess I am just sending messages.
Mr. Houlemard. It is consistent with how the military is
looking at the Residential Communities Initiative Program, in
terms of trying to build housing that is to municipal
standards, that is a community that looks like, acts like and
feels like a municipal community. If all of the activities
consider that in mind with what is going to happen later on or
what happens with the adjacent community, we would not wind up
spending $4.5 million for the Del Rey Oaks parcel and still not
be sure that we have it available for its end use.
Mr. Hobson. How big is that parcel?
Mr. Houlemard. It is 360 acres.
Mr. Hobson. Okay, are we all right?
Thank you.
We will go with our next panel.
Okay. We are going to start with Mr. DuBois' statement. I
guess everybody's statement is entered in the record, and if
you will just, kind of, summarize.
Wednesday, March 20, 2002.
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
WITNESSES
RAYMOND DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
RAYMOND FATZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR ENVIRONMENT,
SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
H.T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
MAUREEN KOETZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Statement of Mr. Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Mr. DuBois. I will try to be brief.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olver, Mr. Farr, thank you very much for
asking us to testify on this very important issue. I have with
me the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, H.T. Johnson; the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Ray Fatz; and Ms.
Koetz, the Deputy Secretary of the Air Force for Environment,
Safety, and Occupational Health. This is her first opportunity
to testify with the team.
Mr. Hobson. I bet she is excited about that.
Mr. DuBois. She is excited. The Secretary of the Air Force
was very excited that she accepted his offer of the position.
[Laughter.]
I also want to identify Mr. John Paul Woodley, who is the
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Environment, former
secretary of natural resources for the state of Virginia on
Governor Gilmore's cabinet. We are very pleased that he has
joined our staff at the Defense Department.
Congressman Blumenauer, thank you for your remarks,
bringing focus to this important issue.
Mr. Houlemard identified some key aspects: competing
priorities always a problem whether it is MILCON budgets and
R&D budgets and procurement budgets or budgets pertaining to
how environmental cleanup is executed.
Fort Ord is a situation that might as well be a poster
child for many similar situations across the country in terms
of BRAC properties. It is a nexus of so many different, yes,
competing issues, conflicting local economic issues,
conflicting local environmental issues. It is not something
that we would have wished upon ourselves, but it is something
that we are trying to deal with in terms of our
responsibilities in the local community.
Mr. Hobson. Have you been out there?
Mr. DuBois. To Ord? No, sir. Not yet.
Mr. Hobson. Anybody here been to Ord?
Mr. DuBois. Ray has, yes.
I want to allow the military departments to have the most
opportunity to explain their initiatives and from their
perspective how they are responding to the UXO challenge. As I
indicated, the hearing today is extremely timely. The suspected
or known presence of UXO represents a significant challenge for
successful redevelopment of BRAC properties. More importantly,
UXO, or unexploded ordnance, can represent an immediate
explosive hazard, as has been articulated on some tragic
occasions, both to our military personnel and their families as
well as to surrounding communities.
Now we have learned much through our current UXO response
actions and are using those experiences to help build a
comprehensive military munitions response program. Now as this
hearing is to focus specifically on UXO and BRAC, it is
important to recognize that the BRAC program is in existence to
transfer property from our custody to the local community to
create economic growth.
As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, there might be, as we
approach a BRAC 2005, around ways to dispose and convey
property differently than what we are doing now and we are
looking at that.
As a practical matter, the 500,000-plus acres that have
been BRACed or closed over the past four BRAC rounds, only half
of those acres have actually been put into viable reuse. And in
many cases, it is because of competing environmental issues,
competing local economic issues. But we do have 28
installations with areas that may contain unexploded ordnance
munitions and munitions constituents, and therefore need to be
addressed in this regard.
Now, 96 percent of the total acres potentially with UXO are
on only nine installations. And most of them are Army, and the
Army will address them. But we need to focus, obviously, where
our biggest problem is, and that is what we are going to do.
Now in fiscal year 2003, the president has requested an
investment in unexploded ordnance of approximately $252
million. And of that $252 million, $32 million is specifically
set aside for UXO issues pertaining to BRACed properties. Now
this total amount is also an increase over last year. This
represents the cost to remove actual unexploded ordnance and
the disposal of scrap metal. It in some cases includes the
cleanup of munitions constituents.
The Department of Defense is committed to fund these
response actions required to mitigate immediate threats to
safety, human health and environment. However, because the UXO
challenges are so great at our BRAC installations, that with
current funding levels, longer-term actions may--in point of
fact this has been referred to today by two of the witnesses--
they will probably extend until 2015 or beyond.
Now one of our major objectives is to find a way to
accelerate that schedule by addressing the safety issues, by
addressing technological capabilities and technological
advancement, as well as land-use objectives.
Now, I know it is no surprise to any of you here and, to be
sure, the people who are sitting behind me when I tell you that
the unexploded ordnance challenge is perhaps one of the most
difficult ones that I and my staff has to deal with.
As you know, in my portfolio of BRAC, historic properties,
A-76, environmental compliance and cleanup, someone said I have
all the third rails of defense politics. [Laughter.]
But I will tell you in no uncertain terms that UXO, for me
at least, while it has connections and is tangential to many of
these other difficult areas, is one that I have found to be
perhaps the most complex. It is also time-consuming. And it
will be in large measure solved, again, over time, by a
combination of technology, reasonableness, persistence,
patience and appropriate funding; never forgetting the last
item.
Now, the potential presence of UXO obviously increases our
traditional environmental cleanup program, and it represents a
significant challenge for the military departments, for the
communities involved, for the regulators, and for the
developers, who are ultimately asked to come up with a reuse
plan and execute.
Now, the GAO recommended last April that the Department of
Defense establish leadership accountability in our program.
Last fall, shortly after I took on these responsibilities, I
acted on those recommendations and designated a focal point for
all UXO issues. As I said, it is Mr. John Paul Woodley, who I
have introduced. I also have a special assistant, Colonel John
Selstrom, also behind me, of the Air Force, specifically
focusing on UXO issues.
Now, in addition, I enhanced our defense environmental
restoration management guidance last fall to detail the
requirements for UXO and munitions constituents response
actions at locations such as the BRAC bases, locations other
than our operational ranges.
I have also directed the department, with the Environmental
Council of the States, ECOS, the National Association of
Attorneys General, the Environmental Protection Agency, to get
together and establish a munitions response committee. We are
also, in that regard, extending invitations to Native American
and Alaskan native tribes and the federal land managers to join
this committee.
While it is true that all politics is local, all cleanup is
probably driven locally. But there must be at the national
level--as I think has been implied by some of your comments
today, that the national organizations which have equities here
have to also have communication and agreement. That committee's
goal is going to be to develop that consensus approach that
will coordinate and synchronize complementary efforts by the
Defense Department and the military departments, EPA, the
tribes, the states, the federal land managers.
An issue that was addressed in the last exchange between
Mr. Farr and, I think, Mr. Houlemard, is technology. Technology
is both an existing constraint as well as a tremendous
opportunity. It is the future potential that we have to
accelerate cleanup.
As an example--and I gave an address recently to a group of
technologists and scientists asking them to begin to focus on--
and, yes, with investments from the Department of Defense--on
needed hardware and software improvements that will save time
and also increase reliability. We need airborne sensor
platforms to improve efficiency and identification and
detection of UXO. And we need further software development to
detect and identify sub-surface UXO, which will also improve
the effectiveness of our programs.
I think, as I conclude, I want to review the requirements
of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act. As you know,
that act required the Department of Defense to develop an
inventory and report by May of 2003. And this year's Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Report to Congress will
identify and outline our initial steps in that regard.
I think that it is now probably best to give the services
an opportunity--I want to acknowledge their contributions in
this regard. But also, I think that each of the military
departments, and certainly the Department of Defense, fully
acknowledges its obligation to protect our service members and
all of our citizens from the potential hazards associated with
unexploded ordnance.
It is a challenge, especially in the cases of our BRAC
properties. And with your support, Mr. Chairman, and the
support of this committee and the House of Representatives, we
will succeed, I believe, in managing our UXO challenges.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
follows:]
Statement of Mr. Raymond J. Fatz
Mr. Hobson. As is the normal protocol, we will start with
the Army first, since it is the oldest service, apparently,
then the Navy and then the Air Force.
Mr. Fatz. Quite an introduction.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate
this opportunity to address the Army's perspective on the
complex challenges we face in addressing unexploded ordnance,
or UXO, and the comprehensive approach we are taking in concert
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and our sister
services to meet these challenges.
The primary mission of the Army is to fight and win our
nation's wars. Tough, realistic, battle-focused training is
essential to maintaining a trained and ready force. Training
with live ammunition is critical to our principle of train as
we fight and fight as we train. We must provide our soldiers
with opportunities to practice their skills on the training
ranges and not on the battlefield.
Since the Revolutionary War, every soldier at some point in
his or her career touches a bullet of some kind, whether in
basic training, peacekeeping operations or combat. Since
America's Army has been training and preparing our soldiers for
over 226 years, one can only imagine the magnitude of the UXO
challenge.
Our munitions are designed and managed to be safe during
storage and transport and to withstand a harsh environment
before they function. However, for a variety of reasons, some
munitions fail to function as intended. This has resulted in
known or suspected presence of UXO on areas currently or
formerly used for live fire training and testing.
In addition to live fire training and testing activities,
we have used land for disposing of unserviceable, excess or
obsolete munitions. These and other munitions-related
activities complicate our cleanup challenges.
Mr. Chairman, to give you a feel for the magnitude of the
UXO challenge we face today, the Army has 13 BRAC installations
that have approximately 100,000 acres with suspected UXO. The
current estimate for only four of these BRAC sites is
approximately $400 million for munitions response actions.
Also, for our formerly used defense sites, we have 763
known sites, totalling more than 8 million acres that may
require munitions response, at an estimated cost of over $13
billion.
We are in the process of compiling the inventory called for
in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act, which will
also look at our 16 million acres of Army land to identify
additional areas with UXO. Response action costs for all sites
continue to increase.
It is important to understand the complexity and magnitude
of munitions response requirements and to be aware of the
comprehensive approach we are taking to meet these challenges.
We are working the issues every day with federal, state
agencies, the tribes and the public.
One of our greatest challenges with regard to the conduct
of munitions response is our collective inability to quantify
risk posed by munitions so as to answer the basic question: How
clean is clean? This challenge is exacerbated by the lack of
clarity.
Mr. Hobson. You mean, what the word ``clean'' means.
Mr. Fatz. What the word ``clean'' means.
Mr. Hobson. You just got it.
Mr. Fatz. The challenge is exacerbated by the lack of
clarity and consistency of regulations, the site-specific
nature of munitions responses, the need to overcome
considerable technology voids, and the overall misunderstanding
of UXO in general.
To address the question of how clean is clean, we need a
consistent national regulatory framework within which to answer
this question. We need realistic land-use options to be
considered up front and methods to integrate explosive safety
and environmental protection into decision-making,
acknowledging that explosive safety concerns affect every facet
of a required munitions response action. And we need to ensure
an appropriate role for all stakeholders in the decision-making
process.
To move forward in these areas, we must close the
technology gaps relative to munitions and reuse. The Army's
environmental quality technology program is focusing research,
development, test and evaluation efforts on UXO, its
constituents and on sustainable range design.
Since fiscal year 2000, we have increased our technology
investments by 70 percent, and of that amount, 83 percent was
focused on UXO and its constituents.
In our green ammunition program, we are continuing to
develop environmentally benign munitions and replacements for
chemical constituents used in their production.
Also, while detection technologies have improved, they are
still imperfect. We are working aggressively through our
technology programs to address these limitations as well as
approaches that support long-term sustainability of our ranges.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we must provide our soldiers with
tough, realistic battle-focused training as a key to their
success in combat. You can assist us by developing, as you are
today, a better understanding of the complexities and issues
surrounding UXO. The Army appreciates your support in meeting
the challenges associated with UXO.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Raymond J. Fatz follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Mr. Johnson.
Statement of H.T. Johnson
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Don
Schregardus, who you know from your Ohio days. He is our
environmental assistant in the Department of Navy.
I am very pleased to talk today about munitions response,
which includes removal of UXO. Munitions response is a larger
context.
The department has been very proactive and comprehensive in
our munitions response programs. We have several goals. The
first one is to ensure the safety of the munitions response
personnel conducting the work. We cannot emphasize enough how
dangerous this is. We have had 13 seriously injured people, two
fatalities, working UXO on our ranges. All of these were
involved in the actual removal of UXO with the exception of one
person, as Congressman Farr mentioned, who walked in and that
person was hurt with a dud, but we take it very, very
seriously.
The second goal is to complete the removal based upon the
projected reuse. We have talked a lot about how clean is clean.
We very much like to clean to the intended reuse.
We follow the cleanup regulations and procedures. We also
work very closely with the federal and state regulators and
need the participation of the stake holders. Each state has
regulations and regulators, and we have to meet their
requirements of course.
Mr. DuBois has already talked about national response
programs and policies. I would like to talk about two success
stories: Adak in the Aleutian Islands, 78,000 acres. In World
War II there was a lot of bombing on both sides there, and
there is a lot of UXO. It is a remote location. It is very
harsh weather. We have worked very closely with the state of
Alaska and the various environmental groups.
Next month we will have cleaned up 57,000 acres of the
78,000. We expect to finish the whole thing in 2004.
Mr. Hobson. Where did you get the funding for that?
Mr. Johnson. Department of the Navy, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Was it an add or----
Mr. Johnson. I am sure we were assisted, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Farr. What is the end use?
Mr. Johnson. The Aleuts are going to use a good portion of
it. There is a very critical runway there. We thought the
Aleuts were going to operate it. They do not want to. They are
trying to get someone else to operate it. But it is used by the
Air Force, the birth place of Shemya.
Mr. Farr. Where the UXO is located are they going to have
housing on it?
Mr. Johnson. No, the Aleuts will operate some stations, and
refurbish some stations. They have another one along the
Aleutian chain, where they handle fishing vessels.
Mr. Hobson. How much did that cost?
Mr. Johnson. I do not have the number, sir. I will provide
it for the record.
[The information follows:]
Through the end of Fiscal Year 2001, $19 million has been
spent on the cleanup (including UXO) at Adak. The projected
remaining cleanup cost (including UXO) from Fiscal Year 2002 is
$83 million. Therefore, the total cleanup cost at Adak (all
years) is projected to be $277 million. Of this total, $60
million is for UXO assessment and removal.
Mr. Farr. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that is one of the
issues. Everybody is cleaning up, but there ought to be some
priorities here of what is going to be the most important
cleanup for end use. If you are going to have people living on
the property, it is going to be a higher priority than if it is
going to be passive recreation.
Mr. DuBois. Most of it, as far as I understand it, it is
withdrawn lands, which without specific legislation, will
revert to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Bureau of Land
Management, from which it was withdrawn during the Second World
War, unless, of course, Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens
wish to change that.
Mr. Johnson. In this case, a large portion is going to be
transferred to the Aleut group, and some will go back to DOI as
withdrawn land.
Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, was the priority for
this somehow related to the Native American land claims in the
Alaska agreements. Is that why we are doing this one?
I see Mr. Farr wondering why, where there is not large
populations with the ordnance sitting there--here we have a
very remote place for generally quite passive use. I think the
people, the Aleuts say, would not consider it entirely passive.
Would it be related to those negotiations of the land
disposals?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir, that is part of it. And there is
going to be a land trade between the Aleuts and someone else
involved. We respond to the request, and I will show you others
that are quite different from this one, if I may continue, sir.
Mr. Hobson. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Mare Island, a beautiful place. It was a
shipyard before the Civil War; I think it was probably 1830s or
so. The hospital there was approved by Abraham Lincoln, so it
goes back a long way. But it was closed as part of 1993 BRAC.
It was established in 1854.
Mr. Hobson. Was it put on the historic register and you are
going to maintain it?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, we have more historic buildings on this
base than you can think about. And it is beautiful; you would
enjoy it. St. Peter's Chapel and so forth.
Anyhow, most of the munitions at Mare Island were discarded
munitions, which are quite different than UXO. They were never
expended. There was an arsenal there that put weapons together.
But we have been working with the regulators, the citizens and
the city of Vallejo. And just within the week, we have
transferred the largest, I call it, industrial area, the real
item. There is a total of 668 acres that has been transferred
to the city and a developer.
Now, with that, you talked in your opening comments, sir,
about working with the developer. $78 million to complete the
cleanup will be given to the city and the developer. That is
what we estimate is the cost. They will clean up as they
develop. In other words, there will be no discussion about
intended reuse because the reuse is as they see fit.
Mr. Hobson. What if they run out of money? What happens?
Mr. Johnson. We have an agreement for $78 million.
Mr. Hobson. And that is the end of your liability?
Mr. Johnson. The Department of Defense and, certainly, the
federal government is always responsible under CERCLA. But we
are confident that for this one, that is the right amount of
money.
Mr. Farr. How many dollars per acre is that?
Mr. Johnson. I cannot do it that fast, but about $10? That
is not right.
Mr. Farr. How many acres is it?
Mr. Johnson. Six hundred, sixty-eight, $78 million.
That redevelopment is going well. The developer is on-site
and using these historic properties that you talk about, Mr.
Chairman, as part of the redevelopment.
Now, the second part of that is 3,000--I am not a
Westerner, I call it swampland. You probably call it the flats;
in other words, no buildings will be there. There are 3,000
acres there and so there are some funds to clean that too. That
is on the governor's desk to sign, and we will transfer both of
those parcels and the whole island to the city and state.
We think these are win-win scenarios. They provide great
efficiencies in the cleanup, but also you go directly to the
end use, and you do not say, ``Well, we might do this, we might
do that.'' That is where we get in trouble with the
communities, doing what-ifs as opposed to knowing exactly what
we have to do.
There are substantial efficiencies in time and cost when we
work very closely with the local redevelopment and state
authorities. Like Mare Island, an ideal situation is cleanup is
privatized. Even when we do cleanups, the private sector does
the work for us. We contract directly with them. If we transfer
it to the city developer team, they work directly with the
cleanup contractors.
We look forward to working with this committee to support
the cleanup of our BRAC bases. We are trying to bring these
properties back into public use in the communities, get it back
on the tax rolls. And when we have good cooperation from the
communities, we can move very quickly.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of H.T. Johnson follows:]
Mr. Hobson. Do you want to comment for the record as to why
the Navy doesn't go out and clean up its ordnance after it
drops?
Mr. Johnson. I will be glad to do that, sir. I think we do
as well as the Air Force on that, but we will certainly provide
that.
[The information follows:]
Both the Navy and Marine Corps conduct range clearance
operations at land-based, operational ranges. Clearance
activities are geared to (1) ensure continuing viability of the
range, (2) support the mission of the range, and (3) minimize
risks to both the personnel being trained and those conducting
the clearance activities. Clearance and scrap removal is
conducted in accordance with applicable laws, and DoD and Navy
policy. Department of Defense Directive 4715.11 requires
development of sustainable range management plans. DoD policy,
as stated in the Directive, is to ensure the long-term
viability of ranges while ensuring protection of human health
and the environment. The Directive provides flexibility in
determining the frequency and degree of range clearance
operations but requires ``consideration of the safety hazards
of clearance, each range's intended use, and the quantities and
type of munitions expended on that range.'' Chief of Naval
Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST) 8020-14 contains
requirements for range clearance and establishes procedures for
conducting hazard assessments prior to range clearance
operations. This instruction applies to both Navy and Marine
Corps ranges.
There are many types of Navy and Marine Corps ranges with a
wide variety of training missions and munitions used (small
arms, air-to-ground, Naval gunfire, combined forces). Specific
procedures and frequency of clearance are established by each
range Commander based on the type and tempo of training or
testing activities. Range clearance is funded under base
operation and maintenance accounts.
In most cases, range clearance addresses access roads,
target areas, and other areas where UXO is most likely to be
located, and not the entire range property area. Examples of
operational range clearance programs follow:
Naval Air Facility, El Centro, CA--cleared 4 times per
year.
Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (Pinecastle Range)--
cleared 5-6 times per year.
Naval Air Station Fallon, NV--numerous ranges; cleared 4-5
times per year.
Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms,
CA--cleared after each combined arms exercise; all range areas
cleared a minimum of every two years.
Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma AZ--Chocolate Mountains
Aerial Gunnery Range cleared twice per year.
In summary, both Navy and Marine Corps implement range
clearance procedures tailored to the type of range, operating
tempo, and range safety requirements.
Mr. Hobson. I do not think your plan is the same. I do not
know for a fact, but I am told that you do not go out and do
the same things on your range when you drop as the Air Force
does. We do not have to get in an argument about it, I would
just like to know. If you do, fine; if you do not, why not?
Because it is, kind of, interesting, what I have heard. But it
is about $100,000, that is a lot of money to clean up.
Mr. Farr. And that is not unexploded ordnance.
Mr. Hobson. Well, it is stuff that is probably buried
around places, they do not know where it is. I think that is
one of the things we need to look at, is, you know, this
detection ability to find. You know, the maps probably are not
good. People used to just go out and dig places.
Mr. Farr. The point is, any clean up at Mare Island is a
lot cheaper than UXO.
Mr. Johnson. It should be.
Mr. Farr. What about Vieques? How many acres do you have to
clean up there?
Mr. Johnson. Sir, I would not want to hazard a guess.
Mr. Hobson. That is a whole other hearing. [Laughter.]
Ma'am.
Statement of Ms. Maureen T. Koetz
Ms. Koetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, Mr. Blumenauer. Very nice to be here on my initial
performance as part of this particular team. The Air Force
likes going fourth: It gives new meaning to the term ``hitting
cleanup.''
We do not have the same kind of BRAC issues that I think
some of the other services do, so I am going to discuss our
BRAC to the extent I think would satisfy your interest, but I
will also talk a little bit about what we are doing to manage
UXO more effectively in general, which I think is also of
interest to the Committee, based on what I have heard.
The Air Force currently manages over eight million acres of
land, and that is largely vast open range lands used to test
and train. These ranges are generally not contiguous to bases,
and that is one of just the unique aspects of our operations
that change our UXO profile.
Very little of our range acreage has been subject to base
closure. And there is a distinction in the base closure laws.
As you probably know, some of the requirements are triggered by
the population on the installation and other factors, and the
ranges would not necessarily trigger those criteria. So there
is a lot more flexibility in inactivating and/or closing these
types of ranges than they are when they are contiguous to an
installation.
We fly over large areas for training, but our munitions are
only dropped on targets, and that creates smaller areas
requiring UXO management. And the munitions that actually
contain high explosives are dropped in still a smaller set of
targets. So we have certain minimization and mitigation
activities that are just inherent in our operations.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
The land, airspace and water areas entrusted to the Air
Force for range use are essential to the success of our
military operations and training, and we are finding that out
every day now. The Air Force is addressing our emerging need
for UXO and munitions response under the already existing four
pillars of our environmental program, and those consist of
compliance, cleanup, conservation and pollution prevention, not
necessarily in any order of importance.
COMPLIANCE
But first, regarding compliance, that is our first order of
business, and that is to comply with the rules and regulations
regarding munitions throughout their life cycle, not just when
they are used in our range or training operations.
CLEANUP
Second, we are restoring or cleaning up sites that contain
UXO when the sites are no longer needed for Air Force
operations. We are using two different programs to do that,
both base realignment and closure and our Defense Environmental
Restoration Program.
Under BRAC, we have addressed 745 acres at 13 sites subject
to closure, and we spent $6.1 million. And just to give you an
idea, though, that is pretty much the total of the munitions
response required at BRAC installations for the Air Force. They
were largely grenade ranges, and small-arms ranges.
We are expanding our restoration program to include the
cleanup of closed ranges; that is, sites that were retired or
taken out of the inventory for reasons other than BRAC. We have
about 80,000 acres in that category, and they are being handled
through the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
We expect this effort to expand, and as has been mentioned,
it is going to compete quite a bit for funding with other
priorities.
CONSERVATION
Our third environmental pillar is conservation.
Environmental degradation can deny access to lands, undermine
the realism and effectiveness of our training and limit our
operational flexibility and productivity. And perhaps most
important, it can pose safety risks.
We manage UXO as an important part of conserving the land
we hold in the public trust. Hence, our operational air-to-
ground ranges, we have had an ongoing policy since the late
1940s to clear and dispose of UXO and residual material. And
that is primarily scrap material; that is not the residuals
that are perhaps the chemical constituents of what exploded or
did not explode.
Our scheduled UXO and residual material removal help us
achieve our goals, which are effective and efficient management
of our ranges throughout their life cycle, personnel safety,
residue treatment and assured long-term environmental
conservation restoration.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
And our last pillar is pollution prevention, and this is
also an emerging and very important arena for munitions as
well. We are trying to develop technology to do things like
take the magnetic structure of a range before we begin to use
it. When we go back to do removals or UXO clearance, we can
actually distinguish between a piece of metal that is not UXO
and one that is. That way, we can do much more targeted
responses and more cost-effective responses.
We are also researching and developing plastic ordnance and
reusable ordnance. All of these things will help us avoid some
of the issues that we are trying to deal with today, as we find
ourselves not in need of certain ranges.
The same range operations and maintenance budget that fund
readiness activities, such as providing realistic targeted
electronic warfare training for our forces, also fund UXO and
range residue removal. And just for your information, I think
for the out-year budgets for the next few years, we will spend
anywhere from $7 million to $10 million annually on clearance.
The Air Force intends to fully comply with Sections 311,
312 and 313 of the National Defense Authorization Act. And we
are developing technology today to allow us to better inventory
and understand the nature of our UXO response requirements.
Over the coming months, the number of acres requiring
cleanup is expected to increase. And we may have nearly 200
ranges covering approximately 100,000 acres that require
investigation for cleanup. We are still collecting data, and we
are going to be feeding that into the efforts on the part of
the Department of Defense to get the comprehensive report to
Congress by its deadline.
The Air Force faces many of the same challenges that you
all have heard about today. And we are making a concerted
effort to enhance our outreach activities with the community,
our cooperation with the states and localities, to make sure
that we can perform munitions response in a way that is going
to meet the needs of all of the players involved.
And I will be more than happy to answer questions that you
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Maureen Koetz follows:]
Mr. DuBois. Mr. Chairman, might I----
Mr. Hobson. Yes.
Mr. DuBois. There has been considerable discussion about
how one prioritizes these sites, and Ms. Koetz mentioned in the
last Defense Authorization Act, the Section 311 does require
the department to establish so-called site prioritization
protocols. And those protocols are being developed with the
data-gathering activities on-going.
We are going to put it out for public comment. And we then
will report in our annual DERF report to Congress next year
what those site prioritization protocols are. And I think it is
important to recognize that there needs to be a well-understood
set of steps as to which sites are going to get what amount of
money over what time frame. I think that is very important.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if I may correct an earlier
statement, the money spent at Mare Island is the total cleanup,
not just UXO or ordnance. It is total environmental cleanup.
Mr. Farr. Mr. DuBois, the protocol you are going to be
adopting is going to be for all the services, so that you will
have one protocol for prioritization; is that correct?
Mr. DuBois. Correct.
Mr. Farr. But then what really happens is two different
approaches. Mr. Fatz talked about the fact that they go at Ford
Ord inch by inch, and Mr. Johnson talked about at Mare Island
they just did a buyout, and at Mare Island they had the end-
user as part of that process.
Mr. Fatz recommended a buy out at Fort Ord--I mean, he has
testified before that you need a consistent national framework
with all stakeholders involved.
So I think that you need to create a second phase of
prioritization. Once you have created the protocol for
prioritization, you should have options of protocols within
each priority. In some cases you will want to do a buyout--I
hope that is what you will want to do--and in other cases you
are going to want to do a cleanup, but you are going to need
the end stakeholders to be part of that team. I think that, and
what I hear today is that the services do not really need
legislative authority to do buyouts, you all should consider
this approach. I mean, the options that just witnesses at this
table have come up with are different for the different
services.
The question that I have is, do you have, or you think you
put enough money in the budget to do that? Mr. Fatz has
indicated--at least the testimony he gave in Monterey last
August, that the Army has spent--in this testimony today you
say that you have cleaned 3,000 acres and you have spent $328
million and that you estimate it is going to take another $326
million to complete. I think you have said that you think it is
going to take until the year 2015. Well, probably none of us
will be here on this committee then, and probably most of the
people in this room will not be here then. I mean, we would
like to see this done on our watch.
If you use Mr. Fatz's figures and you use the Mare Island
approach of a buyout, what do you think the figures would be
for a buyout of Fort Ord? You said cleanup for just UXO is $326
million, and Mr. Johnson just said that the Mare Island buyout
was more than just UXO or the--what would you call it, was not
UXO?
Mr. Johnson. Environmental cleanup.
Mr. Farr. The whole environmental cleanup was how many
million for that little island there in the middle of San
Francisco Bay?
Mr. Johnson. $78 million.
Mr. Farr. For how many acres?
Mr. Johnson. Six hundred, sixty-eight.
Mr. Farr. That is the whole island or is that just an
island part that is contaminated?
Mr. Johnson. That is the non-flat part. The flats part is
3,000 acres, and it cost $53 million there.
Now the reason why there were contaminants there, people
used to drop ordnance over the ship side when it was not needed
anymore, it was not armed and so forth. They dredged the bay to
fill the flats, and guess what happened? They dredged up the
ordnance and they deposited it in the flats and now we have to
clean that.
So the answer is $78 million plus $53 million for the early
transfer parcels.
Mr. Farr. Fort Ord is right on the bay. We have not even
talked about what is underwater there, because a lot of that
shelling came from the Navy when they came in to practice and
said, ``Well, you have a target site there inland. We will just
shoot from the ocean.'' And some of the shells did not make it
all the way to the shore.
You can see our frustration, Mr. Chairman. I am familiar
with one base in the United States. I am trying to get a handle
on money and time. The people at the table control both.
PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTING
Ms. Koetz. Mr. Farr, perhaps I can elucidate a little bit
for you, even those are not my bases in particular, but
systemically. We are looking into a new tool. We call it
performance-based contracting in the Air Force. I think you
would refer to it as buyout type contracting, where you can get
a private entity to come in, identify the needs for the
cleanup, give a fixed price and essentially subcontract out the
cleanup on that base.
The way the private sector has come to the point where they
can do that is because they can take what are essentially
preliminary assessments and an understanding of the nature of
the constituents that are present and how much that is likely
going to take and how long it is going to take because it is a
known entity now. We have had Superfund since 1980. We have 20
years of experience under our belt on a lot of those things.
And the point at which the private sector is willing to
take on that risk at a fixed price cost is something they can
measure and make a determination on when it is the type of
materiel that there is, sort of, a knowledge bank, if you will.
UXO may not actually be at that point just yet. We have not
got the same level of preliminary assessment. We haven't got
the same body of knowledge about the implications of what is
there, what the environmental harm is, what the cleanup
requirements are likely to be. We are simply not as far along
in the process as we are with say, something we face all of the
time, a trichloroethylene (TCE), or a solvent cleanup, or a
fuel cleanup, where there is a body of knowledge and you can
actually get insurance actuarials in there to do calculations
using models and know.
And so that is part of why you are not necessarily seeing
some of the tools, like perhaps Mare Island or the performance-
based contracting we are considering, available just yet in
UXO. We need to get a little further down the road in terms of
understanding the nature of the problem.
Mr. Fatz. You know, Mr. Farr, four years ago we did the
Presidio in San Francisco. We did the so-called buyout where we
just--and we came out and we figured----
Mr. Farr. That did not have the UXOs.
Mr. Fatz. That had no UXO. We have done guaranteed fixed
remediation contracts at the sites, not with UXOs. We have done
three last year at BRAC sites where we do a cooperative
agreement, let the reuse authority--we give them the money that
we reach agreement on they contract for everything.
So we have tried a number of mechanisms.
Mr. Farr. Would you do a buyout on UXO? I mean, you have
strict liability forever, you stated that is always your issue
no matter when it is discovered.
Knowing that, do you need to be in control every inch of
the way? The clean-up contractors are going to be the same
because they have to be licensed by the same entity. So would
you say it is really up to the local government as to whether
they would like to get money up front and pay for clean up out
of that stream, or whether to go through the congressional
appropriations process every year, and wonder if there is going
to be enough money to do the work.
I mean that is what I see the difference being.
Mr. Fatz. Particularly in the Army, where our problem is so
much larger than the other services in UXO, we would welcome
that.
Mr. Farr. You would welcome a buyout?
Mr. Fatz. If someone would come to us. And what made the
Presidio of San Francisco doable was the insurance mechanism
that existed that just started about four or five years ago.
Mr. Farr. Have you done that yet on a UXO site?
Mr. Fatz. It is not a UXO. It would take an insurance
company to be able to say, ``I will do UXO.''
In the Army, unlike Ms. Koetz explained how the Air Force
uses their bombing ranges, you know, we have been firing on
these ranges--well, Fort Ord since 1917. And we have a firing
impact area. And we fire different ammunition and then we move
to another area, and we are mobile. So it is a large impact
area. Not a burial site like was at Mare Island; just a large
area with a lot of ammunition.
I think the three models that I mentioned to you and would
be open to have anyone come at us and talk to us about UXO.
Now, Presidio, the trust that was there, by Congress, took
on the cleanup also for the Fish and Wildlife. And see at Fort
Ord, you have several other entities there. Now you know we
have started discussions with a company with individuals that
are bringing proposals to us for a buyout at Fort Ord.
Mr. Farr. You are going to talk about the buyout of Fort
Ord. It seems to me you are already about $440 million on the
table. Where does that $400 million come from?
Mr. Fatz. Came out of the BRAC account. To date we put in
$322 million approximately at Fort Ord. That was all out of the
BRAC account. And then we have another $328 million to go.
Mr. Farr. How much money are you requesting this year for
base cleanup? Or how much are you allocating or Fort Ord's
sake?
Mr. Fatz. Fort Ord for 2003 is $20 million.
Mr. Farr. $20 million.
Mr. Fatz. All of our budgets go from the bottom up. Since
1998, the request for Fort Ord, we have averaged an additional
$8 million more each year. That is one of our priority bases.
But it still has $197 million more to do on ordnance response.
Mr. Farr. Mr. Houlemard, do you have a figure in your mind
what it would take, you know, the environmental issues. Is $400
million in the ball park?
Mr. Houlemard. I think we have a lot of faith in the United
States Army's estimates about what the upcoming costs are going
to be for a buyout. The problem that we have had with even
discussing the buyout is the question of the reliability of an
appropriation for such a purpose.
There is the question of, do you have $400 million in any
one particular year or $197 million in any one particular year
to do that kind of work?
Mr. Hobson. You could not spend it that fast anyway.
Mr. Houlemard. We do not think anyone could spend it that
fast. We think we could spend it faster than the Army.
Mr. Hobson. Well, that is probably true. [Laughter.]
Mr. Houlemard. I think they would probably agree.
But my comment is, the FORA board has looked at this option
but does not have any real confidence in the ability to produce
the revenues over a period of years. And the question is, if
you had an appropriation that said you were going to have $50
million a year for seven or eight years, or if you had $100
million for three years, would you take on the responsibility
and sign a contract to do 45 square miles of ordnance and
explosives? That is what the question is.
So yes, it is an option. Yes, it is something we would like
to look at, because the opportunity to bring the private sector
in, I think every base would want to look at the opportunity to
get early transfers to bring the private sector in and be
sufficiently funded to handle that cleanup. I do not know any
reuse authority that would not look at that.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. Well, we got to--John.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am prone to fall into this kind of trap each time we have
this kind of a hearing, but my mind is blown by the enormity of
this problem, truly.
In your testimony, Secretary DuBois, you pointed out early
in the testimony that the UXO problem we have is two distinct
problems: the operational training on our ranges, which are
those still in use apparently, and then everything else.
And I was thinking, when I first saw that, ``Oh, the great
problem is on the operation training places.'' But it is not
there at all, it is in everything else, really. I thought,
``Oh, that is miscellaneous and small.'' But the enormity of
that one just goes all over the place, because it is the BRAC
things, as you point out. It must also be those places which
had been operational training ranges, which are still active
sites, which are still being used and have not been BRACed, but
where we have not really done anything much about the UXO.
And then it is all the places where we have actually been
in war, which includes the land mine places and the munitions
dropped in Bosnia and Afghanistan, things of that sort. I mean,
that is a UXO, but that is a non-specific site, in a sense. It
is all over the place. And I do not know how that fits into our
definition of UXO.
Then there are the sorts of things which are not UXO in the
sense that they were never actually used in active bombing--all
the obsolete stuff. We were in Korea last year, the trip that
you, I and the chairman were on, where there are thousands of
tons of obsolete, kind of, stuff that we had not figured out
yet what we are going to do with and how we are going to get
rid of.
In all of that, you have said--and those are just some few
categories we have a budget of $250 million in the 2003 budget
proposed, of which only $32 million is assigned for BRAC kinds
of things.
Mr. DuBois. $252 million is in the president's budget
request----
Mr. Olver. For UXO.
Mr. DuBois. For UXO, of which $32 million----
Mr. Olver. $32 million for BRAC sites, the 32 BRAC sites
are the only ones that we really have primary responsibility.
Now, does the $252 million, cover any of those other
peripheral things? I do not even know where that money would be
expended. Maybe you can explain to me where the other $220
million would be intended to be expended by, sort of, big
categories of kinds of places.
Mr. DuBois. The biggest categories are, in two cases, site-
specific. One is Massachusetts Military Reservation, from your
home state, sir, of $80 million in fiscal year 2002
presidential budget request.
Mr. Olver. I guess that is UXO, in part.
Mr. DuBois. In part. That is UXO. $25 million to Hawaii,
Kaho'olawe Range, which is a Navy situation. Those are the two
largest. Of the $252 million, that is $105 million right there.
Now, the formerly used defense sites, so-called FUD sites,
of which the DOD----
Mr. Olver. Which have not been BRACed, which are formerly
used?
Mr. DuBois. Right. But they are not being used by us at
all.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Mr. DuBois. Spring Valley is a FUD site here with the
chemical weapons. The Army is our executive agent; that is to
say, the executive agent of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. $70 million is being funded for that account, that
line.
Mr. Olver. Oh, at that----
Mr. DuBois. That account, FUD sites, of which Spring Valley
in 2003 will chew up----
Mr. Fatz. $10 million, we have a program, but it will
probably be a little bit more. That is an example of a site
that keeps going up.
Mr. DuBois. This points out two crucial issues. One, a site
where we do not know what we do not know; that is a real
problem. And number two, a site where there is clear and
present danger to civilians living on that site, or military
personnel were it to be on an active duty installation; i.e.,
contaminants in the ground, contaminants that may be affecting,
in the case of Massachusetts Military Reservation, the ground
aquifer.
Other than the handling of this, the detection, the safety
issues, which are paramount, the next and equally paramount
issue is safety and health.
So you apply those precious dollars in a priority fashion,
but those two are the initial priorities. But here are some
good examples that I pointed out.
Mr. Olver. That is $170 million of the $220 million. Those
are only three sites. We have hundreds of sites of various
natures in this----
Mr. DuBois. Correct. But as I said, of the UXO issues, in
terms of BRAC sites, only nine constitute 96 percent. Seven of
the nine are Army, two of the nine are Navy. And the largest
one is the Aleutian Island situation, the Adak situation.
Mr. Olver. Yes. I want to explore, because we got closest
to some numbers, which have now gotten completely befuddled in
my mind, in relation to Mare Island. The data, Mr. Secretary,
that you gave gives 5,000 acres of the total acres, of which
UXO is 983.
Now, we have also heard, Mr. Johnson, you have said that
there is something within this total of 5,000, if that is a
correct total, that there is something like 3,000 of lowland,
and did you say 68 or 690, or what was it where the real UXO
is?
Mr. Johnson. Six sixty-eight is the island, the lowlands
are 3,000 acres.
Mr. Olver. Six sixty-eight is the island. Well, all right,
what you are saying the acreage is a bit different from what
the Secretary is saying the acreage is. So there must be some
other categories here somewhere along the way.
If the island was 668, the lowlands, you have said that
there was $53 million has been used or appropriated for 3,000
acres.
Mr. Johnson. Right. Environmental.
Mr. Olver. And that is total environment.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. And the UXO is on the 668, the island itself?
Mr. Johnson. There is also some in the lowlands. I talked
about in the early days they dropped unused munitions over the
side of the ships in the bay, then they dug out the bay and
built the lowlands.
Mr. Olver. Well, I do not expect these things to fit. There
is a disconnect here in part.
But the numbers, when you get down to it, if we are
spending $78 million on the island for UXO, whether it is 600
or whatever the acreage is where we expect to have the UXO--how
many acres are we expecting the UXO to be? But it is also in
the lowlands, because it has been dredged out of the lowlands
or something.
The lowland was tidewaters or something. What do we mean by
that?
Mr. Johnson. It is a marsh.
Mr. Olver. A marsh.
Mr. Johnson. And they dredged the port and in the
dredgings, there were some munitions. And those numbers include
UXO in the total.
Mr. Olver. Yes, but that is of the order of $15,000 an acre
in the lowland. The UXO part for $78 million on something under
than a thousand, we are talking about more than $100,000 an
acre in addition, on the 600 and some odd acres. If that is
what it is, and not the UXO acres if possible UXO 983 whatever.
The numbers are enormous. And this is just a small place.
Mr. Hobson. But the total number for the base is $178
million plus--add it together, $78 million and $52 million or
something, wasn't it?
Mr. Johnson. $53 million, yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. So it is $110 million, $210 million?
Mr. Olver. Well, keeping this in proper categories, one has
to have a fairly complex, sort of, spreadsheet analysis of each
of these sites, if you want to get into the details of which? I
think I should withdraw and get out of the details of this sort
of thing at all.
But then on top of that, the enormity of this, what are we
doing for technology? The chairman says we have people out
there in the field with a rope and a hook. And where is this
picture of a munition detection array used at Adak? Are we
doing R&D? Do we have people who are going to do--this is
putting our personnel right in the center of this process.
Mr. Hobson. I worry whether that thing does not work out
there and that guy drops to the ground he is gone.
Mr. Johnson. There are three technologies that are used,
one is magnetic. Another one is infrared that works very well
with sunrise and sunset differences in temperature cooling. And
the third one is ground-penetrating radar. Now the success of
doing it all is integrating it, taking the various----
Mr. Olver. How many groups are doing R&D or producing for
us systems that can do this with certainty?
Because Mr. Houlemard is talking about if we do this only
at the surface or the first six inches and then we want to go
in and use it over again. Well, maybe we have not gotten things
down deep enough. Who is then going to be liable for it? The
liability is going to come back, I would assume. No private
company going in there is going to take on that liability
without clear ideas of where the buck finally stops, or they
are out of business somewhere along the way.
Ultimately, this liability is coming back to us, isn't it?
Because our munitions are maybe three feet deep, and then when
you want to put in housing, you run into a problem.
Mr. Johnson. As Mr. Fatz discussed, and I am not sure we
have done this for UXO, but environmental, you can buy an
insurance policy if you are a local group. And the insurance
company believes that that is the right amount, and they will
insure it.
Mr. Olver. But they have not done that for UXO yet?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely not.
Mr. DuBois. Now with respect to R&D, as I indicated,
technology is both a current constraint and a future
opportunity. The department has asked for $26.8 million in
fiscal year 2003 for R&D specifically for UXO. That is a pretty
significant amount of money, and we hope it will yield--
actually, it is twice what it was two years ago, that request.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you know, let me just interject
something. Some group is going to kill me for saying this, but
in some Third World countries, they have a real answer for
technology. They get a herd of sheep--and I know that some
group is going to be after me for this--and they run them out
over the site. And you know, some startling events happen. And,
you know, it does not cost a whole lot. [Laughter.]
And it is a lot cheaper than, you know, sending a guy out
there in some sort of contraption. But I know, you know, some
people get upset about that.
Mr. DuBois. And is that 100 percent, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hobson. Well, run a second group out.
But you have machinery that does this stuff. You have a
thing that flails the ground for land mines and other types of
stuff that I've seen. You have another type of roller--I mean,
you have a thing that they put out in front of things that are
heavy, and it rolls out. But they do not seem to use them very
much, because when you get into combat with them, it is a
different story.
But it would seem to me that that kind of equipment would
be much better used here than it could be used out in the front
lines because it is cumbersome types of stuff. But I do not see
anybody--I mean, I got a paper. Let me show you this picture of
this thing. But I have not seen any pictures of that kind of
stuff being used anywhere.
I am sorry, John, go ahead.
Mr. Olver. It is worse than that in Afghanistan where we
were. Every week children are having their arms and legs blown
off by land mines. We were not the ones setting the land mines
as far as I know. Mostly it was an earlier thing, but they are
there.
Mr. Hobson. And they do not know where they are.
Mr. Olver. How to deal with Afghanistan--that has to be
dealt with. And we have to have technologies that are going to
be much more sensitive.
The chairman handed me a note that 90 percent of the UXO
digs are false positives: beer cans is one.
Well, there are mechanisms that you can tell whether there
is a--I mean we are using magnetometers or something like that;
we are not going to pick up aluminum I think.
There are different sensitivities of mechanisms with
computerization these days and the kind of analysis that is
available to do on physical data that it ought to be possible.
I am curious whether we really have a significant amount of
work being done on the R&D for really sensitive kinds of--and
is it enough?
And then, of course, the other thing, I go back again. I
just want to repeat this: The amount of money going in, $250
million, with $32 million going to the BRAC things, is a drop
in the bucket compared with what the totality is. It must be
that what we are doing is wherever there is an enormous
accident or incident, or a law case in the case of Alaska,
whether that is partly the nature of whose there politically,
but we are going there, where there has been a focus placed
upon it of an enormous nature. Then it becomes exceptionally
expensive to really do anything with that.
Mr. Hobson. And it would be absolutely considered
outrageous for anyone to put any add on that there might be
more money needed here, because obviously someone of great
authority has decided that this is the exact amount that should
be put in. And any one who would do an add would be considered
pillared by certain other people in not only the Congress, but
within the administration, such as OMB, or the Defense
Department, because only the Defense Department has the wisdom
to make the decision that this is the right amount of money.
Right? I know you do not want to go there. But I just
thought I might say that because----
[Laughter.]
Mr. DuBois. Nobody here will go there.
Mr. Hobson. No, nobody will go there because you all want
to keep your jobs.
The last person that went there got fired.
So I will not get out, as Senator Byrd does and other
people have done, my Constitution and show the branches of
government here. But it is rather frustrating to sit here and
see the kind of problem that is here and knowing of--and I sit
on the other committee too--and knowing the enormity of the
problems that we have elsewhere, but I do not know, the process
is a little out of whack when it is a priority and it should be
a priority that is there. And there are lots of other things
too.
But, as John says, it begins to just get beyond what you
can almost quantitatively understand here in this short hearing
about this problem.
And I think it is the chem demil thing too, if you want to
get into something--I do not want to get into that here now,
but that is another problem where we have technology
difficulties of trying to get at a problem that is a huge
potential danger out there. It has been around for a long time.
I mean it is not something that just occurred on this watch.
But the inability to get agencies together to handle that too
and to try to get enough money to get at that.
And you know, Newport, Indiana, where there was a
disaster--still is--waiting there to happen. I mean there is
all of this stuff in canisters in a butler-type building, that
is--and you know, it is all over the country like that.
These numbers that have been put together in the White
House or where they are put together, whether there was any
realization or understanding because I do not think anybody
ever visited Newport, Indiana, before us. This just happened
since probably since September 11, although we were all talking
about these things, as Valerie will tell you, in our previous
bill, even before September 11, we in the Defense Committee had
already begun to focus on that particular problem.
So it is a frustration with us that we do not have more of
a dialogue when these things are put together. And then we get
into these language fights back and forth between people that
we should not be having those with.
So I am sorry, John. I am intruding.
Mr. Olver. It is just too much.
Mr. Hobson. Virgil?
Virgil does not have unexploded ordnance with him down
there. It is rice or something.
Mr. Goode. It is rocks.
Mr. Hobson. Okay.
Mr. Goode. Mr. Secretary, the chairman mentioned that there
might be some unexploded ordinance in the 5th District of
Virginia. Could you read me where it is in Virginia?
Mr. DuBois. I said that?
Mr. Hobson. No, I said there may be some.
Mr. Goode. Yes, he said----
Mr. Hobson. That is how I got him here.
Mr. Goode. That is how he got me to come down so quickly.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DuBois. I do not believe there is any unexploded
ordinance in or near Mr. Jefferson's university, sir.
Mr. Goode. What about Fort Pickett in Nottoway County
Virginia?
Mr. Hobson. Fort Pickett is a training site.
Mr. Goode. Yes, it is.
Mr. Fatz. That would have ordnance on it.
Mr. Goode. And now the Virginia Army National Guard; it is
their responsibility, right?
Mr. Fatz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goode. Let me ask you, as a general question, I
remember in the Virginia General Assembly we had a situation
with asbestos in the old office buildings. And we spent
millions upon millions of dollars to get all of that asbestos
out. People came in with the suits and everything.
And then about 15 years later the whole philosophy on
dealing with asbestos was rexamined. And we probably would have
been better off just leaving it alone, make sure it is all
covered up and keep anyone away from it.
And I am wondering if with some of this unexploded
ordinance if we just couldn't put up some fences, and grow it
in grass and trees. And if a few wildlife happen to step on an
unexploded ordnance item and get exploded, that would just
happen, but we would probably encourage more wildlife. All the
CARA supporters would certainly like something like this. Why
can't we do more of that, just do nothing?
Mr. DuBois. I think in a number of situations that is the
viable alternative, wherein the local redevelopment authority
and the military department involved can agree that that makes
the most sense. Because the cost is astronomical, the use of
the land for critical habitat satisfies the natural resource
management plan for that community and that area, that it does
make sense, sir.
Mr. Hobson. I just do not want to be the guy planting the
tree.
Mr. Goode. You want to put a fence up so they do not get in
the trees.
Mr. Hobson. When they plant the trees.
Anything else, Virgil?
Earl.
Mr. Blumenauer. Well, I guess I am concerned, Mr. Chairman,
that that is, in fact, what we have done in lots of places.
Times change, people move into those neighborhoods. Children do
not respect barbed wire fences. You were not here when Mr. Farr
talked about the tragedy that has occurred. I see it in our own
community where we have 3,800 acres, it has a couple of strands
of barb wire, and there are still people who are going onto the
former Camp Bonneville to hunt, to recreate, kids fooling
around, to party.
And I think we are starting to move in terms of
characterization, but I guess I am concerned that we know what
we are getting into and what is going to be the long-term use.
When we have a forest fire in New York, that the people go
out to fight the forest fires, and all of a sudden there are
explosions because there were buried munitions from training
that has occurred with West Point for the last 200 years, and
all of a sudden people are at risk, it calls into question a
couple of things for me.
Mr. Goode. Would the gentleman yield on the question?
The National Forest Service, in instances believes in
burns. So just let the areas burn with a chain link fence all
around them. If they explode, it will just hurt some wildlife.
If you have a secure enough fence, I do not think you will have
too many accidents.
Mr. Blumenauer. But I find of great interest a lot of these
places are recreational areas where people go now and we have
already made it a decision to not wilderness. I have an
interesting little notice that they have the Jefferson Proving
Grounds now where there are what 40,000 acres that they give
access to people that this is what you look for when you go out
there.
Mr. Olver. Is that a----
Mr. Blumenauer. BRAC.
Mr. Olver. BRAC, but it is not on the list of severe BRAC
sites?
Mr. Blumenauer. But when I talk to Senator Lugar or
Congressman Hill, I get a sense that they think it is serious.
My question, Mr. Chairman, is twofold. And I know we have a
vote or something going on and I really appreciate your
courtesy in allowing me to join in, but my question just as
part of the record.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to have to adjourn.
Mr. Blumenauer. I will follow up, but number one, is just
getting a sense of where this fits in terms of the
prioritization for the Department of Defense research. $26
million sounds like a lot of money, but I do not know how much
we are doing in terms of everything from missile defense to a
whole range of areas where this fits on the prioritization for
the Department of Defense, the amount of money that we have
here. So if you put it in context in terms of where we are
going with it.
The second question that I have deals with the impact of
UXO hazard on non-BRAC installations that may be considered for
closure. We know what we have now. Does the Department of
Defense have an inventory for underused or lightly used or
facilities that may need to be changed in the future? Do you
have this, sort of, inventory for other facilities?
Mr. DuBois. In terms of UXO?
Mr. Blumenauer. In terms of UXO.
Mr. DuBois. The letter that we sent to Congress last spring
indicates that by 2003, we will have full census, if you will,
of those sites. And to the extent to which we know we can
characterize those sites, you will have that report. It is, as
I tried to indicate, enormously complex, physically huge, and
in layerings, if you will.
And we talked about--you can see what is on the ground. I
mean, I have walked the paths in the light impact area, the
paths that have been cleared in Vieques. And you can look to
the right and the left, and you can see the stuff sitting out
on the ground. But what I do not see probably is more dangerous
than what I see.
Mr. Hobson. Well, you should have been down the road with
us in Afghanistan. You could see red stones on one side, and
white stones on the other side and you just hoped that the guy
knew the right colors of paint when he was painting, and that
nobody moved the rocks overnight as we went through there. So
it exists everywhere.
Mr. DuBois. I would always step in your footsteps.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hobson. I do not have a lot of time but--we were in
these--we were really targets. We were in Chevy Suburbans, the
only Chevy Suburbans in Afghanistan. And they put a number of
members in the first one. I was in the second one, and somebody
in the first one said, ``Oh, that is neat. We are really
important. We are going to be up front.'' Then he said, ``No,
that is not true. We are the first ones if we hit a land
mine.'' [Laughter.]
John and I were in the second one. We let the others go
first. [Laughter.]
True military fashion.
I am sorry, Earl. Go ahead.
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, I would just submit a couple
of questions for the record. And I really appreciate your
courtesy and I have great sympathy for the challenge that these
folks have and I hope that we can help them do that job.
Mr. Hobson. Well, certainly let me say, it is a real
challenge. And it is a challenge of technology. It is a
challenge of dollars. But it is a real problem that we have to
deal with.
I know we have a war going on, and we have to fight the
war, but we need to think not only about how we clean up, but
it seems to me we need to be smarter about what we do as we go
forward also. Not just with the cleanup but what we are doing
on ranges now--that is why I asked you about what he is doing--
and what we are doing on small arm ranges.
You know, are we going to continue to have outdoor small
arm ranges, and if we do, are we going to have a way to clean
those up when we do it? Or are we going to shoot into certain
types of things that we can pull those off and then take those
away and drop the material down? Or are we going to shoot in
practice with a different type of bullet that maybe
disintegrates itself but would have the same characteristics as
it would be in live fire, but it disintegrates itself over a
period of time? So we do not continue to have the same way, you
know, with practice bombs. What do we do with those, and what
do we do with live fire? We need to rethink that.
For example, I understand the Navy does not pick up
anything that goes in the water. Because it costs more to get
it out of the water than it does, and so we just----
Mr. Johnson. More dangerous, sir.
Mr. Hobson. It is more dangerous, and so we just, kind of,
forget about that. Someday that is going to be a problem
somewhere. I do not know when but it will be.
So, I think what I would like to get out of this is: one, I
do not think there is enough money in it; two, I do not think
there is enough technology going forward to really ferret it
out; and three, I am really worried about the future too. Not
just cleaning up the past, but that we are not creating a worse
problem with some of the stuff we use today down the road.
And since people have to rethink all of that as we go
through this. And this frankly, in my opinion, is not as high a
priority. And I think everybody in the room--there are other
types of things, because it is something we can do later. And
we need to stop thinking that way even though we are out there
fighting a war now.
Mr. Farr. And coordination.
Mr. Hobson. And yes, the coordination between all of these
agencies, that probably drives you all about as nuts as it does
us.
Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, if I could make just a very brief
comment. The coordination--as Secretary DuBois has enumerated a
number of things that he is doing, I think those are steps,
great steps in the right direction; ones that needed to have
been done earlier but they are now being done. I wish you the
great success of it.
But ultimately your three points are absolutely correct.
The one on the dollars, we have gone through just little Mare
Island, the smallest of the nine largest sites, spending $78
million on a piece of it, on some part of it.
With the other nine sites, they are much bigger in terms of
their total, and we are getting $32 million for UXOs on BRAC
places. It is just totally inadequate. It is orders of
magnitude out of whack.
Mr. Hobson. We are going to have to adjourn.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Sam Farr follows:]
[Clerk's note.--Questions submitted for the record by
Chairman Hobson.]
Inventory
Question. What is the size of the UXO problem at closed bases? For
example, how many acres are contaminated?
Answer. The FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act requires DoD
to take several actions. Among these are:
Develop and maintain an inventory of defense sites that potentially
will require a munitions response. The initial inventory is due by May
31, 2003.
Develop a comprehensive assessment of munitions response
requirements at current and former DoD facilities. That assessment,
which is due in the 2003 Annual Report to Congress, will provide:
--Estimates (high and low) of the aggregate projected costs
associated with munitions responses for all operational ranges (DoD-
wide), and all other defense sites (DoD-wide).
--A comprehensive plan for munitions responses at all defense
sites--this does not include operational ranges--to include the funding
required and the period of time over which such funding will be
required.
Given the above, a response at this time would be premature. The FY
2002 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Report to the Congress
will contain our assessment of military munitions response issues at
specific installations.
Question. Has the Department completed an inventory that fully
identifies the types and extent of UXO present and the associated
contamination at BRAC ranges/installations? If not, what efforts are
being made to complete such an inventory?
Answer. The FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act requires DoD
to take several actions. Among these were:
Develop and maintain an inventory of defense sites that potentially
will require a munitions response. The initial inventory is due by May
31, 2003.
Develop a comprehensive assessment of munitions response
requirements at current and former DoD facilities. That assessment,
which is due in the Annual Report to Congress in 2003, will provide:
--Estimates (high and low) of the aggregate projected costs
associated with munitions responses for all operational ranges (DoD-
wide) and all other defense sites (DoD-wide).
--A comprehensive plan for munitions responses at all defense
sites--does not include operational ranges--to include the funding
required and the period of time over which such funding will be
required.
Given the above, a response at this time would be premature. The FY
2002 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Report to the Congress
will contain our assessment of military munitions response issues at
specific installations.
Clean-Up Costs
Question. How much funding has been provided in prior years to
conduct UXO clean up at BRAC ranges/installations? Please provide a
break out by fiscal year.
Answer. Since FY00, military munitions have been funded as BRAC
environmental restoration requirements. For the Army, the military
munitions response funding for previous years are:
[In millions of dollars]
FY00.............................................................. 19
FY01.............................................................. 38
FY02 (planned execution).......................................... 20
Additionally, the Navy is funding BRAC military munitions response
activities using installation restoration funding within its overall
BRAC environmental restoration investments. Funding for previous years
are:
[In millions of dollars]
FY00.............................................................. 13
FY01.............................................................. 2
FY02 (planned execution).......................................... 7
Question. How much funding is included in the fiscal year 2003 BRAC
request for UXO clean up?
Answer. As discussed in the testimony, the Department has
identified $32M for FY03 munitions response actions on BRAC properties.
Question. What is the estimated future cost to complete UXO clean
up at BRAC ranges/installations? Does the Department believe this cost
estimate is defensible?
Answer. The FY02 cost-to-complete estimate for military munitions
response at BRAC installations is about $398M. This estimate is based
on our most current information on site-specific military munitions
response requirements. DoD will update and refine the cost estimate as
additional information and requirements are identified at BRAC
installations.
Clean-Up Schedule
Question. What is the estimated timeline for UXO clean up at closed
bases?
Answer. The Department's established timeline for completion of
BRAC environmental restoration requirements, including munitions
related responses, is to have final remedies in place at all sites by
the end of FY 2005. However, a few sites may need additional time. In
these cases, the Department plans to have remedies in place by FY 2015,
and monitoring, where required, beyond that date.
Technology
Question. What efforts are being made to develop new assessment and
clean-up technologies? To what extent is funding an impediment to
developing new technologies?
Answer. DoD has been aggressive in developing new Unexploded
Ordnance (UXO) assessment and clean-up technologies. Through
investments in both the private sector and government labs, new
research, development, and technology demonstrations are taking place
to advance our capabilities to locate, identify, remove, and dispose of
UXO. The DoD's defense-wide programs include the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) which
have both been principle programs responsible for UXO related
investments. Starting in FY02, the Army has significantly increased its
investments, which are fully coordinated with the ongoing SERDP and
ESTCP work. DoD will execute over $17 million in FY 2002 for UXO
related Research, Development, Technology & Evaluation (RDT&E). A
detailed description of the current UXO RDT&E investment and its impact
on the UXO cleanup program will be provided in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program Report to Congress next year.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Hobson.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Farr.]
UXO Cleanup
Question. For how many BRAC bases, where property transfer is
pending, is UXO clean up a factor in delaying property transfer? How
many acres does this represent for each of the military services?
Answer. The Army has identified 12 installations that are known or
suspected to require further military munitions response work (from
FY01 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to the
Congress).
The Navy identified ten installations in its testimony that have
UXO issues. Eight of these have UXO work continuing past FY02.
The Air Force indicates that it does not have UXO as a disposal
issue.
Each of these installations have UXO as a factor in property
transfer, but it is premature to single out whether cleanup of UXO is
the primary cause of transfer not occurring.
The inventory report required by the Fiscal Year 2002 National
Defense Authorization Act will include the required acreage
information.
BRAC-UXO
Question. Does DoD have inventory of non-BRAC installations that
may have UXO hazards? How will the impact of UXO hazards affect the
base closure decision-making process in the BRAC round upcoming in
fiscal year 2005? Will the existence of UXO BRAC-proof an installation?
Can you explain?
Answer. The Department, in its September 2001 update to the
``Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program'' (DERP), has initiated the collection and tracking of
munitions response actions at sites that are closed, transferred, or
transferring from Departmental control. This inventory forms the
foundation of the munitions response program and also supports the
Department's commitment to meet the inventory requirements stated in
the National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2002, Section
311. DoD Directive 4715.11, ``Environmental Explosives Safety
Management on Department of Defense Active and Inactive Ranges Within
the United States'' requires the Components to establish and maintain
an inventory of its ranges and to develop a management plan for each
range.
In recommending military installation for closure or realignment
during a BRAC round in 2005, the Department will ensure that military
value is given primary consideration. The existence of unexploded
ordnance hazards on an installation may affect the closure decision-
making process only if the hazards affect its military value. For this
reason, the simple existence of unexploded ordnance hazards by itself,
without military value consideration, will not ``BRAC proof'' an
installation,
Question. To what extent is it possible to fully assess the extent
to which military property is contaminated by UXO and the likely future
clean-up costs at the time base realignment and closure decisions are
made?
Answer. The Department has plans in place to determine the extent
of the UXO issue on operational ranges and munitions response areas
(which includes closed ranges on active installations). However, full
accomplishments of the required investigation and characterization may
take several years. To the extent that these plans are complete, they
will provide information to support future base realignment and closure
decisions. There are two primary drivers for these assessments. DoD
Directive 4715.11, ``Environmental Explosives Safety Management on
Department of Defense Active and Inactive Ranges Within the Untied
States'' requires the design and use of DoD ranges and the munitions
used on them, to the extent practical, to minimize both potential
explosive hazards and harmful environmental impacts and to promote
resource recovery and recycling. The Directive also requires each
Component to establish sustainable range management goals in its long
term planning efforts, and ensure that management plans are
accomplished and reviewed every five years. The September 2001 update
to the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Guidance
requires the Components to designate closed ranges by 30 September
2002.
Question. What types of reuse plan exist for most of the BRAC
acreage that is contaminated by UXO? How much of it is slated to go to
other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management versus to
base reuse organizations for economic development purposes?
Answer. Reuse plans run the gamut from residential development,
like at Fort Ord, to a wildlife refuge at Fort Meade. However, the
majority of the remaining UXO contaminated acreage is to be transferred
to agencies within the Department of Interior.
Question. To what extent is slowness in removing UXO a function of
inadequate funding, the lack of agreements between DOD, federal and
state, local agencies, and other environmental interests regarding
clean-up methods?
Answer. UXO imposes a complex set of safety, environmental, and
regulatory issues, based on site specific characteristics and
stakeholder involvement. In the process of conducting munitions
response actions, DoD remains committed to working in collaboration
with the regulators and the community to remove, where possible, and
minimize any explosive safety hazards. While funding is always an
issue, the ability to effectively and efficiently agree with
stakeholders, including regulators and other government agencies on a
response action, is the most significant determinant of the total cost.
Determining what can be done with currently available technologies and
the development or reuse plans which consider the UXO challenge are
also major factors. Reuse and regulatory plans, such as habitat
management plans, need the flexibility to address unforeseen changes in
conditions, while also striving to achieve agreed upon goals.
Question. To what extent are interim UXO clean-up efforts underway
on BRAC properties for which agreement on ultimate clean-up
requirements are still pending?
Answer. Because of the safety hazard associated with UXO, interim
military munitions response actions are taken at BRAC installations
where an immediate UXO explosive safety issue presents itself. These
actions are usually a part of a comprehensive plan to address the UXO
at the installation. Through the end of FY01, seven interim actions
were taken at BRAC military munitions sites.
Question. How often do reuse plans change after closure decisions
are made that impact the extent of UXO clean up (depth of removal) and
costs?
Answer. The adopted Reuse Plan is seldom changed after the nature
and extent of UXO is characterized. If any change or adjustments are
made, they are normally to a less intense reuse due to constraints
imposed by the presence of UXO. An example is Fort Ord where a decision
had been made to use a former impact area for residential development.
However, after site characterization had been undertaken and UXO
discovered the Local Reuse Authority began to look at viable
alternatives and a recommendation was made to swap the type of reuse
for two separate properties. This change makes sense by developing the
residential portion of the adopted reuse plan at an alternative
location not encumbered by UXO.
Question. In March 2000, the Defense Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency completed an interim management
agreement addressing UXO response activities on closed, transferring
and transferred training ranges. Still, it is our understanding that,
despite many years of discussion between DoD and EPA on the processes
to be used by the Department in cleaning up UXO on BRAC bases as well
as other DOD sites, the issue remains unresolved. Describe briefly the
processes being used today by the Department in identifying,
investigating and cleaning up UXO contaminated property on BRAC bases
and how does that process differ materially from the process advocated
by the EPA? What would be the impact, in terms of required funding,
schedule, and protection of human health and safety, if the Department
adopted the EPA approach to UXO clean up?
Answer. DOD and EPA developed the ``Management Principles for
Implementing Response Actions at Closed, Transferring, and Transferred
(CTT) Ranges'' (Interim Final, March 7, 2000) in response to an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) letter to the Department in April
1999. The principles were developed to assist in finalizing the ``Range
Rule'', which was being developed to guide response actions at CTT
ranges. The range Rule was never finalized; however, these principles
remain valid. The National Association of Attorneys General and the
Environmental Council of States expressed concerns about the Federal
Government taking action without consulting with state stakeholders. In
response, as was pointed out in the testimony, the Department has
embarked on establishing a Munitions response Committee to develop
collaborative decision-making processes for munitions response actions.
This Committee includes representatives from state governments and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Potentially affected tribes and the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture (both as federal land managers)
have been invited to participate on the Committee. As the Committee
accomplishes its activities, and the Department develops the
comprehensive plan required by the FY 2002 National Defense
Authorization Act, the Department will be better able to answer the
cost and schedule questions based on agreed, not adversarial,
processes. This plan will be provided to the Congress in April 2003 as
part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Report to
Congress.
Question. It is our understanding that DOD expects to spend about
$3.5 billion in environmental clean-up costs beyond fiscal year 2001 at
its BRAC bases. To what extent are UXO clean-up costs included in that
estimate and how much is needed to clean-up. UXO? Further, how firm are
these estimates and at what bases is UXO clean up required?
Answer. As reported in the Defense Environmental Response Program
Fiscal Year 2001 report to Congress, the cost-to-complete estimate for
military munitions response activities is $398 million. This estimate
is based on our best and most current information on planned actions to
address known military munitions response sites at the following 12
installations and is included in the total BRAC environmental
restoration FY02-to-complete estimate of $3.7 billion.
Fort McClellan, AL
Presidio of Monterey (Fort Ord Annex), CA
Sierra Army Depot, CA
Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO
Savanna Depot Activity, IL
Jefferson Proving Ground, IN
Fort George G. Meade, MD
Fort Ritchie, MD
Fort Wingate, NM
Seneca Army Depot, NY
Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR
Camp Bonneville, WA
Additionally, Navy is conducting military munitions response
activities in FY02 and beyond at the following eight installations and
estimates the total cost to be $61 million and has included it within
the overall DoD FY02-to-complete environmental restoration estimate of
$3.7 billion.
Adak Naval Air Facility, AK
Crows Landing Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, CA
El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, CA
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, CA
Salton Sea Test Range, CA
Treasure Island Naval Station, CA
Cecil Field Naval Air Station, FL
South Weymouth Naval Air Station, MA
DoD will update and refine the military munitions response cost
estimate as additional information and requirements are identified at
BRAC installations.
Question. To what extent have technologies and practices for UXO
clean up changed over the past 5 years? Are there any substantial
improvements on the horizon for UXO detection and remediation? To what
extent is funding an impediment to developing new technologies?
Answer. The state of UXO detection technology and practices for UXO
clean-up has significantly improved over the past five years. Through
the mid-1990s, the default technology was ``mag and flag.'' Independent
evaluations of ``mag and flag'' practices demonstrated it has an
unacceptably low rate of UXO detection and an excessive false alarm
rate. High false alarm rates lead directly to higher costs for
remediation. Improving beyond the default technology essentially began
in the mid 1990s and has led the Department (with many technology
partners) to develop, demonstrate, and implement a new class of UXO
detection technologies that form its basis in modern digital
geophysics. These novel approaches have led to a significant
improvement in the probability of detection and assisted in reduced
cost for cleanup. New characterization approaches are being used by
industry on DoD UXO cleanup projects. In addition, DoD has made
improvements to engineering controls and disposal options.
While there is improving news on using new generation UXO
technology, significant limitations remain. At all but the simplest
sites, the false alarm rate is still quite high, and discrimination
rates require further improvements to further reduce costs. Site and
terrain conditions also limit the application of these new
technologies. Next generation detection approaches offer the potential
to increase the high probability of detection at all UXO contaminated
sites, but more development is required to achieve the discrimination
required to avoid digging holes to remove non-UXO items. DoD will
continue to exploit these systems along with advances in signal
processing, navigation, and improvements in platform performance.
DoD will execute over $17 million in RDT&E funds in FY 2002 for
UXO, an increase of over $4 million from FY 2001.
A 1998 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force On Unexploded
Ordnance (UXO) Clearance, Active range UXO clearance, and Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Programs recommended that UXO site clean up
activities be packaged and outsourced entirely to contractors to
achieve more cost effective solutions. It went on to say that
contractual arrangements should provide incentives to stimulate
industry to invest in and use advanced technology. The objective was to
have industry commercialize and apply DOD developed technologies as
well as to develop their own proprietary products.
Question. To what extent is UXO remediation work on BRAC bases
contracted with the private sector?
Answer. DoD retains control and management of the overall scope and
direction of BRAC military munitions response actions with the
overwhelming majority of the work, about 95% or more, carried out by
the private sector.
Question. To what extent is industry being given incentives to
develop and apply advance technologies in UXO clearance?
Answer. The UXO technology RDT&E program is predominately executed
by industry. Funds are provided by the Components and DoD's defense-
wide programs; Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP). New UXO technologies are transitioned through direct
industrial involvement so as to ensure the latest technology can be
applied on DoD UXO cleanups. Contracts for operational cleanup
encouraged the contractor to apply the most advanced technology
appropriate for the site.
Question. Can you explain the DOD's involvement in the private
sector's efforts to develop new assessment and clean up technologies?
What type of support does DOD provide to the process?
Answer. The Department continues to engage the private sector in
seeking new technologies for assessment and cleanup of UXO. This
activity has been enhanced by our use of defense-wide programs like the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and
the Environmental Security technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to
complement Service activities. These two programs, like those of the
Services, solicit directly from the private sector and award research,
development, and demonstration and validation contracts to the private
sector on a competitive basis. DoD has been successful with this
approach and has enjoyed overwhelming response from the private sector.
As an example, a recent SERDP solicitation for UXO technologies
resulted in over 90 proposals being submitted from the private sector.
In FY02, over 60% of the SERDP's UXO development effort is being
executed by the private sector, and over 75% of ESTCP's UXO
demonstrations are being executed by the private sector.
Question. Has DOD been using new technologies to decrease the cost
of unexploded ordinance assessment, remediation, and cleanup? Has DOD
identified areas of UXO mediation that can benefit from technology
investment? What techniques are available to detect munitions
constituents in groundwater? Has DOD invested in Geographical
Information Systems and mapping technologies?
Answer. DoD is using new technologies to both decrease cost and
ensure optimal risk reduction in the overall UXO cleanup program. New
technologies are being deployed across all phases of the UXO program,
from initial site characterization through disposal of excavated
munitions. The DoD programs are designed to provide continuous
improvements to UXO technology and make them accessible to our industry
partners.
DoD has identified technology gaps for both land and water ranges
contaminated with UXO that can benefit from technology investments.
These gaps include:
Wide area assessment to perform rapid assessment of
large areas;
Production ground and water surveys to provide
detailed site characterization;
Cued identification technologies to non-intrusively
characterize suspected anomalies;
Removal and disposal capabilities to reduce cost,
risk and environmental impact;
Hazard assessment information and tools to aid in
the management of UXO risks.
A number of laboratory techniques are commercially available for
detecting explosives in groundwater and more rapid and cost effective
techniques are under development. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
standard laboratory methods were developed in the 1980s by DoD. Newer
techniques that are field deployable are undergoing demonstration and
validation under a joint DoD and EPA effort. Next generation techniques
that can rapidly and at a lower cost help characterize groundwater are
under development.
DoD continues to invest in Geographical Information Systems (GIS)
to aid progress in the UXO program. GIS and advanced mapping techniques
continue to be a critical component to characterizing and managing UXO
site work.
Question. The diversity of UXO requirements has resulted in
numerous organizations being involved with the UXO problem, many
different projects, and different funding levels. The challenge is to
make sure these diverse efforts are coordinated, unwarranted
duplication eliminated, and appropriate information is shared. Have the
various DOD organizations responsible for environmental compliance and
cleanup (for UXO), such as the DOD Explosives Safety Board, Army Center
for Environmental Excellence and the Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence, established a unified management structure for sharing best
practices and implementing common cleanup standards? What is the
process to make sure these diverse efforts are coordinated, unwarranted
duplication eliminated, and appropriate information is shared?
Answer. The broad variety of coordination and policy
responsibilities cited fall under several Department of Defense (DOD)
Organizations, including: the Joint Unexploded Ordnance Coordination
Office (JUXOCO), the Defense Test and Training Steering Group (DTTSG)
and the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB). Each of
the Services has also established various committees that deal with
different aspects of the UXO issue. The Operational and Environmental
Executive Steering Committee for Munitions (OEESCM) acts as an
overarching organization to tie the work of all these various
organizations together, develop common policy concepts and guidance,
share ideas, and prevent duplicative effort where possible.
The OEESCM, established in 1998 by the Office of the Secretary Of
Defense (OSD), has the mission of developing draft DoD policies,
positions, and action plans related to the life-cycle management of
munitions (including UXO). A key component of that mission is to
support DoD readiness by ensuring a balance between operational needs,
explosive safety, and environmental stewardship during the acquisition,
management, use, and disposal of munitions (including UXO). Hence, the
establishment of a unified management structure for sharing best
practices falls under the umbrella of the OEESCM. The Military
Departments, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), JUXOCO, DDESB, Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment
(DUSD(I&E)), as well as several other DoD Offices and Organizations,
are members of the OEESCM. Members come from operational, logistical,
environmental, legal, and other disciplines. The OEESCM developed the
Munitions Action Plan, a DoD strategy to address the issues of ranges
and munitions in support of readiness. It contains diverse objectives
ranging from policy development, Research, Development, Testing and
Evaluation (RDT&E), to data gathering, to be implemented by the
Services and DoD organizations.
Question. Recently, DOD in a draft letter released to the public
said it opposes legislation (H.R. 3212) attempting to include
underwater live impact areas in DOD's range maintenance program for
active military training ranges. Rather, DOD says it will address
concerns over its operational ranges through its sustainable range
initiative. Can you explain DOD's opposition to the legislation? How
would DOD ``address'' underwater impact areas in its sustainable range
initiative? Does DOD plan to release this initiative in the near
future?
Answer. The Department of Defense opposes this legislation. DOD
believes that the existing laws, regulations and policies that apply to
underwater munitions are sufficient to ensure the protection of public
health and the environment.
To address recent concerns raised regarding its operational ranges,
the Department has commenced a sustainable range initiative. DoD is
developing and implementing policies and programs to improve range
sustainment. Specific to this issue, the goals of this initiative
include establishing policy for use and management of operational
ranges in a safe, environmentally friendly, and cost effective manner
that will ensure their long-term availability. This initiative also
includes assessment of the impact of munitions use on operational
ranges to ensure that such use does not adversely affect surrounding
properties or populations.
Policies for range sustainment are currently undergoing
coordination within the Department. A copy of the Department's official
position on the proposed legislation is provided for your information.
Fort Ord
It is our understanding the UXO clean-up is a serious problem at
the former Fort Ord in California and that the cleanup could require
hundreds of millions of dollars and not be completed until about 2015?
With regard to the clean-up.
Question. Would increased funding over the next several years allow
the Army to accelerate the clean-up schedule?
Answer. We have sufficient funds to manage the work that we can
accomplish annually while still complying with the requirements of the
Habitat Management Plan. The Army is preparing a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for its munition response at
the former Fort Ord. The RI/FS is scheduled for completion in 2005. In
the meantime, the Army is conducting interim response actions so as to
make parcels available for reuse, particularly those that the local
reuse authority has identified as a high priority. These actions are
subject to community involvement and state and federal regulatory
oversight. All these combined affect the level of the unexploded
ordnance removal that the Army can accomplish each year.
Question. To what extent are there other barriers present, besides
funding, that requires an extended clean-up schedule?
Answer. The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) supports burning as the
preferred method for managing fire dependent habitat. Burning also
supports our efforts to clear vegetation in order to access unexploded
ordnance. The HMP, however, limits the number of acres that can be
burned annually, so as not to damage the eco-systems ability to
rejuvenate. In addition, the environmental and climatic conditions must
be within prescribed parameters to support a burn. Litigation led to a
decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that federal agencies
cleaning up their facilities cannot avail themselves of the CERCLA
section 113(h) protection of ongoing cleanups. Therefore, unlike
cleanups elsewhere, our efforts can be stopped before they even get
started. (This is the real reason cleanups cannot go forward at Ord).
Question. Clean-up progress has been delayed in recent years by
issues involving the Army's methods for clearing vegetation from the
property (e.g. controlled burns versus use of mechanical devices). What
progress is being made to resolve clearance issues and what impact have
these issues had on the clean-up schedule? How are costs likely to be
affected by the resolution?
Answer. The Army and the local Air Board have reached a tentative
settlement to complete specific actions to resolve the Air Board's
current lawsuit that hinders the Army's plan for prescribed burning.
The lawsuit delayed the Army's prescribed burn plan for at least a
year. The Army expects to execute its burn plan this October, but the
Air Board is not precluded from challenging that burn plan as well.
In addition to continuing the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) process, the Army is completing an Interim Action RI/FS
to respond to high priority unexploded ordnance (UXO) sites. This study
includes site preparation actions, such as burning.
Costs are likely to increase. The mounting list of activities
required to support our munitions response efforts has significantly
increased the Army's cost per acre to remove UXO. Also, the cost of
keeping UXO teams on site performing less critical tasks consumes
resources that could otherwise be applied to critical tasks.
Question. What viable opportunities exist to reduce the extent of
clean up required on the former base and what impact would they have on
the clean-up funding requirement and the ultimate reuse of the
property?
Answer. In regard to risk management, agreement by the local reuse
authority and regulators to accept risk management standards compatible
with development plans for specific parcels will save time and funds.
Working with government and private sector technical experts can help
identify these risk management standards.
As to reuse, the end use of development parcels should consider the
history of the parcels. The parties should avoid planning for
residential development on parcels that are known or suspected to
contain unexploded ordnance.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mr. Farr.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Blumenauer.]
Technology
Question. What is the priority of addressing unexploded ordnance in
the Department of Defense's overall research priorities?
Answer. Within the Environmental Quality Technology Area, research
for the detection, discrimination and removal of Unexploded Ordnance
enjoys the highest priority. In response to this priority, DoD's
Science and Technology Area Plan for Environmental Quality includes a
Defense Technology Objective to support the enhanced detection,
discrimination, and characterization of buried unexploded ordnance for
environmental remediation and active range clearance.
Question. What is the impact of UXO hazards on installations that
may be considered for closure in the future as part of the Base
Realignment and Closure process?
Answer. In recommending military installations for closure or
realignment during a BRAC round in 2005, the Department will ensure
that military value is given primary consideration. The existence of
unexploded ordnance hazards on an installation may affect the closure
decision-making process if the hazards affect its military value.
Question. In 1998, the Defense Science Board recommended that the
Defense Department put someone in charge of Munitions Response. Who's
in charge now?
Answer. As discussed in the testimony, the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Installations and Environment) designated the Assistant
Deputy Under Secretary (Environment) to be in charge of the Munitions
Response Program.
Question. One of the successes of the Ft. Ord SMART Team has been
the development of a comprehensive site security plan. Are similar
plans being developed at other closed, transferred, and transferring
ranges and other UXO sites? How long would it take the Defense
Department to put rudimentary site security plans into effect at every
property where UXO and other explosive hazards threaten the safety of
the public or military families?
Answer. The site-specific nature of potential UXO sites allows for
generalized guidelines (DoD Directive 4715.11 Environmental and
Explosives Safety Management and DoD Active and Inactive Ranges Within
the United States), and precludes a one-size-fits-all approach. Hence,
no DoD-wide standardized plans or procedures are in place to provide
physical security at former (transferred or transferring) ranges that
are known or suspected to contain UXO.
Individual installations and commands are already required to
restrict access to areas known or suspected to contain UXO. Like at
Fort Ord, installations determine security requirements and how best to
meet them, and then implement them and evaluate their effectiveness on
a case-by-case basis. Options include protective fencing designed to
local requirements, signage, and implementing a UXO safety program, all
elements of a good program to control access and risk.
With regard to UXO safety, the Army developed a UXO safety
education program. This web-based program uses a ``toolbox'' approach
to help reduce risk that stems from lack of knowledge and to meet the
educational challenges faced in areas near properties on which UXO may
be found. The Army released this program in February to the public side
of our Defense Environmental Network Information Exchange at http://
www.denix.osd.mil/uxosafety. The Army intends to continue to improve
this program and to provide the tools (videos, briefings, posters,
etc.) installations, other federal agencies, and local communities need
to educate the local public about the hazards of UXO and what to do if
they encounter UXO. The Army BRAC office developed an UXO Awareness/
Safety Video and an UXO Awareness brochure, which contains various
posters, signs and handouts, an effort designed to assist local
installation commanders and their representatives in developing safety
programs that provide education to individuals wanting to access BRAC
sites after remediation projects are competed and the land has been
reverted to local use.
As for the requirements for ``closed'' ranges on active
installations, the Services have in place a series of regulations and
guidance documents that establishes minimum safety requirements for all
ranges used for training. These include requirements to fence, as
required, and place warning signs around the boundaries of areas known
or suspected to contain UXO.
Question. I appreciate the efforts that the Defense Department is
making to improve technology for finding and removing UXO from former
ranges. Does the Department expect to return later with more effective,
reliable technologies to sites initially ``cleared'' with visual
surface sweeps or ``mag-and-flag'' techniques?
Answer. The Department conducts environmental remediation actions
to support its determined or reasonably anticipated end use. The
Department is committed to addressing its responsibilities for
munitions response and investing in technologies to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of our efforts. As new technologies or
promising innovations emerge, DoD will review how best to apply these
tools in the conduct of both on-going munitions response efforts and
other situations (e.g., review and maintenance of land use controls,
long-term monitoring requirements, etc.) that may warrant their
application.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mr. Blumenauer.]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Beckman, Bobbie.................................................. 237
Blair, Adm. Dennis............................................... 363
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl............................................ 597
Brubaker, Brig. Gen. D.A......................................... 185
Coleman, Brig Gen. (Select) Ronald............................... 143
Dishner, J. G.................................................... 487
Douglas, Deborah................................................. 237
DuBois, Raymond.............................................1, 487, 625
Duignan, Brig. Gen. Robert....................................... 185
Fatz, Raymond.................................................... 625
Finch, CMSAF F. J................................................ 283
Fiori, M. P...................................................... 81
Gibbs, Nelson.................................................... 185
Helmly, Maj. Gen. J. R........................................... 81
Herdt, J. L...................................................... 283
Johnson, H.T..............................................143, 487, 625
Johnson, Rear Adm. Michael....................................... 143
Kemp, Marie-Christine............................................ 237
Koetz, Maureen................................................... 625
McLean, Phyllis.................................................. 237
McMichael, SGT MAJ Marine Corps. A. L............................ 283
Preston, Rear Adm. Noel.......................................... 143
Prosch, G. G..................................................... 487
Ralsont, Gen. J. W............................................... 435
Robbins, Maj. Gen. E. O., II..................................... 185
Schwartz, Gen. Thomas............................................ 363
Squier, Brig. Gen. M. J.......................................... 81
Tilley, SMA J. L................................................. 283
Van Antwerp, Maj. Gen. R. L., Jr................................. 81
Zakheim, Dov..................................................... 1
I N D E X
----------
Overview
Page
Agricultural Land, Loss Due to Encroachment...................... 69
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 53
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 1
Chemical Demilitarization........................................ 55
Child Care Centers............................................... 59
Defense Emergency Response Fund.................................. 42
Defense Language Institute....................................... 75
DuBois, Prepared Statement of Raymond F., Jr..................... 19
DuBois, Statement of Raymond F., Jr.............................. 16
Housing Privatization............................................ 46
Housing.......................................................... 68
NATO............................................................. 61
Schools.......................................................... 66
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)................. 44
Tyndall AFB......................................................52, 73
Zakheim, Prepared Statement of Dr. Dov S......................... 8
Zakheim, Statement of Dr. Dov S.................................. 4
Army Property--Disposal of....................................... 120
Army, Non-Citizen Members of U.S................................. 123
Barracks......................................................... 118
Base Realignment and Closure--Fort Ord........................... 122
Base Realignment and Closure--Local Reuse Authorities............ 132
Base Realignment and Closure Properties.......................... 130
Base Realignment and Closure Properties, Disposal of............. 121
Centralized Installation Management............................119, 136
Centralized Management--Effect on Guard and Reserve.............. 137
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 81
Chemical Demilitarization........................................ 139
Commissioning.................................................... 125
Defense Language Institute--Military Construction................ 119
Efficient Basing, East.........................................114, 139
Environmental Restoration Nationwide............................. 128
Fiori, Prepared Statement of Dr. Mario P......................... 86
Fiori, Statement of Dr. Mario P.................................. 83
Fort Ord, Environmental Restoration at........................... 127
Guard Facilities--Newport, Indiana............................... 125
Helmly, Statement of Major General James R....................... 112
Housing Affordability............................................ 130
Joint Use Facilities............................................. 134
Korea, Internet Use in........................................... 123
MilCon Budget--FY 03 vs. FY 02................................... 116
MilCon Budget, Low.............................................117, 138
MilCon On Hold, Status of........................................ 134
National Guard--Fort Knox........................................ 125
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John........................... 83
Pueblo, Housing.................................................. 126
Squier, Statement of Brigadier Michael J......................... 110
Supplemental Funding............................................. 116
U.S. Army South Headquarters Relocation.......................... 132
Unexploded Ordnance--Smart Teams................................. 127
Unexploded Ordnance Cleanup...................................... 129
Utilities Privatization.......................................... 140
Van Antwerp, Statement of MG Robert L............................ 109
West Point--Arvin Physical Development Center Reprogramming...... 124
Navy
Barracks Privatization........................................... 174
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 143
Commissioning.................................................... 178
Demonstration Language........................................... 180
Homeport Ashore................................................169, 177
Housing Goal..................................................... 179
Johnson, Prepared Statement of H.T............................... 149
Johnson, Statement of H.T........................................ 145
NATO Regional Command Headquarters............................... 178
Naval Postgraduate School--Future Plans for...................... 180
Naval Postgraduate School........................................ 165
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John........................... 144
Pier Replacement Program.......................................175, 177
Recapitalization Rate............................................ 179
Air Force
Aricraft Lease................................................... 226
B-2 Beddown....................................................220, 223
C-17............................................................. 209
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 180
Commercial Airlines.............................................. 230
Dover AFB........................................................ 226
Family Housing Conventional and Privatization.................... 211
Family Housing.................................................185, 209
Fiscal Year 2003 Budget.......................................... 233
Force Protection................................................. 214
General Officer Quarters......................................... 227
Gibbs, Statement of the Honorable Nelson F....................... 185
Gibbs, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Nelson F.............. 187
Guard and Reserve Military Construction.......................... 215
Guard Projects................................................... 224
Holloman AFB..................................................... 212
Military Personnel............................................... 222
Privatization.............................................211, 214, 221
Tyndall AFB....................................................217, 218
Quality of Life in the Military--Spouses
Beckman, Prepared Statement of Bobbie Sue........................ 242
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 237
Cleaning Fees.................................................... 251
Douglas, Statement of Mrs. Debi.................................. 253
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John W......................... 239
Quality of Life in the Military--Senior Enlisted
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 283
Child Care....................................................... 334
Dormitory Master Plan............................................ 334
Education Benefits............................................... 333
Facilities Maintenance........................................... 350
Family Housing................................................... 334
Finch, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Frederick J... 332
Finch, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Frederick J............ 332
Fitness Facilities............................................... 334
Herdt, Prepared Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer James L.. 306
Herdt, Statement of Master Chief Petty Officer James L........... 304
Housing, Basic Allowance for..................................... 333
Korea, Soldier Housing in........................................ 288
Maintenance and Facilities Privatization......................... 360
McMichael, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Alford L......... 321
McMichael, Statement of Sergeant Major Alford L.................. 318
Military Construction and Privatization.......................... 359
Military Construction Funding.................................... 285
Military Pay..................................................... 332
Military Personnel............................................... 348
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John W......................... 284
Operations Tempo................................................. 351
Pay and Benefits................................................. 349
Point Source Improvements........................................ 357
Quality of Life and Equipment Issues............................. 353
Quality of Life Improvements..................................... 290
Recruiting and Retention, Effects on............................. 357
Reserve Component Utilization.................................... 290
Retention Rates.................................................. 333
Tilley, Statement of Sergeant Major Jack L....................... 287
Tilley, Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Jack L.............. 292
Deployment Figures............................................... 348
U.S. Pacific Command
Blair, Prepared Statement of Admiral Dennis C.................... 373
Blair, Statement of Admiral Dennis C............................. 367
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 363
Guam, Future Needs for........................................... 427
Historic Preservation Issues..................................... 433
Host Nation Support.............................................. 433
Japan............................................................ 423
Land Partnership Plan............................................ 422
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John W......................... 365
Pacific Command Budget........................................... 432
Personnel Issues................................................. 432
Reunification of North and South Korea........................... 428
Schools in Guam.................................................. 426
Schwartz, Prepared Statement of General Thomas A................. 399
Schwartz, Statement of General Thomas A.......................... 394
Wake Island...................................................... 429
U.S. European Command
Barracks Upgrade Program......................................... 473
Bosnia U.S. Force Contribution................................... 469
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 435
Efficient Base East.............................................. 472
European Command Area of Responsibility.......................... 437
Force Structure.................................................. 468
Housing Costs.................................................... 484
Housing Privatization............................................ 467
Incirlik--Operation Northern Watch............................... 483
Infrastructure................................................... 439
Kosovo U.S. Force Contribution................................... 482
NATO Aspirants................................................... 464
NATO Member Nations, New......................................... 461
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John W......................... 436
On Post Living Percentages....................................... 484
Operations....................................................... 439
Personnel Locations.............................................. 476
Ralston, Prepared Statement of General Joseph W.................. 443
Ralston, Statement of General Joseph W........................... 437
Reserve/National Guard Contributions............................. 469
Unaccompanied Personnel.......................................... 485
War Crimes, Persons Indicted for................................. 472
Housing Privatization
BAH.............................................................. 563
Barracks Privatization........................................... 577
Base Closure and Realignment..................................... 562
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 487
Consultants....................................................570, 592
Dishner, Prepared Statement of Jimmy G........................... 545
Dishner, Statement of Jimmy G.................................... 541
DuBois, Prepared Statement of Raymond F., Jr..................... 493
DuBois, Statement of Raymond F., Jr.............................. 489
Family Housing--Navy............................................. 590
Family Housing Master Plan....................................... 561
Fort Hood Housing................................................ 586
General Officers Quarters........................................ 578
Housing Privatization Budget Request............................. 584
Housing Privatization............................................ 574
Housing, Inadequate.............................................. 558
Johnson, Prepared Statement of H.T............................... 513
Johnson, Statement of H.T........................................ 513
Korea............................................................ 579
Navy Barracks Privatization...................................... 591
Overseas Housing................................................. 557
Prosch, Prepared Statement of Geoffrey G......................... 527
Prosch, Statement of Geoffrey G.................................. 524
RCI Program...................................................... 587
Schools.......................................................... 574
Unexploded Ordnance
Blumenauer, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Earl............. 604
Blumenauer, Statement of Honorable Earl.......................... 600
BRAC-UXO......................................................... 707
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 597
Clean-up Costs................................................... 706
Clean-up Schedule................................................ 707
Cleanup.......................................................... 679
Compliance....................................................... 679
Conservation..................................................... 680
DuBois, Prepared Statement of Raymond F., Jr..................... 629
DuBois, Statement of Raymond F., Jr.............................. 625
Environmental Program............................................ 679
Fatz, Prepared Statement of Raymond J............................ 647
Fatz, Statement of Raymond J..................................... 645
Fort Ord......................................................... 712
Houlemard, Prepared Statement of Mr. Michael A................... 615
Houlemard, Statement of Mr. Michael A............................ 610
Inventory........................................................ 706
Johnson, Prepared Statement of H.T............................... 666
Johnson, Statement of H.T........................................ 663
Koetz, Prepared Statement of Maureen T........................... 682
Koetz, Statement of Maureen T.................................... 679
Olver, Statement of the Honorable John W......................... 598
Performance-Based Contracting.................................... 692
Pollution Prevention............................................. 680
Technology.....................................................707, 713
UXO Cleanup...................................................... 707