[Senate Hearing 107-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       S. Hrg. 107-273
 
       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

=======================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                before a

                          SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on

                           H.R. 2904/S. 1460

    AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, 
                         AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations




 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                 senate

                                 ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-864                          WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½090001








                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             TED STEVENS, Alaska
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina   THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
HARRY REID, Nevada                   MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 CONRAD BURNS, Montana
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island              MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
                     Terry Sauvain, Staff Director
                 Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
               Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Military Construction

                 DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            CONRAD BURNS, Montana
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
HARRY REID, Nevada                   MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        TED STEVENS, Alaska
  (ex officio)                         (ex officio)

                           Professional Staff
                            Christina Evans
                              B.G. Wright
                        Sid Ashworth (Minority)

                         Administrative Support
                               Angela Lee
                       Alycia Farrell (Minority)









                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2001

                                                                   Page
Department of Defense:
    Office of the Secretary of Defense...........................     1
    Defense agencies:
        Military Community and Family Policy.....................    27
        Ballistic Missile Defense Organization...................    27
        Special Operations Command...............................    27
        Tricare Management Activity..............................    27
    Department of the Army.......................................    51

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2001

Department of Defense:
    Department of the Navy.......................................    85
    Department of the Air Force..................................   111








       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Feinstein, Johnson, Hutchison, and Craig.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                   Office of the Secretary of Defense

STATEMENT OF HON. DOV S. ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF 
            DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND F. DUBOIS, JR., DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF 
            DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATION AND ENVIRONMENT


             opening statement of senator dianne feinstein


    Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon. I know that Senator 
Hutchison is on her way, but in the interest of time and 
because we have a vote coming up at about 3 o'clock, I thought 
I might just start and make my opening remarks, and then 
hopefully Senator Hutchison will be here and she will make 
hers.
    I would like to welcome all of the witnesses. I would like 
to thank them for appearing before the subcommittee. I look 
forward to working with Senator Hutchison. We are good friends, 
and here she comes right now. I was just saying I look forward 
to working with you and am delighted that we are together as 
chairman and ranking member of the MILCON subcommittee.
    The fiscal year 2002 military construction budget that is 
before us today is really a good news story in just about all 
respects. The top line is nearly $10 billion and, with the 
exception of BRAC, virtually every account in the budget has 
seen significant increases. I am especially pleased to see the 
emphasis this budget places upon quality of life issues, 
particularly improved housing. We ask a great deal of our men 
and women in uniform. We cannot begin to pay them what they 
deserve, but we certainly should not ask them to live in 
substandard housing, to work in dilapidated facilities, or 
forego the kind of community amenities that so many of us take 
so for granted. Our military personnel and their families have 
enough to worry about in carrying out their mission without 
being burdened by major quality of life concerns.
    I am also happy to see the hefty across the board increase 
in funding for the guard and reserve components. For years 
Congress has been urging the executive branch to submit 
realistic guard and reserve budgets. For years Congress has 
seen no results. This budget submission really marks a turning 
point in recognizing the importance and the funding need of the 
guard and the reserve.
    I am, however, concerned about the level of funding for 
BRAC in this budget. The $532 million proposed by the President 
is just over half of last year's appropriated amount for BRAC. 
I understand that the BRAC process is winding down, but I also 
understand that environmental cleanup bills associated with 
BRAC are climbing. The Navy reports that it has $92 million in 
unfunded, must-pay BRAC environmental compliance costs for 
fiscal year 2002.
    We really need to address these costs and this budget 
frankly does not appear to do so. It seems strange to me that 
there may be plans to request a new round of BRAC closures when 
we have not even paid the tab for the last go-around.
    But while this is on balance a good news budget, I hope it 
is more than just a 1-year spike. The infrastructure needs of 
the military are enormous regardless of whether we have another 
round of BRAC or not, regardless of how we rejigger our force 
structure overseas. The fact remains that the United States 
will always need to support a robust military. We will need new 
facilities to meet new mission demands and we will need to 
maintain and sustain our existing military facilities.
    Infrastructure investments are not the kind of gee-whiz 
technology that tend to capture large infusions of money. 
Building a barracks is not as exciting as building the Joint 
Strike Fighter. But without adequate housing for the families, 
we will not have pilots to fly those planes. Without adequate 
aircraft maintenance shops and runways, we will not be able to 
keep the planes flying. Simply put, without an adequate 
investment in infrastructure, we will not have the best 
military in the world.
    So I look forward very much to hearing from our witnesses 
today. First, Senator Hutchison, it is great to be with you and 
perhaps you would like to make your remarks.


               statement of senator kay bailey hutchison


    Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I too 
appreciate the opportunity to work with you. I had thought it 
would be with reverse chairs, but nevertheless, whatever chair 
it is, I think we will be able to do what is right for our 
military and for our country, and I really look forward to 
working with you.
    I look forward to hearing from each of the panels today on 
the military construction priorities. The large increase in 
military construction in the President's budget request is 
important to the modernization of our facilities and the 
transformation of our forces and facilities for the future, 
certainly a step in the right direction.
    I also want to recognize the Department of Defense and the 
services for restoring the 5 percent contingency fund back into 
the project budgets. I think that is critical to the long-term 
stability and effective execution of the military construction 
program.
    I do have questions about the increasing percentage of our 
construction budget allocated to bases overseas. It is 
absolutely necessary to have some forces forward deployed. 
Currently we have 74 installations outside the United States, 
with almost 213,000 personnel permanently stationed in 140 
countries. My question is have these commitments subsumed 
funding that in some cases might have been better used to 
maintain or improve our enduring domestic base infrastructure?
    The fiscal year 2002 budget includes significant funding 
for overseas projects. We continue to make these significant 
infrastructure investments overseas before the completion of 
Secretary Rumsfeld's defense review. It seems like military 
construction realignment initiatives are being put ahead of the 
policy decisions that we would need to base our decisions on.
    It is critical that the Department of Defense conduct a 
comprehensive review of these overseas installations to ensure 
they continue to be correctly balanced against other 
priorities.
    I look forward to hearing from all of the panels today and 
seeing how the services plan to balance their priorities.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Senator.
    I am now pleased to welcome Dr. Dov Zakheim, the Defense 
Department Comptroller, and Mr. Ray DuBois, the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. 
Secretaries, because of limited time I ask you perhaps to 
summarize your statements. As you know, your written statement 
will go in the record. Then we will have adequate time for 
questions.


                    statement of dr. dov s. zakheim


    Mr. Zakheim. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Senator 
Hutchison. I will do just that. I have a longer statement. With 
your permission, I hope it can be inserted into the record. I 
do thank you for providing me with the opportunity to present 
the President's fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense military 
construction budget, and I want particularly to thank you both 
and the rest of the committee for your unwavering support for 
our requests over these past years. I know that the men and 
women in uniform owe you and the committee a great deal of 
gratitude for your support of quality of life initiatives.
    I want to thank you and the committee as well for the 
support you have provided during the certainly very complicated 
base realignment and closure process that continues. As you 
know, the authority for that process is saving us considerable 
money and we have plowed much of that into readiness items. 
Regrettably, in the past we did not plow enough back into our 
facilities, and the fiscal year 2002 budget attempts to reverse 
this trend in a significant way. We have increased the level of 
funding we traditionally spend on military construction and 
family housing and hope to spend even more in the future to 
arrest the dismal conditions of many of our facilities.
    I am sure that you are also concerned with funding for the 
ballistic missile defense initiative and Dr. Sanders will speak 
to you in the next panel about the specifics of that proposal. 
Let me say that we are constructing the testbed facility and 
that it in no way abrogates the ABM treaty.
    Just a brief perspective on the budget as a whole before I 
turn it over to my colleague Ray DuBois. The fiscal year 2002 
budget for the Department of Defense prepares for the future 
while addressing current needs through robust funding to 
improve morale, improve readiness, raise defense capabilities, 
and update our aging facilities.
    In terms of this committee's specific concerns, our request 
for the military construction and family housing programs in 
fiscal year 2002 totals $10 billion and includes funding for 
more than 450 construction projects at more than 220 locations 
worldwide. The budget request represents a 14 percent increase 
over the amount requested in fiscal 2001 and is $936 million 
over last year's enacted level.
    This increase incorporates our initiative to streamline and 
upgrade the Department's infrastructure and to restore degraded 
facilities to a mission capable status. The budget reduces the 
Department's average facilities replacement rate from 192 years 
to about 100 years as we move closer to commercial standards.
    We have taken special care to ensure that the National 
Guard and reserve facilities requirements were fully and fairly 
incorporated in this portion of the process. As a result, we 
have requested $393 million more for critical Guard and Reserve 
projects than was requested in past budgets. Our budget 
improves the quality of military housing and accelerates the 
elimination of substandard housing. We seek to accelerate the 
elimination of housing with privatization.
    We are changing the way we do business in our housing and 
utilities systems, where, of course, it is prudent to do so. We 
also plan to shed our excess infrastructure through a variety 
of methods ranging from demolition of unneeded structures to 
installations closures. As part of this effort, we are 
designing an efficient facilities initiative or, as it is 
called, EFI, to rationalize and restructure our bases, labs, 
and other DOD facilities. While our original BRAC programs have 
been reduced to environmental and other caretaker efforts, we 
very much require your support for a new EFI-base closure 
initiative in fiscal year 2003.
    This effort makes good business sense and is necessary to 
free up funds for our highest priorities.
    As you directed in report language last year, our military 
construction budget also restores funds for contingencies 
comprising 5 percent of project costs. Such funding had been 
excluded in the past 2 years and we agree with you that these 
funds are vital, not only to help offset unforeseen cost 
growth, but also to fund improvements identified during 
construction.
    This initiative is another example of the Department's 
overall commitment to realistic budgeting.
    Our budget for family housing supports a $4.1 billion 
program to construct, improve, operate, and maintain family 
housing units. It also seeks to privatize those units that are 
no longer critical to supporting a base's mission requirements. 
This program includes an additional $400 million in support of 
the President's goal to improve housing for military members 
and their families. The additional funding will be used to 
improve the quality of 14,675 more houses while accelerating 
the elimination of substandard military housing.
    In closing, Madam Chairman, I wish to thank you, Senator 
Hutchison, and other members for providing me with this 
opportunity to discuss our program. I would like to reiterate 
that our request for military construction and family housing 
represents a balanced program and that it is essential to 
permit the services to support weapon systems being deployed, 
to accomplish new or changing missions, and to provide enhanced 
quality of life to service members and their families.


                           prepared statement


    Madam Chair, Senator Hutchison, members of the committee, 
staff: I am ready to provide any additional information you may 
request. Thank you very much.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Dov S. Zakheim

                              introduction
    Madam Chair, Senator Hutchison, members of the committee, I am 
honored to present the President's fiscal year 2002 Department of 
Defense (DOD) Military Construction budget. Our request for Military 
Construction and Family Housing programs totals $10.0 billion. It 
includes funding for over 450 construction projects at more than 220 
locations to provide facilities that the Armed Forces, the Defense 
Agencies, and NATO Security Investments urgently require. This level of 
funding represents a balanced program that is essential to support 
weapon systems being deployed, to accomplish new or changing missions, 
to address environmental compliance requirements, to replace facilities 
that are no longer economical to repair, to provide enhanced quality of 
life for service members and to continue caretaker efforts at closed 
bases.
    I would like to provide a brief overview of the fiscal year 2002 
Defense budget and then to outline the Military Construction and Family 
Housing requests.
                    fiscal year 2002 budget overview
    The fiscal year 2002 budget balances preparation for the future 
with current needs through robust funding to improve morale, boost 
readiness, transform defense capabilities, and upgrade aging 
facilities.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget puts people first. It includes a 
targeted pay raise of at least 5 percent for all grades and up to 10 
percent for mid-grades where retention is hardest. The budget provides 
for a reduction of out-of-pocket housing costs for people living off 
base from 15 percent in 2001 to 11.3 percent in 2002, towards a goal of 
zero costs in 2005. Also, military healthcare is funded realistically 
at $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2002 (up sharply from $12.1 billion in 
fiscal year 2001),
    The fiscal year 2002 budget bolsters readiness by beginning to 
reverse the decline caused by underfunding, the high tempo of 
operations, and escalating maintenance costs for aging equipment and 
facilities.
    The fiscal year 2002 request for military construction and family 
housing represents a 14 percent increase over the amount requested in 
fiscal year 2001. This increase incorporates our initiative to 
streamline and upgrade DOD Infrastructure and to restore degraded 
facilities that are rated either C-3 or C-4 in readiness. The budget 
reduces DOD's facilities replacement rate from 192 years to about 100 
years as we move closer to commercial standards over the long term, 
improves the quality of military housing and accelerates elimination of 
substandard housing. We are also changing the way we do business by 
privatizing our housing and utility systems where it is prudent to do 
so.
    In addition, we are attempting to shed our excess infrastructure 
through a variety of methods ranging from demolition of excess 
structures to closure of installations. As part of this effort, we are 
planning an Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) to rationalize and 
restructure bases, laboratories, and other DOD facilities. While our 
original BRAC programs have been reduced to caretaker efforts, we very 
much need Congress to support our plans for a new EFI base closure 
initiative in 2003. This effort makes good business sense in and of 
itself; but it also is imperative in order to free up funds to help pay 
for our highest priorities.
                         military construction
    Our budget provides for a $5.9 billion program to meet the military 
construction requirements of the Military Departments and Defense 
Agencies. This level of funding demonstrates the Department's desire to 
ensure a substantial construction program in support of our highest 
priorities. We continue to emphasize improving the quality of life for 
our service members and their families while ensuring that the 
facilities to support weapon systems are available when needed. The 
following is a brief overview of the key elements of this request.
    Active Forces and Defense-Wide.--The fiscal year 2002 Military 
Construction Budget of $4.6 billion for the Active Forces and Defense-
Wide programs is over a billion dollars higher than the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level. The additional funding will be targeted towards 
fixing the most critically deficient facilities. The request includes 
approximately $1.3 billion for barracks projects; $940 million for 
operational and training facilities; $719 million for maintenance and 
production facilities; $330 million for community facilities; $193 
million for medical facilities; $187 million for utility facilities; 
$183 million for administrative facilities; $168 million for supply 
facilities; and $148 million for research and development facilities.
    Guard and Reserve Facilities.--The $615.2 million military 
construction program requested for the Reserve Components is balanced 
both to provide the necessary facilities to support current and new 
missions and to replace aging facilities that are no longer economical 
to repair. The fiscal year 2002 request is almost $400 million more 
than the fiscal year 2001 request. The program includes 69 major 
construction projects as well as planning and design work and minor 
construction. Most projects are training centers, maintenance 
facilities, and operational facilities in support of the Reserve 
Components' mission.
    Quality of Life.--The fiscal year 2002 construction program 
reflects the Department's commitment to improve the quality of life for 
the military. A significant amount of the military construction 
program--approximately $1.3 billion--will fund new or improved barracks 
for unaccompanied military personnel. This funding level will enable us 
to execute 65 projects to construct or modernize barracks and to 
provide approximately 15,000 new or improved living spaces. The Army, 
Navy and Air Force are continuing to build to the ``1+1'' design (one 
soldier to a room with a shared bathroom) for personnel permanently 
assigned to a base. The Marine Corps is building to the ``2+0'' design 
(2 E1-E3s to a room, each with its own bathroom) in an effort to 
improve living conditions of Marines sooner than if they followed the 
1+1 design standard. In addition, the fiscal year 2002 construction 
program will allow us to construct or modernize 13 schools for 
dependents, 13 physical fitness centers, 4 child development centers, 2 
education centers, 2 chapels, and an assembly building.
    Overseas Construction.--In keeping with congressional direction, 
new construction in overseas areas is being requested only where 
construction requirements are of high priority, absolutely essential to 
our overseas basing needs, and after all burden-sharing opportunities 
have been explored and found to be unworkable. The fiscal year 2002 
military construction program of $720 million for projects in overseas 
areas meets these criteria. Of the $720 million, $228 million is 
designated for Korea, $221 million for Germany, $135 million for other 
European sites, $123 million for various locations in the Pacific and 
$13 million for a Forward Operating Location in El Salvador to support 
drug interdiction efforts.
    The Secretary of Defense recently asked the Unified Combatant 
Commands to develop strategic overseas basing plans after completion of 
the Quadrennial Defense Review, taking a long-term look at our forces 
to ensure we optimize our facilities overseas.
    Missile Defense.--The fiscal year 2002 budget reflects a 
restructured missile defense program. One of the results of this new 
structure is the funding of selected construction activities associated 
with the missile defense test bed in the Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-Wide appropriation. The new structure 
will provide the flexibility needed to design and test missile defense 
systems. We need to fund certain program activities in the RDT&E 
account in order to expand the current test bed infrastructure in the 
most efficient manner, and with the greatest amount of flexibility.
    Medical Projects.--Consistent with the Department's emphasis on 
quality of life improvements and readiness, our request reflects the 
high priority placed on health care. The Department requests $193.3 
million in appropriations for 22 medical projects, including $19 
million for the third phase of a $133 million replacement hospital at 
Ft. Wainwright, Alaska; $15 million for the replacement of four medical 
facilities at Camp Pendleton, California; $32 million for 2 clinic 
replacements in Florida; and $84 million for new and replacement 
facilities in Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, 
Washington and Wyoming. In addition, approximately $43 million of the 
total medical construction program supports 3 replacement medical 
facilities in Germany, Greenland and Portugal.
    Chemical Demilitarization Construction.--The Department continues 
to make steady progress in its chemical demilitarization efforts. To 
that end, the Department is budgeting $184 million in fiscal year 2002 
for the construction of chemical demilitarization facilities.
    Two facilities are now in operation. The prototype incineration 
facility on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean is fully operational 
and has destroyed 100 percent of the original chemical agent stockpile 
stored on the Atoll. In addition, the Tooele, Utah Chemical Agent 
Disposal Facility began operation in August 1996 and has destroyed over 
37 percent of the original chemical agent stockpile stored at that 
site. We have completed construction of the Anniston, Alabama Chemical 
Agent Disposal Facility, and have completed 99 percent of the Umatilla, 
Oregon facility. In January 1999, the Army issued a full Notice to 
Proceed to Raytheon Demilitarization Company to begin construction 
activities for the Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility at Pine 
Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas. Construction efforts for the Pine Bluff 
facility are currently 55 percent complete.
    The Army has selected alternative technologies to be used in lieu 
of the baseline incineration process at the two bulk-only chemical 
agent storage sites, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland and Newport, 
Indiana. Systems contractors were selected for the Aberdeen facility in 
October 1998, and for the Newport facility in February 1999. 
Construction of the Aberdeen facility is 29 percent complete while the 
Newport facility is at just under 10 percent complete. Additional 
technologies are being evaluated for the remaining two chemical 
demilitarization sites: Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky.
    Energy Programs.--This Administration is committed to energy 
conservation. As a result the budget includes $36 million in fiscal 
year 2002 for projects that will result in energy savings and support 
long-standing goals to reduce energy demand.
    Minor Construction/Planning and Design.--The request contains $81.3 
million in fiscal year 2002 for minor construction, alterations, and 
modifications to existing facilities. These funds are essential to meet 
unforeseen construction requirements that can impair the health, 
safety, and readiness of our forces. In addition, we are requesting 
$384 million for planning and design. These funds are needed to 
complete the design of fiscal year 2003 projects and initiate design of 
fiscal year 2004 projects. We urgently seek your support for this 
request so we can design our Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 construction 
requirements.
    Contingency Funding.--The fiscal year 2002 amended budget restores 
funds for contingencies, comprising 5 percent of project cost, which 
have been excluded the past two years. These funds are needed for 
unforeseen project cost growth, design changes, and improvements 
identified during construction. This initiative is another 
manifestation of our commitment to honest budgeting.
                              base closure
    In the past, the Department's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
process has been a major tool for reducing the domestic base structure. 
Between 1988 and 1995, four BRAC Commissions proposed the closure or 
realignment of 152 major installations and 235 smaller ones. The 
implementation of the last round of the four approved BRACs is complete 
as of July 13, 2001. The Department will have invested about $22.2 
billion and realized savings of about $37 billion for total net savings 
of about $15 billion over the implementation period from fiscal year 
1990 to fiscal year 2001. Total annual savings after fiscal year 2001 
are projected to be about $6 billion. For fiscal year 2002, the BRAC 
program is $532.2 million. The fiscal year 2002 program funds 
environmental restoration and caretaker costs for bases closed under 
the previous rounds of base closure authority. This funding will ensure 
bases are continuing to be cleaned efficiently to speed the transfer of 
property to redevelopment authorities. Some environmental funding 
shortfalls have been identified, particularly in the Navy.
    The Navy initially identified a fiscal year 2002 BRAC must-fund 
shortfall of $92.5 million for work required to be done under signed 
Federal Facility Agreement milestones. The Navy is continuing to review 
and validate the exact amount of this shortfall. Thus far, the review 
has reduced the Navy's estimated fiscal year 2002 shortfall of required 
funding per signed legal agreements to $63.3 million.
    The Department will soon submit legislation seeking authority for 
additional base closures under the Efficient Facilities Initiative to 
begin in fiscal year 2003. The Department needs authority for 
additional closures because retaining excess base structure wastes 
resources that could be better used to address the modernization and 
transformation of our military forces. EFI is expected to save the 
Department about $3.5 billion a year after implementation.
                    nato security investment program
    The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) request totals $162.6 
million in fiscal year 2002. This amount represents the U.S. share 
(approximately 24.7 percent) of the acquisition of NATO common use 
systems and equipment; construction, upgrade, and restoration of 
operational facilities; and other related programs and projects 
requires in support of agreed NATO strategic concepts and military 
strategy. Anticipated recoupments of approximately $11 million combined 
with approximately $25.4 million of prior year savings results in a 
total fiscal year 2002 program of $199 million. This request represents 
the minimum essential U.S. contribution. It will support both our 
strategic security and our economic interest in the European Theater.
                             family housing
    Our fiscal year 2002 budget request for family housing is $4.1 
billion. This is fourteen percent higher than our fiscal year 2001 
request of $3.5 billion, and includes an extra $400 million to support 
the President's housing initiative. The fiscal year 2002 family housing 
program reflects the high priority the President and the Secretary of 
Defense have placed on improving the living conditions for our service 
members and their families.
    Family Housing Operations.--The Department's family housing 
inventory includes approximately 295,000 government-owned and 28,000 
leased units worldwide. The government-owned units average about 35 
years in age. These owned and leased units house approximately one-
third of military families.
    The budget includes $2.9 billion to fund a range of services and 
expenses necessary to support these housing units. For example, the 
operation account funds items such as housing administration and 
management, basic support services, referral services, furnishings, 
utilities, and miscellaneous expenses while the maintenance account 
funds routine maintenance and major repairs. In addition, the family 
housing leasing account provides housing at both domestic and foreign 
locations when the local economy cannot provide adequate support and 
additional assets are needed to satisfy a housing deficit.
    The $2.9 billion budget will ensure that houses in our inventory 
are in adequate condition for occupancy by our military families. The 
fiscal year 2002 request is $240 million higher than the amount 
Congress approved for fiscal year 2001, due primarily to the higher 
cost of utilities and to the need to maintain an aging housing 
inventory.
    Family Housing Construction.--The fiscal year 2002 request for 
family housing construction totals $1.1 billion to build, replace, or 
improve approximately 6,400 family housing units. Major emphasis of the 
Family Housing Construction Program is to replace units that are 
uneconomical to repair, and to renovate and upgrade units that can be 
restored to adequate condition. The fiscal year 2002 request is $208 
million higher than the amount enacted for fiscal year 2001, due to the 
President's initiative to improve housing for our troops and their 
families.
    Family Housing Privatization.--The fiscal year 1996 National 
Defense Authorization Act provided innovative authorities that enable 
the Department to partner with the private sector to revitalize our 
housing inventory. The new tools--loan and rental guarantees, direct 
loans and investments, differential lease payments, and the conveyance 
or leasing of land and facilities--have enabled the Department to tap 
private sector expertise and capital to provide quality housing more 
quickly than would be possible through traditional construction 
methods.
    Using the moneys Congress appropriated directly into the Family 
Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) or for construction projects that were 
later transferred into the FHIF, the Services have awarded ten pilot 
privatization projects. Following are illustrative of projects awarded 
thus far:
  --Fort Carson, Colorado.--At Fort Carson, the Army invested $10 
        million to provide a limited loan guarantee and is obtaining 
        1,823 revitalized housing units and 840 new units. The return 
        on Army's investment in this $229 million project is 22:1 when 
        compared to traditional construction approach. The Army is 
        planning to finalize its partnership deal to privatize 5,912 
        housing units at Fort Hood, Texas, in the near future.
  --South Texas/Everett, Washington.--The Navy entered into a 30-year 
        limited partnership with a private developer to provide 404 
        off-base units in the Corpus Christi-Ingleside-Kingsville, 
        Texas area. These are all new units that required an investment 
        of $9.5 million, less than a third of the $32 million project 
        cost. A similar partnership arrangement provided 185 new family 
        housing units at Naval Station Everett. The Navy invested $5.9 
        million in a $20 million limited partnership project for a 
        return on investment of slightly better than 3:1. Both the 
        south Texas and Everett, Washington projects have been 
        completed. The Navy recently awarded follow-on projects at 
        Naval Station Everett (288 new units) and Naval Air Station 
        Kingsville (150 new units), and a 712-unit project at the 
        Marine Corps' Camp Pendleton, California.
  --Lackland, Texas.--The Air Force's first family housing 
        privatization project, at Lackland AFB, will be completed in a 
        few months. The Air Force employed a combination of limited 
        loan guarantee and small direct loan to finance a 420-unit 
        housing project worth $42 million. For its investment of $6.2 
        million in this project, the Air Force realized a return of 8:1 
        when compared to traditional military construction approach. 
        The Air Force has awarded three more projects--Robins AFB, 
        Georgia (670 units); Dyess AFB, Texas (402 units); and 
        Elmendorf AFB, Alaska (828 units).
    President's Housing Initiative.--The fiscal year 2002 budget 
provides an additional $400 million in support of the President's goal 
to improve housing for military members and their families. The extra 
funding will be used to begin new and intensive efforts to improve the 
quality of military housing and accelerate elimination of substandard 
housing. The $400 million is targeted as follows:
  --$195 million will be used for family housing privatization projects 
        to provide over 14,600 units.
  --$107 million will be used to provide Bachelor Enlisted Quarters for 
        1,396 sailors and Marines.
  --$98 million will provide 849 on-base new construction and 
        improvements of family housing units.
                         homeowners assistance
    The Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) is an entitlement program 
established to provide assistance to military and civilian homeowners 
in cases where base closure or force structure realignment depresses 
home prices by more than 5 percent. The fiscal year 2002 budget 
requests $10.1 million in direct appropriations to partially finance a 
$31.6 million HAP program. We plan to finance the balance of the fiscal 
year 2002 HAP program with revenues from sale of acquired properties 
and transfer of $7.7 million from the BRAC accounts to offset HAP costs 
associated with BRAC-related actions. The planned BRAC transfer is in 
line with the authority contained in the annual Military Construction 
Appropriations Acts allowing the use of BRAC resources to support HAP 
requirements. The fiscal year 2002 budget again requests this transfer 
authority.
                               conclusion
    In closing, Madam Chair, I would like to thank you, Senator 
Hutchison, and the committee members for providing me with this 
opportunity to describe our program. I would like to reiterate that our 
request for military construction and family housing represents a 
balanced program that is considered essential to permit the Services to 
support weapon systems being deployed, to accomplish new or changing 
missions, and to provide enhanced quality of life for service members 
and their families. We hope that this request will receive your strong 
support, and we are ready to provide whatever details that you may 
need.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    We will proceed with Dr. DuBois and then ask questions.

                  Statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.

    Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairman, Senator Hutchison, thank you 
very much for this opportunity to appear before you, and I 
thank you and all the members of the subcommittee for the 
contributions that you make every year to our national security 
and most of all to the quality of life of our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, and marines.
    As the Secretary of Defense has recently testified before 
Congress, over the past 10 years we have underfunded and 
overused our forces. Doing more with less has been at the cost 
of needed investment in infrastructure and the maintenance of 
that infrastructure and the modernization of that 
infrastructure.
    Our fiscal year 2002 MILCON appropriation request, amended 
request for installations, is centered on four essential 
themes: adequate sustainment funding for the facilities that we 
have; modernization of those facilities; restoration of 
readiness-deficient facilities; streamlining and reconfiguring 
our installations and our infrastructure to meet the war-
fighters' needs.
    As I have stated in some detail in my written statement, 
let me just highlight a couple of themes. As some of you know, 
I recently visited our installations in the Western Pacific in 
Okinawa and in Korea. Particularly in Korea, much of the 
infrastructure, what I refer to as the seen and unseen 
infrastructure, was old and in various states of deterioration. 
We on the CODEL saw inadequate and substandard living quarters 
of all kinds and even witnessed Army senior enlisted members 
and officers living and working in quonset huts, of course 
temporarily constructed over 50 years ago.
    As you know also, the Department, and as Dr. Zakheim has 
said, will be seeking your approval to authorize legislation so 
that we can review our infrastructure within the United States 
through an efficient facilities initiative. It is important to 
note that this efficient facilities initiative is not an 
exercise in achieving some budget goal or savings objective. 
Rather, it is principally an exercise to realign and, yes, 
reduce where appropriate our overall infrastructure to best 
support our military requirements, our operational readiness, 
and ultimately our war-fighting plans.
    To address a question raised in your opening statements of 
both Senators, the Department also understands the necessity to 
study the overseas infrastructure requirements. In point of 
fact, the Secretary of Defense will task in a memorandum to be 
released shortly the overseas commander in chiefs, the CINC's, 
to develop an overseas strategic basing plan. But that will be 
conducted subsequent to the QDR.
    We need to take a long-term look at our forces deployed 
overseas and to assure that we optimize those facilities, as 
has been pointed out by both of you.
    Finally, to ensure that our facilities deficiencies are 
eliminated in the long run, and this is not something that can 
be done in one year or 2 years or 3 years, we need, however, to 
continue to refine that long-range facilities strategic plan, 
and we will have completed our first annual DOD installations 
posture statement within the next year.
    I was interviewed before I left Korea a couple of months 
ago and I did make the following statement, that, while some 
have said it is a little dramatic, I thought it carried a lot 
of meaning, especially to our troops. The President of the 
United States, when I accompanied him to Tindall Air Force Base 
in Florida, commented on it, that for far too long we have 
sacrificed the quality of life of our troops on the altar of 
power projection.

                           Prepared Statement

    Now, as a practical matter, power projection, quality of 
life, efficient facility, they all go hand in hand. They are 
moving parts of the same objective and that is to keep this 
Nation strong. So I appreciate this opportunity, Senators, and 
I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.

                              introduction
    Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense's fiscal 
year 2002 programs for military installations and facilities. Our 
military installations and facilities are integral components of 
military readiness. I look forward to working with you to ensure that 
they continue to support America's military superiority and the men and 
women who live and work at our installations. I will address our 
infrastructure and our plan for its improvement, our military 
construction and family housing request, our operations and maintenance 
request, proposed legislation, the Installations' vision for the future 
and our action plan.
                  renewing the installations framework
    For years we allowed our installations and facilities to 
deteriorate due to competing budget priorities and indeterminate 
requirements. Last year's Installations Readiness Report showed 69 
percent of the Department's facilities are rated C-3 (have serious 
deficiencies) or C-4 (do not support mission requirements). Much of our 
infrastructure--the seen and the unseen--is old and in various stages 
of decline. Our average facilities age across the Department is 41 
years. Without adequate sustainment and recapitalization, facility 
performance degenerates, operational readiness and mission support 
suffer, service life is lost, and total costs rise.
    This Administration is committed to restoring our installations and 
facilities to perform as designed. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that 
the fiscal year 2002 budget balances ``preparation for the future with 
current needs--through robust funding to improve morale, boost 
readiness, transform defense capabilities and upgrade aging 
facilities.'' We are breaking the current cycle of ``pay me now or pay 
me much more later,'' and our fiscal year 2002 budget initiates an 
aggressive program to renew our facilities.
    For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting a total of $10.0 billion 
for military construction, family housing and base realignments and 
closures, an increase of $2 billion over the previously submitted 
fiscal year 2002 budget request. The amended fiscal year 2002 request 
represents the down payment on a long-range plan to streamline and 
improve the performance of our facilities and housing. Key to achieving 
the long-range goal will be successful implementation of the 
Department's Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI), designed to realign 
and reduce base infrastructure by approximately 25 percent, and 
ultimately, save several billion dollars annually. We must also fully 
sustain our facilities and halt, actually, reverse the unacceptable 
aging of the Department's facilities by accelerating our 
recapitalization rates. Finally, we must restore the readiness of 
inadequate facilities, modernize facilities to meet future challenges, 
and dispose of, or demolish, obsolete facilities.

Summary of Request

           [Estimated President's Budget as amended--Billions]

                                                        Fiscal year 2002
        Facilities                                               Request
Real Property Services (O&M)......................................  $4.0
Sustainment (O&M).................................................   5.3
Restoration and Modernization (O&M/MilCon)........................   4.1
New Footprint (MilCon)............................................   2.0

    Two principles guide our effort to improve and maintain our 
infrastructure: first, the quality of our infrastructure directly 
impacts readiness; and second, it is more cost effective in the long 
term to ensure facilities perform as they are designed than it is to 
allow them to deteriorate and replace them when they are not useable. 
By investing money now and sustaining that investment over time, we 
will restore and sustain readiness, stabilize and reduce the average 
age of our physical plant, reduce operations costs, and maximize our 
return on investment. We plan a comprehensive review of our 
infrastructure needs through 2020 during the ongoing Quadrennial 
Defense Review.
    As you know, Secretary Rumsfeld has made it quite clear that he 
intends to significantly change the business practices of the 
Department. Not that terminology causes change, but it certainly sends 
a rhetorical signal that the Secretary is serious about not just 
transforming our force structure but also our infrastructure by virtue 
of military requirements and necessity. We use outcome-oriented terms 
that emphasize performance--sustainment, restoration and modernization 
(SRM)--rather than the misleading legacy term ``real property 
maintenance'' (RPM) that represents just one activity of many. Our 
Facilities Sustainment program funds the required and scheduled 
maintenance and repairs for the inventory using operations and 
maintenance funds. Sustainment preserves the inventory and allows it to 
reach its expected service life. Our Facilities Restoration and 
Modernization program repairs or replaces damaged or obsolete 
facilities and implements new or higher standards where necessary. The 
restoration and modernization terminology recognizes the contribution 
of both military construction and operations and maintenance 
appropriations to recapitalizing our facilities and housing.
            military construction and family housing request
    The fiscal year 2002 amended budget request for the military 
construction and family housing program is robust. Over $2 billion was 
recently added to the military construction request, targeted towards 
replacing or renovating what we currently own. This investment takes 
the Department from a recapitalization rate of 192 years to a rate of 
101 years in fiscal year 2002--much closer to the Department's goal of 
a 67-year replacement cycle. Most importantly, this funding should aid 
the Department in moving towards restoring its facilities to at least a 
C-2 readiness condition.
    Our fiscal year 2002 request for military construction is $5.9 
billion, of which $5.2 billion is for regular military construction--an 
increase of 46 percent over last year's request, $163 million is for 
NATO Security Investment, and $524 million is for implementing 
previously legislated base realignments and closures.
    We are requesting $1.1 billion for family housing construction and 
$3.0 billion for operating and maintaining our almost 300,000 family 
housing units. This budget request reflects the Department's initiative 
to restore and modernize its existing facilities and also reflects 
President Bush's initiative to improve housing for our service members 
and their families. On February 12, 2001, in a speech to the troops at 
Fort Stewart, Georgia, President Bush stated that ``we owe you and your 
families a decent quality of life. We owe you the training and 
equipment you need to do your jobs--you and your families are the 
foundation of America's military readiness.'' Secretary Rumsfeld added 
$400 million to the program to make this a reality, increasing the 
family housing construction program by over one third. A substantial 
portion of this increase will be utilized to increase our housing 
privatization efforts, which allow us to leverage our appropriated 
funds and improve the quality of our housing more rapidly.

                         COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
                                   [President's Budget as amended--$millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year                     Fiscal year
                                                                       2001         Fiscal year        2002
                                                                   appropriation    2001 final     appropriation
                                                                    request \1\    appropriation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction...........................................         3,189.1         4,215.3           5,210
 NATO Security Investment Program...............................             190             172           162.6
Base Realignment and Closure IV.................................         1,174.4         1,024.4           532.2
Family Housing Construction.....................................             748           904.1         1,114.4
Family Housing Operations & Debt................................         2,732.1         2,701.1           2,940
Homeowners Assistance...........................................               0               0            10.1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         8,033.6         9,016.9         9969.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include fiscal year 2001 supplemental request. Does not include general provision (sec. 125 and
  132) reductions.

    Contingency Funding.--Military construction projects typically 
include contingency funds to address problems that arise due to changes 
in missions changes or design, unanticipated site conditions, or other 
unexpected circumstances. The Department's fiscal year 2002 budget 
request includes a five percent contingency for all of the Services and 
Defense Agencies.
    NATO Security Investment Program.--The NATO Security Investment 
Program (NSIP) provides for the acquisition of common use systems and 
equipment; construction, upgrade and restoration of operational 
facilities; and other related program and projects in support of NATO. 
The request for the NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) is $162.6 
million in fiscal year 2002. The Department anticipates recoupments of 
approximately $11 million, and together with unliquidated balances of 
$25.4 million from prior years, the NSIP program will total $199 
million.
    Completion of Prior Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Rounds.--
The fiscal year 2002 budget requests $524 million in BRAC 
appropriations to complete prior rounds, which is less than half of our 
fiscal year 2001 request. Over 86 percent is for environmental cleanup 
and the balance will support operations and maintenance costs. We 
currently estimate that the four previous BRAC rounds will save 
approximately $15 billion through fiscal year 2001 and generate an 
estimated $6 billion in annual recurring savings thereafter.
    Overseas Construction.--The fiscal year 2002 budget for military 
construction at overseas bases is $720 million for regular 
construction. Over $350 million is directed toward projects that 
support quality of life issues such as child development centers, 
family housing, enlisted barracks, school facilities and medical/dental 
facility upgrades. The remaining projects are operational or support 
facilities.
                   operations and maintenance request
    We are requesting $10.3 billion to fund installations' operations 
and maintenance costs in fiscal year 2002. Of this total, $4.0 billion 
will provide real property services (RPS) support and $6.3 billion will 
provide for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM) 
and the demolition of unneeded facilities. RPS is a must-pay cost, and 
it funds contracts such as grounds maintenance, painting and elevator 
and crane maintenance. Sustainment funds pay for the day-to-day 
maintenance and repair costs. Restoration and modernization funds major 
repairs and upgrades to damaged or obsolete facilities and 
infrastructure.
    The demolition program has been a success story for the Department. 
In May 1998, we set a goal to eliminate 80 million square feet of 
obsolete facilities by 2003. Over the past three years, the Department 
demolished and disposed of over 44.9 million square feet of excess and 
obsolete facilities and other structures, such as fuel tanks and engine 
test pads, and the program is 5.5 million square feet ahead of our 
goal. The program has been expanded to include several Defense Agencies 
and will continue past its current planned completion in 2003.
                     possible enabling legislation
    During this past year, we have actively solicited ideas from the 
Services, our public employees, private industry, and local communities 
to improve the operation and management of our installations. Based 
upon this feedback, we have submitted several legislative proposals for 
your consideration, and we are also examining other innovative ideas:
Legislative Proposals
    Amend Section 2805 of title 10 United States Code to increase the 
minor construction threshold from $500,000 to $750,000 and from 
$1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for projects involving life safety issues. The 
current threshold limits the Department's ability to complete projects 
in areas with high costs of construction. Without this relief, there 
may be a two or three year delay in completing smaller, unforeseen 
construction projects if the Department of Defense Components must 
submit such projects for military construction appropriations.
    Amend the 1990 and 1988 base closure statutes to revise the 
guidelines for leasebacks. The proposed legislation seeks authority for 
Federal tenants to obtain facility services and common area maintenance 
directly from the local redevelopment authority (LRA) or the LRA's 
assignee as part of the leaseback arrangement rather than procure such 
services competitively in compliance with Federal procurement laws and 
regulations. The proposed legislation also expands the availability of 
the leaseback authority to property on bases approved for closure 
through the 1988 base closure statute.
    Amend Section 2853(d) of title 10 United States Code to exclude 
environmental hazard remediation from the 25 percent allowable cost 
increases on construction projects. This provision would not change in 
any way our environmental responsibilities. It would give us 
flexibility to use existing funds to respond to requirements while 
moving ahead with construction. Experience has shown that unforeseen 
environmental cleanup costs alone can account for more than 25 percent 
of cost increases, a problem that becomes unmanageable if construction 
costs are also higher than anticipated. With the current situation, 
some military construction projects must be stopped prior to completion 
so as not to exceed the current 25 percent cap. Excluding unforeseen 
environmental hazard remediation from the cap provides greater 
flexibility and enables the Department to more expeditiously execute 
contracts and respond to the unforeseen environmental conditions.
    Amend Section 276a of title 40, United States Code to increase the 
thresholds for application of the Davis-Bacon Act from $2,000 to 
$1,000,000. This threshold has remained unchanged for over 35 years. 
Increasing the threshold reduces costs, provides greater flexibility in 
purchasing commercial items, simplifies acquisition procedures and 
competition requirements, and enables the federal government to conduct 
business in a more commercial manner. The Department could achieve 
savings of $190 million in fiscal year 2002 alone if this threshold is 
increased.
Ideas Undergoing Departmental Consideration
    The Efficient Facilities Initiative is an effort by the Department 
to achieve an approximately 25 percent reduction in base 
infrastructure. This initiative is key to allowing the Department to 
more efficiently support force structure, increase operational 
readiness, and facilitate new ways of doing business.
    The Department is considering the possibility of extending the 
authorities contained in the Brooks Air Force Base Development 
Demonstration Project (Section 136 of the Military Construction 
Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-246) to all military 
installations. This effort would permit the Military Departments to 
explore ways of supporting their missions and people more effectively 
and at less cost while maintaining operational readiness.
    We are considering the amendment of Section 2801 (Alternative 
Authority for Construction and Improvement of Military Housing), 
Chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code to provide permanent 
authority to the Military Housing Privatization initiative (current 
program authority expires in December, 2004). We are also examining the 
MHPI to determine any lessons learned and recommend any legislative 
changes to improve the process.
                         installations' vision
    To ensure that our facility deficiencies are eliminated in the long 
run, the Department is articulating a long-term Facilities Strategic 
Plan with a time horizon consistent with the military operations that 
installations support. The Facilities Strategic Plan is the foundation 
for long-term initiatives directly linked to our mission, our vision 
for installations, our goals, and the needs of our customers. Our 
installations' vision recognizes that America's security depends on 
installations and facilities that are available when and where needed 
with the capabilities necessary to support current and future military 
requirements. The Facilities Strategic Plan is based on four goals: 
right size and place, right quality, right resources, and right tools 
and metrics. Accomplishing these four goals will enable us to create 
the installations required to support a 21st Century military.
    Right Sizing and Locating Our Installations and Facilities.--We 
must shape and size our infrastructure on the basis of military 
necessity. Our first goal is to improve the balance between the 
installations and facilities inventory on hand and the inventory 
required by today's and tomorrow's military forces and missions. This 
also includes preserving access to and integrity of the Department's 
operational test and training ranges from encroachment issues. 
Rightsizing through the Efficient Facilities Initiative also allows the 
Department to align operational forces with the installations best 
suited to their 21st Century missions. Our Facilities Strategic Plan 
assumes that 25 percent of the current inventory will become excess to 
future needs and can be disposed through additional base realignments 
and closures.
    The Department has been successful in reducing infrastructure 
through previous base closures and realignments. By the end of fiscal 
year 2001, the Department will complete implementation of the Base 
Realignment and Closure recommendations, to include the closure of 97 
and realignment of 55 major installations. We are looking at ways to 
enhance the initiative to privatize our utility infrastructure and are 
revisiting program guidance and goals to incorporate lessons learned 
and input from industry.
    Providing the Right Quality Installations and Facilities.--Our 
second goal is to provide facilities that possess the qualities needed 
to support military operations, training, maintenance, housing and 
community support, which in turn, enable readiness. ``Right quality'' 
means facilities capable of meeting warfighting missions and enhancing 
quality of life for our service members and their families. As General 
Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during a speech at 
the Defense Orientation Conference Association Annual Meeting on 
October 4, 2000 `. . . we must not continue to ignore the aging 
infrastructure at our posts, bases and stations that has such a 
dramatic impact on our service members' quality of life.''
    The Department has accelerated the restoration of degraded 
facilities by requesting $4 billion for fiscal year 2002 for facilities 
restoration and modernization. Many facilities with current readiness 
ratings of C-3 or C-4 will be improved to C-2 readiness condition as a 
result.
    Providing the Right Resources.--Our third goal is to allocate the 
right resources to achieve the right size and quality of our 
installations and facilities. Sustainment requirements are computed 
using the Facilities Sustainment Model, which determines sustainment 
costs based on commercial benchmarks and the planned inventory. 
Recapitalization requirements are computed using a standard design life 
on average for all facilities of 67 years. New footprint construction 
is determined based on Service and Defense Agency requirements to meet 
new missions or to satisfy long-standing deficiencies.
    Using the Right Tools and Metrics: Our fourth goal is to develop 
analytical tools and metrics to allow us to more accurately develop our 
requirements and assess our level of improvement. We are implementing 
management tools and performance measures to enable us to assess the 
current and future condition of our physical plant and directly link 
them to our Installations' Readiness Report.
    Over the past year, the Department has made major strides in 
improving our management tools and metrics. We developed a standard 
Department-wide terminology for facility classification, which has been 
institutionalized across the Department. The Facilities Assessment 
Database (FAD), which incorporates the Services' real property 
databases, has expanded to include personnel data, weapon system 
inventory and costs of real property maintenance activities and base 
support, where available. In addition, the FAD has transitioned into 
the source database for other Department-wide databases and management 
tools, including the Facilities Sustainment Model. Another effort 
involves improving the Base Information System databases and 
integrating them among the Services so more accurate tools are 
available to guide and monitor management decisions.
    The Facilities Sustainment Model was used by the Services to 
determine sustainment requirements for their fiscal year 2002 budget 
submissions, and the Facility Aging Model enables us to assess the 
impact of planned facility actions on the useful life of the 
facilities' inventory. In its second year, the Installations' Readiness 
Report has effectively characterized the effect our installations and 
facilities have on military readiness.
    We are also developing a tool to capture recapitalization 
requirements and predict restoration and modernization requirements. In 
a companion effort to the Facilities Sustainment Model, the Department 
restructured its Program Elements to reflect the new focus of 
sustainment, restoration and modernization.
                          framework for action
    America's security, today and in the future, depends on 
installations and facilities that support operational readiness and 
changing force structures and missions. The fiscal year 2002 budget 
request demonstrates our dedication to that mandate. We have taken a 
four-pronged approach to achieve our vision: right size and place, 
right quality, right resources, and right tools and metrics for our 
installations and facilities. We developed the Defense Facilities 
Strategic Plan to provide the framework for accomplishing these goals 
and enable us to provide ready and capable facilities for our 
warfighters.
    We will continue to transform our installations and facilities into 
those required for the 21st Century, both through increased resources 
and through better use of existing resources. We will capitalize on the 
strengths of the private sector through housing and utilities 
privatization and competitive sourcing initiatives. We will also 
develop a plan for managing unused and underutilized property and 
facilities and actively explore opportunities for outleasing.
    We look forward to continued collaboration with Congress and 
welcome your ideas for identifying additional opportunities to provide 
the right quality and quantity of installations in the most cost-
effective manner.
                               conclusion
    This concludes my prepared testimony. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I 
sincerely thank you for giving me this opportunity to describe our new 
focus on installations and facility programs and for your very strong 
support for a robust military construction program.

    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. DuBois.
    I would like to welcome Senator Craig to the hearing.
    I will proceed with a couple of questions. You both were 
good enough to come in and see me, and I appreciate that very 
much. I had a chance to show you my concerns about the base 
closing cleanup residuals that are left. The President's 2002 
budget proposal includes a total of $532 million for BRAC. That 
is just half of last year's appropriation of a billion dollars.
    Now, the Navy reports that it has an unfunded requirement 
of $92 million, as we discussed, in must-pay BRAC environmental 
compliance costs. The Air Force requested a total of $42 
million for BRAC cleanup funding. It is still facing a $33 
million shortfall. Only $9 million of that made it into the 
supplemental.
    My question is how are you going to make up the must-pay 
items of the budget?
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, I will start and my colleague--
--
    Mr. DuBois. Will finish.
    Mr. Zakheim. Will finish, yes.
    With respect to the Navy money, as I understand it they 
have now reviewed that $93 million estimate and I believe it is 
now down to about $63 million, and they are reviewing that as 
well. I understand that Mr. Holaday will be testifying in the 
next panel or the panel thereafter and will give you some 
detail. My understanding is they are going to try to scrape 
together the money.
    The issue also is when the money actually will be spent. 
What has been put to me up to now is that the Navy is aware of 
the problem and intends to do something about it.
    On the larger issue, there is a difference in part because 
many of these facilities have already been turned over. The 
Army turned over a lot of facilities. Therefore, once they are 
turned over, you do not have those expenses. I think that 
certainly does not explain all the shortfalls, like the Navy 
shortfall or the Air Force shortfall, which is considerably 
smaller. But it does explain to a great extent why we went from 
something over a billion dollars to something over $550 million 
this year.
    As we turn over facilities, of course, the costs come down.
    Ray, do you want to add to that?
    Mr. DuBois. Yes. Senator--and I had best confess that in 
the 2 months that I have had this job it has been an education 
to understand how programs sometimes become unfunded as one 
goes through the POM cycle and the FYDP process. It is somewhat 
byzantine perhaps to the untrained eye.
    Mr. Zakheim. Or even to the trained eye.
    Mr. DuBois. But it is a process that we have found to be 
only addressable when you understand that the services have 
competing requirements within their own budgets. When it 
appeared that the Navy came up with a $92 million shortfall, I 
called a meeting with the Deputy Assistant Secretary, the 
Acting Assistant Secretary, and we sat down with the 
representatives from Dr. Zakheim's office and we tried to peel 
the onion, if you will, to delineate where this came from, why 
it happened, then what could be done to resolve it.
    I believe you will hear in testimony from Mr. Holaday an 
approach that we think will solve that $92 million. Unfunded 
BRAC requirements have to be viewed, I think, in context. I am 
reminded that in California alone one of the major so-called 
unfunded BRAC requirements is environmental remediation, a very 
important issue no matter what State we have those unfunded 
requirements in. But in California alone, the latest defense 
environmental restoration program investments through fiscal 
year 2000 totals $3.7 billion, a large figure by anyone's 
account.
    Now, what we ought to look at, however, as you pointed out 
to me, Madam Chairman, is what remains to be funded, what 
remains to be cleaned up. It is often-times a moving target, 
not in large percentage changes, but it moves nonetheless. Why? 
Because we have uses for the land originally planned and those 
uses change because the local redevelopment authority to which 
the land is reverting asks for those changes and we must 
accommodate them to the extent possible.
    We have, of all the BRAC properties in the prior round, 
some $3.4 billion cost to complete, given the current uses 
planned. We have that $3.4 billion mapped out over the next 6 
years. I just wanted to kind of calibrate it, if you will.
    Senator Feinstein. Could we jump for a moment to something 
else we discussed, and that is the Hunters Point Naval 
Shipyard. As you know, in November of 2000 the city and the 
Navy entered into an MOU which stated the Navy's commitment to 
obligate up to $120 million for cleanup of parcels C and D of 
the shipyard. The request for proposal process ended May 31st 
with no bids from the remediation contractors. The Navy then 
cancelled the RFP.
    We discussed this. Are you prepared today to state what the 
plan is for proceeding from this point on?
    Mr. Zakheim. Again I think it would be Mr. Holaday who 
would give you much more in the way of detail. My understanding 
is that first of all, as you know, the Navy does have a 
contractor that is prepared to move ahead and they already are 
moving ahead. They have been working on this for some time.
    Beyond that, I think the Navy is looking again at what it 
might do. As you know, part of the issue is that no one bid. My 
understanding, and I stand corrected if I have gotten this 
mixed up, my understanding is that the contractors had hoped to 
get what is called a cost-plus contract, as opposed to a firm 
fixed price, which is was set at $120 million. Therefore, there 
were no bids.
    That really creates a problem except insofar as there is 
indeed a contractor and there is some work ongoing. So it is 
not like everything has come to anything like a dead halt. If 
there is any complication, it is that the timetable in the MOA, 
the memorandum of agreement, might not be met exactly as is 
because these contracts were not let when it was anticipated. 
But I believe the Navy does have some thought as to how it 
might remedy this situation and it does have a contractor still 
working.
    Do you want to add to that?
    Mr. DuBois. Yes. My understanding is that we did discuss 
this with the Navy subsequent to our conversation, Madam 
Chairman, and the Navy is aware that the difficulties, at least 
as articulated by the potential contractors who did not bid, 
were one of contract methodology. That is to say, as Dr. 
Zakheim has indicated, fixed price versus cost-plus. Cost-plus 
normally we try to not use in situations like this because it 
is an open-ended liability, if you will.
    There are, as you pointed out, big parcels. Two are 
involved in this particular situation, and I believe that Doc 
Holaday, Duncan Holaday, will address it when he testifies.
    Senator Feinstein. Are you going to put the bids out again 
and be responsible for it?
    Mr. DuBois. That would be a Navy answer.
    Senator Feinstein. I would like to get an answer. This 
thing is beginning to look a little bit like a kaleidoscope and 
I do not really care much for that. I would like to get an 
answer on what is going to happen.
    I mentioned there was an underground toxic fire that, it 
burned for 2 weeks. Nobody bothered to put it out. We have got 
to get this problem resolved. I intend to stay on it, 
gentlemen.
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, Madam Chair, as I told you this morning, 
and I think Deputy Under Secretary Ray DuBois would agree and 
probably tell you the same thing, we are prepared to work on 
this. The agency of first resort is indeed the Navy, but by all 
means do not hesitate to come back to us as well.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much. I 
appreciate that.
    I sent a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld asking about the 
appropriateness of using $9 million in military construction 
funds, authorized and appropriated in the fiscal year 2001, for 
initial site preparation work at Fort Greely. Under Secretary 
Wolfowitz in a letter dated today justified the use of these 
funds in a very interesting way, and I would like to quote from 
the letter:
    ``It is critical to the initial deployment of a missile 
defense system for the United States that we provide for robust 
testing in an environment that resembles as closely as possible 
a realistic operational environment. The construction of the 
testbed facility at Fort Greely is consistent with and indeed 
is a necessary and prudent immediate step toward the ultimate 
construction of an initial deployment facility at Fort 
Greely.''
    So as I understand this, you are changing it from a testbed 
now to an initial deployment facility. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, not entirely, I think, Madam Chair. It 
is consistent with the conversion, or rather, the ultimate 
construction of the deployment facility. The original funding 
was indeed for an initial deployment facility, and what is 
being done at Fort Greely is consistent with that insofar as 
one could move from that testbed facility to an initial 
deployment facility. So it is not out of line with the stated 
intention of the Congress when the funds were voted. That is 
what that says.
    It is not definitely stated that it will be that facility. 
It is consistent with that facility, and it can indeed serve 
and indeed will be the intermediate step to that facility.
    Senator Feinstein. Let me ask it this way. Is the activity 
at Fort Greely for a testbed or for initial deployment or for a 
tested as part of initial deployment?
    Mr. Zakheim. I believe right now it is as a testbed. It 
could be used for deployment. That is what an intermediate step 
means. It is certainly consistent with that. A testbed is not 
operational, but it could become operational at some point in 
the future.
    Senator Feinstein. What is your understanding of how 
proceeding with this testbed is treated under the ABM Treaty?
    Mr. Zakheim. As I understand it, what is being done up to 
now is not in violation of the treaty, and I believe the same 
letter you quoted from states that there is no attempt either 
to violate the treaty in any way or to accelerate a violation 
in any way.
    As you know, Madam Chair, there are discussions going on 
with Russia in terms of making changes to the treaty. So this 
is not really one that I think impacts the treaty directly, and 
I believe that is what Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz wrote to you 
today.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, the letter, Mr. Zakheim, is very 
specific. It says: ``The construction of the testbed is a step 
toward the ultimate construction of an initial deployment 
facility.''
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, as I understand it, when the funds were 
voted last year----
    Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. Please go ahead.
    Mr. Zakheim. As I understand it, when the funds were voted 
last year it was specifically ``for NMD initial deployment 
facilities.'' Therefore, as long as we are doing something that 
is consistent with the funding, whatever difficulties might 
have been raised with respect to the treaty now would clearly 
have applied to the funding as it was initially provided for.
    But as the Deputy Secretary wrote--and I guess the best 
thing is just to quote him rather than to paraphrase him: 
``This Department has neither designed a missile defense 
program to intentionally impact the treaty sooner rather than 
later, nor have we designed it to avoid the treaty.'' In other 
words, there are other things going on that will affect the 
testbed at Fort Greely, but the testbed at Fort Greely is not 
in and of itself designed in any way to accelerate, to affect 
the treaty sooner or later.
    Senator Feinstein. One last question. The letter also 
states that you are undertaking an expedited compliance review 
of these program activities. According to the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, that was due some days back and has 
not been presented. Can you give me a date when that compliance 
review might be completed?
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, I understand there has been some 
communication between the Department and the oversight 
committee chairman over that. I do not have the date at hand, 
but I can certainly get it to you.
    Senator Feinstein. Pardon me?
    Mr. Zakheim. I do not have the date at hand, but I can 
certainly get you the date when I go back to the Department.
    Senator Feinstein. I would very much appreciate receiving 
the date. I think that has a lot to do with what we do here on 
this particular item. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hutchison, would you like to proceed and I will run 
down and vote and come right back.
    Senator Hutchison (presiding). That is fine.
    Let me ask you--let me say first of all that I certainly 
believe as I have looked at the information that you were just 
discussing that it is necessary for us to do the testing to 
know if it is feasible to go forward on the missile defense. I 
think it is very important that we continue what is the stated 
goal of the President and the Congress of a few years ago.
    I want to talk about base closing and the foreign bases 
again. I want to have you state for the record with the 
statements that are being made that there is a 25 percent 
excess facilities and U.S. facilities are the only ones that 
have previously been considered in BRAC's. What are you doing 
with regard to foreign bases, and is that a part of the 
equation when you are looking at excess capacity in the United 
States?
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, Senator, first of all, in the past we 
have indeed consolidated facilities in Europe, primarily Air 
Force facilities. There are efforts going on right now across 
the board. All the Commanders-in-Chief have been tasked to come 
up with plans for what they intend to do with the overseas 
facilities that we have. The Commander-in-Chief in Korea has a 
plan. The commanders in Europe are working on one now.
    There is every intention to review that very, very 
carefully. Obviously, there is an overhang in this country, but 
I believe there is an overhang outside the United States as 
well. We still have many facilities outside the United States 
that essentially are vestiges of the Cold War and we need to 
have comprehensive plans that address them, be they Europe, 
Asia, or anywhere else. That has commenced.
    I intend to visit some of these facilities myself to get a 
sense of that, although, having been in the regions in question 
in the past, I know that there is certainly room for more work 
to be done. So it is really both domestically and overseas that 
we have to have reductions.
    Senator Hutchison. According to my information, 14.4 
percent of military construction, 9.9 percent of family housing 
construction, is for overseas spending, for a total cost of 
$748 million in spending on overseas military construction, 
which is an increase of 80 percent over last year.
    I just would ask you why you are looking at a base closing 
request now when you are not through with the quadrennial 
review. We have not learned from the Secretary what the 
strategy, the new strategy, is going to be. And are we putting 
the cart before the horse here?
    Mr. Zakheim. I think I would ask my colleague to help me on 
this one as well.
    Of course, we have not yet put a request, much less 
identified what facilities might be recommended for 
consolidation or closure. Since we anticipate having a 
Quadrennial Defense Review to the Congress by October 1
    I do not think at that point--correct me if I am wrong, 
Ray--we would have a list like that. So in fact, 
chronologically we will have a Quadrennial Defense Review 
first.
    Senator Hutchison. Before you ask for another BRAC?
    Mr. Zakheim. Before we identify what exactly what might be 
in a ``BRAC''. In other words, if it is anything like the 
previous system, and I cannot say for sure that it would be 
exactly like the previous system anyway----
    Senator Hutchison. We all hope not.
    Mr. Zakheim. I understand that, Senator. But if it is 
anything like the previous system, it goes quite a way before 
you have identified the actual facilities in question. So I 
would be very, very surprised if indeed there were any 
facilities mentioned prior to October 1. We hope to have a very 
clear Quadrennial Defense Review that is going to outline 
future directions for the military and priorities, and I 
believe, frankly I am certain, that what we would then do with 
respect to facilities here would be reflective of those 
priorities.
    Do you want to add to that----
    Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask you if you see an 
inconsistency in an 80 percent increase----
    Mr. Zakheim. I am sorry, I did not address that.
    Senator Hutchison (continuing). In foreign military 
construction at the same time that you are saying you are 
actually trying to look at making that more efficient as well?
    Mr. Zakheim. I believe that most, if not all, of that 
increase is due to the sorry state of facilities we have had up 
until now. What drives what we are doing with facilities 
generally and with facilities overseas in particular is the 
fact that we are sending young people out there to be on the 
front lines, to risk their lives, and that it is absolutely 
wrong to have them come back to housing that is substandard or 
to work in facilities that are substandard while they have to 
deal with angry mobs, get shot at, or anything else.
    Now, there has been a pretty dismal record of supporting 
the facilities over the years. It has built up over time. 
Whatever we decide to do, I believe that the work that is being 
done in those facilities is going to prove worthwhile. It is 
important to the morale of the troops. They have to see that we 
do not forget about them when they are overseas.
    Senator Hutchison. I think everyone agrees with the 
purpose. But are you looking at--and it is hard to tell because 
we do not have the Quadrennial Review. But when you are asking 
for three-quarters of a billion dollars for overseas spending, 
are you looking at where you think you are going to have this 
steady stream of troops and the responsibility for the long 
term?
    It just seems like we are doing things that have not been 
backed up with the facts yet.
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, I believe that you will find that what 
we are asking for will prove to be consistent with the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, yes.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say that I have to go 
vote. Senator Feinstein will be back. I do have some other 
questions, but I think we are probably going to have to go to 
the next panel. So I will submit for the record, and I do want 
to thank you both for coming to my office. I have talked to 
both of you and you are certainly, I think, aware of my 
concerns and I just hope that we can get the facts before we 
have to make the decisions.
    Mr. Zakheim. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
    I just ask the second panel to probably get ready to come 
up, and Dianne will be back in just a minute.
    Senator Feinstein. The meeting will come to order.
    I would like to ask a question on Vieques. Because of the 
vote just being in, does that change the view on military use?
    Mr. Zakheim. My understanding, Madam Chair, is that was a 
nonbinding--I am not sure how you describe that vote. It was 
sort of a straw poll, I guess, and I do not believe it has 
changed anything.
    Ray, do you have any other sense of that?
    Mr. DuBois. My understanding is that the Secretary of the 
Navy has already indicated that the vote has no impact on the 
plan to continue training until May of 2003, as stated in the 
policy announcement of a month ago.
    Senator Feinstein. Is there an intention to go on to fiscal 
year 2003?
    Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. I take it that has not changed?
    Mr. Zakheim. No.
    Mr. DuBois. No.
    Mr. Zakheim. While you are on the subject of the Navy, 
Madam Chair, someone passed me a note that the Navy is 
committed to the schedule and the cleanup standards of the MOA.
    Senator Feinstein. I am sorry?
    Mr. Zakheim. I was just passed a note that the Navy is 
indeed committed to both the schedule and the standards that 
are laid out in the agreement that we were discussing earlier.
    Mr. DuBois. Hunters Point.
    Mr. Zakheim. Hunters Point.
    Senator Feinstein. All right. Now translate that into what 
that means?
    Mr. Zakheim. What it means is that when you look at the 
memorandum of agreement there is a series of dates that are 
laid out there and a series of cleanup standards that are laid 
out in that memorandum, and the Navy is committed to meeting 
those standards. So they have signed up to them.
    Senator Feinstein. And the Navy will pay whatever it 
requires to get there?
    Mr. Zakheim. I would assume that they will do whatever it 
takes to get there. If it involves payment, then that would 
obviously be a component. I would again suggest that you put 
that question to Mr. Holaday, but I was simply answering a 
question you had put to me earlier regarding schedules and 
commitments. The schedules are laid out in great detail. I 
think there are about seven dates, if my memory serves me 
rightly, in that MOA, literally to the day, and the Navy is 
committed to meeting those dates.
    Senator Feinstein. The Air Force for their $33 million?
    Mr. Zakheim. To the best of my knowledge, the Air Force has 
put the remainder--some of that money turned out to be in 
fiscal year 2001. The remainder has been programmed in fiscal 
year 2002. I asked around during the break and there does not 
seem to be a sense that there is any kind of funding problem. 
Whatever shortfall there was programmed in fiscal year 2002.
    Senator Feinstein. The point I want to make in terms of the 
must-pay, that would include--I would just like to read this 
into the record: Hunters Point, El Toro, Naval Air Station 
Alameda, Naval Shipyard Long Beach, Naval Air Station Lockett 
Field, and Naval Station Treasure Island.
    Mr. Zakheim. Again, as I understand it the Navy has already 
identified out of that $92.3 million, I think it is--no, $92.5 
million shortfall, they have identified, they have brought that 
number down to about $63 million and they are working to find 
funds for the remainder.
    Senator Feinstein. All right.
    Could I ask just a couple of quick questions. Has Secretary 
Rumsfeld determined future force and structure for the Pacific 
and European commands, and do those construction proposals 
reflect those decisions?
    Mr. Zakheim. Madam Chair, we are in the midst right now of 
the Quadrennial Defense Review, which will, among other things, 
be addressing just those issues. The proposals for construction 
I believe will be valid pretty much regardless of how the 
numbers come out because there is a certain level at which we 
will be maintaining our presence under just about any 
circumstance I can think of, and the facilities that we are 
looking to improve are consistent with those levels.
    But the specifics of what we are going to do will be the 
outcome of the Quadrennial Defense Review.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    That takes care of my questions. Senator, any questions?
    Senator Hutchison. Well, I appreciate your staying. I 
thought that they would be able to go and I had not quite 
finished, but let me just clarify one thing.
    Dr. Zakheim, you had said, I think, that the QDR will be 
finished before we will be asked to vote on a BRAC; is that 
correct?
    Mr. Zakheim. What I said was that the QDR will be finished 
before any facilities that might arise in any kind of 
initiative or, to use the old shorthand, BRAC would even be 
named. It is a long process, as you know. Step one is simply to 
send a legislative package up for authorization of a process. 
If we go anything like the previous route--and I do not want to 
anticipate that--but just to take the previous BRAC as an 
example, commissioners had to be named. There was then a list 
that was put together. That comes quite a bit later, after the 
initial legislative package goes to Congress, and I cannot 
imagine that any list of any facilities would be formulated, 
much less presented, prior to the completion of the Quadrennial 
Defense Review.
    Senator Hutchison. Let me just say that I would hope that 
we would have the information from the Quadrennial Review and 
the full thinking of the Department of Defense on what our 
troop strength will be, what our focus will be, before we are 
asked to vote on the BRAC. I do not know how that will mesh 
with your timetable, but I think that will be the better 
approach.
    Mr. Zakheim. As I said, it depends what you mean by voting 
on the BRAC. But if it means voting on any facilities, I do not 
think there is any doubt of that.
    Senator Hutchison. I am talking about voting to authorize a 
BRAC.
    Mr. Zakheim. Well, I am not completely certain as to the 
timetable yet, because we have not sent anything up to the 
Hill, anyway. I do not know if you want to add to that.
    Mr. DuBois. I think, Senator, that you are addressing a 
very important issue with respect to sequence, and you and I 
have talked about this in the past, as have a number of your 
colleagues. In order to address a so-called package, BRAC 
package, 2 years from now in the summer of 2003, a process does 
have to begin. It is our view that it would not begin until 
after the QDR was completed and submitted to Congress in 
October of this year.
    That does not preclude the fact, however, that the process 
needs to be authorized by Congress. We believe it is best 
authorized by Congress in the Defense 2002 Authorization Act. 
We of course defer to your judgment in that respect. It is your 
prerogative. But our belief is that that is the best vehicle by 
which to authorize the process that would then begin subsequent 
to the submittal of the QDR.
    It is a long, detailed, some would say arduous process that 
as a practical matter would result in a presentation to a 
commission in the spring of 2003.
    Senator Hutchison. I would just say I think having more of 
a strategy before we are asked to vote on the process might be 
a better approach. But we will just keep on talking and 
hopefully have more information.
    Let me just ask one last question. That is, it seems that 
one of the issues that comes up again and again with regard to 
a base closing is the cost of the environmental cleanup, that 
it never seems to be what it was represented to be in the BRAC 
process. I just wonder if there is anything that you are trying 
to do in the Pentagon that would address the cost of 
environmental cleanup, anything maybe thinking out of the box 
about how you would approach the environmental cleanup, perhaps 
to be able to do it in a more efficient way or a better way or 
something that would cut what appeared to be just ongoing costs 
that were not anticipated.
    Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. I think that, as you have concerns 
and doubts, so do we. We have looked at the numbers as they 
were projected over time and one would have thought that the 
numbers would have gone down in a nice, stepped fashion. As I 
indicated earlier this afternoon, often times the land use 
changes and when it does standards change. When standards 
change, costs change.
    The other issue that one I think has to understand is that 
environmental cleanup or remediation are costs and, yes, 
liabilities, that the Department of Defense shoulders whether 
or not it keeps a base open, it realigns the base or it closes 
the base. So there are inherent costs in doing business for the 
Department with respect the environmental remediation.
    The last issue that you raised and one that we wrestled 
with over the past couple of months is, are there opportunities 
for disposal, if you will, or realignment which would mitigate 
environmental remediation costs, absent those that affect 
safety and health, i.e., some plume on the ground that impacts 
the aquifer, which would be something we would address whether 
we kept the base open, closed, or realigned it.
    We have some what we refer to as improvements in this 
process that we hope to share with Congress very soon, which 
would mitigate some of those pure health-related costs. As you 
know, there are unexploded ordnance issues that we face at 
formerly used defense sites and at currently used defense 
sites. Sometimes we have addressed them from the point of view 
of creating a bird sanctuary rather than cleaning up the 
situation to support a condominium or a child development 
center.
    We want to work with Congress to try to outline some 
options that would help, not necessarily cap, better manage how 
we are going to spend the taxpayers' dollars to environmentally 
remediate properties that are no longer central to the Defense 
Department's mission.
    Senator Hutchison. I really look forward to hearing more 
about that. Thank you very much.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
    Thank you very much, gentlemen.
    Mr. Zakheim. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. This concludes this panel.
                            Defense Agencies

                  Military Community and Family Policy

STATEMENT OF JOHN MOLINO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
            DEFENSE

                 Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICIA SANDERS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 
            TEST, SIMULATION AND EVALUATION

                       Special Operations Command

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM P. TANGNEY, 
            DEPUTY COMMANDER IN CHIEF

                      Tricare Management Activity

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL LEONARD M. RANDOLPH, JR., 
            DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    Senator Feinstein. May I ask the next panel to quickly 
assemble and we will move on.
    I am very pleased to welcome today our second panel: Mr. 
John Molino, representing the Department of Defense Education 
Activity; Dr. Patricia Sanders from the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Office; Lieutenant General William Tangney--I hope I 
pronounced your last name----
    General Tangney. You got it right, ``TANG-nee.''
    Senator Feinstein. ``TANG-nee,'' Special Operations 
Command; Major General Leonard Randolph from the TRICARE 
Management Activity.
    Now, this is a very diverse panel. It represents several 
defense-wide agencies. Of course, we want to hear from each one 
of you. Again, because of the limited time, your statement will 
go into the official record and we would ask that you summarize 
your statement at this time. Mr. Molino, we will begin with 
you.

                        Statement of John Molino

    Mr. Molino. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Hutchison. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on the 
military construction program for what is most certainly one of 
the premier people programs within the Department of Defense, 
the DOD Education Activity. Quality schools along the other 
facilities such as first-rate child development and fitness 
centers, are critical to our commitment to uphold the quality 
of life of service members and families in order to attract and 
retain the very best.
    Continued service is often a family decision. Taking care 
of military members and their families makes good sense and it 
is clear that DOD and our partners in Congress are committed to 
providing for the quality of life of our armed forces. Thank 
you for your support over the years to improve quality of life 
facilities.
    Modern, well equipped, educational facilities are vital to 
the educational process itself. Research shows that students in 
well-maintained environments outperform those who attend 
neglected, poorly maintained schools.
    What was once said about the world's greatest empire can 
also be said of DODEA: The sun never sets on the DOD Education 
Activity. DODEA serves 108,000 students in 227 schools in 14 
countries, 7 States, one Commonwealth, and one U.S. territory. 
The conditions of schools are important to the educational 
process because of the changing educational curriculum, 
increasing use of technology in the classroom, and the rising 
expectations of the military community.

                           Prepared Statement

    The fiscal year 2002 military construction budget includes 
more than $65 million in major construction. This compares very 
favorably to the $42 million appropriated by the Congress last 
year for defense school construction. In summary, this is a 
good news story indeed, of a concerned Congress and the Bush 
Administration's commitment to the quality education of the 
sons and daughters of America's sons and daughters selflessly 
serving to protect the freedom we enjoy, but should never take 
for granted.
    Thank you again for your consistent support and I am happy 
to entertain any questions you may have.
    [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of John Molino

    Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, it is an honor to 
appear before you today to discuss the status of a key component of our 
quality of life program, the Department of Defense Education Activity's 
(DODEA) military construction program. Quality schools, along with 
other facilities such as first-rate child development and fitness 
centers are critical to our commitment to uphold the quality of life of 
Service members and families in order to attract and retain the best. 
When we address work-life needs such as improved living and working 
conditions we optimize satisfaction with military life. It is often 
said that retention strategies must focus on the entire military family 
because continued service is a family decision. I will begin my 
testimony by referring to the DODEA program.
    This Committee has a long-standing tradition of advocacy for 
DODEA's programs. You recognize, as do we, the critical necessity and 
value of providing a first-rate educational program for the children of 
our Service men and women. Attracting and retaining the best force is 
the foundation of our national defense. Therefore, quality education 
remains a central quality of life issue for our military and is 
critical to military readiness.
    Providing modern, well-equipped educational facilities is vital to 
the educational process itself. Research shows that students in well-
maintained environments outperform those who attend neglected, poorly 
maintained schools. DODEA serves 107,947 students in 227 schools in 14 
countries, 7 states, one Commonwealth and one Territory, with a total 
facility inventory of over $3.2 billion dollars. Over sixty percent of 
our schools are over thirty years old, and many are housed in former 
barracks or administrative buildings, not built to be educational 
facilities. The changing educational curriculum, increasing use of 
technology in the classroom, and rising expectations of the military 
community make the state of the facilities more and more important to 
the education process.
    DODEA is aggressively addressing our outdated infrastructure 
through the replacement or upgrade of the schools in the worst 
condition. Since 1999, we have programmed construction totaling $165.4 
million, including $50.1 million in additions and renovations to 
existing facilities, $55 million for the replacement of older schools, 
and $60.3 million for the establishment of schools on Guam and in 
Larissa, Greece. This includes construction required to support a 
worldwide implementation of new educational programs: full-day 
kindergarten and reduced pupil-teacher ratios in the first three 
grades, both of which enjoy the strong support of our military 
stakeholders. For the future, we have focused our efforts to identify 
those schools that are in the most urgent need of repair or replacement 
and have programmed Military Construction projects where necessary to 
address those needs.
    The fiscal year 2002 Military Construction budget before you now 
includes $65.2 million in major construction for DODEA. Last year, with 
your support, there was $42 million in the construction program. We see 
this increase in the fiscal year 2002 budget as very positive progress 
in an area that has great need. I'd like to thank the committee for its 
consistent support for the educational program. The fiscal year 2002 
program includes one of our most sorely needed projects, the 
replacement of Lakenheath Middle School, in England. The existing 
school is operated in World War II-vintage facilities that are 
difficult to maintain and not conducive to a good learning environment. 
Replacement of this school will provide state-of-the-art facilities for 
over 800 students at Lakenheath.
    The budget also contains a new elementary school at Laurel Bay, 
South Carolina, for 500 students. The core areas of the existing Laurel 
Bay school are severely overcrowded, as evidenced by the eleven trailer 
classrooms.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget also includes funding for the 
renovation of and addition to Stone Street Elementary School at Camp 
Lejeune, North Carolina. The Stone Street initiative includes addition 
of a library, art and music rooms, and a complete renovation of the 
existing facility, including installation of central air conditioning, 
replacement of existing window walls and finishes, and renovations to 
comply with electrical and life safety code, and Americans with 
Disabilities Act requirements. In 1999, some of DODEA's worst 
facilities were located on Camp Lejeune. Beginning with the fiscal year 
1999 Military Construction program, DODEA has replaced or renovated one 
of those schools each year. These continuing efforts are resulting in 
greatly improved facilities for the students at Camp Lejeune.
    Also included in this budget are projects at Ramstein High School, 
Geilenkirchen Elementary School, and Wuerzburg Elementary School.
    The project at Geilenkirchen Elementary School involves 
construction of a new multipurpose room that will replace an existing 
temporary air-supported structure that was erected in 1993, with an 
expected life of five years. Heating and cooling this facility is both 
difficult and expensive. This area doubles as the school's cafeteria, 
although it is without food preparation capabilities. Lunches are 
prepared off-site and delivered to the school. The new facility will 
provide food preparation and dining areas, and will also be used as an 
indoor physical education facility for the elementary school students.
    An eight-classroom addition is scheduled for Ramstein High School. 
These additional permanent classroom spaces will replace temporary 
buildings installed for ninth grade students at Ramstein High School.
    At Wuerzburg Elementary School, five additional classrooms and a 
gymnasium will be constructed. The school's existing multipurpose room 
and gymnasium facilities cannot accommodate the increased physical 
education and assembly needs, as well as the school lunch program. This 
project will provide a separate physical education area, allowing more 
flexibility in the use of the multipurpose room and cafeteria spaces. 
This project will also demolish existing temporary facilities and 
replace them with permanent general-purpose classrooms.
    In addition to the major construction projects and some funding for 
planning and design, the 2002 budget also continues the implementation 
of full day kindergarten and reduced pupil-teacher ratios at our 
elementary schools worldwide for a total Military Construction program 
of $71.4 million. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, DODEA programmed a 
number of projects around the world to provide the facilities necessary 
to implement these important initiatives. In addition to offering a 
full-day kindergarten program at every elementary school, this allowed 
DODEA to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the first through third 
grades from 23:1 to 18:1. A total of seven projects are included in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget.
    DODEA's will continue to strive to address many of the aging 
facilities in our inventory. At this time the Administration has not 
yet addressed the fiscal year 2003-2007 requirements.
    I am also pleased to be able to report on the status of our 
military Child Development Program. We know that more than 50 percent 
of the force is married and that families are the foundation of 
success. Family well being is critical to the peace of mind of our 
Service members. We are proud of our progress in child care during the 
last ten years--progress that would have been impossible without strong 
Congressional support. The Department received $43 million in the 
fiscal year 2001 construction program for new construction or 
improvements for ten child centers. This was a funding investment of an 
additional $23 million above the fiscal year 2000 level of $20 million. 
The fiscal year 2002 budget is for $26 million for four centers.
    The child development program consists of a variety of delivery 
systems to include center-based care, in-home care (on and off the 
installation), school-age care, and resource and referral programs. 
Each day we currently serve over 200,000 children from new born to 12 
years of age at 300 locations worldwide in an estimated 800 facilities 
and 9,000 Family Child Care homes. The DOD child development program is 
the largest American employer-sponsored child care program. DOD 
sponsored forums consistently highlight a critical need for child care 
program growth. Further, military leaders continue to surface child 
care as a top priority for military members and their families.
    The Department estimates that there is a need for 215,000 child 
care spaces. Thorough the current child development delivery system, 
the Department provides 170,000 spaces and is working aggressively to 
meet the unmet need. In response to a request from Congress, the 
Department of Defense and the Military Services are working to develop 
a plan to construct additional child development spaces. The ability to 
execute such a plan will be evaluated in the context of the total 
budget requirement for the Department. While child development centers 
are the cornerstone of the military child development program our 
experience indicates that a balanced delivery system that complements 
our construction program is needed to maintain quality, expand the 
availability of care, and provide the flexibility to meet mission and 
family requirements. This includes family child care homes on the 
installation and homes off the installation, partnerships with other 
agencies, maximizing school age spaces, and use of resource and 
referral to provide space in the local communities near our 
installations.
    We appreciate your interest and ask for your continued support to 
ameliorate this major work-life issue for our families. Supporting DOD 
families' need for child care contributes to the efficiency, readiness, 
and retention of the Total Force and the economic stability of military 
families. Taking care of military members and their families makes good 
sense and it is clear that DOD and our partners in Congress are 
committed to providing for the quality of life for our Armed Forces as 
a high priority.
    The third program I am reporting on is our fitness centers. Fitness 
centers consistently rank as the top Morale, Welfare and Recreation 
program. According to the 1999 DOD Survey of Active Duty Personnel, 
79.5 percent of the respondents said they use the installation fitness 
center at least once per month, with 40 percent using the facility 11 
times or more per month. This equates to an average monthly usage of 
approximately 12 million visits to fitness centers per month.
    The Department received $111.5 million in fitness and physical 
training facility construction for fiscal year 2001. This provided the 
funding for the construction and major upgrade of 12 facilities. For 
fiscal year 2002, the Department has requested $171.3 million for 
construction and major upgrades of 12 facilities. Upgrading and 
modernizing fitness facilities is a high priority within the 
Department. We appreciate the continued recognition by Congress of 
fitness as a vital part of military life and the support provided by 
Congress in improving these critical facilities.
    Each Service is conducting an assessment of its current facility 
inventories to establish strategic fitness facility plans in order to 
overcome the backlog in facility improvements. According to our 1998 
survey of fitness facilities as part of ``Operation Be Fit,'' 22 
percent of our facilities were rated poor, with 54 percent rated as 
adequate. Each of the Services is conducting their own follow-on review 
of facilities, based on standards, to develop requirements for future 
military construction submissions.
    DOD continues to develop a strategic plan for fitness in 
conjunction with the Services. This plan has expanded to encompass 
health promotion and injury prevention, as well as physical training. 
This new strategic concept has the potential to provide tangible 
benefits to DOD by reducing injuries, promoting healthy lifestyles and 
physically preparing Service members better for duty. The military 
Services have already started to place segments of this concept into 
practice. Many installations have brought their health promotion 
programs into the fitness centers, providing physical fitness 
assessments, nutrition counseling and other programs to promote healthy 
life styles.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and 
for your strong and consistent support of our programs in the past.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    We will go right down the line. Dr. Sanders, welcome.

                  Statement of Patricia Sanders, Ph.D.

    Dr. Sanders. Thank you. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure 
to appear before you today to discuss----
    Senator Feinstein. Could you pull that right up so that we 
can hear you clearly and distinctly.
    Dr. Sanders. Thank you.
    Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to appear before you 
today to discuss our fiscal year 2002 construction program for 
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The objective of 
the BMDO construction program is to provide the facilities that 
we need to support the research, development, and testing of a 
ballistic missile defense system and to acquire those 
facilities in accordance with Congressional guidance----
    Dr. Sanders. The BMDO construction budget request includes 
military construction and research, development, testing, and 
evaluation, RDTE funding. The requested budget includes MILCON 
planning and design, unspecified minor military construction, 
and RDTE-funded missile defense system testbed, and a space-
based laser test facility.
    The MILCON budget request of $8.3 million includes $2 
million in unspecified minor construction and $6.3 million in 
planning and design funds. The RDTE fund projects total $288.3 
million.
    The budget reflects the Secretary of Defense's directive 
for BMDO to develop a single integrated ballistic missile 
defense system to defend the forces and territories of the 
United States----
    Senator Feinstein. May I stop you? Did you say $228 million 
or $288 million?
    Dr. Sanders. $288.3 million.
    Senator Feinstein. Is that R&D?
    Dr. Sanders. In R&D.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Dr. Sanders. So to develop a single integrated ballistic 
installation defense system to defend the forces and 
territories of the United States, its allies and friends, from 
all classes of ballistic missiles, without differentiating 
between theater and national missile defense. The research, 
development, test, and evaluation program is designed to 
enhance system effectiveness over time by deploying layered 
defenses that employ complementary sensors and weapons to 
engage threats in the boost, midcourse, and terminal phases.
    The testing program will incorporate a larger number of 
tests than previously, using more realistic scenarios. But to 
do so will require investment in additional infrastructure. 
Development of the ground-based midcourse element of our 
missile defense system, which was formerly known as the 
National Missile Defense program, requires additional testing 
under operationally realistic conditions.
    The proposed testbed is needed to provide the 
infrastructure for that realistic testing. The testbed will 
include components at several different installations at widely 
dispersed locations to provide the trajectories and sensing and 
intercept scenarios that realistically represent conditions 
under which a missile defense system might be expected to 
operate.
    While a testbed will initially be used to test a ground-
based midcourse element, in the future the testbed will be 
capable of integrating boost, midcourse, and terminal defenses, 
as well as sensors and battle management, command, control, and 
communications elements. The testbed adds realism. It allows 
for multiple simultaneous engagements and adds additional 
intercept areas to the BMD testing. These were recommended to 
us by both the BMDO-commissioned independent review team, which 
is commonly referred to as the Welch panel, and by the director 
of operational test and evaluation.
    The testbed will also help us prove out construction, 
transportation, and logistics concepts that we will need to 
build and operate deployment facilities in a challenging 
Alaskan environment.
    The fiscal year 2002 construction budget request 
contributes $288.3 million of RDT&E funds to the development of 
national missile defense system tests.
    Another RDT&E funded project is the space-based laser test 
facility. The facility is needed to conduct the ground test 
demonstration portions of the integrated flight experiment. The 
test facility will include a singular unique structure designed 
to specifically support the full-power laser test firing of the 
flight experiment, and combined integration tests of the 
chemical laser system configured as a complete space vehicle.
    This facility will be constructed at the NASA Johnson-
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The fiscal year 2002 
request for $5 million starts the project. Total construction 
is estimated at $37 million. More detail on all of the 
construction projects in the BMDO requests are contained in my 
longer written statement which has been submitted for the 
record and the exhibits accompanying the Department's budget 
submission.

                           Prepared Statement

    Thank you for your support, Madam Chairman, and I would be 
happy to answer any questions you and members of the committee 
might have.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Dr. Patricia Sanders

    Madam Chairwoman, it is my pleasure to appear before you today to 
present the fiscal year 2002 Construction program for the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).
    The objective of the BMDO construction program is to provide the 
facilities needed to support the research, development and testing of 
the Ballistic Missile Defense System and to acquire those facilities in 
accordance with Congressional guidance and that of the Department of 
Defense. The BMDO construction budget request includes Military 
Construction (MILCON) and Research, Development, Testing, and 
Evaluation (RDT&E) funding. The requested projects include MILCON 
planning and design and unspecified minor construction, an RDT&E funded 
Missile Defense System Test Bed and a Space Based Laser Test Facility.
                 military construction funding (milcon)
    The MILCON budget request of $8.3 million includes $2.0 million in 
unspecified minor construction and $6.3 million planning and design 
funds. The unspecified minor construction funds will be used for 
urgent, unforeseen projects. The design funds will be used for: Theater 
High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) (part of the Terminal Defense 
Segment) test facilities at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) 
and at the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site (RTS) at the 
Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands; Sea-based Midcourse test 
facilities at West Lock, Hawaii; and Unspecified Minor Construction 
projects.
    This budget reflects the Secretary of Defense direction for BMDO to 
develop a single integrated ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to 
defend the forces and territories of the United States, its allies and 
friends from all classes of ballistic missiles, without differentiating 
between theater and national missile defense. The Department will 
develop and deploy promising technologies and concepts in order to 
build and sustain an effective, reliable and affordable missile defense 
system.
    The research, development, test and evaluation program is designed 
to enhance system effectiveness over time by developing layered 
defenses that employ complementary sensors and weapons to engage 
threats in the boost, mid-course and terminal phases of flight and to 
deploy capability incrementally. This revised structure involves three 
basic thrusts: First, the new ballistic missile defense program will 
build on the technical progress we have made to date by providing the 
funding required to develop and test elements of the previous program.
    Second, the new program will pursue a broad range of activities in 
order to aggressively evaluate and develop technologies for the 
integration of land-, sea-, 
air-, or space-based platforms to counter ballistic missiles in all 
phases of their flight. Third, the new testing program will incorporate 
a larger number of tests using more realistic scenarios and 
countermeasures. During this testing, we may find opportunities to 
accelerate elements of the program, and increase the overall 
credibility and capability of missile defense systems. This realistic 
testing will require investment in additional infrastructure.
                    missile defense system test bed
    Development of the Ground Based Midcourse (GBMC) project of MDS 
(Missile Defense system) (formerly known as the National Missile 
Defense (NMD) program) requires additional testing under operationally 
realistic conditions. The proposed MDS Test Bed Facility is needed to 
provide the infrastructure for realistic testing. The Test Bed will 
include components at several different installations at widely 
dispersed locations to provide trajectory, sensing, and interception 
scenarios that resemble conditions under which a Missile Defense System 
might be expected to operate. While the Test Bed will initially be used 
to test the GBMC element, in the future, the test bed will be capable 
of integrating boost, midcourse, and terminal element defenses, as well 
as sensors and battle management command, control and communications 
systems. The Test Bed will add realism, allow for multiple engagements, 
and add additional intercept areas to BMD testing, as recommended by 
the BMDO-commissioned Independent Review Team (IRT) (commonly referred 
to as the Welch Panel), and the Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation.
    The MDS Test Bed is proposed to include the following components:
  --Five Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) with supporting 
        infrastructure at Fort Greely, Alaska and a missile transfer 
        facility at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. The GBIs at Fort 
        Greely will allow BMDO to prove out the design and siting of a 
        GBI field that would be required to fire in a salvo without 
        having the GBI interfere with each other, to test the 
        communication between all component parts, and to test for 
        fuels degradation in the artic environment, as well as to 
        develop and rehearse maintenance and upkeep processes and 
        procedures. At present, BMDO does not intend to launch any GBI 
        from Fort Greely during the testing process because these 
        missiles would fly over land in violation of current flight 
        test safety restrictions. Flight test would be conducted from 
        Ft. Greely if the safety issues could be satisfactorily 
        addressed.
  --Two GBI launch silos at Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC) at Kodiak, 
        Alaska. KLC is a commercial space launch center owned by the 
        Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation. This proposed 
        component requires completion of the National Environmental 
        Policy Act (NEPA) process. The GBI at KLC would allow more 
        realistic test trajectories, compared to those presently 
        provided by launching GBI from the RTS, and from the Pacific 
        Missile Range at Kauai Island in Hawaii.
  --Upgraded software for the existing phased array COBRA DANE radar on 
        Shemya Island, refurbishment of the existing electrical power 
        plant there, and test support infrastructure at Eareckson Air 
        Station on Shemya Island, Alaska. The upgrades will allow the 
        COBRA DANE radar to be used as part of the realistic sensing of 
        offensive missiles during MDS tests. This, in combination with 
        the existing ground based radar prototype at RTS, will allow 
        the program to test sensing and intercept of targets launched 
        from a variety of locations.
  --Upgraded software for the existing early warning radar (EWR) at 
        Beale Air Force Base in California. The upgrade will allow the 
        upgraded EWR (UEWR) at Beale to be used as part of the 
        realistic sensing of offensive missiles during MDS tests.
  --Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) nodes at Fort Greely, 
        RTS and the Joint National Training Facility (JNTF), Colorado, 
        and at another location in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The BMC2 
        nodes will allow the MDS system to test its ability to control 
        MDS components in a variety of locations.
  --In Flight Interception Communication System (IFICS) Data Terminals 
        (IDT) at Fort Greely (2), Eareckson Air Station (2), Kodiak (1) 
        and RTS (2). The IDT will allow the MDS system to test its 
        ability to communicate information about the target location 
        and characteristics to the GBI to effect a successful 
        interception.
  --In the future the Test Bed could include a new phased array, X-Band 
        radar proposed for the Pacific area in roughly the 2006 time 
        frame. This project is at a preliminary stage of design and is 
        not in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Its final location will not 
        be determined prior to completing the National Environmental 
        Policy Act (NEPA) process.
  --Satellite and/or fiber communications between all elements to allow 
        them to communicate.
  --Test targets launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base and from 
        aircraft when an advanced version of an air launched target is 
        developed.
    In addition, the following elements will support the Test Bed:
  --Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites to test their ability to 
        assist in rapidly identifying a target missile.
  --Combat Systems Engineering Development Site (CSEDS), New Jersey and 
        Aegis SPY radar.
    BMDO proposes to build facilities for the MDS Test Bed using funds 
appropriated as Research, Development, Test and Engineering (RDT&E), 
rather than funds appropriated as Military Construction (MILCON). The 
primary reason for using RDT&E funds versus MILCON funds is to provide 
the needed flexibility to make required changes identified through 
testing in a realistic environment. The MILCON funding approach set out 
in Title 10 U.S.C., Chapter 169 is based on the assumption that all 
aspects of the facility to be constructed--its size, configuration, and 
use--can and should be known in detail, prior to Congressional approval 
of the project. Further, MILCON presupposes that few, and only 
relatively minor changes would be required to a facility after Congress 
approved the project. While these are reasonable requirements when 
applied to most facilities that are constructed on military 
installations, the requirements do not readily allow for the evolution 
and development of this MDS Test Bed. The intent of the robust testing 
is to determine whether the proposed components operate as envisioned, 
and if not, to determine how the components should be changed so that 
they will provide an effective defense. Change to the components is 
extremely likely to require change in the supporting facilities. As an 
example, the precise missile that will be used as the GBI in an 
operational GBMC element has not yet been determined. The MDS test bed 
will be using a surrogate GBI. As more is known about the final size 
and particular fueling, configuration and other aspects of the GBI, the 
launch silos, and other supporting GBI facilities at the test bed may 
have to be reconfigured in order to support as realistic a testing 
program as is possible.
    The cost of constructing the proposed Test Bed should be included 
in the total R&D cost of developing a GBMC missile defense element. 
Title 10 U.S.C. Section 2353 authorizes funding a limited class of 
construction with RDT&E if the facility is necessary for the 
performance of a research and development contract and in addition the 
facility must be to support research and development; and it cannot 
have general utility.
    BMDO has determined that aspects of the Test Bed project clearly 
fall within the 10 U.S.C. 2353 authority. Other aspects of the Test Bed 
could be viewed to be of ``general utility'' and thereby not authorized 
by 10 U.S.C. 2353; as neither the statute nor its legislative history 
contain a definition of general utility. While BMDO could, in theory, 
fund part of the Test Bed project with MILCON, doing so would greatly 
reduce BMDO's ability to rapidly and effectively make changes to the 
Test Bed in response to requirements identified through realistic 
testing. To resolve the issue, the Department of Defense has proposed 
legislation that would clarify its authority to construct the Test Bed, 
to include facilities of general utility, with RDT&E funds.
    The legislative proposal would allow construction activities to be 
undertaken with authorized RDT&E funds at Fort Greely, Eareckson Air 
Station, Eielsen Air Force Base and Kodiak, Alaska. The proposal would 
also authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to local 
communities to meet the need for increased municipal or community 
services or facilities resulting from the construction, installation, 
or operation of the MDS test bed.
    The fiscal year 2002 construction budget request (MILCON and RDT&E) 
of $296.6 million contributes $283.3 million of RDT&E funds to the 
development of the MDS Test Bed, which will be used initially to prove 
out the midcourse capabilities. Over time the test bed will expand to 
include weapons and sensor capabilities to improve all missile defense 
capabilities, as they are made available.
    This test bed will allow us to test more than one missile defense 
segment at a time and exploit multiple shot opportunities so that we 
can demonstrate the layered defense concept. The test bed will provide 
a realistic environment to test different missile defense capabilities 
under varying and stressing conditions. It will also help us test and 
prove out construction, transportation, and logistics concepts we will 
need to build and operate deployment facilities in the challenging 
Alaskan environments.
          fiscal year 2001 military construction appropriation
    The Congress appropriated $85.1 million in fiscal year 2001 
Military Construction to fund the first phase of NMD deployment 
facilities. Of that amount $20.85 million has been reprogrammed to 
planning and design to continue the deployment facilities design 
effort. We are planning to use $9 million to perform site preparation 
at Fort Greely. The site preparation is for clearing, excavating, and 
grading the site, preparing facility sub-bases, and installing 
preliminary utilities (two water wells) and road infrastructure. The 
proposed site preparation work is the initial part of the approved 
fiscal year 2001 MILCON project and the work was planned and designed 
using MILCON funds. It will not include construction of any silos. 
While the site preparation work at Ft. Greely is work that is 
authorized under the BMDO fiscal year 2001 MILCON project, BMDO 
recognizes that the previous MILCON documentation no longer accurately 
describes the work actually planned in the next several years. To 
rectify this situation, BMDO has submitted a revised DD Form 1391 for 
the MDS Test Bed construction in its fiscal year 2002 Budget request. 
The remaining $55 million in fiscal year 2001 MILCON will be retained 
until additional guidance is received on how to proceed with the 
Ballistic Missile Defense System and would be available to construct 
deployment facilities when directed.
                    space based laser test facility
    Another RDT&E funded project is the Space Based Laser Test 
Facility. The facility is needed to conduct the ground test and 
demonstration portions of the Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX). The 
test facility will include a singularly unique structure designed 
specifically to support the full power laser test firing of the IFX and 
combined integration tests of the chemical laser system configured as a 
complete space vehicle.
    The main building structure will include a 120 foot wide by 240 
foot long by 150-foot tall, ``High Bay'' class 10,000 clean room, a 
shipping receiving and decontamination area (120 feet by 95 feet, class 
10,000 clean room), and support spaces for offices, laboratories, and 
shops. The facility will be constructed at the NASA John C. Stennis 
Space Center in Mississippi. The fiscal year 2002 request for $5 
million starts the project. Total construction cost is estimated at $37 
million.
    Thank you for your support, Madam Chairwoman. I would be happy to 
answer any questions you and the Members of the Committee might have.

    Senator Feinstein. General, please proceed.

           Statement of Lieutenant General William P. Tangney

    General Tangney. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator 
Hutchison. I am pleased to be here today to discuss the United 
States Special Operations Command fiscal year 2001 military 
construction budget. I am Lieutenant General Bill Tangney, 
Deputy Commander in Chief U.S. SOCOM, McGill Air Force Base, 
Florida. With the chairwoman's concurrence, I will submit my 
formal statement for the record and present a brief summary at 
this point.
    Senator Feinstein. Excellent. Thank you.
    General Tangney. Our military construction program has a 
direct, positive, and significant impact on our unique Special 
Operations capabilities. Both our active and reserve Special 
Operations forces possess highly specialized skills that are 
used to execute a broad range of specialized joint operations. 
The command's military construction program provides essential 
facilities. These facilities in turn support our unique 
training needs and hence force capability and increase the 
readiness of our personnel for missions and weapons systems to 
perform our unique and highly specialized missions.
    The military construction budget request for fiscal year 
2002 totals $98.9 million, consisting of $90.2 million for 19 
major construction projects at 8 installations, $1.9 million 
for unspecified minor construction, and $6.8 million for 
military construction planning and design.

                           Prepared Statement

    Your support of this program is vital to the continued 
development and effectiveness of Special Operations Forces and 
their ability to support and advance our national security. 
This committee's support in prior years has greatly improved 
our joint Special Operations capability. We look forward to 
your committee's continuing support again this year and in the 
future to acquire the facilities which we need for our 
formations to perform their unique assigned missions.
    [The statement follows:]

            Prepared Statement of General William P. Tangney

                              introduction
    Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, I am pleased to 
present the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Military 
Construction (MILCON) budget request for fiscal year 2002. Our MILCON 
program has a direct, positive impact on the training, readiness and 
operational capabilities of this nation's special operations forces 
(SOF). The highly specialized skills and equipment required to 
successfully execute the full spectrum of special operations missions 
require a modern array of operations, training, and maintenance and 
support facilities.
                                purpose
    The long term goal of the USSOCOM facilities program, in which 
annual MILCON investment is a major factor, is to have all units and 
personnel working and living in adequate facilities in order to 
maximize both training and operations capabilities. Facilities 
requirements are generated by the need to modernize and replace old and 
inadequate facilities and the need to support new weapons systems, 
force structure, and missions. The current MILCON program is planned to 
provide facilities that will improve force capability, increase 
readiness of SOF weapons systems, and support diverse training needs. 
Examples of major construction needs that meet this criteria include: 
training ranges and language training facility improvements at Fort 
Bragg, North Carolina; aircraft support facilities at Hurlburt Field, 
Florida; and replacement facilities for our Sea-Air and Land (SEAL) 
team forces at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, California. Each 
construction request is part of a joint construction plan integrated at 
USSOCOM to ensure the most critical projects are constructed at the 
right place, on time, and contributing the greatest value to our 
mission.
    Your committee's support in prior years has aided immeasurably in 
improving SOF's operational capability. We look forward to working with 
the committee to acquire these facilities so USSOCOM can continue to 
perform its missions and ensure we have a fully trained and capable 
force in the 21st Century.
                             milcon program
    USSOCOM's MILCON budget request for fiscal year 2002 totals $98.9 
million consisting of: $90.2 million for major construction, $1.9 
million for unspecified minor construction, and $6.8 million for 
project planning and design. The nineteen military construction 
projects in this program for our joint command include thirteen 
projects for the Army Special Operations Command, two projects for the 
Air Force Special Operations Command, two projects for Headquarters 
U.S. Special Operations Command, one project for the Naval Special 
Warfare Command, and one Joint Special Operations Command project. The 
majority of our programs support replacement, renovation and renewal of 
current mission facilities. The purpose behind each of these 
requirements is to facilitate the high state of readiness of all 
special operations forces. Following is a brief description of each of 
the 19 requirements:
Seal Team Five Operations Facility, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, 
        California--$13.65M
    Constructs platoon and operations supply buildings, renovates an 
existing administrative facility and rehabilitates a parachute drying 
tower for Seal Air and Land (SEAL) Team FIVE. This project will replace 
deteriorated and undersized facilities built in the 1950s and also 
eliminate storing gear outdoors in numerous cargo containers.
CV-22 Training Device Support Facility, Hurlburt Field, Florida--$10.2M
    Constructs a facility to support CV-22 simulator training. Areas 
include classrooms, administrative space, CV-22 flight simulators, 
simulator support area, specialized training areas and storage. The 
existing simulator facility is not large enough to support the 
additional CV-22 training mission as well as current fixed wing and 
helicopter trainers.
Readiness Supply Package Facility, Hurlburt Field, Florida--$3.2M
    Constructs a facility to provide storage for readiness supply 
packages (RSP) for helicopters and CV-22 aircraft. RSP consist of 
palletized spare parts and supplies for aircraft during deployments. 
The existing facility is located over two miles from the aircraft 
parking area across an active runway. Lack of adequate storage will 
require storage in temporary shelters or outside, exposing the assets 
to deterioration.
Public Access Building, Macdill Air Force Base, Florida--$2.5 M
    Builds a facility to house the Headquarters USSOCOM contracting 
function accessible to the public. The facility will house the 
competition advocate, technical industrial liaison office and 
procurement directorate. These functions are currently in temporary 
leased space.
Renovate Command & Control Facility II, Macdill Air Force Base, 
        Florida--$9.5 M
    Provides supplemental requirements to complete renovation of the 
USSOCOM Headquarters command and control facility in Tampa, Florida. 
Latent requirements were identified during design of the original 
fiscal year 1999 MILCON building renovation, requiring communications 
architecture enhancements, backup power generator replacement, added 
force protection features, extended fire protection coverage, 
additional physical security, and space adjustments.
Tactical Equipment Complex, Fort Benning, Georgia--$5.1 M
    Constructs a tactical equipment complex to include a vehicle 
maintenance shop, warehouse, arms/communications/electronics 
maintenance facility, vehicle storage building, oil storage facility 
and military vehicle parking. Existing vehicle maintenance shops lack 
sufficient bay and shop space, overhead lift clearance and capability, 
proper heating and ventilation, adequate lighting, and fire protection.
Operational Training Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland--$3.2 
        M
    Constructs new and renovates existing facilities on an existing 
range for an expanded special operations mission. Project provides 
facilities to support training and develop new equipment, materials and 
tactics. Aberdeen Proving Ground has range conditions and security 
measures in place that satisfy mission sensitive requirements.
Battalion Operations & Vehicle Maintenance Complex, Fort Bragg, North 
        Carolina--$8.5 M
    Constructs a battalion headquarters, organizational vehicle 
maintenance shop, deployment storage facility, and vehicle parking area 
for the 96th Civil Affairs Battalion. The existing Korean War era 
facilities provide only 50 percent of the required space and lack 
adequate infrastructure to support modern battalion headquarters.
Imagery and Analysis Facility, Fort Brag, North Carolina--$3.15 M
    Constructs a photographic, imagery and analysis facility to support 
imagery production, terrain model building and intelligence analysis. 
The facility will include photographic and imagery equipment areas, 
darkroom, model/exhibit workshop, storage and administrative space. The 
existing facilities were designed as warehouses and do not have 
adequate space and utilities to fully support this highly technical 
mission.
Language Sustainment Training Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--
        $2.1 M
    Constructs classrooms, administrative and instructor areas, audio/
visual storage areas, computer lab and distance learning rooms to 
provide specialized language sustainment training for the 3rd Special 
Forces Group. Language training is currently conducted in a WWII era 
facility and a converted operations facility. Existing facilities do 
not have sufficient space and lack adequate heating and lighting needed 
for language training.
Repair Training Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$1.812 M
    Repairs and replaces damaged ballistic wall and floor systems in an 
indoor range facility. Life-cycle repair of the ballistic wall systems 
is required every seven years to provide a safe and functional live-
fire training facility. The next repair cycle is required by 2002.
Team Operations & Information Automation Facilities, Fort Bragg, North 
        Carolina--$5.8 M
    Constructs a consolidated facility for communications forward 
operations detachments to conduct team planning, store deployable 
equipment and gear and perform administrative functions. The project 
will also modify an existing warehouse into an information automation 
facility. This construction is required to enhance the unit's readiness 
posture and capabilities.
Training Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$5.0 M
    Provides facilities for instructional staff and Special Forces 
candidate trainees at the Rowe Training Center. This training area 
provides initial qualification training for Special Forces personnel. 
Construction includes a two-story cadre administration building, 
toilet/shower and laundry facilities. Existing facilities are 
deteriorated temporary structures that are inadequate for this training 
mission.
Training Range, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$2.6 M
    Constructs a covered 20-position baffled firing range to conduct 
live-fire training. The new range will expand training flexibility by 
providing moving targets for sniper training under various weather 
conditions, and simulated night training with the use of night vision 
goggles. The existing range is operating under a safety waiver that 
limits firing to only single shots at stationary targets.
Vehicle Maintenance Complex, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$3.6 M
    Constructs two additions to a vehicle maintenance shop, a 
deployment storage facility, a motorcycle storage building, and 
organizational vehicle parking for the 3rd Special Forces Group. 
Additional facility space and parking area are required to accommodate 
the increase in assigned vehicles from 170 to 426 with 42 additional 
vehicles expected within the next year.
Weather Operations Facility, Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$1.0 M
    Provides permanent facilities for a combat weather detachment. This 
21-person unit and equipment provide weather information to multiple 
SOF units at Fort Bragg. Construction includes administrative offices, 
team rooms, training/conference areas, storage and equipment 
maintenance space. The existing deteriorated facility was built in 1941 
as enlisted quarters and lacks adequate electrical, heating and air 
conditioning systems.
Language Sustaiment Training Facility, Fort Lewis, Washington--$1.1 M
    Constructs classrooms, administrative and instructor areas, audio/
visual storage areas, computer lab space, and distance learning rooms 
for the specialized language sustainment training of the 1st Special 
Forces Group. This language training is currently conducted in a 
barracks that is not suited for language training.
Tactical Equipment Complex, Fort Lewis, Washington--$5.8 M
    Constructs a tactical equipment complex to include a vehicle 
maintenance shop, warehouse, arms/communications/electronics 
maintenance facility, vehicle storage building, oil storage facility 
and military vehicle parking. Current functions are housed in twelve 
1950s vintage buildings that do not have sufficient shop space, 
overhead lift capability, or adequate heating, ventilation and 
lighting.
Aviation Training and Maintenance Facility, Classified Location 
        (CONUS)--$2.4 M
    Constructs an aviation training facility and an aviation 
maintenance facility. The training facility will provide classroom, 
life-support equipment maintenance and storage areas, administrative 
offices, and audiovisual storage and support areas. The maintenance 
facility will include a single aircraft maintenance bay, bridge crane, 
avionics and optical shops, storage and office space. Existing 
facilities are deteriorated temporary trailers that have exceeded their 
useful life.
                                summary
    Our proposed fiscal year 2002 military construction budget for 
facility investment will significantly improve the operational 
readiness and training capability of the USSOCOM. Your support of this 
program is essential to ensure the continued quality and effectiveness 
of our nation's special operations forces.

    Senator Feinstein. Thanks, General, very much.
    General Randolph.

          Statement of Major General Leonard M. Randolph, Jr.

    General Randolph. Thank you and good afternoon. Madam 
Chairman and Senator Hutchison, on behalf of Dr. Jarrett 
Clinton, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs, and Mr. Thomas Carrato, the Executive Director, 
TRICARE Management Activity, I thank you for the opportunity to 
present the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2002 amended 
medical military construction program budget request. With the 
concurrence of Madam Chairman, I would like to also submit my 
longer written statement for the record and give a brief 
overview at this time.
    Senator Feinstein. Please proceed, sir.
    General Randolph. Let me begin by thanking the committee 
for your support of our medical construction programs in the 
past. But I look forward to your continued support in the 
future for ensuring the quality of life that our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen, marines, and eligible beneficiaries require to 
stay ready and to stay healthy. I would like to present this 
brief overview at this time by saying that the functionality 
and the condition of the facilities in which health care 
services are rendered has a profound impact on the perceived 
quality of life, retention, and recruitment, as well as the 
quality and the quantity of services that can be provided in 
those facilities.
    When we talk about quality of life in the medical military 
construction arena, we are referring to the facilities where 
the staff and the beneficiaries are able to work and receive 
care in the most optimal and safe environment possible. As a 
benefit of providing this type of environment, we provide up to 
date, operationally efficient facilities, lower costs by having 
greater in-house access to care, and retain well-qualified, 
highly motivated personnel.
    Our fiscal year 2002 program requests appropriations of 
$193.3 million for 22 major construction projects. We are also 
seeking $5,526,000 for unspecified minor construction and 
$26,300,000 for planning and design efforts to complete designs 
on fiscal year 2003 projects, further design projects 
identified for fiscal year 2004, and to commence design on 
projects for fiscal year 2005.
    The total appropriation request for this fiscal year 2002 
amended medical construction budget is $225,126,000. Our 
mission is to support and protect our forces before, during, 
and after operational deployment, as well as to provide 
preventive health care services to all eligible beneficiaries 
of the Department of Defense. The highly specialized skills and 
equipment required to successfully execute the full spectrum of 
the DOD health care mission also demands a modern array of 
treatment, training, operational, and storage facilities.
    Our physical plant structure plays an integral role in our 
ability to successfully carry out this mission. Two projects 
directly support the readiness of our forces at isolated 
locations overseas where there are no alternative sources of 
health care. They include a dental clinic replacement for $3.75 
million at Lajes Air Force Base, Portugal, and the Composite 
Medical Facility replacement at Thule Air Base, Greenland, at a 
cost of $10.8 million.
    In conclusion, the medical construction program is one of 
the important pieces of the quality of life of our uniformed 
personnel. The program stands as a testament, I believe to our 
combined commitment with you to maintain our country's medical 
readiness, provide better access to in-house direct care, and 
to provide quality health care services to the women and men 
serving in our armed forces, as well as all of our eligible 
beneficiaries.

                           Prepared Statement

    Thank you for the opportunity to present our budget. This 
concludes my overview of the fiscal year 2002 amended medical 
military construction budget request.
    [The statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Major General Leonard M. Randolph, Jr.

    Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I am 
Major General Randy Randolph, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Health Affairs.
    On behalf of Dr. Jarrett Clinton, the Acting Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Health Affairs and Mr. Thomas Carrato, the Executive 
Director, TRICARE Management Activity, I thank you for the opportunity 
to present the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2002 Amended Medical 
Military Construction Program budget request.
    The Appropriations Committee has been very supportive of our 
Medical Construction Program in the past and I look forward to your 
continued support in the future for ensuring the quality of life that 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen and eligible beneficiaries require to 
stay ready and healthy. I would like to present a brief overview of our 
fiscal year 2002 Medical Military Construction Program.
    The functionality and condition of the facilities in which 
healthcare services are rendered has a profound impact on perceived 
Quality of Life as well as on the quality and quantity of services that 
can be provided in those facilities. When we talk about Quality of Life 
in the Medical Military Construction arena we are referring to 
facilities where the staff and beneficiaries are able to work and 
receive care in the most optimal environment possible. As a benefit of 
providing this type of environment we provide up-to-date, operationally 
efficient facilities; lower costs by having greater in house access to 
care and retain well-qualified and highly motivated personnel.
    Our fiscal year 2002 program requests appropriations of 
$193,300,000 for 22 major construction projects. We are also seeking 
$5,526,000 for unspecified minor construction and $26,300,000 for 
planning and design efforts to complete designs on fiscal year 2003 
projects, further design projects identified for fiscal year 2004 and 
commence design on projects for fiscal year 2005. The total 
appropriation request for this fiscal year 02 Amended Medical 
Construction budget is $225,126,000.
    Our mission is to protect our forces before, during and after 
operational deployment as well as to provide preventive healthcare 
services to all eligible beneficiaries of the Department of Defense. 
The highly specialized skills and equipment required to successfully 
execute the full spectrum of the DOD healthcare mission also demands a 
modern array of treatment, training, operational and storage 
facilities. Our physical plant structure plays an integral part in our 
ability to successfully carry out these missions.
    One long-term goal of the TRICARE Management Activity is to have 
all eligible beneficiaries and healthcare providers receiving care and 
working in modern, efficient healthcare facilities in order to maximize 
use of the in-house facilities and to minimize healthcare costs outside 
of the direct care system. Facility requirements are generated by the 
need to modernize and replace inadequate facilities to support the 
constantly evolving and changing healthcare environment.
    The program before you today is planned to provide facilities that 
will ensure our readiness posture, improve the access to healthcare for 
our eligible beneficiaries and improve the quality of life for our 
healthcare patients and providers. Construction projects in this budget 
that meet these criteria are:
                           readiness projects

Schreiver Air Force Base, Colorado

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical/Dental Clinic.........................................      4.00
    This project will replace an existing aid station with a 1, 071 
square meter medical/dental clinic to serve over 2,500 active duty 
beneficiaries at this isolated, high-security installation. The project 
will allow personnel stationed at Schriever convenient access to 
healthcare and improve the base's emergency response, industrial 
hygiene and public health capabilities.

Fort Stewart, Georgia

                        [In millions of dollars]

Consolidated Troop Medical Clinic.............................     11.00
    Provides a single, right-sized troop medical clinic that replaces 
three small dispersed facilities in the west garrison area of the 
installation. This clinic will serve both active duty and family 
members and provides facilities for pre-deployment physical 
examinations and immunizations during force mobilization.

Thule Air Base, Greenland

                        [In millions of dollars]

Composite Medical Facility Replacement........................     10.80
    Replaces a grossly over-sized and extremely inefficient facility 
constructed in 1953 to serve 12,000-15,000 personnel. The replacement 
facility will be right-sized for today'' population and composed of 
pre-engineered and pre-manufactured systems and will house the 
necessary functions to successfully treat remotely-located Armed 
Services personnel.

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland

                        [In millions of dollars]

Naval Air Facility Washington, Br Med/Den Clinic Relocation...      2.95
    This clinic provides medical/dental care to approximately 5,000 
active duty personnel. The requested project relocates the existing 
clinic from the second floor of an aircraft maintenance hangar 
constructed in 1961 to an adjacent building of opportunity. The present 
clinic is a health hazard due to roof leaks, jet fuel seepage, lack of 
environmental controls and non-compliance with life safety and building 
codes for healthcare facilities.

Lajes Air Base, Portugal

                        [In millions of dollars]

Dental Clinic Replacement.....................................      3.75

    Provides an on-base adequately sized dental clinic. The current 
undersized off-base dental clinic is the target of frequent vandalism 
including broken windows and fires being set next to the building. For 
force protection reasons, the dental clinic must be relocated on base.

Naval Operations Base Norfolk, Virginia

                        [In millions of dollars]

Branch Medical Clinic Addition/Alteration-Sewells Point.......     21.00
    Increases the ability of this overcrowded clinic to meet the 
current patient workload and redress deficiencies in disability 
accessibility and life safety issues. The project will add treatment 
and support spaces as well as configure existing space to provide 
efficient clinic layout and circulation patterns.
                     access to care/quality of life

Twenty-nine Palms, California

                        [In millions of dollars]

Hospital LDRP Conversion......................................      1.60
    The third floor of the existing Naval Hospital will be altered to 
provide an efficient infant delivery system in the form of an 
integrated Labor, Delivery, Recovery, and Post Partum treatment unit. 
This will eliminate the current sizing and layout deficiencies and 
constraints as well as bring the medical gas system into code 
compliance.

Mayport Naval Station, Florida

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement.............................     24.00
    The existing clinic was constructed in 1977. It has extensive 
functional, life safety, and engineering systems deficiencies. 
Circulation patterns are confusing, departmental adjacencies are 
inefficient, clinical areas are fragmented, and support spaces are 
insufficient. This facility will support a beneficiary enrollment of 
over 60,000 people.

Hurlburt Field, Florida

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical/Dental Clinic Addition/Alteration.....................      8.80
    The current clinic was constructed to care for 4,000 active duty 
personnel. Today there are 21,000 beneficiaries enrolled including 
family members. Functions are currently located in several buildings 
scattered throughout the installation. The project will consolidate and 
right size all medical services onto one medical campus.

Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Georgia

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement.............................      5.80
    This project replaces 16,000 Gross Square Feet of the existing 
Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany clinic, currently comprised of a 
leased temporary modular trailer facility erected in 1995 and an 8,288 
Gross Square Foot substandard facility. The proposed replacement clinic 
is planned at 27,621 Gross Square Feet to serve an eligible population 
of 9,068 TRICARE eligibles. This project will ensure access to care and 
contribute substantially to the quality of life of these eligible 
beneficiaries and our healthcare providers.

Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical Clinic Addition/Alteration............................      7.30
    Space located in 10-year-old modular buildings slated for 
demolition will be replaced by this 32,920 gross square foot addition. 
The Air Force Surgeon General has mandated that all primary care 
services for active duty and family members be provided on base, making 
leasing nonviable. This project is vital to our endeavor to increase 
access to care and improve quality of life for our eligible 
beneficiaries and our healthcare providers.

Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical Clinic Alteration.....................................      5.70
    This facility was previously right-sized from an inpatient to an 
outpatient healthcare facility. The alteration work in the requested 
project will resolve space issues within the existing hospital and 
consolidate functions bringing back outpatient clinics that are in 
deteriorating temporary facilities.

Dyess Air Force Base, Texas

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical Treatment Facility Alteration.........................      3.30
    This project will renovate currently vacant space within the 
existing clinic, which was previously right-sized. The space requires 
renovation to convert formerly inpatient space to use as outpatient 
clinic space. Clinics currently located in 1950's era facilities will 
be moved into the renovated space.

Fort Hood, Texas

                        [In millions of dollars]

Hospital Addition/Alteration..................................     12.20
    Fort Hood is home to III Corps, which includes two divisions and a 
number of combat support units. The troop population at Fort Hood has 
grown to the point where the hospital is near maximum capacity in some 
critical areas. This project provides sufficient space for emergency 
medicine, radiology and a number of hospital administrative and 
educational activities.

F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming

                        [In millions of dollars]

Medical Clinic Alteration.....................................      2.70
    Project converts the existing small hospital to a clinic. Clinical 
functions in outlying buildings will be consolidated into vacated, 
formerly inpatient areas. Uniquely configured inpatient areas such as 
the surgical suite, central sterile, and the hospital kitchen will be 
renovated to accept outpatient clinics.

Heidelberg, Germany

                        [In millions of dollars]

Hospital Addition/Clinic Alteration...........................     28.00
    The Heidelberg facility, constructed between 1930 and 1940, is the 
referral hospital for 11 outlying medical clinics. The facility 
currently suffers from severe life safety issues, space shortages, and 
inefficiencies and inappropriate adjacencies. This project will provide 
an addition to serve the 38,000 beneficiaries who require access to 
care in this region.

Fort Wainwright, Alaska

                        [In millions of dollars]

Hospital Replacement, Phase III...............................     18.50
    Authorized in fiscal year 2000 at $133,000,000, and reauthorized at 
$215,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
this project seeks $18,500,000 in appropriations this year. The Cost of 
construction has risen significantly in Alaska. The recent natural 
disasters in the Northwest contiguous lower 48 states have monopolized 
the contractor job market and sub-contractors in Alaska are spread thin 
as well. The project itself has not changed from its original concept. 
The existing facility was built in 1951 and still has the original 
utility systems in operation.
                   projects seeking re-appropriation
    We are seeking re-appropriation on five projects in this budget 
request. A large contractor-filed claim following completion of the 
Acute Care Facility portion of the Naval Hospital Portsmouth 
construction project was paid by the US Treasury Judgment Fund. The 
fiscal rules that apply to this account required expeditious repayment 
by the Medical Construction, Defense Agencies program. There were no 
savings that could be used for this purpose. Contracts for construction 
award had to be held in abeyance while we used our only existing source 
of available dollars to pay the Judgment Fund--projects appropriated 
but not yet under award. The projects, appropriated in fiscal year 2000 
and fiscal year 2001 and their currently required amounts are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           (Millions of
             Location                      Project           dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whidbey Island, Washington........  Water Survival                 $6.60
                                     Facility.
Camp Pendleton, California........  Med/Den Clinic Rpmt--           4.30
                                     Horno.
Camp Pendleton, California........  Med/Den Clinic Rpmt--           4.05
                                     Pulgas.
Camp Pendleton, California........  Med/Den Clinic Rpmt--           3.80
                                     Flores.
Camp Pendleton, California........  Fleet Hospital                  3.15
                                     Support Facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These projects are all ready to be executed. The Whidbey Island 
project was unable to be awarded within the originally authorized and 
appropriated amount of $4.7 million. The increase in cost as reflected 
above will ensure successful award of this fiscal year 2000 project. 
The other projects were all originally authorized and appropriated in 
fiscal year 2001 and their increase in cost is reflective of inflation 
due to the necessity to delay award.
                               conclusion
    The Medical Construction Program is one of the important pieces of 
the quality of life for our uniformed personnel. The program stands as 
a testament to our combined commitment with you to maintain our 
country's medical readiness, provide better access to in-house direct 
care and provide quality health care services to the men and women 
serving in our Armed Forces and all of our eligible beneficiaries. I 
thank you for the opportunity to present our budget. This concludes my 
overview of the fiscal year 2002 Amended Medical Military Construction 
budget request.

    Senator Feinstein. I wanted to begin, if I might, with Dr. 
Sanders. I understand there are no MILCON funds for Fort Greely 
in the 2002 budget; is that correct?
    Dr. Sanders. That is correct.
    Senator Feinstein. But there are funds in the 2001 budget?
    Dr. Sanders. That is correct.
    Senator Feinstein. Could you explain to me why a decision 
was made to use research and development funds instead of 
MILCON to construct the missile defense testbed which is now 
going to be at the initial deployment site at Fort Greely?
    Dr. Sanders. The Department believes that the testbed 
facility should be funded with RDT&E, reflecting the reality 
that the testbed is a research and development effort, and as 
such the cost of constructing the testbed should be included in 
the cost as a research and development cost of developing a 
ground-based midcourse missile defense system. The RDT&E 
funding will provide the needed flexibility to make the 
required changes to the testbed that we identify through 
testing in this realistic environment.
    Senator Feinstein. I guess what I am concerned by--and I am 
sure I am wrong here, because Mr. Wolfowitz would not have said 
it in his letter--but that this is considered as a prudent 
intermediate step toward the construction of an initial 
deployment facility and all initial deployment work is being 
done with R&D money; is that correct? There will be no MILCON 
money utilized?
    Dr. Sanders. I do not believe I would characterize it that 
way. I cannot speak for Mr. Wolfowitz, obviously, but I would 
interpret what he says in terms of it being an intermediate 
step towards the ultimate construction of the initial 
deployment facility. It is much the same as any research and 
development effort is an intermediate step to the ultimate 
product. We do not know yet that what we construct as part of 
the testbed will actually be the final configuration of those 
facilities to support the deployment facility. We do believe 
that Fort Greely will be a site at which we would desire to 
have deployment facilities eventually. So it makes sense from a 
cost effectiveness standpoint to put some of your initial 
research and development facilities there so that you can build 
upon the experience later.
    Senator Feinstein. So you are saying the clear intent is 
that if all the tests work out it is a deployment facility. At 
what point, Dr. Sanders, in your evaluation does it violate the 
ABM Treaty?
    Dr. Sanders. I think that is something I am not qualified 
to make a judgment on. The work that we have asked to do in 
calendar year 2001 and that you questioned in your recent 
letter has been determined to be treaty-compliant.
    Senator Feinstein. Has been determined?
    Dr. Sanders. Has been determined to be treaty compliant, 
because it involves no construction of silos, no construction 
of actual facilities. It involves only clearing, grading, 
excavating of land, building of a road, and some minor 
utilities. The treaty does allow us to build additional test 
facilities. The ABM Treaty does require notice of a new test 
range 30 days after construction related to building ABM 
launchers or radars, which is not included in the fiscal year 
2001 money. So site preparation is specifically allowed.
    With regard to future activities, since the ABM Treaty does 
explicitly allow a party to establish new test ranges, it does 
allow us to do that, but provided that they are consistent with 
the obligation not to provide a base for the defense of the 
territory. It is an open question on whether the entire missile 
defense system testbed as a whole will provide a base, so that 
that question is currently under review and under consideration 
by the appropriate treaty experts and I am not an appropriate 
treaty expert.
    Senator Feinstein. Is there a requirement for an 
environmental impact statement?
    Dr. Sanders. There is a requirement. The work at Fort 
Greely has been covered under the environmental impact 
statement that was done for the NMD deployment, deployment 
facilities, because it essentially consists of activities that 
are a small portion of what was originally covered there and in 
fact it is less of an impact on the environment because it has 
a much smaller footprint, it involves much fewer facilities and 
only five silos, as opposed to a much larger number of silos in 
a deployment facility. Other parts of the testbed will require 
environmental assessments that have not all been completed.
    Senator Feinstein. Is it correct that there still is some 
question as to whether this testbed would be purely research 
and development or whether it would have some general utility? 
My understanding of the Wolfowitz letter, is that it is clearly 
being prepared as an initial deployment site, not for any 
general utility.
    Dr. Sanders. We have really determined that aspects of the 
testbed project clearly fall within Title 10, Code 2353 
authority, and use of and RDT&E funding would be authorized. 
There are some aspects of the testbed that could be viewed as 
having general utility and therefore are not authorized for 
RDT&E funding. But neither the statute nor the legislative 
history have a clear definition of ``general utility.'' So in 
order to clarify that, the Department has proposed legislation 
that would clarify the authority to construct a testbed to 
include some facilities that might be considered general 
utility with RDT&E funds.
    Senator Feinstein. What are those facilities?
    Dr. Sanders. The ones that might be considered general 
utility?
    Senator Feinstein. Right.
    Dr. Sanders. I would hesitate to say right now because that 
is an ambiguous area, but it could be, for example, at one 
aspect of the testbed it is an upgrade to the radar, the Cobra 
Dane radar in Shemya, the upgrade to the radar's software. It 
is not even a construction element. But there is an upgrade to 
the power plant needed there in order to support that radar, 
and that might or might not be considered general utility.
    Can you tell me how long the site preparation work at Fort 
Greely is scheduled to take?
    Dr. Sanders. I am not sure. I believe the intent would be 
to have that completed before the end of this construction 
period, which typically would last only through October.
    Senator Feinstein. I just wondered, to your knowledge is 
there any directive out as to when proposals and plans would 
bump up against the ABM Treaty?
    Dr. Sanders. Proposals specifically relating to the 
testbed?
    Senator Feinstein. Right.
    Dr. Sanders. I only know that the proposal for the testbed 
is under consideration currently with the compliance review 
process, and I do not know what the outcome of that process 
will be.
    Senator Feinstein. Okay.
    If I might, Mr. Molino, with the increased presence in Guam 
what steps have been taken to address the adequacy of school 
facilities there?
    Mr. Molino. Madam Chairman, we reacted to the decision to 
increase the Navy's presence in Guam by adding temporary 
facilities--trailer type setups--to facilitate the student 
population. In addition to that, there is construction of a 
high school located midway between the Air Force base and the 
naval facility that will accommodate both, the students from 
both bases. So we are reacting to that in a catch-up mode and 
are making good progress in that regard.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    General Randolph, if I might, my understanding is there is 
a request for a clinic addition at Warren Air Force Base in 
Wyoming and this is the base of the Peacekeeper missiles. 
Recently the administration has said that the Peacekeeper is no 
longer necessary and is going to be phased out of the 
inventory. How might that decision affect the current MILCON 
plans for Warren?
    General Randolph. Madam Chairman, I do not think that that 
would affect it at all. The reason that the project was put 
forward had to do with the buildings that exist already. As I 
think you are probably aware, two of the three buildings that 
are now being utilized for health care facilities there are 
historical in nature and therefore old. The infrastructure that 
you have heard about in previous testimony exists there, too.
    Because of that, we are looking to consolidate, first of 
all, those three facilities into one and we are looking to 
modernize the facilities and take care of those infrastructure 
problems. So it really was not a population-based decision.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
    Senator Hutchison.
    Senator Hutchison. Yes. Let me start with General Randolph. 
The TRICARE I think is a very important part of our medical 
coverage, and you have two facilities in Texas that are being 
upgraded, which I think is very good. In fact, I think one of 
the problems that we have tried to address is retiree health 
care, which I think has faced many problems because of fewer 
hospitals on bases because of base closings. That is one of the 
offshoots of base closings that I think is not quite 
anticipated, so we try to deal with it.
    Let me ask you, as you plan for the Fort Hood project and 
the other projects, are you factoring in the future 
requirements based on anticipated requirements based on the new 
TRICARE for Retirees that was enacted last year? Are you 
putting that in your budgets?
    General Randolph. That is a great question and the answer 
to it is a very simple yes. There is a great deal of effort 
going forward, particularly as we approach the October 1 start 
of TRICARE for Life, into exactly how that will happen at each 
and every base, particularly when I think about the TRICARE 
Plus portion of TRICARE for Life. So to be frank, as we look at 
the facilities for instance at Dyess, we were not looking so 
much at how we would look at a particular part of the 
population there; we were looking at the fact that the dental 
clinic there is literally falling apart. It is wood. Patients 
are in the middle of the aisles. It is a life safety issue and 
a fire safety issue. So those were the things that drove the 
decision there, as well as the life skills building, which is 
about a 1958 building as I recall. So that is what drove the 
one there.
    The thing that drove the Fort Hood discussion had more to 
do with the graduate medical education and emergency medicine 
facilities than it did in TRICARE for Life. We had a situation 
there where that entire program is occurring in an ambulance 
garage, as some might think is appropriate. It is emergency 
service, so you take care of things in the ambulance garage.
    That is not the case. It is substandard, has been 
substandard for many, many years, and we intend to fix that. So 
those were the decisions that affected those two particular 
projects. But in an overall statement, I can tell you that the 
TRICARE for life requirements are part of our every hour 
thinking about the things that we are doing, construction-wise 
right on through care-giving.
    Senator Hutchison. I would just say that I hope we can do 
more on our bases that would give our retirees the kind of care 
that they really prefer, which is really military health care 
as opposed to outside facilities. So I hope as we are looking 
at the building in the future and the service to our retirees 
in the future, as well as our active duty, that keeping things 
on base is one of the priorities.
    General Randolph. Let me assure you that we are in fact 
looking at that. I mentioned TRICARE Plus. That is in fact a 
facility-based program and it was put in place primarily to 
drive those that are in the TRICARE Senior Prime 
demonstrations, for instance. Those people have developed 
significant relationships within the facilities already, as you 
just described. That program was specifically put in place to 
help transition those patients to the facility rather than out. 
It will certainly affect also our construction plans.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Molino, I was very pleased to see in the President's 
budget and what we are looking at a hefty increase in the 
schools and education part of the Department of Defense budget. 
In the past it has seemed like the schools have been an 
afterthought and the Department of Defense has not considered 
it a priority that goes along with our other must-fund projects 
or new missions or old missions.
    So I just wanted to ask you if you were now of the mind 
that this is going to be a new paradigm, that it will 
permanently become as high a priority that we have schools 
built where our children are going to be as an integral part of 
any base for any service that we are asking our people to take 
when we are responsible for educating children as part of the 
overall provision for the people who serve in our armed 
services.
    Mr. Molino. Senator Hutchison, I have been in this 
position--I was appointed 6 weeks ago, so my part in the 
formulation of this budget was minimal at best. I recently 
learned about my requirement to testify at this hearing, so I 
was also relieved to see the robust funding when I heard that I 
had to come and defend it.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, let me say that I am sorry that 
you have not been to some of the schools that I have visited, 
because you would respond with a lot more vigor.
    Mr. Molino. Oh, no, ma'am. I can appreciate that.
    Senator Hutchison. You will after you visit, I am sure you 
will.
    Mr. Molino. I have been given every indication that this is 
indeed the new paradigm for this administration, that DOD 
schools will be given the attention they so much deserve.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you. It is our responsibility.
    Mr. Molino. Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. Senator Craig.

                  Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig

    Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and I 
apologize for being in and out. I am still going to be in and 
out, so let me ask unanimous consent that my opening statement 
be a part of the record.
    Senator Feinstein. So ordered.
    Senator Craig. I thank all of you very much for being here 
today. I will say I have geared my comments and my questions to 
the folks who have just left, so you can see my scheduling is 
not so good today.
    I will say, though, Madam Chairman, to the folks from the 
Office of the Secretary, while I was extremely pleased to see 
the military family housing dollars up, I am very frustrated by 
the 80 percent tied to privatization. Some of us do not qualify 
for that and money that we had in last year's budget for 
Mountain Home Air Force Base and we are beginning to improve 
the housing there all of a sudden disappears under this new 
formula. So we will have to discuss that with you at some 
length, and I will ask--I will be calling our Deputy Under 
Secretary and the Under Secretary to visit with me about that 
and with others, because not all of us meet those 
qualifications and yet housing needs are every bit as critical 
on those bases. I did want to say that for the record because 
it is a problem that we were beginning to remedy and now, of 
course, it is back to be remedied once again.

                           Prepared Statement

    But I must tell you that these dollars and cents and what 
we are trying to do--I had the privilege of meeting with the 
Secretary of Defense last week--are important. I support you in 
this effort and will work to resolve any of the problems that 
we might have.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig

    Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to be here with the Hon. Dov 
S. Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defense (comptroller), Mr. Raymond F. 
DuBois, Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (installations and 
environment), Mr. John Molino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(military community and family policy), Dr. Patricia Sanders, ballistic 
missile defense organization (BMDO), Major General Randolph of the 
Office of the Asst. Sec. of Defense (health affairs), Lt. Gen. William 
Tangney, Deputy Commander and Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command, 
Mr. Paul W. Johnson, Deputy Asst. Sec. of the Army (installation and 
housing), Major General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr., Asst. Chief of 
Staff for Installation Management, Department of the Army, Major 
General Paul Bergson, Military Deputy (reserve components), Deputy 
Under Secretary of the Army for international affairs, U.S. Army 
reserve, Bgen. Michael J. Squier, Deputy Director, Army National Guard, 
Department of the Army.
    I'm glad to see that the fiscal year 2002 DOD amended budget puts 
people first by including strong measures to improve morale, 
recruiting, and retention. A key element of that commitment is to 
upgrade DOD's aging infrastructure. As we are all aware, the 
infrastructure of our nations military installations has deteriorated 
to the point of concern for our military's operational readiness. It is 
important that we reverse the trend of infrastructure deterioration and 
work hard to provide a quality work environment that improves a service 
members efficiency and effectiveness, eliminates impediments to mission 
accomplishment, and fosters recruitment and retention.
    But, it's not just the work environment which is essential to 
retention and readiness. I also believe that ``for while we recruit 
individuals, we retain families''. I was very pleased to see that the 
president's amended budget includes $4.1 billion for military family 
housing (MFH)--up from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2001. It intensifies 
efforts to improve the quality of military housing and accelerate 
elimination of substandard housing.
    In addition to this, the budget includes the president's $400 
million blueprint initiative to improve housing for military people and 
their families: $107 million in military construction for barracks and 
$293 million for family housing. Implementation of the initiative 
emphasizes privatization in order to deliver better housing more 
quickly. I understand that recent OSD policy dictated that 80 percent 
of these funds be used for privatization.
    But, not all installations qualify for MFH privatization, and quite 
often it is at these installations that there is no acceptable 
alternative housing in the local area for lower ranking enlisted 
personnel. This places a tremendous burden on military members and 
there families, especially enlisted personnel who have very limited 
resources. For example, at mountain home AFB, ID it was determined that 
privatization was not economically feasible. The majority of housing on 
base is substandard. The housing in the community of mountain home is 
limited. The only other alternative is to commute to Boise, ID which is 
almost two hours away. The services have put together master plans that 
prioritize MFH by putting the worst housing first. This is a balanced 
approach that treats conventional and privatized MFH equally. In making 
policy decisions on MFH, we must ensure that the worst gets taken care 
of first and not simply give projects priority that get more housing 
for less money.
    The good news is that the military construction budget includes a 
total of $5.9 billion for--up from $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. It 
was especially important that this includes funding increases for the 
national guard and reserve in recognition of the vital role the reserve 
component plays in the U.S. Defense posture.
    The budget also put a priority on the construction or renovation of 
barracks, medical treatment facilities, schools, and physical fitness 
centers. Unfortunately, because of the reduced support facility 
requirements of the national guard and reserve installations, they 
don't necessarily benefit from these kinds of quality of life 
initiatives. I recommend that in future prioritization, that greater 
emphasis be given to the fact that for the guard and reserve a quality 
workplace improves their quality of life.
    I applaud the DOD's efforts to increased funding in order to meet 
current needs and beginning a long-range plan to streamline, 
restructure, and upgrade DOD facilities. I understand that the 
administration hopes the ``efficient facilities initiative (EIF)'' will 
achieve a 25 percent reduction in DOD facilities, and ultimately save 
$3.5 billion annually. As a member of Congress, I look forward to 
reviewing the proposed ``efficient facilities initiative (EIF)'' and 
providing imput.
    I am grateful that the proposed increase in the military 
construction fiscal year 2002 budget demonstrates a commitment to our 
nations military members and their families. I look forward to your 
testimony as we develop a budget that recognizes the immeasurable 
contributions our military members have made to this great country.
    As a fiscal conservative, I believe it's critical to have a 
balanced federal budget. In the long run, a balanced budget will serve 
all americans, including our military. But, I also know that along with 
this commitment to a balanced budget, comes the responsibility to 
ensure our government provides a quality work and living environment 
for our military members and their families.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is no way to over emphasize the 
honor and respect this nation owes the military men and women who 
sacrifice so much. I look forward to working with the office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and service chiefs who continue to 
contribute to the long-range vision for the DOD.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
    That completes my questions. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank 
you, Dr. Sanders, very much. Now we will move on to the next 
panel.
                         Department of the Army

STATEMENT OF PAUL W. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
            SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATION AND 
            HOUSING
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF 
            STAFF FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
        BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY 
            NATIONAL GUARD
        MAJOR GENERAL PAUL C. BERGSON, MILITARY DEPUTY [RESERVE 
            COMPONENTS], DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR 
            INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. ARMY RESERVE
    Senator Feinstein. We are very pleased to welcome the 
United States Army to this hearing, particularly Mr. Paul 
Johnson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Installations and Housing; Major General Van Antwerp, Assistant 
Chief of Staff for Installation Management; Brigadier General 
Michael Squier, Army National Guard; and Major General Paul 
Bergson of the Army Reserve. So all of you, welcome.
    Before we begin, I would like to congratulate and thank 
Secretary Johnson in particular. You are going to be retiring 
at the end of the week following 52 years of service to the 
government. That is indeed a long time and your career indeed 
has been distinguished. This committee sees you as an excellent 
example of dedication and your support of service members 
worldwide is well known. We want you to know that your service 
to this committee is greatly appreciated and that your 
experience and expertise is going to be very, very missed. So 
we thank you on behalf of the entire committee and we wish you 
all the best in a very well-deserved retirement. Mr. Secretary, 
good luck.

                      Statement of Paul W. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Feinstein. Oh, you are very welcome.
    Now, following the same protocol because of the limited 
time, all of your statements will go into the record and I 
would ask you to summarize, beginning with General Bergson.
    General Bergson. We will start with Mr. Johnson. Civilian 
control of the military, ma'am.
    Mr. Johnson. I am pleased to be here this afternoon with 
Generals Van Antwerp, Squier, and Bergson.
    I am pleased to report that the Army budget request for the 
active and reserve components provides a substantial increase 
in construction and family housing resources essential to 
support our soldiers and families and civilians. The commitment 
of our leadership to improving installation and facilities is 
reflected in this $3.7 billion submission, about a billion 
dollar increase over fiscal year 2001.
    We are making great progress in our permanent party 
barracks and strategic mobility program. In family housing, we 
continue to mix privatization and construction. We have gone 
through some tough growing pains in housing privatization, but 
I believe we are now ready to institutionalize the process and 
move on out on execution. Fort Carson has shown that this 
concept is a good deal for soldiers and their families. Our 
transformation will affect the facilities on our installations 
and this is reflected in initiatives in our budget at Fort 
Lewis. For the reserve components it focuses on maintenance 
facilities and reserve centers.

                           Prepared Statement

    As you mentioned, this is my last appearance before this 
committee. I have had about 1,200 hearings over the last 50 
years. I attribute our progress basically to the help of this 
committee and your staff, who have been just absolutely 
fabulous, and I know that you will always look after our 
soldiers and our families.
    Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Paul W. Johnson

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to 
appear before you to discuss the Army's Active and Reserve Components' 
military construction requests for fiscal year 2002. These requests 
include important initiatives to improve the infrastructure of 
America's Army. Any dollar amounts beyond fiscal year 2002 discussed 
herein are, of course, dependent upon the results of the Secretary of 
Defense's Strategic Review, and should be considered in that light.
    This budget provides a substantial increase in construction and 
family housing resources essential to support the Army's role in our 
National Military Strategy. It supports the Army's Vision and 
Transformation strategy. Our budget includes the increased funding 
necessary to improve our installations: infrastructure in keeping with 
our leadership's commitment to having world class installations.
    The program presented herein requests fiscal year 2002 
appropriations and authorizations of appropriations of $1,760,541,000 
for Military Construction, Army (MCA); $1,400,533,000 for Army Family 
Housing (AFH--in two separate accounts); $267,389,000 for Military 
Construction, Army National Guard (MCNG); $111,404,000 for Military 
Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR) and $10,119,000 for the Homeowners 
Assistance Fund, Defense.
    The Army is and must remain the most respected Army in the world. 
Our commitment to meeting the challenges requires a comprehensive 
transformation of the Army and the Army's installations.
    Army Transformation represents a move to forge a more strategically 
responsive, yet dominant, force for the 21st Century. The new force 
will be more mobile and sustainable, and able to respond to the full 
spectrum of operations. Transformation also includes a rigorous 
training program, full integration of the Active and Reserve 
Components, comprehensive initiatives to protect the force, and 
provides first class installations from which to project our forces. A 
fully-funded Transformation will keep the Army capable and ready until 
it has achieved an Objective Force that is more responsive, deployable, 
versatile, agile, lethal, survivable and sustainable. We are working 
closely with the Transformation Task Force to ensure installation needs 
are identified and addressed.
    The Army must sustain a force of high quality, well-trained people; 
acquire and maintain the right mix of weapons and equipment; and 
maintain effective infrastructure and power projection platforms to 
generate the capabilities necessary to meet our missions. Taking care 
of soldiers and families is a readiness issue and will ensure that a 
trained and qualified soldier and civilian force will be in place to 
support the Objective Force and the transformed Army.
    As the Army transforms, we must ensure that Army installations are 
transformed to meet the needs of the force. Army installations and 
reserve component facilities must fully support our war fighting needs, 
while providing soldiers and their families with a quality of life that 
equals that of their peers in civilian communities.
                          facilities strategy
    The Army's facilities strategy is the centerpiece of our efforts to 
fix the deplorable current state of Army facilities. It addresses our 
long-term need to sustain and modernize Army-funded facilities in both 
Active and Reserve Components by framing our requirements for both 
sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM) and military 
construction (MILCON) funding. Sustainment, restoration, and 
modernization (SRM) has replaced the term, ``real property 
maintenance'' (RPM). SRM includes funds for annual maintenance and 
scheduled repair--sustainment; and military construction funding to 
repair or replace facilities damaged due to failures attributable to 
inadequate sustainment or emergencies or to implement new or higher 
standards--restoration and modernization.
    The first pillar of the Strategy requires us to halt further 
deterioration of our facilities. Our programmed sustainment funding, 
which comes from the SRM accounts has greatly improved. This level of 
funding may be sufficient to prevent further deterioration of Army 
facilities. We are funded at 94 percent of our requirements in fiscal 
year 2002. Our current C-3 conditions are a result of years of 
underfunding and migration of funds from the SRM accounts. We must have 
sufficient SRM resources to sustain our facilities and prevent 
facilities from deteriorating further, or we put our MILCON investments 
at risk.
    The second pillar of the Strategy is to tackle the enormous backlog 
that has grown over numerous years of underfunding. Since we can't 
afford a quick fix to the $17.8 billion SRM backlog, and a significant 
deficit for construction of Army-funded facilities, we will focus 
centrally managed resources towards a critical set of facility types. 
This modernization requirement will primarily require MILCON funding 
supplemented by SRM project funding. Our goal is to raise Army 
facilities from current C-3 ratings to C-2 in the long term by bringing 
our focused set of facilities to C-1 in 10-year increments. Our first 
10-year increment includes ARNG Readiness Centers, Army Reserve 
Centers, fitness facilities, basic training barracks, general 
instruction facilities, and tactical vehicle maintenance shops and 
supporting hardstands at a cost of approximately $10 billion. There are 
a number of MILCON projects in the fiscal year 2002 budget that support 
this first increment.
    We have based the Army Facility Strategy on Commanders' ratings of 
our facilities in our Installation Status Report. The facilities we 
have chosen to modernize under this centrally managed program are 
critical to the Army's mission and to our soldiers. It is essential 
that both the sustainment (SRM) and the modernization (MILCON and SRM) 
pieces are funded as a single, integrated program. Only then will we be 
able to improve the health of Army real property and its ability to 
successfully support our worldwide missions and our soldiers.
    In addition to implementing our facilities strategy, we continue to 
eliminate excess facilities throughout the entire Army. During fiscal 
years 1988-2003, our facilities reduction program, along with the base 
realignment and closure process, will result in disposal of over 200 
million square feet in the United States. We continue our policy of 
demolishing at least one square foot for every square foot constructed. 
By 2003, with our overseas reductions included, the Army will have 
disposed of over 400 million square feet from its fiscal year 1990 peak 
of 1,157,700,000 square feet.
    Additionally, we are pursuing innovative ways to modernize our 
infrastructure and reduce the cost of our facilities. One example is 
installation utilities systems. Our goal is to privatize all utility 
systems in CONUS by 2003, where it is economically feasible, except 
those needed for unique security reasons. We are expanding the 
privatization of military family housing, in an effort to provide 
quality residential communities for soldiers and their families.
    Executive Order 13123, ``Greening The Government Through Efficient 
Energy Management,'' sets higher goals for reducing energy consumption. 
As of June 30, 2001, the Army had awarded 74 task orders on Energy 
Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs), with a total private sector 
investment of $328 million and an anticipated annual energy savings in 
excess of two million MBtu's (the equivalent to 16 million gallons of 
oil). We are also pursuing opportunities to purchase electrical power 
generated from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. We 
have installed hundreds of solar lighting systems that use no energy in 
our facilities.
    Next, I will discuss our budget.
                   military construction, army (mca)
    The MCA program focuses on six major categories of projects: 
mission facilities, operations facilities, transformation, well being, 
installation support, and chemical demilitarization. I will explain 
each area in turn.
                           mission facilities
    In fiscal year 2002, there are 36 mission facility projects to 
ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet 
its national security mission. The projects continue the Army's 
Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) to ensure deployment within specified 
timelines, provide enhanced training via live fire ranges and 
simulators, and maintain equipment readiness by ensuring Army vehicles 
are repaired and operational.
    Army Strategic Mobility Program.--The 15 mobility projects in our 
budget facilitate movement of personnel and equipment from CONUS bases 
for both the Active and Reserve components to meet Army and Defense 
timelines for mobilization operations. They are part of an important 
program to upgrade our strategic mobility infrastructure, enabling the 
Army to maintain the best possible power projection platforms. We are 
requesting $128.75 million. The fiscal year 2002 projects will complete 
93 percent of the Strategic Mobility program. Although the Strategic 
Mobility Program is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2003, it is 
anticipated that there may be a follow-on phase as a result of changes 
in force structure and stationing.
    These include 11 projects totaling $94.9 million to improve our 
rail and air deployment capability by expanding an aircraft hardstand 
at Fort Campbell, extending a runway at Fort Benning, and providing air 
and rail passenger and materiel staging complexes at Fort Benning, Fort 
Campbell, Fort Sill, Fort Lewis and Sunny Point Military Ocean 
Terminal. To improve our port capability, we are upgrading a pier to 
support the mission of the 7th Transportation Group at Fort Eustis. Two 
projects at Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal will improve the 
outloading of ammunition by constructing a canopy over the storage 
area, widening the road and constructing truck pads for safe transport 
and outloading of cargo and ammunition. An assembly building is 
programmed to support deployment at Fort Wainwright.
    Training.--To improve soldier training, we are requesting phase II 
to complete the Digital Multi-purpose Training Range at Fort Hood. This 
project was fully authorized by Congress in fiscal year 2001. Our 
request includes a Record Fire Range and Night Fire Range at Fort 
Leonard Wood and a Modified Record Fire Range at Fort Riley. These 
ranges will provide our soldiers with M16 rifle qualification and 
training and also will provide for the integration of the Next 
Generation Targetry System for single and multiple targets. General 
Instruction Buildings are included in our program for Camp Jackson, 
Korea and Fort Sam Houston. These buildings will enable the Army to 
provide much needed classrooms for training of our soldiers. We are 
also requesting phase II of the Battle Simulation Center at Fort Drum 
that was also authorized in fiscal year 2001. A Comanche simulator 
training facility at Fort Rucker to train pilots on the Army's new 
helicopter is also requested. An Airborne Training Facility at Fort Lee 
will support training for our Enlisted Parachute Rigger and Aerial 
Delivery and Material Officers courses.
    Readiness.--We are requesting 9 projects that will provide vehicle 
maintenance facilities and tactical equipment shops to ensure unit 
equipment readiness: Baumholder, Mannheim, Fort Stewart, Fort Drum, 
Camp Casey, Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, and two projects at Fort Hood, a 
vehicle maintenance facility and a tactical equipment shop. The request 
also includes two projects at Anniston Army Depot: a project to improve 
the safety conditions in the main combat vehicle disassembly and 
rebuild facility and a repair and demilitarization of combat armor. An 
Ammunition Surveillance Facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground is 
requested to maintain control and accountability of foreign munitions.
                         operations facilities
    The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes command and control 
facilities, laboratories, operations facilities, and a physical 
development center which began construction in fiscal year 1999.
    Two Command and Control Facilities are in the request for Pohakuloa 
Training Area, Hawaii, and Phase 2 of the Command and Control facility 
at Fort Hood where we are completing a project that began in fiscal 
year 2001. Three laboratory projects include a Criminal Investigation 
Forensic Laboratory at Fort Gillem which will provide forensic support 
and expert testimony in judicial cases for all DOD investigative 
agencies; a Chemistry Laboratory at Edgewood (Aberdeen Proving Ground--
APG) for life cycle chemical agent research, development, and 
evaluation; and a Climatic Test Facility at APG to provide controlled 
temperature and humidity test environment for critical weapons testing.
    We are requesting a Military Entrance Processing Facility at Fort 
Lee for processing applicants from 77 counties in the State of Virginia 
and reducing the high cost of leased facilities. This project has a 
payback period of less than three years.
    Field Operations Facilities at Fort Drum and Fort Eustis will 
provide criminal investigative support for the Army. The budget request 
also includes a Shipping Operations Building at Pearl Harbor; a 
Readiness and Operations Facility at Fort Polk; an Explosive Ordinance 
Detachment Operations Building at Fort Gillem; an Operations Facility 
at the Humphreys Engineer Center for the Information Security Command; 
and a Parachute Team General Purpose Building at Fort Bragg. This 
request also includes Phase 3 for the United States Military Academy 
Cadet Physical Development Center, which was fully authorized in fiscal 
year 1999.
                             transformation
    Our budget contains five projects at Fort Lewis that support the 
deployment, training and equipment maintenance of the new transformed 
force. These projects include two maintenance facilities for new 
vehicles, an expanded ammunition supply storage facility to support 
training and deployment of the increased force, a combat vehicle trail 
and a pallet handling facility to support the logistic deployment of 
equipment and supplies. As new transformation installations are 
identified, we will continue to identify and validate additional 
requirements associated with transformation and will include these 
projects in future budgets.
                          well being projects
    The well being of our soldiers, their families and civilians has a 
significant impact on readiness. Therefore, 40 percent of our MCA 
budget is dedicated to providing these types of facilities. Although 
our first priority is to get soldiers out of gang-latrine type 
barracks, we are also requesting two basic combat trainee barracks, 
child development centers, physical fitness training centers, a dining 
facility, two education centers, a Soldier Service center, and a 
chapel. These projects will improve not only the well being of our 
soldiers and families, but also the readiness of the Army. We are 
requesting appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $701.2 
million for well being projects this year.
    Barracks Modernization Program.--Modernization of barracks for 
enlisted permanent party soldiers continues to be the Army's number one 
facilities priority for military construction. It provides single 
soldiers with a quality living environment that approximates conditions 
off the installation, or enjoyed by our married soldiers. New or 
renovated barracks provide increased personal privacy and larger rooms, 
closets, new furnishings, adequate parking, and landscaping. In 
addition, administrative offices are separated from the barracks. With 
the approval of our budget, as requested, 73 percent of our barracks 
requirement will be funded at the new standard for our permanent party 
soldiers. Our plan is to invest an additional $4.2 billion in MCA and 
host nation funds between fiscal years 2003 and 2008, supplemented by 
$0.6 billion in sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM) to fix 
barracks worldwide to meet our goal of providing improved living 
conditions for all of our single soldiers by fiscal year 2008. While we 
are making considerable progress at installations in the United States, 
we will request increased funding for Germany and Korea in future 
budgets to compensate for these areas being funded at lower levels than 
the CONUS installations. A large portion of the remaining modernization 
effort, 44 percent, is in these overseas areas.
    In fiscal year 2002, we are planning 20 barracks projects. This 
includes 6 projects in Europe and 3 projects in Korea. Our budget 
completes the Schofield Barracks and Fort Bragg barracks complexes that 
were authorized in fiscal year 2000 and incrementally funded in fiscal 
year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. Fort Bragg's large soldier population 
and poor barracks conditions require sustained high investment through 
fiscal year 2008 to provide quality housing. We are continuing with the 
second phase of two additional barracks complexes at Fort Bragg that 
were authorized in fiscal year 2001. At Fort Richardson, Fort Lewis, 
and Fort Carson, we are requesting authorization for all phases of the 
barracks complex which extends over several fiscal years; however, we 
are only requesting the funding needed for the fiscal year 2002 phase. 
Our plan is to award each complex, subject to subsequent 
appropriations, as a single contract to gain cost efficiencies, 
expedite construction, and provide uniformity in building systems.
    Basic Combat Training Complexes.--We have included Phase 2 to 
complete the basic combat training complex at Fort Leonard Wood that 
was authorized and begun in fiscal year 2001. This project provides a 
modern, initial entry basic training complex that includes separate and 
secure housing to support gender-integrated training, and provides for 
the administrative and training functions that are organic to the 
mission of the basic training battalion. We also are requesting full 
authorization for a basic combat training complex at Fort Jackson. 
However, we are only requesting the funding necessary to execute the 
first phase in fiscal year 2002.
    Community Facilities.--Our budget request includes three new child 
development centers to replace failing or inadequate facilities in 
Wiesbaden, Fort Riley, and Fort Meade. To improve soldier physical 
fitness and community wellness, our budget includes physical fitness 
training centers at Camp Carroll, Bamberg, Wiesbaden, and Fort McNair. 
A new dining facility to provide for the soldiers at Redstone Arsenal, 
two education centers at Fort Polk and Fort Stewart, and a Soldier 
Service Center also at Fort Stewart are included in our request. With 
this budget request we will implement the Chapel of the Year program 
with a chapel at Fort Belvoir to improve the quality and availability 
of religious facilities for the well being of our soldiers and their 
families.
                     installation support programs
    This category of construction projects provides vital support to 
installations and helps improve their readiness capabilities. We have 
requested nine projects with an appropriations and authorization of 
appropriations request of $79.3 million.
    Projects in the budget request include a Cold Storage Warehouse at 
Kwajalein Atoll; an Effluent Reuse System at Fort Huachuca; a Power 
Plant Cooling Tower at Fort Wainwright; a Sanitary Sewer system at Camp 
Hovey; Electrical Distribution system at Camp Carroll; an Electrical 
Substation at Fort Campbell; a Hazardous Materials Storage facility at 
Fort Drum; an Information Systems Facility at Fort Gordon; and a Fire 
Station at Sunny Point Military Ocean Terminal.
    A classified project is also included in our budget request.
                      ammunition demilitarization
    The Ammunition Demilitarization (Chemical Demilitarization) Program 
is designed to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents, 
munitions, and related (non-stock-piled) materiel. It also provides for 
emergency response capabilities, while avoiding future risks and costs 
associated with the continued storage of chemical warfare materiel.
    The Office of the Secretary of Defense devolved the Chemical 
Demilitarization program to the Department of the Army in fiscal year 
1999. Although Congress has consistently authorized and appropriated 
funding for the Chemical Demilitarization construction program to the 
Department of Defense, the overall responsibility for the program 
remains with the Army and we have included it in this year's Army 
budget.
    We are requesting appropriations and authorization of 
appropriations for $172.5 million in the Army's fiscal year 2002 budget 
to continue the Chemical Demilitarization projects previously 
authorized. Table 1 summarizes our request:

                                           TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Installation                                         Type                           Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD....................  Ammun Demil Facility, Ph III...................     $66,500,000
Blue Grass Army Depot, KY......................  Ammun Demil Facility, Ph II....................       3,000,000
Newport Army Depot, IN.........................  Ammun Demil Facility, Ph IV....................      66,000,000
Pine Bluff Army Depot, AR......................  Ammun Demil Facility, Ph VI....................      26,000,000
Pueblo Army Depot, CO..........................  Ammun Demil Facility, Ph III...................      11,000,000
                                                                                                 ---------------
      Total....................................  ...............................................     172,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The destruction of the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons by the 
2007 deadline in the Chemical Weapons Convention is a major priority of 
the Army, DOD and the Administration. The MILCON funding for the 
chemical weapons destruction facilities is essential to achieving that 
goal.
                          planning and design
    The fiscal year 2002 MCA budget includes $134.098 million for 
planning and design. The fiscal year 2002 request is a function of the 
construction programs for three fiscal years: 2002, 2003, and 2004. The 
requested amount will be used to design-build a portion of the fiscal 
year 2002 program, complete design in fiscal year 2003, and initiate 
design of fiscal year 2004 projects.
    Host Nation Support (HNS) Planning and Design (P&D): The Army, as 
Executive Agent, provides HNS P&D for oversight of Host Nation funded 
design and construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
oversees the design and construction to ensure the facilities meet our 
requirements and standards. Lack of oversight may result in an increase 
in design errors and construction deficiencies that will require United 
States dollars to rectify. Maintaining the funding level for this 
mission results in a payback where $1 of United States funding gains 
$60 worth of Host Nation Construction. The fiscal year 2002 budget 
request for $23.1 million will provide oversight for approximately $850 
million of construction in Japan, $50 million in Korea, and $50 million 
in Europe.
                        budget request analysis
    Summary.--The fiscal year 2002 MCA budget includes a request for 
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $1,760,541,000.
    Authorization Request.--Request for authorization is 
$1,558,673,000. The authorization request is adjusted for those 
projects previously authorized in prior fiscal years. These projects 
include the chemical demilitarization projects, Phase 3 of the West 
Point Cadet Physical Development Center, Phase 2 of the Fort Hood 
Digital Multi-purpose Training Range, Phase 2 of the Fort Drum Battle 
Simulation Center, Phase 2 of the Basic Training Complex at Fort 
Leonard Wood, and the phases of the Whole Barracks Renewal Complexes at 
Fort Bragg and Schofield Barracks. Additionally, it is modified to 
provide full authorization of $375 million for the barracks complex at 
Fort Carson, Fort Lewis, Fort Richardson, and Fort Jackson. Only $144 
million in appropriations is required for the first phase of these 
projects. Table 2 displays the projects which are phased over several 
fiscal years.

                                            TABLE 2.--PHASED PROJECTS
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Authorization                       Appropriation
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                             Fiscal year--                       Fiscal year--
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1999     2000     2001     2002     1999     2000     2001     2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadet Physical Dev Ctr..................     85.0  .......  .......  .......     12.0     14.0     13.6     37.9
Schofield Barracks--Brks................  .......     95.0  .......  .......  .......     25.0     46.4     23.0
Fort Bragg (Tagaytay Rd)--Brks..........  .......     74.0  .......  .......  .......     16.5     38.6     17.5
Fort Bragg (Butner Rd)--Brks............  .......  .......    130.0  .......  .......  .......     26.0     49.0
Fort Bragg (Longstreet Rd)--Brks........  .......  .......     79.6  .......  .......  .......     45.6     27.0
Fort Carson--Barracks...................  .......  .......  .......     66.0  .......  .......  .......     25.0
Fort Richardson--Barracks...............  .......  .......  .......     97.0  .......  .......  .......     45.0
Fort Lewis--Barracks....................  .......  .......  .......    150.0  .......  .......  .......     48.0
Fort L Wood--Trainee Complex............  .......  .......     61.2      4.4  .......  .......     38.6     27.0
Fort Jackson--Basic Trainee Cmplx.......  .......  .......  .......     62.0  .......  .......  .......    26.01
Fort Drum--Battle Sim Ctr...............  .......  .......     18.0      3.0  .......  .......     12.0     9.01
Fort Hood--Digital Range................  .......  .......     26.0      3.0  .......  .......     16.0    13.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                            1999                                1999
           Chem Demil Projects              and      2000     2001     2002     and      2000     2001     2002
                                           prior                               prior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen--Ammo Demil Fac................    184.5  .......  .......     37.6     26.5     53.5     45.7    66.51
Blue Grass--Ammo Demil Fac..............  .......    195.8  .......     47.2  .......  .......  .......      3.0
Newport--Ammo Demil Fac.................    189.6  .......  .......  .......     11.5     35.9     34.4     66.0
Pine Bluff--Ammo Demil Fac..............    154.4  .......  .......     23.0     58.0     49.8     43.6     26.0
Pueblo--Ammo Demil Fac..................    179.0     24.5  .......  .......  .......  .......     10.7     11.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 2002 request for appropriations and authorization 
for fiscal year 2002, by investment focus, is shown in Table 3:

                           TABLE 3.--INVESTMENT FOCUS APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      PERCENT
                            CATEGORY                               AUTHORIZATION  APPROPRIATIONS     APPROP'N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Being......................................................        $793,143        $701,243            39.8
Mission (Mobilization, Training and Readiness)..................         344,300         360,300            20.5
Operations and Labs.............................................         173,900         211,800            12.0
Transformation..................................................          56,200          56,200             3.2
Installation Support............................................          79,300          79,300             4.5
Planning and Design/Minor Construction..........................  ..............         175,198            10.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Army MILCON......................................       1,446,843       1,584,041            90.0
                                                                 ===============================================
Chemical Demilitarization.......................................         107,830         172,500             9.8
Classified Project..............................................           4,000           4,000              .2
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total Program.............................................       1,558,673       1,760,541           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 shows the Fiscal Year 2002 distribution of the 
appropriations request among the Army's major commands:

TABLE 4.--COMMAND SUMMARY--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY, FISCAL YEAR 2002
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                   Command                     Appropriations   of total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INSIDE THE UNITED STATES:
    Army Materiel Command....................        $248,850       14.1
    Army Test and Evaluation Command.........           9,000         .5
    Criminal Investigations Command..........          32,900        1.9
    Forces Command...........................         630,600       35.8
    Information Security Command.............          36,300        2.1
    Medical Command..........................           2,250         .1
    Military District of Washington..........          22,350        1.3
    Military Entrance Processing Command.....           6,400         .4
    Military Traffic Management Command......          11,400         .6
    Training & Doctrine Command..............         129,850        7.4
    United States Army Recruiting Command....           7,700         .4
    United States Army, Pacific..............         162,100        9.2
    United States Military Academy...........          37,900        2.2
    Classified Project.......................           4,000         .2
                                              --------------------------
      SUBTOTAL...............................       1,341,600       76.2
                                              ==========================
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES:
    Eight, United States Army................         109,443        6.2
    Space and Missile Defense Command........          11,000         .6
    United States Army, Europe...............         123,300        7.0
                                              --------------------------
      SUBTOTAL...............................         243,743       13.8
                                              ==========================
      TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION...............       1,585,343       90.0
                                              ==========================
WORLDWIDE:
    Planning and Design......................         157,198        8.9
    Minor Construction.......................          18,000        1.0
                                              --------------------------
      SUBTOTAL...............................         175,198       10.0
                                              ==========================
      TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED.........       1,760,541      100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          army family housing
    The family housing program provides a major incentive that is 
necessary for recruiting and retaining dedicated individuals to serve 
in the Army. Adequate and affordable housing continues to be a major 
concern to soldiers when asked about their quality of life. We have 
waiting lists at nearly all of our major posts and out-of-pocket 
expenses for soldiers living off post are approximately 15 percent of 
the total cost of their housing. The Army supports the initiative to 
increase the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to eliminate the out-of-
pocket costs being paid by Service members for off-post housing in the 
United States. Maintaining and sustaining safe, attractive, and 
convenient housing for our soldiers and families is one of our 
continuing challenges. This budget represents an increase in the family 
housing program for additional family housing construction and expanded 
privatization. This increase will assist us in providing improved 
housing quicker and to more of our military families. Our current plan 
ensures we meet the Secretary of Defense's goal of 2010 to provide 
adequate housing to all military families. I would like to thank the 
President for his support and extra funding to improve quality of 
housing for Army personnel and their families.
    Privatization is an essential element in solving our acute family 
housing problem. The Army's privatization program, Residential 
Communities Initiative (RCI), utilizes the authorities granted by the 
Congress in 1996 and extended to December 31, 2004, and includes the 
initial pilot privatization projects at Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort 
Hood, Texas; Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Meade, Maryland, plus 24 
additional privatization sites.
    We are especially pleased with the progress being made with our 
first privatization project at Fort Carson. The first new homes were 
occupied by Army families in November 2000. A total of 840 new units 
are being built and the rest (1,823) are being fully renovated. This 
project will provide our soldiers a quantum leap in quantity and 
dramatic improvement in the quality of our on post housing in a short 
period of time.
    For the remaining government owned units in the United States and 
overseas, the Army has programmed sufficient MILCON and Major 
Maintenance and Repair funds to eliminate all inadequate units in 
Europe, Korea and the United States by 2010.
    Our fiscal year 2002 request for appropriations and authorization 
of appropriations request is $1,400,533,000. Table 5 summarizes each of 
the categories of the Army Family Housing program.

                                 TABLE 5.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING, FISCAL YEAR 2002
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Authorization of            Appropriations
                                                                  appropriations      --------------------------
                     Facility category                     ---------------------------
                                                                Amount       Percent       Amount       Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction..........................................         $59,200          4         $59,200          4
Post Acquisition Const....................................         220,750         16         220,750         16
Planning and Design.......................................          11,592          1          11,592          1
Operations................................................         178,520         13         178,520         13
Utilities.................................................         258,790         18         258,790         18
Maintenance...............................................         446,806         32         446,806         32
Leasing...................................................         196,956         14         196,956         14
Privatization.............................................          27,918          2          27,918          2
Debt......................................................               1         <1               1         <1
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       1,400,533  .........       1,400,533  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      family housing construction
    The total fiscal year 2002 request for construction is 
$291,542,000. It continues the Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (WNR) 
initiative approved by Congress in fiscal year 1992 and supported 
consistently since that time. This successful approach addresses the 
entire living environment of the military family. The projects are 
based on life-cycle economic analyses and support the Department of 
Defense's 2010 goal by providing units that meet current construction 
and adequacy standards.
    New Construction.--The fiscal year 2002 new construction program 
provides WNR projects that replace 220 units at four locations. 
Replacement construction provides adequate facilities where there is a 
continuing requirement for the housing and it is not economical to 
renovate. Some existing housing, 278 units, will be demolished, in 
order to reduce the housing density. New construction projects are 
requested at Camp Humphreys, Korea, for 54 units, where adequate off 
post family housing is not available and no on post family housing 
exists. These units serve command sponsored personnel living in 
substandard, off post quarters and those personnel who are 
unaccompanied due to a lack of adequate family housing on or off post. 
All of these projects are supported by housing surveys which show that 
adequate and affordable units are not available in the local community.
    Post Acquisition Construction (Renovation).--The Post Acquisition 
Construction Program is an integral part of our housing revitalization 
program. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting funds for improvements 
to 14,404 existing units at 10 locations in the United States, 
including privatization at 7 installations: 6 locations in Europe, and 
1 site in Korea. Included within the scope of these projects are 
efforts to improve supporting infrastructure, energy conservation and 
elimination of environmental hazards.
               family housing operations and maintenance
    The operations, utilities, maintenance, and leasing programs 
comprise the majority of the fiscal year 2002 request. The requested 
amount of $1,108,991,000 for fiscal year 2002 is approximately 79 
percent of the total family housing budget. This budget provides for 
the Army's annual expenditures for operations, municipal-type services, 
furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, leased family housing, 
and funds supporting the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. 
With current funding, housing units can be kept habitable and open; 
however, their condition will continue to deteriorate.
                         family housing leasing
    The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our 
military families. We are requesting $196,956,000 in fiscal year 2002 
to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic 
leases in the United States, and approximately 8,700 units overseas.
           military construction, army national guard (mcng)
    The military construction request, $267,389,000 for the Army 
National Guard, focuses on readiness centers, maintenance support 
shops, and training facilities. These projects are mission focused and 
are centered on the well being of our soldiers.
                           mission facilities
    Fiscal year 2002 contains 26 mission facility projects.
    Readiness Centers.--In support of the Army Facility Strategy, the 
Army National Guard is requesting $56,228,000 million for 11 projects. 
Our fiscal year 2002 budget request is for readiness centers in Iowa, 
Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama and two 60 
year old readiness centers in Louisiana. Also, in support of Army 
National Guard Division Redesign Study (ADRS), we are requesting 
funding for the addition/alteration to readiness centers in California 
and Montana. The California project is particularly significant, 
because it eliminates smaller facilities on land desperately needed by 
the local community in the Los Angeles Basin.
    Maintenance Support Shops.--There are 10 maintenance shops planned 
as part of our revitalization plan: a unit training equipment site in 
Alabama, a maneuver and training equipment site in California and New 
York, a combined support maintenance shop in South Dakota and Michigan 
(Phase II), and 4 organizational maintenance shops located in 
Massachusetts, Maryland, Tennessee and Wisconsin. The majority of these 
facilities were built in the 1950s. Also, as part of the ADRS 
initiative, we have included one organization maintenance shop for 
addition/alteration in Kansas for this fiscal year. Sites in 
California, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, and Nebraska were 
selected to begin the conversion process, which started this year. 
These projects are essential for the units to successfully maintain the 
additional heavy equipment they will receive during ADRS Phase I. A 
total of $85,080,000 million is being requested for these Army National 
Guard Maintenance Support Shops.
    Training Facilities.--The Army National Guard is requesting 
$90,264,000 for 5 training facilities: Army aviation facilities in 
Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Texas, and Phase II of the military 
education facility in Mississippi. Two illustrations of this need are 
in Texas and New Hampshire. Since Austin, Texas, closed the airport the 
Aviation facility in Texas is spread between 7 temporary facilities. 
New road construction by the city at our New Hampshire aviation 
facility will cut off all access to the runway.
                        budget request analysis
    Summary.--The MCNG budget request includes a request for 
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $267,389,000 for 
fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 request for appropriations and 
authorization for fiscal year 2002, by investment focus, is show in 
Table 6

  TABLE 6.--INVESTMENT FOCUS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
                    APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 2002
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
           Location             Project title  Appropriations    total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Construction...........        $236,924        $236,924         89
Unspecified Minor                       4,671           4,671          2
 Construction................
Planning and Design..........          25,794          25,794          9
                              ------------------------------------------
      TOTAL..................         267,389         267,389        100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 7 shows fiscal year 2002 distribution of the appropriations 
request among the 54 States and Territories supporting the Army 
National Guard:

             TABLE 7.--PROJECT SUMMARY, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, FISCAL YEAR 2002
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Percent
               Location                                 Project title                  Appropriations   of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsville, AL........................  Unit Training Equip Site.....................          $7,498          3
Mobile, AL............................  Readiness Center add/alt.....................           5,333          2
Marana, AZ............................  Aviation Maintenance Hangar..................          14,358          5
Fort Irwin, CA........................  Maneuver & Training Equip Site...............          21,953          8
Lancaster, CA.........................  Readiness Center (ADRS)......................           4,530          2
Gowen Field, ID.......................  Readiness Center PHI.........................           8,117          3
Estherville, IA.......................  Readiness Center.............................           2,713          1
Fort Riley, KS........................  Organ Maint Shop (ADRS) add/alt..............             645          -
Carville, LA..........................  Readiness Center.............................           5,677          2
Camp Beauregard, LA...................  Readiness Center.............................           5,392          2
Bangor, ME............................  Army Aviation Support Fac. PHI...............          11,618          4
Framingham, MA........................  Organizational Maintenance Shop..............           8,347          3
Salisbury, MD.........................  Organizational Maint Shop add/alt............           2,314          1
Lansing, MI...........................  Combined Support Maint Shop PHII.............           5,809          2
Gulfport, MS..........................  Readiness Center.............................           9,145          4
Camp Shelby, MS.......................  Mil Education Center PHII....................          11,444          4
Kalispell, MT.........................  Readiness Center add/alt (ADRS)..............             822          -
Concord, NH...........................  Army Aviation Support Facility...............          27,185         10
Concord, NH...........................  Readiness Center.............................           1,868          1
Fort Drum, NY.........................  Maneuver Area Tmg & Equip Shop...............          17,000          6
Cincinnati, OH........................  Readiness Center.............................           9,780          4
Mitchell, SD..........................  Combined Support Maint Shop..................          14,228          5
Alcoa, TN.............................  Readiness Center.............................           8,203          3
Henderson, TN.........................  Organizational Maint Shop....................           2,012          1
Austin, TX............................  Army Aviation Support Facility...............          25,659         10
Oshkosh, WI...........................  Organizational Maintenance Shop..............           5,274          2
Various...............................  Planning and Design..........................          25,794         10
Various...............................  Unspecified Minor Construction...............           4,671          2
                                                                                      --------------------------
      Total appropriation and           .............................................         267,389      100.0
       authorization of appropriations
       requested......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               military construction, army reserve (mcar)
    The MCAR program focuses on mission facilities projects. In fiscal 
year 2002, there are nine Army Reserve projects to assist the USAR with 
its mission requirement of providing trained and ready forces to 
support the missions of the United States Army. The USAR's program 
continues to emphasize Readiness, Quality of Life, Modernization, and 
Installation and Base Support.
                           mission facilities
    Fiscal year 2002 contains eight mission facilities projects and one 
land acquisition project.
    United States Army Reserve Centers.--Our fiscal year 2002 USAR 
budget request is for the construction of five U.S. Army Reserve 
Centers in Arizona, Kentucky, Washington, New Hampshire, and American 
Samoa, and one Armed Forces Reserve Center in Colorado. The Reserve 
Centers in American Samoa, New Hampshire, and Kentucky are to replace 
severely overcrowded facilities that were constructed in the 1950s. The 
Army Reserve Center in Tafuna, American Samoa, also represents the sole 
presence of the Department of Defense on the island. The current 
center's utilization rate is 293 percent. This facility will also serve 
as a command and control facility for the local authorities, as well as 
a safe haven for the local populace. The project in Washington also 
includes an Aviation Support Facility needed to maintain the Army 
Reserves' new aviation assets assigned to Fort Lewis. The projects in 
Arizona and Colorado are to improve facilities transferred to the USAR 
as a result of the 1995 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). These 
facilities are overcrowded and in need of renovation and new 
construction. A land acquisition project is required in Cleveland, Ohio 
to support future construction of an Army Reserve Center.
    Maintenance Facilities.--There are six Organizational Maintenance 
Shops (OMS) included as part of our construction plan. The OMS in 
American Samoa is required for use by a vehicle repair platoon and an 
engineer detachment, and the OMS in Arizona will support the routine 
maintenance requirements for the units assigned to that Reserve Center. 
Currently, there is no maintenance facility at the Reserve Center in 
Mesa, Arizona. The OMS in New Hampshire and Washington are part of the 
replacement plan for out-dated facilities. The OMS in Texas will 
replace an existing 1958 facility. Also included is an Aviation Support 
Facility at Fort Lewis, Washington. These new maintenance facilities 
will improve the equipment readiness of the units assigned and provide 
a modernized workplace for the mechanics to train.
    Barracks Renovation.--There is a project to renovate the Officer 
Education School barracks at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The current barracks 
were constructed in 1970 and do not currently meet the requirements for 
training soldiers. The renovation of these barracks will provide the 
students an environment that is both safe and conducive to learning.
    The fiscal year 2002 request is for appropriations and 
authorization of appropriations of $111,404 million for Military 
Construction, Army Reserve, as shown on Table 8:

  TABLE 8.--COMMAND SUMMARY, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ARMY RESERVE, FISCAL
                                YEAR 2002
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Percent of
                Location                  Appropriations       total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona, Mesa (USARC/OMS)...............         $10,900             9.8
American Samoa, Tafuna (USARC/OMS)......          19,703            17.7
Colorado, Fort Carson (USARC)...........           9,394             8.4
Kentucky, Fort Knox (USARC).............          14,846            13.3
New Hampshire (USARC/OMS)...............           9,122             8.2
New Jersey, Fort Dix (OES Barracks                12,000            11.0
 Upgrade)...............................
Ohio, Cleveland (Land Acquisition)......           1,200             1.1
Texas, Texarkana (OMS)..................           1,862             1.7
Washington, Fort Lewis (USARC/OMS/ASF)..          21,978            19.7
                                         -------------------------------
      TOTAL MAJOR CONSTRUCTION..........         101,005            90.7
                                         ===============================
WORLDWIDE:
    Planning and Design.................           8,024             7.2
    Minor Construction..................           2,375             2.1
                                         -------------------------------
      SUBTOTAL..........................          10,399             9.3
                                         ===============================
      TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF                     111,404           100.0
       APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTED.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  homeowners assistance fund, defense
    The Army is the Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance 
Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing 
their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when the military 
installations at or near where they are serving or employed are ordered 
to be closed or the scope of operations reduced. The fiscal year 2002 
request is for $10.119 million appropriations, along with a companion 
request for authorization and authorization of appropriations for the 
same amount. Fiscal year 2002 will be funded with appropriations, 
carryover, and anticipated authority to transfer monies from the BRAC 
account to the Homeowners Assistance Fund.
    The request will provide assistance to personnel at approximately 
14 locations that have been impacted with either a base closure or a 
realignment of personnel resulting in adverse economic effects on local 
communities. The Homeowners Assistance Program is funded not only from 
the resources being requested in this budget, but is also dependent, in 
large part, on the revenue earned during the fiscal year from the sale 
of properties.
            sustainment, restoration and modernization (srm)
    In addition to Military Construction and Family Housing, the third 
area in the facilities arena is the SRM program. SRM is the primary 
account in base support funding area responsible to maintain the 
infrastructure to achieve a successful readiness posture for the Army's 
fighting force. Installations and Reserve Component facilities are the 
platforms of America's Army and must be properly maintained to be ready 
to support current Army missions and any future deployments.
    SRM consists of two major functional areas: (1) facilities 
sustainment of real property and (2) restoration and modernization. 
Facilities sustainment provides resources for maintenance and repair 
activities necessary to keep an inventory of facilities in good working 
order. It also includes major repairs or replacement of facility 
components, usually accomplished by contract, that are expected to 
occur periodically throughout the life cycle of facilities. Restoration 
and modernization provides resources for improving facilities. 
Restoration includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities 
damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, 
fire, accident or other causes. Modernization includes alteration of 
facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, including 
regulatory changes, to accommodate new functions, or to replace 
building components that typically last more than 50 years, such as 
foundations and structural members.
    Within the SRM program, there are two areas to highlight: (1) our 
Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) and (2) the Long Range Utilities 
Strategy. At the completion of the fiscal year 2002 program, as 
requested, we will have funded adequate housing to meet or approximate 
the DOD 1+1 barracks standard for 73 percent of our soldiers. The 
fiscal year 2003-2008 Military Construction program will provide 
barracks for another 20 percent of eligible soldiers. We will use SRM 
resources to renovate barracks to an approximate DOD 1+1 standard for 
the remaining 7 percent of barracks residents. The Army is grateful for 
Congressional support for well being programs. We allocated $86 million 
of appropriated Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense (QOLE,D) funds to 
bring more of our permanent party barracks in the United States, Europe 
and Korea to an approximate 1+1 standard and to renovate Advance 
Individual Training (AIT) and Reception barracks in the United States. 
The Army is committing an average of about $120 million per year in SRM 
to continue the efforts to upgrade housing for our single soldiers. 
This substantial funding keeps our barracks program on track to build 
new or renovate all barracks to an approximate 1+1 or equivalent 
standard worldwide by 2008.
    The second area to highlight within the SRM program is our Long 
Range Utilities Strategy to provide reliable and efficient utility 
services at our installations. Privatization or outsourcing of 
utilities is the first part of our strategy. All Army-owned electrical, 
natural gas, water, and wastewater systems are being evaluated to 
determine the feasibility of privatization. When privatization appears 
economical, we use competitive contracting procedures as much as 
possible. We continue to successfully privatize utility systems on Army 
installations. Recent successes include privatization of the electrical 
distribution system at Fort Knox, the gas system at Fort Sill, the 
water system at Fort Lee, and the waste water system at Presidio of 
Monterey. Of the 320 Army systems available for privatization since 
1998, 19 have been privatized, 28 have been exempted, and the remaining 
are in various stages of privatization. The second part of the strategy 
is the utilities modernization program. We are upgrading utility 
systems that are not viable candidates to be privatized, such as 
central heating plants and distribution systems. We have executed 
approximately $177 million in utility modernization projects in fiscal 
years 1998 through 2000 and in future years we plan to accomplish $94 
million in additional projects. Together, privatizing and modernizing 
utility systems will provide reliable and safe systems.
    We are making progress in upgrading barracks and improving utility 
services, and funding for the basic maintenance and repair of Army 
facilities has improved to 94 percent of the OMA, OMNG and OMAR 
requirement in fiscal year 2002. However, we still need to strive 
toward fully funding sustainment to keep facilities from getting worse 
and to protect the large infrastructure investment requested in this 
budget. The Installation Status Report shows Army facilities are rated 
C-3 (not fully mission capable) due to years of under-funding. At the 
end of fiscal year 2000, 26 percent of the Army's facilities were 
``red''--unsatisfactory; 44 percent were ``amber''--marginal; and only 
30 percent were ``green''--good. The Army National Guard rated 40 
percent red, 54 percent amber and 6 percent green and the Army Reserve 
rated 45 percent red, 27 percent amber, and 28 percent green.
                  base realignment and closure (brac)
    Our facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's 
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support the 
Army of the 21st century. For BRAC in fiscal year 2002, we are 
requesting appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $164.3 
million. This budget represents the Army's first budget required to 
continue environmental restoration and property management of those 
facilities not yet disposed from the first four rounds of BRAC. In 
fiscal year 2000, the Army saved $911 million and will save $944 
million annually upon completion of these first four rounds of BRAC. 
Although these savings are substantial, we need to achieve even more, 
and bring our infrastructure assets in line with projected needs. We 
must reduce the total cost required to support our facilities and 
manage and maintain our real property inventory. BRAC has significant 
investment costs, but the results bring to the Army modern and 
efficient facilities at the remaining installations. The resulting 
savings are critical to modernization, sustainment, and infrastructure 
improvements.
    The Army is now in the final year of the 13-year process to 
implement the first four rounds (112 closures and 27 realignments). We 
are accelerating all BRAC actions to obtain savings and return assets 
to the private sector as quickly as available resources will allow. 
However, BRAC savings do not come immediately because of the up-front 
costs for implementation and the time it takes to close and dispose of 
property. Environmental costs are significant and are being funded up-
front to facilitate economic revitalization. The remaining challenges 
that lie ahead are implementing the final round, BRAC 95, ahead of 
schedule; cleaning up contaminated property, disposing of property at 
closed bases; and assisting communities with reuse.
    The fiscal year 2002 budget includes the resources required to 
continue environmental cleanup of BRAC properties. These efforts will 
make 14,321 acres of property available for reuse in fiscal year 2002 
and complete restoration activities at 12 additional locations. This 
budget includes the resources required to support projected reuse in 
the near term and to continue with current projects to protect human 
health and the environment.
    Base Realignment and Closure--Overseas.--Although the extensive 
overseas closures do not receive the same level of public attention as 
those in the United States, they represent the fundamental shift from a 
forward-deployed force to one relying upon overseas presence and power 
projection. Without the need for a Commission, we are reducing the 
number of installations by 70 percent, roughly equal to the troop 
reductions of 70 percent. In Korea, the number of installations is 
dropping 20 percent. The total number of Army overseas sites announced 
for closure or partial closure is 677. Additional announcements will 
occur until the base structure matches the force identified to meet 
U.S. commitments.
    Base Realignment and Closure Program Status.--The Army has 
completed all realignments and closure actions from the BRAC 88, BRAC 
91, BRAC 93, and BRAC 95 rounds. The Army continues with the difficult 
challenges of environmental cleanup and disposal actions to make the 
property available to local communities for economic redevelopment. 
Introduction of economic development conveyances and interim leasing 
has resulted in increased property reuse and jobs creation. 
Negotiations and required environmental restoration continue at the 
closed and realigned installations, and additional conveyances will 
occur in the near future.
    The Army has completed environmental actions at 1,414 of a total of 
1,973 environmental cleanup sites through fiscal year 2000. 
Environmental restoration efforts were complete at 77 installations 
through fiscal year 2000, out of a total of 116 installations. The Army 
remains focused on supporting environmental cleanup actions required to 
support property reuse and will continue to fund environmental cleanup 
actions that are required in support of property transfer and reuse of 
the remaining approximate 255,000 acres.
    Summary.--The BRAC process has proven to be the only viable method 
to identify and dispose of excess facilities. The closing and 
realigning of bases saves money that otherwise would go to unneeded 
overhead and frees up valuable assets for productive reuse. These 
savings permit us to invest properly in the forces and bases we keep to 
ensure their continued effectiveness. We request your support by 
providing the necessary BRAC funding to continue environmental 
restoration and property management in fiscal year 2002.
    We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC 
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through no 
cost economic development conveyances as well as the early transfer of 
properties along with cooperative agreements to accelerate the 
completion of remaining environmental remediation. The Army is also 
making use of interim leasing options made possible by Congress and 
awarding guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts to complete 
environmental cleanup to make properties available earlier. Real 
property assets are being conveyed to local communities, permitting 
them to quickly enter into business arrangements with the private 
sector. Local communities, with the Army's support and encouragement, 
are working to develop business opportunities that result in jobs and 
tax revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to 
productive use in the private sector benefits the Army and ultimately 
the local community.
    As noted, we have had much success in base closures, eliminating 
excess infrastructure that drained needed funds from other programs. 
Unfortunately, this has not been sufficient. For this reason, the Army 
supports additional authority to reduce infrastructure.
                        fiscal year 2002 summary
    Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2002 budget is a greatly improved 
program that permits us to execute our construction programs; provides 
for the military construction required to improve our readiness 
posture; and provides for family housing leasing, operation and 
maintenance of the non-privatized inventory, and to initiate 
privatization at four additional installations. This request is part of 
the total Army budget request that is strategically balanced to support 
both the readiness of the force and the well being of our personnel. 
Our long-term strategy can only be accomplished through sustained 
balanced funding, divestiture of excess capacity, and improvements in 
management. We will continue to streamline, consolidate, and establish 
community partnerships that generate resources for infrastructure 
improvements and continuance of services.
    The fiscal year 2002 request for the Active Army is for 
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $3,161,074,000 
for Military Construction, Army and Army Family Housing.
    The request for appropriations and authorization of appropriations 
is $267,389,000 for Military Construction, Army National Guard and 
$111,404,000 million for the Military Construction, Army Reserve.
    For the Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense, the request is for 
$10,119,000 appropriations and authorization of appropriations.
    Thank you for your continued support for Army facilities funding.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
    General Van Antwerp.
    General Van Antwerp. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Senator 
Hutchison, nice to see you. I just want to thank you for your 
passion for facilities and for how they support our soldiers 
and their families, and thank you for all you do.
    These are exciting times in the Army. We have a clear 
vision and focus. It is on the people, it is on readiness, and 
it is on transformation. These three pillars, are supported by 
our facilities and our installations. This budget provides a 
substantial increase, as Mr. Paul Johnson said, over fiscal 
year 2001. MILCON is up over $750 million. This is for the 
total force. Family housing, up $150 million. What we are now 
calling SRM, sustainment restoration and modernization, used to 
be RPM funds, so it is a different terminology that you will 
hear. What this does for us this year, it keeps our barracks on 
track for fiscal year 2008. It gets us at the end of this 
fiscal year 2002 at 73 percent of modernizing our barracks, 
permanent party barracks. It keeps our strategic mobility 
projects on track for a 2003 buyout. They have 15 projects in 
this year's budget, and it gets us to 93 percent of the 
requirement being met in that area.
    It supports transformation at Fort Lewis with $56 million 
to buy projects. It gets the fix on family housing, and we have 
submitted our family housing master plan to Congress. It gets 
us to adequate family housing by 2010 for both CONUS and 
OCONUS. It improves our recapitalization rate to 90 years. It 
is not the 67 years desired metric that DOD has, but it is 
moving in the right direction.
    As you noted in your opening statement, ma'am, it funds 
contingencies for all fiscal year 2002 projects. It initiates 
the next increment of our future facilities strategy and it 
provides $164 million for base realignment and closure, 
basically the environmental cleanup at 35 sites.
    I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before 
you and I look forward to your questions when that time comes.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks, General.

                          Army National Guard

    General Squier.
    General Squier. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to be here 
to represent the Army National Guard from the 50 states, the 
territories, and the District of Columbia. We welcome the 
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to present the 
Army National Guard's construction program for fiscal year 
2002, which really is an Army story and we are very pleased 
with the budget request this year of $267.4 million.
    The readiness of the Army National Guard, as General Van 
Antwerp has mentioned, is a primary focus of the Army. Our 
facilities provide for our ability to do training and readiness 
to meet our operational requirements. As you are well aware, 
the Army is increasing use of reserve components on a regular 
basis and making use of the Army National Guard around the 
world.
    There are some unique things going on with our Army. We are 
a participant in the transformation and looking at new ways to 
do business. Part of our transformation is converting some of 
our force structure, and some of our request this year is to 
support that. The Army facilities strategy will better focus 
our energies towards military construction for the future.
    The Army National Guard strongly supports the facilities 
strategy. Even though it is a 30-year strategy, it is a focused 
approach. In the first 10 years, the Army National Guard, will 
focus on our readiness centers, trying to take care of at least 
a third of those requirements that we have nationwide in the 
States, the three territories and the District of Columbia. We 
will also be focusing on our surface maintenance facilities and 
our classrooms in order to train our soldiers for the future, 
and support this strategy.
    While this does not address all of our needs, it is a step 
in the right direction and we certainly do support a focused 
approach for the future. The Army National Guard has been 
looking at how the force structure of the Army will change for 
the future. Initially we will be converting part of our combat 
structure to combat support and combat service support 
requirements of the Army. There is a phased approach in 
converting up to 12 of our brigades over a time frame that will 
take us out through 2009. This year includes phase one of that 
particular strategy.
    As you are much aware, the Army National Guard has a proud 
history of its accomplishments and service to our Nation and 
what we bring to our communities across the Nation. We have an 
obligation of continuing to provide adequate, safe, and cost 
effective facilities to support our personnel throughout the 
Nation, and we appreciate the support that we have received 
from this committee. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General.

                              Army Reserve

    General Bergson.
    General Bergson. Madam Chair, on behalf of the men and 
women of America's Army Reserve, the credentials of America's 
Army Reserve, thank you for the opportunity to represent them 
and present their military construction needs to you today. As 
we speak, your Army Reserve soldiers and units continue to 
serve proudly in support of Operations Joint Forge and Joint 
Guardian under the presidential reserve call-up authority.
    In fiscal year 2001 we are deploying Army Reserve soldiers 
in units around the world in support of other high priority 
missions. Our soldiers provide daily proof that America's Army 
Reserve is in fact a trained and ready and relevant force. With 
your continued support in Congress, they will remain trained 
and ready and carry us forward well into the 21st first-
century.
    The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 continues to 
focus on resources to readiness in line with the Army Chief of 
Staff's priorities. The budget provides essential military 
construction resources to address the Army Reserve's highest 
priority facilities, construction projects, and other needs. It 
will allow the Army Reserve to continue to modernize and 
revitalize its facilities infrastructure across the Nation.
    The organization, roles and missions of the Army Reserve 
dictate the need for a widely dispersed inventory and 
facilities. It provides a military linkage in 1350 communities 
throughout America, its territories, and overseas locations. We 
occupy over 1,100 facilities consisting of more than 7,600 
buildings and structures that have an average age of about 37 
years. Army Reserve-operated installations add another 2,600 
buildings and structures to the total inventory. The average 
age of facilities on these installations is about 47 years.
    The essence of our program is straightforward: to provide 
essential facilities to improve readiness and quality of life, 
to preserve and enhance the Army's image across America, and to 
preserve and protect the facilities resources for which we are 
responsible.
    The Army Reserve has been successful in demonstrating 
itself to be a competent and effective steward of the resources 
placed in its care. Since 1981 the Army Reserve has completed 
more than 300 major construction projects that represent an 
investment of $1.3 billion. In addition to the programmed 
military construction, we realize significant savings from base 
realignment and closure actions. The Army Reserve acquired 
facilities from all services, including the Active Army, 
offsetting military construction requirements. The facilities 
acquired through BRAC provided a military construction cost 
avoidance of $123 million. Other facilities acquired through 
BRAC process has permitted the Army Reserve to relocate units 
from leased facilities to quality government-owned centers. 
That effort allowed the Army Reserve to reduce its lease costs 
by $13 million.
    The budget request for fiscal 2002 provides funds for the 
highest priority Army Reserve MILCON requirements. The fiscal 
year 2002 MCAR budget request for the Army Reserve includes 
three categories of funding: major construction, unspecified 
minor construction, and planning and design. Our fiscal year 
2002 budget requests an appropriation of slightly over $101 
million to fund construction of five new Army Reserve centers 
in American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and 
Washington, to accomplish essential facility replacement, 
revitalization of existing facilities in Colorado, a new 
maintenance facility in Texas, an officer education systems 
barracks in New Jersey, and land acquisition to support a 
future project in Cleveland, Ohio.
    Another important issue that is directly linked to the Army 
Reserve's overall ability to be good stewards of its facilities 
and installations is that of funding for sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization that General Van Antwerp 
mentioned earlier. Although provided separately by the O and M 
Army Reserve, OMAR, appropriation, these funds complement 
military construction funds to round out the Army Reserve's 
total resources to manage its facilities inventory.
    Long-term resource constraints in both military 
construction and real property maintenance have a combined 
effect of increasing the rates of aging and deterioration of 
our valuable facilities and infrastructure. Historically, the 
budget has provided SRM resources to only fund the most 
critical maintenance and repair needs. The fiscal year 2002 
budget includes $158 million for SRM, which funds fully 93 
percent of the Army Reserve sustainment, restoration, 
modernization requirements. We solicit your support of SRM as 
an essential adjunct of construction.
    The fiscal 2002 budget request is for appropriations and 
authorization of $111 million for military construction Army 
Reserve and $158 million for SRM. We are grateful to the 
Congress and the Nation for the support you have given and 
continue to give to United States's Army Reserve. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.

                     Unspecified Minor Construction

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General.
    I would like to begin with General Squier if I might. Last 
year the Army Guard was given $25 million for unspecified minor 
construction to provide facilities for the 27 weapons of mass 
destruction civil support team. From that $25 million, it 
funded facilities for 20 of the teams, with 7 remaining 
unfunded, one of which is Los Alamedos. I understand the 
program is still $7 million short of what it needs.
    Is there a request in this budget that will fund that 
shortfall?
    General Squier. No, ma'am. We did not--were not able to 
bring forward a request for that particular initiative. I am 
very much aware of that and we did in fact fund for 20 of those 
and we have a requirement for at least $7 million that you have 
highlighted here for the remaining teams as this evolving new 
program is established.
    Senator Feinstein. Do you feel you need the money or not?
    General Squier. Yes, ma'am, we do need that money.
    Senator Feinstein. Is that a priority for you?
    General Squier. It is a high priority.
    Senator Feinstein. How high a priority?
    General Squier. It is as high as it could be for us. As far 
as this is unspecified minor, given the fidelity of trying to 
find out exactly where the States are going to put these 
facilities and what their requirements are, it is a high 
priority for us.
    Senator Feinstein. Then we will try and work with you and 
see that it gets done.
    Can you handle the job with the 27 civil support teams?
    General Squier. Actually, there is a requirement as we know 
it to go to 32.
    Senator Feinstein. 32?
    General Squier. 32, yes, ma'am. We have not stood up the 
additional 5 teams yet. We are only focused on the 27 that are 
currently being established. The Department of Defense is 
establishing the criteria and requirements. I am not prepared 
to address whether that is adequate or not. Still, it is an 
emerging new program. There are still some things to be refined 
as we look at the roles and missions responsibilities.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, I would like to work with you on 
that. It seems to me we are building this big missile defense 
system and we ought to have civil support as well.
    General Squier. It is a critical issue for the Nation, 
ma'am.

                        National Training Center

    Senator Feinstein. Secretary Johnson, if I might, could you 
update us on the status of the National Training Center 
expansion at Fort Irwin, California? I understand that DOD and 
Interior, including the Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, are working together on an expansion, very 
controversial. Congressman Lewis and I have worked together on 
it. That expansion attempts to address various environmental 
concerns that have been addressed or that have been mentioned, 
particularly the desert tortoise.
    I know I went to Fort Irwin and met with General Webster, 
saw what they were doing. My belief is that they have worked 
out a very fine plan.
    What is the status and the outlook and the schedule for 
implementing that plan?
    Mr. Johnson. We have worked very hard with the Department 
of Interior and yourself and Congressman Lewis. We have now 
submitted our plan for the land withdrawal. That is still being 
considered. As soon as that is passed in law, then we will be 
able to pick up the additional land to the south so we can 
train and protect the endangered species and the milkweed also.
    Senator Feinstein. Milk Vetch.
    Mr. Johnson. Milk Vetch, excuse me.
    Senator Feinstein. I particularly want to compliment 
General Webster. I had the pleasure of going to the base--as 
you know--for a meeting with him and in terms of effecting a 
compromise that could prevent a tortoise from standing in front 
of a tank and creating the necessary or probable civic 
explosion, he was quite wonderful and I gathered worked that 
out.
    It looks like it could be a done deal very shortly. So 
please extend for me my compliments to him. I am very 
appreciative.
    Mr. Johnson. Senator, as a matter of fact we set up a team 
and went out there before your visit and got this all set up. 
He is a great guy. He knows his stuff there on training and he 
is also sensitive to the environment and the Milk Vetch.
    Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this question and maybe 
you can answer it because you are leaving and you do not have 
to worry about it. I have often wondered why there cannot be 
more inter-service sharing of bases. I initially tried that 
between China Lake and Fort Irwin and struck out 100 percent. 
Wherever I seem to go--I do not know if Senator Hutchison has 
had this same experience--but there is a refusal to do any 
inter-service sharing of bases or materials or claims or 
anything else.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, we have China Lake and that is still a 
gleam in our eye. It is not over with. We also have some other, 
like Fort Dix, McGuire. We are joining with an RCI project up 
there. We have a number of those. It is just sometimes hard 
getting us to thinking exactly alike, but we are studying it 
very, very much. We think it is a savings, no question about 
it, if we can consolidate some of these and save some money.
    Senator Feinstein. Do any other of the Generals have any 
comment on that subject?
    General Van Antwerp. I will venture a comment on that. I 
think part of the consideration where it comes to training 
lands is training lands are in such high demand that folks are 
reluctant to share those training areas because it is so 
difficult to already get on them. That is part of the National 
Training Center's problem right now. It is highly utilized and 
overutilized. We would love to expand into China Lake, as Mr. 
Johnson said, and use that as part of our training area. I 
think that may be a possibility.
    Senator Feinstein. That would be excellent. If I could help 
with that, I would be happy to do so.
    General Bergson. We have had some success with reserve 
centers, Madam Chair, because we are using them part-time and 
the Army will use them one weekend and the Navy Reserve will 
use them a different weekend. Unfortunately, as we are getting 
more and more involved in training the times tend to overlap a 
little bit. We do have quite a few joint reserve centers.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
    Senator Hutchison. I just would take what you were 
discussing a little bit further and say I think that the more 
we can do with that the better, because we have a joint reserve 
base, it used to be Carswell and now that is a joint base, that 
is working great. You can have better facilities when you can 
share them and get more use from them. So I think it is 
something that probably is the way for the future.
    Just the Joint Strike Fighter, which is now going to be 
used by three services, I think is a great first step, or it 
might not be the first but it is certainly a major step in that 
direction. So I think it is something that hopefully we will be 
doing more of.
    I just have one question for Mr. Johnson, and I also want 
to thank you for your 52 years of service. That has got to be a 
record, that someone has been, let us see, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for 18 years, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for 18 years. That has got to be a record. We really appreciate 
your excellent service and thank you for doing that.
    I just have one question and it is for Mr. Johnson. It is 
the issue of privatization of housing, which I think more and 
more of the services are using and I think it is proving to be 
quite effective. Where something might cost $40 million, the 
service is able to put about $10 million in and with 
privatization the private contractor absorbed the rest of the 
cost. But that also means that local schools are going to be 
impacted if you are doing off-base housing and it might not 
necessarily be the on-base schools as we were talking about 
earlier.
    I have been very active in making sure that our impact aid 
schools do get the funding they need to service the children 
that go into off-base housing. I would just like to ask you how 
the Army going forward is looking at the impact aid schools as 
affected by privatization, and are you still convinced that 
overall this is the way to go?

                         Housing Privatization

    Mr. Johnson. Yes, it is the way to go. Actually, what we 
did was start off early in the process with the school 
districts and our installation managers and discussed this with 
them, what their requirements are and what we can provide. 
Actually, we provide land for the schools, but we would 
certainly prefer that the school districts raised the bonds and 
built their own schools. Otherwise, we use part of the 
allowance for quarters to pay for housing, we would use some of 
that to pay for schools.
    We are working very carefully and closely with the local 
communities and so far so good. That is working.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that is fine, but you have 
to remember that a local community cannot absorb kind of a 
rubber band, large numbers of students, then shrinking numbers 
of students after they have built the facilities. We have to 
step up to the plate and make sure that the school district has 
the help they need to get the quality education.
    Any comments from anyone else on this subject?
    If not, those are the questions I had.
    Senator Feinstein. I had one request, one last request. I 
would like to know the total of the Army's unfunded priorities 
for fiscal year 2002.
    General Van Antwerp. As you look at----
    Senator Feinstein. I am giving you an open chance.
    General Van Antwerp. This MILCON budget funds about 41 
percent of our requirements, so there is a long list that was 
below the cut line for this. We think we have those priorities 
that support readiness, transformation, and our people, but 
they are in some cases, like the barracks buyout program goes 
to fiscal year 2008, they are long-term programs.
    Obviously, if you could accelerate that and provide that 
earlier, it would provide for the wellbeing of the force.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, what I would like to ask you to 
provide for the committee is a list of your unfunded priorities 
in priority order en bloc. That would be very helpful. I am 
most interested in, and I know Senator Hutchison is--it is one 
thing coming from the civilians. It is another thing coming 
from the military. So we would like to know what your top 
unfunded priorities are.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                          Subcommittee Recess

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. There being no 
further business, this meeting is recessed and we will 
reconvene tomorrow. Thank you very much.
    [Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m. Tuesday, July 31, the subcommittee 
was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m., Wednesday August 1.]







       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2001

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Buildings, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Feinstein, Hutchison, Landrieu, and 
Craig.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         Department of the Navy

STATEMENT OF DUNCAN HOLADAY, SENIOR CIVILIAN OFFICIAL, 
            OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 
            NAVY, (INSTALLATION AND ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        ADMIRAL MICHAEL JOHNSON, USN, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES 
            ENGINEERING COMMAND
        GENERAL GARY McKISSOCK, INSTALLATION AND LOGISTICS, MARINE 
            CORPS
        REAR ADMIRAL NOEL PRESTON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NAVAL RESERVE

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

    Senator Feinstein. Good afternoon gentlemen. I am very 
pleased to call to order this second hearing in 2 days of the 
Subcommittee of Military Construction of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. Senator Hutchison, the ranking 
member, is on her way and will be here shortly. But, so that we 
can begin on time, I would like to begin with my opening 
remarks.
    First of all, I would like to welcome the witnesses and 
today we are going to hear from representatives of the Navy and 
the Air Force on their respective fiscal year 2002 military 
construction programs. At yesterday's hearing, I noted the 
emphasis this budget places on funding for military 
construction. In other words, the budget is up, and 
particularly quality of life items, such as improved housing 
and dormitories. So, I look forward to hearing how those 
programs are being handled by both the Navy and the Air Force.
    While the fiscal year 2002 budget submitted to Congress is 
mostly a good news story, I am troubled by the lack of funding, 
which is cut back from last year's almost by 50 percent cutback 
in the Navy's BRAC program. So, I look forward to hearing the 
details of that issue from the Navy today, as well as 
recommendations on how this shortfall can be overcome. And I am 
very interested in how the Air Force is fairing on completing 
its BRAC program.
    The supplemental funding bill recently passed by Congress 
included $9 million for BRAC environmental compliance work at 
McClellan Air Force base in California. That is a base that I 
am very familiar with and I am glad that we were able to 
provide that funding so that work at McClellan can proceed. 
However, I am very much concerned about the environmental 
remediation on the closed bases, and particularly McClellan 
among others. I know there is radioactive material and I guess 
that has raised the price, but I understand the overall cost--
and I will ask you to comment on this--it is in the vicinity of 
$450 million to clean up that base. I understand the Air Force 
has requested funding for several other BRAC projects in the 
supplemental and I am looking forward to hearing more details 
on those, and whether the Air Force is facing a similar 
shortfall as is the Navy, in 2002.
    While on the topic of the supplemental, I would like to 
point out that the bill included $9.4 million for a ship repair 
facility for the Navy on Guam. And I was very happy to try on 
this side to be helpful to Admiral Blair. I know that was a 
very high priority of his, and so if the Navy could possibly 
comment on how you are going to use that $9.4 million, I would 
appreciate that as well.
    Senator Hutchison is not here yet, but I will tell you what 
we will do. If she wishes, we will stop and receive her opening 
statement when she comes. But in the meantime, I am going to 
proceed and introduce the panel. I am very pleased to welcome 
Mr. Duncan Holaday, a Senior Civilian Officer for Navy 
Installations and Environment; Admiral Michael Johnson, the 
Navy' chief civil engineering; Lieutenant General Gary 
McKissock who is in charge of installations and logistics for 
the Marine Corps; and Admiral Noel Preston, Deputy Director of 
the Naval Reserve.
    Mr. Secretary, because of the limited time, I would like to 
ask that all of you submit your written statements for the 
record and just verbally summarize those and perhaps be 
responsive to some of these issues of my opening statement. Mr. 
Secretary, would you like to proceed?

                      STATEMENT OF DUNCAN HOLADAY

    Mr. Holaday. Yes, good day Madam. It is a pleasure to be 
here before you to be able to discuss the Navy's shore 
infrastructure budget. I would like to submit my prepared 
statement as we discussed and just summarize it, and my oral 
statement will cover the entire panel.
    The Department has to maintain balance between current 
readiness, recapitalization, and research and development to 
meet our future defense needs. Infrastructure programs have in 
general fared well in these balancing efforts. With the 
exception of our recent focus on fixing our inadequate family 
housing, our installations and facilities have continued to 
deteriorate due to age and neglect. So, it is particularly 
encouraging to see this administration focus on sustaining and 
modernizing our infrastructure.
    In his confirmation statement to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Secretary England said ``I will emphasis quality of 
service, achieving higher quality of workplace as well as 
higher quality of life for our sailors and marines.'' The 
fiscal year 2002 amended budget submission includes significant 
funds above the previous baseline to help achieve these goals. 
Our fiscal year 2002 appropriation request of $1.1 billion for 
military construction is the largest submission in well over a 
decade. It includes 50 projects totaling $692 million for the 
Navy and 33 projects totaling $339 million for the marines.
    Most of the projects are for the operational maintenance 
and training facilities, barracks and environmental projects. 
The biggest challenge we face is improving the living 
conditions for our single sailors and marines. The Department 
of Defense's goal is to eliminate central heads and permanent 
party barracks by fiscal year 2008. While the Marine Corps will 
exceed that goal by eliminating central heads in barracks by 
2005, it will not be able to achieve the 2+0 construction 
standards for another 30 years. The Navy, while meeting the DOD 
goal for eliminating central heads, will not achieve the 1+1 
standards for another decade.
    The Navy also needs to provide facilities for sailors who 
now live aboard ship while at home port. The Navy is committed 
to the Homeport Ashore program to provide living programs 
ashore for these sailors. While a final plan is still in the 
works, the Navy has already used changes in assignment policy 
in Hawaii and Guam to bring shipboard sailors ashore. This 
budget includes $105 million to build 516 barracks bases in San 
Diego, 260 at Mayport, and 1,000 at Pearl Harbor to speed the 
process. We are also continuing to explore the feasibility of 
applying PPV authorities--privatization authorities--to our 
barracks. I have challenged the Navy and Marine Corps to 
develop bachelor housing privatization projects that we can 
bring forward to Congress.
    Our 2002 family housing request totals $1.2 billion. Though 
slightly smaller than last year's enacted level, it retains a 
focus on replacement construction and improvements, and also 
includes funds to continue public-private venture projects. For 
the last several years we have remained on course to achieve 
DOD's goal of eliminating by fiscal year 2010, the inadequate 
military family housing that we own. I am pleased to report 
that the new Family Housing Master Plan to be submitted to the 
Congress shortly will show that we will meet that goal sooner 
than expected. The Navy will eliminate its inadequate homes by 
2009 and the Marine Corps by 2008. I am hopeful that we can do 
even better than that.
    With regards to the early four rounds of base closure, we 
have completed 178 closures and realignments. Our major focus 
now is on finishing environmental clean up and property 
disposal. We have already transferred over 65,000 acres to 
economic development conveyances, negotiated sales, public 
sales and public benefit transfers. Of the 96,000 acres 
remaining to be transferred, over 74,000 are associated with 
the formal Naval Air Station at Adak, Alaska.
    By the end of 2001, we expect to have completed clean up of 
79 percent of our BRAC sites. Unfortunately because of 
competing budget requirements, our BRAC requests declines from 
$443 million in 2001 to $131 million in 2002. This level of 
funding is insufficient to meet our requirements and limits our 
ability to take advantage of any promising early transfer 
opportunity that would both the Navy and local redevelopment 
authorities. We are working with OSD to resolve this issue and 
keep the Congress, regulators and affected communities 
apprised.

                           Prepared Statement

    In conclusion, I believe the DON infrastructure program is 
in a strong position as we begin the new millennium. I 
appreciate the support of this committee and its staff has 
given us in the past and I look forward to your continued 
support of our Navy and Marine Corps programs.
    [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Duncan Holaday

    Good day, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Duncan 
Holaday, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and 
Facilities). During the transition period of the Bush Administration, I 
also serve as the Senior Civilian Official in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on the Department of 
the Navy's shore infrastructure.
    My statement today will cover these areas:
  --The Fiscal Year 2002 Amended Budget Submission for infrastructure;
  --Program highlights for family housing, military construction, 
        sustainment, restoration and modernization, and Base 
        Realignment and Closure (BRAC);
  --Energy issues;
  --Legislative proposals.
                       the infrastructure budget
    As a long-serving member of the Department of Defense, I have 
watched with mounting concern efforts to maintain the delicate balance 
between current readiness, recapitalization, and research and 
development to meet future defense needs. As members of this Committee 
recognize, the infrastructure budget was often the bill-payer during 
budget formulation to meet higher priority Department needs. Promises 
of improved funding levels in the Future Years Defense Plan to fix 
demonstrated facilities shortfalls did not materialize, as the 
competition for scarce resources became ever more difficult in each 
subsequent budget. During program execution, base support and real 
property maintenance funds were often tapped to pay for unexpected 
operating expenses.
    With the exception of recent gains to fix persistent housing 
shortfalls, our installations and facilities have deteriorated due to 
age and neglect. Last year's Installations Readiness Report showed 67 
percent of Navy's and 53 percent of Marine Corps facilities rated C-3 
(have serious deficiencies) or C-4 (do not support mission 
requirements). With limited funding levels, we could expect to wait 
about 170 years before being able to program to replace new 
construction, over two and a half times that of the private sector. The 
results are predictable: facilities performance declines, readiness and 
mission support suffers, service life is lost, and total costs rise. 
Our Sailors, Marines, and civilian employees must try to do their job 
using modern technology tools and techniques in buildings originally 
designed and constructed before most of them were born.
    So it is particularly encouraging to see the President, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval 
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps recognize and 
advocate the need to modernize our shore infrastructure. In his 
confirmation statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Secretary England, stated that ``I will emphasize `Quality of 
Service'--achieving a higher quality of work place as well as a higher 
quality of life for our Sailors, Marines, active duty and reserves, and 
civilians and all of their families'' as one aspect of his four major 
goals.
    The Fiscal Year 2002 Amended Budget Submission before you includes 
significant additional resources above the previous baseline to improve 
and modernize our infrastructure. The Department of the Navy received 
$413 million of the $2.0 billion added by the Secretary of Defense for 
facilities, and $162 million of the $400 million added for housing. We 
received an additional $229 million for base operating support, $47 
million for utilities cost growth, $87 million for force protection 
initiative in the Operations and Maintenance accounts, and $7 million 
for energy savings initiatives.
    Let me describe our budget highlights in more detail.
Compared with Overall DON Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
    The Department of the Navy installation budget includes these 
appropriations: Military Construction, Navy (MCON); Military 
Construction, Naval Reserve (MCNR); Family Housing, Navy and Marine 
Corps (FHN); Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC); and Environmental 
Restoration, Navy (ERN). Base operations support and real property 
maintenance functions are included in the Operation and Maintenance 
accounts. Our fiscal year 2002 installation program totals $9.0 
billion, or about 9 percent of the $99 billion fiscal year 2002 
Department of the Navy budget request.
Compared with Fiscal Year 2001
    I believe you will agree that we are presenting a strong overall 
fiscal year 2002 military construction program.
    Our fiscal year 2002 authorization and appropriation request of 
$1.1 billion for Military Construction, Navy is the largest submission 
in well over a decade. It includes 50 projects totaling $692 million 
for the Navy, and 33 projects totaling $339 million for the Marine 
Corps. It also includes $11 million in unspecified minor construction, 
and $30 million in planning and design. Most of the projects are for 
operational, maintenance and training facilities, barracks, and other 
quality of life projects. The Military Construction, Naval Reserve 
request comprises 11 Navy projects totaling $22 million and three 
Marine Corps projects totaling $11 million. It also includes $1 million 
in planning and design funds.
    Our fiscal year 2002 family housing request totals $1.2 billion. 
Though slightly smaller than last year's enacted level, it maintains a 
focus on replacement construction and improvements, and also includes 
funds to continue public/private venture (PPV) projects. Family housing 
operations and maintenance is funded at about the same level as fiscal 
year 2001.
    Our BRAC request for fiscal year 2002 is of great concern, 
declining from $443 million in fiscal year 2001 to $131 million in 
fiscal year 2002. This level of funding is, I believe, insufficient to 
meet our mandated funding requirements, and precludes our ability to 
take advantage of any promising early transfer opportunities that may 
arise that would benefit the Navy and local redevelopment authorities. 
I will discuss this issue in more detail later.
    Our Fiscal Year 2002 Real Property Maintenance request of $1.8 
billion is $83 million above the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. 
These funds in the Operation and Maintenance accounts are for repairs, 
preventive and recurring maintenance, minor construction, and centrally 
managed demolition. The Department of Defense is transitioning to a new 
methodology and nomenclature--Sustainment, Restoration and 
Modernization (SRM). ``Sustainment'' is the amount of funding required 
for scheduled maintenance and repairs over the service life of the 
facility. It does not improve the condition or readiness of the 
facility. It is calculated using a DOD Facilities Sustainment Model 
(FSM), that multiplies, facilities quantity data (most often square 
feet) times, unit cost factors (most often dollars per square foot) 
derived from private industry. ``Restoration and Modernization'' is the 
portion of the SRM program that goes beyond sustainment and improves 
the condition and readiness of the facility using O&M and MILCON funds. 
The Department of the Navy initiated the transition to the new 
methodology in the fiscal year 2002 budget, and will fully implement 
this new approach in the fiscal year 2003 budget.
Construction Contingency
    Construction projects typically include an amount of money set 
aside to fund unexpected problems that arise during the final design of 
the project, or more commonly during actual construction, e.g., when 
encountering unexpected site conditions. Last year, the Department of 
Defense submitted its budget request with no contingency funding for 
military construction and family housing construction projects, and 
although no contingency funding was authorized or appropriated, report 
language directed the Department of Defense to fund contingency in its 
fiscal year 2002 budget request. We have seen early indications that 
the absence of contingency funding is compromising our ability to 
maintain essential quality aspects of fiscal year 2001 projects. 
Project managers are being forced to choose lower quality products that 
will result in higher future life cycle costs to stay within budget. I 
am pleased to report that the fiscal year 2002 budget includes a five 
percent contingency for all construction projects, consistent with the 
direction in the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act. I urge 
your support for funding contingency.
                             family housing
Family Housing Overview
    Our family housing strategy consists of a triad:
  --access to housing in communities surrounding our bases;
  --use of traditional military construction and leasing funds to 
        improve or acquire housing either on base or in the community; 
        and
  --developing public/private ventures to leverage private sector 
        capital to provide housing that is available on a priority 
        basis to our members.
    We traditionally rely first on the private sector to provide 
housing for our Sailors, Marines and their families. Our bases have 
housing referral offices to help newly arriving families find suitable 
homes in the community. Approximately 73 percent of Navy families and 
63 percent of Marine Corps families worldwide lived in a home they 
owned or rented in the community.
Family Housing Master Plans
    The Department remains committed to improving living conditions for 
Sailors, Marines, and their families. Our Sailors and Marines perform 
their duties admirably, in often difficult and dangerous conditions. 
While deployed forward, our forces represent sovereign combat power 
overseas in regions of U.S. interest, providing timely response in 
crises as well as capabilities to project both offensive and defensive 
power ashore to assure access for the Joint force. Ensuring that they 
and their families have quality housing when at home is one of our most 
important tasks.
    For the last several years, we have remained on course to eliminate 
the inadequate units in our military family housing inventory by fiscal 
year 2010. I am pleased to report that the new Family Housing Master 
Plans to be submitted to the Congress shortly will show that we will 
meet that goal sooner than expected. As a result of projects added by 
the Congress and further reliance on public/private ventures, the new 
Master Plans will show elimination of inadequate family housing units 
by fiscal year 2009 for the Navy and fiscal year 2008 for the Marine 
Corps. I am optimistic that with the support of the new administration, 
we can do even better by making maximum use of the potential to 
leverage our resources through the family housing privatization 
authorities.
Family Housing Investment Strategy
    Our budget request continues our approach to repair and modernize 
our family housing inventory. Our budget request includes $115 million 
for the replacement of 377 units at Pearl Harbor, HI; Sigonella, IT; 
Yuma, AZ; Twentynine Palms, CA; and Kaneohe Bay, HI, and construction 
of 160 homes at Naval Station, Pascagoula, MS where there is a 
projected shortage of affordable, suitable housing. Our request also 
includes $183 million for revitalization of another 1,293 units at a 
total of 13 Navy and 4 Marine Corps installations. The improvements 
sub-account also includes $16 million at Naval Base San Diego and 
$14.7M at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton for phase II public/private 
ventures.
Operations, Maintenance, and Leasing
    At the end of fiscal year 2000, the Department of the Navy owned 
about 84,000 homes, worldwide, and leased another 6,862 homes, 
worldwide, for occupancy by Navy and Marine Corps families.
    The Department is requesting $918 million for the operations, 
maintenance, and leasing, of family housing. The request would cover 
costs associated with the management and maintenance of housing and the 
provision of services, utilities, and furnishings.
    I appreciate the Congress' support of the Administration's fiscal 
year 2001 supplemental request for an additional $20.3 million to fund 
unexpected increases in utility costs at Navy and Marine Corps 
locations across the country. We have reflected these increased costs 
in our request for fiscal year 2002.
    The budget request also includes funding for the leasing program: 
3,974 units for domestic (short-term, ``Section 801,'' and recruiter) 
leases in the United States and 2,552 leases at foreign locations.
Family Housing Privatization Initiative
    The power of PPV is embodied in the ability to leverage resources, 
as provided by the authorities enacted by Congress as part of the 
Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act \1\ This leverage allows us 
to combine private sector capital and expertise with our investment 
contribution to construct, renovate, manage, and maintain housing, 
rather than rely on financing the entire amount with government 
resources as we have done in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Fiscal Year 1995 Defense Authorization Act authorized the 
Department of the Navy to enter into limited partnerships for the 
construction of housing for military families. The Fiscal Year 1996 
Defense Authorization Act significantly expanded the scope and breadth 
of the initial limited partnership authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Department has taken a deliberate, measured approach in 
evaluating which blend of authorities would provide the desired 
leverage with sufficient protection of the Government's resources and 
interests over the long-term. We are now bringing projects to fruition.
    I am pleased to report that in November and December 2000, we 
awarded three PPV projects totaling 1,150 units. These projects are at 
the Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA; Naval Air Station, 
Kingsville, TX; and Naval Station, Everett, WA. The DON has been able 
to leverage $43 million of its resources to stimulate the investment of 
over $140 million in constructing, replacing, and renovating housing 
for our Sailors, Marines, and their families. As a result, 512 existing 
homes will be renovated or replaced and an additional 638 homes will be 
constructed. Construction work has already begun on all three projects. 
The first units will be ready for occupancy later this year.
    In addition to these projects, we are planning to award another 
four Navy and Marine Corps projects this fiscal year. These are at San 
Diego, New Orleans, South Texas, and, finally, a project combining 
Albany, GA and Camp Lejeune, NC. These projects total almost 5,000 
homes in scope.
    There are another four planned projects totaling 2,235 homes that 
we expect to award after fiscal year 2001. These are at Hampton Roads, 
VA; Stewart Army Subpost, NY; Beaufort/Parris Island, SC; and a 
regional project involving three Navy installations in the 
Philadelphia/Harrisburg, PA area. The Hampton Roads project would 
involve a joint partnership with the Virginia Housing Development 
Authority (VHDA).
    Earlier in my statement, I referred to the power of leverage that 
privatization provides us. We have undertaken our efforts in this area 
as a pilot approach to testing the feasibility of these authorities. If 
we are to improve housing for our families as quickly as possible, we 
need to make maximum use of these authorities. We continue to explore 
and develop opportunities for future PPV projects consistent with the 
family housing master plan. I firmly believe we have a sound approach 
that ensures that the Government's interests are protected while 
providing flexibility over the long-term. I ask for your continued 
support as we aggressively seek out opportunities to provide better 
housing now rather than later.
                            bachelor housing
    One of the biggest challenges we face is improving the living 
conditions for our single Sailors and Marines. We are making progress 
in certain areas. For example, the Department is on track to meet the 
Department of Defense's goal of eliminating central heads in permanent 
party barracks by fiscal year 2008. In fact, the Marine Corps predicts 
they will achieve that goal by fiscal year 2005. However, I am 
disappointed in our overall progress in ensuring that single Sailors 
and Marines have decent barracks with a level of privacy that they 
desire. As with family housing, this is an area where we must 
aggressively pursue solutions, such as privatization, to do more for 
our personnel quicker.
``Homeport Ashore''
    A major way in which we can improve the quality of life of our 
Sailors is to provide ashore accommodations for the more than 25,000 E-
1 through E-4 enlisted unaccompanied Sailors who now live aboard ship 
when in homeport.\2\ These young Sailors have the worst accommodations 
in the Department of Defense. When deployed, they sleep in bunk beds in 
cramped spaces amid dozens of their shipmates, with little more than a 
small locker to store their personal belongings. When the ship returns 
to homeport, they must continue to live aboard ship. In contrast, their 
shore-based or married counterparts live aboard ship when deployed, but 
merit Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQs) spaces or military family 
housing, or can draw Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) when the ship is 
in homeport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Another 15,000 shipboard E-1 through E-4 personnel are deployed 
with their ships at any given time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Navy continues to explore policy options to address this 
challenge. Key questions still to be resolved include exploration of a 
range of solutions, the use of different standards, as an interim, with 
an intent of achieving an end state of ``1+1'' or better; and other 
factors, such as housing allowances and assignment policy, that can 
promote this objective. We are, however, making progress. Pilot efforts 
in Hawaii and Guam have brought shipboard Sailors into barracks through 
the use of assignment policy. These efforts have been successful, but 
may be of limited use at other locations by factors such as overall 
barracks capacity. Our fiscal year 2002 budget includes two barracks 
construction projects to house shipboard sailors: $47.2 million to 
construct 516 spaces at Naval Station San Diego, CA and $16.4 million 
to construct 260 spaces at Naval Station Mayport, FL. Two other 
barracks projects in the fiscal year 2002 budget at Pearl Harbor, HI 
will help alleviate overcrowded conditions due to the pilot efforts 
there to move shipboard sailors into barracks.
    Pending receipt of the Navy's Homeport Ashore implementation plan, 
and with the exception of a waiver granted for Naval Air Station 
Lemoore, CA, all Navy permanent party enlisted barracks built on US 
territory are being built to the 1 + 1 configuration in the fiscal year 
2002 budget. The Marine Corps has a permanent waiver to construct its 
permanent party enlisted barracks to the 2 + configuration.
Bachelor Housing Privatization
    We also are continuing to explore the feasibility of applying PPV 
authorities to our barracks needs. There are unique considerations 
associated with bachelor housing, such as team building and unit 
cohesion that must influence how we go about barracks privatization. I 
have challenged the Navy and Marine Corps to develop bachelor housing 
privatization projects that we can bring forward to Congress.
                      impact of the bah initiative
    Although the BAH is outside of the infrastructure budget, it 
directly affects our ability to adequately house our Sailors, Marines 
and their families. As you know, BAH is a housing stipend paid to the 
military member. I strongly support the Secretary of Defense's 
initiative to increase BAH and eliminate median out-of-pocket expenses 
by fiscal year 2005. The fiscal year 2002 budget reduces this out-of-
pocket expense from 15 percent to 11.3 percent. The BAH increases will 
make housing more affordable for our members and their families, and 
reduce the inequity between those living in government quarters (no 
out-of-pocket expenses) and those living in the private sector. I also 
applaud Congress' action in granting eligibility to receive BAH while 
on sea duty, and extending the authorization to receive BAH to E-4 
members who are without dependents and assigned to sea duty. We have 
funded this extension of BAH in this budget submission.
    The Secretary of Defense's BAH initiative represents a major 
turning point in our efforts to improve living conditions for our 
single and married Sailors, Marines, and their families. It will 
directly affect almost three-quarters of Navy and Marine Corps families 
and approximately 27 percent of our single Sailors and Marines who live 
in private sector housing.
    In the short-term, the BAH increase will influence the dynamics of 
rental income streams for PPV projects, while also making private 
sector housing more affordable. Because this will eliminate the median 
out-of-pocket costs of private sector housing, we expect a reduction in 
the demand for military housing. We are working with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense to develop new methodology and criteria to 
determine family housing requirements that reflect the impact of the 
BAH initiative. Our objective is to strike the appropriate balance 
between reliance on the private sector and, where necessary, the 
provision of government quarters.
                         military construction
    Our military construction program continues our approach of 
budgeting for those projects that meet the highest priority of 
readiness and quality of life needs of the Fleet and Fleet Marine 
Force, and their Reserve Components. The Navy convenes a Shore 
Installations Programming Board and the Marine Corps convenes a MILCON 
Program Evaluation Group each year to consider, evaluate, and 
prioritize military construction projects. Projects are selected based 
on a number of different criteria, including fleet priorities and the 
most critical readiness, quality of life, and compliance needs.
    Military Construction policy, like Family Housing, focuses on first 
fixing what we own. To this end, 74 percent of the active and reserve 
military construction program for the Navy and 68 percent for the 
Marine Corps is dedicated to replacement and modernization projects.
Phased Funded Projects
    I should point out that four projects in our fiscal year 2002 
program have a total cost above $50 million, and under existing 
Department of Defense criteria, are phased funded over two or more 
years. We ask for full authorization for each project in the first 
year, and request appropriations in annual increments. We commonly 
resort to phase funding pier replacement projects because they are very 
expensive, and require a lengthy construction period. Many of our piers 
and wharves were built in the 1940s, and cannot support the deep draft, 
power intensive ships in the Fleet today. We must rebuild them to meet 
the needs of today and tomorrow. The fiscal year 2002 program includes:
  --$17.5 million for the final increment of a two-phased $53.2 million 
        repair pier at Naval Station San Diego, CA. Phase one was 
        funded in the fiscal year 2001 budget;
  --$24.5 million for the final increment of a two-phased $62.5 million 
        pier replacement at Naval Ship Yard Bremerton, Puget Sound, WA. 
        Phase one was funded in the fiscal year 2001 budget;
  --$37.6 million for the final increments of a three-phased $89 
        million Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, CINCPAC, 
        headquarters at Camp HM Smith, HI. Phase one was funded in the 
        fiscal year 2000 budget. Phase two was funded in the fiscal 
        year 2001 budget. This project includes a request for an 
        additional authorization for $3 million for emergent force 
        protection and other costs;
  --$28.1 million for the first of two increments for a $61.5 million 
        repair pier at Naval Station Norfolk, VA.
    Operational and Training Facilities Our construction program funds 
18 \3\ (14 Navy, 4 Marine Corps) operational facilities totaling $202 
million. Examples include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Includes the phased funded projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  --Operations Building/Control Tower at Naval Air Station Key West, 
        FL. This $11.4 million project replaces a severely deteriorated 
        1950s vintage operations building and it's connected control 
        tower that is operating under an aviation safety waiver because 
        it is located too close to the runway.
  --Helo Outlying Landing Field at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, 
        CA. This $3.9 million project provides a reinforced concrete 
        runway and support facilities that will relieve severe 
        overcrowding conditions and facilitate training evolutions.
    There are four (1 Navy, 3 Marine Corps) training projects totaling 
$49 million. Examples include:
  --Surface Warfare Officer School Applied Instruction Building at 
        Naval Station Newport, RI. This $15.3 million project will 
        provide a 3-story instruction building with expanded networking 
        capability, relieving an antiquated, overcrowded facility.
  --Academic Instruction Facility at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat 
        Center, Twentynine Palms, CA. This $9.9 million project will 
        provide modern computer science and communications training, 
        replacing overcrowded and poorly configured facilities.
Maintenance, Storage, and Compliance Facilities
    There are 23 (12 Navy, 11 Marine Corps) maintenance and storage 
projects totaling $185 million. Examples include:
  --Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at Naval Station, Norfolk VA. This 
        $11.3 million project, along with a similar $14.1 million 
        Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (Chambers Field), are the third and 
        the fourth of seven projects planned to replace nine old WW II 
        maintenance hangars designed for aircraft no longer used by the 
        Navy. The existing hangers have numerous electrical, fire, and 
        safety code violations and are very expensive to maintain.
  --Engineer Equipment Maintenance Shop at Camp Lejeune, NC. This $7.0 
        million project provides maintenance bays, wash racks, storage 
        space, and administrative space, replacing 4 existing but 
        inadequate facilities.
    There are three (1 Navy, 2 Marine Corps) environmental compliance 
projects totaling $22.3 million. One example is:
  --Raw Water Transmission Pipeline and Iron/Manganese Plant 
        Modification at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA. This 
        $11.2 million project is the first step towards eliminating 
        ``brown'' (iron/manganese) water being delivered in part of the 
        base's potable water distribution system. Camp Pendleton has 
        received compliance orders from the State of California to 
        correct the problem by 2006.
Utilities and Real Estate
    There are 10 (9 Navy, 1 Marine Corps) utility and real estate 
projects totaling $86 million. Examples include:
  --Waterfront Electrical Upgrade at Naval Station Norfolk, VA. This 
        $15.6 million project provides a 50 percent increase in pier 
        side electrical power consistent with a long-range regional 
        waterfront plan.
  --Land Acquisition at Marine Corps Air Station, AZ. This $8.7 million 
        project purchases 625 acres from numerous adjacent property 
        owners to eliminate two waivers for explosive safety violations 
        and minimize the impact of continued encroachment.
Quality of Life
    There are 22 (14 Navy, 8 Marine Corps) enlisted barracks projects 
totaling $449 million and 3 other Marine Corps quality of life projects 
totaling 31 million. Examples include:
  --BEQs at Naval Air Station, Lemoore, CA. This $10.0 million project 
        will provide 104 spaces to house E1-E4 personnel assigned to 
        the F/A-18E/F aircraft being introduced to Lemoore.
  --BEQs at Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA. This 
        $9.4 million project will provide 200 spaces for Marines 
        attending the Staff Non-Commissioned Officer Academy. Personnel 
        are currently housed in 1943 vintage buildings that are in 
        extreme disrepair, laden with asbestos, poorly heated, without 
        air-conditioning.
  --Indoor Physical Fitness Facility at Marine Corps Base Camp 
        Pendleton, CA. This $13.4 million project replaces two 1940's 
        era converted facilities that are undersized, overcrowded, 
        seismically deficient, poorly located, and functionally 
        inadequate.
Reserve Military Construction Projects
    The reserve military construction program includes 13 projects (1 
Navy, 2 Marine Corps) projects totaling $34 million. There are 4 
operational, 4 training, and 5 maintenance/storage projects. Examples 
include:
  --Hanger Fire Protection Upgrades at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve 
        Base, Willow Grove, PA. This $3.7 million project upgrades fire 
        protection systems in four existing buildings, in compliance 
        with the Clean Water Act.
  --Renovation and Site Improvement, Marine Corps Reserve Center Great 
        Lakes, IL. This $4.4 million project will renovate two existing 
        buildings, consolidating training, maintenance and storage 
        requirements.
                      base realignment and closure
    While I want to highlight our accomplishments in this program, I 
also want to put these past successes into context for the future. 
Funding for our base closure account has become a limiting factor on 
property conveyance and is impeding communities from turning these 
bases into economic engines for local redevelopment and job creation.
Realignment and Closure Status
    We are implementing four rounds of BRAC, 1988 under Public Law 100-
526 and 1991, 1993, and 1995 under Public Law 101-510. As a result of 
these decisions, we are implementing a total of 178 actions consisting 
of 46 major closures, 89 minor closures, and 43 realignments.
    We will complete closure and realignment of all bases by July 2001 
except two moves from leased space to government owned space. One 
remaining activity is the Naval Management Systems Support Office 
(NAVMASSO) Chesapeake, VA. The primary actions were completed in 
October 1997 when NAVMASSO was disestablished and reestablished as the 
Space and Naval Warfare Systems (SPAWAR) Center Chesapeake, an Echelon 
III command under SPAWAR. Relocation of this activity has been deferred 
until January 2002 due to construction and equipment installation 
delays of the joint use facility they will be moving into. The other 
remaining BRAC action will move the Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
(Research, Development, and Acquisition) and Chief of Naval Operations, 
Environmental Readiness Directorate offices from leased space in 
Crystal City into the Pentagon in April 2003.
BRAC 2002 budget
    The BRAC account has been buffeted by budget reductions from the 
Department of Defense to the Congress in the last few years, primarily 
due to the expectations that prior year unexpended balances could be 
used to fund current requirements. The Naval Audit Service has been 
reviewing task order documents across all commands with BRAC prior year 
unexpended funds, and will conclude their analysis in a few months.
    We have in the last 6 months undertaken a thorough examination of 
fiscal year 2002 BRAC total funding requirements by base, parcel, and 
site. We distinguished between ``must-fund'' and ``discretionary'' 
requirements. ``Must-funds'' requirements included:
  --Continuation of remedial action operation or long-term monitoring 
        for cleanup actions already underway;
  --Projects with specific regulatory milestones for work to be done in 
        fiscal year 2002;
  --Specific senior level commitments made to local redevelopment 
        authorities concerning property transfer;
  --Requirements to clean up imminent threats to human health or the 
        environment.
    Discretionary requirements included projects under regulatory 
agreements with milestones which we believed could be renegotiated, or 
which could be deferred, or were without specific cleanup milestones.
    I regret to report that because of competing budget needs, we were 
unable to fully fund our mandated BRAC funding requirement in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget and are not likely to find sufficient 
unexpended balances to make up the difference. I cannot predict if we 
will be able to substantially reduce, through negotiations with 
regulators, the amount of work specified in State and Federal cleanup 
agreements. We have, however, severely limited our flexibility to make 
good business decisions or take advantage of opportunities for early 
transfer of property. For example, the Mayor of Vallejo, CA recently 
asked us to fund an early transfer of a 3,000-acre parcel including 
dredge ponds at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard. The timing is 
right for this early transfer. The city needs the area for its own 
dredge spoil and to support the greater Bay Area dredging needs. We 
will work with the Congress, environmental regulators, and affected 
communities regarding this issue.
Environmental Cleanup
    Our focus is finishing environmental cleanup and completing 
property disposal. This is no easy task. We have already spent more 
than $1 billion through fiscal year 2000 on environmental work at our 
BRAC bases.
    One measure of our progress in cleanup of contaminated property is 
the number of acres that have become suitable for transfer under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) and the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act 
(CERFA). Today, 90 percent of the original BRAC acres are 
environmentally suitable for transfer or have already been transferred.
    There are about 1,000 contaminated sites at 53 BRAC installations. 
A contaminated site crosses the ``cleanup finish line'' when it 
achieves Remedy-in-Place/Response Complete (RIP/RC) and the 
environmental regulator subsequently concurs. As of the end of fiscal 
year 2000, we had achieved RIP/RC status at 64 percent of all BRAC 
sites. By the end of fiscal year 2001, we expect to have completed 
cleanup at 79 percent of all BRAC sites. Cleanup at the remaining sites 
will extend through fiscal year 2011, primarily due to lack of funding.
    We are using promising cleanup technologies and as studies reach 
completion, are finding that for a number of sites, monitored natural 
processes can control and reduce the contaminants to safe levels. We 
continue to work with regulators and communities to tie cleanup 
standards to realistic reuse needs. We use a BRAC Cost-to-Complete 
(CTC) index as a measure of our efforts to reduce cleanup costs. At the 
beginning of fiscal year 1996, our BRAC CTC estimate was $2.8 billion. 
At the end of fiscal year 2000, it was $1.16 billion. The CTC reduction 
of $1.64 billion is the result of execution of $1.24 billion in 
appropriated funds and $400 million in cost avoidance, such as changes 
in risk based approaches to cleanup, new information on the nature and 
extent of contamination, and use of new technologies for study or 
cleanup.
Section 334 Early Transfer
    Section 334 of the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act 
established a framework for the DOD to initiate an early transfer of 
contaminated property to the community. This authority allows DOD to 
defer the CERCLA requirement that all remediation actions have been 
taken before the date of property transfer. It does not, however, 
relieve us from full compliance with CERCLA.
    We had previously completed two such transfers: the former Fleet 
Industrial and Supply Center Oakland, CA was conveyed to the Port of 
Oakland in June 1999; the former Naval Air Station Memphis, TN was 
conveyed to the Municipality of Millington in December 1999. The FISC 
Oakland transfer was unique in that the Port Authority incorporated the 
cleanup with its own new construction and accepted the property at the 
same time. This strategy is one we hope all communities consider. We 
have completed four additional early transfers.
  --The former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Alameda Annex, CA was 
        conveyed to the City of Alameda in July 2000, twenty months 
        earlier than planned. This conveyance transferred 147 acres 
        that will be used for new housing.
  --Fifty-one acres of the former Naval Training Center San Diego, CA 
        was conveyed to the San Diego Unified Port District in February 
        for support of airport operations. This conveyance included an 
        Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement for $3.7 million, 
        which requires the Port Authority to conduct the required 
        environmental remediation. This work will be done concurrent 
        with airport projects at a savings of $3.4 million and four 
        months ahead of schedule.
  --The former Naval Air Station, Guam, consisting of approximately 
        1,800 acres, was transferred to the Guam Aviation Authority in 
        September 2000, twelve months earlier than planned. This 
        conveyance also included an Environmental Services Cooperative 
        Agreement for $10 million. This agreement allows the Government 
        of Guam to improve the Island's water distribution system while 
        satisfying Navy's requirements for remediation of the ground 
        water.
  --The fourth early transfer consisted of several parcels of property, 
        approximately 1,500 acres, located on Guam to the local 
        government. This transfer occurred in April 2001 six months 
        earlier than planned.
Property Disposal
    The Navy must dispose of 583 parcels of land covering 163 thousand 
acres at 90 BRAC bases. Each BRAC base has a disposal strategy tailored 
to Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) reuse plans, environmental 
cleanup timetables, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
documentation, conveyance plans, and schedules.
    Through the end of fiscal year 2000, we had conveyed through 
economic development conveyances, negotiated sales, public sales, or 
Public Benefit Transfer over 62,500 acres and the total is over 67,000 
today.
                                 energy
    This year has been a challenge for the Navy as far as energy supply 
and costs. Due to limited supply of electricity and natural gas in the 
Western United States, many installations have faced increased costs to 
operate the base. The average price has increased 8 percent per 
megawatt hour of electricity and 18 percent for cubic foot of natural 
gas between fiscal years 1999 to 2000. The Department has taken 
aggressive actions to reduce usage, invest in energy saving projects, 
and procure electricity on long-term contracts. These actions will 
assist in providing energy price stability over the next several years. 
So far the supply problems in California have not adversely effected 
military operations.
  --Energy Efficiency.--Executive Order 13123 requires federal agencies 
        to reduce energy consumption 30 percent by fiscal year 2005 and 
        35 percent by fiscal year 2010, using fiscal year 1985 as the 
        baseline. To meet the fiscal year 2005 goal, we must cut 
        consumption at a rate of 1.5 percent per year, and then at a 
        rate of 1 percent per year from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal 
        year 2010. I am pleased to report that we have exceeded that 
        benchmark with a cumulative reduction of 25.8 percent through 
        fiscal year 2000. We are using a variety of efficiency 
        technologies and energy awareness programs, combined with 
        internal and third party financing available through Demand-
        side Management and Energy Savings Performance Contracts to 
        reduce energy consumption to meet these goals.
  --Privatization of Utilities.--Defense Reform Initiative Directive 49 
        directed the Services to privatize all their natural gas, 
        water, wastewater and electrical systems except where 
        uneconomical or where the systems are needed for unique 
        security reasons. This is expected to reduce costs while 
        providing quality utility services. The Department of the Navy 
        has a total of 908 systems at 122 activities worldwide. There 
        are three key Department of Defense milestones: a determination 
        by 30 September 2000 of which utility systems to try to 
        privatize; issue all Requests for Proposals by 30 September 
        2001; and award all contracts by 30 September 2003. We are 
        making good progress on this effort. The first to be privatized 
        was Refuse Derived Fuel Power Plant at Naval Shipyard Norfolk, 
        VA in July 1999.
                 fiscal year 2002 legislative proposals
    There are a number of legislative proposals accompanying the 
budget. I would like to highlight a few of them and ask your support.
  --Use of gift funds.--This proposal would enable the Department of 
        Defense to use gift funds, as well as family housing operations 
        and maintenance funds, to support the maintenance and repair of 
        family housing.
  --Increase the minor construction threshold.--Increase the threshold 
        from $500,000 to $750,000 for general projects and from 
        $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 for life safety projects. This would 
        allow the execution of construction projects that would 
        otherwise have to await MILCON funds and possibly incur a two 
        or three year delay.
  --Reimburse EPA for certain costs in connection with Hooper Sands 
        site in South Berwick, Maine.--This proposal would reimburse 
        $1.0 million to EPA for final costs they incurred for cleanup 
        of contamination in accordance with a recent agreement between 
        EPA and the Department of the Navy.
  --Increase Davis-Bacon and Service Contract Acts Threshold.--This 
        proposal would increase the threshold from $2,000/$2,500 to the 
        ``simplified acquisition threshold,'' which is currently 
        $100,000. This would provide greater flexibility in purchasing 
        small, short-term construction and service requirements.
                               conclusion
    In conclusion, I believe the DON infrastructure program is in a 
strong position as we begin the new millennium. We have robust military 
construction and family housing construction programs that are focused 
on fixing what we own. We are showing real progress on PPV housing 
projects. We are proceeding with numerous promising initiatives to make 
our infrastructure more responsive and less costly. Although we are 
making progress in cleanup and property disposal from previous rounds 
of BRAC, current funding levels are inadequate to fund our legal 
requirements or take advantage of promising early transfer 
opportunities.
    That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support that this 
Committee and its Staff has given us in the past, and I look forward to 
continued close cooperation through the remainder of the 
Administration.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I would like to acknowledge 
the presence of the ranking member, the Senator from Texas, 
Senator Hutchison. Welcome. Do you have a statement?
    Senator Hutchison. I don't. I have read the testimony and I 
want to listen and ask questions.
    Senator Feinstein. All right. And I would also like to 
acknowledge the presence of the senator from Louisiana, Senator 
Landrieu.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not have an 
opening statement, and because I am interested in the 
representations of the panel I do have a couple of questions at 
the appropriate time.
    Senator Feinstein. Fine. I thought what we would do, if it 
is agreeable with both members, is just proceed and give all 
the testimony at one time and then we can be relaxed and ask 
some questions. Admiral Johnson, perhaps we will go to you 
next.
    Admiral Johnson. Madam Chairman, I have no statement, no 
verbal statement.
    Senator Feinstein. All right. Then perhaps I will begin 
with my questions. Yesterday, Dr. Zackheim testified before 
this committee that the Navy's BRAC must-pay shortfall in 
fiscal year 2002 has been revised and that the revised total is 
$63.3 million instead of $92 million. Do you agree with that 
recalculation? And if not, what is your estimate of the 
shortfall?
    Mr. Holaday. We believe that the base number is $92 
million, as we have said in our testimony. We are continuing to 
take a hard look at that number to see if there are projects 
that could be deferred or delayed until fiscal year 2003. That 
$92 million includes projects that are legal requirements that 
involve life, health and safety issues and involve commitments 
that we have made to communities.
    In my view, the commitments that we have made to the 
communities are just as important as requirements laid on us by 
the regulators. So, we are using that $92 million as our 
baseline figure. Although we continue to look at it and examine 
it to see if we can lower it, that is our starting point.
    Senator Feinstein. Is it true that you've identified $30 
million in prior year unexpended BRAC monies that you intend to 
apply to this shortfall?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, we have identified $30 million in prior 
year BRAC savings, some of that money we have already used to 
meet a commitment we have made to the community of Vallejo-
Mare-Island to help fund an early transfer agreement there.
    Senator Feinstein. That's $11 million immediately?
    Mr. Holaday Yes, Madam. The balance of money will be 
available immediately to help us meet the shortfall.
    Senator Feinstein. So, that is $73 million.
    Mr. Holaday. $11 million would have been on top of the $92 
million.
    Senator Feinstein. Oh, $11 million on top of the $92 
million. But you stand by the 92-must-pay figure.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, ma'am. At this time, as I have said, we 
are beginning to look at it to see if we can make adjustments 
in it.
    Senator Feinstein. So, this then does not affect the $46 
million must-pay bill for Hunter's Point.
    Mr. Holaday. The $46 million is included in the $92 million 
as part of the shortfall.
    Senator Feinstein. So, you still consider that a must-pay 
bill.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am. We are looking at that. There may 
be an opportunity for us to defer some of those costs. Our 
commitment at Hunter's Point is to fully meet the regulatory 
requirements and do the clean up as we have agreed to with the 
community.
    Senator Feinstein. As I spoke with Dr. Zackheim yesterday, 
would the Navy put out an RFP for bids for Hunter's Point? I 
think they allocated $110 million, $120 million on that bid and 
they got no bids back? Do I understand that you are prepared to 
put that RFP out again?
    Mr. Holaday. The RFP that we put on the street had no cost 
cap in it. It was a fixed price contract. We had two proposers 
that came back and submitted their technical qualifications to 
us. It was a two-step bid. They submitted an original proposal. 
When we asked them for price quotes, both proposers decided to 
withdraw from the process. They said that the proposal to do a 
fixed price contract was not proper given the uncertainties of 
the clean up that needed to be done. The Department already has 
a contractor in place that is working to clean up the property. 
We tend to keep on pace with the contractor we have in place.
    Senator Feinstein. So, you are not putting out another RFP?
    Mr. Holaday. No ma'am. We are not. Admiral Johnson is 
responsible for executing that contract. He may have something 
to add.
    Senator Feinstein. How are you going to execute the 
contract?
    Admiral Johnson. The contract that Secretary Holaday 
referred to has no proposers on it. We do have a contract in 
place that is a cost-plus award feature that we have utilized 
in a number of other areas has a lot of capacity in your area 
and we are using that contract vehicle to maintain pace and 
continue cleaning up the parcels at Hunter's Point.
    Senator Feinstein. But would it be possible for us to get 
in writing your commitment to this base in terms of clean up 
and the amount of funds that you will expend to accomplish that 
clean up?
    Mr. Holaday. Certainly.
    Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that very much.
    [The information follows:]

    The Department of the Navy would like to assure the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Construction that Navy is committed to 
complying with the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Agreement 
concerning the conveyance and cleanup of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, 
executed between the Navy and the City of San Francisco on November 2, 
2000. The Navy is committed to securing the funds necessary to 
accomplish the work currently identified. Should additional assessment 
or remediation be required due to new discoveries of contamination, 
Navy will seek additional funding in the next budget cycle.

    Senator Feinstein. What do you anticipate your BRAC funding 
needs to be in 2003, and what steps are you taking now to 
ensure that you will not face another shortfall next year? And 
part of that question is also, do you think you can accommodate 
the shortfall in the 2002 budget?
    Mr. Holaday. Let me answer the last part of that question 
if I may. We are doing our best to identify first, the actual 
nature of the shortfall in 2002 whether it is $92 million or a 
little bit more or less. We are also taking a hard look to see 
if we can find other unexpended balances other than the $30 
million that we have already discussed to help us meet the 
shortfall of 2002. And we are also examining other 
opportunities that might be available to us to be able to meet 
the shortfall.
    As regards to 2003, it is too early for me to be able to 
say what our requirements are for 2003. We are right in the 
middle of the budget process--the beginning of the budget 
process for fiscal year 2003. We have not identified a hard 
number yet. Rather than give you a wrong number or guess, I 
would prefer to defer that question if I may. The one 
commitment that I can make to you is that we are going to make 
sure in fiscal year 2003 and in future years that we fully meet 
all of our commitments, all of our requirements, so we don't 
have this same problem again.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I would like to ask 
a question about Vieques and the impact of the departure of the 
Navy from Vieques in 2003, as yesterday we learned would be the 
case, and how that would impact on associated naval facilities 
in the area of Puerto Rico? Has the Navy developed a plan to 
address the operational changes that will occur in Puerto Rico? 
Will facilities there be reduced? And how has the military 
construction plan for Puerto Rico changed because of this 
relocation to take place in 2003?
    Mr. Holaday. The Department has not yet made a 
determination on what additional facilities--excuse me, what 
facilities might remain after we withdraw from Vieques. Both 
the Commandant, the CNO and the Secretary have said that we are 
going to take a hard look at our requirements within Puerto 
Rico for military facilities after we leave Vieques. But we 
have not yet done that. We have a study that is just beginning 
with the Center for Naval Analysis that is looking for 
alternative training sites so that we are going to be able to 
properly train our Marines and sailors and be sure that they 
are able to go on deployment at the readiness state that is 
necessary for them to meet that commitment. That study is just 
begun and it is too early for me to comment.
    Senator Feinstein. Before I turn to the ranking member, Mr. 
Secretary, as I said to the Army yesterday, could you provide 
to the committee the list of the unfunded priorities for the 
Navy and the Marine Corps ranked in priority order?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, ma'am.
    [The information follows:]

    The list of unfunded priorities for the Navy and Marine Corps 
ranked in priority order are provided in the attached spreadsheets.




    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Senator Hutchison.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you Madam Chairman. In talking 
about the BRAC expenditures and the shortfalls, I didn't see in 
your testimony anything about the BRAC savings. And we are 
still in the process of trying to close bases from four BRACs. 
We are being asked to consider another one, but I am still 
skeptical about the savings that might be derived from a BRAC. 
And I would like to know if you can quantify the savings that 
we are reaping from any of the BRACs from the Navy or Marine 
standpoint.
    Mr. Holaday. The numbers as I recall them are that we have 
spent approximately $10 billion to execute the first four 
rounds of BRAC--BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. By about the 
year 2000, we have begun accruing savings, and we had saved 
that $10 billion roughly by that time by the year 2000. And now 
we are accruing savings at about the rate of $2.5 billion a 
year as a result of those first four rounds of BRAC. Those 
savings are a combination of real dollar savings and cost 
avoidances--money that we don't have to spend on facilities 
that we no longer have.
    It is very hard. None of those savings have a serial number 
or barcode on them so I can't tell you where exactly the money 
went within in the Defense budget but I do know that those are 
the figures that we calculated and that have been verified by 
GAO audit.
    Senator Hutchison. In your accounting, do you not account 
for BRAC savings and BRAC expenditures in one place so that 
there wouldn't be a shortfall in the expenses, so that they 
could be offset with savings.
    Mr. Holaday. No, ma'am, we did not.
    Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon. I didn't hear your 
answer.
    Mr. Holaday. No, ma'am, we did not account for them in a 
single place.
    Senator Hutchison. So, the BRAC savings go wherever you 
think that there is another priority? Or does it just go into 
the general Navy?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am. It goes into the general Navy 
accounts and is used within those accounts.
    Senator Hutchison. Within general accounts?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, to pay for things like shipbuilding or 
aviation or operations and maintenance. Again, as I say, there 
has been no specific attempt to identify exactly what funds 
were saved and exactly when those savings were expended.
    Senator Hutchison. It seems that if we do another BRAC, 
which I am not convinced the timing is right, but it seems that 
if we start getting savings, that taking the expenditures out 
of those savings might be a better accounting procedure. But we 
can look at that if we ever do another BRAC proposal.
    Senator Feinstein. I'm glad you said ``if ''.
    Senator Hutchison. I visited one of the earliest private 
housing projects that the Navy did down in South Texas. And the 
apartments that were being built were wonderful, just a whole 
lot better than the on-base housing frankly. But there were 
questions about whether they would be built to last and whether 
they would take the wear and tear as well as on-base 
construction. I haven't been back since that visit a couple of 
years ago, and would just ask if you have another evidence to 
know yet if they are standing up well, and if they still are 
better than the on-base housing turns out to be.
    Mr. Holaday. I confess that it has been 2 years since I 
have been down to that particular project also, Senator.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, it could be any. You have several 
now. That was one of the first, but you do have several. Do you 
have any general Navy view?
    Mr. Holaday. Admiral, would you like to comment on that?
    Admiral Johnson. I knew that was coming my way.
    Senator Hutchison. Hopefully, you've been more current than 
we.
    Admiral Johnson. I have not been there for about 2 years 
myself. I was there on the Atlantic Fleet staff. However, the 
first two projects were under the 95 authorities, if I am not 
mistaken, which were limited partnerships both in Everett, 
Washington and Kingsville-Ingleside. Those were 10 year 
arrangements and they are on private property. So, you would 
probably have a different level of construction, like an 
apartment in town. With the 1996 authorities, six of our 
public-private ventures that we are now awarding, it is a 
totally different relationship. It is a 50 year arrangement. 
There is provisions within the project to create an operating 
escrow-like account. And you have the ability with the property 
management group to maintain it on an annual basis, as well as 
periodically do the restoration and modernization required at 
different pieces of time--roofs, major heating and ventilation 
and air conditioning systems and that sort of thing. So, we 
have provided provisions within the limited liability company 
and public-private ventures to ensure that the facilities are 
in fact maintained over those 50 years. And when they are 
turned back to the Department of Defense in fifty years, we in 
fact get an asset back that is in good shape.
    Senator Hutchison. That sounds like a good plan. I would 
like to know as you go, if there is evidence that that is 
working; to make sure that it is, does take the wear and tear.
    Mr. Holaday. I might add that in those two early projects, 
the provision was made to start selling off some of those 
condominiums and townhomes at the 5 year point, up in Everett. 
And the priority to first buy the homes are the sailors that 
happen to be living in those homes. So, there is some standard 
there if you go and think about home ownership and that sort of 
thing. That same provision is not in public-private ventures 
because of the longer term.
    Senator Hutchison. I asked this yesterday for the Army but 
I will ask you as well. Are you able to focus as much on 
schools where there are bases that have schools? And if you are 
doing off-base housing the impact aid that is necessary to keep 
our military impacted school districts sort of on an even keel 
so that they can offer that quality public education?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am. We look at the school requirements 
that are associated with these projects when we do our analysis 
of the needs in the community. Two locations that I know that 
we have made some accommodation are in San Diego and a proposal 
we have coming forward in New Orleans very shortly, where we 
have actually made land available to the community so that can 
build a school on the same property as the housing is going 
into. With regard to impact aid, as we reduce our deficit and 
build housing for members who are housed today on military 
bases, then what we see is an increase in aid that is going to 
the school because they get paid at a higher Federal rate 
rather than the lower rate.
    Senator Hutchison. Are you going to make sure that you do 
keep that part of your priority spending so that it doesn't get 
shifted to a less priority?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am. Of course the impact aid comes 
primarily from the Department of Education and what we seem to 
see is that in general the communities are either kept whole or 
in some cases--depending on how much housing is built that is 
new--receive higher levels of impact aid than they have in the 
past.
    Senator Hutchison. I think it is very important that you 
maintain the interest and that you stay in the driver's seat on 
where the impact aid should go.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. Senator Landrieu.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you Madam Chair. This is, I think, 
my first meeting of the subcommittee, so let me say please I am 
to be a part of this and much I look forward to working with 
you. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. I am delighted to have you as well.
    Senator Landrieu. And the ranking member and the other 
members because I think frankly in some ways this is really 
where the rubber hits the road in terms of our whole focus on 
trying to improve the readiness, the morale of our forces. And 
sometimes we concentrate, of course, on our long-range weapon 
systems and research and technology, which is of course very 
exciting and a very important part of our overall strategic 
development for the Nation. But some of just this bread and 
butter--these bread and butter issues--are kind of plain but 
absolutely necessary infrastructure in terms of housing and 
quality of life issues is really where I think more of our 
focus should be.
    And having worked with each individual member of this 
subcommittee in various different ways, I really think we all 
share this idea that as much as we can within the constraints 
of this budget recognizing that money doesn't grow on trees and 
we don't have ever as much as we usually need, but to try to 
allocate Madam Chair as much as possible to this area. Because 
I think sometimes it really is overlooked in the larger scheme 
of things but it is critically important. For instance, I think 
Mr. Holaday you said in your opening statement that with just 
the Air Force and the Navy that--I think your statement says--
is 67 percent of Navy and 53 percent of Marine Corps facilities 
were evaluated to have serious deficiencies. That is a very 
high percentage, I think, of facilities just there with the 
Marine Corps and the Navy. Now assuming that that is a broad 
variety of facilities but housing would be included in that, 
the lack of daycare, the lack of adequate transportation or 
infrastructure requirements.
    We have often said that we might recruit soldiers and 
sailors, but retain families. And when we talk about resigning 
people up and keeping them in for more than a few years, it 
really gets down to the quality of life in terms of their 
housing, like the Senator from Texas said--educational 
opportunities, appropriate health care and the general quality 
of life of these bases. Now I maybe, Madam Chair, do not have 
the exact figures, but I think the MILCON budget has gone up 5 
or 6 percent. Is that correct? With inflation figured in? Or is 
it that much? And operations and maintenance is flat? Could we 
just get for the record what it is so that we know?
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, ma'am, we can give you the changes in the 
Department of the Navy's Military Construction and Operations 
and Maintenance programs.
    [The information follows:]

    The fiscal year 2002 MILCON Budget is 11 percent higher than the 
fiscal year 2001 MILCON Enacted Budget. The fiscal year 2002 Real 
Property Maintenance Budget is 5 percent higher than the fiscal year 
2001 Enacted Budget.

    Senator Landrieu. And just for the record, I think it would 
be helpful for us to know the percentages of increase because 
(a) we have these BRAC savings that will hopefully be coming 
back in this way to upgrade across the board many of the things 
we are talking about. And we need to be able to see it relative 
to increases in other parts of the budget so that we can tell 
if we really are making the kind of progress we need.
    My second point or question--and I am glad it was brought 
up about the school opportunity in Bellechase--is two things. 
One, to thank you all for pushing forward on the pilot housing 
program in Bellechase, which I think is one of the first 
pilots, Madam Chair, in the Nation for housing, and it is 
indeed a tremendous improvement. And from what I am able to 
tell by visiting local officials there, families themselves, 
the developers who in this case happen to be Louisiana 
contractors which is terrific because I kind of think in all of 
our States our local contractors are very able to do a lot of 
this work. And they of course won this bid that it is a so much 
of an improvement over what was there. And in addition, the new 
sort of creative way that you all have entered into a 
partnership to create what is essentially going to be a charter 
school--basically a military charter school and partnership 
between the base and the local school system. I think it is not 
only a benefit to the men and women serving there but in the 
general community, so it really is a win-win situation. I want 
to commend you on that.
    But let me ask, if I could finally because I don't want to 
exceed my time, can anybody give me an update in terms of the 
area of daycare and childcare, in terms of facilities and what 
percentage of the budget is either made available? Because as 
these young families get started off and our men and women are 
sent, deployed more frequently and sometimes for longer periods 
of time, I think the issue of quality child care is essential. 
And I just don't hear enough of that, and I didn't see anything 
in the testimony but maybe I missed it.
    Mr. Holaday. I would like to get back to you with a full 
response on that healthcare issue. I do know that we have at 
least one construction project--I believe it's in the Marine 
Corps this year--for a childcare center. I don't believe there 
are any Navy construction projects this year for childcare 
centers, but we do take it seriously. We like to make sure that 
family members are able to take care of their children and if 
you would give me the opportunity, I would like to come back.
    Senator Landrieu. I would be very interested and I think 
the other members of the committee would be too to see what 
percentage of our construction budget and our maintenance 
budget goes to provide opportunities for childcare. Because in 
the general population it is a great need, and I would have no 
doubt the same factors are present within our military 
families. And in some ways, you could almost argue more 
stressful situations when one parent is away for a long period 
of time. So, not only having regular daycare, but emergency 
daycare and sometimes 24 hour emergency operations are 
important for families struggling. One parent, they are alone 
for much of the time. So, those would be some of my concerns.
    But finally I want to work with you in every way I can 
because we do need to improve the quality of life for many 
reasons and this budget can do a lot of that. And I for one 
would like to work with you very closely.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, ma'am, we will get that information back 
to you. I would also like to say that we have a very active and 
very successful program of providing childcare within homes, 
where one service member will be able to provide childcare 
within their home for families that are away.
    [The information follows:]

    In the fiscal year 2002 MILCON Budget we propose a new Child 
Development Center at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South 
Carolina ($6,060K). This is 0.5 percent of the fiscal year 2002 MILCON 
Budget submission.

    Senator Landrieu. Yes, I am aware of that and I think that 
is a very creative approach also.
    Mr. Holaday. That has to be kept in context of how we take 
care of this problem within our services.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. Senator Craig.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

    Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, I have a statement I would 
like put in the record.
    Senator Feinstein. As so ordered.
    [The statement follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Senator Larry E. Craig

    Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to be here for the Navy panel 
which includes Duncan Holaday, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the 
Asst. Sec. of the Navy and representatives from the Navy's active duty 
and reserve component, and the Air Force panel which includes Jimmie 
Dishner, Deputy Asst. Sec. of the Air Force (installations), and 
representatives from the Air Forces active duty, reserve and Air 
National Guard.
    I'm glad to see that the fiscal year 2002 DOD amended budget puts 
people first by including strong measures to improve morale, 
recruiting, and retention. A key element of that commitment is to 
upgrade DOD's aging infrastructure. As we are all aware, the 
infrastructure of our nations military installations has deteriorated 
to the point of concern for our military's operational readiness. It is 
important that we reverse the trend of infrastructure deterioration and 
work hard to provide a quality work environment that improves our 
service members efficiency and effectiveness, eliminates impediments to 
mission accomplishment, and fosters recruitment and retention.
    But, it's not just the work environment which is essential to 
retention and readiness. I also believe that while we recruit 
individuals our goal should be to retain families. I was very pleased 
to see that the President's amended budget includes $4.1 billion for 
military family housing (MFH)--up from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 
2001. It intensifies efforts to improve the quality of military housing 
and accelerate the elimination of substandard housing.
    In addition to this, the budget includes the President's $400 
million blueprint initiative to improve housing for military people and 
their families: $107 million in military construction for barracks and 
$293 million for family housing. Implementation of the initiative 
emphasizes privatization in order to deliver better housing more 
quickly. I understand that recent OSD policy dictated that 80 percent 
of these funds be used for ``privatization''.
    But, not all military installations qualify for MFH privatization, 
and quite often it is at these installations that there is no 
acceptable alternative housing in the local area for lower ranking 
enlisted personnel. This places a tremendous burden on military members 
and their families, especially enlisted personnel who have very limited 
resources. For example, at Mountain Home AFB, ID it was determined that 
privatization was not economically feasible. The majority of housing on 
base is substandard. The housing in the community of Mountain Home is 
limited. The only other alternative is to commute from Boise, ID which 
is almost two hours away.
    To address the issue of replacing or improving substandard MFH, the 
military services have put together master plans that prioritize MFH by 
putting the worst housing first. This is a balanced approach that 
treats conventional and privatized MFH equally. In making policy 
decisions on MFH, we must ensure that the privatization initiative does 
not take out of priority order conventional on base housing and leave 
installations that don't qualify for privatization, have substandard on 
base MFH, and limited alternative housing off base without funding to 
make improvements. We must make sure that the worst gets taken care of 
first and not simply give projects priority that get more housing for 
less money. The good news is that the overall military construction 
budget includes a total of $5.9 billion--up from $5.3 billion in fiscal 
year 2001. It was especially important that this included funding 
increases for the National Guard and Reserve in recognition of the 
vital role the reserve components plays in the U.S. Defense posture.
    The budget also puts a priority on the construction or renovation 
of barracks, medical treatment facilities, schools, and physical 
fitness centers. Unfortunately, because of the reduced support facility 
requirements of the National Guard and Reserve installations, they 
don't necessarily benefit from these kinds of quality of life 
initiatives. I recommend that in future prioritization, that greater 
emphasis be given to the fact that for the guard and reserve a quality 
workplace improves their quality of life.
    I applaud the DOD's efforts to increase funding in order to meet 
current needs, and for beginning a long-range plan to streamline, 
restructure, and upgrade DOD facilities. I understand that the 
administration hopes the ``efficient facilities initiative (EFI)'' will 
achieve a 25 percent reduction in DOD facilities, and ultimately save 
$3.5 billion annually. As a Member of Congress, I look forward to 
reviewing the proposed EFI and providing input.
    I am grateful that the proposed increase in the military 
construction fiscal year 2002 budget demonstrates a commitment to our 
nations military members and their families. I look forward to your 
testimony as we develop a budget that recognizes the immeasurable 
contributions our military members have made to this great country.
    As a fiscal conservative, I believe it's critical to have a 
balanced federal budget. In the long run, a balanced budget will serve 
all Americans, including our military. But, I also know that along with 
this commitment to a balanced budget, comes the responsibility to 
ensure our government provides a quality work and living environment 
for our military members and their families.
    In closing, Mr. Chairman, there is no way to over emphasize the 
honor and respect this nation owes the military men and women who 
sacrifice so much. I look forward to working with the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and service chiefs who continue to 
contribute to the long-range vision for the DOD.

    Senator Craig. I am pleased to see these gentleman here. I 
am pleased to see these increases in budget and on the human 
side of a very important defense equation. With that I have no 
questions of these gentlemen.
    Senator Feinstein. Just for the record, the MILCON budget 
is increased from $8.8 billion to $10 billion. That is a 14 
percent increase over fiscal year 2001.
    Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I would just like to recap, 
this $92 million must-pay for the Navy. And just for the 
record, that includes Hunter's Point--$46.1 million, Marine 
Corps Air Station El Toro--$12.3 million, Naval Air Station 
Alameda--$12.2 million, Naval Shipyard Long Beach--$2.6 
million, Naval Air Station Moffitt--$4.8 million, and Naval 
Station Treasure Island--$4.8 million. And then on top of that, 
on top of the $92 million, there is $11 million for Mare 
Island. Is that correct?
    Mr. Holaday. Ma'am, I believe there is another $5.8 million 
project for Barber's Point. That is part of that $92 million.
    Senator Feinstein. Good for you. Thank you.
    Mr. Holaday. And I believe that the $11 million for Mare 
Island is above that. But as I said earlier, we already agreed 
to go ahead and proceed with that.
    Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask about the Guam 
facility, Admiral Blair's number one priority if I might. And 
that is the $9.4 million for the repair facility of Guam. My 
understanding is that it is for the advanced placement of 
nuclear submarines and their repair. Is that correct?
    Admiral Johnson. Yes, Madam Chairman, there is a submarine 
tender that is in Guam not all the time. As they look at 
positioning additional submarines, this would provide some 
additional waterfront maintenance shops, some storage and 
utilities and essentially some facilities that when the tender 
is not there, those facilities would substitute for the tender 
to a degree, to take care of the submarines that might be in 
homeport at that time.
    Senator Feinstein. Somehow that number three or four 
submarines, nuclear subs, can be ported there. Is that correct?
    Admiral Johnson. I am not exactly sure if the decision has 
been made on the total number. I would like to take that for 
the record. Three is the number that sticks in my mind as well, 
but being civil engineer as opposed to a submarine engineer, I 
would like to take that for the record.
    Senator Feinstein. Because the amount was based on that, 
was my understanding. Anyone like to add to that?
    Mr. Holaday. If we could come back to you on that. I think 
three is right, but we would just like to verify that.
    [The information follows:]

    Three submarines are planned.

    Senator Feinstein. Could you accelerate the clean up at 
Hunter's Point in 2002 with additional funding in the budget, 
Secretary Holaday? Or do you believe you have enough, as much 
as you can use?
    Mr. Holaday. If we count the unfunded requirement also, I 
think we have about $9 million in the funded portion in the 
budget for Hunter's Point. We could certainly spend an 
additional $25 to $30 million there without any problem, if we 
were to receive it.
    Senator Feinstein. And you could do it in the fiscal year.
    Mr. Holaday. Fiscal year 2002, yes.
    Senator Feinstein. $29 or 30 million.
    Mr. Holaday. $25 million to $30 million.
    Senator Feinstein. $25 million to $30 million. Okay. 
Senator Hutchison, did you have any additional questions?
    Senator Hutchison. I did. I just had one more question. Has 
the Navy made an estimate of what its excess facilities are 
that would be part of a BRAC realignment.
    Mr. Holaday. No, ma'am, we have not. Neither the Navy nor 
the Marine Corps.
    Senator Feinstein. Could I just clear this up? Are you 
saying that of the $46 million for Hunter's Point, you can only 
spend $25 million or $30 million?
    Mr. Holaday. We know that we can spend in the 
neighborhood--over and above the $9 million that is in the base 
budget--we know we can spend, because I asked an execution 
question just the other day, we can spend around $30 million 
more than the $9 million which is in the budget. I am taking a 
hard look at the $46 million figure, which another $16 million 
on top of that $30 million I just mentioned, to see if it is 
required in 2002 or if we can defer part of that to 2003 and 
still meet the commitment that we have to do the clean up 
standards, and to the commitment we made to the community.
    Senator Feinstein. As you understand, you have not met the 
clean up standards.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. And I want you to know, I am very 
concerned about it.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes ma'am, so are we.
    Senator Feinstein. I will trust that you will make this a 
priority, so the untoward things that have happened out there 
will cease.
    Mr. Holaday. Yes, ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 
I take you at your word.
    Mr. Holaday. You asked me to give that to you in writing 
earlier, so I believe you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. If no further questions--if 
any of the panel has a comment they would like to make, if not 
then we will proceed with the next panel. Thank you very much 
gentlemen.
                      Department of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF JIMMY G. DISHNER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 
            SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR 
            INSTALLATIONS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        MAJOR GENERAL EARNEST O. ROBBINS, II, HQ USAF, CIVIL ENGINEER, 
            DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS
        BRIGADIER GENERAL PAUL S. KIMMEL, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIR 
            NATIONAL GUARD
        BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT E. DUIGNAN, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF, AIR 
            FORCE RESERVE
    Senator Feinstein. The Subcommittee on Military 
Construction will now continue with testimony of 
representatives from the Air Force, the Air National Guard and 
the Air Force Reserve. I am very pleased to welcome Mr. Jimmy 
Dishner, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations; Major General Earnest Robbins, the Air Force 
Civil Engineer; Brigadier General Paul Kimmel of the Air 
National Guard; and Brigadier General Robert E. Duignan from 
the Air Force Reserve. I would also note that General Weaver of 
the Air National Guard had planned to attend the hearing, but 
had a last minute meeting with the Secretary of the Air Force. 
But we are very pleased to welcome General Kimmel in his stead.
    Mr. Secretary, once again, because of the time, I 
understand you are the only one that is going to be making a 
statement, so feel free if you wish to give it or put it in the 
record and summarize your comments, however you wish to 
proceed.
    Mr. Dishner. I will summarize my comments if I may, Madam 
Chairman.
    Senator Feinstein. Fine.

                     STATEMENT OF JIMMY G. DISHNER

    Mr. Dishner. I appreciate the opportunity as all the 
generals with me to appear before you and present the 
Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2002 Military 
Construction (MILCON) Program. Our Total Force MILCON and 
Military Family Housing programs play a vital role supporting 
the Air Force operational needs, work place productivity and 
quality of life. Two of the top four issues, improving the 
workplace environment and providing better housing, rely on the 
success of our MILCON and Military Family Housing programs. For 
several years reduced funding for our facilities has led to a 
steady deterioration in Air Force infrastructure. The good news 
is that our fiscal year 2002 Total Force MILCON budget request 
is double what it was last year and stands at over $1.2 
billion. With this fiscal year 2002 budget and the investment 
levels projected through the Future Years Defense Program, we 
will reduce our recapitalization rate in fiscal year 2002, 
still far below our desired rate of 57 to 67 years, but this is 
clearly a step in the right direction.
    We must continue to balance funding among the priorities of 
people, readiness, modernization, and infrastructure. Increases 
in the overall defense budget this year will help meet the most 
pressing Air Force needs. Although we continue to operate and 
support the world's premier aerospace force, we cannot correct 
overnight the negative impact reduced funding has had on our 
infrastructure.
    For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting a program of $2.7 
billion for our Total Force MILCON, Military Family Housing and 
Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI). This request is 
comprised of $1.1 billion for traditional Active MILCON, $1.4 
billion for Military Family Housing, $149.1 million for Air 
National Guard traditional MILCON and $53.7 million for Air 
Force Reserve traditional MILCON. These Air Force programs were 
developed using a facility investment strategy with the 
following objectives: (1) accommodate new missions, (2) invest 
in quality of life improvements, (3) continue environmental 
leadership, (4) sustain, restore and modernize our 
infrastructure, (5) optimize use of public and private 
resources, and (6) Continue our demolition programs.
    Madam Chairman, the Air Force clearly could not maintain 
the quality of our facilities and the advantages they provide 
without the strong support we have always received from this 
committee and for that we are most grateful. Madam Chairman, I 
would like to thank this committee for your support of Air 
Force and DOD former BRACs that we now refer to as EFI 
programs. Your help on legislation and funding has been 
instrumental in allowing communities such as the former Lowry 
Air Force Base in Colorado to expedite their redevelopment 
efforts. This is a win-win for the local communities and the 
Department of Defense.
    The Air Force completed its final closure and realignment 
actions on July 13th, 2001, as required by the statute and is 
requesting the funding that is required to fulfill its 
environmental clean up responsibilities, protect and care for 
the properties until their eventual transfer to other owners. 
The Air Force remains committed to timely environmental 
restoration that is protective of human health at our closure 
bases and is asking for the funds necessary to continue that 
process to a successful conclusion.
    Madam Chairman, I would like to make one final comment on 
base closure. We cannot overemphasize how the reduction in Air 
Force manpower and force structure have outpaced those in 
infrastructure. Only additional base closure rounds can correct 
this imbalance. We cannot afford to continue spending our 
scarce resources on unneeded infrastructure.

                           Prepared Statement

    In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for 
its strong support of Air Force Military Construction and 
Family Housing. With your help, we will make sure to meet the 
most urgent needs of commanders in the field while providing 
quality facilities for the men and women who serve in and are 
the backbone of the most respected aerospace force in the 
world. We stand ready to answer any questions you may have. We 
are very happy to be here, ma'am.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Jimmy G. Dishner

                              introduction
    Madame Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and present the 
Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2002 military construction 
program. Today, I will share with the committee our investment 
strategies for facilities, housing, utility systems, and environmental 
programs.
                                overview
    Our Total Force MILCON and Military Family Housing programs play a 
vital role supporting Air Force operational needs, work place 
productivity and Quality of Life. Admiral David Jeremiah (U.S. Navy, 
retired) acknowledged this fact in the recent Special Department of 
Defense report on Morale and Quality of Life. Two of the top four 
issues, improving the workplace environment and providing better 
housing, rely on the success of our MILCON and Military Family Housing 
programs.
    For several years reduced funding for our facilities has led to a 
steady deterioration in Air Force infrastructure. The good news is that 
our fiscal year 2002 Total Force MILCON budget request is double what 
it was last year and stands at over $1.2 billion. With this fiscal year 
2002 budget and the investment levels projected through the Future 
Years Defense Program, we will reduce our recapitalization rate from 
its present 250-plus years to about a 165-year recapitalization rate in 
fiscal year 2002, still far below our desired rate of recapitalization, 
but this is clearly a step in the right direction.
    However, even with additional MILCON funding in fiscal year 2002, 
the Air Force infrastructure challenges remain the same. We must 
continue to balance funding among the priorities of people, readiness, 
modernization, and infrastructure. Increases in the overall defense 
budget this year will help meet the most pressing Air Force needs. 
However, previous underfunding of military construction and operation 
and maintenance required us to develop ``work-arounds,'' which impacted 
the Air Force's combat capability, operational efficiency, and quality 
of workplace environment. Although we continue to operate and support 
the world's premier aerospace force, we cannot correct overnight the 
negative impact reduced funding has had on our infrastructure.
    For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting a program of $2.7 billion 
for our total force MILCON, Military Family Housing and BRAC. This 
request is comprised of $1.1 billion for traditional Active MILCON, 
$1.4 billion for Military Family Housing, $149.1 million for Air 
National Guard traditional MILCON and $53.7 million for Air Force 
Reserve traditional MILCON. These Air Force programs were developed 
using a facility investment strategy with the following objectives:
  --Accommodate new missions
  --Invest in Quality of Life improvements
  --Continue environmental leadership
  --Sustain, Restore and Modernize our Infrastructure
  --Optimize use of public and private resources, and
  --Continue our demolition programs
    Madame Chairman, the Air Force clearly could not maintain the 
quality of our facilities and the advantages they provide without the 
strong support we have always received from this committee and for that 
we are most grateful. With this background, I would like to discuss our 
military construction budget request for fiscal year 2002.
                        accommodate new missions
    New weapon systems will provide the rapid, precise, global 
capability that enables our combat commanders to respond quickly to 
conflicts in support of national security objectives. Our fiscal year 
2002 new mission MILCON program consists of 32 projects, totaling $283 
million. We have made assumptions about the shape of our force in the 
future; if the upcoming QDR makes significant shifts in million we will 
adjust our construction program accordingly.
    These projects support a number of weapon system beddowns; two 
worthy of mention are the F-22 fighter, and the C-17 airlifter. The F-
22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air superiority fighter. 
The location for the F-22 flight-training program is Tyndall Air Force 
Base, Florida with Langley Air Force Base, Virginia serving as the 
first operational base. The fiscal year 2002 MILCON includes two F-22 
projects at Tyndall totaling $15 million and three F-22 projects at 
Langley totaling $39 million.
    The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is replacing our fleet of C-141 
Starlifters. The C-17 provides rapid global mobility by combining the 
C-141 air speed and long-range transport capabilities; the C-5 
capability to carry outsized cargo, and the C-130 capability to land 
directly on short, forward-located airstrips. To support this program, 
our request includes a $5 million facility at McChord Air Force Base, 
Washington, two Air National Guard projects for $22.2M at Jackson 
International Airport, Mississippi, and five projects for $36.5M at 
McGuire AFB, New Jersey.
    Other new mission requirements in fiscal year 2002 include three C-
130J projects at: Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, Keesler AFB 
Mississippi (RES) and Quonset, Rhode Island (ANG); the Space Based 
Infrared Radar System (SBIRS) at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado; 
and a Telescopic/Atmosphere Compensation Lab at Kirtland Air Force 
Base, New Mexico.
                       invest in quality of life
    The Air Force is committed to taking care of our people and their 
families. Quality of life initiatives acknowledge the increasing 
sacrifices our airmen make in support of the nation and are pivotal to 
recruiting and retaining our best. When our members deploy, they want 
to know that their families are stable, safe and secure. Their welfare 
is a critical factor to our overall combat readiness, and our family 
housing program, dormitory program, and other quality of life 
initiatives reflect our commitment to provide them the facilities they 
deserve.
    Our Air Force Family Housing Master Plan provides the road map for 
our Housing MILCON, O&M, and privatization efforts to meet the 
Department of Defense goal of providing safe, affordable and adequate 
housing for our members by 2010. In this regard, I would like to 
express my appreciation to the President for his support of our efforts 
to improve the quality of our housing and the additional funding he has 
provided.
    The $518 million fiscal year 2002 MFH replacement and improvement 
program will replace more than 700 worn-out units at 8 separate 
locations, improve more than 2,100 units at 15 locations, and supports 
privatization of more than 10,000 units at 12 locations. I'll discuss 
our housing privatization program in more detail in a few minutes. Our 
fiscal year 2002 housing operations & maintenance program totals $869 
million.
    Just as we are committed to provide adequate housing for families, 
we have an ambitious program to house our single junior enlisted 
personnel. The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan is a comprehensive, 
requirements-based plan, which identifies the projected unaccompanied 
enlisted housing requirement and prioritizes MILCON project 
requirements. The plan includes a three-phased dormitory investment 
strategy. The three phases are: (1) Fund the replacement or conversion 
of all permanent party central latrine dormitories; (2) construct new 
facilities to eliminate the deficit of dormitory rooms; and (3) convert 
or replace existing dormitories at the end of their useful life using 
the Department of Defense 1+1 room standard. Phase 1 is complete, and 
we are now concentrating on the final two phases of the investment 
strategy. Our total requirement is 75,200 Air Force dormitory rooms. We 
currently have a deficit of 11,400 rooms and the existing inventory 
includes 5,300 inadequate rooms. The remaining cost to execute the Air 
Force Dormitory Master Plan and achieve the fiscal year 2009 Air Force 
goal to buy out our deficit and replace our worst existing dormitories 
is just over $1 billion.
    The fiscal year 2002 dormitory program consists of 13 enlisted 
dormitory projects, with 8 projects at 7 CONUS installations, and 5 
projects overseas, for a total of $157 million. On behalf of all the 
airmen affected by this important quality of life initiative, I want to 
thank the committee. We could never have made it this far without your 
tremendous support of our Dormitory modernization program.
    Other traditional quality of life investments include community 
facilities such as fitness centers and child development centers, vital 
in our efforts to attract and retain high quality people and their 
families. A strong sense of community is an important element of the 
Air Force way of life, and these facilities are important to that sense 
of community as well as to the physical and psychological well being of 
our airmen. The fiscal year 2002 MILCON program includes fitness 
centers at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, Laughlin AFB, Texas, Kunsan AB, 
Korea, Mildenhall AB, United Kingdom, and Buckley AFB, CO.
    Overseas quality of life continues to be a priority to us. Even 
though the majority of our Air Force personnel are assigned in the 
United States, 21 percent of our forces are serving overseas. The Air 
Force overseas base structure has stabilized after years of closures 
and force structure realignments. Now, old and progressively 
deteriorating infrastructure at these bases requires increased 
investment. Our fiscal year 2002 MILCON program for our European and 
Pacific installations totals $273 million totaling 26 projects. The 
program consists of a variety of quality of life and infrastructure 
projects in Korea, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Turkey as 
well as critical facilities on Guam, Wake Island, and Greenland. We ask 
for your support of these operational and quality of life projects.
    Rounding out the MILCON fiscal year 2002 request are the planning & 
design and unspecified minor construction requirements. Our request for 
fiscal year 2002 planning and design is $87 million. These funds are 
required to accomplish the design for current mission projects added as 
a result of the amended budget for the fiscal year 2002 program, 
complete design of the fiscal year 2003 construction program, and to 
start design of our fiscal year 2004 projects. We have requested $21 
million in fiscal year 2002 for our total force unspecified minor 
construction program, which is our primary means of funding small, 
unforeseen projects that cannot wait for normal MILCON.
                   continue environmental leadership
    The Air Force continues to enhance mission capability and sustain 
the public trust through prudent environmental stewardship. We are 
meeting our environmental cleanup commitments and Department of Defense 
Planning Guidance goals through effective outreach and partnering with 
Federal and State regulators and team building with stakeholders and 
communities. Meeting our legal obligations remains a primary objective 
of the Air Force Environmental Quality program. Our record of 
environmental stewardship illustrates our environmental ethic, both 
here in the United States and overseas. In addition to ensuring our 
operations comply with all environmental regulations and laws, we are 
dedicated to enhancing our already open relationships with both the 
regulatory community and the neighborhoods around our installations. We 
continue to seek partnerships with local regulatory and commercial 
sector counterparts to share ideas and create an atmosphere of better 
understanding and trust. By focusing on our principles of enhancing 
operational readiness, being a good neighbor, and leveraging our 
resources, we remain a leader in environmental compliance, cleanup, and 
pollution prevention. We have reduced our open enforcement actions from 
263 in fiscal year 1992 to just 10 at the end of fiscal year 2000.
    Our environmental compliance MILCON program in fiscal year 2002 
includes three projects totaling $10.2 million in support of the Clean 
Water Act. Our program includes restoring the environment, and 
constructing or modifying two fire-training facilities to meet 
environmental requirements. These fire-training facilities are located 
at Robins AFB, Georgia and Andrews AFB, Maryland. In addition, we are 
upgrading the wastewater system at Eareckson AS, Alaska. All of these 
projects satisfy DOD Class-1 requirements, which refer to conditions or 
facilities currently out of compliance with environmental laws or 
regulations, including those subject to a compliance agreement, or 
refer to projects and activities which, if not corrected, will result 
in an out of compliance situation in the current program year.
           sustain, restore and modernize our infrastructure
    To sustain, restore and modernize what we own we need to achieve a 
balance between our military construction and operation and maintenance 
programs. Military construction allows us to restore and recapitalize 
our antiquated facilities while operation and maintenance (O&M) funding 
allows us to perform needed sustainment, restoration and modernization 
throughout the life cycle of a facility. Since the early nineties, 
constrained defense budgets resulted in reduced MILCON funding. For a 
few years adequate O&M funding partially offset this MILCON decline. 
However, since fiscal year 1997, competing priorities have forced the 
Air Force to cut sharply into both MILCON and O&M funding. Our effort 
to sustain and operate what we own is further strained by minimally 
funded O&M, which forces us to defer much-needed sustainment and 
restoration requirements. Currently, our sustainment, restoration and 
modernization (SRM) share of the Air Force O&M funding is only at $1.6 
billion. This is short of the $1.7 billion sustainment level, which is 
the minimum funding required to provide only the day-to-day maintenance 
and life cycle repairs necessary during the planned life of a facility. 
There is no funding for any Restoration and Modernization work, to fix 
things such as deteriorated water lines or failed airfield pavements. 
Our O&M funded restoration and modernization backlog now exceeds $5.6 
billion. We appreciate Congressional support in this area which has 
helped us recently in improving many of those facilities where we eat, 
sleep, play, and pray--fixing numerous dining halls, dormitories, 
fitness centers, and chapels. Without that congressional support, those 
facility enhancements could not have occurred.
              optimize use of public and private resources
    In order for the Air Force to accelerate the rate at which we 
revitalize our inadequate housing inventory, we have taken a measured 
approach to housing privatization. We started with a few select 
projects, looking for some successes and ``lessons learned'' to guide 
our follow-on initiatives. Since awarding our first housing 
privatization project, at Lackland AFB, Texas in August of 1998, 321 of 
the 420 housing units are constructed and occupied by military 
families. The remaining 99 units are scheduled for completion this 
November. We have awarded three more projects that will result in 670 
privatized housing units at Robins AFB, Georgia, 402 units at Dyess 
AFB, Texas and 828 units at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. We are working with 
the City of San Angelo on an unsolicited proposal to privatize 298 
housing units at Goodfellow AFB, Texas. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, is in 
the middle of its housing privatization solicitation process, which 
potentially will privatize 1,164 housing units. Additionally, we have 
two more projects that will be out for solicitation shortly at Wright-
Patterson AFB, Ohio and Patrick AFB, Florida. Our fiscal year 2002 
Military Family Housing Construction program includes 12 privatization 
projects for over 10,000 units at a cost of $135M vice $868M had we 
relied on traditional housing MILCON. This year's privatization 
projects are at Beale (1,444 units), Nellis (1,313), Andrews (115), 
McGuire (1,882), Lackland (564), Altus (978), Hickam (1,356), Hurlburt 
(330), Buckley (201), Langley (1,268), Elmendorf (624), and Barksdale 
(432). We're realizing, on average, a five to one leverage on our 
MILCON investment for housing privatization and we see this kind of 
favorable ratio holding steady or perhaps even increasing on other 
projects in the out-years.
    Our housing privatization initiatives are making great strides in 
the right direction. We firmly believe that through housing 
privatization we can provide improved housing to more airmen in less 
time than using the standard military construction process.
    We continue to aggressively pursue privatization of utility systems 
at Air Force installations. Our goal is to privatize utility systems 
where it makes economic sense and does not unduly impact national 
security. The Air Force has identified 434 of our 645 systems as 
potential privatization candidates. We have released requests for 
proposals for 178 systems and have completed the process on 75 systems. 
The Air Force is working diligently to ensure we meet the goals 
established by the Department of Defense to privatize eligible utility 
systems by 2003.
                      continue demolition programs
    In an effort to reduce infrastructure, the Air Force plans to 
demolish or dispose of, non-housing building space that is no longer 
economical to sustain or restore. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal 
year 2000, we demolished 14 million-square feet of non-housing building 
space. This is equivalent to demolishing six Air Force bases equal to 
the combined square footage of Whiteman, Goodfellow, Moody, Brooks, 
Vance, and Pope Air Force Bases. Air Force demolition efforts continue 
to be a success story enabling us to reduce the strain on our 
infrastructure funding by getting rid of facilities we don't need. We 
support OSD's request for authority to conduct additional rounds of 
base closure, which would allow us to realign our forces for better 
efficiency and accelerate the disposal of unneeded infrastructure and 
facilities.
                          base closure account
    First, let me thank this committee for your support of the Air 
Force and DOD BRAC programs. Your help on legislation and funding has 
been instrumental in allowing communities, such as the former Lowry 
AFB, Colorado, to expedite their redevelopment efforts. This is a win-
win for the local communities and the Department of Defense.
    The Air Force completed its final closure and realignment actions 
by July 13th, 2001, as required by the statute and is requesting the 
funding required to fulfill its environmental cleanup responsibilities, 
protect and care for the properties until their eventual transfer to 
other owners. The Air Force remains committed to timely environmental 
restoration that is protective of human health at our closure bases and 
is asking for the funds necessary to continue that process to a 
successful conclusion.
    We intend to apply our many lessons learned to future base 
conversions should the Congress authorize additional rounds of 
closures.
    Madame Chairman, I would like to make one final comment on BRAC. We 
cannot overemphasize how the reductions in Air Force manpower and force 
structure have outpaced those in infrastructure. We have reduced force 
structure by 36 percent, but even with four rounds of BRAC, 
infrastructure continues to exceed our requirements. Only additional 
base closures rounds can correct this imbalance. We cannot afford to 
continue spending our scarce resources on unneeded infrastructure.
    Additional base closure authority will provide a vehicle for 
properly sizing our infrastructure to our force structure and allow us 
to reallocate critical funds to force modernization, readiness and 
quality of life issues. To support this effort, the Secretary of 
Defense has requested, and the Air Force supports, additional base 
closures authority. Madame Chairman, we would appreciate this 
committee's consideration and support for the additional infrastructure 
reduction authority.
    In conclusion, Madame Chairman, I thank the committee for its 
strong support of Air Force military construction and family housing. 
With your help, we will ensure we meet the most urgent needs of 
commanders in the field while providing quality facilities for the men 
and women who serve in and are the backbone of the most respected 
aerospace force in the world. I will be happy to address any questions.

                         Warren Air force Base

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Dishner. I 
understand you are the only one who is making a statement. I 
have two specific questions before I get to my usual 
remediation questions, one on the Peacekeeper missile base 
closure and the implications, and the other on Global Hawk. Let 
me begin with Peacekeeper. The Defense Department is seeking 
permission from Congress to scrap its inventory of Peacekeeper 
missiles. Those are stationed at Warren Air Force Base in 
Wyoming. And my question is, what impact would the retirement 
of these missiles have on the future? The reason I ask this is 
because the President's 2002 budget includes two MILCON 
projects for Warren: $10.2 million for a fitness center and 
$2.7 million for a medical clinic alteration. So, my question, 
should those projects go forward in view of the retirement of 
the Peacekeeper?
    Mr. Dishner. Yes, I think the answer is positive, but 
General Robbins?

                             Fitness Center

    General Robbins. The fitness center is the only one I can 
address because the medical MILCON is separate apportion issue 
now. The fitness center projects are sized based on the number 
of enlisted personnel at a given installation.
    Senator Feinstein. And what will that number be when 
Peacekeeper is retired?
    General Robbins. And they are in a range. The number I was 
given, that if in fact they were to eliminate the Peacekeeper 
or retire it, over time it will reduce the enlisted population 
at F.E. Warren by around 600 people, could impact by about 600. 
If we take that number out of the baseline that is already 
stationed at F.E. Warren, the size of the fitness center 
remains the same as the one we got in the program. So, the 
fitness center would stay the same.
    Senator Feinstein. And how many people are stationed at 
Warren?
    General Robbins. Let me get the number, ma'am. Let's see. 
Right now there are almost 3200.
    Senator Feinstein. Minus 600.
    General Robbins. Minus 600 will take it down to about 2600.
    Senator Feinstein. And you need $10.2 million for a fitness 
center?
    General Robbins. Yes.

                       Vandenberg Air Force Base

    Senator Feinstein. Pretty good fitness center. The budget 
also includes $11.8 million for Vandenberg to construct a 
missile transport bridge. According to the project description, 
the bridge is used for transporting Minuteman and Peacekeeper 
missile. Again, would a decision to retire the Peacekeeper have 
any impact on the need for this project?
    General Robbins. That also would remain a requirement. That 
road is the only road between the north and south portions of 
the base. As you noted, it transports both Peacekeeper and 
Minuteman missiles for test firing, and so the elimination of 
one of those systems would not matter.
    Senator Feinstein. Is this an improvement of the existing 
road?
    General Robbins. It is replacement of an existing bridge.
    Senator Feinstein. So it's a new road.
    General Robbins. Bridge.
    Senator Feinstein. Bridge. I beg your pardon. As a 
replacement for an existing bridge?
    General Robbins. That's correct.
    Senator Feinstein. And the existing bridge cannot be fixed?
    General Robbins. Correct.
    Senator Feinstein. Why?
    General Robbins. I'll have to get you the engineering 
assessment on it.
    Senator Feinstein. Would you please? I would appreciate 
that very much.
    [The information follows:]
                             Vandenberg AFB
    The existing bridge is sound; however, the length and the height of 
the bridge are insufficient to span the water when it routinely rises 
to flood levels. Every rainy season, the creek rises and covers the 
existing bridge and road in this particular low-lying area of land. The 
flood-waters remain high for months after a flood thus closing the road 
and impeding direct access to the missile sites. (see attached photo)
    San Antonio Creek is actively adjusting its profile and geometry 
and its channel flow has changed considerably since the bridge was 
originally constructed, thus reducing the height of the bridge above 
the channel bed. A feasibility study for this project was jointly 
prepared in 1998 by Aspen Environmental Group, Agoura Hills, California 
and Simons, Li & Associates, Costa Mesa, California. The engineering 
analysis concluded that a new bridge, spanning the entire flood area, 
would be the best long-term solution to reduce environmental effects 
and maintain missile transport access without using public roads.
    The attached photograph clearly shows the ``lay of the land'', 
condition of the road (bridge included) and the need to have a new 
bridge built that will span this entire area at an elevation similar to 
that depicted from camera level. 


                              Global Hawk

    Senator Feinstein. On Global Hawk, if I may, the Air Force 
announced last week that Beale will be the first Global Hawk 
operating base. As a result, eighteen Global Hawks will be 
phased at Beale. I understand that first aircraft and personnel 
will arrive in 2002 and 2003. I see the administration has 
requested no funding for Beale in the 2002 budget. Can you tell 
me what the overall MILCON impact at Beale will be as a result? 
And what the impact will be in 2003?
    General Robbins. I know in the 2002, the initial bed down 
of Global Hawk has no MILCON requirement with it. I will have 
to look at it.
    Senator Feinstein. So, despite the fact that you are 
putting Global Hawk there, you need no additional funds.
    General Robbins. Correct. For 2002, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Feinstein. I see. And for 2003?
    General Robbins. We are looking at that right now to see if 
anything in the 2003 in the remainder of the out years if we 
wouldn't require something.
    Senator Feinstein. So, there is no plus-up for air craft of 
personnel?
    General Robbins. Not in MILCON.
    Mr. Dishner. Not in the Military Construction account. No, 
ma'am.

                        McClellan Air Force Base

    Senator Feinstein. And now if I could quickly go to the 
most difficult issue which is the BRAC issue. And Congress 
provided $9 million in the recently enacted supplemental bill 
for BRAC compliance at McClellan. I realize that the plutonium 
clean up at McClellan could last several years and at a high 
cost. The figure we have for clean up is indeed very high. I 
believe it is something like $450 million for total clean up.
    Mr. Dishner. $498 million, but that is more than just the 
plutonium. That's the entire clean up.
    Senator Feinstein. That's the entire projected over how 
many years, sir?
    Mr. Dishner. That is until fiscal year 2034.
    Senator Feinstein. Fiscal year 2034?
    Mr. Dishner. Yes ma'am.
    Senator Feinstein. The base will not be cleaned up until 
2034.
    Mr. Dishner. Yes ma'am. That's correct. That is the 
projection so far.
    Senator Feinstein. Thirty-four years?
    Mr. Dishner. It's a National Priorities Listing (NPL) site. 
It is the only one that we have. It takes a great deal. You 
just can't do it all in 1 year. There is just no way you could 
go in and do it. And the plutonium only added to that. Although 
we've taken as you know the plutonium--I know Madam Chair, you 
know--that we took the plutonium away and shipped that off, 
just vials, to MIT. But it was the earth that the plutonium 
vials were in that we need $38.4 million just to clean that up.
    Senator Feinstein. Well, Mr. Dishner, if I might just say 
this. Thirty-four years is probably 30 years too long. There is 
a very active base closure and reuse committee as you know. It 
is one of the really sterling efforts, and not to complete the 
clean up of environmental degradation for another 34 years is 
really unacceptable.
    Senator Hutchison. Is that because of the life of the 
elements?
    Mr. Dishner. Well, again, it is not all the plutonium. But 
a lot of the treatments that we put in are, as an example, are 
pump and treat, where we come in there and pump out the bad 
liquids that are in the ground waters, treat those and put them 
back in. Physically you get to a point where you just can't 
pump that much at one time and have those going on. It would 
look like, if the Navy were here, San Diego with all their oil 
pumpers going up and down. It would take the very use of the 
land away. The Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) concurred 
totally with your observation of that LRA is able to use and 
work the property even while we are cleaning it up. So, the 
properties that we are----
    Senator Feinstein. Some tainted.
    Mr. Dishner. Yes ma'am. Some tainted, but absolutely not 
all of it. But they are able to use that, even while we are 
cleaning it up.
    Senator Feinstein. I would like to ask you to tell us what 
it would take to half that number. Now the Air Force is a can-
do operation. What would it take to half that number from 1934 
to, say, 2016?
    Mr. Dishner. I will provide that to you, Madam Chairman.
    [The information follows:]
                             McClellan AFB
    All cleanup remedies at the former McClellan AFB are scheduled to 
be in place by 2015. The 2034 date is the projected regulatory approval 
for site close out of the ground water cleanup. We have accelerated the 
cleanup schedule based on finding a technical solution to cleaning up 
hot spots (areas with contamination greater than 100 times the 
permissible Federal Maximum Contaminant Level).
    These activities do not prevent the reuse of McClellan, and reuse 
is progressing at an impressive rate. In fact, at this point 
approximately 2,600 acres of the base are in reuse through leases in 
furtherance of conveyance or interim leases to Sacramento County, the 
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). The current work force at 
McClellan now includes over 4,000 people.

                      Base Realignment and Closure

    Senator Feinstein. I understand that McClellan funding was 
another BRAC request that the Air Force submitted in the 
supplemental and that about $33 million for five other BRAC 
projects was not included in the President's supplemental 
funding. Let me tell you those five are Lowry Air Force Base in 
Denver--$5 million, Homestead in Florida--$3.5 million, 
Chanute, Illinois--$9 million, Griffith, New York--$10.2 
million and Plattsburg, New York--$5.5 million. Are those 
projects fully funded in your fiscal year 2002 budget request?
    Mr. Dishner. The majority of them are but we are still 
short, Madam Chairman, some $42 million, the total request we 
had made against which we also requested $9 million.
    Senator Feinstein. You said you are still short $42 
million. Does that cover those five projects that I just read 
off?
    Mr. Dishner. It covers those five and some others.
    Senator Feinstein. And what would those others be?
    Mr. Dishner. I don't have that right with me.
    Senator Feinstein. Will you get us that? In other words, 
what the $42 million package would be.
    Mr. Dishner. Yes, ma'am.
    [The information follows:]
                      Base Realignment and Closure
    In my statement I approximated a $42 million shortfall in fiscal 
year 2002. The Air Force Base Conversion Agency has determined the 
program has an actual fiscal year 2002 shortfall of $55 million as 
provided to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This shortfall 
consists of the following projects:
California--$28.6 million
    McClellan AFB--$23.6 million.--Required to complete time critical 
actions for the CS-10 plutonium site in accordance with a signed action 
memorandum. Additionally, funds are required to support groundwater 
characterizations for protection of drinking water supplies.
    Mather AFB--$2.6 million.--Required to complete installation of 
groundwater cleanup system in accordance with signed Record Of Decision 
(ROD). Signed ROD is a legal commitment on behalf of the Air Force in 
order to mitigate known risks to human health and the environment.
    Norton AFB--$2.4 million.--Required to initiate dioxin contaminated 
soil cleanup. Air Force contaminated soil has been detected on adjacent 
property. Cleanup is required for protection of sensitive ecological 
environments to meet cleanup standards and allow deed transfer of 
property.
Colorado--$6.0 million
    Lowry AFB--$6.0 million.--Required to maintain pace with LRA (Local 
Redevelopment Authority) reuse. Interim actions are needed to contain 
and cleanup contaminated groundwater.
Florida--$1.0 million
    Homestead AFB--$1.0 million.--Required to mitigate potential 
resource injury and meet legal requirements associated with signed ROD 
which addresses contamination that flows into Biscayne Bay. EPA 
signature is pending additional negotiations. If natural resource 
injury is assessed, AF will be subject to paying damages. Additional 
funds are required to accomplish design and complete remedy.
New York--$15.4 million
    Griffiss AFB--$15.4 million.--Required to meet outstanding legal 
requirement associated with a signed ROD. Further, the Ocuto protest 
over local contracting preference was resolved and therefore funding is 
required to meet legal obligations. Funds will support landfill caps 
and soil treatment.
Texas--$4.0 million
    Kelly AFB--$4.0 million.--Required to implement cleanup remedies in 
accordance with State approved corrective measure studies. These 
actions are required within 180 days of approval and will implement 
soil and groundwater treatments necessary for reuse and mitigation of 
known risks.

                         Castle Air Force Base

    Senator Feinstein. May I ask about one other base? And then 
I would like to go to Senator Hutchison. And that is Castle Air 
Force Base where the cost is estimated at $110 million. What is 
the timeline on that? And what is the budgeting on it?
    Mr. Dishner. The budgeting for 2002 is $11 million and that 
is included totally in the 2002 budget, Madam Chairman. Beyond 
2002, I would have to get that for you for the record.
    Senator Feinstein. If you would
    Mr. Dishner. That is fully funded in this request that we 
have.
    [The information follows:]
                               Castle AFB
    The environmental cost-to-complete estimate for the former Castle 
Air Force Base is $110 million through fiscal year 2044. For the 
current budget cycle, we have budgeted the following:

        Fiscal year                                              Million
2002..........................................................   $11.028
2003..........................................................     2.490

    The remainder of the cost to complete will be spread across fiscal 
year 2004-fiscal year 2044 to support system operation and long term 
monitoring for an average cost of about $2.4 million per year.

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

                             Overseas Bases

    Senator Hutchison. Thank you Madam Chairman. I have been 
concerned about the BRAC, looking at the American bases before 
we know what our troop strength is, what our new strategy is 
going to be. And I am very concerned that we are not looking at 
what we are doing on our foreign bases and determining where we 
have training constraints and whether it is necessary for us to 
be at the strength now in every place that we are located 
overseas.
    So your budget has an increase of almost $100 million for 
overseas basis and MILCON, one-quarter of your active duty 
construction program. Are you looking at what can be done to 
make your overseas bases most efficient? What would be the 
long-term needs for your deployments overseas? And do you think 
you have enough information to be adding this much MILCON 
before we have the QDR back from Secretary Rumsfeld?
    Mr. Dishner. I will let General Robbins, but let me start 
out with it. We certainly need to continue to look at forces 
worldwide to reduce those in concert with what are the number 
of bases and bed down of those forces if they were to return to 
the continental United States. And the Quadrennial Defense 
Review (QDR) and other studies would address that. The needs 
that we have submitted in the 2002, continues--and thank you 
for the laudatory comment about the Air Force. Not that the 
Navy and Army doesn't do that, but the people who need to take 
care of and worry about a little bit more than everyone else 
are the people on the tip of the spear. Those are the people in 
Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) and United States Air Forces in 
Europe (USAFE) that need the facilities, etcetera, to not only 
fight the war but to live the quality of life. So, that is why 
you are seeing those in there.
    If there are adjustments to be made in that, those things 
will come out. But I don't think the Air Force would ever be in 
a position where pending a subsequent study we would hold back 
and not go out for request to be able to put in for those items 
that are just sorely for men and women, especially in USAFE.
    General Robbins. I echo what Mr. Dishner said. I would also 
suggest, as he said in his opening statement, the MILCON 
priorities are based on an integrated priority list. And as you 
have acknowledged in previous years, our MILCON budget has 
woefully deficient when we sent it over here. Those minimal 
MILCON budgets did not allow us to reach out and fix many of 
things that needed to be addressed overseas, in particular. So, 
the amended budget did add, basically doubled our program and 
allowed us to do things we had to defer in the past because we 
had insufficient funding in the budget.
    I believe that Secretary DuBois testified yesterday 
regarding how we have in fact looked at our program. Certainly 
QDR is not done, but in the case of the projects we have in 
here for Korea for example--they are at Osan and Kunsan--both 
of which fit the bill of enduring installations on the Korean 
peninsula since they were the only two Air Force bases 
remaining in Korea. Similarly in USAFE in Europe, the projects 
that we've got in there predominately at Ramstein and 
Spangdahlem are the only two bases we have left in Germany. So, 
we feel that any investment there is certainly going to fall in 
line with the strategic basing studies that Unified Command 
(UCOM) is putting together.

                      Consolidating Bases Overseas

    Senator Hutchison. Can you say that with regard to all of 
the foreign MILCON that you are requesting that you can be 
sure--or as sure as you can be in a changing world--but it is 
where the long term commitments are going to be? And even where 
you are consolidating bases overseas, would these be the ones 
that are enduring in this request?
    General Robbins. Yes, ma'am, you are right. With as much 
confidence as I can muster, which is a lot, and an example 
would Ramstein and Spangdahlem represent that kind of 
consolidation of forces in Germany. As you know, in the United 
Kingdom, we are down to just Lakenheath and Mildenhall. And so, 
we have housing projects, for example, at those two bases.
    So, one is a U.S. territory in Wake Island. You'll see a 
line in the budget for Wake Island where Admiral Blair and 
PACOM has come to the Air Force and said Wake Island fits very 
prominently in our long range plan for the Pacific. So, the Air 
Force is the proud owner of Wake Island and so we have 
incorporated a project to try to restore it because we invested 
nothing in Wake Island for the last 10 years. In this case, it 
is an airfield payments project.

                         Aviano Air Force Base

    Senator Hutchison. When you do a military construction 
project, such as Aviano, and then you are reimbursed by NATO, 
where does the money go that was put in by the United States 
for the military construction project when it is reimbursed?
    General Robbins. I think I know the answer, but we will 
have to answer it for the record. I think it goes into the 
Treasury, but I am not positive.
    Mr. Dishner. It does not come back to the Air Force. It 
does goes back to the Treasury.
    Senator Hutchison. It doesn't even come back to DOD? It's 
just general treasury?
    Mr. Dishner. Yes.
    Senator Hutchison. I would like to know that because if 
that is the case, it would seem that perhaps it should come 
back into the same fund to be used for other things.
    Mr. Dishner. It would be very helpful if it did that, 
ma'am.

                              German Bases

    Senator Hutchison. Just a last question. You mentioned, of 
course, Ramstein and Spangahlem being the two in Germany and 
you are closing down Rhein Main at Frankfurt. It is my 
understanding that Germany is paying $425 billion for 
relocation, military construction. Is that going to be a break 
even? Or is that going to be helpful in establishing new things 
in the two bases that are going to be remaining?
    General Robbins. In fact, break even is probably a good 
term for it in terms of what the negotiations result in with 
the terms. The agreement was the German government would pay to 
relocate functions in kind, if you will, from Rhein Main to 
either Ramstein or Spangahlem. They would not pay for any 
increase in footprint or increased capacity. So, there were 
some facilities where we knew we actually needed more space at 
Ramstein then we had at Rhein Main. So, we may pick up a share 
of the cost. But in fact it was a good exchange in terms of 
what the Germans were funding because a lot of things they were 
funding were old facilities--or that we left behind old and we 
are getting new at our two bases.
    Senator Hutchison. Okay, thank you Madam Chairman.

                         Housing Privatization

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you Senator. Senator Craig.
    Senator Craig. Thank you Madam Chairman. Secretary Dishner, 
because of the OSD's mandate at 80 percent of the blueprint 
initiative to improve housing for privatization, what part of 
military family housing projects were passed over in the Air 
Force Family Housing Master Plan?
    Mr. Dishner. I'll let General Robbins give specifics, but 
let me make sure the Air Force is clear on the 80 percent. That 
was a guide that was given because of the administration's push 
to say to make sure you are doing, are you putting 80 percent 
of the dollars that are being supplementally requested into the 
privatized housing. The project, the percentage you have--and 
do we have that General? The projects that would have been 
deferred----
    Senator Craig. As it relates to the 80 percent, what gets 
left out or substantially deferred?
    General Robbins. What gets substantially deferred would be 
three projects--not substantially deferred but deferred 
probably until 2003. We don't know yet. For about 360 units 
across the Air Force, in return we pick up 2525 units to be 
privatized.
    Senator Craig. Where would those 360 show up?
    General Robbins. They would show up at Keesler, Randolph 
and Mountain Home.
    Senator Craig. Well, you understand the direction of my 
questioning. I think since privatization is just beginning to 
be implemented, what are some of the lessons learned that are 
being considered when expanding the privatization initiative? 
We have tried this before, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Dishner. Let me start and General Robbins can chime in. 
As we gone through this, as you know in 1996 is when we began 
this. This effort that the Air Force really was behind 
promulgated during those days, and Congress was good enough to 
give us five years as a test. In the year 2000, we were able to 
convince Congress to extend that and they gave us another four 
years to continue--and they don't call it a test any longer, 
but it is just to continue because the returns have been quite 
substantial for the tax payer. On average for the projects we 
have done to date for the four signed there is something like 
an 8-to-1 return. For every dollar from the taxpayer, we get 
seven from the private sector. That's not bad.
    Some of the things we have looked at is where those should 
be. And we have been given a QDR year to try to meet of 2010, 
and other help--and I really mean it that way. Other help to 
say take advantage of where we have the opportunities to 
privatize houses. And Air Force Civil Engineering has been 
extremely adept at going in and evaluating where those bases we 
should privatize versus those that we can't. In those areas 
where they don't have enough houses on the market, etc., tends 
to sway that more for funding by the normal traditional method 
as compared to privatization.
    The four that I have signed--Lackland Air Force Base, San 
Antonio, Texas, Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, Dyess Air 
Force Base, Texas, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska--the high 
built of areas that really have a market there that draws and I 
think help the numbers. It is a simple cash flow calculation 
that is done. So, from all the things that privatization has 
done, the Air Force continues to look at it. In fact, we are 
now looking at the 2001 Master Family Housing Plan to see how 
we can continue to meet that.
    General Robbins. I have nothing to add.
    Senator Craig. I guess, what has been the Air Force's 
experience with respect to whether an installation is eligible 
for the Military Family Housing Privatization? I think you 
started into that, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Dishner. What is done, and it is in a way convoluted 
but in a way very simple calculation as to look at what is the 
values as you know in privatized housing. Privatized housing is 
the way the rest of us, normally those that are not of large 
means have to do, and they mortgage their houses. Not too many 
of us can afford to buy those for cash nor is that method using 
your money wisely. What privatization gives us then is, and 
what it is we look at, is what is the BAH stream of the people 
assigned. BAH is the Base Allowance for Housing. And that is 
based upon a geographical area and the rank that you have. That 
is putting against what are the houses there at the base today 
that are in probably two types of condition: recently 
reconfigured, which means their value would be higher, and 
those that need to be altered, need to be repaired.
    The Air Force, as you know, had some 85,000 houses when we 
first started this to try to get into that, and we have done 
quite well. We are heading toward 27, 200 to be exact through 
2004. So, you take the value of the houses that have been 
repaired, you look at the value and ask the local developers if 
they have land, or if we have land on the base that then has a 
value to it. But it is based upon the cash flow--a simplistic 
statement here--but the cash flow as based upon an essence of 
mortgage that would be obtained by the developer. She will 
borrow the money to build the houses, the number that we need 
based upon the requirements that we have given them, and then 
balance that and say does that make economic sense for us to do 
that.
    I know that in the ones that I have read that contractors 
have been privy to give me information on how well we are 
doing, is that it has been very financially well for them to 
do. I don't think to excess because they have been able to use 
when we transferred houses to them, which were already in good 
shape. They had a value and we added to that the Basic 
Allowance for Housing over a period--in the case of the four we 
did--50 years. That created a cash flow that made them go ahead 
and convince a lender to provide the funds to build new houses 
and/or to alter existing houses.
    So, it is a value calculation that is done every day in the 
private sector by the developers and we have land and we have 
existing homes to put into the equation, and then we have a 
cash flow that is added in from the individuals that would be 
assigned. And they take and in fact determine if that area or 
home or wherever it may be is qualified to have--would be able 
to handle privatized housing. It would be a developer that 
would be interested in providing that.
    Senator Craig. Well, you know philosophy says that the 
worst gets taken care of first and not simply prioritized 
projects based on more housing for less money. I guess the 
question is, not all installations qualify for privatization, 
and if some of their housing is 1950, needing a bit of 
remodeling, what happens?
    Mr. Dishner. We have scheduled projects both by MILCON and 
by O&M to repair those houses and we do repair. Per your 
comment there, that is exactly what we do as a guide. The worst 
houses we need to take care of first, sir, whether by MILCON, 
O&M or by privatization.
    Senator Craig. Well, obviously I am going to review this 
very closely. Privatization works in certain areas and doesn't 
work in others. I happened to have a base the Air Force keeps 
telling me is one of their premier bases that it doesn't work. 
And I don't necessarily want my people living in substandard 
housing. And right now it isn't working in this budget. It has 
gotten reprioritized based on the 80 percent factor and that is 
not satisfactory.
    I have toured that base on a regular basis. I have been in 
some of that housing, and it is substandard. And if we are 
talking about quality of life and retention, and we are. And we 
know the kind of investment we have put in the men and women 
who serve us in the Air Force, and what we expect from them and 
what they should expect from us. So, then if the formula 
doesn't fix, then maybe we ought to fix it and I may have to 
try to work with you to do so because it doesn't seem to be 
fitting at this moment. I think that is unacceptable. And I 
know that Mountain Home doesn't probably stand alone.
    But one of the problems we get into, if you are seeking 
quality air space and the kinds of circumstances that allow 
people to fly unrestricted or relatively unrestricted on your 
own schedules, and then the urbanized side of the equation that 
fits the privatization doesn't fit that because urbanized air 
space is in itself by definition a restricted air space in most 
instances. And I find that we are almost putting ourselves in a 
contradictory situation. We like those bases that have that 
unrestricted character to them, obviously optimizing flying 
time and the efficiencies of all we are trying to achieve. Yet 
the housing formula that talks about the quality of life by 
definition doesn't seem to fit in some of those instances 
because there is an absence of organization. And we will want 
to work to see if we can't resolve that sort of thing.

          Military Construction for Ballistic Missile Defense

    Mr. Secretary, what portion of the MILCON design funds is 
the Air Force getting for ballistic missile defense.
    General Robbins. Sir, as far as I know, none because BMDO 
has their own design and construction line in the budget.
    Senator Craig. The Air Force is not a player in that?
    Mr. Dishner. No, sir.
    Senator Craig. Well, gentleman, thank you very much, and 
Chairman I may have some additional questions for the record, 
but I do thank you.

                      MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE

    Mr. Dishner. Mr. Craig, may I say this, I was just at 
Mountain Home Monday and Tuesday of this week and viewed the 
houses there and the rest of the base and concur with your 
observations of unobstructive air space. It is wonderful, 
wonderful location. We will work with you.
    Senator Craig. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
    Senator Feinstein. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you 
if you would do this for the committee. If you would rank the 
Air Force projects in the 2002 budget in order of priority for 
you and if you would give us the total of the Air Force's 
unfunded priorities and also rank those, and I would really 
like the military input in this rather than the civilian input.
    Mr. Dishner. Yes ma'am.

                Air National Guard Military Construction

    Senator Feinstein. Thank you. General Kimmel, I have been 
told that the Air National Guard military construction backlog 
is $1.8 billion and your largest request in recent years is 
only $149 million. How are you ever going to reconcile that?
    General Kimmel. That is a great question. Facilities are 
the face of the Guard.
    Senator Feinstein. Could you pull the mike closer?
    General Kimmel. Sorry, facilities at the Guard unlike our 
active duty component, all of our facilities consist of where 
we work, given that our people live out in the economy. Our 
standard allotment, historical allotment is about $220 million. 
While it was our best PB, it is still well below standard. We 
have an RPM.
    Senator Feinstein. If I understand this, the budget from 
the President is $149 million but normally you go at about $220 
million.
    General Kimmel. The congressional adds and so on and so 
forth are normally at about $220 million, historically or the 
last 10 or 15 years. So, this would be less for us. If we were 
to correct our problems both in MILCON and RPM, we would have 
to execute upwards of about $250 million to $300 million a year 
in MILCON, and in the area of $150 million to $250 million a 
year in RPM to match the standard of the Air Force to 
reconfigure our bases and so on and so forth over a 6 to 7 year 
period.

                          Unfunded Priorities

    Senator Feinstein. Well, would you also give me a list of 
your unfunded priorities please ranked.
    General Kimmel. Yes ma'am.
    [The information follows:]
                        Unfunded Priorities List
    The list below is the 10 USC 10543 report provided to Congress each 
year when our annual President's Budget funding is less than 90 percent 
of the average authorization for the proceeding two years. This list 
shows unfunded requirements in addition to those shown in the Future 
Years Defense Program (FYDP) and can all be executed in fiscal year 
2002 if funds are made available.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Base/State/Project title                                    Cost

Reno, NV: Replace Communications and Security Forces Facility..... 8,400
Barnes, MA: Upgrade Support Facility.............................. 5,200
Tucson, AZ: Composite Support Complex............................. 8,400
McGhee Tyson, TN: Replace Fire Station and Security Forces Complex 6,000
Fort Wayne, IN: Upgrade Aircraft Parking Ramp and Taxiway......... 8,500
Des Moines, IA: Joint ANG/FAA Upgrade Airfield Facilities......... 9,200
Schenectady, NY: Replace Base Supply Complex...................... 5,200
Hancock, NY: Civil Engineer Pavements and Grounds Facility........ 1,450
Gulfport, MS: Replace Medical Training Facility................... 1,500
Rickenbacker, OH: Joint ANG/RPA Instrument Landing System......... 1,500
Selfridge, MI: Replace Joint Dining Facility (w/AFRC)............. 8,500
McEntire, SC: Replace Operations and Training.....................10,200
Smoky Hill, KS: MUTES Support Facility............................ 1,000
Gulfport, MS: Upgrade Civil Engineer Maintenance Facility......... 1,500
Bangor, ME: Repair Joint Use Airfield Pavements (Ph I)............ 5,000
Little Rock AFB, AR: Operations and Training Facility............. 5,100
                                                                  ______
    Fiscal year 2002 Prioritized Requirements.....................86,650

    The following list represents the unfunded requirements carried in 
the Air Force Unfunded Priority List and include projects contained in 
the FYDP and some that are not contained in the FYDP. There is some 
overlap with the 10543 report shown above, but the lists are not 
identical because the rules governing each are different. All 
requirements on the list below are executable in fiscal year 2002 if 
funds are made available.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

        Base/State/Project title                                    Cost

Jackson, MS: C-17 Construct Maintenance Training Facility.....     4,100
Dothan, AL: Replace 280th Combat Communications Complex.......    11,000
Sepulveda, CA: Replace Communications and Electronics Training 
    Facility..................................................     5,000
Fort Smith, AR: Replace Operations and Training Facility......     6,000
Key Field, MS: Replace Comm-Electronics Training Complex......     6,400
Pittsburgh, PA: Add/Alter Squadron Operations and Support 
    Facilities................................................    12,000
New Castle, DE: Upgrade C-130 Parking Apron and Taxiway.......     9,500
WK Kellogg, MI: Replace Munitions Maintenance and Storage Com- 

    plex......................................................     9,500
Duluth, MN: Replace Composite Aircraft Maintenance Complex....    10,000
Niagara Falls, NY: Add/Alter Fuel Cell and Corrosion Control 
    Hangar....................................................     2,800
Nashville, TN: Replace Composite Aircraft Maint Complex (Phase 
    I)........................................................    11,000
Cheyenne, WY: Replace Aerial Port and Air Traffic Control 
    Complex...................................................     6,000
Capital, IL: Replace Composite Support Facility Complex.......    10,000
Eielson AFB, AK: Replace Security Forces Operations Facility..     5,000
Forbes Field, KS: Replace Operations and Training Facility....    11,200
Fort Bliss, TX: Replace Base Defense Training Center Complex..     8,400
Fairchild, WA: Replace Logistics Support Complex..............     8,200
Springfield, OH: Aircraft Parking Apron, Taxiway and Arm/
    Disarm....................................................    10,600
Savannah, GA: Replace Medical Tng, Security Forces & Assem- 
    bly Hall..................................................     6,300
Buckley AFB, CO: Replace Control Tower........................     5,800
Volk Field, WI: Replace Control Tower.........................     5,700
Hector, ND: Replace Weapons Release Shop Complex..............     4,500
Yeager, WV: Replace Base Civil Engineer Maintenance Complex...     4,100
Portland IAP, OR: Replace Joint Dining Facility (w/AFRC)......     6,000
Burlington, VT: Replace Vehicle Maintenance Complex...........     5,600
Toledo, OH: Replace Logistics Complex.........................     6,900
Charlotte, NC: Replace Vehicle Maintenance Complex............     7,200
Mansfield, OH: Replace Vehicle Maintenance Complex............     3,500
New Orleans, LA: Replace Vehicle Maintenance and ASE Complex..     5,500
Barnes, MA: Upgrade Support Facility..........................     5,200
Tucson, AZ: Replace Composite Support Complex.................     5,400
McGheeTyson, TN: Replace Fire Station and Security Forces 
    Complex...................................................     6,000
Fort Wayne, IN: Upgrade Aircraft Parking Ramp and Taxiway.....     8,500
Boise, ID: Add/Alter Base Supply Complex......................     3,000
Des Moines, IA: Joint ANG/FAA Upgrade Airfield Facilities.....     4,200
Joe Foss Field, SD: Joint ANG/FAA Airfield Improvements.......     2,500
Hensley, TX: Upgrade Communications Complex...................     1,500
Hancock, NY: Composite Readiness Support......................     2,500
Gulfport, MS: Replace Medical Training Facility...............     1,500
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

        Fiscal year 2002 Prioritized Requirements.............   248,100

    Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that very much. General 
Duignan, I would like to ask the question of you for the Air 
Force Reserve. And your request on this present budget is $53 
million this year.
    General Duignan. That's correct. We have about $53 million 
this year, which is about three times what we have had in the 
last few years.

                     Military Construction Backlog

    Senator Feinstein. So, you are happy campers.
    General Duignan. Well, we are happier than we have been. We 
have a $683 million MILCON backlog, and we can provide you that 
list. We have much the same issues as the Guard. Our facilities 
are not where our people live but where they work, so our 
MILCON backlog is somewhat different than the active duty, but 
we can provide you that list.
    Senator Feinstein. Yes, that would be helpful; the unfunded 
priorities and if you also prioritize what is funded. 
Everybody, I think that is helpful.
    [The information follows:]

                                                                     MILCON BACKLOG
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority                Base                       Project number                                 Milcon project title                            Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Keesler AFB, MS                     MAHG 96-3006................  C-130J Maintenance Hangar..........................................     12,000
      Robins AFB, GA                      UHHZ95-9210P2...............  Add/Alter AFRC Headquarters, Phase 2...............................      2,000
      Maxwell AFB, AL                     PNQS02-9010.................  Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar.......................................      7,300
      Maxwell AFB, AL                     PNQS95-9004.................  Aircraft Maintenance Hangar........................................      9,900
      Grissom ARB, IN                     CTGC01-9001P3...............  Consolidated Lodging Phase 3.......................................     13,200
                                                                                                                                            ------------
            FUNDED PROJECT TOTAL          ............................  ...................................................................     44,400
                                                                                                                                            ============
      AFRC Unfunded MILCON Projects:
      1   Keesler AFB, MS                 MAHG 04-3005................  Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar.......................................      7,500
      2   Hickam AFB, HI                  KNMD 97-9604................  Consolidated and Medical Training Facility.........................      6,100
      3   March ARB, CA                   PDPG 98-0729................  Fire Station.......................................................      7,200
      4   McGuire AFB, NJ                 PTLF 90-9677................  Reserve Medical Training Facility (Joint w/ANG)....................      5,100
      5   Minn-St Paul ARS, MN            QJKL 99-0011P3..............  Consolidated Lodging Phase 3.......................................     13,000
      6   Seymour Johnson AFB, NC         VKAG 97-9002................  Security Forces Facility...........................................      1,650
      7   Peterson AFB, CO                TDKA 98-9002................  Fuel Systems Maintenance Hangar....................................      6,500
      8   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 94-0004................  Base Operation.....................................................      5,300
      9   Schriever AFB, CO               GLEN 04-3003................  Consolidated Space Group Operations................................      9,800
     10   Tinker AFB, OK                  WWYK 97-9043A...............  Squadron Operations Facility.......................................      3,900
     11   Grissom ARB, IN                 CTGC 98-9003................  Add/Alter Aircraft Maintenance Hangar..............................      5,700
     12   Kelly AFB, TX                   MBPB 99-0016................  Consolidated Maintenance Facility..................................      9,000
     13   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 02-9001................  Phase 1 Joint Services Lodging Facility............................      9,950
     14   Whiteman AFB, MO                YWHG 97-9501................  A-10 Squadron Operations Building..................................      3,500
     15   Dobbins ARB, GA                 FGWB 01-9001................  Visiting Quarters..................................................      6,700
     16   Barksdale AFB, LA               AWUB 97-9501................  RED HORSE Veh Maint................................................      3,200
     17   Dover AFB, DE                   FJXT 98-3001................  Aerial Port Training Facility......................................      1,850
     18   Barksdale AFB, LA               AWUB 04-9801................  B52 Squadron Operations/AMU Facility...............................      5,000
     19   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 02-9001................  Security Police Operations.........................................      4,100
     20   Wyoming Valley ARC, PA          XPRF 00-9001................  Aerial Port Training Facility......................................      2,100
     21   Dobbins ARB, GA                 FGWB 01-9011................  Upgrade Maint Bays (in Wing HQ Facility)...........................      9,400
     22   Willow Grove ARS, PA            ZAWA 98-9001................  Joint ANG/AFRC Wing Headquarters...................................     17,500
     23   Gen Mitchell ARS, WI            HTUX 96-9003................  ADAL Consolidated Training Facility................................      5,300
     24   Eglin AFB (Duke Field), FL      FTFA 96-3044................  Civil Engineering Training Facility................................      3,000
     25   Patrick AFB, FL                 SXHT 97-3008................  920 RQG Headquarters Facility......................................      7,000
     26   McGuire AFB, NJ                 PTFL 99-9003................  Civil Engineering Training Facility................................      3,350
     27   Gen Mitchell ARS, WI            HTUX 06-9001................  Fire Station.......................................................      6,500
     28   Minn-St Paul ARS, MN            QJKL 99-0013................  Hangar Complex.....................................................     17,800
     29   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 02-9002................  Construct New Lodging Facility.....................................     15,600
     30   Peterson AFB, CO                TDKA 95-9006................  Aerial Port/Airlift Facility.......................................      5,500
     31   Scott AFB, IL                   VDYD 02-3001................  Support Group Training Facility....................................      7,000
     32   Hill AFB, UT                    KRSM 00-3010................  Training Complex (Small Arms)......................................      5,500
     33   Homestead ARS, FL               KYJM 99-9026................  Visiting Quarters..................................................      3,800
     34   Carswell ARS, TX                DDPM 00-0035................  Operations Group Facility..........................................      2,000
     35   Barksdale AFB, LA               AWUB 04-9802................  B52 Fuel Cell Maintenance Dock.....................................      8,600
     36   Hanscom AFB, MA                 ............................  Aerial Port Training Facility......................................      4,000
     37   Hill AFB, UT                    KRSM 02-3005................  Upgrade Hangar Bldg 590............................................      6,800
     38   Minn-St Paul ARS, MN            QJKL 98-0001................  Consolidated Training Facility.....................................      5,100
     39   Seymour Johnson AFB, NC         VKAF 99-9001................  Civil Engineering Training Facility................................      1,950
     40   Travis AFB, CA                  XDAT 97-9162................  New Training Facility, C5 Sqd Ops/AGS..............................     10,230
     41   Niagara Falls ARS, NY           RVKQ 00-9011................  Visiting Quarters..................................................     13,500
     42   New Orleans JRB, LA             RQLB 02-3005................  Command Post (-design).............................................      6,000
     43   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 99-9002 R3.............  Consolidated Lodging...............................................     19,000
     44   Selfridge ANGB, MI              VGLZ 00-0008................  Support & Training Complex.........................................     10,700
     45   New Orleans JRB, LA             RQLB 00-3007................  Munitions Trailer Maintenance Facility (-design)...................      1,500
     46   Portland IAP ANGB, OR           TQKD 98-0443A...............  Consolidated Wing Training Facility, Phase 2.......................      2,850
     47   Wright-Patterson AFB, OH        ZHTV 03-9001................  Alter General Training Facility....................................      4,500
     48   Gen Mitchell ARS, WI            HTUX 96-9001................  Security Forces Complex............................................      4,400
     49   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 99-9009................  Phase 2 Joint Services Lodging/Training Facility...................      9,600
     50   Homestead ARS, FL               KYJM 01-9001................  ADAL Communications Facility (Bldg 354.............................      2,000
     51   March ARB, CA                   PDPG 96-0108................  Alter Taxiway & Runway 30..........................................      1,500
     52   Minn-St Paul ARS, MN            QJKL 99-0012................  Aircraft Maintenance Shop Complex..................................      6,800
     53   Carswell ARS, TX                DDPM 00-0034................  Sortie Generation Facility.........................................      1,650
     54   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 98-9003 R4.............  Combat Communications Training.....................................      3,300
     55   Eglin AFB (Duke Field), FL      FTFA 94-9901P1..............  Visiting Quarters..................................................      7,400
     56   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 97-9001 R3.............  Wing Headquarters..................................................      7,800
     57   McGuire AFB, NJ                 PTFL 00-9001................  Add/Alter Wing Headquarters Building (Bldg 2217....................      4,200
     58   Peterson AFB, CO                TDKA 00-9001................  Consolidated Training Facility (ASTS, SF, Comm)....................      3,950
     59   Dobbins ARB, GA                 FGWB 94-9007................  North Side Overpass................................................      3,200
     60   New Orleans JRB, LA             RQLB 00-3008................  Small Arms Range Facility (-design)................................      2,300
     61   Homestead ARS, FL               KYJM 99-9025................  Services Training Complex..........................................      6,000
     62   Homestead ARS, FL               KYJM 01-9004................  ADAL Aerial Port Facility..........................................      2,500
     63   Robins AFB, GA                  UHHZ 01-9010................  Combat Logistics Support Facility..................................      1,670
     64   Scott AFB, IL                   VDYD 04-3004................  Wing Head Quarter Facility.........................................      9,500
     65   Beale AFB, CA                   BAEY 02-0033................  Renovate Operations Group Facility.................................      2,800
     66   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 99-9007................  Consolidated Mission Support Complex...............................      9,850
     67   Willow Grove ARS, PA            Not assigned yet............  Joint ANG/AFRC Supply Facility.....................................      7,700
     68   Dover AFB, DE                   FJXT 00-3005................  Wing Headquarters..................................................      2,500
     69   Gen Mitchell ARS, WI            HTUX 07-9001................  Maintenance Hangar.................................................     18,000
     70   Minn-St Paul ARS, MN            QJKL 00-0028................  Fire Training Facility.............................................      2,100
     71   Dover AFB, DE                   FJXT 02-3002................  Logistics Group Facility...........................................      1,500
     72   Hill AFB, UT                    KRSM 02-3004................  CLSS Maintenance & Training Complex................................      5,500
     73   Maxwell AFB, AL                 PNQS 95-9001................  Logistics Complex..................................................     13,650
     74   Eglin AFB (Duke Field), FL      FTFA 96-3044................  Replace Aircraft Parking RAMP......................................      6,300
     75   Niagara Falls ARS, NY           RVKQ 00-9012................  Dining Hall........................................................      5,400
     76   New Orleans JRB, LA             RQLB 01-3000................  Armed Forces Reserve Center(design/build) AFRC-Veh Maint and Combat     24,440
                                                                         Arms.
     77   March ARB, CA                   PDPG 97-0102................  Repair/Replace Marine Deployment Ramp Asphalt......................      1,650
     78   Maxwell AFB, AL                 PNQS 02-9012................  Construct Aircraft Parking Apron...................................     12,000
     79   Maxwell AFB, AL                 PNQS 04-9013................  Squadron Ops/OG/OSF Facility.......................................      5,500
     80   Grissom ARB, IN                 CTGB 98-9001................  Control Tower......................................................      6,500
     81   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 96-9001................  Vehicle Maintenance Facility.......................................      4,750
     82   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 97-9001................  Squadron Operation Facility........................................      5,900
     83   Travis AFB, CA                  XDAT 99-3005................  Reserve EOD to Active EOD Facility, add to AD project..............        580
     84   Hill AFB, UT                    KRSM 02-3007................  Fighter Squadron Maintenance Training..............................      5,400
     85   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 98-9002................  Munitions Storage Complex..........................................      5,000
     86   Grissom ARB, IN                 CTGC 97-9004................  Base Supply Complex................................................      9,500
     87   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 99-9004 R2.............  Repair Admin Office Bldg 218, 219..................................      3,800
     88   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 01-9004................  Phase 3 Joint Services Lodging/Dining Hall.........................     15,300
     89   Dobbins ARB, GA                 FGWB 00-9003................  Fitness Center Renovation..........................................      2,500
     90   Travis AFB, CA                  XDAT 04-9001................  New Airlift Control Flight General Training Facility...............      2,220
     91   Travis AFB, CA                  XDAT 03-9001................  Reserve Fire Fighters to Main Fire Station, add to ADproject.......        490
     92   McGuire AFB, NJ                 PTFL 99-9005................  Airlift Control Flight Facility....................................      2,200
     93   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 96-9002 R2.............  West Apron.........................................................      7,100
     94   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 99-9003 R2.............  Repair Visiting Airman Quarters Bldg 216, 217......................      3,900
     95   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 00-9001................  Consolidated AeroMedical Facility..................................      5,600
     96   Travis AFB, CA                  XDAT 04-9002................  New Communication Squadron General Training Fac....................      2,130
     97   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 98-9040................  Medical Training & Administration..................................      2,200
     98   Dobbins ARB, GA                 FGWB 95-9002................  Regional Training Center...........................................      4,000
     99   Hill AFB, UT                    KRSM 02-3006................  Aerial Port Squadron Training......................................      3,000
    100   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 04-9001................  General Warehouse Facility.........................................      1,900
    101   Grissom ARB, IN                 CTGC 98-9004................  Taxiway............................................................      7,600
    102   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 03-9001................  Phase 4 Joint Services Lodging Facility............................      8,100
    103   Maxwell AFB, AL                 PNQS 96-9003................  Aerial Port Training Facility......................................      3,000
    104   March ARB, CA                   PDPG 01-0107................  Improve Taxiway Drainage...........................................      1,700
    105   Pittsburgh ARS, PA              JLSS 01-9018................  ADAL Fitness Center B-120..........................................      4,300
    106   Westover ARB, MA                YTPM 94-0003................  Base Pavements & Grounds Complex...................................      2,760
    107   Gen Mitchell ARS, WI            HTUX 07-9002................  Parking Garage.....................................................      8,500
    108   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 02-9002................  ADAL Physical Fitness Center.......................................      3,600
    109   Maxwell AFB, AL                 PNQS 02-9011................  Short Field Runway.................................................     11,100
    110   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 01-9005................  Joint Readiness Training & Deployment Center.......................     10,000
    111   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 98-9001................  Combat Arms & Security Squadron Facility...........................      3,100
    112   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 98-9041................  Visitors Center....................................................      2,150
    113   Eglin AFB (Duke Field), FL      FTFA 97-3002................  Jet Fuel Storage (DFSC project)....................................      2,900
    114   Youngstown ARS, OH              ZQEL 04-9002................  Aerial Spray Maintenance Facility (requirement gone)...............      2,650
                                                                                                                                            ------------
            FUNDED PROJECT TOTAL          ............................  ...................................................................    683,220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Conclusion of Hearings

    Senator Feinstein. That completes my questions, and 
Secretary thank you very much Generals, thank you very much. 
And this hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., Wednesday, August 1, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]





       LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bergson, Major General Paul C., Military Deputy [Reserve 
  Components], Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for 
  International Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the 
  Army, Department of Defense....................................    51

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
    Prepared statements
    

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defent

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defetary of the Air Force for Installations, Department 
of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defy 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Department of the 
Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Deft 
of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def Statements 
of ment of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Def3Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defetary of the Air Force for Installations, Department 
of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defy 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Department of the 
Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Deft 
of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of DefDishner, 
Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, 
Department of the Air Force, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 111 
Prepared statement........................................... 113 Statement 
of................................................. 111DuBois, Raymond F., 
Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation and Environment, 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of 
Defense................................. 1 Prepared 
statement........................................... 11 Statement 
of................................................. 9Duignan, Brigadier 
General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force Reserve, Department of 
the Air Force, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 
111Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements 
etary of the Air Force for Installations, Department of the Air 
Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Def3Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
DefForce, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of DefHoladay, 
Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the Navy, Department of 
Defense.... 85 Prepared 
statement........................................... 88 Statement 
of................................................. 86Hutchison, Hon. Kay 
Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of 2Johnson, Admiral Michael, 
USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the 
Navy, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 85Johnson, 
Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation and 
Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 51 Prepared 
statement........................................... 52 Statement 
of................................................. 51Kimmel, Brigadier 
General Paul S., Chief Operating Officer, Air National Guard, Department of 
the Air Force, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 
111McKissock, General Gary, Installation and Logistics, Marine Corps, 
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense........... 85Molino, John, 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military Community and Family 
Policy, Defense Agencies, Department of 
Defense........................................................ 27 Prepared 
statement........................................... 28 Statement 
of................................................. 27Preston, Rear Admiral 
Noel, Deputy Director, Naval Reserve, Department of the Navy, Department of 
Defense.................. 85Randolph, Major General Leonard M., Jr., Deputy 
Executive Director, Tricare Management Activity, Defense Agencies, 
Department of Defense.......................................... 27 Prepared 
statement........................................... 40 Statement 
of................................................. 39Robbins, Major 
General Earnest O., II, HQ USAF, Civil Engineer, Deputy Chief of Staff, 
Installations and Logistics, Department of the Air Force, Department of 
Defense........................ 111Sanders, Dr. Patricia, Deputy Director 
for Test, Simulation and Evaluation, Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization, Defense Agencies, Department of 
Defense................................ 27 Prepared 
statement........................................... 32 Statement 
of................................................. 31Squier, Brigadier 
General Michael J., Deputy Director, Army National Guard, Department of the 
Army, Department of Defense.. 51Tangney, Lieutenant General William P., 
Deputy Commander in Chief, Special Operations Command, Defense Agencies, 
Department of Defense..................................................... 
27 Prepared statement........................................... 36 
Statement of................................................. 35Van 
Antwerp, Major General Robert L., Jr., Assistant Chief of Staff for 
Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department of De- 
fense.......................................................... 51Zakheim, 
Hon. Dov S., Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense...... 1 Prepared 
statement........................................... 5 Statement 
of................................................. 3 SUBJECT INDEX -------
--- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Agencies Ballistic Missile Defense 
Organization PageMilitary construction: Appropriation, fiscal year 
2001.............................. 35 Funding 
(MILCON)............................................. 32Missile defense 
system test bed.................................. 33Space based laser test 
facility.................................. 35 Special Operations 
CommandMilcon program................................................... 37 
Tricare Management ActivityAccess to care/quality of 
life................................... 42Projects seeking re-
appropriation................................ 43Readiness 
projects............................................... 41 Department of 
the Air ForceAccommodate new 
missions......................................... 113Air National Guard 
military construction......................... 128Aviano Air Force 
Base............................................ 124Base: Closure 
account.............................................. 116 Realignment and 
closure...................................... 121Castle Air Force 
Base............................................ 122Consolidating bases 
overseas..................................... 123Demolition programs, 
continue.................................... 116Environmental leadership, 
continue............................... 116Fitness 
center................................................... 117German 
bases..................................................... 124Global 
Hawk...................................................... 119Housing 
privatization............................................ 124McClellan Air 
Force Base etary of the Air Force for Installations, Department 
of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defetary of the 
Air Force for Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of 
Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defent

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defetary of the Air Force for Installations, Department 
of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def 
Force for Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defy 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Department of the 
Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of DefMilitary 
construction: Backlog...................................................... 
119 Ballistic missile defense.................................... 
127Mountain Home Air Force Base..................................... 
127Public and private resources, optimize use of.................... 
116Overseas bases................................................... 
122Quality of life, invest in....................................... 
114Sustain, restore and modernize our infrastructure................ 
115Unfunded priorities.............................................. 128 
List......................................................... 128Vandenberg 
Air Force Base........................................ 118Warren Air force 
Base............................................ 117 Department of the 
ArmyAmmunition demilitarization...................................... 
56Army: Family housing............................................... 58 
National Guard............................................... 66 
Reserve...................................................... 67Base 
realignment and closure (BRAC).............................. 64Budget 
request analysis Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def111

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Deft 
of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defy 
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Department of the 
Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of DefFacilities 
strategy.............................................. 53Family housing: 
Construction................................................. 59 
Leasing...................................................... 59 Operations 
and maintenance................................... 60Fiscal year 2002 
summary......................................... 65Homeowners Assistance 
Fund, Defense.............................. 62Housing 
privatization............................................ 71Installation 
support programs.................................... 56Military 
construction: Army (MCA)................................................... 
53 Army National Guard (MCNG)................................... 60 Army 
Reserve (MCAR).......................................... 61Mission 
facilities Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defment of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Deft 
of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of 
Defetary of the Air Force for Installations, Department 
of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Defational 
Affairs, U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army, Department of Defense

51_____________________________________________________________________

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:

Prepared statements

49, 106________________________________________________________________

Statements of

48, 106________________________________________________________________

Dishner, Jimmy G., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Deft 
of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def 
Force for Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

113____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

111____________________________________________________________________

DuBois, Raymond F., Jr., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation 
and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense

1______________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

11_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

9______________________________________________________________________

Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force 
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense

111____________________________________________________________________

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California, opening statements

1, 85__________________________________________________________________

Holaday, Duncan, Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy, (Installation and Environment), Department of the 
Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Prepared statement

88_____________________________________________________________________

Statement of

86_____________________________________________________________________

Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas, statement of

2______________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Admiral Michael, USN, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering 
Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense

85_____________________________________________________________________

Johnson, Paul W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installation 
and Housing, Department of the Army, Department of Def

National Training Center.........................................    69
Operations facilities............................................    54
Planning and design..............................................    56
Sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM).................    63
Transformation...................................................    55
Unspecified minor construction...................................    68
Well being projects..............................................    55

                         Department of the Navy

Bachelor housing.................................................    91
BAH, impact of the initiative....................................    92
Base realignment and closure.....................................    94
Energy...........................................................    96
Family housing...................................................    90
Fiscal year 2002 legislative proposals...........................    96
Military construction............................................    92
The infrastructure budget........................................    88

                   Office of the Secretary of Defense

Base closure.....................................................     7
Budget overview, fiscal year 2002................................     5
Family housing...................................................     8
Framework for action.............................................    15
Homeowners assistance............................................     9
Military construction............................................     6
    And family housing request...................................    12
NATO Security Investment Program.................................     8
Operations and maintenance request...............................    13
Possible enabling legislation....................................    13
Renewing the installations framework.............................    11
Installations' Vision............................................    14

                                   -