[Senate Hearing 107-536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-536
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5011/S. 2709
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003,
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
______
78-486 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Charles Kieffer, Deputy Staff Director
Steven J. Cortese, Minority Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Minority Deputy 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, March 5, 2002
Page
Department of Defense:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 1
Defense agencies:
Special Operations Command............................... 35
TRICARE Management Activity.............................. 35
Military Community and Family Policy..................... 35
Defense Logistics Operations............................. 35
Department of the Army....................................... 57
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Department of Defense:
Department of the Navy....................................... 83
Department of the Air Force.................................. 109
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
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 Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Hutchison, Stevens, and Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DOV ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. I know Senator Hutchison is on her way,
but in the interest of time and not to keep everyone waiting, I
think we will begin. I would like to call to order this hearing
of the Subcommittee on Military Construction to review the
President's fiscal year 2003 military construction budget
request. Secretary Zakheim, Secretary DuBois, I am very pleased
to welcome you to the subcommittee again, and we look forward
to your testimony, and I thank you for all you have done.
We have an ambitious schedule, so what I would like to do
is finish my remarks, then hear from the Ranking Member her
remarks, and then ask all of the witnesses if they would submit
their prepared statements for the record and try to summarize
their comments very briefly so that we might move this along.
Secretary Zakheim, the President's 2003 MILCON budget is
slightly less than $9 billion. That is a 14-percent cut, or
decrease from last years' MILCON bill, and it is 10-percent
decrease from what the President requested last year. It is
fair to say, I think, that this budget request has raised the
concern of many members in Congress, and particularly given the
$48 billion increase in the overall budget request I feel that
we should as nearly as possible adhere to the President's
request.
I am also aware that where investment in military
construction is needed and necessary, this committee wants to
provide it, so the real question is whether this can be done
within these budget constraints, and I believe it is really up
to you, both Secretaries, as well as the commanders in the
field and in Washington, that if you feel this budget does not
meet your needs, that you so state, or as the saying goes,
forever after hold your peace, because I do not think we can
play games with this budget in the sense of, well, we can cut
MILCON but the Congress is going to put it all back again.
I do not believe that is going to happen this year, so I
think if there are shortfalls, if there are shortcomings, if
there are real problems for the men and women in our Armed
Services, not only abroad but also in this country, that it is
really up to the commanders to say so and really up to you to
let us know, both the Ranking Member and myself, or else you
may end up getting just what has been requested, and I want to
make that really very clear.
Senator Tim Johnson requested a statment be put in the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Madame Chairwoman, I'd like to thank you and Ranking Member
Hutchison for holding today's hearing. I appreciate your continued
leadership on the subcommittee and your commitment to maintaining the
strength of our military through thoughtful investments in our defense
infrastructure.
I'd also like to thanks today's witnesses for coming before the
subcommittee and to share with us their knowledge and expertise. We are
grateful for your service to our nation.
Although military construction appropriations do not go to fund the
latest fighter aircraft or battleships, it would be a mistake to think
that the work of this subcommittee is any less important to the defense
of our nation. In fact, the ultimate success of Operation Enduring
Freedom--the ongoing fight against global terrorism--will be due in
large measure to the funding contained in the Military Construction
Appropriations Bill.
The funding in this bill will construct and maintain our military
facilities around the world. It will build new, state-of-the-art
training facilities. It will upkeep of the runways our Air Force uses
to fly missions against Al Qaeda. It will create new medical clinics to
care for sick and injured service members. And it will maintain
facilities where our high-tech war-fighting equipment is kept in peak
condition to be used by our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
These are just a few examples of the projects that will be funded
by the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. Projects that will
provide the foundation for ensuring we continue to field the best-
equipped, best-trained military in the world.
Madame Chairwoman, as you well know, all of the best weapons and
all the best facilities in the world will be rendered useless if our
military personnel and their families are not afforded a good quality
of life. That is why this subcommittee has placed such a high priority
on addressing the issue of military housing. I am pleased that we have
made some progress toward ensuring quality housing for all of our
military personnel and their families. But more needs to be done. In
fact, according to the Department of Defense, 20 percent of all service
members on U.S. military bases live in inadequate housing.
The President's budget request includes a very modest increase for
family housing, I am hopeful we can do more because the issue of
quality housing goes to the heart of military readiness. We should not
underestimate what poor housing can do to the morale of our military
families. The stress on morale not only affects the preparedness of our
military units, but discourages some of our most able personnel from
re-enlisting, and makes recruitment of the best and brightest even more
difficult. As you know, South Dakota is home to one active duty
installation, Ellsworth Air Force Base. As a Lead Wing for the
Aerospace Expeditionary Force, the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air
Force Base has played a leading role in the war in Afghanistan. In
fact, the capabilities of the B-1 bombers flying out of Ellsworth is
one of the reasons the war has been so successful. I am very proud of
the men and women who are serving at Ellsworth. In my conversations
with them, I have heard that an upgrade in facilities, especially in
housing, is essential to their quality of life. This highlights the
important work of this subcommittee. If we are going to recruit and
retain quality people for our military, it is necessary for us to
provide adequate funding to all aspects of the military, not just to
the weapons programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
address this important matter.
Since we are privileged to be joined by representatives from the
Army National Guard, I would also like to take this opportunity to say
a word about the increasingly important role the National Guard plays
in defending our nation. Most South Dakotans know at least one of the
4,500 current members of the South Dakota Guard and Reserves, or the
thousands of former Guardsmen and Reservists. South Dakota's Guard and
Reserve units consistently rank in the highest percentile of readiness
and quality of its recruits. But keeping and recruiting the best of the
best in the South Dakota National Guard and Reserves is becoming more
of a challenge as our military's operations tempo has remained high,
while the number of active duty military forces has decreased. This
tempo places significant pressure on the members of the reserve
component, as well as the buildings and other support systems meant to
sustain them.
Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for coming before
the subcommittee to share with us their expertise. I look forward to
working with you, Madame Chairwoman, and the rest of my colleagues as
we move forward with the fiscal year 2003 Military Construction
Appropriations Bill.
Senator Feinstein. So with that--and I do not see the
Ranking Member--Mr. Secretary, why don't we proceed with your
comments and your statement.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Zakheim. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am certainly
honored to be back here again to present the military
construction component of the President's fiscal year 2003 DOD
budget request, and I might add that if, indeed, our wishes are
met and we get what we ask for, I would be delighted. The
President's budget request advances his commitment to win the
war on terrorism, to take the best care of our military people
and their families, and to transform America's defense posture,
our forces, our capabilities, our infrastructure to enable us
to counter 21st Century threats decisively.
The request supports the new defense strategy and
recommendations from Secretary Rumsfeld's 2001 quadrennial
defense review and his other strategic assessments. The budget
includes strong funding both for current demands, most notably
the ongoing war on terrorism, and for investments for the
future. It supports the President's defense commitment not only
through the increased total funding, but also, and most
important, through the wise allocation of that funding.
The fiscal year 2003 military construction budget furthers
the President's defense aims with a balanced program to improve
the quality of life for our military through better working and
living conditions. This budget will enhance our sustainment and
modernization of existing facilities. It will fund critical new
construction. It will replace facilities that are no longer
economical to repair. It will address environmental compliance
requirements; and it will continue caretaker efforts at closed
bases.
The request for military construction and family housing
totals, as you have already noted, about $9 billion, and funds
over 300 construction projects at more than 185 locations. It
is true that the request is about $1 billion lower than last
year's request, but in no way does that imply any easing of our
commitment to revitalizing DOD's infrastructure. The $9 billion
total is the second largest request in the past 6 years. In
addition, we have added $1.6 billion to the 2003 funding that
had been anticipated in the President's budget request for
2002. In other words, a year ago we anticipated $1.6 billion
less in military construction funding for this year than we
actually asked for.
I should add that complementing the $9 billion request is
increased funding for sustainment restoration and
modernization, or SRM, within the operations and maintenance
title. Fiscal year 2003 funding for SRM totals $6.2 billion,
which is $500 million increase over last year's request, and
this total includes $5.6 billion specifically for sustainment.
Although we had to make difficult choices because of escalating
demands for the war on terrorism, especially within the
operations and maintenance title, we were able to fund 93
percent of the Services' maintenance requirements. That is an
increase over the 89 percent provided in last year's budget,
and a significantly higher level than what was budgeted in the
previous several years, for example in 2000, when the
Department met only 78 percent of the Services' facilities
maintenance requirements.
Our budget includes $225 million more than requested last
year for military family housing construction and
privatization. That keeps us on track to meet Secretary
Rumsfeld's goal of ensuring adequate housing for all military
personnel and their families by 2007, which is 3 years earlier
than was originally planned.
We are also achieving greater benefit from our housing
funds, because by joining forces with the private sector we
will be leveraging our investments to provide quality housing.
In fiscal year 2003, we are planning to obtain about 35,000
privatized housing units, nearly twice the number of privatized
units obtained to date.
Based on the privatization projects awarded so far, we
estimate that the DOD investment was leveraged at about 8 to 1.
In other words, for every dollar we invest, we are getting $8
of value, so that our 2003 funding request for privatization
projects of $195 million to provide about 24,000 units, that
translates with that 8 to 1 leverage to over $1.5 billion worth
of quality privatized housing. This leveraged return must be
factored into the overall value of our military construction
budget.
Our funding of new infrastructure is sufficient to
construct new facilities that are absolutely critical. Most
notably, these are to support new weapons systems coming into
the inventory. Our new construction funding and our emphasis on
SRM reflects our multiyear management plan to revitalize DOD
facilities.
A critical component of our plan is the congressionally
approved 2005 base realignment and closure, otherwise known as
BRAC round, which we hope will achieve the needed 20 to 25
percent reduction in DOD infrastructure. With a successful BRAC
round, our planned funding through 2007 will be sufficient to
achieve, by that time, Secretary Rumsfeld's commitment to and
goals for facilities recapitalization.
Highlights of our request for military construction and
family housing include, with respect to quality of life, $1.2
billion for new or improved barracks for unaccompanied military
personnel. This will fund 46 projects to construct or modernize
barracks and to provide roughly 12,600 new or improved living
spaces.
In addition, the budget will allow the Department to
construct or modernize 13 schools for dependents, seven
physical fitness centers, two child development centers, and
three community support centers.
With respect to overseas construction, in keeping with
congressional direction, new construction in overseas areas is
being requested only where construction requirements are of
high priority; when they are absolutely essential to our
overseas basing needs; and after all burden-sharing
opportunities have been explored and found to be unworkable. I
might mention in this regard, Madam Chairwoman and Senator
Hutchison, that we have just completed negotiations with the
Republic of Korea that will effectively, by 2005, have them
contributing 50 cents on every dollar that is spent.
That is a significant increase from the past, and it was
our goal--and, frankly, we have received a lot of help from you
and other people on the Hill. It is our goal to achieve a
minimum 50-percent standard with every country in which we are
based. The 2003 program of $847 million for projects overseas
therefore meets the criteria I have just laid out.
A word about chemical demilitarization. Sustaining our
steady progress, the 2003 budget includes $168 million for the
construction of chemical demilitarization facilities, and
reflects change as a result of our review of the program's
funding and scheduling.
The NATO security investment program, NSIP: that request
totals about $168 million. It is the minimum essential U.S.
contribution for NATO's efforts, and is needed to support both
our strategic security and our economic interest in the
European theater.
Let me return to Family housing, which I have already
mentioned briefly. This year our request for budget authority
for fiscal 2003 totals about $4.2 billion, which is up from the
$4 billion requested a year ago. The Department's 2003 family
housing inventory will include an estimated $250,000
Government-owned units, and 29,500 leased units worldwide. Our
operation and maintenance budget of $2.9 billion will ensure
that houses in our inventory in an adequate condition for
occupancy by our military families. We are requesting $1.3
billion to build, replace, or improve an additional 7,200
family housing units.
So in conclusion--I know you want me to keep this short--I
want to thank you very much again for the opportunity to
describe our plans both to sustain and revitalize DOD's
facilities. This budget will enhance the quality of life for
our service members and their families. It will strongly
support current requirements and missions, and it will enable
the long-term streamlining and recapitalization of DOD
facilities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, we stand by this request. If you were to grant it to
us, as you said, Madam Chairwoman, we would be delighted. We
indeed urge your approval of that request. The Department and I
are ready to provide whatever further details you may need to
make these important decisions.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Hutchison, members of the committee, I am
honored to present the Military Construction component of President
Bush's fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense (DOD) budget request.
The President's DOD request advances his commitment to win the war
on terrorism; to take the best care of our military people and their
families; and to transform America's defense posture--our forces,
capabilities, and infrastructure--to enable us to counter 21st century
threats decisively. The request supports the new defense strategy and
recommendations from Secretary Rumsfeld's 2001 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) and his other strategic assessments. The budget includes
strong funding both for current demands--most notably the war on
terrorism--and for investments for the future. The budget supports the
President's defense commitment not only through increased total
funding, but also and most important, through the wise allocation of
that funding.
The fiscal year 2003 Military Construction budget furthers the
President's defense aims with a balanced program to improve the quality
of life for our military through better working and living conditions.
This budget will enhance our sustainment and modernization of existing
facilities, fund critical new construction, replace facilities that are
no longer economical to repair, address environmental compliance
requirements, and continue caretaker efforts at closed bases.
FUNDING OVERVIEW
The President's request for Military Construction and Family
Housing totals $9.0 billion and funds over 300 construction projects at
more than 185 locations. Although this request is $1 billion lower than
last year's fiscal year 2002 request, in no way does it imply any
easing of our commitment to revitalizing DOD infrastructure. The $9
billion total is the second largest request in the past 6 years.
Moreover, we added $1.6 billion to the fiscal year 2003 funding that
had been anticipated in the President's budget request for fiscal year
2002. This budget clearly supports our critical requirements and
missions and actually increases funding for sustainment and other key
functions.
I should add that complementing this $9 billion request is
increased funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)
within the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) title. Fiscal year 2003
funding for SRM totals $6.2 billion--an $500 million increase over last
year's request. This total includes $5.6 billion for sustainment.
Although we had to make difficult choices because of the escalating
demands from the war on terrorism, especially within the O&M title, we
were able to fund 93 percent of the Military Services' maintenance
requirements. That is an increase over the 89 percent provided for in
last year's budget and represents a significantly higher level than
what was budgeted in the previous several years, such as in fiscal year
2000 when the Department met only 78 percent of the Services'
facilities maintenance requirements.
Our budget includes $225 million more than requested last year for
military family housing construction and privatization. This keeps us
on track to meet Secretary Rumsfeld's goal of ensuring adequate housing
for all military personnel and their families by 2007--3 years earlier
than originally planned.
Moreover, we are achieving greater benefit from our housing funds
because--by joining forces with the private sector, we will be
leveraging our investments to provide quality housing. In fiscal year
2003, we are planning to obtain about 35,000 privatized housing units--
nearly twice the number of privatized units obtained to date.
Our funding of new infrastructure is sufficient to construct new
facilities that are absolutely critical, most notably to support new
weapon systems coming into the inventory. Our new construction
funding--and our emphasis on SRM--reflects our multiyear management
plan to revitalize DOD facilities.
A critical component of our plan is the congressionally approved
2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, which we hope will
achieve a needed 20-25 percent reduction in DOD infrastructure. With a
successful BRAC round, our planned funding through fiscal year 2007
will be sufficient to achieve--by that date--Secretary Rumsfeld's
strong goals for facilities recapitalization.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Following are the key elements of our $4.8 billion fiscal year 2003
request for Military Construction:
Active Forces and Defense-Wide.--The $4.0 billion budgeted for
Active Forces and Defense-Wide programs is targeted towards improving
readiness, quality-of-life, and DOD work places; restoring the most
seriously degraded facilities; and providing facilities to support new
weapons systems. The request includes $1.2 billion for barracks
projects; $1.0 billion for operational and training facilities; $436
million for maintenance and production facilities; $192 million for
community facilities; $147 million for medical facilities; $134 million
for utility facilities; $112 million for administrative facilities; $76
million for supply facilities; and $33 million for research and
development facilities.
Guard and Reserve Facilities.--The $297 million 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. It is true that the fiscal
year 2003 request is $646 million less than the fiscal year 2002
enacted level and $318 million lower than the Department's fiscal year
2002 request. Nevertheless, the fiscal year 2003 request is higher than
requests prior to fiscal year 2002.
The fiscal year 2003 program includes 37 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.--A significant portion of the military
construction program--$1.2 billion--will provide for new or improved
barracks for unaccompanied military personnel. Our budget will fund 46
projects to construct or modernize barracks and to provide 12,643 new
or improved living spaces. Specifically, 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 room 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 2003 program will allow the
Department to construct or modernize 13 schools for dependents, 7
physical fitness centers, 2 child development centers, and 3 community
support centers.
Overseas Construction.--In keeping with congressional direction,
new construction in overseas areas is being requested only where
construction requirements are of high priority, when absolutely
essential to U.S. overseas basing needs, and only after all burden-
sharing opportunities have been explored and found to be unworkable.
The fiscal year 2003 program of $847 million for projects in overseas
areas meets these criteria. Of the $847 million, $181 million is for
the Republic of Korea, $246 million for Germany, $131 million for
Italy, $143 million for other European sites, and $146 million for
various locations overseas. I should note that we have negotiated a
burden-sharing agreement with the Republic of Korea and, for the first
time, expect the Korean share to reach 50 percent during its term.
Medical Projects.--Consistent with the Department's emphasis on
quality-of-life improvements and readiness, the fiscal year 2003 budget
reflects the high priority it places on health care. The budget
requests $147 million for 5 medical projects, including $53 million for
the fourth phase of a $133 million replacement hospital at Ft.
Wainwright, Alaska; $3 million to replace a clinic at Hickam AFB,
Hawaii; $40 million for the replacement of a hospital at Spangdahlem,
Germany; and $41 million to replace a medical and dental facility at
Naples, Italy. It also includes $10 million to pay a contractor claim
on the recently completed hospital at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction.--The Department continues
to make steady progress in its chemical demilitarization efforts. To
that end, the fiscal year 2003 budget includes $168 million for the
construction of chemical demilitarization facilities. It reflects the
completion of an overall review of the program, and--consistent with
the Department's emphasis on realistic costing--we made funding and
schedule changes that mirror the Cost and Analysis Improvement Group's
(CAIG) estimates and timelines. The CAIG estimate reflects the ``end of
operations'' for all sites (except Pueblo and Blue Grass) to be slipped
from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011; no projected end of
operations has been made for the Pueblo and Blue Grass facilities. This
revised schedule will require the United States to request a 5-year
extension (to 2012) to the deadline in the Chemical Munitions Disposal
Treaty.
Two chemical demilitarization 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 there. In addition, the Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility in Tooele, Utah began operation in August 1996 and
has destroyed over 39 percent of the original chemical agent stockpile
stored at that site. We have completed construction of the Chemical
Agent Disposal Facilities in Anniston, Alabama and Umatilla, Oregon. In
January 1999, the Army issued a full Notice to Proceed to Raytheon
Demilitarization Company to begin construction for the Chemical Agent
Disposal Facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Construction of the Pine
Bluff facility is 74 percent completed.
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 at 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 47 percent completed, while
the Newport facility is 24 percent completed. Additional technologies
are being evaluated for the remaining two chemical demilitarization
sites: Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky. Environment and
permitting efforts are ongoing, and technology decisions are expected
during fiscal year 2002 for both locations.
Energy Programs.--This Administration is committed to energy
conservation. Reflecting that commitment, the budget includes
approximately $50 million in fiscal year 2003 for projects that will
result in energy savings and support long-standing goals to reduce
energy demand. Last year the Congress appropriated $26.7 million.
Minor Construction/Planning and Design.--The request contains $89
million in fiscal year 2003 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
$334 million for planning and design. These funds are urgently needed
to complete the design of fiscal year 2004 projects and to initiate
design of fiscal year 2005 projects. We seek your support for this
request so we can proceed with these construction requirements.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
In the past, the BRAC process has been a major tool for reducing
our domestic base structure. Between 1988 and 1995, four BRAC
Commissions proposed the closure or realignment of 152 major
installations and 235 smaller ones. Implementation of the last round of
the four approved BRACs was completed on July 13, 2001. Once all
funding is complete, the Department will have invested about $22.2
billion and realized savings of about $37.7 billion for total net
savings of about $15.5 billion over the implementation period from
fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 2001. Total annual savings after fiscal
year 2002 are projected to be about $6 billion. For fiscal year 2003,
the BRAC request is $545.1 million--for environmental restoration and
caretaker costs for bases closed under these previous rounds. This
funding will ensure that bases continue both to be cleaned efficiently
and to meet environmental standards to speed the transfer of property
to redevelopment authorities.
The fiscal year 2003 budget assumes that the additional round of
base closures and realignment in 2005 will occur, as authorized in the
fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department
hopes that this round will achieve at least a 20-25 percent reduction
in military infrastructure and savings of approximately $6.5 billion
per year. Funds to begin implementation of the 2005 BRAC
recommendations are currently programmed in fiscal year 2006.
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) request totals $168.2
million in fiscal year 2003. This is 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 required in support of agreed NATO
strategic concepts and military strategy. We anticipate recoupments of
$11 million from previously financed U.S. projects, which will result
in a total fiscal year 2003 program of $179.2 million. This request is
the minimum essential U.S. contribution for NATO's efforts. It will
support both our strategic security and our economic interest in the
European Theater.
FAMILY HOUSING
Budget authority for fiscal year 2003 Family Housing totals $4.2
billion--up from $4.0 billion requested in fiscal year 2002. This
budget will construct, improve, privatize, operate, maintain, and lease
family housing units. It will enable the Department to continue the
aggressive effort begun last year to eliminate inadequate housing by
2007, 3 years sooner than the previous goal.
Housing quality also will benefit from our proposed increases in
the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). Through BAH increases, the
fiscal year 2003 budget will reduce out-of-pocket costs for personnel
living off-base from 11.3 percent now to 7.5 percent in fiscal year
2003, and it projects funding to phase out these costs completely by
2005. Prior to fiscal year 2001, service members had to absorb 18.8
percent of these housing costs.
Family Housing Operations.--The Department's fiscal year 2003
family housing inventory will include an estimated 250,000 government-
owned units and 29,500 leased units worldwide. The government-owned
units average about 35 years in age. These DOD-owned and leased units
house approximately one-third of our military families.
The family housing operation and maintenance budget funds a range
of services and expenses necessary to support the DOD-owned and leased
housing units. For example, the operation account funds items such as
housing administration and management, basic support services, referral
services, furnishings, and utilities, 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 shortfall.
Our fiscal year 2003 operation and maintenance budget of $2.9
billion will ensure that houses in our inventory are in adequate
condition for occupancy by our military families. The fiscal year 2003
request is $21 million higher than the amount Congress approved for
fiscal year 2002 due primarily to the need to maintain an aging housing
inventory.
Family Housing Construction.--The major emphasis of the Family
Housing Construction Program is to replace units that are uneconomical
to repair or renovate and to upgrade the remaining units. We are
requesting $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2003 to build, replace, or
improve 7,200 family housing units. This fiscal year 2003 request is
$159 million higher than the amount enacted for fiscal year 2002, due
to the President's initiative to improve housing for our troops and
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. By means of loan and rental guarantees, direct loans
and investments, differential lease payments, and the conveyance or
leasing of land and facilities, the Department has been able to tap
private sector expertise and capital to provide quality housing more
quickly than would be possible through traditional construction
methods.
Using the funds Congress appropriated directly into the Family
Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) or funds for construction projects that
were later transferred into the FHIF, the Military Services have
awarded fourteen privatization projects. Based on the projects awarded
so far, we estimate that the DOD investment was leveraged at about
eight to one. Our fiscal year 2003 funding request for privatization
projects is $195 million--to provide about 24,000 housing units.
Applying that previous 8:1 leverage rate, with our $195 million
investment we should be able to obtain over $1.5 billion worth of
quality privatized housing. This leveraged return should be factored
into the overall value of our military construction budget.
Highlights of our privatization initiatives:
--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 the Army's investment in this $229 million project is 22:1
when compared to traditional construction approach. The Army
has also awarded a contract to privatize 5,912 housing units at
Fort Hood, Texas, and is finalizing two deals to privatize
3,982 units at Fort Lewis, Washington, and 3,170 units at Fort
Meade, Maryland. The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes
$153.5 million to privatize 17,483 housing units at six Army
bases.
--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 has since awarded five more contracts to
privatize a total of 5,994 units at Everett (288 units),
Kingsville (150 units), San Diego (3,248 units), New Orleans
(935 units), and a third project in south Texas (661 units).
The Marine Corps' first privatization project at Camp
Pendleton, California (712 units) is currently under
construction. In fiscal year 2003, the Navy is requesting $33.4
million to privatize 1,978 housing units at the Naval Complex
in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
--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). In the fiscal year 2003
budget, the Air Force has identified five projects to privatize
4,564 units, and is requesting $7.8 million. The Air Force
believes that four of the five projects will not require any
up-front funding due to expected leverage from the assets to be
conveyed.
CONCLUSION
Thank you again for this opportunity to describe our plans to
sustain and revitalize DOD facilities. This budget will enhance the
quality of life of our service members and their families, strongly
support current requirements and missions, and enable the needed long-
term streamlining and recapitalization of DOD facilities. I urge your
approval of our request. The Department and I are ready to provide
whatever details you may need to make these important decisions.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary DuBois, before we hear from you I would like to
acknowledge that we have been joined by some of our colleagues,
the Ranking Member of this committee, the Ranking Member of the
overall Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished Senator
from Idaho, and I would like to ask Senator Hutchison if she
would like to make her remarks at this time.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. I would, and I thank you, Madam
Chairman. I will be brief, but first let me say I am very
pleased about what you just reported regarding Korea, and that
negotiation. I applaud you for that. I think it is the right
thing to do, and I think in light of the other necessary
expenditures that we have right now, that it is appropriate.
The only other thing that I would just note and ask that
you address, and we can do it in questions, but that is in the
area of European military construction. You have got over $1
billion in military construction projects in Europe. Of those,
168 million is NATO infrastructure, including a new subregional
base in Greece.
Your Spanish expenditures are in Rota, which I think is
totally appropriate. It is necessary for what we are doing now,
but down the line we are looking at yet another subregional
headquarters of NATO in Madrid, and my question is, are we
asking our European allies to do enough in light of our current
needs for other places? I think--I have looked at many of your
other overseas expenditures. They meet the test of current
necessities, and infrastructure for refueling and those kinds
of things, but I guess the big question is, are we maybe in
line to look for a little bit of a realignment with Europe, in
light of the burden we are carrying in the Middle East and in
the war on terrorism?
And then secondly, I would just say the lowering of the
amount being spent in our domestic bases, I understand that you
are now looking at a BRAC farther out, but I would like for you
to address the cost of having to beef up the bases that are
going to be kept, versus not spending for 3 years. In
anticipation of a BRAC, could we not continue to upgrade the
housing and especially the medical facilities where you have, I
think, four medical facilities in the U.S., and you have a huge
upgrading of medical facilities in several places overseas. I
just wonder if we are doing enough to keep up the domestic part
of health care and housing and quality of life issues with the
really large cuts in the increases in spending for domestic
military construction.
With that, then, I will certainly ask questions, but those
are the points I would like to make.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison.
Senator Stevens, did you have a comment you would like to
make at this time, or any comments?
Senator Stevens. Well, Madam Chairman, I want to be able to
ask some questions. I am not sure I am going to be able to
stay, but I do not have any opening comments.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Secretary DuBois, would you like to proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. RAYMOND DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much, again, to have
this opportunity to appear before you and your distinguished
subcommittee. September 11, as we all know, changed this
country, perhaps changed it forever, but the imperative
remains, that imperative to transform our military
installations and to maintain our commitment to our people in
uniform with respect to improving their quality of life.
Senator Hutchison, you are quite right, the quality of life
initiatives must be focused on, and in addition to the basic
allowance for housing increases in this year's budget, the
medical treatment facilities, the MILCON increases, we have got
to remember that there are a series of investments in resources
that are put against the so-called facilities, housing
sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts, or
program elements in this budget.
Now, the context of competing priorities, I think we always
have to remember that no matter whether it is this fiscal year
or last, where we had a greater request for MILCON, although,
as Secretary Zakheim said, this year's request is the second
largest in 6 years, we have got to remember that there are
competing priorities, and those priorities shifted on September
11.
Now, we believe we have developed a feasible and fiscally
responsible plan for getting our facilities on a continued path
to recovery. As I indicated, the basic allowance for housing to
eliminate out-of-pocket cost by our service members is on a
glide path to get to zero by 2005. We are also increasing, as
Secretary Zakheim said, our reliance upon the private sector
both for access to existing quality housing, but also through
our military family housing privatization efforts, and we want
to thank the Congress for having extended our housing
privatization authority to 2012, although Secretary Rumsfeld's
goal is to achieve the reduction and elimination of all
inadequate housing by 2007.
Having said that, we do have a goal of achieving
privatization of over 60,000 family housing units by the end of
fiscal 2003. There is a continuing commitment to our
unaccompanied service men and women. You touched a little bit
upon Korea, where we have nearly 95 percent of all military
personnel are unaccompanied. I did speak with General Schwartz,
our CINC there, just a couple of days ago about the situation
there. We are both very thankful, as is the Secretary of
Defense, for your continued focus on the construction needs of
our personnel in Korea.
On the overseas issue, Senator Hutchison, you mentioned
Europe in particular. Secretary Zakheim has testified to the
land partnership program in Korea, wherein we are going to
reduce our footprint from 41 installations to 25 or 26, a very
substantial reduction. It is true also in Europe, and I spoke
to General Ralston about this just the other day. He is
proposing a reduction in Europe. As you know, these kinds of
programs require the State Department involvement, host country
Nation involvement, but the European Command is submitting to
the chairman, and ultimately to the Secretary, a footprints
reduction and basing structure rationalization for Europe.
As you also know, I am sure, we have 25 percent of our
military personnel stationed overseas, and yet only 23 percent
of our MILCON budget goes to overseas, 77 percent in CONUS. It
is also even more skewed or unbalanced, as it were, with
respect to military family housing, 79 percent in the United
States, 21 percent overseas.
Let me address briefly now the other critical question I
think that is before us this afternoon, and that is the
reduction year over year. As I indicated, and as Secretary
Zakheim indicated, it is the second largest request in 6 years,
and I think it is important that we look at total investments.
As I indicated, you have got new footprint MILCON, you have got
restoration and modernization military construction, but you
also have restoration and modernization that come out of the
O&M account, granted, not in the authority and purview of this
subcommittee, but still focused on our infrastructure. You have
got sustainment O&M dollars, not MILCON dollars but sustainment
dollars focused on our infrastructure and, of course family
housing construction and family housing maintenance.
If you take those program elements as a whole, and include
all four services and the defense agencies, you have a total
budget year over year with the reduction of about 3 percent.
Now, granted, the pure MILCON part of this is presidential
budget year over year 10 percent, but if you look at the total
investment portfolio focused on quality of life, focused on
infrastructure, it shows a 3 percent reduction.
Now, the sustainment part of that total investment
portfolio is very important to focus on. It is in all accounts
across the board and all Services, except for the Navy, it is
in excess of 90 percent. In fact, the Air Force is nearly 100
percent, and the Marine Corps is at 100 percent of sustainment.
That is to say, taking care of what we have now, a very
important issue.
The recapitalization issue, which is probably somewhat
arcane to those of us who live outside of the beltway, but a
very important metric nonetheless to you and to us in the
Pentagon. It is going up year over year, and it is inescapable,
and I say this with some concern, because sometimes it gets
misunderstood.
It is inescapable that we do have, because you all
authorized the Secretary to do so, a BRAC in 2005. It is
important to recognize that just because BRAC sits out there,
it does not dictate that we invest in one installation today
over another. It does, however, mean that the Service Chiefs
and the Service Secretaries making tough decisions, tough
priorities, funding competing priorities, will invest, in
MILCON terms, on mission-critical requirements.
Some mission-critical requirements are at certain
installations and not others. That is an inescapable fact. The
recap rates do go up, but it is important, as Secretary Zakheim
reiterated, and as Secretary Rumsfeld said in his testimony
before your committee, that the 67-year recap rates will be
achieved by fiscal 2007.
I think the other issue that is important to understand is
the majority, 60 percent of all MILCON projects are for
restoration and modernization for mission-critical
requirements. That is both MILCON and O&M.
Now, BRAC. Certainly, last time that I sat in front of you
it was an issue that was highly charged. It remains highly
charged. The Secretary of Defense testified, and not with
tongue in cheek, I might add, but quite seriously, this is a
painful process, but it is a process that, with your authority,
and the fact that it is in 2005, we are going to take a
comprehensive, and we are going to take a very thorough and
methodic and deliberate look at our entire real estate asset
portfolio, and I do want to say on his behalf, on behalf of the
Secretary of Defense, we do thank the Senate for supporting him
in his efforts to rationalize our infrastructure, our total
infrastructure through this process, this needed process
referred to as BRAC.
Now, just for purposes of reemphasis, we have not
deferred--we have not deferred any projects in anticipation of
BRAC. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request reflects, as I
indicated, the highest priorities identified by the Service
Secretaries and the Service Chiefs to support their missions as
currently configured. We are just beginning to analyze the
total DOD infrastructure from a BRAC point of view. Specific
construction projects in this fiscal year's budget request are
driven, as I said, by military necessity and mission-critical
requirements.
One final point, if I might, and I address this because it
has received a certain amount of press attention. Several
committees of the House and the Senate have now called a
hearing specifically to focus on the term and the issue called
encroachment.
Twenty-six, 27 years ago, when Secretary Rumsfeld and I
served in the Pentagon, the word encroachment was not even in
our lexicon. Maybe it should have been, because today we are
facing in a number of our test and training ranges and
installations across the country urban density, environmental
encroachment, spectrum competition, air space encroachment,
issues which are now directly impacting upon our ability to
provide realistic combat training for our troops.
This encroachment issue has emerged in the last couple of
years, certainly since Secretary Rumsfeld was sworn in, as a
very serious concern. We are addressing that concern. We do not
have all the answers yet. We are in the process of discussing
this with folks on the Hill, folks in the environmental
community, folks in the Department of Interior, EPA, NOAA,
those sister agencies in the executive branch which focus on
the regulatory aspect of these statutes.
I am reminded that I believe this is the 30th anniversary
of the Clean Water Act and other acts, other statutes passed by
the Congress. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz back in December set
out specifically a cross-discipline, cross-service group in the
Department of Defense cochaired by myself and Paul Mayberry,
the Deputy Under Secretary for Readiness, to focus on this and
try to come up with some reasonable approaches, given the
seriousness of the situation, and we look forward to working
with you. We absolutely, positively must have your advice and
counsel as to how to proceed in this regard.
In closing, I have spent the last 9 months having been in
this job as Deputy Under Secretary, and I visited over 30 major
installations here and abroad, also a number of our premier,
our crown jewels of training and test ranges, several of which
are in California and Texas and Alaska, as it turns out. We are
committed in that regard, and I remain committed to advise the
Secretary as best I can on how to improve and support healthy
installations, facilities, and housing.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have to remember that if we are going to transform the
military, which remains, notwithstanding 9/11, reforming the
way we think about defense and reshaping the way we manage the
Defense Department is first and foremost still in Secretary
Rumsfeld's mind, and he also, I think, appreciates the fact
that part of that transformation, an integral part of that
transformation has to be how we transform our platforms, our
deployment platforms called our installations.
Thank you very much.
[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 2003 programs supporting military installations and facilities and
the Department's environmental management. The Department's goal is to
restore the readiness of our installations and facilities--which are
the foundation for military operations and deployments. We are
continuing to improve the management of our installations and housing
to ensure that they can fully support the men and women who live and
work there in the accomplishment of their mission.
To begin I would first like to recognize you and the Committee for
the support you continue to provide to the Department. In particular,
we appreciate this committee's strong support for the Secretary's
effort to rationalize our infrastructure through a needed round of base
realignment and closure. We are also grateful for the Congress'
willingness to extend our housing privatization authority to 2012.
These actions support the key elements of the Department's program to
manage military installations and facilities more efficiently.
Today, I will address the current state of our facility assets and
the Department's revitalization plans; our sustainment, restoration and
modernization programs; our management initiatives; and our
environmental progress.
REVITALIZING INSTALLATIONS
As Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified to Congress, ``September
11 changed our nation forever.'' Our challenge today and in the future
is to accomplish three difficult missions at once: to win the war on
terrorism, to restore our military forces through investments in
procurement, people and modernization, and to transform our forces to
meet future demands.
Last year, the Secretary of Defense undertook a series of
initiatives to transform our installations and facilities into those
required for a 21st Century military. Our fiscal year 2003 budget, as
well as our current future years defense program, supports that
commitment. In the context of competing priorities resulting from the
events of September 11, we have developed a feasible and fiscally
responsible plan for getting our facilities on a path to recovery. Even
after the events of September 11, we are continuing to transform our
installations and maintain our commitment to our people by improving
their quality of life.
Installations' Vision
Military installations and facilities are an integral component of
readiness. Installations are the ``platforms'' from which our forces
successfully deploy to execute their diverse missions. However, they
are also places where our people live, work and train. The Department's
sustainment and restoration and modernization programs must enhance
military readiness while also providing in adequate quality of life an
adequate working environment and provide for appropriate military
training.
Quality of life and quality of workplace are directly linked to the
quality of our infrastructure. Many surveys have shown that poor
quality facilities and services are a major source of dissatisfaction
for families and services members alike. Our aging and deteriorating
infrastructure has a direct impact on retention.
To address these long standing infrastructure problems in an
integrated fashion, the Department is aggressively pursuing a number of
approaches to benefit service members and improve their quality of
life. First, we will increase the basic allowance for housing to
eliminate the out-of-pocket costs paid by service members for private
sector housing in the United States. The fiscal year 2003 budget
request includes necessary funding to continue lowering service
members' out-of-pocket housing costs for those living off-base from
11.3 percent today to 7.5 percent in 2003. By 2005, the typical member
living off-base will have no out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Second, we will increase our reliance upon the private sector--
higher allowances will increase and enhance service member access to
existing quality housing. Higher allowances will also increase the
income available to private sector developers, facilitating increases
in the quantity and quality of privatized housing.
Finally, we will continue to fund military construction for housing
where necessary. Our fiscal year 2003 budget requests about $227
million more for family housing construction than last year. We have
also maintained our significant investment in barracks modernization.
The combination of increased allowances and continued use of
privatization will permit more efficient use of our military
construction funding. Increased availability of quality private sector
options will ease pressure for on-base housing, reduce the need to
maintain our current inventory, and allow us to spend our sustainment
funding more wisely.
The Defense Facilities Strategic Plan, published in August 2001,
defines our facilities vision for the future--healthy, productive
installations and facilities that are available when and where needed
with capabilities to support current and future military requirements.
At the same time, we must spend the taxpayer's investment wisely and
transform the way we do business to reduce the total operational cost
of ownership of our installations and facilities.
We must right size and locate our installations and facilities
based on military requirements. The recently authorized base
realignment and closure round in 2005 provides a key tool that will
allow the Department to align operational forces with the installations
best suited to their 21st Century missions. Providing the right quality
installations and facilities also means we furnish quality living and
working environments that support the warfighters' missions while
enhancing quality of life for our service members and their families.
Through providing the right resources and leveraging that funding,
we will achieve the right size and quality of our installations and
facilities. We have developed analytical tools and metrics that allow
us to more accurately forecast our requirements and measure our
progress. Our tools, like the Facilities Sustainment Model, which
identifies facility sustainment requirements, and the Facilities
Recapitalization Metric, which assesses the rate of modernization
relative to the service life of the facilities' inventory, have
matured, and we have several new tools under development. For instance,
we are integrating the Services' real property inventory databases to
guide and monitor management decisions. Accomplishing these goals will
ensure that the needs of the warfighters and military families are met.
Current State of Facility Assets
In fiscal year 2000, 42 Major Commands of the military services
collectively rated 69 percent of their nine facilities categories C-3
(have serious deficiencies) or C-4 (do not support mission
requirements) as reported in their Installations' Readiness Reports. At
the end of fiscal year 2001, with 43 Major Commands now reporting, this
percentage is 68 percent.
The first step to improve our readiness posture is to sustain what
we own. It will take some time to reach an acceptable state of
readiness. We are committed to sustaining our facilities appropriately
to avoid incurring substantial costs in later years. In the fiscal year
2003 budget request, the Department funds 93 percent of the
requirement. The fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate for our
facilities has increased to about 150 years (121 if one factors in the
potential 20 to 25 percent reduction that could be achieved from base
realignment and closure). However, the fiscal year 2003 military
construction request is the second largest in the past 6 years. We plan
to invest over $20 billion from fiscal years 2003 through 2007 to
achieve our goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by the end of the
Future Years Defense Program.
For fiscal year 2003, we are requesting a total of $9 billion for
military construction, family housing and environmental remediation on
properties from the 1988 to 1995 base realignment and closure rounds.
Consistent investment levels over time will help us restore and
maintain readiness, stabilize and reduce the average age of our
physical plant, reduce overhead costs, and maximize our return on
investment. Last year, the Department modernized its treatment of our
real property requirement. Our approach to sustainment (operations and
maintenance-like \1\ funds) and restoration and modernization (both
military construction and operations and maintenance funds), underscore
our focus on improving infrastructure management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host
nation, and working capital funds.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
[President's budget in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Funding category -------------------------------
2002 request 2003 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Footprint (MilCon).................. 1.4 1.5
Restoration and Modernization (MilCon).. 3.8 2.5
Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like) .8 .8
Sustainment (O&M-like).................. 5.1 5.6
Family Housing Construction/Improvements 1.1 1.3
Family Housing Maintenance.............. 1.3 1.3
-------------------------------
Total SRM, New Footprint, FH 13.5 13.0
Const. & Maint...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully sustained, restored and modernized facilities are more cost
effective in the long term and result in more prudent use of scarce
resources. It is more expensive to allow facilities to deteriorate,
which reduces service life and causes premature recapitalization
requirements. Further, deteriorated facilities contribute to mission
interruptions.
SUSTAINMENT
The first principle of sound installation management is taking care
of what you own, and our fiscal year 2003 budget request supports that
principle. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request of $5.6 billion
increases sustainment funding to 93 percent of the requirement, from 89
percent in last year's budget. Full funding of sustainment throughout
the program is an appropriate investment that will avoid significant
costs in the future by stabilizing facility conditions and preventing
further erosion.
The fiscal year 2003 budget request also includes $6.1 billion for
Real Property Services (RPS) which are must pay ``open-the-door'' costs
generally performed by contract. The RPS account includes purchase of
utilities, lease payments, custodial services, trash collection, snow
removal, and grounds maintenance.
RECAPITALIZATION
The Department is requesting $3.3 billion for recapitalization in
fiscal year 2003 (including both operations and maintenance and
military construction funds) to restore and modernize our facilities.
Recapitalization is important not only to restore the readiness of poor
facilities, but also to maintain the relevance of all facilities to
future missions of the Department. A consistent modernization program
tied to expected service life best accomplishes this. The Department
stands by its goal of achieving a recapitalization rate of 67 years. We
currently plan to achieve this goal by fiscal year 2007.
There may be concerns with the increased fiscal year 2003
recapitalization rate. However, our fiscal year 2003 budget request
represents a restructuring of our priorities to achieve a more fiscally
responsible program with lower costs over the long term. Sustaining
facilities up front will reduce the need for costly restoration of
facilities in the future, and we are requesting significant increases
to our sustainment budget to accomplish this. In addition, the majority
of the military construction budget projects (over 60 percent) are for
restoration and modernization of mission critical requirements.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's budget in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2002 request 2003 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................... 5,210 4,054
NATO Security Investment Program........ 163 168
Base Realignment and Closure IV......... 532 545
Family Housing Construction............. 1,114 1,341
Family Housing Operations & Maint....... 2,940 2,877
Homeowners Assistance................... 10 0
Family Housing Improvement Fund......... 2 2
-------------------------------
Total............................. 9,971 8,987
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSING
Military housing is a priority for the President and the Secretary,
is an integral part of the Administration's Management Plan and is
crucial to providing a decent quality of life for our service members.
We are investing $1.2 billion in the budget request to construct or
revitalize almost 14,000 barracks spaces for our unaccompanied service
men and women to continue improvements in their quality of life. The
Services are making great progress toward meeting, or have already met,
the Department's goal for eliminating gang latrine conditions for
permanent party unaccompanied service members.
Our request of $4.2 billion for military family housing in fiscal
year 2003 will operate and maintain the Department's family housing and
enable us to eliminate most substandard housing by 2007--3 years
earlier than previously planned. Our family housing construction budget
request of $1.3 billion, up from the $1.1 billion requested in fiscal
year 2002, supports traditional approaches to military family housing
as well as the Department's plan to renovate, replace, or privatize
over 35,000 housing units. We plan to have privatized a cumulative
total of over 60,000 units by the end of fiscal year 2003. The
Department is also requesting $2.9 billion for operating and
maintaining almost 280,000 family housing units world-wide, (251,000
government-owned and another 29,000 leased), approximately 60 percent
of the government-owned units are considered inadequate.
The Department's use of housing privatization, aided by Congress'
extension of our authorities to 2012, continues to leverage our funding
and has allowed us, to date, to privatize over 17,500 housing units.
Our most recent projects have been at Fort Hood, Texas, where Army
personnel have been deployed to support Operation Enduring Freedom and
Naval Complex South Texas, which includes Naval Air Station Corpus
Christi and Naval Station Ingleside in Texas.
Privatizing military housing is a Presidential and Secretary of
Defense management priority and is recognized as a key item on the
Administration's agenda to improve the quality of life for our service
men and women. Because decent, safe and affordable housing is such an
important component of our service members' lives, we are taking steps
to ensure that the privatization projects we have already undertaken
remain fiscally and physically in good shape. To that end, we are
overseeing the legal and financial documents of these projects through
our internal oversight document called the Program Evaluation Plan,
which provides the Secretary of Defense with key information on the
Services' portfolio management of these projects. We are using this
report to oversee the Services' progress in project management, meeting
schedules for housing renovation and construction, customer
satisfaction, and overall financial management.
Privatization is intended to enable the military services to
revitalize their inventories of inadequate housing by leveraging
appropriations with private capital. Under privatization policy, the
Services leverage appropriations to get at least three times the
housing they would get under traditional military construction
programs. In practice, the current 10 projects in our most recent
report have leveraged appropriations at a rate of six to one. In
addition, our data show that our initial ten projects allowed us to
build and renovate houses on our installations that would have cost
$600 million more had we used the traditional military construction
approach. By leveraging available resources, we can revitalize housing
on other military installations.
In terms of future steps, the Department plans to build on our
earlier privatization successes by simplifying the process,
accelerating project execution, and institutionalizing best practices
in the Services' deals with the private sector. We plan to sharpen our
post-award management to ensure fiscal integrity and sound project
management.
IMPROVING BUSINESS PRACTICES
Our installations' management approach extends to improving our
business practices. The Secretary of Defense is committed to improving
the way the Department operates and reducing total ownership costs, and
one of the methods is through improved information technology (IT)
systems. The Installations' community is a frontrunner in the
development and use of IT systems to improve the way we manage
facilities.
For example, in the fiscal year 2000 CFO Financial Statement, we
estimated the funding requirements for sustainment, since we had no
system to capture or forecast sustainment requirements. Now, using the
Facilities Sustainment Model which applies industry benchmarks for
sustainment costs, we are able to precisely identify the requirements.
Thus, sustainment costs in financial statements for fiscal years 2003
and beyond will be based on accurate, verifiable information.
Many of our decision-making tools and financial systems are linked
to the Department's real property inventory databases. Currently, the
Department maintains many divergent systems that should be modernized
using the latest state of the art technology and improved business
processes. We recently began an effort to improve the availability and
accuracy of information on our physical plant. Our vision is to improve
our processes by developing a standardized real property inventory
information system called the Base Information System. The goal is to
develop new processes and systems for inventorying real property that
will allow users of real property information to easily share and gain
access to the information. During this fiscal year, we will develop an
enterprise architecture that will help us clearly identify our current
state and processes, develop a ``to-be'' process and, finally, develop
the road map for change.
In addition to our information systems, we are emphasizing several
management initiatives to improve the efficiency of our installations
and reduce total ownership costs. For example, the facilities
demolition program has eliminated almost 62 million square feet of
excess and obsolete facilities since its inception in 1998, and we
expect to exceed our goal to eliminate 80.1 million square feet by the
end of fiscal year 2003. The costs avoided by demolition will also free
up funding to sustain, restore and modernize other infrastructure in
our inventory. The demolition program was expanded to include several
Defense Agencies and will continue past its originally intended
completion in 2003.
We have actively solicited ideas to improve the operation and
management of our installations and are currently developing evaluation
criteria in order to determine if there are successful candidates for
the Efficient Facilities Initiatives pilot program authorized in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. The Department
continues to consider opportunities for enhanced-use leasing, and we
have established a working group to identify candidates and share
lessons learned. We anticipate these leasing projects will enable
better utilization of our infrastructure, reduce ownership costs,
foster cooperation between the Department and private industry, and
stimulate the local job market.
Joint use has been another effective way to better utilize our
facilities. For example, the Joint Mobility Center at Elmendorf Air
Force Base, Alaska, saved the Air Force and Army up to 20 percent of
the cost to build separate mobility facilities. In another recent case,
the joint Armed Forces Reserve Center at Gray, Tennessee, combined
three construction projects for the Army Reserve, Army National Guard
and Marine Corps Reserve into a single facility project, saving
millions of dollars.
FUTURE BASE CLOSURES
Continuing to operate and maintain facilities we no longer need
diverts scarce resources that could be better applied to higher
priority programs, such as improving readiness, modernization and
quality of life for our service members. We need to seek every
efficiency in the application of available resources to ensure we
maintain just what we need to accomplish our missions. In the wake of
the attacks of September 11, the imperative to convert excess base
capacity into warfighting ability is enhanced, not diminished. With
approximately 20 to 25 percent of our base infrastructure estimated to
be excess to our needs, a significant financial benefit can be realized
through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 infrastructure
reductions.
Prior BRAC actions have resulted in net savings to the Department
of approximately $16 billion, with annual recurring savings of
approximately $6 billion. We estimate that the next round of BRAC could
save an additional $4 billion in annual recurring savings if the
infrastructure reductions approximate the 12 percent reduction
experienced in the last two rounds in 1993 and 1995. Greater reductions
in excess capacity could produce greater annual recurring savings.
BRAC 2005 is our most important facilities rationalization
initiative. It will help the Department ultimately save several billion
dollars annually. But a financial return is not the only benefit--in
fact, it is not even the primary benefit. The authority to realign and
close bases we no longer need will be a critical element of ensuring
the right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy as we
transform the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st
Century. Transformation requires rationalizing our base structure to
better match the force structure for the new ways of doing business,
and the Department will conduct this rationalization with an eye toward
ensuring we look at base capacity across the military services for the
best joint use possible.
The Department is currently engaged in the upfront process of
organizing and planning to accomplish the analysis and reporting
requirements. We are building on the experiences gained in previous
BRACs and using the additional time Congress has given us to finalize
our approach. However, we have not officially ``kicked off'' the
process.
UTILITIES PRIVATIZATION AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT
The Department seeks to reduce its energy consumption and the
associated costs, while improving utility system reliability and
safety. To accomplish this, DOD has developed an integrated program
that optimizes utility system management by conserving energy and
water, taking advantage of restructured energy commodity markets, and
privatizing our utilities infrastructure.
Conserving energy saves the Department money that can be invested
in readiness, facilities sustainment, and quality of life. Energy
conservation projects make business sense, historically obtaining about
$4 in life-cycle savings for every dollar invested. This dynamic
becomes even more important when you consider that military
installations spent nearly $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2001 to buy
energy commodities (almost $400 million more than the previous year--a
16 percent increase), despite reducing their energy use by about 3
trillion BTUs (a one percent reduction). We continue to make progress
in achieving the 2010 energy reduction goal for buildings of 35 percent
per square foot and have reduced consumption by over 23 percent since
1985.
The Department has a balanced program for energy conservation--
installing energy savings measures using appropriated funding and
private-sector investment--combined with using the principles of
sustainable design to reduce the resources used in our new
construction. The fiscal year 2003 budget contains $50 million for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) to implement energy
savings measures in our existing facilities.
The Department places a high priority on privatizing utilities.
However, we have found implementation to be more difficult than
originally envisioned. We have made progress and will continue to move
forward on the privatization of our utility infrastructure in areas
where it makes economic sense. Privatization allows the Military
Departments to focus on core defense missions by relieving them of
those installation management functions that can be done more
efficiently and effectively by non-Federal entities. Historically,
military installations have been unable to upgrade and maintain utility
systems fully due to inadequate funding and competing installation
management priorities. Utilities privatization will allow military
installations to benefit from private-sector financing and efficiencies
to obtain improved utility systems and services.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
The Department's environmental program is focused on four
overarching principles. First, environment is a fundamental component
of our national power. We must be ever vigilant in ensuring lack of
attention to environment does not undermine or degrade our national
power. Second, environmental stewardship is a component of good
business management. The Department is fully committed to implementing
environmental management systems to improve efficiency and integrate
environment into day-to-day operations. Third, environmental
stewardship reflects the high ethical standards of our soldiers,
sailors, marines, and airmen. Fourth, completing environmental
remediation quickly, effectively, and safely, to protect human health
and the environment from the results of past contamination, is
important, both at our active and BRAC installations, as well as
formerly used defense sites and surrounding communities. We are
committed to continuing to be a leader in the Federal government in
environmental management, and our fiscal year 2003 budget request,
highlighted in the table below, reflects this commitment to ensuring
environment fully supports our defense mission.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM--SUMMARY OF REQUEST
[President's budget in million of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2002 request 2003 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup................................. 1,278 1,278
BRAC.................................... 491 520
Compliance.............................. 1,623 1,706
Pollution Prevention.................... 245 247
Conservation............................ 138 152
Technology.............................. 211 205
-------------------------------
Total............................. 3,955 4,108
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To maintain our ability to defend our country against terrorism and
other security threats, our forces have conducted--and must continue to
conduct--training and operations on land, at sea, and in the air.
Environmental degradation can deny access to lands, undermine the
realism and effectiveness of training, limit operational flexibility or
productivity, and pose safety risks. Hence, cleaning up past
contamination is important to sustain the land we hold in the public
trust. Through the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, we are
working to cleanup past contamination in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and eight U.S. territories. This program covers environmental
restoration activities at active installations, installations that are
closing or have had their missions realigned, and formerly used defense
sites (FUDS).
Our environmental restoration request is $1.3 billion for fiscal
year 2003, slightly higher than in our fiscal year 2002 request. We are
proud of our cleanup successes but acknowledge that we still have some
complex issues to address. The Department has built a strong
environmental cleanup program over the last two decades and is charting
a course for completing our environmental restoration requirements.
The environmental cleanup at current BRAC installations continues
to serve as a model for collaboration among Department cleanup and real
estate professionals, Federal and State regulators, and communities in
integrating reuse with cleanup. We have completed environmental cleanup
requirements under CERCLA at 84 percent of land slated for transfer
from the Department. To continue the remaining environmental cleanup
required at previous BRAC installations, we are requesting $520
million, $29 million more than was requested last year.
We are also building on the requirements of Executive Order 13148,
Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management,
to improve our business practices. We have recently undertaken an
initiative to implement environmental management systems across all
missions, activities and functions. Industry leaders have shown us that
effective environmental management systems will enable the Department
to leverage its environmental investment to reduce mission-driven risks
and associated compliance costs. We believe successful implementation
of environmental management systems in the Department is essential to
maintain and improve readiness, mission efficiency, and environmental
stewardship in light of the increasingly demanding national security
and environmental requirements of the 21st Century.
The fiscal year 2003 environmental quality request for $2.1 billion
includes $1.7 billion for compliance, $250 million for pollution
prevention and $152 million for conservation. This will allow us to
continue to comply with environmental laws and regulations and to
effectively reduce the amount of pollutants we generate in performing
the defense mission. These funds are a good defense investment. As of
the end of fiscal year 2001, the Department reduced the number of new
environmental violations received by 75 percent since 1992, reduced the
amount of hazardous waste generated by over 60 percent, and completed
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans at the vast majority of
bases.
For several years, the Department has worked to integrate
environmental, safety, and occupational health considerations into
defense acquisition weapon system programs. We believe that smart
consideration of environmental concerns during the acquisition process
is the key to efficient, cost effective, and environmentally sound
weapon system performance.
We have revised the Directives that impact the major weapon system
acquisition programs for the Department. These changes clarify and
strengthen the management of life-cycle environmental issues by
integrating them into the overall acquisition program management
process. The new language also drives reduction in the procurement and
use of hazardous materials to ensure waste minimization and pollution
prevention are institutionalized in the acquisition process. In
addition, the program manager is required to assess the life-cycle
environmental impacts of the weapon system to identify opportunities
for source reduction and recycling to minimize these impacts. These
changes help reduce the cost and impact of these weapons systems on the
people who make them, use them, maintain them and live around
installations where they are stationed. Such improvements in today's
weapon system acquisitions will have far-reaching positive impacts on
``green'' initiatives at all of our installations for many years to
come.
Since sound environmental policy is the foundation of future
improvement in environmental performance, we provided greater emphasis
on promoting teamwork between environmental and procurement personnel
to realize the benefit of affirmative procurement policy goals. All of
these changes have improved our performance of purchasing
environmentally preferable products, which has reduced our potential
environmental impact on both the communities around our installations
as well as our own personnel.
The Department is fully committed to military explosives safety--
protecting military members and the public from the adverse effects of
munitions. Last year, after an in-depth review, we divided our
challenge into two areas of responsibility: Operational Ranges and
Munitions Response Areas.
Our operational ranges are needed today and tomorrow. We fully
appreciate the need for good stewardship and, as a part of our Range
Sustainment Initiative, we are reviewing how we look at and manage our
operational ranges. Most immediately, the Department is clarifying our
operational range clearance policy. We are also developing the
protocols for determining and responding to any groundwater
contamination under our operational ranges. For our Munitions Response
Areas, which include all property which may have unexploded ordnance,
abandoned munitions, or munitions constituents, and we are building on
the authority provided to us with the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program. In so doing, the Department intends to fully comply with
Sections 311, 312, and 313 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2002, Public Law 107-107, which call for several
significant items, including a site inventories, cost projections and a
technology roadmaps.
ENCROACHMENT
Civilian encroachment at active military bases and test and
training ranges can interfere with the ability of our military to carry
out their missions and can degrade the training and readiness of our
military personnel at a time we need them most. Encroachment involves
buildings and structures protruding into navigable air space;
residential development locating in noisy, high performance aircraft
approach and departure corridors or too close to gunnery ranges; or it
can be off-base electrical transmissions interfering with air and
ground communications. The presence of endangered species or their
critical habitats in or near gunnery and bombing ranges also
contributes to encroachment problems.
Urban growth and development is the most visible form of
encroachment and has the greatest impact on military operations,
training, and readiness. Encroachment of incompatible civilian
activities in whatever form--if allowed to go unmanaged and
unregulated--will continue to compromise the effectiveness of our
military forces. Since maintaining the readiness of our forces is one
of the highest priorities of the Department, we strive to maintain a
reasonable balance between test and training requirements, the concerns
of our neighbors near our test and training ranges, and the importance
of sound environmental stewardship. All of our military services are
prepared to work with appropriate State and local authorities to
control and hopefully curtail encroachment on both sides of the fence
line.
We are addressing encroachment by developing a comprehensive
strategy that will consider test and training mission needs, regulatory
requirements, community support, urban encroachment, and the current
and projected capability of our ranges to support the mission. The
Deputy Secretary of Defense established a full time Integrated Product
Team in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to act as the Department's coordinating body for overall
range encroachment issues. This IPT, which reports to the Senior
Readiness Oversight Council, has been tasked with developing a
comprehensive set of proposals to address the encroachment issue.
ENABLING LEGISLATION
Consistent with our work to improve installations and environmental
business practices, we are developing specific military construction
legislation that will enable us to conduct our work more efficiently at
lower cost. The legislation Congress enacted during fiscal year 2002
greatly improved the Department's freedom to manage, and the
legislation currently under consideration by the Department will
continue that trend without diminishing our accountability.
CONCLUSION
Our fiscal year 2003 budget request for military construction and
for the Department's environmental programs supports the Department's
obligation to acquire and maintain facilities vital to our changing
missions and readiness. America's security, today and in the future,
depends on installations and facilities that support operational
readiness and changing force structures and missions. We have slowed
the deterioration of our facilities, and will, over time, fully restore
their readiness. With the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan as our
guide, we are committed to providing and supporting healthy
installations, facilities and housing that will enhance readiness,
morale and quality of life for our service members and civilians. This
installations' transformation will continue until all of our facilities
meet the requirements of a 21st Century military.
We will also continue to identify opportunities to operate more
efficiently and leverage our resources through partnerships with the
private sector on housing and utilities privatization and competitive
sourcing initiatives. We are committed to divesting ourselves of
unneeded, underutilized facilities through the Efficient Facilities
Initiative, facilities demolition, outleasing, and other facility
reduction initiatives.
As a leader in environmental management, we will complete
environmental remediation quickly and effectively at both our current
and former installations and will protect our service members and
others from the results of past contamination. In addition, we are
developing a strategy to address encroachment that considers the needs
of everyone involved.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for providing me
this opportunity to describe the Department's plan for revitalizing our
installations and facilities and for your very strong support for a
robust military construction program. I look forward to working with
you as we transform our plans into actions.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. DuBois. I
might, if I could--and we will do 5-minute rounds--ask about
the cuts in the guard and reserve. As I understand it, the Army
National Guard is down 75 percent, the Army Reserve 65 percent,
the Air Guard 79 percent, the Air Force Reserve 57.4 percent,
and the Navy Reserve 1.4 percent. How can these entities
function with these kinds of cuts?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, let me take a stab at that, Senator, and
then I will turn it over to my colleague.
Senator Feinstein. Can you speak up, Mr. Zakheim?
Mr. Zakheim. Can you hear me better now? I will take a stab
at that, then turn it over to my colleague.
The percentages, of course, are true. The real issue, as
far as we are concerned, is very much the same issue as that
which Ray DuBois just mentioned and I briefly alluded to, and
that is one of priorities. The Services' priority, of course,
is to fund the first-to-fight units, and the guard and reserve
units tend not always to be first to fight. For this and other
reasons, they simply did not get priority.
By way of context, however, if you take the $297.3 million
that was allocated to the 37 guard and reserve projects in this
budget, it compares favorably both with the original 2002
budget, which was at about $224 million, and the 2001 budget,
which was roughly the same, at $222 million. Again, you had a
spike in the amended 2002 budget.
But recalling the context, and again I draw you back to
what my colleague, Ray DuBois just said earlier, until 9/11 the
Secretary had as one of his highest priorities bringing down
the recapitalization rate, and that was reflected in our
amended 2002 budget.
REDUCED REQUESTS FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
Senator Feinstein. But my question is a little different.
If you are going to take the Army National Guard from $405
million to $100 million, how is that guard going to function as
the primary position from which you draw troops for the
actives, as well as nay role it might have in homeland defense?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, my number reflects our request, which
actually is $267, but I think that does not really answer your
question.
Again, it is not that there are no facilities. It is a
question of modernizing those facilities, and once again it was
a question of priorities. To place just the Army National guard
in context, in 2001 we spent just under $60 million for the
Army National Guard.
Senator Feinstein. Let me clear this up. The number I am
using of $405 million is the amount that Congress finally
appropriated. Are you saying that was not used, because you are
taking it down to $111 million. You are saying that the $405
million was not used?
Mr. Zakheim. I understand it was the amount that you
appropriated, but I still go back to my point that relative--
there was a spike there last year, and relative to the historic
levels, I believe I am correct that the $101 million is
actually somewhat higher, even if one accounts for inflation.
Senator Feinstein. Are you saying the 400--and I do not
mean to beleaguer you, but that the $405 million was not used?
Mr. Zakheim. It was used. It is being used. It was
appropriated. The number I used--and I am sorry for the
confusion--was the number that we requested in the amended
budget. I withdraw that. I do not mean to confuse you. The
basic answer is, as I said, it is just a question of
priorities, for example, the ``first-to-fight'' concern.
Historically the $101 million is actually very much in line
with previous, other than last year's level, but I am sorry if
I confused you.
Senator Feinstein. The same thing is true of the Army
Reserve, from $167 million to $58 million. I have a hard time
understanding how you are going to keep a strength and absorb
this kind of cut.
Mr. Zakheim. Again, I would have to refer you particularly
to the Services. They made these allocations, and these were
the priorities as they saw they best could fund them.
Senator Feinstein. Are you saying those were the Services'
requests?
Mr. Zakheim. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. They have actually requested this kind
of cut?
Mr. Zakheim. Yes, ma'am. This is what they agreed to. When
we went to them and we set our priorities out, they had the
flexibility to reallocate, readjust, protest, whatever you want
to say. This is how it came back. This was not forced down
their throats.
Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairwoman, if I could possibly suggest
that we all recognize the dramatic increase last year, both in
terms of the President's request and in terms of the ultimate
appropriation. I think it is probably fair to say that as the
Services allocated their top line and were grateful and happy
for the plus-up last year, they probably looked at the
requirements for this year and saw where they could come down
but historically still stay within the same basic glide path
that they had been on before with respect to the military
reserve components.
I am just suggesting--and that is something, as Secretary
Zakheim said, is more particularized to the individual Service,
but last year, both active and reserve components had a
substantial dramatic increase in terms of appropriation, in
terms of presidential budget request amended, and in terms of
the appropriation.
Senator Feinstein. Well, my time is up, and I did have some
other questions, but I would be very surprised if they can
absorb these kinds of cuts without any substantial reduction,
because they are the largest cuts I have seen since I have been
in the Senate.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I am going to defer to Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
I am interested in the comments that you have made and the
comments that Under Secretary Wolfowitz made before our
committee when he said, earmarks directing infrastructure
spending on facilities the taxpayers do not need and eventually
could be closed would be compounding the waste that the delay
in BRAC is already causing. I think that the implication to us
has been that there is to be a delay in significant investment
until the Department knows which are going to be closed, and
you are saying that is not going on, Mr. DuBois?
Mr. DuBois. I am suggesting, Senator, that while it is
inescapable that BRAC is in our future, and it is inescapable
that because the BRAC is in our future I suspect that the
services focused their previous MILCON dollars on current
mission requirements, they do not--MILCON allocations this year
and next are not and will not be allocated on a facilities-
centric basis. It is on a mission-centric basis.
Senator Stevens. I am confused about that, because Dr.
Zakheim, you have told us that you have deferred $400 million
to low priority MILCON projects because of the uncertainty over
base closure, and you are saying it is mission-oriented. You
are telling me that none of these bases that have been delayed
have any missions that are so important that they should be
considered now?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, Senator Stevens, since you quoted me,
let me explain something about that $400 million, sir. That had
absolutely no relationship to the BRAC closures and, in fact,
if you like I can even now give you detail as to how that $400
million was achieved.
Senator Stevens. I would like to have a list of the
projects that have been delayed. Mr. DuBois says that they are
all mission-oriented, and yet there is a whole series of them
that have been delayed. Many of the Services, of course, are
coming in directly to us saying, we had a project that has been
delayed, and we are going to be looking to adding these back in
and getting into a fight again with you all.
Mr. Zakheim. Well, I cannot speak for what the Services
tell you privately. I can tell you that, for instance, there
were $22 million worth of projects that were simply accelerated
by the Congress so that there was no need to put the same money
in in 2003, and I can give you details of those, the Schofield
Barracks land project, the basic supply at Incirlik in Turkey,
the Army National Guard Readiness Center in California. Those
were all accelerated by the Congress in 2002.
Senator Stevens. I am not asking about what was
accelerated. I want to find out those that were delayed, Dr.
Zakheim. You have testified, and your program shows low
priority military construction projects delayed. Mr. DuBois
says we have not delayed any mission-oriented projects directed
by the service. Am I misquoting you?
BASE CLOSURE
Mr. DuBois. No, sir.
Senator Stevens. There seems to be a conflict there to me,
and we are hearing about them, and I would like to know what
are the delays. I do not have much time. Dr. Zakheim, in terms
of this statement, it indicates that 152 major installations in
the last four BRAC rounds, and 235 were proposed, and that
implementation of the last round of the four approved BRAC's
was completed on July 13, 2001. Is your testimony that all of
the BRAC's are closed now, the prior BRAC's? We had four
rounds. Are they all closed now?
Mr. DuBois. May I answer that question in the following
way? They are closed, but not disposed. There is a difference
between the military making the decision to close an
installation and whether or not the military department has had
the opportunity to dispose or convey that property to a local
redevelopment authority.
Senator Stevens. Respectfully, to us the question is
whether they are having the savings you and your predecessors
have told us they would have. Now, I think there are still
costs out there that are associated with bases that were
supposed to be closed that are not really closed, and will not
be closed because of environmental or public pressures, a lot
of other things. That is why many of us voted not to go into
another round of BRAC until we found out what happened to the
last four and whether they really saved the money we were told
they would save.
Now, the implication of your statement today is that they
are closed and they are saving more than $6 billion a year, is
that right?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, sir. According to the statistics that have
been provided to us by OMB. GAO last summer wrote another
report on this in this regard, specifically addressing the
savings that the Department of Defense estimates on a recurring
basis exists from closed and BRAC'd properties.
It is true that some of those BRAC'd properties have not
been conveyed to the local redevelopment authority or put out
for bid, but that does not mean the savings have not already
been created.
Senator Stevens. I have great difficulty with this subject,
because in my judgment, as I said, there are many of them that
have not been closed. Are you crediting against those savings
the continued cost of the bases that are no longer used?
Mr. DuBois. This is a net savings per annum, sir.
Senator Stevens. I would like to see the study. I think it
ought to be broken down. I also again request a list of the
projects that were deferred for this year for the record.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have to say
that I would like to see how anybody could say we are saving
today $6 billion in closed bases when we are still doing
environmental cleanup and have not even gotten the full bill
yet for environmental cleanup for many of these bases.
Mr. DuBois. You are quite right, Senator Hutchison. In fact
there is probably--we estimate a $4 billion cost to complete
environmental cleanup of all prior BRAC'd properties, but the
$6 billion that has been attested to by agencies outside of the
Department of Defense is a $6 billion current cost avoidance
cost savings, does not include the cost to complete the $4
billion that--I do not know how many years it will take us to
complete this, because as you know, there are a number of
installations that probably will take some time to clean up and
some of them may, because of their ranges, unexploded ordnance,
a very serious issue, it may be the decision to fence those
areas, as has been the case in the past, and create wildlife
refuges out of them.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I would just say that one of the
reasons that many of us were concerned about another BRAC is
because we have not yet gotten all the bills for the closures,
and what we want to assure ourselves of is that if we close a
base, that it is really going to save money.
Mr. DuBois. I want to assure you that Secretary Rumsfeld,
one of the first things he did after I got this job was to ask
me to review all BRAC'd properties which have been closed,
which have been conveyed, which have been disposed, and those
that have not been disposed or conveyed, why not.
Working, as Senator Feinstein knows, with H. T. Johnson,
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and Mayor Brown in San
Francisco, we have made several major steps forward. Hunter's
Point is now conveyed. We have got several other in the
pipeline, but I will give you a great example, El Toro. Today
they are voting in El Toro in Orange County on whether or not
that is going to be a future airport or not. We have had to sit
there to wait until the local political jurisdictions, plural,
decided what their future use would be. Depending on the
referendum today as we sit here we, the Department of the Navy,
will issue a record of decision and hopefully dispose that
property forthwith.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I will just ask you on the issue
of the BRAC that we now know is going to be in 2005, that you
come to us in good time with the force structure that we are
going to need in the next 25 to 30 years in this country, and
then make sure that we have the training facilities. You talk
about encroachment in America. What about encroachment overseas
and our ability to train overseas?
So let us make sure we know what our troop strength is
going to be in what services, and probably before September 11
you would have said we did not need a cavalry any more, and now
you need to make sure that we have training space for cavalry,
so we have got--and obviously I am being a little disingenuous
here, but I am trying to say that we need to really know what
our training requirements are and our force structure before we
go into that BRAC.
Mr. DuBois. You are absolutely right, and as you know, in
the legislation it requires the Secretary of Defense to report
to Congress no later than February of 2004 with a force
structure for the next 20 years.
Now, I hope everyone in this room understands, because
certainly the Secretary of Defense does, that that kind of
report has got a little crystal ball aspect to it. It is tough
enough to sit there and look over the next several years, but
he has an obligation to report to you in February of 2004 with
not just the force structure for the next 20 years, but also,
as the legislation requires, an inventory capacity analysis, a
base structure inventory. These are important reports that you
have correctly required, before we go into that 2004, 12 months
of very intense debate and analysis as to how that force
structure superimposes itself on the appropriate
infrastructure.
Senator Hutchison. I have another question, but I do not
know what my time is.
NATO MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Senator Feinstein. Go ahead.
Senator Hutchison. I want to go to my European component,
and with the added burden that we are taking in the war on
terrorism, which is going to be necessarily proliferating among
many countries where we are going to have military construction
projects, I would just ask if the increase in the investment in
Europe, and the 25-percent NATO requirement which we have, is a
fair allocation, or is it time for us to look at burden-sharing
with our European allies and our percentage of NATO? Is any of
this in the cards, or are we just going to continue to have the
same responsibilities in Europe and also have to take the
lion's share of the burden in the war on terrorism?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, it is in the cards. It is a very, very
appropriate question at this time. We are in fact looking at
doing in Europe what we have been able to accomplish in Korea.
There will be a new burden-sharing report coming out soon, and
you can take a look at the chart there. You will see that most
of our European allies contribute less than 40 cents on the
dollar for what is spent out there.
There are many, many ways we can get them to increase their
percentage, for example, as part of the Efficient Basing East
project that General Ralston has put together. Both Ray DuBois
and I were in Europe to view progress in this area. About $50
million is being contributed by the German Government for what
is called payment in kind. They are doing all kinds of things
such as landfill for the training facility and so on.
That is a good model, and we need to ensure that we repeat
it. I talked extensively with the Secretary about this, and
with Ray. We have his wholehearted support to go out and get
our friends to contribute more because we are bearing such a
massive load. Even the direction the current military
construction, the thrust of the construction you mentioned
yourself Greece, Spain--is a southward orientation. This makes
a lot of sense relative to what we are doing right now and are
likely to do in the future.
So there is a reorientation going on. There is efficiency
going on. General Ralston is committed to that, and at the same
time we are formulating a strategy, frankly, to approach our
European friends and say, we need some help here.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. Just a couple of
wrap-up things. Before we move this bill, I would like to ask
you to provide us with a net-net accounting of savings from
BRAC closures to date. That includes environmental cleanup. I
mean, do not exclude that, because environmental cleanup has
always been short-funded, and I want to see what the actual
numbers are, if I may.
[The information follows:]
The net BRAC Savings over the implementation period from
fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 2001 is about $15.5 billion.
The annual recurring savings after fiscal year 2001 are
projected to be about $6 billion.
The detailed cost and savings data is available in the DoD
Base Realignment and Closure Executive Summary and Budget
Justification for the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Estimates.
Senator Feinstein. A second point is, I do not believe, Mr.
DuBois, Hunter's Point has been conveyed yet. That is probably
another, I am told by my staff, another year or so away, and
last year our committee included a direction to submit a joint
FYDP, or even to submit a plan to develop a joint FYDP by
February 15 of 2002. Well, we have not received it, and my
question is, are you really serious about your support of joint
construction?
Mr. Zakheim. Let me take that last one first. We are
putting the report together. We have five joint use projects in
the current budget, as I think you know, NAS-Atlanta, which is
about $7 million, the joint reserve base, which is about $3
million, and New Orleans, about $14\1/2\ million, Norfolk,
nearly $5 million, Forbes Field, in Topeka, Kansas, about 14\1/
2\ million, so we have those. We are putting that report
together.
And by the way, I have also created, and this I guess is
real green eyeshade stuff, Senator, but what is called a
program element. Within the FYDP you measure activity. If you
really want to be specific about it and direct it, you create
what is called a program element, and a report asks for that.
You ask for that, and I have done that, so we have moved along
on those grounds.
And I also, I guess, again being a numbers guy, I cannot
resist at least in part not responding to your previous point
about the net-net savings. Sure, it is true environmental
remediation is not really a BRAC cost, but I know what you are
driving at. But nevertheless, the point is that we have $4
billion, or frankly even $6 billion in remaining cleanup costs,
the estimates of annual savings is $6 billion, so if you are
stretching the cleanup cost over a number of years, it is
clearly a small percentage of annual savings of $6 billion.
Those savings are real. As you well know, we do not always see
eye to eye with GAO, and on this one we do.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
INFRASTRUCTURE IN KOREA
Senator Hutchison. I just have one follow-up, and that is
on Korea. Now, last year when we were here talking about Korea,
I made the observation that it did not seem as if we had
reassessed our troop strength in Korea for a long time, and we
were spending a lot of money in Korea. This year, I think it is
more relevant to spend money in Korea, but I still have to ask
the question, have we looked at what our long-term requirements
are going to be in Korea, and are we sizing our commitment
there correctly?
Now, obviously there is a tension that would require a
certain vigilance, but in the long term, is our troop strength
being looked at for long term needs, and is our military
construction following what we would think would be a long
term, because you are cutting off domestic MILCON pretty much.
Are you doing the same thing in Korea?
Mr. Zakheim. Well, those are very, very important
questions, Senator, and as you rightly noted, this is probably
not a time when we should be thinking very much about reducing
anything in that part of the world.
As you know, General Schwartz has worked very hard to
create a program that would essentially make our footprint in
Korea far more efficient. The Koreans want that as well, but in
terms of the force structure, obviously any kind of significant
change in force structure presupposes a political change on the
peninsula, and right now we just do not see that.
Indeed, thinking back to how things went totally out of
hand in 1950 because we sent the wrong signals to Kim Il Sung,
the last thing we want to do is send the wrong signals to his
son by speculating about possible withdrawals, or anything like
that. They are, given that for the foreseeable future our
posture in Korea is going to be what it is, and given that the
state of facilities in Korea is just really horrible, and our
troops go out there primarily on unaccompanied tours and live a
very hard life, it seems appropriate to do what we are doing
there. This is especially because General Schwartz has been so
attentive to not only modernizing the facilities, but doing it
in the most efficient way possible.
Senator Hutchison. But looking at the long term, and I
understand and agree with everything you have said, you do not
want to send a signal now that we would be lessening our
commitment, but given that in the long term there is the
possibility of a lessening of hostilities, are we looking at
our military construction for the more permanent kinds of needs
that we would have there?
Mr. Zakheim. My understanding is that by doing it more
efficiently we in effect hedge against that possibility, if it
ever were to emerge in the foreseeable future, so that we
provide the right sorts of facilities for our people now. Of
course we all hope there would be, changes. But the only
changes as far as we are concerned are some kind of change in
the north. In that case those facilities would, at least as we
can see from here on out, and no one is a prophet, would be
relevant to whatever we would be doing.
There is no question that our commitment to peace on the
peninsula and our commitment to the Republic of Korea is
extremely strong. It has to be, and indeed, our Japanese
friends want to be sure it is as well, so it is not just Korea
only. It is our posture in a very potentially dangerous part of
the world for a long time to come.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. Thank you,
gentlemen. Thank you so much, and thank you for the Korean
agreement. I hope it does result in 50 cents on the dollar.
Mr. Zakheim. Well, they have signed up to it, Senator.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. That is great, and I, for one, have
heard many, many stories about how bad the housing and sanitary
facilities are for our people there, so I am glad it will be
getting additional attention.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Zakheim. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Dov S. Zakheim
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
REDUCTION DUE TO PLANNED BRAC
Question. Do you have any concern the this deferral of military
construction projects, while you await the next BRAC proposal, may
create an unmanageable backlog of construction projects in the
outyears?
Answer. The Department has not deferred military construction
projects pending BRAC, hence we do not anticipate a backlog of projects
in the outyears. This year's military construction request, the second
largest request in 6 years, supports the most mission critical
requirements. With programmed investments, we plan on reaching the
Secretary's goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by the end of the
current future years defense program. Military construction
investments, coupled with increased operations and maintenance funding
for sustainment, restoration, and modernization, will continue
improving our facilities and their support for military readiness even
as we rationalize our base structure.
SUPPLEMENTAL
Question. Do you intend to ask for any additional military
construction funding in the fiscal year 2002 Defense supplemental?
Answer. No, there are no military construction projects requested
in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental request; however, we are
requesting authority to execute a construction project not otherwise
authorized by law if an unforeseen requirement arises.
Question. What projects are you considering? When do you intend to
submit your supplemental request to Congress?
Answer. We do not anticipate funding any military construction
projects at this time; however, we are requesting authority to execute
a construction project not otherwise authorized by law if an unforseen
requirement arises.
OUTYEARS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUESTS
Question. Each of the Services are projecting huge spikes in MilCon
funding in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, but outyear funding
typically tends to shrink when the time comes to pay the bill.
Are the MilCon budget projections for fiscal year 2006 and 2007
realistic today, and will they continue to be realistic down the road?
Answer. The budget projections for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year
2007 reflect our current plan to achieve the 67-year recapitalization
rate within existing priorities. Secretary Rumsfeld is committed to
achieving the 67-year recapitalization rate, so I believe you will
continue to see funding for military construction to meet that goal.
ARREST DISMAL CONDITIONS/LARGE RESERVE COMPONENT CUT
Question. Dr. Zakheim, last year you testified, and I quote,
``Regrettably, in the past we did not plow enough back into our
facilities. 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.'' Well, this is what you said last year. . . . Today is the
future, but this budget doesn't appear to reflect your previous
intentions.
Your previous testimony stated that the Department has, and again,
I quote, ``taken special care to ensure that the National Guard and
reserve facilities requirement were fully and fairly incorporated in
this portion of the process.''
This year's budget request reflects steep cuts in the Guard and
Reserve budgets--even if you take away Congressional inserts, the
reserve component budgets are down 40 percent to 60 percent from last
year's budget request. Would you please address the reasoning behind
the sharp cuts in the Guard and Reserve? (He is likely to respond that
those are Army decisions, and you will have to ask the Army for the
rationale.)
Answer. Although the Guard and Reserve request is lower than last
year's fiscal year 2002 request, in no way does it imply any easing in
our commitment to revitalizing the Guard and Reserve infrastructure.
For instance, the $297.3 million request for fiscal year 2003 is higher
than requests prior to fiscal year 2002. Further, funding for
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernizaton of our facilities within the
Operation and Maintenance accounts has been increased. While last
year's funding level is not sustained due to higher priorities for
tranformation, mission requirements, and readiness, our multiyear
magagement plan to revitalize DOD facilities through construction,
increased SRM, demolition, and BRAC is on targert to achieve the 67-
year recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2007.
Question. Do you believe the Guard and Reserve budget requests are
adequate?
Answer. Yes. Again, I would like to point out that the fiscal year
2003 request is higher than the requests prior to fiscal year 2002 and
that the fiscal year 2003 request is just one piece of our multiyear
management plan to achieve a 67-year recapitalization rate. The fiscal
year 2003 Guard and Reserve military construction requests support this
plan.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
LOW PRIORITY MILCON PROJECTS
Question. Dr. Zakheim, there has been a lot of discussion about the
deferral of $400 million of low priority milcon projects because of the
uncertainty/delay over base closure. Why were they projects deffered?
Will you provide us that list of projects?
Answer. The projects were not really of a lower priority. Instead,
they were either deleted since they were funded elsehwere, i.e. out of
the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), accelerated by Congress,
not executable, Funded with prior year savings, or repriced based on
foreign currency rates or extension of congressional actions.
I will provide a list of the projects that were deferred depending
on the ruling of the General Counsel and the Office of Management and
Budget.
MILCON BUDGET
Question. Dr. Zakheim, has the decision to delay brac until 2005
impacted the military construction budget in 2003 and how will it
impact it over the next 2 years? Will we see a smaller milcon budget?
Answer. The decision to delay BRAC by 2 years has not impacted the
size of the fiscal year 2003 military construction budget request. The
fiscal year 2003 military construction budget request was the second
highest in the last 6 years. The highest request ever was the fiscal
year 2002 request. I do not believe you will see smaller budget
requests in the next 2 years since we are not allowed to, nor would we,
prejudice the BRAC process. The Department will continue to fund the
most critical requirements in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005
regardless of the fact that BRAC has been delayed until fiscal year
2005.
______
Questions Submitted to Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
EUROPEAN ALLIES HELP
Question. Secretary DuBois, I note that this budget contains over a
billion dollars of major military construction projects for Europe
alone. This does include funding for the NATO security investment
account. However, this does not include any funding to operate and
maintain family housing or bachelor housing in Europe which would be
additive to the billion dollars.
Secretary DuBois, I also note that we have projects in the budget
associated with the expansion of NATO headquarters in Larissa, Greece
and two projects in Belgium associated with the U.S. component of NATO,
shape headquarters.
Secretary DuBois, with the U.S. fighting a worldwide campaign
against terrorism, is it unreasonable to ask our European allies to do
more in defense of the alliance and especially help with our
infrastructure bill to help maintain U.S. military presence in their
countries, such as in Germany, Italy and Spain? How often do we
renegotiate burden sharing agreements in Europe?
Answer. While we encourage our NATO Allies to assume a greater
share of the burden of providing for the common defense, the Department
believes that their burdensharing, or responsibility sharing, efforts
are generally positive. NATO countries have long provided substantial
indirect support for U.S. forces stationed on their territory. Our
Allies provide bases and facilities rent-free, various tax exemptions,
and reduced-cost services. They also provide direct support through
common-funded budgets such as the NATO Security Investment Program
(NSIP).
Since September 11, NATO Allies have shown an unprecedented level
of support for the United States. The decision to invoke Article 5 of
the Washington Treaty, the core clause of NATO's founding charter which
states that an armed attack against one Ally shall be considered an
attack against them all, is the most profound expression of Alliance
solidarity. This was the first invocation of Article 5 in the
Alliance's history.
Subsequent to invocation of Article 5, the Allies agreed (at the
request of the United States) to take eight measures to implement it
and to expand the options available in the campaign against terrorism.
These measures range from enhancing intelligence sharing to providing
blanket overflight clearances for U.S. and other Allied aircraft for
flights related to operations against terrorism.
Our active participation in NSIP assures the U.S. of a major
leadership and front-line role in shaping and influencing the
collective defense posture of the Alliance. We have carefully crafted
our foreign policy decision to be a leader in the NATO Alliance. And
while most of the Allies' contributions are less than .5 percent of
their defense budgets, our contribution represents even less than that.
The agreed cost sharing formulae determining each member nations'
cost shares are based primarily on their contributive capacity
(``ability to pay''), Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the economic
and user benefits derived from the program. However, the U.S. cost
share is only about half what it would be if the GDP measurement
strictly governed, in recognition of U.S. contributions to non-NATO
global responsibilities. Our cost share has been reduced from a high of
44 percent in 1960 to approximately 24.7 percent today. Further
reductions are foreseen should additional nations be offered membership
in NATO, a decision expected to be made in the fall of 2002.
Cost shares are reviewed every second year, but percentages could
be raised at the ministerial level at any time. The U.S. cost share of
24.7 percent brings us a high value return--in 2000, 60 percent of the
total NSIP budget was spent to meet U.S. needs.
Practical examples abound of the support our European Allies
provide for regional and collective security affairs. The U.S. received
NATO infrastructure Allied-nation support for many humanitarian and
peacekeeping initiatives and operations--for example, DESERT STORM,
PROVIDE RELIEF, PROVIDE HOPE, PROVIDE COMFORT, SOUTHERN WATCH, ABLE
SENTRY, DENY FLIGHT, ENDURING FREEDOM, and U.S. operations in the
former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Additionally, peacekeeping
operations in Somalia and Iraq were executed and sustained through the
direct use of NATO infrastructure.
Furthermore, NATO has approved and funded 83 infrastructure
projects, totaling over $330 million, for the bed down of two fighter
squadrons at Aviano Air Base, Italy and for quality of life projects
not historically funded by NSIP. Allied agreement to fund these U.S.
requirements is particularly significant since NATO facility funding
for the European Allies has been all but eliminated, while full support
has continued for U.S. requirements at our European bases. Despite
this, the cost share percentage for European nations has not been
reduced (other than a pro-rata reduction for all members when three new
nations entered into the Alliance). Thus, our European Allies must now
shoulder the bulk of the costs of NATO-required construction and
facility restoration within their own budgets while NATO funding
support for U.S. facility requirements in Europe remains unchanged.
Regarding your opening comments, NATO is fully funding all
headquarters, administration, communications, and limited morale and
welfare facilities for its new command structure. NATO requires
``sender'' nations to provide baseline support of their own personnel,
and to pay for support infrastructure such as medical, dental,
dormitories, housing and other ``quality of life'' facilities. In
addition, participating nations must provide for housing of personnel
stationed at NATO headquarters sites.
The proposed MilCon projects are to provide support facilities for
U.S. personnel assigned to NATO headquarters, in accordance with U.S.
national requirements. The fiscal year 2003 budget submission contains
$33.9 million for U.S. user facilities in support of NATO headquarters
sites.
Specific projects are as follows:
--BEQ/Support Facilities--$14.8M--Larissa, Greece;
--Two Family Housing Flag Units--$1.2M--Larissa, Greece;
--Navy Exchange/MWR--$2.9M Madrid, Spain (Joint Subregional HQ West);
--Barracks Complex-Chievres--$13.6M--Chievres Airbase, Belgium; and
--SHAPE Elem School Classroom Add--$1.4M--SHAPE, Belgium.
In addition, the fiscal year 2003 budget includes $2.9 billion to
operate and maintain DOD family housing world wide. The fiscal year
2003 budget also includes operation and maintenance funding for
bachelor housing in Europe as part of DOD's overall operations and
maintenance request.
MASTER BASING STUDY
Question. Mr. Dubois, as I mentioned earlier, we are expecting the
overseas master basing study within the next month. How was this review
used to determine overseas priorities and which military construction
and family housing projects were recommended in the 2003 budget?
Answer. The construction projects contained in the 2003 budget
address the most critical requirements of the Department. The overseas
master basing study is on going, and it could not be used to determine
which military construction and family housing projects would be in the
2003 budget. When the study is finalized, we will work with appropriate
host nations to expedite implementation of the study recommendations,
as appropriate, and factor the results into future budgets.
Question. Mr. Dubois, did the office of the secretary of defense
have any meaningful input into the study, such as criteria and
projected force levels?
Answer. The Secretary of Defense tasked the geographic combatant
commanders, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
conduct this study. Force levels used were based upon the recent
Quadrennial Defense Review. We are now entering in a dialog with the
Joint Staff on the methodology and preliminary data that have been
collected, particularly in regard to joint use requirements and
capabilities.
DOMESTIC DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Mr. Dubois, the budget gives the appearance that we
shorted domestic defense infrastructure because of the pending round of
base closure and instead invested in overseas areas because they are
not subject to brac. Is this true?
Answer. No. Our fiscal year 2003 military construction request
focuses investments on critical military requirements, readiness
shortfalls, and quality of life, as determined by the Services, without
regard to specific installations or location. 77 percent of the budget
request is for U.S. military construction projects while 23 percent is
for projects overseas. This percentage, although not predetermined,
seems reasonable since about 25 percent of our forces are stationed
overseas, and our overseas facilities have been badly neglected.
FACILITIES
Question. Secretary DuBois, I note the rate at which we replace our
facilities has gone from 83 years in the 2002 budget to 121 years in
the 2003 budget. There were a lot of promises made last year in the
budget regarding facilities. Are we back to business as usual and just
forget about revitalizing our infrastructure?
Answer. Looking only at the facilities recapitalization portion of
the fiscal year 2003 budget, it is true that our investment in
recapitalization is not as robust as the previous year. However, if we
look more broadly at fiscal year 2003 in the context of our longer
range plans, and if we look at the overall facilities investment and
not just the recapitalization portion, then we are definitely not back
to business as usual. The fiscal year 2003 budget goes a long way
toward correcting facilities sustainment funding--a necessary first
step to revitalizing the infrastructure. The budget improves
sustainment funding every year, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year
2007. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request of $5.6 billion increased
sustainment funding to 93 percent, up from 89 percent in last year's
budget. For housing, our fiscal year 2003 budget requests $227 million
more for family housing construction than last year. These funds will
allow the Department to renovate, replace, or privatize over 35,000
housing units. We are also investing $1.2 billion to construct and
revitalize almost 14,000 barracks spaces for our unaccompanied service
men and women to continue improvements in their quality of life. In
addition, the budget improves facilities recapitalization funding
beginning in fiscal year 2004, and then continues this improvement each
year thereafter until we reach our minimum recapitalization rate goal
of a 67-year cycle in fiscal year 2007.
Question. Mr. Dubois, what kind of message are we sending to the
young service members and their families about the condition of
facilities, in which they work, train and live? Are we telling them
just wait 5 to 7 years, and we will get around to fixing it?
Answer. We have developed an achievable plan for getting our
facilities back on track, a process which began in fiscal year 2002.
However, the deterioration did not happen overnight, and it will take
time to fully eliminate. The fiscal year 2003 budget request
concentrated funding on fixing the most degraded facilities while
increasing sustainment funding to prevent future deterioration in our
facilities overall.
Specifically, the fiscal year 2003 military construction request
focused funding on critical military requirements, readiness
shortfalls, and quality of life enhancements. We are making significant
investments in housing through renovating existing housing and
providing additional quality housing to reduce deficits. We increased
sustainment funding to 93 percent of the requirement which will help to
preserve our facilities and reduce the need for future, more costly
revitalizations. In addition, over 60 percent of the military
construction budget projects will restore and modernize mission
critical requirements, decreasing the number of facilities rated C-3 or
C-4. Even with a slightly lower budget request, we are taking care of
our people.
Defense Agencies
Special Operations Command
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM TANGNEY, DEPUTY
COMMANDER IN CHIEF
TRICARE Management Activity
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL LEONARD RANDOLPH, JR.,
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Military Community and Family Policy
STATEMENT OF JOHN MOLINO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Defense Logistics Operations
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LOGISTICS OPRERATIONS
Senator Feinstein. We will have the next panel come
forward. I will just begin the introduction. I am very pleased
to welcome Lieutenant General William Tangney, Special
Operations Command, Major General Leonard Randolph from the
Tricare Management Activity, Mr. John Molino, representing
Department of Defense Education Activity, and Mr. Frederick
Baillie, Defense Logistics Agency.
This is a very diverse panel. It represents several
defense-wide agencies. We would like to hear from each of you
gentlemen, and I would ask you to put your statements in the
record, the record is open, and just summarize your statements.
General Tangney, before you begin, I think both the Ranking
Member and I would like to recognize the exceptional
contributions that the United States Special Forces have made
and are making even as we speak, and we owe a big debt of
gratitude to you and to your people, so welcome, and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILLIAM TANGNEY
General Tangney. Madam Chairwoman, members of the
committee, I am Lieutenant General Bill Tangney, Deputy
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command,
MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. I am pleased to be here today
to discuss the USSOCOM military construction budget request for
fiscal year 2003. With the chairwoman's concurrence, I will
submit my formal statement for the record and present a brief
summary at this time.
Senator Feinstein. Please. Thank you.
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FORCE
General Tangney. United States Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) continues its transition to a 21st Century full
spectrum multimission special operations force (SOF). In our
Nation's current war against terrorism, SOF has proved to be
uniquely capable.
In order to maintain our status as the force of choice in
this area of asymmetric warfare, we placed emphasis on funding
critical readiness programs, eliminating legacy systems, and
investing in leap-ahead technologies. However, fiscal
constraints have prevented us from funding modernization and
military construction at the desired level. Our active and
reserve special operations forces possess highly technical
skills used to successfully execute a broad range of joint
special operations missions.
The command's MILCON program provides essential facilities
that contribute to our unique capabilities and current military
construction projects support our unique training needs,
enhance our source capabilities, and increase the readiness of
our personnel and weapons systems to perform their specialized
missions.
The MILCON budget request for fiscal year 2003 totals $63.1
million, consisting of $56.2 million for six major construction
projects at three installations, $2 million for unspecified
minor construction, and $4.9 million for military construction
planning and design. Your support of this program is vital to
the continued effectiveness of special operations forces and
their ability to advance our national security.
PREPARED STATEMENT
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 to
perform our mission.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant 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 2003. USSOCOM
continues our transition to a 21st century full spectrum, multi-mission
special operations force (SOF). SOF have proved to be uniquely capable
in our nation's war against terrorism. To maintain our status as the
force of choice in this era of asymmetric warfare, we have placed
emphasis on funding critical readiness programs, eliminating legacy
systems, and investing in leap-ahead technologies. As a result USSOCOM
has maintained a level of effort for mission-related MILCON and
supporting Operations and Maintenance (O&M) at approximately 1.6
percent of our total funding. This level of funding is below the
minimum required to meet long-term needs--replacing and renovating
aging facilities, satisfying space deficits, and constructing
facilities for new missions--because the resources were allocated to
more pressing needs such as procurement and O&M. Ideally, we would fund
MILCON and supporting O&M at the level necessary to ensure
recapitalization of SOF facilities over a 30-year life cycle, and to
eliminate 75 percent of remaining space deficits within the command.
Our MILCON program has a direct, positive impact on the training,
readiness and operational capabilities of our nation's joint 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, of which
annual MILCON investment is a major factor, is to have all units and
personnel working and living in adequate facilities to enhance SOF
training and operations capabilities. Facility requirements are
generated by the need to support new weapons systems, force structure
and missions, and to modernize and replace old inadequate facilities.
USSOCOM budgets for our own operations, training, equipment
maintenance, and storage facility requirements. We rely a great deal
on, and receive support from, the military departments for barracks and
dormitory, family housing, community facilities, and installation
infrastructure. The USSOCOM MILCON program, therefore, is planned to
provide facilities to increase readiness of SOF weapons systems,
support diverse training needs, and to enhance SOF capabilities.
Current construction needs consistent with these criteria include:
replacing weapons training facilities and renovating deteriorated
command facilities at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; constructing a Close
Quarters Battle (CQB) training complex and operational facilities at
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, Virginia; and building additional
command secure space and making hangar modifications at Eglin Auxiliary
Field#9, Florida. Each construction requirement is part of a USSOCOM
integrated plan to ensure the most critical projects are constructed
and that they contribute the greatest value to our mission.
Your committee's support, whether directly provided to USSOCOM or
to the military departments on behalf of SOF has aided immeasurably in
improving our operational capability and the quality of life of our
personnel. We look forward to working with your committee to acquire
needed 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 fiscal year 2003 MILCON budget request totals $63.1
million consisting of: $56.2 million for major construction, $2 million
for unspecified minor construction, and $4.9 million for Military
Construction project planning and design. The six military construction
projects in this program for our joint command include two projects
each for the Army Special Operations Command, Air Force Special
Operations Command, and Naval Special Warfare Command. Following is a
brief description of each project:
SOF Add/Alter Command & Operations Facility Eglin Auxiliary Field #9,
Florida--$9.0M
Constructs a command and operations facility addition to
consolidate classified mission planning functions to facilitate
effective emergency operations and mission accomplishment.
SOF Alter Facilities for CV-22 Eglin Auxiliary Field #9, Florida--$2.1M
Alters an existing aircraft maintenance hangar to install a second
hangar door and extends aircraft access pavement to enable the hangar
to accommodate two CV-22 aircraft and facilitate aircraft movement in
and out of the hangar.
SOF Renovate Bryant Hall Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$11.6M
Renovates a 30-year old command headquarters facility to
rehabilitate the heating, ventilation and air conditioning, electrical,
communications, fire protection and plumbing systems, and to provide
backup electrical power and force protection measures.
SOF Weapons Training Facility Fort Bragg, North Carolina--$19.2M
Constructs a facility for storage and maintenance of foreign and
nonstandard military small arms and builds a weapons training center to
provide related training for special operations forces.
SOF Seal Team Operations Facility Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,
Virginia--$9.9M
Constructs a Sea Air and Land (SEAL) Team facility to provide
platoon areas and unit operations staging space for an existing and
newly established SEAL Team.
SOF Naval Special Warfare Operations Trainer Naval Amphibious Base
Little Creek, Virginia--$4.4M
Constructs a Close Quarters Battle (CQB) trainer building for Naval
Special Warfare training of units in unconventional warfare, small arms
close quarters battle and specialized weapons tactics.
SUMMARY
The proposed military construction investment in fiscal year 2003
will significantly improve the operational readiness and training
capability of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Your support of this
program is essential to ensure the continued quality and effectiveness
of our nation's special operations forces.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, General.
General Randolph.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL LEONARD RANDOLPH, JR.
General Randolph. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
members of the subcommittee. I am Major General Randy Randolph,
the Deputy Executive Director of the Tricare Management
Activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs. On behalf of Dr. William Winkenwerder, the
Assistant Secretary, and Mr. Thomas Carrato, my boss, the
Executive Director, it is both a privilege and an honor to
again present an overview of TMA's medical military
construction program for fiscal year 2003.
I, too, would like to proceed with a short--in fact, I have
abbreviated my abbreviated statement, and would like to submit
the longer statement.
The Tricare Management Activity is committed to having all
eligible beneficiaries and their providers conduct their health
care encounters in modern, safe, efficient facilities. The
Appropriations Committee has been supportive in this ever-
evolving process, and I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you and to request your continued support in our efforts.
Our fiscal year 2003 program requests appropriations of
$147,178,000 for five major line items. We are also seeking
$3,363,000 for unspecified minor construction, and $14,200,000
for planning and design efforts to complete designs on fiscal
year 2004 projects, further design projects identified for
fiscal year 2005, and commence design on projects for fiscal
year 2006.
The total appropriation request for the medical
construction budget in fiscal year 2003 is $164,741,000. Three
of the major construction line items are U.S.-based, and two
are overseas. The first project is a replacement hospital at
Fort Wainwright in Alaska. This request seeks the fourth of six
funding phases. We are seeking $53 million in fiscal year 2003
for this project.
The second item is a bit unique in that it seeks
$10,400,000 to reimburse the Treasury Department's Judgment
Fund, which has paid a settled claim following construction of
a replacement hospital at Elmendorf Air Force Base, also in
Alaska. The Department of Treasury fund was paid this claim to
avoid the accrual of interest. Currently, sufficient military
construction funds are not available to reimburse the judgment
fund without cancellation of prior appropriated projects.
The third project is a replacement life skills project at
Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, at a cost of $2,700,000. The
current facility is more than a half-century old, as am I, and
has outlived its useful life.
The last two projects are overseas. The first consolidates
medical services between Bitburg Air Force Base and Spangdahlem
Air Force Base with a 10-bed hospital replacement facility at
Spangdahlem Air Force Base in Germany at a cost of $39,629,000.
We are also requesting $41,449,000 for the purchase of a
medical-dental facility replacement and long-term interest in
approximately 10 acres of land that is located in Naples,
Italy. This is part of the Naples Improvement Initiative. All
of these facilities will include antiterrorism/force protection
features.
In conclusion, the medical construction program continues
to be an integral component of the quality of life for our
uniformed personnel and eligible beneficiaries. As we go
forward with these projects, we show our earnest support and
commitment to providing the highest quality health care to
those who are committed to standing for the cause of freedom.
The events of September 11, 2001, put this country on
alert, and have brought forth the best of American character
and resolve. The provision of world-class health care seems to
me one small but very important benefit that we can provide for
those warriors and their families who stand in harm's way in
the defense of our great Nation.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present our budget
to you today, and this concludes my opening statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Major General Leonard Randolph, Jr.
Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Major General Randy Randolph, Deputy Executive Director of the TRICARE
Management Activity, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs.
On behalf of Dr. William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs and Mr. Thomas Carrato, the Executive
Director, TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), it is both a privilege and
an honor to again present an overview of TMA's Medical Military
Construction Program for fiscal year 2003.
The TRICARE Management Activity is committed to having all eligible
beneficiaries and providers conduct their healthcare encounters in
modern, efficient facilities. The Appropriations Committee has been
supportive in this ever-evolving process. I'd like to take this
opportunity to thank you and request your continued support in our
efforts.
Our fiscal year 2003 program requests appropriations of
$147,178,000 for 5 major line items. We are also seeking $3,363,000 for
unspecified minor construction and $14,200,000 for planning and design
efforts to complete designs on fiscal year 2004 projects, further
design projects identified for fiscal year 2005 and commence design on
projects for fiscal year 2006. The total appropriation request for the
medical construction budget in fiscal year 2003 is $164,741,000.
Three of the major construction line items are US-based and two are
overseas.
The first project is a Replacement Hospital at Fort Wainwright in
Alaska. This request is seeking the fourth of six funding phases to
construct a 32-bed facility to support the military, their dependents
and the surrounding retiree population. This budget seeks $53,000,000
to continue the proposed construction of the main structure of this
facility.
The second item requests $10,400,000 to reimburse the Judgement
Fund for payment of settled contractor claims surrounding the
construction of the Replacement Hospital at Elmendorf Air Force Base in
Alaska. This project was jointly funded by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Construction was completed in
December 1998. However, the contractor submitted numerous claims that
have gone through litigation. The Department of Treasury Judgement Fund
has paid the $10,400,000 claim to avoid the accrual of interest. In
compliance with the Department of Defense Financial Management
Regulation, the Judgement Fund should be reimbursed with available
Military Construction funds. However, the Financial Management
Regulation also states that if sufficient funds do not exist within the
applicable Appropriation, additional funds must be sought. Currently,
sufficient military construction funds are not available to reimburse
the Judgement Fund. This is why an appropriation in fiscal year 2003
specifically to reimburse the Judgement Fund is needed.
The third project is a replacement Life Skills Clinic at Hickam Air
Force Base in Hawaii. We are seeking $2,700,000 for this project. The
current facility is more than a half-century old. It is not feasible to
renovate the facility due to several structural impediments. The
utility systems have exceeded their useful life span and have become
maintenance and energy intensive. Constructing this facility will co-
locate several support activities that will result in improved
efficiencies and provide a significantly improved facility for
conducting the sensitive business of mental health, family advocacy and
substance abuse support services performed by these activities.
The last two projects are overseas. We are seeking $39,629,000 to
consolidate medical services currently split between Bitburg Air Base
and Spangdahlem Air Base with a 10-bed Hospital Replacement at
Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. This project results in greater
efficiencies by eliminating duplicate services and consolidating staff
in addition to eliminating excessive maintenance cost due to much
needed upgrades of the electrical, communications, medical gases and
HVAC systems. There are also concerns about the current facilities
being located too close to the explosive quantity-distance (Q-D) zone
for the flight line munitions loading area. This creates greater risk
to personnel should an explosion occur at the munitions loading area.
For our last overseas project we are seeking $41,449,000 to
purchase a Medical/Dental Facility Replacement and a long-term Right of
Superficie in approximately ten acres of related land in Naples Italy.
This facility is located at the support complex at Gricignano, Italy
and is part of the Naples Improvement Initiative. This will give the
Department the use of the medical building and the associated land
without having to re-negotiate pricing for 99 years. All of these
facilities will include Antiterrorism/Force Protection features.
CONCLUSION
The Medical Construction Program continues to be an integral
component of the quality of life for our uniformed personnel and
eligible beneficiaries. As we go forward with these projects we show
our earnest support and commitment to providing the highest quality
healthcare to those who are committed to standing for the cause of
freedom.
The events of September 11, 2001 put this country on alert and have
brought forth the best of American character and resolve. The provision
of world-class healthcare seems to me to be one small, but important,
benefit we can provide for those warriors and their families who stand
in harm's way in the defense of our great Nation.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to present our budget to you.
This concludes my overview request of the Medical Military Construction
budget for fiscal year 2003.
Senator Feinstein. I just want to say one thing before the
other two presentations. All of these budgets are down, yet all
of you are presenting new projects. Special Ops is down 38
percent, and I trust you are happy with that. Tricare is down
20 percent, the education 22 percent, and defense logistics 17
percent, and I must say, I am just a little puzzled by the
presentations, because you are so eagerly presenting new
projects, and yet overall your budgets are down dramatically,
but if that is the way you want it, that is the way you want
it.
Mr. Molino.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MOLINO
Mr. Molino. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Senator
Hutchison, I will limit my oral comments and respectfully thank
you for making my complete statement part of the record. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on the
military construction program for the DOD education activity, a
very important element of the Department's quality of life
program.
The Department's leadership considers itself a part of a
compact with the members of the military and their families. In
response to the continued outstanding performance of our highly
qualified troops and the unwavering support of their families,
DOD is obliged to underwrite that portion of the military
child's education delivered by DOD in this, the twelfth largest
American school district, and certainly the most widely
dispersed.
And how have these young students responded? In recent
national testing, the DOD Education Activity was ranked among
the top five in the Nation, scoring above the national average
at every grade tested and in every subject area tested. Indeed,
we were at the top of the rankings among African American and
Hispanic students. The results prompted one national newspaper
to call the DOD system the best-kept secret in Washington, and
Secretary of Education Rodney Paige told an audience to look to
the Defense Department to find America's best education success
story.
This success is the product of hard work by the students,
active involvement by the parents and the teachers, concerned
oversight by the Department, and unwavering, strong support by
the Congress, particularly this subcommittee. Thank you for the
leadership you provide in this regard.
When I last appeared before this subcommittee, I had been
in this position only a matter of weeks. Since then, I have had
the privilege of traveling to the Pacific and to Europe to see
first-hand the dedicated men and women who teach in our
schools, the enthusiastic students who thrive in diverse
environments, and the parents who serve on active duty or as
members of the military family.
You know better than I that visits of this nature are
informative at least and, more often than not, inspirational,
whether we consider school construction, child development
centers, fitness facilities, or any of the other areas within
my purview. It is a privilege to serve in this position, to
serve the men and women in uniform, and to serve the interest
of their families.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I am
happy to entertain any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John M. 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. Military members and their
families make sacrifices in the service of our country and face special
challenges. We must forge a new social compact with them and recognize
the reciprocal ties that bind Service members, families and the
military mission. The Department has made a renewed commitment to
underwrite family support programs, to provide quality education, to
support affordable, available child care and to encourage quality
fitness programs. 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.
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. Quality education remains a central quality of
life issue for our military and supports the President's initiative to
ensure that no child is left behind.
The quality of DOD schools is measured in many ways, but most
importantly, as in other school systems, by student performance. DOD
students regularly score significantly above the national average in
every subject area at every grade level on nationally standardized
tests.
In addition, students participate in the National Assessment of
Educational Process (NAEP) tests. NAEP is known as ``the Nation's
Report Card'' because it is the only instrument that permits a direct
comparison of student performance between student groups across the
country. DODEA students, and in particular its African-American and
Hispanic students, score exceptionally well on this test, often
achieving a first or second place national rank. This outstanding
performance led the National Education Goals Panel to commission
Vanderbilt University to study the instructional program, teaching, and
other aspects of DODEA schooling to identify the variables that
contribute to the students' success. The findings, which were published
in October 2001, received extensive national coverage. Secretary of
Education Paige has noted that DOD schools can take a diverse, highly
mobile group of students and do so well on national tests because we
set high standards, demand accountability and encourage parental
involvement.
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 106,187 students in 223 schools in 14
countries, 7 states, one Commonwealth and one Territory, with a total
facility inventory of over $3.2 billion. Sixty-three percent of our
schools are over 30 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 outdated infrastructure through
the replacement or upgrade of the schools in the worst condition. In
the past 3 years, we have programmed construction totaling over $189
million, including $75.9 million in additions and renovations to
existing facilities, $62.6 million for the replacement of older
schools, $45.6 million for construction of new schools, and $5.2
million in minor construction. This includes funding to support a
worldwide implementation of new educational programs: full-day
kindergarten and reduced pupil-teacher ratios in the first three
grades. Both of these initiatives 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 2003 military construction budget before you now
includes $54.7 million in major construction for DODEA and $6.3 million
to pay for the new requirements associated with force protection and
antiterrorism initiatives. This additional funding will enable DODEA to
comply with the new DOD antiterrorism construction standards and
increase the safety and security of our children and staff.
Last year, with your support, there was $70.3 million in DODEA's
construction program. I'd like to thank the committee for its
consistent support for the educational program. The fiscal year 2003
program includes two of our most sorely needed projects, the
replacement of Berkeley Manor Elementary School, at Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, and Seoul Middle School, in South Korea. Berkeley Manor
consists of a series of pod style buildings constructed in the 1960s,
as well as single-wide trailers. Seoul Middle School is currently
housed in facilities built in 1955. It began operation in school year
2000-2001 in the existing Seoul Elementary and High School without
dedicated specialist classrooms, a gymnasium, and computer and science
labs.
These two projects aside, the fiscal year 2003 budget consists
solely of projects to support full-day kindergarten and reduced pupil-
teacher ratios in the first three grades. These projects are located at
Quantico, Virginia; Fort Bragg, North Carolina (2); Fort Jackson, South
Carolina (2); West Point, New York; and five projects in Europe. This
educational program allows DODEA to reduce the pupil-teacher ratios in
the first through third grades from 23:1 to 18:1. The fiscal year 2003
projects will allow completion of this educational program, one that is
very popular with our Service members and important to the quality of
our children's early education.
In addition to improving facilities, we have been working with
public school districts and state education authorities to lessen the
displacement and trauma experienced by children of military personnel
who are forced to change schools frequently due to the reassignment of
military members. Within the last 2 years we have brought together over
300 students, parents, military leaders, school personnel, and state
policy makers to help address and give visibility to these issues which
affect about 600,000 children of active duty military personnel.
In addition to school initiatives, I'd like to report on a second
program--child development. We have made progress in child development
during the last 10 years--progress that would have been impossible
without strong congressional support. The fiscal year 2002 budget was
$26 million for four centers. I gladly thank the Congress for an
additional $19 million construction funding in fiscal year 2002. The
Department received $43 million under the fiscal year 2001 construction
program for construction or expansion of ten child development centers.
This was a funding investment of an additional $23 million above the
fiscal year 2000 level of $20 million.
The fiscal year 2003 presidential budget request for operations and
maintenance funding increases the child care funding by $27 million, or
7 percent. The fiscal year 2003 military construction program contains
$11 million for two 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.
Although we have child development programs at over 300 locations with
800 facilities and over 9,000 Family Child Care homes, we still project
a need for an additional 45,000 spaces. We continue to pursue an
expansion program for quality, affordable child care through a balanced
delivery system that combines center construction, an increased number
of family child care homes, and partnerships with local communities. We
are providing family child care both on and off the installation,
encouraged by subsidies.
The DOD child development program is the largest American employer-
sponsored child care program. Since 99.7 percent of DOD centers have
been accredited, compared with less than 10 percent in the civilian
sector, the military child development remains a model for the nation.
In support of the war effort, we expanded operating hours.
Locations offer around-the-clock care, as necessary. Many have reacted
to the needs of geographically single parents by offering special
operating hours and instituting projects for children to communicate
with absent parents.
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, 80
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 usage of
approximately 12 million visits to fitness centers per month.
Over the past 4 years, the Department has received an average of
$136 million annually for fitness and physical training facility
construction. This provided the funding for the construction and major
upgrade of 57 facilities. Thirty-four percent of these were funded as
congressional inserts. For fiscal year 2003, the Department has
requested $60.1 million for construction and major upgrades of 7
facilities. We appreciate the continued recognition by Congress of
fitness as an essential part of military life and an important
contributor to force readiness.
The Department has crafted a strategic plan recognizing the
contribution provided by each of these elements. A critical step in
achieving the objectives of this strategic plan is to bring fitness
centers, staffs and programs up to a consistent standard of quality.
The Services have conducted assessments of their programs based on
Department-wide program standards that were developed using industry
guidelines. The results show that 37 percent of installation fitness
facilities meet the standards. Clearly, the Department still has a long
way to go to achieve full compliance with these program standards. The
support provided to renovate and replace fitness centers enhances both
opportunities to improve individual fitness and also the quality of
life of Service members and their families.
Physical fitness contributes to force readiness in numerous ways.
It is critical to providing forces that are more resistant to illness,
less prone to injury and the influence of stress, and better able to
recover quickly should illness or injury occur. Fitness centers provide
a key element, along with unit commanders, physical trainers, and
health promotion specialists, in maintaining the physical performance
of Service members.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee
and for your strong and consistent support of our programs in the past.
I look forward to working with you closely during the coming year.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baillie.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK N. BAILLIE
Mr. Baillie. Thank you, Madam Chairman. With your
permission, I will submit my prepared statement for the record
and proceed with a very short oral summary.
Madam Chairman, Senator Hutchison, the Defense Logistics
Agency's (DLA) fiscal year 2003 Military Construction request
is $142 million for 10 projects. As in previous years, we
continue our emphasis on sustaining and enhancing the
Department's fuel storage and distribution infrastructure.
Through your support, our program to rebuild America's
strategic airlift and refueling capability is on schedule. We
expect to program the last project in fiscal year 2005. In
fact, more than 58 percent of these projects are already
operational or under construction.
This year's request includes four projects at $81 million
to support strategic mobility at several critical military
installations. At three other critical military installations
that provide vital links for the flow of deploying forces and
logistics, we request $41 million to improve fuel storage and
distribution systems. Equally important to us is our need to
safeguard the environment and eliminate current environmental
hazards associated with fuel storage.
At the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in New Orleans,
Louisiana, we propose to replace seven 45-year-old underground
fuel tanks with three above-ground tanks for $9.5 million.
At DLA's Supply Center in Richmond, Virginia, we propose to
modernize a 60-year-old command headquarters building for $5.5
million to make it accessible to our disabled employees and
visitors, and to replace substandard electrical and fire
protection systems.
Finally, at our Supply Center in Columbus, Ohio, we have an
opportunity to relocate a physical fitness facility that is in
a mostly vacant World War II warehouse scheduled for
demolition. This fitness center is in an isolated part of the
installation, more than 1 mile from the vast majority of users.
Our $5 million project locates a new facility in the hub of the
center's activities. This fitness facility will vastly improve
the quality of life for more than 2,300 active duty military,
reserve, and National Guard service members.
In summary, our military construction program supports the
DLA vision to be America's Premier Logistics Combat Support
Agency by providing vital facilities that enhance our military
services' war fighting capabilities.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. Thank you
for asking me to appear today, and I will be pleased to answer
questions at your convenience.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Federick N. Baillie
Madam Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Frederick N.
Baillie, Executive Director of Business Management, Logistics
Operations, at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). I am pleased to have
the opportunity to provide information about DLA's fiscal year 2003
Military Construction (MILCON) request.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION REQUEST
The Defense Logistics Agency requests $142.0 million for its fiscal
year 2003 MILCON program. This program consists of 10 projects that
will enhance strategic airlift en route fueling capability, increase
mission responsiveness, reduce environmental hazards, and improve
facility readiness at our activities in support of the Agency's
missions. This request includes:
--$122.0 million to replace deteriorated, obsolete hydrant fuel
systems and fuel storage tanks, or provide new systems, at
seven critical Air Force and Navy installations.
--$9.5 million to provide aboveground fuel storage tanks to eliminate
potential environmental hazards associated with deteriorated
underground tanks at a naval air station joint reserve base.
--$5.5 million to modernize an installation headquarters building at
DLA's Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, to provide
accessibility for disabled employees and visitors and to meet
current life-safety and fire protection codes.
--$5.0 million to replace a physical fitness facility currently in a
converted World War II warehouse at the Defense Supply Center
Columbus, Ohio, so this mostly vacant building may be
demolished.
FUEL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
In fiscal year 1996, DLA assumed new responsibilities for
programming fuel-related MILCON projects for bulk and intermediate fuel
storage and hydrant fuel systems at the Services' installations. The
Agency places a high priority on sustaining and enhancing the
Department's fuel distribution, storage, and handling infrastructure.
This year, our requested funding of critical fuel facilities
improvements amounts to 93 percent of our total military construction
program. This level of funding reflects the priorities of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to provide critical fuels infrastructure to support
strategic airlift en route mobility and correct environmental
deficiencies at defense fuel support points.
STRATEGIC AIRLIFT EN ROUTE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE
Our proposed investment to replace old and deteriorated hydrant
fuel systems, or provide new bulk fuel storage tanks at critical
overseas bases, is $81.0 million. These projects all support strategic
en route mobility requirements. Because of past congressional support,
our program to rebuild America's strategic en route fuel infrastructure
is on schedule to complete programming in fiscal year 2005. More than
58 percent of these projects are already operational or under
construction.
At Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam, we will replace an existing
hydrant fuel system for wide-bodied aircraft supporting strategic
airlift en route mobility requirements in the Pacific with a modern,
pressurized fuel hydrant system of 11 outlets for $17.6 million. This
project DRAFT provides the last of four hydrant systems needed to meet
a total requirement of 67 hydrant outlets. Currently, the base operates
a 45-year-old hydrant system that is failing and cannot support
peacetime missions or strategic airlift en route mobility requirements
in contingency or wartime operations. As with other obsolete hydrant
systems elsewhere, repair parts are no longer commercially available
and must be salvaged from other similar systems or individually
fabricated. In addition, the underground piping system lacks cathodic
(corrosion) protection. The new hydrant system will include features to
protect it from the corrosive marine environment and will employ a leak
detection system. The existing hydrant system will be demolished.
At RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, we propose to replace four 45-
year-old hydrant systems with a new 15-outlet system for wide-bodied
aircraft and provide fuel truck fillstands and support facilities. This
project will cost $17.0 million. A precautionary prefinancing statement
for the future recoupment of funds from the NATO Security Investment
Program is being submitted to NATO.
A bulk fuel storage project for $23.0 million at Yokota Air Base,
Japan, will provide two 100,000-barrel (15,900 kL) fuel tanks and
supporting facilities for additional fuel storage capacity for
strategic airlift en route refueling and force projection in the
Pacific. At this location, there is insufficient on-site storage
capacity to satisfy the projected fuel demand during a contingency.
This project is ineligible for funding consideration by the Japanese
Facilities Improvement Program. This is the second of two projects to
provide a total of 300,000 barrels DRAFT (47,700 kl) of additional
storage capacity at this site. The first project for one 100,000-barrel
tank, approved in the fiscal year 2002 DLA MILCON program, will be
constructed this year.
At the Naval Station, Rota, Spain, we will construct a 16-outlet
hydrant fuel system for $23.4 million to support the strategic airlift
en route mobility of peacetime and contingency operations in Europe,
Southwest Asia, and Africa. This project is part of a larger Air Force
initiative to expand airfield aprons and aircraft support facilities
for wide-bodied aircraft passing through Rota. Congress approved the
aircraft-support-facilities project in fiscal year 2001. The apron work
will be programmed in the Air Force's MILCON programs in fiscal years
2003 and 2004.
OTHER CRITICAL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE
Though not designated as strategic airlift en route bases, per se,
several critical military installations support the strategic airlift
mobility mission by providing vital links for the flow of deploying
forces and logistics. At three of these locations, we propose to invest
$41.0 million to improve fuel infrastructure to meet current
operational requirements.
At Travis Air Force Base (AFB), California, aging fuel storage
tanks and supporting facilities will be replaced for $16.0 million. Two
100,000-barrel (15,900 kL) fuel storage tanks will be constructed to
meet the base's required fuel storage demand. These tanks will replace
two aging tanks of only 55,000-barrels total capacity.
In the Azores at Lajes Field, we will provide a nine-outlet hydrant
fuel system for $19.0 million to replace an old hydrant system that had
been taken out of service due to DRAFT environmental concerns and
interference with airfield communications and operations. This base
provides essential support for Expeditionary Air Force deployments as
well as ground and in-flight refueling of aircraft transiting the
Atlantic Ocean. The base has had a pivotal role in supporting Operation
Enduring Freedom.
The two naval fuel piers in Guam under the Commander, Naval Forces
Marianas, are an essential element of the strategic infrastructure in
the Pacific since these fuel systems receive and transfer bulk fuels to
Andersen Air Force Base and naval vessels in this region. The current
method of unloading fuel from ships by using hoses, cranes, and several
workers is time and manpower intensive. We propose to install six
marine fuel loading arms on these piers for $6.0 million to improve
efficiency and reduce the potential for environmental accidents in
handling fuel hoses. These mechanical loading arms will be the same as
commercial systems that are now a standard fuel-handling feature on
fuel piers in the United States.
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
At the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, Louisiana,
we need to replace seven 45-year-old underground fuel storage tanks
that no longer comply with Federal and State underground storage tank
regulations. One of these tanks has already been taken out of service
because of a fuel leak. To meet current fuel storage requirements at
this base, we plan to construct three 12,000-barrel (1,908 kL)
aboveground tanks and fuel support facilities for $9.5 million.
SUPPLY CENTER INVESTMENTS
At DLA's Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, we need to
modernize the interior of a command headquarters building to comply
with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
life-safety and fire protection standards. Currently, disabled
employees and visitors do not have direct access to the commander's
office or the Center's primary conference facilities. In addition,
restrooms are not ADA compliant. This $5.5 million project will provide
this essential accessibility and replace substandard electrical,
mechanical, and fire protection systems with ones that conform to
current building codes and standards.
At the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), Ohio, we propose to
replace an old, existing physical fitness facility for $5.0 million.
The existing facility occupies approximately 34,000 square feet (SF) of
a mostly vacant 288,000 SF World War II warehouse. This warehouse and
several other unused warehouses in the western part of the installation
are planned for demolition as part of a program to reduce
infrastructure sustainment costs. Construction of new administrative
buildings in the 1990s in the eastern section of the base and the
reduction of depot-operations personnel have resulted in the existing
fitness facility now being in an isolated section of the installation,
more than one mile from the vast majority of the employee population.
Relocating this fitness facility within the campus of administrative
buildings at DSCC will make it more accessible to employees and enhance
DLA's workplace quality of life objectives. This facility will support
more than 2,300 active-duty military, Reserve, and National Guard
personnel.
SUMMARY
DLA's fiscal year 2003 MILCON request reflects our efforts to
support military readiness, protect the environment, and provide safe
and adequate working conditions for our military and civilian work
force. Eight of the ten proposed projects provide vital fuel facilities
to support the Services' warfighting requirements. The remaining two
projects are needed to provide an accessible, quality working
environment to attract and retain DLA's most valuable resource--its
employees.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to present our
fiscal year 2003 Military Construction program.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Baillie.
Let me begin with you, General Tangney. Was your projected
request approved as submitted to OSD, or was it reduced by the
Pentagon?
General Tangney. Our budget request in fact was plussed-up
by OSD for 2003 in the operational and readiness accounts.
Military construction was what we requested.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY
Senator Feinstein. All right. Mr. Molino, as I understand
it, as part of the efficient basing initiative in Italy the DOD
Education Activity is expected to receive approximately 340
additional students. Is it true that the construction project
is not in the program at this time, but you will need
additional classrooms, a gymnasium, storage, administrative
facilities, and additions to administrative facilities?
Mr. Molino. Madam Chair, that is true in the case you cite.
It is also true in several other cases that services are
considering as part of their restationing moving units around
and centralizing their locations. Some of these programs are,
in fact, in the long-term program but will not be ready by any
means should the services decide to go forward with these
plans.
Guam is a good example, for instance. We have two schools,
an elementary/middle school and a high school. Only one school,
the high school is in the program for fiscal year 2006. But if
the Navy does restation the submarines to Guam as they plan, it
will make worse a need that currently exists, and not only
that, but it will make it immediate.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me ask this question, then.
How are you going to take care of the cost of these projects,
and when will they be requested?
Mr. Molino. We are working, in fact, have been working last
week and this week with the Comptroller to do everything
possible to take those programs that are in the FYDP and move
them to the left, if you will, get to them sooner, get to them
in 2003, if possible, 2004 by all means, in order to meet the
needs.
Senator Feinstein. But you will not get to them within the
confines of this budget.
Mr. Molino. That is absolutely correct. What will happen
then is, it will increase class sizes, it will require us to
take facilities, for instance a lunch room, and turn it into
something else. We will move temporary classrooms in by way of
single wide trailers. In other cases we will actually be adding
single wide trailers to locations where we already have single
wide trailers, in order to accommodate the burgeoning
population.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I am puzzled, General
Tangney, because in your prepared testimony you note that the
level of MILCON funding is below the minimum needed to meet
your long-term requirements for replacing and renovating aging
facilities, satisfying space deficits, constructing facilities
for new missions, and yet you say that your budget was actually
plussed-up. How could that be?
General Tangney. Not on the military construction side. The
budgetary guidance given to the services by the Department was
to use fiscal year 2002 as a baseline of departure adjusted for
inflation when we put together our mini-POM or POM 2003 to
2007. When we did that, we had a very, very constrained amount
of dollars, readiness, O&M, MILCON not the least.
Given the budgetary situation that we are looking at, we
asked for the program which is presented, which is $63.1
million, recognizing that there were other projects that we
would like to have funded, but we could not fund, given the
impact on readiness and the POM. When we put our POM together,
we actually had to unfund our flying hour program by
approximately 15 percent. We were facing a service life
extension on our Air Force rotary wing helicopters, which we
could not afford. That was not in the program due to the slip
on V-22, and we had a number of other shortfalls, so when we
went into the POM build process the Department plussed us up to
rectify those shortfalls.
They gave us back the money for the flying hour program we
were forced to reduce, they gave us the money to extend our Air
Force helicopters, so in that sense, yes, we received a plus-
up, but in the MILCON side of the house we still remain
constrained, because of the overall number of dollars available
and other competing priorities to the program which is under
discussion today.
Senator Feinstein. I see. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
TRICARE MANGEMENT ACTIVITY
General Randolph, you now have the over-65 included in
Tricare for Life, and the military has always said that it is
more efficient to treat veterans and retirees at military
facilities rather than in a Tricare situation, and the active
duty as well, I suppose. My question is, you do have, I think,
a modest number of new hospitals to be constructed, or clinics.
Are you doing enough to meet this huge added demand that you
have?
General Randolph. Senator, thanks for the question. In
fact, it is very similar to the one you asked me last year. I
would like to answer that and then make a comment from the
chairperson's comments also, if that is all right. I do believe
that we are adequately managing Tricare for Life at this time,
and this is why. There are two parts to your question. Tricare
for Life, the way it was designed, it was not designed
primarily to have care given in our facilities.
It has taken a while for those of us who work in those
facilities to really realize that, quite frankly, but in fact
Tricare for Life was designed to take the patients who were age
65 or over and were already in stable situations with
providers. Why? Because they could not get care in our
facilities, and they paid Medicare, a Medicare premium, and in
fact when they went to see their provider the Medicare bill was
paid after the forms went forward, and then they received a
bill for a copay of some sort, and out of that came the medigap
policies that I know you are very familiar with.
Tricare for Life was done in such a way that once Medicare
has paid, there is an immediate and automatic cross-over to
Tricare for the remaining bill, and that is now being paid by
Tricare. So the out-of-pocket costs for that age 65 and over
beneficiary is normally zero, so most are very happy where they
are at this particular time.
The second part of your question, though, is, would it not
be great to have our folks in our facilities? It is cheaper.
Senator Hutchison. They like it better.
General Randolph. I am glad you said that. Tricare Plus is
our vehicle to begin winning some of the people who have been
very settled in their previous age 65 and over situation with
our situation. That is a local facility program. So each
facility will have a different way of looking at that and it is
based on their individual capacity. So far it has been my
experience in looking at our data that most facilities have
that capability.
This allows patients age 65 and over who were already--this
is primarily already being seen in our facility because of
graduate medical education, because they were being seen by the
local cardiologists in the facilities. If for some reason they
were already in our facility, it allowed them an opportunity to
remain within our facility. That has been a very popular
program also. So we are balancing the two as we are trying to
make sure that we fill our capacity with those who would like
to come back from the Tricare for Life into our facilities
where they are happy to do that.
But obviously, once someone is pretty happy in a stable
medical condition, they kind of like staying where they are. So
that is going to be a hard sell.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me ask you this, because most
military retirees that I talk to would prefer to be treated in
a military facility, but many of them have to travel so far
that they just cannot do it.
In my home State, many people in South Texas would like to
have a hospital, but they have to go to San Antonio, but if you
upgraded the clinic there, that would help them a lot, so I am
asking if you have enough capacity to serve the people that
want to be in a military facility, and is your expansion
program too modest, because I know a number of areas of the
country, not just Texas but in other areas of the country, I
hear the same thing, so should you be looking at more clinics
and hospitals, and not relying on the Tricare out-sourcing if
it is more efficient to do it in military facilities?
General Randolph. Yes, ma'am, that is a great question, and
it is a little different from the way I interpreted the
question.
First, the capacity does exist within a great majority of
our facilities now, but as you mention, there are some folks
who cannot get there from here. Should we, in fact, be looking
at facilities in other places, smaller ones that can do the
primary care? The answer is that we are doing that. We are
looking at that.
We have for the first time an overarching committee now
that is Tri Service and oversees the steering committee. We now
also have a strategic plan, something last year I could not
have told you, and that is one of the key things we are looking
at now, is basing. Where should they be? Where should Wilford
Hall be, for instance. That kind of thing, so we are looking at
it from the major medical center down to the clinic. Are they
in the right places? If they are not, what can we do to move
them to the right places?
Senator Hutchison. You are certainly not thinking of moving
Wilford Hall?
General Randolph. No, ma'am. That is the Air Force
Flagship, if you will. So the short answer to your question is,
yes indeed we are looking at that in the long range plan of the
committee. Each of the services is also looking at that
individually. By the way, and if I may, I would like to give
you a little bit of a spin on the budget for medical MILCON. It
is, in fact, less as you pointed out. I believe our budget last
year was around $225 million, something like that, certainly
more than now.
As you may know, each one of the five line items I
mentioned today are mid-1950's or earlier facilities. Last
year, the great majority of those projects were mid-1950's or
earlier. Now, we are getting to a point where we are actually
getting into the sixties with some of our facilities, and those
still are amenable to a fair amount of restoration and
sustainment, and perhaps modernization. So what we have done,
instead of spending as much or requesting as much as we had
last year for construction, we have increased the amount that
we are using for sustainment, restoration, and modernization,
approaching perhaps 3 percent now, as opposed to the 2\1/2\ or
so percent 2 years ago.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. We
appreciate it. We are delighted you are all happy with the cuts
in your budget.
Senator Hutchison. There was one other question I had of
Mr. Molino, and that was, I appreciate the job that you are
doing in education, but my question to you is more global, I
guess. Is it more efficient for the Department to continue to
operate school districts, or should we be looking at turning
over the DOD schools to contiguous school districts?
Mr. Molino. Senator, I assume you are talking domestically
and not overseas.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I am.
Mr. Molino. In fact, that is a question that I asked when I
first came to the job. It is a question the Secretary has asked
us to consider as part of the litany of asking hard questions
even though we may be uncomfortable with the process that
yields to an eventual answer. I have been asked that question
by a colleague of yours in the other body about the West Point
Elementary and Middle School, for example.
What we have at West Point, and I think that is a good
example to explain where we are going, what we have at West
Point is an excellent elementary school and middle school run
by the Department of Defense on the property. When the students
graduate and move to high school, they go to the local high
school in the Highland Falls Fort Montgomery School District,
which is just outside the gate. I visited those schools. In
fact, I visited them last Friday.
What I found outside the gate were very good elementary,
middle, and high schools run by very qualified people with very
good programs, and so the question then is, for educational
reasons, can I justify maintaining a DOD school at West Point,
and the answer is, in the considered opinion of the experts,
the educators who were traveling with me, that for educational
reasons we cannot, because there is not a dichotomy between the
quality of education. The kids outside the gate are getting a
very good education.
The next question is, can you justify it fiscally, and that
is what we are looking at right now. New York may be a peculiar
situation, but I understand we have other arrangements around
the country. Eight percent of the land that is encompassed by
the school district outside the gate of West Point is taxable
property. They run their school district on 8 percent of the
land being taxed. Ninety-two percent of the land is untaxable,
because it is either Federal or State land, so currently, we
pay tuition for the high school students that go out, nearly $2
million a year for tuition and transportation.
There are roughly seven times as many middel and elementary
school students as there are high schoolers. I do not know if
we can afford to pay tuition for them, and that is what I am
looking at right now to see if fiscally it makes sense.
A third aspect is, any time you do a change like this, it
is vitally important that the community is well-educated about
what we are going to do, or what we are considering, and they
become supportive. At this point I can tell you that just from
my asking questions to various people while at West Point, I do
not sense a great deal of support in the West Point community
to make that kind of a transfer.
There is a perception once you leave the DOD school you are
going into a bad school system. That is not the case outside
the gate at West Point. It is an excellent school system,
performing well above the national average, but there is still
that perception, and we will have to do that if we decide that
fiscally it is the responsible thing to do.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that is the right
assessment criteria. You have to assure that the quality of
education would be the same if you moved out, but there is a
situation in San Antonio where the infrastructure in the DOD
school system has been way behind, and it is leaking roofs, it
is asbestos, it is a lot of infrastructure problems, so you
just have to ask the question, with very good schools
contiguous to the base, are you better off staying with the
investment in infrastructure on the base, or are you better off
fiscally going outside, and I guess in some cases the quality
of education would not be comparable. In this case, I am sure
it would be.
Mr. Molino. There are some examples within the United
States, Senator, where the quality of education would not be
comparable. We also have situations, and West Point would
actually be in this situation, where the capacity does not
exist outside the gate to house these students, so what would
likely happen if we went to the next step, just hypothetically
what would likely happen is, the school district would want to
teach those children in the current buildings, but they would
certainly require that they be brought up to whatever State
standards might exist.
We have a reprogramming that your subcommittee approved
that we are hopeful that the HAC will approve as well to try to
build a gymnasium at the West Point Elementary School if that
school stays DOD. If that school goes to the West Point School
District, or the school district outside the gate, there is a
dire need for that gymnasium at the elementary school
regardless of the situation, and what happens sometimes if you
transfer, you then move some of these costs you have spread out
over the years. They become immediately bills that are due
because the school district will not accept a building unless
you do them immediately, and so again the fiscal concern.
Senator Hutchison. Are you doing major work at all of the
DOD school districts to determine if it is a fiscally
responsible thing to not offer the DOD school district and go
into the community and reimburse the community, obviously,
versus just leaving it the way it is.
Mr. Molino. I do not know how you would describe the major
study. After my visit to West Point I have concluded that we do
need to look at the situation. We have been directed by
Congress----
Senator Hutchison. This is throughout the system?
Mr. Molino. Yes, ma'am. We have been directed in the past
by Congress to do such a study, and have done a number over
time. What I have found in just reviewing the results of those
studies is, they come up with a gross conclusions and I do not
see individual schools being looked at and decided on an
individual basis. Whatever we do in the future, we need to do
that.
Senator Hutchison. Do you need to be directed by Congress
to do such a study, even if you, say, look at each individual
school, and the first criteria would be, would you get a
comparable education outside, then the second criteria would
be, is it fiscally more efficient? Would you need language from
Congress to direct you to do such a study, or would you be
willing to commit to doing it on your own?
Mr. Molino. I think the answer is yes to both. I am
determined to do the study and to direct that we put our
resources to do that, but I would certainly not object if the
Congress asked or directed that we do such a study.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Just to add, I think it is
extraordinarily important that it be done school by school. I
do not think you can generalize. Some school districts are
good, some are not good. I mean, that is just an unsavory fact
of life in our country. I would kind of hope you would do this
without legislation, because I think it is very hard to get a
study that covers the entire United States that is really going
to give you the kind of results that you can depend on.
Mr. Molino. Yes, Madam Chair, I agree with you, and that is
one of the shortcomings I found. We look at the system, and we
reach a gross conclusion, but we do not get into the eaches,
and I think it is necessary in this instance to get into the
eaches.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We
appreciate your testimony, and the fact that you are all very
happy with cuts in your budgets. It is a first for me. In my
budget years when I was mayor of San Francisco it never
happened that way. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Defense Agencies for response subsequent
to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to General William Tangney
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ENCROACHMENT ISSUES/CORONADO
Question. General Tangney, How has encroachment at the training
beaches at Coronado, California affected the training capabilities of
the Navy SEAL Teams at Coronado, and what are you doing to ensure that
these key military personnel are able to achieve the training they
need?
Answer. Environmental encroachment at Coronado, California beaches
may present increased obstacles to Navy SEAL training at that location
in the future. The exact impact of encroachment and environmental
issues are currently under review by the U.S. SOCOM Range Tiger Team,
which is conducting an in-depth strategic study into all range issues
impacting the training and readiness of special forces worldwide. The
outcomes and findings of this extensive effort will be forwarded when
finalized. The Tiger Team has implemented an effective methodology and
quality control to ensure depth and scope of information, minimize
bias, and involve personnel at each level for an ``all angles''
perspective.
The Naval Special Warfare Command continues to maintain the highest
standards of training and readiness under the current constraints. Our
professional Naval officers and non-commissioned officers using
innovative training and leadership skills have managed to perform work-
arounds at all levels and ensure the highest level of SEAL training in
spite of encroachment impediments. Most importantly, the findings and
analysis of the Tiger Team will provide a tool to better identify and
anticipate the future impact of encroachment on readiness and national
security.
Question. Do you have any requests for land acquisition in the
Future Years Defense Plan for training sites in the Coronado area?
Answer. No.
______
Questions Submitted to Major General Leonard Randolph, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
DECREASE IN CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
Question. General Randolph, your budget this year is about 20
percent less ($204 million in fiscal year 2002--$164 million in fiscal
year 2003) than last year's request.
Realizing that many of your projects are high dollar, phased
projects, how does a 20 percent decrease in construction appropriations
requests affect your long-term program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget is actually more in
line with our budget requests for fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001. The anomaly is fiscal year 2002 when the President's Amended
Budget increased the entire Defense budget, medical construction
program included. The medical program through the Department's Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP) is closer to the fiscal year 2001 budget
with inflation.
PLANNING & DESIGN FUNDS
Question. General Randolph, You have requested $14 million in
planning and design funds this year, but, if I am correct, you also
have a planning and design backlog.
What is the amount of that backlog and should that requirement be
addressed this fiscal year?
Answer. We do not have a planning and design backlog. The $14
million we have requested in fiscal year 2003 will adequately support
the planned expenditures required to ensure that the medical program
stays on track and that requested projects meet the Congressionally
imposed milestone of 35 percent design by January 1 of the preceding
budget year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
HOSPITAL PROJECTS OVERSEAS
Question. General Randolph, almost half of your 2003 budget request
is for two hospital projects overseas--in Italy and Germany--about $81
million. Last year we provided funding for hospital/clinic replacement
projects in Greenland, Germany and Portugal.
I know from my travels around the country the sad state of some of
our domestic military clinics and hospitals. How are priorities
established and why the continuing focus on overseas?
Answer. The prioritization depends upon the mission of the
hospital, its physical condition, functionality of existing spaces,
compliance with the national fire and life safety codes, Joint
Commission Accreditation on Healthcare Organizations standards and the
facility requirements to deliver healthcare efficiently and cost-
effectively. Our goal is not to balance our request on a CONUS/OCONUS
basis but to request the replacement or modernization of our most
needed medical facilities each year.
DOMESTIC MEDICAL PROJECTS
Question. General Randolph, are you deferring domestic medical
projects because of the 2005 round of brac?
Answer. No medical construction projects have been deferred because
of a pending round of BRAC in fiscal year 2005. Our mission is to
ensure medical readiness and to provide for the healthcare needs of our
eligible beneficiary population. The projects in this budget request
support that mission.
______
Questions Submitted to John M. Molino
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
GYM PROJECT
Question. Mr. Molino, I understand that the request to add a gym to
the west point elementary schools is ``on hold.'' I also understand the
department is studying whether the two DOD schools at West Point should
be turned over to the local school district. Can you provide the
subcommittee an update on the gym situation, why is this project so
important, and what is the current situation?
Answer. The project is important because the current facilities at
West Point are woefully inadequate. The middle school presently offers
physical education classes in a gymnasium that was constructed in 1934.
The gym is not handicap-accessible and is unsuited for this or any
school's physical education (PE) program due to obstructions, low
ceilings, poor lighting, and no seating. The elementary school
presently offers physical education classes in a multipurpose room that
also serves as the school cafeteria. As a result, PE programs are
curtailed due to the time required to set up and take down tables for
breakfast and lunch. Because of limited storage space at the elementary
school, food service and other school equipment are stored in the
multipurpose room around the play court creating a dangerous
environment for the small children running and playing there.
Additionally, the Elementary School Occupational/Physical Therapy
Program is offered in a makeshift classroom at the back of the
multipurpose room stage. The stage is cluttered with desks, chairs, and
teaching equipment, and doesn't leave enough space for the mobility
instruction requirements of this program. The area used is also not
accessible to the physically challenged. Heating for this area is not
available except with space heaters, and the stage curtain is the only
thing that separates this area and the multipurpose room that houses
the PE and food services programs.
In June 2001 a reprogramming request was sent by the Department of
Defense Education Activity (DODEA) to the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) Directorate of Construction, requesting the
use of fiscal year 1999 MILCON funds from another DODEA MILCON project
to fund the balance required for the West Point gym project and other
critical needs. Following a revision requested by the Comptroller's
Directorate of Construction, it was submitted and in September 2001 the
Senate Appropriations Committee approved the reprogramming request. The
House Appropriations Committee (HAC) deferred its decision on the DODEA
reprogramming request until a later date. On January 24, 2002, the
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Military Construction approved
most of the reprogramming request, but not the part of the request for
the West Point gym project.
On February 14, 2002, New York District Corps of Engineers extended
the current bids for another 60 days. On March 20, 2002, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy)
met with the Chairman of the HAC Military Construction Subcommittee. On
March 21, 2002, DOD received the HAC approval for the reprogramming
action.
OVERSEAS DOD SCHOOLS
Question. Mr. Molino, over the past several years, the department
has expanded its overseas bases to several new locations, such as
Larrisa, Greece, and Vicenza, Italy. How do we ensure that we have
Department of Defense schools in these places when our service members
and their families arrive?
Answer. The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) has
been routinely informed of restationing decisions only after a
restationing plan has been approved. The Department is working with the
Services to ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness is involved sooner and during the planning process. In
this way, we will be better able to plan for a restationing's impact on
the entire spectrum of quality of life services, including schools,
commissaries, exchanges, child development centers, and fitness
facilities. Early involvement will also ease funding concerns that
always accompany late notifications.
______
Questions Submitted to Frederick N. Baillie
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
STRATEGIC EN-ROUTE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Question. Mr. Baillie, I understand that a signifant portion of
your 2003 budget request is for strategic en-route fuel infrastructure
projects. How are those requirements developed and prioritized?
Answer. The Commander-in-Chief (CINC), U.S. Transportation Command,
specifies the requirements for fuel infrastructure to support the
strategic en route airlift mission in coordination with the other
geographic combatant CINCs. Fuel infrastructure projects are developed
from strategic mobility requirements studies to support worldwide
operations plans, contingencies, and readiness.
Each year a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Fuel Installation
Planning and Review Board meets to set priorities for all DLA fuel
MILCON projects. This board consists of representatives of the
combatant CINCs' Joint Petroleum Offices, Joint Staff J-4, Military
Services' Energy Offices, and DLA's Defense Energy Support Center,
EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Mr. Baillie, senior Defense officials have recently
testified that the Department has between 20-25 percent excess
infrastructure. Does the Defense Logistics Agency have 25 percent more
facilities than you currently need?
Answer. With the DOD force structure review not completed yet, it
would be premature to speculate whether the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) has excess infrastructure at this point. While DLA's
infrastructure is a very small percentage of the Department's overall
inventory, it will be aligned with the pending force structure review
in the next BRAC round to meet mission requirements.
MILCON PROJECTS
Question. Mr. Baillie, are you deferring military construction
projects because of a pending brac round in 2005?
Answer. No, the Defense Logistics Agency has not deferred any
projects because of BRAC 2005 considerations. For the most part, our
fiscal year 2003 MILCON program will provide or replace essential fuel
storage and distribution facilities requested by the combatant commands
and Military Services.
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO P. FIORI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT L. VAN ANTWERP, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
MAJOR GENERAL JAMES R. HELMLY, COMMANDER, 78TH DIVISION
(TRAINING SUPPORT), U.S. ARMY RESERVE
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL J. SQUIER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARMY
NATIONAL GUARD
Senator Feinstein. Now, the next panel.
Welcome, gentlemen. I am very pleased to welcome the panel,
Hon. Mario Fiori, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment, Major General Robert Van
Antwerp, Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management,
Major General James Helmly, United States Army Reserve, and
Brigadier General Michael Squier, Deputy Director, Army
National Guard.
Gentlemen, I think you heard my puzzlement over the cuts
that you each have achieved and how you are going to be able to
sustain those cuts and still provide the kind of services and
personnel that you are going to be requested and required to
provide, so why don't we begin with Dr. Fiori, and perhaps as
you put your remarks into the record you might deal with these
very large cuts.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO P. FIORI
Dr. Fiori. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Hutchison. I
am pleased to appear before you with Major General Van Antwerp,
Generals Helmly and Squier, to discuss our fiscal year 2003
Military Construction budget. We have provided a detailed
written statement for the record, but I want to comment briefly
on the highlights of our program.
The Army has many challenges in front of it. Our goal is to
ensure that all our garrisons throughout the world have an
equal and outstanding level of service for our soldiers and
their families. As I visited selected Army installations, I
have observed the progress that has already been made, and I
attribute much of the success directly to the longstanding
support of this committee and your staff.
The Army's overall budget request for fiscal year 2003
supports he Army vision--people, readiness, and
transformation--and the strategic guidance to transform to a
full spectrum force while ensuring the war fighting readiness.
It reflects a balanced base program that will allow he Army to
remain trained and ready throughout fiscal year 2003 while
ensuring we fulfill our critical role in the global war on
terrorism.
Our military construction budget request is $3.2 billion,
and will fund our highest priority facilities and family
housing requirements. In fiscal year 2002 we presented a budget
that was a down payment on our goal to better support our
infrastructure. When we developed this year's budget, in light
of the events that took place last year, we had some very
difficult decisions to make. The need to fund our military pay
raises, Army transformation, OPTEMPO, the war on terrorism,
increases in health care, and other key programs were all
included in the decisions leading to our request. Thus, the
Army budget provides the best balance between all of our
programs, including military construction.
A few critical areas in the military construction request
include the Army Transformation at Fort Lewis, Fort Wainwright,
and Fort Polk. We have eight projects for $195 million included
in the program to ensure that the transformation continues to
progress as envisioned by our leadership.
Our Army family housing is a success this year. We are now
on target to eliminate inadequate family housing through
construction or privatization by 2007. Our budget includes $180
million for the Residential Communities Initiative to continue
acquisition and transition of the 11 installations currently
underway, and 7 new installations for a total of 50,000 housing
units. RCI is a great success story. I visited Fort Carson on
February 25th and am delighted to report that the RCI program
there is 3 months ahead of schedule. There are 338 new units
that are occupied, 500 units renovated, and we are getting new
units on line at 20 per month, and 40 renovated units per
month, for a total of 2,600 units. So in fact at Fort Carson we
will be completed by year 2004.
The combination of privatization and construction will meet
our goal of fixing family housing 3 years earlier than was
reported last year. A portion of our military construction,
Army, and our family housing construction program this year is
dedicated to overseas construction. Seventy-five percent of the
overseas military construction request will be used to provide
better barracks for almost 3,000 soldiers, mainly in Europe and
Korea. We are also constructing new facilities to support the
Efficient Basing, East initiative in Germany, which will
consolidate 13 smaller installations into a single installation
at Grafenwoehr.
Two projects in our request will finalize the Army's
construction requirements for Efficient Basing, South
initiative in Italy, which will station a second airborne
infantry battalion at Vincenza. Each project is vital to
maintaining a suitable working and living environment for our
soldiers and families overseas.
At the end of fiscal year 2003, we will have 106,000 of our
permanent party single soldiers, 77 percent of our goal for
barracks modernization will be funded. Our strategic mobility
program will be 100-percent funded. We will have completed all
base closures and realignments, and will concentrate this year
on the final phases of disposal of these properties.
The Army National Guard anticipates that 30 of 32 weapons
of mass destruction/civil support team facilities will be
initiated. Our sustainment, restoration and modernization
request is $2.4 billion, which provides 92 percent of our
requirements.
I want to conclude by telling you about one of the most
important initiatives in the facilities area, the way in which
The Army manages installations. Last year, the Secretary of the
Army approved the concept of centralized installation
management through a regional alignment. We will implement this
new management structure, called TIM, or transformation of
installation management, on 1 October, 2002. A top-down
regional alignment creates a corporate structure with the sole
focus on efficient and effective management of all our
installations. It frees up our mission commanders to
concentrate on readiness. They will still have an influence on
the important installation decisions, but not the day-to-day
headaches. We believe centralized management will also enhance
our ability to integrate the Active and Reserve components, and
to develop multi-functional installations to support the
evolving transformation force structure.
In closing, Madam Chairman, I look forward to continuing
our work in taking care of our soldiers and their families.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Active Army and Reserve Components'
military construction request for fiscal year 2003. This request
includes initiatives of considerable importance to America's Army, as
well as this committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to report on
them to you.
This budget provides resources in our construction and family
housing programs essential to support The Army's role in our National
Military Strategy. It supports The Army's Vision and Transformation
strategy.
The program presented herein requests fiscal year 2003
appropriations and authorizations of appropriations of $1,476,521,000
for Military Construction, Army (MCA); $1,405,620,000 for Army Family
Housing (AFH); $101,595,000 for Military Construction, Army National
Guard (MCNG); $58,779,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve
(MCAR). There is no request this year for the Homeowners Assistance
Fund, Defense.
At the turn of the century, The Army published its Vision--People,
Readiness, and Transformation--that defined how we meet the Nation's
military requirements today and into the future. We started the arduous
task of self-transformation that will allow us to continue to dominate
conventional battlefields but also provide the ability to deter and
defeat adversaries who rely on surprise, deception and asymmetric
warfare to achieve their objectives.
Army Transformation was already well under way when the attacks on
September 11, 2001, provided a new urgency to our efforts. By
accelerating Transformation, we will provide additional capabilities to
the warfighting CINCs, enabling them to assure allies and friends;
dissuade future military competition; deter any threats; and, if
necessary, defeat any adversary.
To meet the challenges of accelerating transformation and carrying
out today's missions at home and abroad, 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, both
Active and Reserve Component, 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.
To support the transformation of our installations, the Secretary
of the Army has approved the concept of centralized installation
management through a regional alignment. The implementation date of the
new management structure is October 1, 2002.
The regional alignment creates a corporate structure with a sole
focus on efficient and effective management of installations. Mission
commanders can concentrate on readiness but still influence critical
issues through the rating chain for Garrison Commanders and membership
on the Installation Board of Directors.
This approach will ensure standard and equitable delivery of
services from installation to installation. It will also ensure that
all tenants, including the Reserve Components, are treated equally. It
enables the Army to resource to standards.
The future will increasingly trend toward multi-functional
installations. Supporting transformation, geographic-based regions
provide the maximum flexibility for the future. In the end, it will
allow improved facilities provided to soldiers and their families and
better permit us to implement our facilities strategy.
FACILITIES STRATEGY
The Army's Facilities Strategy (AFS) is the centerpiece of our
efforts to fix the current state of Army facilities over 20 years. 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. The AFS addresses
sustainment, recapitalization, quality and quantity improvements, and
new mission requirements so that The Army will have adequate facilities
to support our 21st Century missions. 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 sustainment funding, which comes
from the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) SRM accounts, has greatly
improved thanks to the support from Congress. We are funded at over 90
percent of our requirements in fiscal year 2003. This level of funding
may be sufficient to prevent further deterioration of Army facilities.
Our current C-3 conditions are a result of years of underfunding. We
must have sufficient O&M 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 buy down the SRM backlog, we will centrally
manage resources towards focused investments. This capital investment
requirement will primarily require MILCON funding, supplemented by O&M
SRM project funding. Our goal is to raise Army facilities from current
C-3 ratings to C-2 by the end of 2010 by bringing a focused set of
facilities to C-1 during that timeframe. Also, we plan to eliminate
facility shortfalls where they exist over the entire 20-year strategy.
These shortfalls are a result of facilities modernization not keeping
pace with our weapons modernization and supporting force structure.
We are basing the initial focused set of facilities on Commanders'
ratings in our Installation Status Report. The facilities we chose 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 (O&M SRM) and the capital investment (MILCON and O&M SRM)
pieces be funded as a single, integrated program.
The third (recapitalization) and fourth (new mission) pillars of
our strategy address improving recapitalization of our facilities to a
67-year cycle and ensuring adequate facilities keep pace with future
force structure changes and weapons modernization programs (such as
transformation). These four pillars will enable us 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
our policy of eliminating excess facilities throughout the entire Army
to allow us to use our limited resources where they have the most
impact. During fiscal years 1988-2003, our footprint 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 also expanding the
privatization of military family housing in an effort to provide
quality residential communities for soldiers and their families.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)
This year's MCA program focuses on six major categories of
projects: mission facilities, transformation, well-being, efficient
basing, installation support, and chemical demilitarization. I will
explain each area in turn.
MISSION FACILITIES
In fiscal year 2003, there are 10 mission facility projects to
ensure The Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet
its national security mission. Projects in this program conclude the
successful Army 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 six mobility projects in our
fiscal year 2003 budget request 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 started in the early 1990's to upgrade
our strategic mobility infrastructure, enabling The Army to maintain
the best possible power projection platforms. We are requesting $53.6
million. The fiscal year 2003 projects will complete the Strategic
Mobility program. A follow-on program, Army Power Projection Program
(AP3) is being implemented as a result of changes in force structure
and stationing.
The six projects in our request include improving our deployment
capability by upgrading a deployment facility at Fort Stewart, Georgia;
constructing a truck loading/unloading facility at Fort Carson,
Colorado; and providing ammunition storage/outloading facility
improvements at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky, and Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania. In addition, to
improving fuel storage, we plan to consolidate multiple fuel points at
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, into one modern facility.
Training and Readiness.--To improve soldier training, we are
requesting $23.8 million to construct four training and readiness
projects. Our request includes a Modified Record Fire Range at
Darmstadt, Germany, and a live fire Shoot House at Fort Drum, New York.
These ranges will provide our soldiers with realistic, state-of-the-art
marksmanship training. We are also requesting a Military Operations in
Urban Terrain (MOUT) Urban Assault Course at Fort Benning, Georgia,
that will provide realistic urban combat training necessary for many
scenarios in today's environment. A Tactical Vehicle Simulator facility
at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, is requested to train new motor
transport operators with our new vehicle simulators.
TRANSFORMATION
Our budget contains $194.9 million for eight projects at three
installations, Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Wainwright, Alaska; and
Fort Polk, Louisiana, that support the deployment, training, unit
operations, and equipment maintenance and motor pool facilities of the
Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) new transformed force. These
projects include one maintenance facility for new vehicles, three
ranges, a Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) facility, a
Battle Simulator Center and a Mission Support Training Facility to
ensure our forces are properly trained, and a Battalion Headquarters/
Company Operations Facility to provide a command and control facility
for the increased unit size. We will continue to identify and validate
additional requirements associated with transformation and will include
these projects in future budgets.
EFFICIENT BASING, EAST
The Army is requesting the first year of a five-year plan to
support the Efficient Basing, East, initiative in Germany. The
initiative will move a Brigade Combat Team to Grafenwoehr from 13
smaller installations over a five-year time frame. This year's budget
requests three projects at Grafenwoehr totaling $69.9 million. Army
construction for the entire initiative is expected to cost $596
million. The three projects in this year's budget will complete the
site preparation for the brigade, construct infrastructure to and
around the brigade complex, and renovate existing barracks to the
current Army standard. These projects will support the Brigade
headquarters element.
WELL BEING PROJECTS
Fifty-four percent of our MCA budget is dedicated to providing for
the well being of our soldiers, their families, and civilians. Although
our first priority is to move permanent party soldiers out of gang-
latrine type barracks, we are also requesting Phase II of the Basic
Combat Trainee barracks project at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, that
was authorized in fiscal year 2002. We are also requesting two child
development centers, one physical fitness center, and the expansion of
a community support center. These projects will improve not only the
well being of our soldiers and families, but also the readiness of The
Army. We are requesting $796.8 million for well being projects this
year.
Whole Barracks Renewal 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. The new complexes provide
increased personal privacy, 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, 77 percent of our barracks requirement will be funded at the
new standard for our permanent party soldiers. Between fiscal years
2004 and 2009, we plan to invest an additional $4.0 billion in MCA and
host nation funds, supplemented by $400 million in SRM funding to
achieve our goal of providing improved living conditions for all of our
single soldiers by fiscal year 2009. 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 having been historically funded at lower levels than
installations in the United States. A large portion of the remaining
modernization effort, 41 percent, is in these overseas areas.
In fiscal year 2003, we are planning 21 barracks projects. This
includes 4 projects in Europe and 5 projects in Korea. The
installations with the largest investment are Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, with $100 million (2 projects), and Schofield Barracks,
Hawaii, with $91 million (2 projects). Large soldier populations and
poor barracks conditions require sustained high investment through
fiscal year 2008 at both of these installations to provide quality
housing. We are completing a complex at Fort Carson, Colorado, which
was authorized in fiscal year 2002; and we are continuing second phases
at Fort Lewis, Washington, and Fort Richardson, Alaska, which were also
fully authorized in fiscal year 2002. At Fort Campbell, Kentucky, we
are requesting authorization for all phases of a multi-phase barracks
complex; however, we are only requesting the appropriation needed for
the fiscal year 2003 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. Barracks projects are also requested for Fort Hood, Texas;
Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Benning, Georgia; and Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Basic Combat Training Complexes.--We are requesting Phase 2 to
complete the Basic Combat Training complex at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, that was authorized in fiscal year 2002. This project will
provide 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.
Community facilities.--Our budget request includes two new child
development centers to replace failing or inadequate facilities in
Bamberg, Germany, and Vicenza, Italy. To improve soldier physical
fitness and community wellness, our budget includes a physical fitness
training center at Camp Castle, Korea. The expansion of a Community
Support Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland, is also included in our
request.
INSTALLATION SUPPORT PROGRAMS
This category of construction projects provides vital support to
installations and helps improve their readiness capabilities. We are
requesting one project for a Centralized Wash Facility at Schweinfurt,
Germany, $2 million. A classified project is also requested at $4
million.
AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION
The Ammunition Demilitarization (Chemical Demilitarization) Program
is designed to destroy the U.S. inventory of lethal chemical agents,
munitions, and related (non-stockpile) 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 $167.6 million in The Army's fiscal year 2003
budget to continue the Chemical Demilitarization projects previously
authorized, and a Non-Stockpile Chemical Munitions Facility at Pine
Bluff, Arkansas. Table 1 summarizes our request:
TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2003
[In dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation Type Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen PG, MD................. Ammun Demil $30,600,000
Facility, Phase V.
Blue Grass AD, KY............... Ammun Demil 10,300,000
Facility, Phase
III.
Blue Grass AD, KY............... Support Facility, 8,300,000
Phase III.
Newport AD, IN.................. Ammun Demil 61,494,000
Facility, Phase V.
Pine Bluff AD, AR............... Non-Stockpile 18,937,000
Munitions Facility.
Pueblo AD, CO................... Ammun Demil 38,000,000
Facility, Phase IV.
------------------
Total..................... ................... 167,631,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The destruction of the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons is a
major priority of The Army, DOD and the Administration. These chemical
weapons must be destroyed to reduce the risk to the stockpile storage
communities and eliminate these weapons as potential terrorist targets.
The MILCON funding for the chemical weapons facilities is essential to
achieving this goal.
PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The fiscal year 2003 MCA budget includes $119.8 million for
planning and design. The fiscal year 2003 request is a function of the
construction programs for three fiscal years: 2003, 2004, and 2005. The
requested amount will be used to design-build a portion of the fiscal
year 2003 program, complete design in fiscal year 2004, and initiate
design of fiscal year 2005 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
$36 worth of Host Nation Construction. The fiscal year 2003 budget
request for $23.7 million will provide oversight for approximately $850
million of construction in Japan, Korea, and Europe.
The fiscal year 2003 budget also contains $20.5 million for
unspecified minor construction.
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 as of January 2,
2002, the out-of-pocket expenses for soldiers living off post were
approximately 11.3 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 by 2005. 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 family housing
improvements 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 2007 to provide adequate housing to all military 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, 2012 to implement an
aggressive program to create modern residential communities in the
United States. The Army is leveraging appropriated funds and government
assets by entering into long-term partnerships with private sector real
estate development and management firms to obtain financing and
management expertise to construct, repair, maintain, and operate Army
family housing communities.
The RCI program includes projects at Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort
Hood, Texas; Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Meade, Maryland. Fort
Carson transitioned to privatized operations in November 1999, and Fort
Hood transitioned in October 2001. Forts Lewis and Meade are expected
to transition by mid-2002. The projects include over 15,000 housing
units. Army families have already moved into new and renovated housing
at Fort Carson and our experience to date has been very positive.
The program is expanding to 20 additional privatization projects
between fiscal years 2002 and 2004. These projects will privatize more
than 48,000 additional housing units. Using funds appropriated in
fiscal year 2002, The Army kicked-off nine projects. The 2003 budget
request will continue to expand the program, adding five projects
covering seven installations (Fort Polk, Louisiana; Fort Belvoir,
Virginia; Forts Eustis and Story, Virginia; Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri; and Fort Shafter and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii).
The Army is using the development partners' experience and
resources, and market-based incentives, to bring about dramatic
improvements in the Army family housing and the quality of life for
soldiers and their families.
Our fiscal year 2003 request for Army Family Housing is
$1,405,620,000. Table 2 summarizes each of the categories of the Army
Family Housing program.
TABLE 2.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING--FISCAL YEAR 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility category Dollars Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction................................ 27,942 2
Post Acquisition Const.......................... 239,751 17
Planning and Design............................. 15,653 1
Operations...................................... 183,408 13
Utilities....................................... 212,432 15
Maintenance..................................... 485,257 35
Leasing......................................... 215,251 15
Privatization................................... 25,926 2
-----------------------
Total..................................... 1,405,620 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The total fiscal year 2003 request for construction is
$283,346,000. 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 2007 goal by providing units that meet current construction
and adequacy standards.
New Construction.--The fiscal year 2003 new construction program
provides WNR projects at four locations. Replacement construction
provides adequate facilities where there is a continuing requirement
for the housing and it is not economical to renovate. 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 2003, we are requesting funds for improvements
to 18,314 existing units at 9 locations in the United States, including
privatization at 7 installations; 7 locations in Europe; and 1 site in
Korea. Included within the scope of these projects are efforts to
improve supporting infrastructure and energy conservation.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The operations, utilities, maintenance, and leasing programs
comprise the majority of the fiscal year 2002 2003 request. The
requested amount of $1,122,274,000 for fiscal year 2003 is
approximately 80 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.
FAMILY HOUSING LEASING
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. We are requesting $215,251,000 in fiscal year 2003
to fund existing Section 2835 project requirements, temporary domestic
leases in the United States, and approximately 8,600 units overseas.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)
The Army National Guard's (ARNG) focus is on two categories of
projects: transformation and mission.
Transformation
This year we continue converting twelve brigades and two division
slices to support the Army Division Redesign Study (ADRS). The ADRS is
a high priority for this budget. Eight facilities will be constructed
or converted to house the ARNG's Combat Support/Combat Service Support
structure. We are requesting $26.8 million for this transformation for
facilities in Alabama and North Carolina and two projects each in
California, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Mission
In fiscal year 2003, the ARNG has requested $55.2 million for five
mission projects. Two projects are in Wisconsin and will replace part
of the existing United States Property and Fiscal Office complex made
up of 23 buildings, ranging in year built from 1895 to 1980. These new
facilities will permit all personnel to perform the necessary tasks
that will improve their own readiness as well as provide fiscal and
logistical support for the entire Wisconsin Army and Air National
Guard.
The first phase of a project for administrative buildings at
Barbers Point, Hawaii is also included. These units are currently
stationed in the Diamond Head State Monument area, in older, pre-World
War II facilities. The renovation of an existing building at Barbers
Point will help with the Diamond Head State Monument Plan, allowing the
Monument area to revert back to a semi-wilderness condition.
As part of The Army's Facility Strategy, we are requesting a
Readiness Center at Summersville, West Virginia, and phase one of a
joint facility with the Marine Corps Reserve and the Kansas Counterdrug
Office at Topeka, Kansas.
PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The ARNG's fiscal year 2003 budget request contains $14.7 million
for planning and design and $4.9 million for unspecified minor
construction.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE (MCAR)
The fiscal year 2003 MCAR budget focuses on mission facilities that
support the Army Reserve's mission of providing trained and ready unit
and individuals to mobilize and deploy in support of the National
Military Strategy.
MISSION FACILITIES
In fiscal year 2003, there are seven mission facility projects in
the Army Reserve's Military Construction program. These projects
provide four Army Reserve Centers (Lincoln, Nebraska; Oswego, New York;
Grand Prairie, Texas; and Fort Story, Virginia); four maintenance
facilities (Mare Island, California; Lincoln, Nebraska; Grand Prairie,
Texas; and Fort Story, Virginia); a battalion-size dining facility at
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin; and an alteration to an Army Reserve training
facility at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The fiscal year 2003 MCAR budget includes $6.965 million for
planning and design and $2.85 million for unspecified minor
construction.
SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION (SRM)
In addition to Military Construction and Family Housing, the third
area in the facilities arena is the O&M SRM program. O&M SRM is the
primary account in the 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.
O&M 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
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 O&M SRM program, there are two areas to highlight: (1)
our Barracks Upgrade Program (BUP) and (2) the Long Range Utilities
Strategy. The first area is our BUP program, which is the major
renovation and restoration of existing barracks and an integral part of
the Barracks Modernization program's goal to eliminate gang-latrine
barracks by 2008. However, due to the reallocation of central funding
of the BUP program in fiscal year 2002, we will now complete the
program in 2009. At the completion of the fiscal year 2003 program, as
requested, we will have funded, with MILCON and BUP, adequate housing
to meet or approximate the DOD 1+1 barracks standard for 77 percent of
our soldiers. The fiscal year 2004-2008 Military Construction program
will provide barracks for another 18 percent of eligible soldiers. We
will use O&M SRM resources to renovate barracks to an approximate DOD
1+1 standard for the remaining 5 percent of eligible soldiers. We are
committing an average of about $120 million per year in O&M SRM to
continue the efforts to upgrade housing for our single soldiers.
The second area to highlight within the O&M 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 natural
gas system at Fort Benning, and the water and waste water systems at
Presidio of Monterey. Of the 320 Army systems available for
privatization since 1998, 24 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 $188 million in utility modernization
projects in fiscal years 1998 through 2001 and we plan to accomplish
$83 million in additional projects in fiscal year 2002 to complete the
program. 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 92 percent of the OMA, OMNG and OMAR
requirement in fiscal year 2003. 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 (ISR) shows Army facilities are
rated C-3 (not fully mission capable) due to years of under-funding. At
the end of fiscal year 2001, the ISR for The Army showed 28 percent of
our facilities were ``red''--mission failure; 42 percent were
``amber''--mission degraded; and only 30 percent were ``green''--
mission supported.
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 military
installations at or near where they are serving or employed are ordered
to be closed or the scope of operations reduced. For fiscal year 2003,
there is no request for appropriations and authorization of
appropriations. Requirements for the program will be funded from prior
year carryover and revenue from sale of homes. Assistance will be
continued for personnel at 7 installations that are impacted with
either a base closure or a realignment of personnel, resulting in
adverse economic effects on local communities.
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 2003, we are
requesting appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $149.9
million. This budget represents the Army's budget required to continue
unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal, environmental restoration and
property management of those facilities not yet disposed from the first
four rounds of BRAC. In fiscal year 2001, the Army began saving $945
million annually upon completion of the 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. The
Army supports the need to close and realign additional facilities and
we appreciate the Congress' authority to have an additional round in
fiscal year 2005.
The Army is now in the first year of exclusively care taking and
completing the remaining environmental restoration activities at BRAC
installations. The Army implemented innovative approaches to
environmental restoration at BRAC sites in fiscal year 2001, which will
support the early transfer of several properties. The Army will
continue to support early property transfers in fiscal year 2002 and
beyond and requests $149,878,000 in fiscal year 2003 to continue this
important work. These funds allow us to properly care take these
properties and to continue environmental and ordnance removal efforts
that will facilitate economic revitalization and will render these
properties safe. Our efforts will make 24,854 acres of property
available for reuse in fiscal year 2002 and complete restoration
activities at 7 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.
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. Your support of
our Efficient Basing, East, military construction project will allow us
to continue reducing the number of installations in Europe. In Korea,
the number of installations is dropping 20 percent. The total number of
Army overseas sites announced for closure or partial closure since
January 1990 is 680. Additional announcements will occur until the base
structure matches the force identified to meet U.S. commitments.
The significant challenges posed by the removal of unexploded
ordnance, the remediation of groundwater, and the interface of a
variety of regulatory authorities continue to hinder the disposal of
property. A number of innovative approaches for environmental
restoration were recently developed in an effort by the Army to
expedite the transfer of property, while ensuring the protection of
human health and the environment. Two innovative mechanisms are being
utilized to complete environmental restoration efforts: Guaranteed/
Fixed Price Remediation (G/FPR) Contracts and Environmental Services
Cooperative Agreements (ESCA). A G/FPR Contract obligates BRAC funds
necessary for regulatory closure of specified restoration activities.
The Army retains responsibility for completion of the environmental
restoration, overseeing the contractor and ensuring that regulatory
closure of the property is obtained. An ESCA is a different mechanism,
authorized under the environmental restoration program that obligates
Army BRAC funds and apportions some amount of liability to a
governmental entity representing the reuse interests of the particular
BRAC installation, in exchange for specific environmental restoration
services outlined in the ESCA.
We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through
economic development conveyances as well as the early transfer of
properties along with cooperative agreements to accelerate the
completion of remaining environmental remediation. The Army is also
making use of leasing options approved 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.
The BRAC process has proven to be a 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 2003.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2003 budget is a balanced program
that permits us to execute our construction programs; provides for the
military construction required to improve our readiness posture; and
provides for family housing leasing, operation and maintenance of the
non-privatized inventory, and initiates privatization at seven
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 2003 request for the Active Army is for
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $2,882,141,000
for Military Construction, Army and Army Family Housing.
The request for appropriations and authorization of appropriations
is $101,595,000 for Military Construction, Army National Guard and
$58,779,000 million for the Military Construction, Army Reserve.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Dr. Fiori, I am
told that the three military gentlemen are not here to make
speeches but to answer questions. Is that correct, Dr. Fiori?
Dr. Fiori. Yes, ma'am.
LOW MILCON BUDGET
Senator Feinstein. So we will proceed with the questions.
Let me begin with you, General Van Antwerp. The Army's MILCON
budget request is 15-percent cut from last year's funding
level. I would like to ask you the same question I asked Mr.
Zakheim. Is this budget request adequate to meet all your
MILCON needs for fiscal year 2003?
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, I will start out by saying
first of all this MILCON funds 38 percent of our requirement,
so there is a lot of the requirement that is not funded here.
We had to make budget tradeoffs, of course, to decide what were
the priorities, so we funded along priority lines.
We did keep our barracks, permanent party barracks, which
is the Army's top priority, funded at 100 percent, and we kept
our strategic mobility projects, which provides the ability for
our forces to deploy from their bases at 100 percent, so we
took the cut in the other revitalization areas, so if we ask,
did we get everything that absolutely we want and need, no, but
we have funded our highest priority, to answer your question.
The comments you made about the services and personnel on
the installation, we fund the services and personnel out of the
base ops account, which is the O&MA account, rather than the
MILCON account, so whether MILCON is up or down, it does not
impact the people as much as it does when you have a
substandard facility that you really cannot do the mission in.
That is when you do the upgrade or a new facility.
Senator Feinstein. But you are saying you could live with
this budget and that the MILCON is adequate to maintain
readiness and quality of life?
General Van Antwerp. Well, we would live with it. I will
tell you that our facilities are at what we call C-3, as
opposed to our units at C-1, C-1 being fully mission-capable,
C-3 being marginally mission-capable, and so our facilities
with this budget will remain at the marginally mission-capable
level.
Dr. Fiori. That is with the exception of the housing, which
we will get into C-1 by 2007.
Senator Feinstein. And you would say the same for the Guard
and the Reserve, right?
General Van Antwerp. Yes, ma'am. I can let them speak.
Senator Feinstein. Perhaps they would speak for themselves,
then. Gentlemen, you heard the question. Would you like me to
repeat it?
General Helmly. Ma'am, I would ask you to repeat it, if you
would.
Senator Feinstein. My question is that you have had a
substantial cut in MILCON, and I would like to ask whether the
cut is such that you can continue to operate effectively, that
neither readiness nor quality of life will be affected by it.
General Helmly. Yes, ma'am. In the near term, I will say
that for the Army Reserve it will not be affected negatively.
Our Sustainment and Restoration and Modernization funding, SRM,
as was mentioned by Dr. Fiori, is adequate, and that provides
the near-term sustainment for the facilities. MILCON obviously
is longer-range, as this committee well knows. Our MILCON is
definitely down from $111 million requested last year to $58.9
million requested this year.
I would only note that last year--we have all alluded to
the events of 11 September. Last year was the first year that I
believe you would see that all of us were beginning to encroach
upon, to use that negative word, the negative funding we had
seen for years. We requested in the Army Reserve $111 million,
and this committee with the help of the Congress appropriated
$165 million.
We were on the road to requesting the same kinds of amounts
again, but the events of 11 September precipitously changed
that. Our focus, as previous witnesses have stated, changed
materially. It is decidedly, this moment, on operations,
readiness for near-term operations, so it was with the
understanding of our leadership that we took this precipitous
reduction.
I would note again, that reduction is in longer-term
MILCON. Short-term we are adequately funded at 91 percent of
our SRM budget. We do not like the cut, but it is something
that we are quite willing to live with, given our priorities in
the Nation and in turn in the Armed Forces and in the Army
Reserve today.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. General Squier, would you
like to comment?
General Squier. Madam Chairman, of course I would like to
make some comments in support of the issues that we bring to
the table.
Senator Feinstein. General, could you move the mike over
and speak directly into it?
General Squier. As General Van Antwerp and General Helmly
have already alluded to, this is a tough issue for us, to
balance our competing requirements for readiness, especially
since the things that have evolved since 9/11. There are a lot
of competing interests. Yes, the long-term recapitalization
program that we worked with the Army is on target for what we
can afford right now. For the long-range plan, and given the
sustainment dollars, we have been able to program in the
interim.
Would we like more money? Of course we would, but we will
work that issue harder with the Army for the future, on our
road to the future.
Senator Feinstein. I guess what concerns me, because
everybody seems so happy with what they have, that we will
begin to get phone calls from commanders and others saying, you
know, we cannot possibly live with this, you have got to help
us, and of course we will want to do it, and many people
believe that that is the game that is played in this
institution with this particular budget, that they really look
at the Congress to kind of plus it up after it has been
requested, and I guess what I am saying is, that very well
might not happen this year.
If you are all happy with it and you are coming before us
and saying this meets our short-term needs, and there are other
things that are more important, and we are going to be fine
with this level of funding, that is a signal to me, and I think
even to the Ranking Member, to hold firm at this number.
Dr. Fiori. We have looked at the budget, and I was
fortunate to be pretty much at the front end of the budget
process this year. We weighed all the different items that
affected our budget, and as General Van Antwerp said, our
budget took care of the most important construction issues--
barracks, strategic mobility, and transformation. We gave 70-
percent to the Army National Guard Division Redesign program,
and then what was remaining we split up among the components.
None of our total requirements are going to be met, nor will
they ever be met every year. These were balanced things we had
to do to fund other things.
The one thing we did do, of course, the Active Army, Army
National Guard and Army Reserve, is to make sure our
sustainment was going to be equal, and that is 92 percent.
Ideally, obviously, if we could have afforded 100 percent, we
would have done that. This is where we came out.
EFFICIENT BASING, SOUTH--SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you one question. I was
briefed last year by General Miggs regarding Efficient Basing
South and the rationale for the development in Vincenza, Italy,
and General Miggs emphasized the need for this initiative,
which would move an additional battalion to Vincenza.
Now, I understand the existing Vincenza Elementary High
School cannot anticipate the anticipated enrollment increase,
and I am just wondering what is going to happen long term, and
then there is Grafenwoehr, which will cost $70 million this
year and another $492 million in the future, and that does not
include other things as well.
EFFICIENT BASING EAST
Dr. Fiori. The quick lesson I learned from listening to the
testimony is, I am going to check on the school and the
Grafenwoehr project. I am going to ask General Van Antwerp to
answer the question about Vincenza, since we are almost
finished everything there. I certainly was not aware of the
school issue, but the Grafenwoehr issue, we are doing another
validation of our economic study to show why it makes both
financial sense and also sense just for the soldiers for time
away from home, all the other soldier issues, to get ourselves
into one area, instead of 13 that we are in presently.
We are also finding that Germany will contribute the
housing. We are going to be leasing the housing from them. We
are going to have some savings there, but we have an economic
analysis, and we are reverifying it, and we will have that
report in April.
General Van Antwerp. The end of April.
Dr. Fiori. So we are going to look at the financial aspect
of it, and we will also look at the aspect of what OSD is
providing in this. I just cannot answer that at the moment.
Senator Feinstein. My time is up. Senator Hutchison.
FORT BLISS DESALINIZATION PLANT
Senator Hutchison. I am going to ask a question first on a
more local issue, and that is the issue of the desalinization
plant at Fort Bliss. In the fiscal year 2002 military
construction budget there was $2.8 million for the planning and
design activities at that plant. As you know, there is a
dwindling supply of potable water at Fort Bliss, and yet the
Army has not yet executed any of those funds, and here we are
in March. What is the hold-up?
Dr. Fiori. I was briefed on this earlier, in the last few
days, and we are looking at what is the status basically of the
$2 million that was provided in the 2002 Defense Bill, it has
been obviously earmarked for Fort Bliss in the funding letter
to TRADOC, and the funds will be sent to TRADOC, or should have
been sent by now. We have not defined the best methods of
disposal of brine solution byproducts from desalinization, and
this will help fund the reinjection of the brine back into the
aquifer.
There are pre-design studies that still have to be done,
and my understanding is the Army cost for this co-venture is
going to be $29 million. The total cost of the venture with the
City will be $50.4 million.
The $2 million will fund engineering studies required prior
to design. The current estimated time to perform these
engineering studies is going to be 12 to 18 months. The project
will also require an environmental study that could take up to
24 months, and this effort would cost $1\1/2\ million, which
Fort Bliss has submitted to TRADOC for action during the
midyear review process. It is premature to initiate any design
work, and I think that may be the issue that appears to be
slowing things down, before these engineering studies are
completed.
General, can you add anything to that?
General Van Antwerp. We will be doing the studies, and then
that will tell us what we need to do for the planning and
design, but this first phase for the studies, we will be
beginning those very shortly. The engineer district will get
those funds probably in the next week or so to begin those
studies.
Senator Hutchison. Well, that did not sound like we are
really on top of this. I would just ask you to go back and make
this happen. It has been sitting there since October 1, and we
would like to get going on it. It is very important. It is a
joint effort with the City of El Paso, as you mentioned, and I
think it is essential for Fort Bliss and essential--I think it
cuts the cost by doing it in a joint venture. It is good for
the city as well, but I just would like to see it not be
delayed further.
I mean, I know there is a lot of work to do, but the
studies have been appropriated, so I think we should go
forward.
General Van Antwerp. Actually, ma'am, we did not get the
money in order to be able to put our funding letter out, until
very recently, to the field, so we did not have the money on 1
October to do it. We just recently put the funding letter out,
and it has now gone through TRADOC.
Senator Hutchison. So it is imminent?
General Van Antwerp. It is.
Senator Hutchison. You do not see any further hold-up?
General Van Antwerp. No.
REPROGRAMMINGS
Senator Hutchison. Last question. The services normally
will take excess funds as bill-payers to offset other MILCON
projects. That, I think, has been the norm if it meets certain
criteria, 25 percent or less, or less than $2 million, and it
is my understanding that the services tried to do that in its
normal course last year, reprogramming money saved from Korea
to Fort Belvoir's fire station, and that was held up by the
House Appropriations MILCON Congressman.
I understand that now there has been, I do not know, a
policy or an edict or something that says you cannot use money
that is programmed for Korea or Germany to fund other projects.
Is that the case, and what is happening there, and if it is the
case, is that going to hurt your capability to fully utilize
money where you need it most?
Dr. Fiori. This has certainly been under discussion, of
course, and I will let General Van Antwerp answer.
General Van Antwerp. Ma'am, you are correct. When we were
reprogramming for the ARVN Physical Development Center at West
Point, we were looking at funds. We originally proposed $27
million that we got from bid savings in Korea to reprogramming
for that facility.
We were requested by the House to not use those funds from
Korea for that, but to keep those funds for other Korea
projects, so what we did was go back and found other
reprogramming sources where we could take a little bit from an
awful lot of projects, and where we had bid savings and other
things.
Where it leaves us today is, we have very little money left
if we cannot reprogram those dollars in other areas, if they
are confined to Korea or Europe. I am not aware of the Europe
restriction, but the Korea restriction right now is that we
have no ability to use those funds anywhere else, so they are
just sitting there right now. We have not used those funds.
Senator Hutchison. Do you think that is hurting your
capability to decide your priorities?
General Van Antwerp. I think it does. We have needs to
reallocate that money elsewhere, and we are not able to.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION/CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS
Senator Feinstein. I have one last question for General
Squier, if I might. General, I wanted to ask you about the WMD
civil support teams that have gone from 20 to 32, and without
going into the history of the funding, I think we are all
hopeful that that will be completed in the coming year. Are the
funds adequate to fund those 32 teams?
General Squier. Ma'am, thanks for the question. We do have
a shortfall in unspecified minor, making sure that we can stand
up these last five teams that were announced this year. It will
be about $3.5 million. That would help.
Senator Feinstein. Another $3.5 million?
General Squier. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, because I think that is a
priority, I think, for us, to see that those teams are set up,
and I am pleased you are telling me what it will take to do it,
but if there was another $3.5 million, that would take care of
32 teams in place when?
General Squier. By the end of 2003.
Senator Feinstein. The end of 2003?
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
General Squier. Yes, ma'am. Those last five teams were just
announced this year. The first 27 are going to finish up this
year in 2002, and there will be those last five stood up and
completed by the end of 2003. $3.5 million in unspecified money
will help us facilitate that.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA BRIDGE
Question. Secretary Fiori, the US Forces Korea plans to construct a
$7.9 million bridge linking its two military posts (main post and south
post) in Yongsan in central Seoul. Understanding the convenience that
is offered by this project, however, I am still concerned. Is it true
that the land proposed for the building of this bridge is not in
accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)? And, with plans
to move Yongsan at a cost of nearly $10 billion, during the next
decade, is a project of this magnitude justified?
Answer. The project is being funded with construction funds
provided by the Republic of Korea (Host Nation Funded Construction).
This project is not for convenience, but to improve force protection
and reduce the negative impact of our controlled access procedures on
the city. There is no land required, only a right of way (easement).
The SOFA provides for such requirements, and the SOFA Joint Committee
set up by treaty to negotiate such actions is already engaged. The
Republic of Korea government is providing the easement, and both the
Korean Federal and Seoul city governments support the project. Our
force protection requirements and controlled access, particularly
during heightened threat conditions, cause a tremendous traffic problem
for the city. This project will significantly reduce the impact on the
city of our force protection requirements, and thus has their full
support. There are no ``plans'' to move Yongsan garrison. There is an
agreement from 1990 stating Yongsan will relocate (by 1996) and the
Korean government will pay for it. This agreement has lain dormant for
many years. Recently, the Korean government has expressed interest in
revisiting the issue, but there is no agreed upon new location, no
scope of work for the relocation, no designs, and no master plans.
Should the Korean government decide to aggressively pursue the
relocation, it will take years to accomplish. In the interim, the
overpass will still help improve USFK force protection and reduce our
impact on the city.
CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM
Question. Dr. Fiori, the President's budget requests $168 million
for the Defense Department's Chemical Demilitarization Program in
fiscal year 2003. Yet, in an evaluation from the Office of Management
and Budget accompanying the fiscal year 2003 budget, the program was
rated ``ineffective'' because of a 60 percent cost increase estimate
and delays stemming from ``unrealistic schedules, site safety and
environmental concerns, and poor planning.'' That evaluation doesn't
give me a lot confidence that the budget request is justified or will
be well spent.
Since it is the Army that administers that program, could you
please comment on the budget evaluation and tell us what your
department is doing to improve the chem-demil program?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) completed a
major program review (September 2001) that resulted in the recognition
that the prior stockpile destruction milestones would not be met. The
current schedule approved by the Defense Acquisition Executive projects
completion of disposal operations at six chemical stockpile sites
between 2007 and 2011, and associated costs of $24 billion. Schedules
for the Pueblo, CO, and Blue Grass, KY, sites will be published once
the technology decisions are made, now projected for the 3rd Quarter,
fiscal year 2002 and the 1st Quarter, fiscal year 2003, respectively.
The revised program cost and schedules are based on operational
experience obtained at the Johnston Island and Tooele, UT, chemical
agents disposal facilities. Chemical agent destruction efforts at these
sites were evaluated to develop realistic schedules for other
incinerator sites. The significant cost drivers are revised processing
rates; disposal facility operations extensions; stockpile conditions
that affect processing rates (e.g., gelled chemical agent in rockets,
frothing and solidification with mustard agent; and heavy metal
contamination in ton containers); higher labor rates; increased
equipment and construction costs; technology maturity and design
evolution. The schedule extensions have also increased the costs of
emergency response and preparedness. In addition, facility closure
estimates for CONUS sites have increased based on ongoing closure
efforts at the Johnston Island facility.
The Army has consolidated the management of the Chemical
Demilitarization Program under the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment). I have extensive experience in
managing environmentally sensitive and complex Government facilities
and programs. The revised milestones and associated costs are
incorporated into a new set of program requirements by which OSD and
the Army will monitor schedule, cost and performance of the program.
The Army has accelerated the neutralization process by as much as 3
years for disposal of mustard bulk agent at Aberdeen, MD. The Army is
studying the feasibility of a similar effort to accelerate disposal of
the bulk VX nerve agent stockpile at Newport, IN, and will continue to
evaluate options at other sites. This approach will save time and
money. I assure you that the Army will continuously review options for
potential cost savings and utilization of resources, while not
jeopardizing the safety of the public, workers and environment.
Question. Do you believe that the fiscal year 2003 budget request
is the actual amount that will be needed in fiscal year 2003, or is it
more of a guesstimate?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 Military Construction budget request
is based on historical experience and detailed engineering estimates
for the work to be performed in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003
budget request represents funds needed to begin, continue and complete
Chem Demil projects during the year. Significant activities during
fiscal year 2003 are: (a) completion of construction activities
associated with the accelerated neutralization initiative at Aberdeen;
(b) continuation of facility construction activities at Newport, IN;
(c) award of the design-build systems contract at Pueblo, CO; (d)
execution of technology dependent infrastructure projects at Blue
Grass, KY (technology decision expected September 2002); and (e)
completion of construction activities at Pine Bluff, AR (no fiscal year
2003 funds requested). For work already under contract, the budget
requests are based on projected obligation and expenditure to support
the planned workload. For work not yet awarded, the budget requests are
based on government estimates based on past experience. Decisions
regarding accelerated destruction of the chemical agent stockpile (over
and above what is currently scheduled) may alter the fiscal year 2003
funding requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION SPENDING AND BACKLOG
Question. Dr. Fiori, last year senior Defense officials testified
that after many years of neglect, the Department intended to start
investing in infrastructure. They stated that our facilities had been
allowed to deteriorate to unacceptable levels and that we needed to
address these shortfalls. The fiscal year 2002 budget was a major step
forward in that regard. However, I note that we are back to business as
normal with a proposed recapitalization rate of 123 years in the 2003
budget versus the 83 year rate in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Is the
Army serious about improving Army facilities, and if so, why the
reduction in MILCON spending in this budget?
Answer. Our military construction budget request is $3.2 billion
and will fund our highest priority facilities and family housing
requirements. In fiscal year 2002, we presented a budget that was a
down payment on our goal to better support our infrastructure. When we
developed this year's budget in light of the events that took place
last year, we had some very difficult decisions to make. The need to
fund our military pay raises, Army transformation, OPTEMPO, the war on
terrorism, increases in health care and other key programs were all
included in the decision leading to our request. Thus, the Army budget
provides the best balance between all our programs, including military
construction.
BACKLOG OF ACTIVE AND RESERVE COMPONENT MILCON PROJECTS
Question. What is your backlog of Active and Reserve Component
MILCON projects?
Answer. The Army's backlog is $17.7 billion based on the fiscal
year 2001 Installations Status Report (ISR) and the associated cost to
improve the condition of our facilities to C-1. Much of this backlog
will require MILCON funding because the facilities require extensive
renovation. Some of the work will be accomplished with Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) funds. The component breakout of the backlog
requirement is Active $9.6 billion, Army Reserve $1.7 billion, and Army
National Guard (Federally Funded portion) $6.4 billion.
INTERIM BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS (IBCTS)
Question. I understand that there is a disconnect between the
fielding of the Interim Brigade Combat Teams and the amount of funding
available for the military construction facilities necessary to support
those brigades. Can the Army provide me a list of the unfunded MILCON
requirements essential for all of the IBCTs?
Answer. Yes. When the fiscal year 2003 budget was developed, all
known IBCT requirements were funded. However, while budget decisions
were being made, we continued to refine military construction
requirements, using emerging IBCT doctrine and lessons learned from
fielding and training in the first two IBCTs. As a result, we have
since identified $276.4 million in emerging Military Construction, Army
(MCA) requirements for the IBCTs, primarily in Alaska and Hawaii (Table
follows).
EMERGING BILLS PROGRAM CATEGORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Description Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY
Alaska:
Fort Richardson................ Sniper Range.......... 3,650
Fort Richardson................ Mission Support 34,000
Training Facility.
Fort Richardson................ Multipurpose Training 14,800
Range.
Fort Wainwright................ Combined Arms 24,000
Collective Training
Facility.
Fort Wainwright................ MOUT Upgrades......... 10,880
Fort Wainwright................ Company Operations 7,500
Facilities (2).
Fort Wainwright................ Brigade Motor Pool 32,000
Phase 2.
Fort Wainwright................ Ammunition Supply 13,000
Point.
Fort Wainwright................ Battle Area Course.... 48,000
Hawaii:
Schofield Barracks............. Mission Support 43,000
Training Facility.
Schofield Barracks............. Information Systems 22,000
Facility.
Washington: Fort Lewis............. Arrival Departure 2,600
Airfield Control
Group.
Worldwide: Various................. Planning and Design... 21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What caused this delay in getting projects lined up for
the interim brigades? Have you all fixed the problem?
Answer. The delay in the development of the total requirements was
due to several factors. The announcement of the locations for IBCTs 3
through 6 occurred in July 2001. Since then, interim doctrinal
development and lessons learned from training and fielding the first
IBCTs has resulted in changing project requirements, particularly for
Alaska and Hawaii. With a better opportunity to analyze specific
installations' on-hand facilities against more developed IBCT
requirements, additional requirements have emerged that are critical to
support the fielding, training and sustaining these IBCTs.
The Army is fixing these problems. We are working to synchronize
the Interim Force requirements process with the MILCON process and
capture the refined facilities requirements to support fielding IBCTs 3
through 6. We are addressing these emerging requirements in the Army's
program development for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. The Army is
leveraging IBCT lessons learned to better plan and program the fielding
of the Objective Force.
PROJECT BID SAVINGS
Question. What is the Army's Policy towards MILCON bid or project
savings generated in South Korea and Germany?
Answer. Construction contract bid savings or project savings need
to be used wherever there is a justified MILCON program shortfall. The
country, state or installation location that generated the savings is
not a factor in the decision on where the savings will be used to fund
an Army MCA shortfall.
Question. What are the policy implications to the rest of the
MILCON program of maintaining bid savings in each state or country?
Answer. There would be an impact on the Army's ability to
effectively manage and execute the MILCON program. Maintaining bid
savings in each state or country might result in the eventual
expiration of unexpended funds in areas with no requirement, reduction
in required project scope in areas with no bid savings, or possible
cancellation of projects where further scope reductions would impact
the functionality of the facility.
U.S. ARMY SOUTH RELOCATION
Question. Dr. Fiori, I understand that the Army is in the process
of sending evaluation teams to five or six bases to determine their
suitability to serve as the new home to U.S. Army South (USARSO). Will
the criteria these installations be evaluated on include: Proximity to
an international airport with direct flights to Central and South
America? Abundant spousal employment opportunities? Existing
infrastructure capable of absorbing USARSO, without the need for new
construction?
Answer. Senator Hutchison, the Army is not currently evaluating any
locations for a future home for USARSO. The Army is, however, studying
the necessity of moving USARSO and a decision is expected soon. If a
decision is made to move USARSO, criteria, to include such criteria as
you mentioned in your question, will be developed and utilized in the
process of reviewing possible relocation sites and in making a final
selection.
MILCON CUTS
Question. When I look closely at the proposed MILCON budget and
break it out by state, I find that four of the states that received the
lion's share of the cuts from previous budgets are California, Florida,
Texas, and Hawaii. Am I to believe that this is coincidence that these
states are heavily represented on the appropriations committees or can
I conclude that the administration purposely under funded these states
with the intent that the committees would then take the role of making
them ``whole?''
Answer. The Army funds our priorities without respect to specific
states, but with regards to where our most important requirements
exist. The Army has identified certain facility types for focused
investment. These facilities are our first priority for funding.
Our Permanent Party Barracks will be replaced or modernized to the
new Army standard barracks of 1+1 by fiscal year 2008.
Strategic Mobility will be complete with this budget and a follow
on Army Power Projection Program will apply additional funding to
requirements that have been identified through new missions and
changing force structure.
The Transformation of the Army requires significant facility
investment at all impacted installations.
Ammunition (Chemical) Demilitarization supports the destruction of
the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons to reduce the risk to the
communities surrounding he stockpile sites and is a major priority of
the Army.
National Guard Army Division Redesign Study (ADRS) provides
facilities for new wartime and domestic support requirements.
Critical C-3 and C-4 Facilities. We will focus also on critical
categories of facilities in poor condition (vehicle maintenance shops,
tactical equipment shops, general instruction buildings, Chapels,
Reserve Centers, National Guard facilities, etc)
Last, is recapitalization of existing facilities. Our goal is to
reach a 67 year cycle by 2010. We are currently on a 123 year cycle.
______
Questions Submitted to Major General James R. Helmly
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE ARMY RESERVE
Question. The Army Reserve requirements and funding profile for
fiscal year 2003 indicate that the President's budget request will meet
just 26 percent of the Reserve's MILCON requirement. Do you consider
that to be an adequate level of funding?
Answer. I consider the Army Reserve military construction funding
to be adequate within the context of the fiscal year 2003 budget. The
Army had some very difficult decisions to make in light of the events
that took place last year. The need to fund the war on terrorism,
military pay raises, Army transformation, OPTEMPO, increases in health
care and other key programs were all included in the decisions leading
to our budget request. Although the Army Reserve has other military
construction projects we would like to see funded, the budget provides
the best balance between all Army programs.
ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION
Question. General Helmly and General Squier. I see no specific
requests in the budgets of the reserve components addressing increased
force protection requirements. However, understanding that this amount
could be in the billions of dollars, the Army Guard has made an initial
cut as to the amount that could be executed in the next fiscal year. I
assume the USAR has a similar estimate. Would you please provide your
estimated requirement for the Committee?
Answer. The Army Reserve estimates increased force protection
MILCON requirements will cost $13 million for fiscal year 2003. This
estimate encompasses the resources required to consistently assess our
force protection posture, fix deficiencies discovered during that
process, secure our installations and Reserve centers, and emplace the
communication links necessary to gather intelligence and coordinate
response plans.
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MOBILIZED RESERVISTS
Question. With more Guardsmen and reservists employed full-time,
what concrete efforts are being planned to address quality of life for
these soldiers.
Answer. We have established a much more robust Family Support
network to educate, assist and support soldiers' families on the
requirements, responsibilities and entitlements associated with being
mobilized and serving on active duty as well as demobilization and the
soldiers' return to civilian work.
The OSD TRICARE demonstration which affords mobilized Reservists
greater coverage and entitlements is a good step toward understanding
and compensating for the health issues of the soldier and, more
importantly, his or her family. Further considerations to deal with any
loss of health care and afford our Reserve family a true continuum of
health care are ongoing.
Our Reservists continue to benefit from the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended, and the
work of the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve Ombudsman program.
______
Question Submitted to Brigadier General Michael J. Squier
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD
Question. General Squier, the National Guard requirements and
funding profile for fiscal year 2003 indicates that the President's
budget request will meet only 14 percent of the Guard's MILCON
requirement in fiscal year 2003. Do you consider this an adequate level
of funding?
Answer. Last year, the Army made a down payment against their
requirements to increase funding for both the Active and Reserve
Component facilities. Unfortunately, the Army could not sustain that
level this year due to higher Army priorities for transformation,
mission and readiness.
______
Questions Submitted to Major General Robert L. Van Antwerp, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION
Question. General Helmly and General Squier. I see no specific
requests in the budgets of the reserve components addressing increased
force protection requirements. However, understanding that this amount
could be in the billions of dollars, the Army Guard has made an initial
cut as to the amount that could be executed in the next fiscal year. I
assume the USAR has a similar estimate. Would you please provide your
estimated requirement for the Committee?
Answer. The Army Reserve estimates increased force protection
MILCON requirements will cost $13 million for fiscal year 2003. This
estimate encompasses the resources required to consistently assess our
force protection posture, fix deficiencies discovered during that
process, secure our installations and Reserve centers, and emplace the
communication links necessary to gather intelligence and coordinate
response plans.
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MOBILIZED RESERVISTS
Question. With more Guardsmen and reservists employed full-time,
what concrete efforts are being planned to address quality of life for
these soldiers.
Answer. We have established a much more robust Family Support
network to educate, assist and support soldiers' families on the
requirements, responsibilities and entitlements associated with being
mobilized and serving on active duty as well as demobilization and the
soldiers' return to civilian work.
The OSD TRICARE demonstration which affords mobilized Reservists
greater coverage and entitlements is a good step toward understanding
and compensating for the health issues of the soldier and, more
importantly, his or her family. Further considerations to deal with any
loss of health care and afford our Reserve family a true continuum of
health care are ongoing.
Our Reservists continue to benefit from the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended, and the
work of the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and
Reserve Ombudsman program.
UNFUNDED PRIORITIES
Question. General Van Antwerp: General Shinseki (Army Chief of
Staff) reported last week that the Army has nearly $9.5 billion in
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. What portion of that amount
involves military construction?
Answer. The total MILCON identified in the unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2003 is $621,871,000. The program categories are Facilities
Revitalization and Emerging Bills.
Question. Would you please provide for the Committee a list of the
Army's unfunded MILCON priorities?
Answer. The projects are listed below:
FACILITIES REVITALIZATION PROGRAM CATEGORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Description Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY
Alaska: Fort Richardson............ Mylar Window Glazing.. 1,115
Alabama: Anniston AD............... Igloo Mods for THAAD.. 2,150
Colorado:
Fort Carson.................... Multi-Purpose Machine 2,700
Gun Range.
Fort Carson.................... Arrival Departure 50,000
Airfield Control
Group & Ramp.
District of Columbia:
Walter Reed AMC................ Physical Security, 3,450
Main Section.
Georgia:
Fort Benning................... Cantonment Fencing.... 14,600
Fort Gillem.................... Modified Record Fire/ 4,400
Combat Pistol Qual
Course.
Kansas:
Fort Leavenworth............... Cantonment Fencing.... 1,300
Fort Riley..................... Cantonment Fencing.... 7,000
Fort Riley..................... Combined Arms 27,000
Collective Training
Facility.
Kentucky:
Fort Campbell.................. Combined Arms 12,779
Collective Training
Facility.
Fort Campbell.................. Shoot House........... 1,250
New York:
Fort Drum...................... Combined Arms 14,500
Collective Training
Facility.
Fort Drum...................... Parallel Taxiway...... 8,600
Fort Drum...................... Mountain Ramp and Hot 15,000
Pad.
North Carolina:
Fort Bragg..................... Shoot House........... 1,250
Fort Bragg..................... Anti-Armor/Infantry 6,900
Squad Battle Course.
Oklahoma:
Fort Sill...................... Railroad Equip/Engine 2,100
Maintenance.
McAlester AAP.................. Consolidated Shipping 2,500
Center LCL.
Texas:
Fort Hood...................... Qualification Training 8,100
Range.
Fort Hood...................... Urban Assault Course.. 1,400
Fort Hood...................... Urban Assault Course.. 1,000
Washington:
Fort Lewis..................... Guard House........... 15,500
Fort Lewis..................... Fencing............... 2,400
Fort Lewis..................... Shoot House........... 1,250
Germany: Grafenwoehr Training Area. Combined Arms 31,850
Collective Training
Facility.
Kwajalein:
Kwajalein...................... Vehicle Paint and Prep 10,000
Shop.
Kwajalein...................... Cover Raw Water Tanks. 4,516
Puerto Rico: Roosevelt Roads....... SOF Aircraft 18,500
Maintenance Hangar.
Worldwide: Various................. Planning and Design... 7,780
ARMY RESERVE
California: Los Alamitos........... Perimeter Security 1,773
(fencing, gates,
lighting, doors,
camera, IDS), 63rd
RSC.
Massachusetts: Devens.............. Upgrade and 1,331
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
94th RSC.
New York: Fort Totten.............. Upgrade and 1,400
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
77th RSC.
Pennsylvania: Oakdale.............. Upgrade and 1,651
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
99th RSC.
Utah: Salt Lake City............... Upgrade and 2,500
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
96th RSC.
Washington: Seattle................ Upgrade and 2,235
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
70th RSC.
Puerto Rico: Ft Buchanan........... Upgrade and 1,235
Installation of
fencing, gates,
lighting, gates,
doors, camera, IDS),
65th RSC.
Worldwide: Various................. Planning and Design... 857
NATIONAL GUARD
Arkansas:
Camp Robinson.................. Cantonment Fencing.... 1,600
Camp Robinson.................. Fence Training Areas.. 4,805
Fort Chaffee................... Relocate Parking lots. 2,000
Connecticut:
Bradley Intl Airport........... State Area Reserve 2,300
Command (STARC) (-)
and alt EOC. Install
Force Protection.
Bristol Armory................. State Area Reserve 1,900
Command (STARC)--
Install Force
Protection.
Enfield Armory................. Install Barriers, 1,250
gates, fences.
MTA Cp Rowland................. Install Barriers, 1,250
gates, fences.
Illinois:
Springfield.................... New Standoff Mail/ 2,000
Receiving Center.
Springfield.................... New Entrance /Exit, 1,500
Harden Guard Bldg.
Indiana: Camp Atterbury............ Installation Boundary 7,429
Fence with Patrol
Road.
Kansas: Topeka..................... Inspection facility, & 2,242
internal access lines.
Maryland: Fifth Regiment Armory.... State Headquarters 1,200
(STARC).
New York:
Latham STARC................... Fencing, lighting, 2,500
CCTV.
Troy Armor/OMS................. fencing, lighting, 1,500
CCTV.
New York....................... Relocate entrance, 1,500
drive, guard house.
North Dakota: Camp Grafton......... Upgrade and harden 1,500
perimeter Security
Fence.
South Dakota:
Rapid City..................... Enhance site perimeter 2,500
barriers & access
gates, provide guard
houses.
SD, Sioux Falls................ Barriers, Fencing..... 2,000
Tennessee: Smyrna.................. Replace fencing and 1,802
Improve.
Virginia: Fort Pickett............. Install perimeter 4,500
security.
Worldwide: Various................. Planning and Design... 4,291
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGING BILLS PROGRAM CATEGORY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Description Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY
Alaska:
Fort Richardson................ Sniper Range.......... 3,650
Fort Richardson................ Mission Support 34,000
Training Facility.
Fort Richardson................ Multipurpose Training 14,800
Range.
Fort Wainwright................ Combined Arms 24,000
Collective Training
Facility.
Fort Wainwright................ MOUT Upgrades......... 10,880
Fort Wainwright................ Company Operations 7,500
Facilities (2).
Fort Wainwright................ Brigade Motor Pool 32,000
Phase 2.
Fort Wainwright................ Ammunition Supply 13,000
Point.
Fort Wainwright................ Battle Area Course.... 48,000
Hawaii:
Schofield Barracks............. Mission Support 43,000
Training Facility.
Schofield Barracks............. Information Systems 22,000
Facility.
Washington: Fort Lewis............. Arrival Departure 2,600
Airfield Control
Group.
Worldwide: Various................. Planning and Design... 21,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INCREASING COSTS OF THE EFFICIENT BASING INITIATIVE IN EUROPE
Question. General Van Antwerp, I want to get a handle on the real
costs and efficiencies of the Efficient Basing Initiatives--both East
and South. I am told that the Efficient Basing effort in Grafenwoehr
will cost $70 million this year, another $492 million in the future,
and this doesn't include $90 million for DODEA in Germany alone. That's
a lot of cash. Plus, we're looking at almost $35 million this year in
Vicenza alone. Are there hidden outyear costs there?
Answer. We have identified all known costs for both initiatives and
we have provided that information to various members and staff. If
changes in costs or requirements occur we will continue to keep
Congress informed.
Efficient Basing East (Grafenwoehr). The total construction costs
are $695 million, of which $70 million is programmed in fiscal year
2003 as part of the Military Construction, Army (MCA) budget request,
and the remaining requirement is split between Army ($492 million),
Military Construction, Defense-wide (MCD) ($99 million) and planning
and design. These non-Army construction requirements are for schools,
medical facilities and Army and Air Force Exchange System facilities.
There is no construction requirement for Army Family Housing (AFH)
because our family housing requirements will be provided through Build
to Lease facilities--currently estimated at $34 million per year funded
out of our AFH Operations account.
Efficient Basing--South (Vicenza). Construction requirements total
$53 million, of which $39 million is funded in MCA and $14 million is
part of a larger MCD school expansion project (totaling $17 million) to
be programmed. Family housing requirements can be satisfied on the
local economy.
Question. What is the bottom line? Is the Efficient Basing
Initiative really efficient? Answer. The initiatives are necessary and
efficient.
Efficient Basing--East consolidates a heavy Brigade Combat Team
from 13 small, scattered installations to a single installation. It is
good for soldiers, it will improve operations and training, and it
saves money. Soldiers will be located next to their major training
area, work in facilities built to support their job most efficiently
and housed in modern barracks and family housing, properly sized and
outfitted to today's standards. This initiative saves money because in
the long run it is cheaper to build new in a single location than
rehabilitate and refurbish old outmoded facilities in a dispersed World
War II footprint.
Efficient Basing--South will increase forces in the NATO Southern
Region and provide CINCEUCOM with more flexibility to deploy assets
across the spectrum of military scenarios--it provides operational
efficiencies rather than economic efficiencies. Vicenza was selected
because of its robust support structure, availability of quality of
life services and facilities, and least overall cost.
Question. I would like to see an analysis of the payout of this
initiative.
Answer. For Efficient Basing East, an independent economic analysis
(EA) is being conducted to determine savings and benefits. We will
forward it to you when it is completed and reviewed by the Army. An
initial estimate provided by US Army Europe indicates an approximate
savings of $12 million per year. As for Efficient Basing South, the
initiative was based on military operational requirements rather than
for base efficiencies.
ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION
Question. MG Van Antwerp: Regarding Anti-Terrorism-Force Protection
requirements following the events of September 11th, I would assume
that the demand for increased force protection measures is great. Can
you tell me how much of this demand was addressed in this year's budget
request ?
Answer. Due to the events of September 11th, approximately $200
million from Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) Program Year 2001
was allocated to improve Access Control on military installations Army-
wide. The fiscal year 2003 Budget Request contains $691 million for
DERF to be used for Military Construction and other Access Control
Measures. If approved, it will provide equipment packages for Perimeter
Access Control Points, Internal Limited Access Control Points and Cargo
Inspection Points at mission essential vulnerable areas. Under
``Combating Terrorism'' within the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget
there is over $2.0 billion for Army Anti-Terrorism-Force Protection
measures. The intent of funding these packages is to mitigate risk at
entry points and reduce manpower requirements.
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR MOBILIZED RESERVISTS
Question. General Van Antwerp, with the recently declared ``war on
terrorism'' the readiness of reservists is key to our success. We need
modern ranges, training areas, and facilities that will allow all our
service members the training and education they need. However, this
disproportionate budget seems to be divided between ``the haves and the
have nots.'' If you do not address the service-wide needs of soldiers
this year, what guarantee do the members of Congress have that they
will be addressed in coming years?
Answer. The Army's military construction budget supports all Army
soldiers, active and reserve. The Army has funded sustainment of our
facilities at 92 percent for both active and reserve components'
facilities inventory. Also, one-fourth of the projects in the active
Army's military construction budget are available for joint use with
the Army National Guard and Reserve. The fiscal year 2003 Army Military
Construction budget request includes several major programs and
initiatives which are funded at higher percentages, for example:
barracks (100 percent), strategic mobility (100 percent),
transformation (100 percent), chemical demilitarization (100 percent),
and Army National Guard Division Redesign (69 percent). After these,
the Army funded all remaining revitalization requirements for the
Active Army at 9 percent of requirements, for the Army National Guard
at 9 percent, and for the Army Reserve at 26 percent. The Army is
committed to addressing the needs of soldiers in all components of the
Army equitably.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
FORT BLISS--CAPACITY
Question. General VanAntwerp, as you are well aware, large land
areas for maneuver training are at a premium in the U.S. and, because
of this scarcity, their use needs to be maximized. I'm sure you are
also aware that the Fort Bliss/White Sands training area is the largest
in the U.S., yet there are no major maneuver forces permanently
stationed at Fort Bliss. Do you see the movement of a division, or
perhaps one of the Army's new Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), to
Fort Bliss to take advantage of this unmatched maneuver space?
Answer. Fort Bliss is home to a robust array of U.S. Army Air
Defense Artillery units, schools, and related activities. The Air
Defense Artillery Center and School trains Army air defenders and Army
leaders with a host of courses and facilities. Major units include the
32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, four (4) Air Defense Brigade
Headquarters and Headquarters Batteries, seven (7) Patriot Battalions,
and seven (7) Maintenance Companies. Several of these units were
relocated to Fort Bliss after 1995 to maximize Army usage of the range
spaces there. Air defense missile firing requires a great amount of
range space to safely conduct under realistic engagement conditions and
distances, and Fort Bliss is well suited for this very mission.
Both Active Component and Reserve Component (both Army National
Guard--from several states--and United States Army Reserve) units and
personnel currently conduct extensive training exercises, mobilization
activities, and support missions at Fort Bliss. Additionally, the Army
staffs, equips, and jointly operates other United States Government
elements at Fort Bliss such as Joint Task Force-6, Operation Alliance,
and the El Paso Intelligence Center.
Fort Bliss, like all other installations, is being considered for
future stationing options for different units. Each installation has
its advantages and disadvantages, in terms of maneuver and range
availability, power projection capacity, and installation support
capacity. Fort Bliss is currently undergoing some important upgrade
projects regarding the fielding of Theater High-Altitude Area Defense
System (THAADS), and the installation will continue to meet the
important needs of soldiers, civilian employees, and families.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. All right. Does anybody else have
anything they would like to bring to the attention of the
committee?
If not, then, I thank you very much. This hearing is
recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002
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 Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senator Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF H.T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY FOR INSTALLATION AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADMIRAL DAVID D. PRUETT, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS, USN,
DIRECTOR, CIVIL ENGINEERING READINESS DIVISION, CHIEF OF
NAVAL OPERATIONS
REAR ADMIRAL NOEL G. PRESTON, USNR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NAVAL
RESERVE
BRIGADIER GENERAL (SELECT) RONALD S. COLEMAN, USMC, DEPUTY
ASSISTANT COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS FOR INSTALLATION
AND LOGISTICS FACILITIES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. I would like to call this meeting of the
Military Construction Subcommittee of the Defense
Appropriations Committee to order and I welcome our witnesses
and members of the subcommittee. I am sorry the ranking member,
Senator Hutchison of Texas, has an unavoidable commitment and
cannot be here today. But we will proceed in any event. I want
everybody to know that the Appropriations Committee has
officially entered the cyber age and all our witnesses should
know that the audio of our hearing is being broadcast live over
the Internet. So the mikes are live at all times.
Today we are going to hear from representatives of the Navy
and the Air Force on their respective 2003 military
construction programs. The prepared statements of all the
witnesses will be entered into the record in their entirety. So
I will ask the witnesses to summarize their oral remarks and if
you can do it within five minutes that is really wonderful and
then we will have some time for questions. If you cannot, that
is all right, too.
The total fiscal year 2003 budget request for military
construction is slightly less than $9 billion. Now that is a 15
percent drop from what Congress appropriated last year and, it
is a 24 percent drop in active component military construction.
When you break it down by service, the Navy's active military
construction program is down 20 percent and the Air Force is
down 48 percent.
For the reserve components, the Navy Reserve has level
funding, while the Air Force Reserve is down almost 69 percent
and the Air Guard is down nearly 75 percent. These are major
reductions from last year and so I want these witnesses to know
that this committee would like to support an adequate program
for military construction. We have been concerned because the
budget is cut so dramatically in military construction and as I
said last time, I generally go by what the military believe
they need in military construction to carry out their work. So
I would encourage everybody to speak as frankly as you can.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE CLEANUP
At the last hearing, the military said they could live with
these cuts. So I take them at their word. But last year the
Navy and the Air Force submitted inadequate budget requests for
their BRAC environmental cleanup programs and I want you to
know that I appreciate the effort that both services put forth
to help correct the situation.
Secretary Johnson, you in particular have been very helpful
with the Hunter's Point shipyard problem and I appreciate that
very much. Last year we were able to bail the services out on
this environmental remediation of closed bases, but it is going
to be very difficult to do so this year within the budget
constraints. And I think we regard environmental cleanup as
being a very vital part of the BRAC process. It is also the
reason, or one of the major reasons, why base conversion has
been so slow and so difficult.
Because the cleanup of many of these bases has been
dramatically underestimated by the military and local
jurisdictions that have the bases transitioned to them really
cannot use them unless the cleanup is carried out, and of
course they do not have the money on the local level to do the
cleanup. So I believe very strongly when the services make
promises to affected communities, those promises must be kept
and so I look forward to hearing progress reports on the BRAC
cleanup program today.
Let me begin by introducing panel number one. The Honorable
H.T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations
and Environment; Rear Admiral David Pruett from the Chief of
Naval Operations, Civil Engineer Corps; Rear Admiral Noel
Preston, United States Navy Reserve; and Brigadier General
Ronald Coleman, United States Marine Corps. I would ask each of
you to summarize your statements if you can. We will put your
whole statement in the record and let's begin now. Secretary
Johnson. Welcome.
NAVY TESTIMONY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I am very pleased to be with you
and you have introduced my partners and they are partners not
only in this hearing, but also working the MILCON and also
taking care of our people in the Marine Corps and the Navy.
We would like to highlight a few items and we have many
more in our statement, of course. We have done well in the
current budget climate. The Department of Navy budget for
installations overall is $9.3 billion. A bit higher than the
$8.9 billion appropriated in 2002. We have tilted towards our
top priority our sailors, Marines, their families and our
civilian work force.
There is $375 million for family housing construction and
improvement. This is a 15 percent increase over this year's
enacted levels. This will allow us to build 1,1,00 new homes
and renovate some 31,000 existing homes--31 hundred--three
thousand one hundred. We have also funded 4,400 new bachelor
quarter homes for our single sailors and Marine Corps. Of
these, 600 and--correction, 764 are for homes for our shipboard
sailors.
We have 31,000 sailors who don't have a home except on the
ship. This is lowest quality of life in the Department of
Defense. We want to give them a home ashore by 2008. We have
also added $269 million to better sustain our existing
facilities. This is 15 percent higher than this year's level.
Unfortunately as you mentioned, our active and reserve
military construction request, MILCON, is $948 million, 21
percent below this year's enacted level. This reflects the
priorities that I mentioned keeping the balance across all of
our Department of Navy priorities. There was some thought early
on that we had anticipated a BRAC 2005. We have not. No one in
the Department of Navy considered that and it is not part of
our priority system. You mentioned cleanup, Madam Chair, but we
have done very well. Last year you mentioned that you helped us
a bit and we appreciate that. This year, we are using the funds
that we got from the Congress. In the 2003, we are fully
funded. And looking out, we are also funding all the
requirements.
BASE CLOSURE CLEANUP
You mentioned that BRAC is very, very difficult and it is
true. We never know exactly what is going to come up next. When
you uncover a rock, you have to look under it and Hunter's
Point is certainly one that you and I know very well. Every
time we dig up a bucket full of dirt, we find something new.
Looking just at a few of our successes and some of our
challenges, Mare Island, I am not sure if you know it or not,
but the Governor just last week approved the transfer of the
eastern parcel. That is some 668 acres--the industrial part of
Mare Island. In fact, all of the industrial part has been
transferred. There are 3,000 acres in the western parcel, which
was wetlands. It is on the Governor's desk for approval. So
very shortly we should have all of Mare Island completed.
This is a new approach. We gave the cleanup funding to the
city and their contractor teammate for both the eastern sector,
some $78 million, and for the western sector a like amount. So
Mare Island is fixed, if you will. Hunter's Point, we have
forged a good relation good partnership under your tutelage
with the mayor, the city, the local contractor and certainly
the Department of Navy. We are anxious to integrate our cleanup
with development.
We are very pleased at Tustin. We are about to transfer
most of Tustin, but we keep some property for the Federal
Government to sell. So we will make a little bit on Tustin.
Oakland Naval Hospital, that is up for sale and that seems to
be going well also.
Turning now to the part that our Secretary and Department
focuses on is housing. As I believe you know, the Secretary of
Defense accelerated the goal for having good homes for all of
our family members from 2010 to 2007. The Navy service will
make 2007. The Marine Corps will make it 2 years early in 2005,
which is quite an accomplishment.
PUBLIC PRIVATE HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS
We also have some good news. We have been very successful
at privatization and this has worked out very well for the
Department of Navy. We have Public Private Partnerships at six
locations for some 6,600 homes. We have another 1,800 homes at
two locations underway--solicitations, and we have plans for
12,000 more at seven locations. That has worked very, very well
and we get a good up front leverage and it is a self-sustaining
entitlement for our sailors and Marines.
We believe we have real opportunity to use the
privatization concept for bachelor housing and we are working
that very hard. We are working on three pilots and we are
working with your staff and other congressional committees to
gain support for this concept. We are also pleased at what we
have done in energy. We are concerned about our facilities, but
we are also concerned about conserving our energy and
utilities. The Department of Navy won two of four energy awards
that were passed out by the Vice President last Fall. That is
quite an accomplishment for our people and we are very proud of
that. If I may turn it over to Admiral Pruett now ma'am?
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. Admiral?
Admiral Pruett. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be before the committee to discuss the fiscal year
2003 MILCON budget request. I just have a couple of additional
comments to amplify a couple of the areas mentioned by
Secretary Johnson in his opening statement.
First of all and primary, mission accomplishment is what we
call our main thing, but our people, of course, are our top
priority. Truly both mission accomplishment and the people are
inextricably linked. As Secretary Johnson discussed, we have
over 31,000 sailors that are living on board ships while in
home port and these sailors like all sailors in the Navy endure
a very austere lifestyle aboard ship while underway on
deployment. When the ships are in home port, we need to offer
them a better place to call home. This is a major quality of
service issue and we are programming and executing projects
that will resolve this challenge, as the Secretary mentioned.
But we also need to come up with some more innovative ways
to further expedite the housing of these shipboard sailors as
well as our other eligible sailors ashore. This year's budget
does have two projects for 764 shoreside sailor rooms for the
junior sailors who would otherwise continue to live aboard the
ship. Our goal is to have them off the ships while at home
port, shore side living spaces by 2008. And this initiative
will help lessen the divide with regards to housing for our
single sailors compared to our married sailors.
Next, protection of our people while at work and at home
has of course taken on a paramount importance in the wake of
the attacks of September 11. I want to assure you that our
facility projects are designed to meet the latest anti-
terrorism force protection engineering standards, and those
include shatter resistant glass, building hardening, perimeter
protection and structural reinforcing. We employ these
standards based upon local conditions and our threat analyses.
Quality facilities and infrastructure are an integral
component of our readiness. Our installations serve as our
launch platforms from which our sailors and Marines deploy to
execute their mission, while their families remain behind.
These are the places where our sailors, Marines and their
families live, work, train and relax. We do remain committed to
assure readiness even though as you've mentioned, we have a
smaller MILCON budget this year.
There are no quick fixes and we must stay the course and
look at our available funding, continue to balance it across
the different facility accounts. First of all, we need to
sustain our facilities. This is with what we call our SRM
budget--Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization budget, to
stop the growth of C3 and C4 deficiencies. And we need to
correct those deficiencies and then achieve this
recapitalization rate goal of 67 years.
The continued support by the Congress and the
administration over the long term is vital to improving the
condition of our facilities in order to support the fleet
readiness both now and in the future.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So I sincerely thank you for your continued support that
this committee and your staff have given the Navy and Marine
Corps team. In closing, I will just leave you with a thought. I
started out saying mission was our main thing, people are our
top priority, but you could say mission first, people always.
Thank you ma'am.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of H.T. Johnson
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I am H. T. Johnson,
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.
We are all justifiably proud of the way this Nation's military
forces have responded to the September 11 terrorist acts in New York,
Pennsylvania and Washington DC. From providing increased security for
homeland defense at airports and port facilities against future
potential threats, Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from ships and
submarines, and carrier-based Navy and Marine Corps aircraft providing
80 percent of the combat sorties over Afghanistan, Sailors and Marines
have served proudly and with distinction to eliminate terrorist threats
in what was previously considered a landlocked sanctuary. In
``Operation Enduring Freedom'' and the global ``War on Terrorism,'' on-
station Naval Forces were first to respond, first to fight, first to
secure U.S. interests.
It takes highly trained and motivated individuals, using advanced
technologies and weapon systems, to successfully pursue U.S. military
objectives. Our bases and stations provide direct and indirect support
to forward-deployed Naval Forces. Perhaps more importantly, such
installations are the means by which Naval forces are formed, trained,
maintained, and housed. And our environmental programs help ensure our
continued use of military training areas on land and at sea, while also
complying with national and international environmental standards.
The Secretary of the Navy has repeatedly said people are our most
important asset. Military pay and benefits are obviously important. But
members of this Committee know that a modern, well maintained
infrastructure is a very strong ``people'' program; it's the pier, the
hangar, the warehouse, where Sailors, Marines, civilian employees and
contractors report to work; it's the classroom, the training range
where they learn and hone their skills; it's the nice home in a good
neighborhood where our military members and their families live. It's
also the commitment to effective safety and occupational health
programs that protects them from the daily hazards they face, whether
on the job or off. The military mission is inherently a dangerous one.
Whether it is training for the mission, carrying out the mission, or
preparing the weapons and weapon systems that may be employed, we need
to, and are, pursuing a vision of zero mishaps for the future by
institutionalizing operational risk management, embracing best business
practices, and adopting key safety technologies.
I will begin by summarizing our fiscal year 2003 budget request,
and follow with more details in each program area.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET
Shore Infrastructure Budget
The Department of the Navy shore infrastructure budget includes
these appropriations: Military Construction, Navy; Military
Construction, Naval Reserve; Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps;
Base Realignment and Closure; and the Operations and Maintenance
accounts which provide base support and Sustainment, Restoration and
Modernization.
Our fiscal year 2003 infrastructure budget request continues the
progress we have made in last year's budget. Our budget request of $9.3
billion represents a 4.5 percent increase over the enacted fiscal year
2002 level of $8.9 billion. While maintaining the overall forward
momentum, we have emphasized housing and the sustainment of our
existing facilities, consistent with the priorities of the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps. There are notable gains in these
areas.
FISCAL YEAR 2003 DON FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of
Location Homes dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:
Lemoore, CA......................... 178 \1\ $41.0
New London, CT...................... 100 \1\ 24.4
Mayport, FL......................... 1 0.3
Meridian, MS........................ 56 \1\ 9.8
Larissa, GR......................... 2 1.2
St. Mawgan, UK...................... 62 18.5
Twentynine Palms, CA................ 76 \1\ 19.4
Kaneohe Bay, HI..................... 65 \1\ 24.8
Camp Lejeune, NC.................... 317 \1\ 43.7
Quantico, VA........................ 290 \1\ 41.8
Improvements (Various Locations):
Navy................................ 2,928 123.9
Marine Corps........................ 209 15.6
Planning & Design....................... .............. 11.3
-------------------------------
Total Construction................ 4,284 375.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Replacement construction.
Housing is a cornerstone of our efforts. The fiscal year 2003
family housing construction request totals $376 million, a 15 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level of $328 million. This
funding will allow us to build 1,147 new homes (all but 65 are
replacement construction) and renovate 3,137 existing homes. Included
in this improvement request is $33 million for privatization at Pearl
Harbor, HI. Our family housing operations and maintenance request
totals $868 million, a 4 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2002
enacted level. This reduction is due to a net reduction of
approximately 5,000 government owned homes, primarily the result of
privatization efforts.
Our military construction request for the active component totals
$895 million, consisting of 43 Navy and 19 Marine Corps projects. The
facts are that there are other pressing requirements, most of which are
associated with the conduct of the war on terrorism. After the
September 11 attack, the Department was required to make some difficult
choices to pursue the war on terrorism. The Secretary had to achieve
balance across many competing needs. This military construction budget
request is the second largest in 6 years. It is exceeded only by our
fiscal year 2002 request, and is considerably larger than previous
requests. We are planning to use some of the funds allocated for anti-
terrorism/force protection (AT/FP) from the Defense Emergency Response
Fund toward military infrastructure. These additional funds are not
included in any tables or other discussion in this statement.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION NAVY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy Marine Corps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Type of facility No. of Millions of No. of Millions of
projects dollars projects dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of Life................................ 12 $270 6 $73
Operational..................................... 15 118 1 3
Training........................................ 1 6 2 10
Maintenance/Storage............................. 3 63 8 75
Utilities....................................... 2 34 1 5
RDT&E........................................... 1 9 .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly three-quarters of the military construction request is for
restoration and modernization projects. Consistent with our focus on
solving housing needs, the active military construction request
includes a robust bachelor housing effort totaling $275 million to
construct, improve and replace 4,360 bachelor-enlisted quarters beds.
There is also $69 million for six Navy and two Marine Corps quality of
life projects, including fitness centers and dining facilities. We have
included $69 million for planning and design efforts, and raised our
request for unspecified minor construction to $23 million under the
expectation that further AT/FP efforts will be needed.
Our Military Construction, Reserve request totals $52 million,
about the same as the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. There are six
Navy (including a bachelor enlisted quarters for 92 spaces) and three
Marine Corps projects totaling $48 million, $2.5 million for planning
and design, and $1 million for unspecified minor construction.
Our prior Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) request totals $259
million, a 20 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level
of $215 million. This funding supports caretaker functions and cleanup
of contamination at base closures under the four previous rounds (i.e.,
BRAC 1988, BRAC 1991, BRAC 1993, and BRAC 1995). This request meets all
current regulator and community expectations for cleanup at our BRAC
bases. I am pleased to report we have resolved our fiscal year 2002
shortfall as a result of the additional funds provided by Congress, the
availability of land sale revenue, and the use of prior year BRAC funds
which we have determined are no longer needed for their original
intended purpose. These prior year BRAC funds are being reallocated to
fund fiscal year 2002 BRAC cleanup needs.
Our Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) funded by
Operations and Maintenance accounts request totals $2,066 million, a 15
percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level of $1,797
million. This $269 million increase in funding allows the Marine Corps
to achieve 92 percent, and Navy 84 percent, of the sustainment
requirement for the existing facilities inventory based on the current
requirements model. This provides the highest level of sustainment
funding achieved using this metric, considerably higher than the
estimated 80 percent for Marine Corps in fiscal 2002, and the estimated
71 percent Navy average over the three previous years.
I would now like to address specific program areas in more detail:
HOUSING
We have two overarching housing principles:
--Our Sailors and Marines, and their families, are entitled to
quality homes; and
--Housing that we provide, either directly through ownership or
indirectly through privatization, must be self-sustaining over
the long term. ``Self-sustaining'' means that we must ensure
that the resources are there to operate, maintain, and
recapitalize the home throughout its life.
Family Housing
Our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad:
--Reliance on the Private Sector.--We rely first on the local
community to provide housing for our Sailors, Marines, and
their families. Three out of four Navy and Marine Corps
families receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and own or
rent homes in the community. Our bases have housing referral
offices to help newly arriving families find suitable homes in
the community.
--Private Financing through Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).--With the
strong support from this Committee and others, we have
successfully used statutory PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to
partner with the private sector and meet our housing needs, in
part, through the use of private sector capital. These
authorities, which I like to think of in terms of public/
private partnerships, allow us to leverage our own resources
and provide better housing faster to our families. We are
aggressively seeking additional opportunities to meet our
housing needs through the use of PPVs.
--Military Construction.--Military construction will continue to be
used where PPV authorities don't apply (such as overseas) or
where they don't make financial sense for the Department.
Some years ago, the Secretary of Defense established a goal to
eliminate inadequate military family housing units by fiscal 2010.
Secretary Rumsfeld recently accelerated that goal by 3 years, to fiscal
year 2007. Through a combination of increased funding and increased use
of PPV authorities, I am pleased to say that the Navy and Marine Corps
have stepped up to the challenge: the Navy will meet the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) goal and eliminate their inadequate family
housing by fiscal year 2007. The Marine Corps will exceed the goal and
eliminate their inadequate housing by fiscal year 2005.
Bachelor Housing
Our budget request continues the emphasis on improving living
conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. While we are
nearing the achievement of our goal for improving family housing, our
track record in addressing the housing needs of our single members has
been uneven. One of our top priorities is to focus attention and
resources on improving bachelor housing. There are three challenges:
--Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.--There are
approximately 31,000 Sailors worldwide who are required to live
aboard ship even while in homeport. This situation is
unacceptable. The recent change in law allowing E4s to receive
BAH is a step in the right direction. Under current levels of
funding, the Navy estimates that it will be able to achieve its
``homeport ashore'' initiative by fiscal year 2008. Our fiscal
year 2003 budget includes two ``homeport ashore'' projects that
will provide homes ashore to 764 shipboard Sailors at Norfolk,
VA and Bremerton, WA. Through continued emphasis on military
construction and the use of private financing authorities for
bachelor housing, I strongly believe we can, and must, do even
better.
--Ensure our Barracks Meet Today's Standards for Privacy. We are
continuing our efforts to construct new and modernize existing
barracks to provide increased privacy to our single Sailors and
Marines. The Navy applies the ``1+1'' standard for permanent
party barracks. Under this standard, each single junior Sailor
has his or her own sleeping area and shares a bathroom and
common area with another member. To promote unit cohesion and
team building, the Marine Corps was granted a waiver to adopt a
``2+0'' configuration where two junior Marines share a room
with a bath. Both configurations allow for more private
quarters for our senior Sailors and Marines. Our fiscal year
2003 request reflects a recent change in OSD criteria that
gives the Services flexibility to adjust the proportion of
living area and common space within an overall limitation of 66
square meters (710 square feet) per module. The Navy will
achieve these barracks construction standards by fiscal year
2013; the Marine Corps by fiscal year 2010.
DON BARRACKS CONSTRUCTION REQUEST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of
Location Spaces dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NS Norfolk, VA.......................... 500 \1\ $37.3
NAF Andrews, MD......................... 120 9.7
NTC Great Lakes, IL..................... 1,056 43.4
NTC Great Lakes, IL..................... 1,056 41.7
NWS Yorktown, VA........................ 168 15.0
JHCS Larissa, GR........................ 40 14.8
CNM Guam................................ 72 13.4
NS Bremerton, WA........................ 264 \1\ 35.1
NAS Atlanta, GA......................... 92 6.7
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. 400 23.2
MCAGCC 29 Palms, CA..................... 384 25.8
MCB Quantico, VA........................ 200 10.3
MCB Quantico, VA........................ 100 5.0
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,452 281.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Homeport Ashore. Family Housing Privatization
--Eliminate gang heads. The Navy and Marine Corps remain on track to
eliminate the inadequate barracks with gang heads for permanent
party personnel \1\. The Navy will achieve this goal by fiscal
year 2008; the Marines by fiscal year 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Housing Privatization
We are using a two-step approach for PPV. The first step (Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) phase) allows a list of proposers to be
narrowed to those who are judged to be highly qualified on the basis of
their experience, financial capabilities, and vision for meeting our
needs. Those proposers judged to be ``highly qualified'' (typically
four to six) are then invited to submit technical and financial
proposals to achieve our project objectives. We then select a preferred
developer with whom we enter into exclusive negotiations. In all PPV
projects, we have established the following objectives:
--Self-sustaining projects that provide for necessary
recapitalization over the long-term without additional
infusions of cash;
--A legally recognized voice in key decisions made over the life of
the agreement;
--Flexibility to accommodate unforeseen changes over the life of the
agreement; and
--Protection of Government interests and minimization of Government
exposure in case of default, poor performance, or non-
performance.
DON Family Housing Privatization--Project Awarded
Location No. of homes
Corpus Christi/Ingleside/Kingsville, TX........................... 404
Everett, WA....................................................... 185
Kingsville (II), TX............................................... 150
Everett (II), WA.................................................. 288
San Diego, CA..................................................... 3,248
New Orleans, LA................................................... 935
South Texas, TX................................................... 661
Camp Pendleton, CA................................................ 712
______
Total Awarded............................................... 6,583
We have now awarded eight PPV projects totaling 6,583 homes.
Through the use of these authorities we have leveraged $135 million in
DON funds with $478 million in private sector capital for a combined
investment of $613 million in homes for our Sailors, Marines and their
families. We have effectively expanded our buying power by stimulating
over $4.50 of construction for each $1.00 we have contributed. We
currently have two additional projects in procurement (not yet awarded)
and another eight projects in planning. All told, the projects, either
in procurement or planning, total 13,792 homes.
DON Family Housing Privatization--Projects in Process
No. of homes
In Procurement:
Beaufort/Parris Island, SC.................................... 1,165
Stewart Army Subpost, NY...................................... 171
______
Total in Procurement........................................ 1,836
=================================================================
________________________________________________
In Planning:
Northeast Region.............................................. 564
Lakehurst, NJ................................................. 212
Oahu Regional, HI............................................. 1,978
Mid-South, TN................................................. 626
San Diego (II), CA............................................ 4,981
Hampton Roads, VA............................................( \1\ )
Camp Pendleton (II), CA....................................... 3,595
______
Total in Planning...........................................11,959
\1\ To be determined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Financing Alternatives for Bachelor Housing
I believe that there are real opportunities for applying PPV
authorities to our barracks needs. We held an industry forum last
November with developers, lenders, and property managers. We learned
that there is a potential to use private sector financing to improve
bachelor housing. We are developing three bachelor housing pilot
projects--Hampton Roads, VA; Camp Pendleton, CA (Del Mar); and
Quantico, VA (Basic School). We look forward to bringing these
proposals to the Committees in the near future.
Housing Issues
We appreciate Congress extending the military housing public/
private venture authorities to 2012. DOD is considering additional
legislative changes to improve our efforts in family housing and remove
obstacles for the application of these authorities to bachelor housing,
such as combining family and bachelor housing privatization accounts
into a single fund to facilitate joint projects.
FACILITIES
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization
With this budget, the DON is implementing the new DOD methodology
for facilities maintenance and repair. ``Sustainment'' is the amount of
funding required for scheduled maintenance and facility component
repairs over the expected service life of the facility. It does not
improve the condition or readiness of the facility. It is calculated
using the DOD Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM), which considers
facilities quantity data (most often square feet), and unit cost
factors (most often dollars per square foot) derived from private
industry. The calculated sustainment requirement is unique to the DON
infrastructure inventory and adds, consistency and audit ability in
determining our requirement. FSM projects inventory gains (new
construction) and losses (demolition, privatization, excess facilities)
to arrive at a total sustainment requirement. The sustainment metric is
the percentage funded of the FSM generated requirement. While competing
budget pressures precluded us from doing better, this budget request
meets more than 85 percent of the Department of Navy FSM calculated
requirement--much better than in previous years.
``Restoration and Modernization (R&M)'' is the portion of SRM that
goes beyond sustainment to improve the condition and readiness of the
facility, using Operations and Maintenance as well as military
construction funds. The O&M funds help to correct poorly rated
facilities and to recapitalize the inventory. R&M requirements are
based on an investment level to achieve a DOD average 67 year
recapitalization rate, with all facilities satisfactorily sustained.
Over the FYDP, R&M (O&M and MILCON) is funded to eliminate facility
deficiencies by 2013. The fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate is 122
years and the FYDP (03-07) average is 83 years.
Anti-terrorism/Force Protection
Every installation has increased its security posture since the
attacks of September 11. Additional security personnel, technology
(security systems, detection devices), security fencing, barriers,
security boats, and training are being used to enhance our AT/FP
posture. The SRM budget includes $147 million in AT/FP projects. These
measures include shatter resistant windows, structural reinforcement,
and building hardening.
The military construction budget request has incorporated AT/FP
measures within the scope of each project, where appropriate. These
measures include standoff distances, shatter resistant windows,
structural reinforcement and building hardening. These features account
for $17.5 million within the projects requested in the fiscal year 2003
MILCON program.
There are seven military construction projects totaling $107
million that support specific AT/FP enhancements and/or improvements.
These projects were identified after the September 11 attacks:
--Advanced Explosive Ordnance Disposal Training Facility, Eglin AFB,
FL--$6.4 million.
--Shoreline Security Fencing, Naval Station, Norfolk, VA--$2.0
million.
--Installation Services Support Center, Naval Support Activity,
Bahrain--$26.0 million.
--Parking Garage and Perimeter Security Upgrade, Naval Air Station,
Sigonella, Italy--$19.6 million.
--AT/FP Improvements, Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME--$11.6 million.
--AT/FP Improvements, Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, VA--$19.7 million.
--AT/FP Improvements, Naval Shipyard, Puget Sound, Bremerton, WA--
$21.7 million.
Building Demolition
Our centralized demolition program remains a success story. Defense
Reform Initiative Directive 36 directed the Navy and Marine Corps to
dispose of excess facilities over the period of fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2002. Navy will exceed its goal of 9.1 million
square feet (MSF) in fiscal year 2002. The Marine Corps met its goal of
2.1 MSF in fiscal year 2000. Both Services will continue the demolition
program. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request continues this effort,
with Navy planning to spend $42 million on 50 projects to demolish 2.0
MSF and Marine Corps planning to spend $5 million on 15 projects to
demolish 0.5 MSF. The Navy has expanded the use of the central account
funds to allow limited relocation and repair costs to consolidate
functions before demolishing the vacated building. These actions will
eliminate obsolete excess facilities, and further reduce SRM needs.
Energy and Utilities Privatization
To comply with Executive Order 13123 goals, Federal agencies must
reduce energy consumption 30 percent by fiscal year 2005 and 35 percent
by fiscal year 2010, using fiscal year 1985 as the baseline. I am
pleased to report that we have reduced consumption by nearly 25 percent
through fiscal year 2001, exceeding our target of 24 percent. To meet
these goals, we are implementing energy efficient technologies,
conducting energy awareness programs, and using private sector
expertise. I am delighted that the DON energy program received two of
the four government wide Presidential Energy Awards presented by the
Vice President at a Ceremony on October 18, 2001.
We are also expanding the use of geothermal energy production at
Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake, CA and Naval Air Station Fallon,
NV. This gives us a cost efficient method to use private sector
financing to generate additional energy in the western U.S. while using
our land for military training needs.
Defense Reform Initiative Directive 49 directed the Services to
privatize their natural gas, water, wastewater and electrical systems
except where uneconomical or where precluded by unique security
reasons. Privatization is expected to reduce total ownership costs
while upgrading the reliability of our utility systems. The DON is
continuing efforts to privatize, where economically beneficial, 704
systems at 122 activities worldwide by fiscal year 2005. Proposals are
now being evaluated to privatize utility systems at the Marine Corps
base at 29 Palms, CA and Navy and Marine Corps installations in the
Great Lakes and Washington, DC regions.
Facilities Issues
The DOD is considering a number of facilities related proposals,
including:
--Reduction in long-term facility maintenance costs.--Expands the
demonstration program under Section 2814 of the fiscal year
2002 National Defense Authorization Bill, now limited to the
Army, to allow a single contractor to design, build, operate
and maintain facilities funded with military construction
funds. It would allow additional demonstration projects that
seek to reduce life cycle costs for facilities within the DOD.
--Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource
conservation purposes.--Allows the transfer of environmentally
sensitive property with endangered species habitat to a non-
governmental organization. This type of property can now only
be transferred to governmental entities. This proposal would
expand the field of potential recipients, expanding the
opportunity to dispose of excess property that has limited
commercial development potential.
--Amend 10 USC 2810 Construction Projects for Environmental Response
Actions.--Based on Congress' new definition of repair, the
Services are not able to continue to define environmental
restoration of soil as repair. The unintended consequence of
this redefinition is that these cleanups would have to be
classified as MILCON, with all of the necessary approvals
inherent with that funding source. This proposal would return
the status of environmental restoration projects as repair and
allow these cleanup projects to be funded from the
Environmental Restoration accounts in the DOD Appropriations
Bill. Notification would be submitted for projects estimated
over $10 million.
PRIOR BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
Status
We are now in the home stretch to complete environmental cleanup
and property disposal from the four prior rounds of BRAC, 1988 under
Public Law 100-526 and 1991, 1993, and 1995 under Public Law 101-510.
We were authorized to implement a total of 178 actions consisting of 46
major closures, 89 minor closures, and 43 realignments. We have
completed closure and realignment of all bases except one move from
leased space to government owned space.
Our focus is now on cleanup and property disposals for 595 parcels
at 90 installations. I am pleased to report that to date we have
transferred 354 parcels comprising over 69,000 acres. Conveyance
actions are complete at 60 of the 90 installations. Still to go are 241
parcels at 30 installations. Completing environmental cleanup is
generally the critical path to conveyance. The fiscal year 2003 budget
is sufficient to meet all regulator requirements and commitments to
local redevelopment authorities.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2001 BRAC Highlights
Cecil Field, FL: 29 acre parcel transferred to the city of
Jacksonville, FL with no-cost economic development authority. Of the
17,037 acres, just 768 acres remain to be conveyed.
Trenton, NJ: final 27 acres of the former Naval Air Warfare Center
was sold for $1.2 million.
Long Beach, CA: 323 acres transferred to the City of Long Beach
under a Port Public Benefit Conveyance. Of the original 1,483 acres,
only 235 acres remain to be conveyed.
El Toro, CA: 901 acres conveyed to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Barbers Point, HI: 148 acres transferred to the Hawaii National
Guard.
Philadelphia, PA: the last 2.9 acres of the Naval Complex were
conveyed to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development.
Perth Amboy, NJ: 3 acres of the former Naval Reserve Center were
sold for $1 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A look ahead
We have ambitious plans for property disposals during the remainder
of fiscal year 2002 and into fiscal year 2003. At Mare Island we have
signed early transfer agreements that will convey approximately 3,670
acres to the City of Vallejo and the State of California for economic
use and development. At Hunters Point, the Secretary of the Navy signed
an agreement with the City of San Francisco to work with a public/
private partnership to accelerate the conveyance of this property. And
at the former Oakland Naval Hospital, we have initiated action with the
General Services Administration to sell the 174-acre property by public
sale. We are nearing conveyance of the final parcels at each of the
following locations: Annapolis, Long Beach, Louisville, Naval
Activities Guam, New London, and Orlando, with another seven locations
working toward planned transfer in fiscal year 2003.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I believe our infrastructure is well positioned for
the future. We are accelerating the solution to long-standing housing
shortfalls for Navy and Marine Corps families and enlisted personnel.
We are making real progress on family housing PPV, and look to apply
these tools to bachelor housing. Funding to support our prior BRAC
efforts is on track, and we have a strong environmental cleanup and
property disposal plan for this year and next.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to working with the
Committee and staff to best support our Sailors, Marines, and our
Nation.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Admiral Preston and then General?
This was a Marine Corps team, Madam Chairman.
That is a good answer. Very diplomatic. Please proceed,
Admiral.
Admiral Preston. Madam Chairman, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to come here today and represent Vice Admiral
Totushek----
Senator Feinstein. Can you pull the mike a little closer
and speak directly into it? Great.
Admiral Preston. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
come and represent Vice Admiral Totushek, the Director of the
Naval Reserve and our some 88,000 Naval Reservists that we have
serving our country. First I would like to thank you for your
support in fiscal year 2002. Congress provided the Naval and
Marine Corps reserve some $53 million in budget request and
adds to support our Sailors and our reserve Marines as they
accomplish our Nation's missions and we thank you very much for
that.
Our budget for fiscal year 2003 is almost the same. It
totals approximately $52 million of which $36 million is for
Naval reserve projects. We believe that these projects are well
aligned to the Chief of Naval Operations and Admiral Totushek's
top priorities for our naval reserve manpower and readiness.
I will keep it short. Again, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak today and thank you for the support you
have provided to our reserve Sailors and Marines.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Just a point of
clarification, did you say that the Naval Reserve budget totals
$56 million this year?
Admiral Preston. If I did, I misspoke. It should be $52
million for Naval and Marine Corps.
Senator Feinstein. Yeah, $51.5 million exactly.
Admiral Preston. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you. General, welcome.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. General Coleman.
General Coleman. Thank you very much, ma'am. Ma'am, I would
like to thank you for allowing us here this afternoon and tell
you it is a pleasure to appear before you. Top line constraints
over most of the last decade forced us to defer investment in
areas that did not have an immediate impact on near-term
readiness, such as investment in military construction, family
housing and maintenance of our existing facilities. We
sustained our combat readiness at the expense of construction
because we had no other option.
These were painful decisions because ultimately combat
readiness is more than just a well-trained and equipped Marine.
I have been fortunate to visit all of our Marine Corps bases
and have spoken with many of our Marines and their families. I
am pleased to report that they are more optimistic than at any
time in the past.
Family housing, bachelor housing and operational facilities
construction supported by this committee has finally begun to
become visible on Marine Corps installations. Our fiscal year
2003 military construction family housing and reserve budget
provides over $500 million. Our proposals will support most of
our urgent requirements for readiness and quality of life
construction.
Overall our program will continue to provide in excess of
$50 million for new barracks and construction. I am happy to
report that in fiscal year 2003, the administration supported
the Commandant's request to increase family housing
construction funding by 19 percent over fiscal year 2002. In
fiscal year 2003, all these projects continue to focus on our
enlisted Marines.
Every dollar you spend for our facilities is an investment
that pays long-term dividends in readiness, retention and
mission accomplishment. The Marine Corps thanks you for your
support, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, General Coleman.
I will begin with the questions now. Secretary Johnson, the
Navy's budget is reduced over 20 percent from last year's
enacted budget. Admiral Blair, the Pacific Command Commander,
recently told a House Subcommittee and I quote, ``We can't
sustain forever. MILCON is usually last on the list of
priorities.'' Given this statement from a Commander that
controls more of the globe than any other CINC, how do you
justify a request 20 percent lower than the previous year?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly we would like to have had the
opportunity to take care of more of his and other people's
desires. We looked at the overall requirements for the
Department of Navy and Department of Defense. As I mentioned
earlier, our overall infrastructure installation budget has
gone up.
The MILCON is down the 20 percent you talked about, but the
family housing is up 15 percent and bachelor housing. So
overall for the installations, we have done pretty well. We
have not done as well as we did last year. In military
construction alone, last year was a very good year. This is the
second best year in the past six, exceeded only by last year.
Senator Feinstein. Admiral Pruett, do you consider this
request adequate?
Admiral Pruett. Yes, ma'am. I think our emphasis is and I
am sure you may have--staffs may have briefed you or you have
other information on the OSD facility sustainment model, we are
taking an approach where we have some very good metrics. The
Secretary mentioned that we have been using this model for the
first time this year and we are focusing on funding sustainment
of the facilities and sustainment so that they do not further
deteriorate. And that has caused some increase in that part of
our installations funding. Also base operating support, which
sometimes eats into our sustainment funding, is funded at a
better level this year. So I think that our focus from here
should be to improve on what we do to take care of C3 and C4
deficiencies.
FLAG OFFICER HOUSING
Senator Feinstein. All right. While you are answering
questions, let me ask you one more. I would like to begin by
saying that I think the Navy is to be commended for its efforts
to eliminate inadequate family housing by 2007 and the Marine
Corps for your 2005 goal. I have a question though regarding a
$1.2 million request for two general officer quarters in Italy.
Can you tell us what that is all about?
Admiral Pruett. Yes, ma'am. There is a new NATO joint
command headquarters in South Central Europe. The Navy has been
designated by EUCOM as the administrative agent. Typically, the
projects that are funded by the U.S. for NATO installations are
the administrative and support type facilities, whereas NATO
funds the operational facilities. This project is for two flag
officers who are in high risk billets. The project builds two
3,000 square foot homes. There's a high geographic area cost
factor of about one and a quarter. The fact that it is just two
projects does not give us much economy of scale.
We do have some added cost because there is a requirement
to manufacture and factory build housing using U.S. firms and
then ship to the project site. And in this particular location,
I do not have some of the specifics, but there is a significant
cost in utility mains and site improvements. But the cost
really is seismic bracing, safe haven rooms and other force
protection types of issues.
Senator Feinstein. Is this on-base housing?
Admiral Pruett. Yes, ma'am. It is in the compound that is
being constructed.
Senator Feinstein. And you need all the special security
requirements for on-base housing?
Admiral Pruett. Well, the safe haven rooms are a
requirement as we understand it, and the seismic bracing is
another piece of it, which is not ATFP. That is more for the
seismic standards.
Senator Feinstein. Are there any other more cost-efficient
alternatives?
Admiral Pruett. None that I have available to address,
ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. General Coleman, the Marine Corps
has released a fiscal year 2003 unfunded priorities list that
includes 30 MILCON and family housing projects totaling over
$400 million. Why is that? That sounds like the Marine Corps
funding and the President's budget falls short of what the
Corps actually needs. Can you comment on the discrepancy
please?
General Coleman. No, ma'am. Excuse me. Yes, ma'am. I would
just say that it is just the way we prioritize. I feel that the
Commandant's unfunded priority list is just those things that
we were not able to fund for originally, but I would not say
that we were underfunded, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. So there are no priorities on that list?
General Coleman. I beg your----
Senator Feinstein. Is that correct?
General Coleman. You say there are none, ma'am?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. They are--the Commandant
together with I&L (Installation & Logistics) comes up where we
decide what our list should be. The list that you have seen is
in no prioritized order.
Senator Feinstein. Well, now I am talking about the
unfunded priority list----
General Coleman. I'm sorry.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And what you're saying is
That list is in no priority order? I don't know that I am
understanding you correctly.
General Coleman. Well, I--and that is my fault. Ma'am, the
list that you should have received or the list that you
received is a list of unfunded items, but the list--the only
one that knows the priority of that list would be the
Commandant, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I see.
General Coleman. The order of precedence.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. There are 30 MILCON and family
housing projects on that list and they are all unfunded and
what you are saying is then they are in no priority order. The
only one that knows what the priority is, is the Commandant?
General Coleman. No, ma'am. I misspoke. Excuse me. That is
a prioritized list. I am sorry, ma'am. I misunderstood you. The
list that you have is a prioritized list. I apologize.
Senator Feinstein. The list I have what?
General Coleman. It is--the unfunded prioritized list is in
prioritized order.
Senator Feinstein. All right. That----
General Coleman. I apologize, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Secretary Johnson,
last year the Navy did not request--we have talked about this--
adequate funding for BRAC environmental cleanup. Do I have your
assurances that the Navy's BRAC budget for 2003 is sufficient
to meet all of your commitments and obligations?
Mr. Johnson. It is all of our known commitments when we put
it together. As we talked earlier, you never know what comes
up, but it certainly is fully funded to the best of our
knowledge. If I may follow on to General Coleman, the Navy and
all services presented their unfunded priority lists. The Navy
list did not include the MILCON breakout. That will be
available if you want it, they had the amount, but not the
amount----
Senator Feinstein. I think it would be helpful if we could
have it. Appreciate that very much.
Mr. Johnson. And I am sure all services did the same thing.
Senator Feinstein. And again, let me just thank you because
on January when we signed the Hunter's Point agreement, it was
the first time a meaningful agreement has actually been signed
and it is my understanding that the Navy has requested $36
million for environmental cleanup at the base. May I ask you
how those funds will be allocated and whether they are
sufficient to cover the obligation?
Mr. Johnson. I cannot give you the specific allocations
among parcels, but they are sufficient in 2003. After 2003, we
think there will be another $68 million to complete. That is to
the best of our knowledge.
We are working with the city and the contractor team to
prioritize our work. We finished parcel A. We are working on B.
We will continue to work on E, which is a landfill. As we move
from A through D we are working in essence on all of them, but
in the priority established by the city and their developer
team.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. When you testified before the
Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness 2 weeks ago,
you talked at some length in your prepared statement on the
problem of encroachment. And one of the examples you cited was
Naval Air Base Coronado, where you said there was a loss of
over 80 percent of its training beaches because of
encroachment, and that the Navy has had to substantially alter
training activities and conduct them elsewhere. Do you have any
requests in this budget for land acquisition and future years
defense for training sites to accommodate this problem?
Mr. Johnson. We do not for Coronado. We have done very well
there with the nesting of the endangered birds. We have
increased their nests and also their population obviously. In
that case, our SEALS work----
Senator Feinstein. Is the encroachment from birds? Is that
what you are----
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. I thought it was development. No?
Mr. Johnson. Not at Coronado. In fact, developers
indirectly cause things, but I do not think at Coronado. At
Pendleton to the north, developers take up the available land
and the endangered species end up being on the only land left
between Los Angeles and San Diego at Camp Pendleton. At
Coronado, we have been helping the species grow. Our Marines
and sailors go out and protect nests, move them and at certain
times a year we cannot use the beaches because of that and
other times we have to be careful what parts we use. So that is
strictly an endangered species. Now again, developers help
because they take up other available land.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, are you saying that the SEALS cannot
conduct water exercises because of nests on the beach?
Mr. Johnson. They are----
Senator Feinstein. What are those nests?
TRAINING AREAS ENCROACHMENT
Mr. Johnson. They are constrained by the nests because we
protect them and they have certain marked-off areas you cannot
use. And the two types are the California Least Tern. Back in
1987, there were 30 nests. In 1993, 187. In our conservation
effort, we have built it to 925. We have done very well, but we
have also decreased our training space.
The other one is the Western Snowy Plover nests. In 1987,
there were zero. By 1992, we had 12. Now we have 49. So we are
proud of what we are doing to help endangered species, but at
the same time, it does constrain our maneuver area.
Senator Feinstein. So what are you doing to carry out the
SEAL exercises at Coronado?
Mr. Johnson. We worked with the environmental groups and we
mark off certain areas. There are rules about the number of
birds and other things that you can harm or potentially harm.
So we have to restrict our activities. At Coronado, we continue
to do it, we work around the birds.
Others, like San Clemente, we have a bigger problem in that
certain times of the year during their breeding cycle, we
cannot fire into the island. Other times we have to be careful
about starting fires. But we work very carefully with the
environmentalists. We are working with the Department of
Defense, all the services are, to try put together a package
that will be coordinated throughout the Administration and come
to you to help us both from a legislative standpoint to
regulatory, we can do that within the administration--and
administrative standpoint.
Senator Feinstein. But, basically you are able to carry out
your exercises one way or another?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. But it is more and more difficult.
You will never find a Marine or sailor who will tell you they
cannot carry out their mission. The Marines for instance, if we
may for a moment, when they do amphibious exercises, they get
on the ships, go down to San Clemente, approach the beach and
oftentimes they cannot land there. So they administratively go
up to Camp Pendleton. There is only 500 yards on the 17-mile
beach of Camp Pendleton that they can land on.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. Does the Endangered
Species Act take precedence over national security?
Mr. Johnson. Sometimes it does. We have something called
the Sikes Act, which allows us to do an integrated Natural
Resources Protection Plan--Management Plan, I think it is. And
that takes everything into consideration, the military needs,
the endangered species and so forth.
Some would say that you also have to have habitats,
critical habitats for the endangered species. We say the Sikes
Act NRMP is sufficient and we are trying to get that accepted
by all agencies. So far the Fish and Wildlife have accepted it,
but some people are suing us about it. Interesting enough, one
of the suers is a group of developers.
Senator Feinstein. What is, just out of curiosity, the
nature of their suit? Well, because development would certainly
come much lower in terms of priority than national security.
Mr. Johnson. Not in their eyes.
Senator Feinstein. Not in?
Mr. Johnson. Their eyes. No. They would like to build right
up to the base boundary and push all the birds, animals and so
forth into the sanctuary of our military bases. I believe early
on you asked if we were building some buffers around bases. The
Army has the best example so far down at Fort Bragg. They got
some environmental easements around the base. We are trying to
do that at Camp Lejeune and we're also trying to do some in
California, but land is awfully hard to procure in California.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if I can be helpful, let me know
because----
Mr. Johnson. I have heard that you----
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. We do want you to carry out
your exercises and there is probably a way through some form of
habitat conservation plan to make areas available in exchange
for committing areas for preservation. But I would be happy to
work with you in that regard.
Mr. Johnson. We would like to welcome you for a visit at
Camp Pendleton when you are in California sometimes--Senator
Feinstein: Thank you. I would love that. And show you the
challenges.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Secretary. Admiral
Preston, of all the service requests submitted in this budget,
yours remains virtually unchanged from last year's amount.
Although it is meager, your budget is strong. What have you
done to maintain that level and avoid a cut? You seem to maybe
have some magic formula.
NAVY AND MARINE CORPS HOUSING
Admiral Preston. I do not think we have a magic formula. We
have some pretty strong requirements and we have been very
fortunate to get those identified and supported, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And what are those requirements?
Admiral Preston. Well, we have six projects that we are
looking at in 2003. One of them is bachelor enlisted quarters
at NAS Atlanta that will give us approximately 92 more spaces,
which is something we really need to support our Sailors'
quality of life, quality of service. We have three projects in
New Orleans again to support our readiness and our ability to
support the operational units there. We are building a new
reserve center.
We would like to build a new reserve center in Montana,
which we feel is very important, in Billings, to maintain the
Navy presence there. And we are also looking at expanding the
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve center at Little Creek in
Norfolk, Virginia, which we need because of the growth we have
there.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Admiral Preston. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. General----
Admiral Preston. I'd like to give a plug here.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. Please.
Mr. Johnson. Our reserve forces are very important at all
times, but certainly now we have them around the world, around
the country working as part of the total force team and we are
very proud of what they do and very pleased to have them
supported so well by the Congress and the service.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Secretary. I thought there may
be some magic formula there with Mitch Daniels that I was not
aware of, but we will let it go. General Coleman, you have
stated that family housing at Quantico would be fixed by 2003.
However, your unfunded priority list lists the need for new
barracks bases at the same facility. How are you going to
accomplish these goals and how does the Marine Corps plan to
address the inadequate barracks listed as unfunded priorities?
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. Remembering, ma'am, that we
look at family housing and BEQs in two different frames, ma'am.
But anyway to answer the question, the Marine Corps because of
the plus up in the basic allowance for housing along with--and
that was about a 19 percent increase in some areas--and the
increased PPV from Camp Pendleton phase two, we are going to be
able to take the money and combine those two projects and fix
all family housing at Quantico. Now we will still have some
fixes in the bachelor quarters, but with 2003 funds, we will
fix all family housing at Quantico.
Senator Feinstein. 2006? I thought it was 2005?
General Coleman. No, ma'am. 2003, we will fix----
Senator Feinstein. Oh, just in Quantico?
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am. Quantico.
Senator Feinstein. All right. Thank you.
General Coleman. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson. If I may add something----
Senator Feinstein. Secretary?
Mr. Johnson. We are trying to work a pilot on the bachelor
quarters PPV, Public Private Venture and we wanted three
locations. A Navy one at Norfolk, which is fairly large. One is
down near Oceanside, it is called Del Mar in Camp Pendleton and
then with that one also one at Quantico. So the barracks you
talk about we would like to have in a pilot.
We would like to do these pilots to prove number one, that
they are financially proper and number two, that they provide
the proper housing for our Marines and sailors and three, that
it makes sense not only to us, but also to the Congress and we
have a road map to move forward if this proves successful.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Admiral Pruett. Last year Admiral Blair was good enough to
fill me in on his needs at Guam, particularly with the new
submarines and my understanding is that you have 3,000 service
members currently in Guam and they are going to be increased by
an additional 1,000. And my understanding is that there is a
need for an elementary and a high school at a cost of $40 and
$35 million respectively. Admiral Blair said that these schools
and another $7 million in Korea for a school did not make the
DOD education activity budget cut. What are you going to do
about that?
Admiral Pruett. Ma'am, we are working with the DOD
education activity which includes the Department of Defense
dependent schools and well, that is the group that is affected
by these schools in Guam. There are two schools as you
mentioned: the high school, which was never intended to be a
permanent school or facility anyway, it was the old
headquarters for COMNAVMAR; and then there is another one that
is an old building for the middle school and for the elementary
school. We are working with that agency, DODEA, and looking at
what we can do with our 2004 budget or their 2004 budget to see
what can be done to fund those two schools. That is where we
are now. Admiral Fargo was----
Senator Feinstein. So you have pushed it out a year
essentially?
Admiral Pruett. Well, we have not necessarily pushed it out
a year as much as we have had Admiral Fargo working--he has put
some emphasis on it and we are just now getting that emphasis
and we are trying to see what we can do with DODEA.
OVERSEAS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Just one final question. It is my
understanding that this year Japan and Korea are going to
contribute $942 million in financial assistance and I think I
heard somewhere that Korea was going to contribute 50 percent
for housing in Korea? I was visited by a Korean parliamentary
delegation and I thought that is what they said. What is the
percentage that Japan contributes?
Mr. Johnson. It is in essence 100 percent, but I hope David
can give----
Admiral Pruett. It is for new construction, ma'am,
facilities that are identified that need to be constructed to
support our forces. It is 100 percent. If the----
Senator Feinstein. Both Japan and Korea?
Admiral Pruett. No, ma'am. Just for Japan.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I see. All right.
Admiral Pruett. I cannot address the--it is called the CDIP
program, Combined Defense Program In Korea. I do not know the
figure there. I will have to check that, but----
Senator Feinstein. Well, is that $942 million all Japanese
money or is that a combination of both?
Admiral Pruett. I am not familiar with that figure, ma'am,
as far as what that split is, but I do know it is 100 percent
for Japanese contribution to our construction. When it comes to
replacement facilities or major rehabs, that is when we pick up
the tab.
Senator Feinstein. And the Korean situation, that is 50
percent. Is that correct?
Admiral Pruett. I cannot answer that.
Mr. Johnson. We will give you something for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Could I get some information on that
reimbursement and what the standard is and if other Nations
other than Japan and Korea are doing the same thing?
[The information follows:]
Japan and Korea are planning to contribute $942 million in
financial assistance. In the proposed Japan fiscal year Facilities
Improvement Program (FIP), the U.S. expects to receive $801 million of
which $122 million for Navy and $133 million for Marine Corps. The
Korean cost-sharing programs include Combined Defense Improvement
Program (CDIP) and Republic of Korean Funded Construction (ROKFC). The
calendar year 2001 programs are $47 million and $95 million
respectfully. The Navy received $1.1 million in each program. The
calendar year 2002 programs are under development.
Mr. Johnson. There are some others who contribute some, but
Japan is far and away the biggest and they are 100 percent and
we will give you what we know about Korea, but we have very
little Naval forces in Korea.
Admiral Pruett. Right.
[The information follows:]
Japan contributes 100 percent for new construction of all but
exempted projects such as those related to offensive operations and
some Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities. Korea funds 100
percent related to improved combat operations, war reserves and
combined U.S./ROK operations.
Senator Feinstein. Is this just Navy or was this Army, too?
Admiral Pruett. This is Navy.
Senator Feinstein. It is just Navy?
Admiral Pruett. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Johnson. We will give you--for the record, ma'am.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Thank you very much. That takes
care of my questions. If anybody has anything to add, I would
be happy to hear it. If not, then I hope you can get along with
these budgets.
Mr. Johnson. We appreciate your help and we look forward to
being your partner.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I will be happy to do what I
can. Thank you very much, gentlemen. And we will go now to
panel two.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to H.T. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
MILCON FUNDING
Question. Admiral Vernon Clark reportedly told the House Armed
Services Committee that the Navy will be $8.67 billion short in funding
in fiscal year 2003. Do you know if any of that shortfall includes
Milcon? (If so, what is the Milcon shortfall?)
Answer. Admiral Vernon Clark's letter of 20 February 2002 to
Congressman Skelton provided a list of requirements not selected for
funding in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget. The list provided
by the Chief of Naval Operations included $667 million of military
construction (active and reserve) projects.
Question. Does the Navy have any unfunded Milcon priorities? Would
you provide the Committee with a list of your unfunded priorities, in
priority order.
Answer. Admiral Vernon Clark's letter of 20 February 2002 to
Congressman Skelton provided a list of requirements not selected for
funding in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget. The list provided
by the Chief of Naval Operations included $667 million of military
construction (active and reserve) projects. Attached is the list of
projects in priority order.
CNO UNFUNDED REQUIREMENT PRIORITY #52 MCON ATFP
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Activity PNO Title Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCON DESIGN............................ 203 MCON DESIGN........................................ 15,064
CORPUS CHRISTI TX NAS.................. 355 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY............................. 15,790
INDIAN HEAD MD NSWCTRDIV............... 171 AT/FP IMPROVEMENTS................................. 14,000
YORKTOWN VA............................ 617 MAIN GATE IMPROVEMENTS............................. 2,610
MILLINGTON TN SUPPACT.................. 360 IMPV GATE/PERIMTR SECURITY......................... 4,200
KITTERY ME PORTSMOUTH NSY.............. 280 GATE 2 IMPROVEMENTS................................ 2,350
MERIDIAN MS NAS........................ 310 AIRFIELD PERIMETER FENCING......................... 5,150
WHITING FLD FL NAS..................... 245 INSTL/RELOCATE PERIM FENCE......................... 3,020
GREAT LAKES IL NTC..................... 771 REPLACE PERIMETER FENCE............................ 3,610
PEARL HARBOR HI NSY.................... 905 PERIMETER/SECURITY LIGHTG.......................... 20,637
MAYPORT FL NS.......................... 774 SECURITY BLDG PASS/ID OFC.......................... 1,770
JACKSONVILLE FL NAS.................... 268 AIRFLD PERIM SECURTY ENHAN......................... 3,230
EARLE NJ NWS........................... 034 MAIN GATE IMPROVEMENTS............................. 4,610
LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE.............. 535 GATE 1 IMPROVEMENTS................................ 3,860
NEWPORT RI NAVSTA...................... 457 GATE 1 (MAIN) IMPROVEMENTS......................... 2,440
WHIDBEY IS WA NAS...................... 075A AULT FIELD SECURTY FENCING......................... 4,600
NEWPORT RI NS.......................... 345 CONSOL FIRE/POLICE&SEC FAC......................... 6,660
MECHANICSBURG NAVSUPPACT............... 575 NORTH GATE IMPROVEMENTS............................ 2,820
MECHANICSBURG PA NAVICP................ 573 OXFORD GATE IMPROVEMENTS........................... 4,150
LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE.............. 406 POLICE & SEC OPRS FAC.............................. 4,970
LITTLE CREEK VA NAVPHIBSE.............. 376 PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE........................... 2,760
DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR DIV................. 305 INFRASTRCT ASSURANCE FAC........................... 6,400
BETHESDA MD NSWCCARDEROCK.............. 901 SECURITY FACILITY.................................. 5,800
GREAT LAKES IL NTC..................... 773 RELOCATE SECURITY FACILITY......................... 4,430
KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV.................... 392 EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER........................... 7,600
ORLANDO FL NAWCTSD..................... 003 SECURTY/PERIMTR FENCE/WALL......................... 2,370
PATUXENT RIVER MD AWCACDV.............. 986 FORCE PROT IMPV GUARD HSE.......................... 13,400
NEW LONDON CT NSB...................... 446 LOWER BASE PARKING FAC............................. 9,000
DAHLGREN VA NAVSPACECOM................ 017 PHYS SECTY ENHANCE (CENT).......................... 7,390
YORKTOWN VA NWS........................ 460 STATION SECTY PERIM FENCE.......................... 3,650
PEARL HARBOR HI NS..................... 624 MAIN GATE IMPROVEMENTS............................. 8,600
MAYPORT FL NS.......................... 776 AT/FP CENTRALIZED PARKING.......................... 3,350
BARKING SANDS HI PMRF.................. 413 SECURITY FENCING & LIGHTING........................ 8,000
LUALUALEI HI NM........................ 177 PERIMETER/SECURITY LIGHTG.......................... 4,100
PEARL HARBOR HI NS..................... 616 PERIMETER/SECURITY LIGHTG.......................... 1,600
PATUXENT RIVER MD AWCACDV.............. 123 SECURE MAIL FACILITY............................... 2,040
KEFLAVIK ICELAND NAS................... 565 BASE PERIMETER SECTY FENCE......................... 2,600
PEARL HARBOR HI FISC................... 194 SECURITY FENCING................................... 2,000
BARKING SANDS HI PMRF.................. 416 SECURITY FACS & PARKING............................ 2,000
MILLINGTON TN SUPPACT.................. 363 VEHICLE STAND-OFF.................................. 4,500
DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR DIV................. 300 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CTR........................... 5,000
KEY WEST FL NAF........................ 901 CVQ AT/FP UPGRADES................................. 2,120
KEY WEST FL NAF........................ 903 CVQ & GALLEY AT/FP UPGRADE......................... 5,070
JACKSONVILLE FL NAS.................... 270 GUARD AND WATCH TOWERS............................. 3,400
NORFOLK VA NS.......................... 994 SECURTY/PERIMTR FENCE/WALL......................... 4,000
LUALUALEI HI NM........................ 167 SECURITY LIGHTING.................................. 5,800
LUALUALEI HI NM........................ 166 SECURITY LIGHTING.................................. 5,400
PEARL HARBOR HI NB..................... 002 SECURTY/PERIMTR FENCE/WALL......................... 12,000
PEARL HARBOR HI PWC.................... 706 SECURTY/PERIMTR FENCE/WALL......................... 4,500
KEY WEST FL NAF........................ 902 CVQ AT/FP UPGRADES................................. 1,790
NEW LONDON CT NSB...................... 433 REALIGN PERIM FENCE/NEW RD......................... 3,200
-----------
TOTAL............................ ...... ................................................... 269,411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNO UNFUNDED REQUIREMENT #98 RECAPITALIZATION ($340M)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Activity PNO Title estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMN/OMNR............................... ...... ................................................... 83,200
MCON:
MCON DESIGN........................ 203 MCON DESIGN ($400M Design)......................... 13,000
CHINA LAKE CA NAWCWPNDIV........... 268 BEQ TRANSIENT...................................... 6,330
NEW LONDON CT NSB.................. 463 REPLACE PIER 6..................................... 24,800
NORFOLK VA NS.......................... 526 A/C MAINTENANCE HANGARS............................ 37,500
SIGONELLA ITALY NAS.................... 635 BASE OPS SUPPORT I................................. 32,300
SAN DIEGO CA NAS NORTH IS.............. 751 SQUADRON OPERATIONS FAC............................ 36,930
CHINA LAKE CA NAWCWPNSDIV.............. 521 AIRFIELD PAVEMENT UPGRADE.......................... 13,260
EL CENTRO CA NAF....................... 207 APRON & HANGAR RECAP............................... 47,850
INDIAN HEAD MD NSWCTRDIV............... 160 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.......................... 15,270
SAN DIEGO CA NAS NORTH IS.............. 748 TAXIWAY/TOWER...................................... 14,040
-----------
TOTAL............................ ...... ................................................... 241,280
===========
MCNR:
MCNR DESIGN........................ 223 MCNR DESIGN........................................ 1,100
ALBANY NY NMCRC.................... 598 RESERVE CENTER..................................... 10,000
ASHEVILLE NC NRD................... 596 RESERVE CENTER..................................... 3,140
NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB................. 187 PERIMETER ROAD AND FENCE........................... 1,280
-----------
TOTAL............................ ...... ................................................... 15,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNO UNFUNDED REQUIREMENT #100 RECAPITALIZATION AND C3/C4 DEFICIENCY CORRECTION ($173M)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
Activity PNO Title estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMN/OMNR............................... ...... ................................................... 32,700
MCON:
MCON DESIGN........................ 203 MCON DESIGN ($400M Design)......................... 7,400
LEMOORE CA NAS..................... 217 AIRCRAFT MAINT HANGAR.............................. 24,880
WASHINGTON DC NRL...................... 010 ADVANCED COMPUTING FAC............................. 12,800
EL CENTRO CA NAF................... 201 BEQ AND GALLEY..................................... 26,530
PUGET SOUND WA NAVSHIPYD............... 346 CVN MAINTENANCE COMPLEX............................ 18,600
NORFOLK VA LANTFLTHQSPACT.............. 830 CLF/TYCOM HQ FAC INC I............................. 45,000
-----------
TOTAL............................ ...... ................................................... 135,210
===========
MCNR:
MCNR DESIGN........................ 223 MCNR DESIGN........................................ 90
ATLANTA GA NAS..................... 349 PW COMPLEX......................................... 5,000
-----------
TOTAL............................ ...... ................................................... 5,090
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
NATO SUB-REGIONAL HQ
Question. Secretary Johnson, I understand that the Navy has several
projects in the fiscal year 2003 in support of new sub-regional NATO
headquarters in Greece and Spain. Can you tell me how those
requirements are developed and how is it determined that the Navy will
fund them?
Answer. The Department of the Navy (DON) has Executive Agent
responsibilities for U.S. support facilities related to NATO in Spain
and Greece. DON, as Executive Agent, is responsible for providing
support facilities, such as housing and other community support
facilities, to U.S. forces at these locations. Facility requirements
are determined based on planning criteria utilized for all DON
projects.
Question. What additional projects related to the Larrisa and
Madrid headquarters are in the Navy's outyears Milcon plans?
Answer. At this time, the Department of the Navy does not have
plans to provide any other facilities at Madrid and Larissa beyond
those included in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget Request.
BRAC
Question. Secretary Johnson, I understand that the Navy has fully
funded the BRAC account in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Is that
true?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2003 budget request of $261 million
includes sufficient funds to meet agreements reached with local
redevelopment authorities, State and Federal regulators and communities
affected by the previous BRAC rounds for environmental cleanup of the
properties.
Question. Should the Congress expect that the Navy will fully fund
the BRAC account in future budget submissions?
Answer. Yes. Completion of the previous BRAC program is a high
priority for the Department of the Navy.
FACILITIES REPLACEMENT
Question. Admiral Pruett, I note that the rate at which we replace
our facilities has gone from 106 years to 122 years in the 2003 budget.
There was a lot of promises made last year in the budget regarding
facilities. Are we back to business as usual with regard to neglecting
our facilities?
Answer. The Navy is committed to providing adequate funding to (1)
sustain our facilities in a current state of acceptable readiness, and
(2) replace and modernize those facilities, which have outlived their
useful life and function. This year's budget request focuses on
providing funding for sustaining facilities in a C1/C2 condition of
readiness. Although the fiscal year 2003 military construction budget
request is lower than last year's budget, it is the 2nd largest
military construction budget request in 6 years. The Navy is developing
its future year's military construction program such that the Navy can
achieve the Department of Defense goal of a 67-year recapitalization
rate by fiscal year 2007.
CONDITION OF FACILITIES
Question. What kind of message are we sending our young Sailors and
families about the condition of the facilities in which they live, work
and train?
Answer. The Navy is committed to providing a better quality of life
and workplace to our Sailors and their families:
--We are on track to eliminating all inadequate family housing by
fiscal year 2007 through a combination of military construction
and public-private ventures.
--We are beginning to bring our Sailors off of their ships while in
homeport and plan to complete this initiative by fiscal year
2008.
--The Navy is replacing and modernizing its bachelor quarters in
accordance with the Department of Defense (DOD) standards that
provide much more privacy for the service members. The Navy
plans to complete this initiative by fiscal year 2013.
--Finally, the Navy is replacing and modernizing its workplace by
programming and budgeting for projects to replace aging
facilities. The Navy is developing its future year's military
construction program such that the Navy can achieve the DOD
goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2007.
Through the initiatives outlined above, the Navy is sending the
message that it wants to improve the quality of service for the Sailors
and their families in and out of the workplace.
HOMEPORT ASHORE
Question. Admiral Pruett, can you explain your ``Homeport Ashore''
initiative and what is the Navy's long-term plan to get Sailors off of
ships?
Answer. The Navy has determined that single enlisted Sailors who
must live on ship while in Homeport have the worst living conditions in
Department of Defense. The 1999 Quality of Life Domain Study reflected
that these Sailors are the least satisfied with Navy life. As a result,
both the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations are
committed to providing shipboard Sailors a bachelor quarters room when
they are in homeport. The Navy has drafted a plan to accelerate moving
shipboard Sailors ashore by construction of 1+1 bachelor housing units
to temporarily accommodate four Sailors in each unit which would allow
junior shipboard Sailors to live off ships by 2008.
Question. Currently, how many additional barracks rooms do you need
to accommodate all of the single Sailors who are living on ships?
Answer. The Navy needs to construct about 10,850 rooms to
accommodate an additional 21,700 Sailors ashore. This does not include
the requirement for shipboard Sailors in Japan (to be satisfied by the
Government of Japan), nor does it include rooms already provided in
Hawaii and Guam, or rooms already funded in fiscal year 2002 at San
Diego and Mayport.
FORCE PROTECTION IN PRIVATIZED BQS
Question. Secretary Johnson, I understand that the Navy is looking
to privatize barracks, but there are still financial issues that must
be worked out. How do you address the issue of force protection with
privately opened and operated barracks?
Answer. We will include Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection measures in
our projects as deemed necessary as a result of a risk assessment. We
will also establish priorities for occupancy that, where necessary,
will avoid potential compromises of a base's mission or security
without adversely affecting a project's viability.
Question. What are the major cost concerns that will potentially
impact this initiative?
Answer. The major elements of cost in barracks privatization are
the initial Government investment, if necessary, and the annual housing
allowances required. We have been able to leverage limited resources to
accelerate elimination of inadequate family housing through
privatization, and are pleased with the success we have enjoyed with
those efforts. We would like to build on that success with similar
efforts for barracks. We are committed to ensuring that barracks
privatization initiatives are cost-effective on a life cycle basis.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
STATEMENT OF NELSON F. GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATION, ENVIRONMENT
AND LOGISTICS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GENERAL EARNEST O. ROBBINS, II, USAF, AIR FORCE CIVIL
ENGINEER
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID A. BRUBAKER, USAF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR
NATIONAL GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT E. DUIGNAN, USAF, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF,
AIR FORCE RESERVE
Senator Feinstein. I am very pleased to welcome this panel.
Is Mr. Gibbs present?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. There he is. The Honorable Nelson F.
Gibbs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installation,
Environment and Logistics; Major General Earnest Robbins, The
Air Force Civil Engineer; Brigadier General David Brubaker,
Deputy Director of the Air National Guard; and Brigadier
General Robert Duignan--from the Air Force Reserve. I would ask
each one of you to summarize your statement for the record.
Secretary Gibbs, would you begin?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I will be
the only one making opening remarks.
Senator Feinstein. All right.
Mr. Gibbs. And I will try to beat your 5-minute time limit
by at least 40 percent. Madam Chairman, good afternoon. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2003 budget
requests for military construction (MILCON), military family
housing and dormitories. The Air Force's total force military
construction and military family housing programs play a vital
role supporting Air Force operational needs, workplace
productivity and quality of life.
This committee's support for this program has remained
steadfast over the years. The Air Force's top priorities within
this year's President's budget are to sustain the facilities
that already exist, enhance quality of life by improving
housing for both single and married members, complying with
existing environmental statutes and supporting new missions and
weapon systems.
AIR FORCE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
For fiscal year 2003, the Air Force is requesting over $4.2
billion to invest in Air Force facilities and infrastructure,
the same level as submitted in the fiscal 2002 budget request.
This includes nearly $2 billion for sustainment, restoration
and modernization to maintain our existing infrastructure and
facilities, an increase of over $360 million from fiscal year
2002. This budget request also reflects the Air Force's
continued commitment to taking care of its people and their
families. Their welfare is a critical factor to overall Air
Force combat readiness and the family housing program,
dormitory program and other quality of life initiatives reflect
a commitment by the Air Force to provide its people the
facilities that they deserve.
FAMILY HOUSING
The Air Force is requesting $1.5 billion for military
family housing of which $700 million is to replace more than
2,100 worn-out units at 23 bases and improve more than 1,700
units at 11 bases. This request also supports privatization of
more than 4,500 units at five bases. To improve the quality of
life for the Air Force's unmarried junior enlisted members, the
Air Force is requesting $135 million for its fiscal year 2003
dormitory program, which consists of 11 enlisted dormitory
projects at 10 stateside bases and one overseas base.
F-22 BASING
The fiscal year 2003 request also includes $500 million for
active force military construction, $50 million for the Air
National Guard and $30 million for the Air Force Reserve.
Included are 33 new mission projects totaling over $350
million. This includes investments to base the F-22 Raptor at
Nellis Air Force Base for operational test and evaluation and
at Langley Air Force Base, the home of the first operational
wing.
NEW MISSION PROJECTS
Also the request includes new mission projects to support
B-2 forward operations in the United Kingdom and at Diego
Garcia and basing of the Global Hawk Unmanned Vehicle at Beale
Air Force Base. These projects also include expanded aircraft
parking at Naval Station Rota in Spain and at Ramstein Air Base
in Germany.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In conclusion, I want to thank you and the rest of the
committee for its continuing strong support of the Air Force
military construction, military family housing and dormitory
programs. With the committee's assistance and support, the Air
Force will continue 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
air and space force in the world. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson F. Gibbs
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, good afternoon. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and discuss present the
Department of the Air Force's fiscal year 2003 military construction
and military family housing programs.
OVERVIEW
The Air Force's total force military construction and military
family housing programs play a vital role supporting Air Force
operational needs, work place productivity, and quality of life. This
committee's support for those programs has remained steadfast over the
years, and the Air Force is gratefull believe that privatization is a
key component to accomplish this goal quickly and in a cost-effective
manner. In recent years, the committee's support for innovative
programs such as privatizing military family housing has given the Air
Force additional tools for improving the quality of life for its
members, and that support has been appreciated.
As Secretary Rumsfeld recently testified to Congress, ``September
11 changed our nation forever.'' The Air Force's challenge is to
simultaneously accomplish three difficult missions: to win the war on
terrorism, to restore the force through investments in procurement,
people and modernization, and to transform the force to meet 21st
Century demands. In the area of installations and facilities, this
transformation began last year with the fiscal year 2002 budget.
Last year the Secretary of Defense made a commitment--to tranform
the Department of Defense installations and facilities into those
required for a 21st Century military. Given the competing priorities
resulting from September 11, the Air Force has developed an executable
and fiscally responsible plan for getting its facilities on a path to
recovery.
While the Air Force acknowledges the importance of robust funding
for facility sustainment and modernization, other priorities and
insufficient Department of the Air Force topline have not permitted it
to fully address the problems associated with an aging infrastructure.
In fiscal year 2002, this administration proposed a significant
increase in military construction and housing programs--to $2.7
billion, the largest in 20 years the last decade. That increase was
supported and, in fact, enhanced by this committee and other members of
Congress, and was welcomed by the Air Force.
For fiscal year 2003, the Air Force is requesting over $4.2 billion
to invest in Air Force facilities and infrastructure. This request
includes $2.3 billion for total force military construction and
military family housing. This request includes including $644 million
for active force military construction, $1.5 billion for military
family housing, $54 million for Air National Guard military
construction, and $32 million for Air Force Reserve military
construction. In addition, the Air Force has increased the request for
operations & maintenance sustainment, restoration, and modernization
(SRM) funding by $360 million over the fiscal year 2002 request,
bringing the total force facility investment request to the same level
as submitted in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
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 demolition of excess, uneconomical-to-maintain facilities.
For fiscal year 2003, the Air Force's top priorities within the
President's budget are to sustain the facilities that already exist,
enhance quality of life by improving housing for both single and
married members, comply with existing environmental statutes, and
support new missions and weapon systems.
Air Force missions and people around the world clearly depend upon
this committee's understanding of, and support for Air Force
infrastructure programs. That support has never wavered, and for that
the Air Force thanks you.
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE INVESTMENT
To sustain, restore, and modernize what it owns, the Air Force must
achieve a balance between military construction and operations &
maintenance programs. Military construction restores and re-capitalizes
facilities. Operations & maintenance funding ensures the Air Force can
perform facility sustainment activities, without which facilities would
fail prematurely. Without proper sustainment, facilities and
infrastructure wear out sooner. Operations & maintenance funding is
also used to directly address many of the critical restoration and
less-expensive recapitalization needs. Without these funds, commanders
in the field are unable to address facility requirements that impact
their near-term readiness.
With last year's ``shot in the arm'' provided to military
construction, the Air Force is now in a position to restore its
operations & maintenance balance. In fiscal year 2003, the sustainment,
restoration, and modernization share of the Air Force operations &
maintenance funding is $2.0 billion--meeting the required sustainment
level for the first time in many years. Included in this amount is
nearly $160 million in operations & maintenance programmed for
restoration and modernization work.
INVEST IN QUALITY OF LIFE
The Air Force is committed to taking care of its people and their
families. Quality of life initiatives acknowledge the increasing
sacrifices airmen make in support of the nation and are pivotal to
recruiting and retaining the Air Force's most important resource--its
people. When members deploy, they want to know that their families are
stable, safe, and secure. Their welfare is a critical factor to overall
Air Force combat readiness, and the family housing program, dormitory
program, and other quality of life initiatives reflect a commitment by
the Air Force to provide its people the facilities they deserve.
FAMILY HOUSING
The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan provides the road map for
meeting the Department of Defense goal of providing safe, affordable,
and adequate housing for our members. The Air Force has increased its
fiscal year 2003 housing request by $132 million over the fiscal year
2002 request.
The $677 million fiscal year 2003 military family housing
replacement and improvement program replaces more than 2,100 worn-out
units at 23 bases, improves more than 1,700 units at 11 bases, and
supports privatization of more than 4,500 units at five bases. The Air
Force housing privatization program will be covered in more detail
later. The fiscal year 2003 housing operations and maintenance program
totals $844 million.
DORMITORIES
Just as the Air Force is committed to provide adequate housing for
families, it has an ambitious program to improve the housing for its
unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel. The Air Force Dormitory Master
Plan is a comprehensive, requirements-based plan, which identifies and
prioritizes dormitory military construction 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 the Air Force is
now concentrating on the final two phases of the investment strategy.
The total requirement is 79,400 Air Force dormitory rooms. There is
currently a deficit of 12,700 rooms, and the existing inventory
includes 3,900 inadequate rooms. It will cost approximately $1 billion
to execute the Air Force Dormitory Master Plan and achieve the fiscal
year 2009 Air Force goal to eliminate the deficit and replace the worst
existing dormitories.
The fiscal year 2003 dormitory program consists of 11 enlisted
dormitory projects at ten CONUS bases and one overseas base, for a
total of $135 million. On behalf of all the airmen benefiting from this
important quality of life initiative, I want to thank the committee for
its continued support of this critical quality of life effort.
FITNESS CENTERS
Other quality of life investments include community facilities,
such as fitness centers, vital in the effort 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 the airmen. The fiscal year 2003 military
construction program includes fitness centers at Andersen Air Force
Base, Guam; Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts; and Royal Air Force
Lakenheath, United Kingdom.
ACCOMMODATE NEW MISSIONS
New weapon systems provide the rapid, precise, global capability
that enables combat commanders to respond quickly to conflicts in
support of national security objectives. The fiscal year 2003 total
force new mission military construction program consists of 33
projects, totaling $339 million.
These projects support the initial basing of a number of new weapon
systems; two of special significance are the F-22 Raptor and the C-17
Globemaster III. The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air
superiority fighter. Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, will house the F-
22 flying training program. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, will be the
location for F-22 Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation. Langley
Air Force Base, Virginia, will be home for the first operational
squadrons. The requirements for F-22 related construction at Tyndall
were funded in the fiscal year 2002 military construction program. The
fiscal year 2003 military construction request includes one F-22
project at Nellis for $3 million, and three F-22 projects as Langley
totaling $40 million.
The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is replacing the Air Force's
fleet of C-141 Starlifters. The C-17 provides rapid global mobility by
combining the C-141 speed and long-range transport capabilities; the C-
5 capability to carry outsized cargo; and the C-130 capability to land
on short, forward-located airstrips. The Air Force will base C-17s at
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina; Altus Air Force Base,
Oklahoma; McChord Air Force Base, Washington; McGuire Air Force Base,
New Jersey; and Jackson Air National Guard Base, Mississippi. Thanks to
support from this committee, construction requirements for Charleston,
Altus, and McChord were all funded in prior-year military construction
programs. The request for fiscal year 2003 includes a $25 million
facility at McGuire Air Force Base, two facility projects for $35
million at Jackson International Airport, and $31 million for C-17
facilities at a soon to be announced location.
Other new mission requirements in fiscal year 2003 include
supporting the Air Force's Global Strike Task Force by building B-2
aircraft hangars at Royal Air Force Fairford, United Kingdom, and B-2
aircraft parking pads at Diego Garcia. To support the Space/C2ISR Task
Force the Air Force will build facilities to base the Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicle at Beale Air Force Base, California and to
support the Defense Satellite Program and future SBIRS at Buckley Air
Force Base, Colorado. Finally, to support the Global Response Task
Force the Air Force will build facilities to support Combat Search and
Rescue aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, C-130J
aircraft at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, and expand aircraft
parking at Naval Station Rota, Spain, and at Ramstein Air Base,
Germany.
OVERSEAS MILCON
The quality of overseas installations continues to be a priority
for the Air Force because of the impact it has on both individual and
family morale. Even though the majority of Air Force personnel are
assigned in the United States, 14 percent of its forces are serving
overseas, including 33,000 Air Force families. The Air Force overseas
base structure has stabilized after years of closures and force
structure realignments. At this level, the overseas infrastructure
still represents 19 percent of the total Air Force physical plant. The
fiscal year 2003 military construction request for European and Pacific
installations is $233 million totaling 14 projects. The program
consists of infrastructure and quality of life projects in Korea, the
United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain as well as critical
facilities on Guam, Diego Garcia, and Wake Island. The committee's
support for these operational and quality of life projects is equally
as important as its support for stateside projects.
PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The Air Force will request $53 million in planning and design for
fiscal year 2003. These funds are required to complete design of the
fiscal year 2004 construction program, and to start design of the
fiscal year 2005 projects. The Air Force is also requesting $21 million
in fiscal year 2003 for the total force unspecified minor construction
program, which is the primary means of funding small, unforeseen
projects.
OPTIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES
In order to accelerate the rate at which it revitalizes its housing
inventory, the Air Force has taken a measured approach to housing
privatization. It started with a few select projects, with the goal of
identifying successes and ``lessons learned'' to guide follow-on
initiatives. The first housing privatization project was awarded at
Lackland AFB, Texas, in August of 1998, and all 420 of those housing
units are constructed and occupied by military families. There are
three additional projects under construction that will result in 1,900
privatized units at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas; Elmendorf Air Force
Base, Alaska; and Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. In addition, the Air
Force is on track to award eight projects in the next 12 months that
will result in an additional 9,000 privatized units across the Air
Force. On average, the Air Force has realized a five to one leverage on
the military construction investment for housing privatization, and
this kind of favorable ratio is expected to hold steady or even
increase on other projects in the out-years. As mentioned earlier, the
fiscal year 2003 budget request includes $7.8 million to support the
privatization of more than 4,500 units at five bases: Maxwell Air Force
Base, Alabama; Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts; Cannon Air Force
Base, New Mexico; Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina; and F.E. Warren
Air Force Base, Wyoming.
The Air Force continues to pursue privatization of utility systems
at Air Force installations. The goal is to privatize utility systems
where it makes economic sense and does not negatively impact national
security. The Air Force has identified 434 of 513 systems as potential
privatization candidates, and has released requests for proposals for
242 systems and have completed the process on 161 systems.
DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, UNECONOMICAL-TO-MAINTAIN FACILITIES
For the past 6 years, the Air Force has pursued an aggressive
effort to demolish or dispose of facilities that are not economical to
sustain or restore. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2001, the
Air Force demolished 9.6 million-square feet of non-housing building
space. It expects to demolish an additional 4.4 million-square feet in
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, for a total reduction of 14
million square feet. 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 it to reduce the strain
on its infrastructure funding by eliminating unneeded facilities.
REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURES
This summer the Air Force lowered the flags at Kelly and McClellan
Air Force Bases, its two most complex closure actions resulting from
the Base Realignment and Closure Acts. The Air Force has now completed
all 39 of its base closure and realignment actions (22 closures and 17
realignments). As part of the closure process, the Air Force has worked
with the local reuse authority at each base to minimize the impact on
the local community from the closure. This effort has led to the
creation of over 48,000 jobs and an annual payroll of $1.4 billion in
the affected communities.
While these facilities are being returned to their respective
communities, the Air Force has a continuing responsibility for
environmental clean up from past industrial activities. The Air Force
takes this responsibility seriously, having spent $2.4 billion since
1991 in environmental clean up at closing bases. For fiscal year 2003,
the Air Force is requesting $119 million to continue the clean up.
Although past base closure rounds have reduced its infrastructure
footprint, the Air Force still retains excess infrastructure.
Maintenance of this excess infrastructure forces the Air Force to sub-
optimize use of available operations and maintenance funds. The Fiscal
Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act provides the Air Force an
opportunity to divest itself of this unneeded infrastructure. In
preparation for the 2005 base closure round, the Air Force will focus
first on sizing its force, and then on sizing the infrastructure to
support that force.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I again thank the committee for its strong support
of Air Force military construction and military family housing
programs. With the committee's assistance and support, the Air Force
will 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 air and space force in the world.
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Secretary. I am going
to jump right to California, in particular to a base that has
had a lot of problems, and that is McClellan and the
environmental remediation. I have been informed by the local
reuse authority for Sacramento County that in January, the Air
Force staff at McClellan had submitted a $27.7 million plan to
meet the fiscal year 2003 restoration schedule. By early
February that number had been reduced to $12.7 million and the
final budget, it is now $11.7 million.
In the Air Force briefing of which I have a copy, it says
McClellan has been tasked with the identification of 2003
deferments within anticipated 2003 funding. It goes on to say
these deferments are necessary to ensure that fiscal year 2004
to 2009 is properly budgeted in case no fiscal year 2003
supplemental funding is received. Now, Secretary Gibbs, in
these hearings last year, I was assured that there would be no
repeat of a deliberate underfunding of environmental
remediation, and it looks to me like you have submitted a
budget that cuts funding to California bases with the
expectation that this committee will restore the funds. Is that
the case?
Mr. Gibbs. No, ma'am. It is not.
Senator Feinstein. So you are prepared to maintain your
commitment with this amount of money?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am. Back in I believe it was in the 2000
budget year, there was a reduction in funding for environmental
remediation across all services for BRAC bases. At that point
with that conclusion, the Air Force reprogrammed all of its
remedial actions throughout. We have a detailed plan for each
of the bases in which a remedial treatment is necessary. And
McClellan was one of those. In 2004, we reached the point where
we have to again----
Senator Feinstein. Please speak directly into the mike.
Mr. Gibbs. Excuse me. In 2004, we reached the point where
we have to go back and pick up for some of those funds which we
did not get back in 2000 on the bases. What we have in 2003 is
the continuation of the program that started out or was
reprogrammed in 2000, and the overall request for environmental
remediation is approximately $120 million for BRAC bases.
Senator Feinstein. The cost is $400 million.
Mr. Gibbs. The anticipation is in 2004, that request will
have to be increased to about $180 million to stay on track for
our program.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you know, if the cost for
environmental remediation of that base is $400 million, how are
we going to get there at amounts like--what you are proposing?
You cannot get there. It would take 35 years to get there.
Mr. Gibbs. Unfortunately that is very close. In McClellan
specifically, the plan calls for all of the remedial processes
to be in place by 2015 and it will take another 20 years or so
after that for all of the processes to complete what it is they
have to do. It is a passage of time.
One of the areas that McClellan, and to be quite honest
with you, I wish it were only going to cost $400 million--that
is close to what we have already spent and it is going to be
substantially more. But, at this point, much of what is
occurring, because of the discoveries of the past 2 years
really, are studies as to how best to achieve the cleanup. And
moving some of the studies forward would not substantially
change the completion dates, either the completion dates for
the installation of the remedies or the ultimate cleanup of the
site.
Senator Feinstein. Is the Air Force capable of executing
greater funding in 2003 at McClellan?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And how much would that be? How about
$22 million?
Mr. Gibbs. That would be very close. That would be almost
exact as a matter of fact. There are a number of studies that
can be done. That is a number of individual projects that we
would be capable of getting going that would--most of them as I
said are in the study area and we would be capable of getting
the people going on the studies and getting them started in
2003. If you would like, I can provide for you a list of those
individual projects.
Senator Feinstein. I would. If you would not mind. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Gibbs. We will provide that to the committee next week.
[The information follows:]
McClellan Air Force Base
Potential fiscal year 2003 Projects--$23.0 Million.
The following is a list of McClellan 2004 projects that can be
accelerated and executed in 2003.
[In millions of dollars]
Project Description
Ground water pump and treatment/containment system expansion...... 5.6
Soils feasibility study........................................... 0.8
West Creeks feasibility study..................................... 0.5
Hexavalent chrome cleanup......................................... 3.0
Remedial investigation building 252............................... 0.4
Groundwater treatability study.................................... 2.8
Disposal pit treatability study................................... 3.0
Basewide, sewer and landfill radiological investigations.......... 6.9
______
Total....................................................... 23.0
Senator Feinstein. The Air Force budget request for current
mission MILCON appears to be at its lowest point in 20 years.
With 63 percent of your facilities rated at C3 or C4, how do
you justify a 48 percent MILCON reduction from last year's
enacted level? And I guess the question I am going to ask, that
I hope you will answer honestly is, does this budget request
provide adequate military construction funding for the Air
Force?
Mr. Gibbs. I think if I may, I will answer part of it and
then I will ask General Robbins also to answer from his
position. The Air Force made a specific decision this year in
preparing its budget that what we needed to do first and
foremost was to maintain and shore up that which we have. And
that is what I mentioned in my remarks earlier on that the
sustainment aspect of the budget was increased $360 million.
Effectively, we are attempting to fund sustainment at 100
percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) sustainment model
because we believe that is the right thing to do and it is also
the best use of the money.
CURRENT AND NEW MISSION PROJECTS
Senator Feinstein. But let me just interrupt you because my
understanding is you are funding only five Air Force projects.
So my question would be what are the five?
Mr. Gibbs. You mean other than new mission projects? We are
funding about 35 or 40 projects, ma'am, but there are----
Senator Feinstein. Five current mission----
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Only five that are not new mission
projects.
General Robbins. Yes, I can find the list.
Senator Feinstein. Could you just tell us what those five
are?
General Robbins. The list I have here are just the new
mission projects.
Senator Feinstein. Perhaps then would you get that to the
committee staff?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am. We will provide that to you also.
[The information follows:]
Current and New Mission Projects
The Air Force has requested a total of 48 projects for the active
component in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget Request. Of those
48 projects, 25 support new mission beddown and force realignment, 14
support quality of life initiatives, four correct environmental
deficiencies, and five are for current mission facility requirements.
The following table lists those projects.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category State/Base Project Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mission.................... AR--Little Rock.......... C-130J 2-Bay Hangar....................... 12.9
New Mission.................... AR--Little Rock.......... C-1 30J Engine Storage Facility........... 2.1
New Mission.................... AR--Little Rock.......... Add to and Alter Fuselage Trainer Facility 2.5
for C-1 30J.
New Mission.................... AR--Little Rock.......... C-130J Maintenance Training Facility...... 8.1
New Mission.................... AZ--Davis-Monthan........ HH-60 Apron/Taxiway Shoulders............. 3.7
New Mission.................... AZ--Davis-Monthan........ HH-60 Maintenance Hangar.................. 6.4
New Mission.................... CA--Beale................ Global Hawk Squadron Operations Facility/ 3.7
Aircraft Maintenance Unit.
New Mission.................... CA--Beale................ Dining Facility........................... 3.5
New Mission.................... CA--Beale................ Upgrade Maintenance Dock for Global Hawk.. 4.6
New Mission.................... CO--Buckley.............. SBIRS Mission Control Station............. 6.9
New Mission.................... CO--Buckley.............. Wing Headquarters/Administrative Facility. 10.8
New Mission.................... NJ--McGuire.............. C-17 Flightline Operations Facility....... 24.6
New Mission.................... NV--Nellis............... F-22 Munitions Maintenance Facility....... 3.2
New Mission.................... TX--Sheppard............. Euro-NATO Joint Training Flight Simulator. 6.0
New Mission.................... VA--Langley.............. F-22 Infrastructure and Utilities......... 10.7
New Mission.................... VA--Langley.............. F-22 Flight Simulator..................... 8.1
New Mission.................... VA--Langley.............. F-22 Squadron Operations Facility/Aircraft 20.8
Maintenance Unit.
New Mission.................... O/S--RAF Fairford........ B-2 Maintenance Hangar/Apron.............. 19.0
New Mission.................... O/S--Diego Garcia........ B-2 Aircraft Parking Apron................ 17.1
New Mission.................... O/S--Rota................ Aircraft Parking, Phase 1................. 31.8
New Mission.................... O/S--Ramstein............ Passenger Terminal Annex.................. 17.7
New Mission.................... O/S--Ramstein............ Combined Fleet Service/In-flight Kitchen 7.5
Facility.
New Mission.................... ......................... Classified project........................ 2.0
New Mission.................... ......................... Force Protection Improvements (Classified 23.0
Location).
New Mission.................... TBD--TBD................. C-17 (Various Facilities)................. 30.6
QOL............................ AZ--Davis-Monthan........ Dormitory (120 rooms)..................... 9.1
QOL............................ FL--Hurlburt............. Dormitory (144 rooms)..................... 9.0
QOL............................ LA--Barksdale............ Dormitory (168 rooms)..................... 10.9
QOL............................ MA--Hanscom.............. Fitness Center............................ 7.7
QOL............................ MS--Keesler.............. Dormitory (200 rooms)..................... 22.0
QOL............................ NC--Pope................. Dormito (144 rooms)....................... 9.7
QOL............................ NV--Nellis............... Dormitory (144 rooms)..................... 12.3
QOL............................ OH--Wright-Patterson..... Dormitory (144 rooms)..................... 10.4
QOL............................ TX--Lackland............. Dormitory (200 rooms)..................... 18.5
QOL............................ TX--She pard............. Dormitory (144 rooms)..................... 10.0
QOL............................ VA--Langley.............. Dormitory (96 rooms)...................... 8.3
QOL............................ O/S--Andersen............ Fitness Center............................ 16.0
QOL............................ O/S--Lakenheath.......... Fitness Center............................ 10.8
QOL............................ O/S--Osan................ Dormitory (156 rooms)..................... 15.1
Environmental.................. AK--Belson............... Upgrade Central Heat Plant Baghouses...... 21.6
Environmental.................. AK--Clear................ Upgrade Power Plant....................... 14.4
Environmental.................. CA--Vandenberg........... Repair Water Distribution, Phase 2........ 7.4
Environmental.................. CA--Vandenberg........... Install Stormwater Drainage............... 3.1
Current Mission................ NV--Nellis............... Land Acquisition.......................... 15.0
Current Mission................ O/S--Ramstein............ Repair Ramp 1, Phase 1.................... 23.7
Current Mission................ O/S--Wake Island......... Repair Airfield Pavement, Phase 2......... 24.9
Current Mission................ O/S--Lakenheath.......... Mobility Processing Facility.............. 2.6
Current Mission................ O/S--Ramstein............ Kaiserslautern Military Community Center.. 21.3
Other.......................... ......................... Planning and Design....................... 41.5
Other.......................... ......................... Unspecified Minor Construction............ 11.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ......................... .......................................... 644.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Feinstein. Could you also give us a list of those
projects funded with the Defense Emergency Response Fund
(DERF)?
General Robbins. Yes. There are four of those. One was the
Dover Mortuary project--military construction $19 million, I
believe. And then there were three classified location projects
in Southwest Asia.
Senator Feinstein. And those are funded?
General Robbins. Yes that is correct.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
General Robbins. In 2002. Out of the 2002 DERF.
Senator Feinstein. Do you feel your budget is adequate for
your needs?
BACHELOR AND FAMILY HOUSING
General Robbins. One of the advantages of going second
after the Navy is to think about your answer to that question
and it's like asking one of my teenage daughters do they have
enough money to spend. An engineer will never have all that
they think they could use, but I would echo what Mr. Gibbs said
in terms of the process the Air Force goes through to reach the
conclusion that we have reached in terms of taking care of
bachelor and family housing, the new mission bed downs that we
know we have to do and then our most compelling environmental
requirements. It is sufficient to at least help us hold the
line when you throw in this increase in sustainment dollars
that we have requested. So we will hold the line on our overall
infrastructure readiness with this budget.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just repeat something that
I said last time. I am told by people who have done this for a
long time that this is sort of typical. The MILCON budget gets
cut and the belief is well, the Congress is going to plus it
up, but everybody this year is saying, oh this is fine, we can
handle all our needs with this. You may just actually have that
as the final result, and I just want to say that publicly that
the game may not take place this year.
Mr. Gibbs. That certainly would be acceptable to the Air
Force, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. So in other words, you are not
going to try, General Robbins, to bring all the Air Force's C3
and C4 rated facility classes to at least C2?
General Robbins. Not with this budget. Not with the 2003.
What we are on track to do, and I believe it was in Mr. Gibb's
testimony, but I am not sure, is that we believe by the time we
reach the end of this 5 year defense program, fiscal year
defense program, that we will be on the glide path to meet the
defense planning guidance that says by 2010 we should be on a
67 year recap rate.
Senator Feinstein. Well, but the goal was 2007. Now you are
changing it to 2010.
FAMILY HOUSING
General Robbins. Actually I believe that 2007 goal had to
do with family housing.
Senator Feinstein. Substandard family housing.
General Robbins. Right.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct.
General Robbins. And I'm speaking to overall----
Senator Feinstein. Oh. I beg your pardon.
General Robbins. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Well, will the substandard family
housing be brought up to par then by 2007?
AIR FORCE FAMILY HOUSING MASTER PLAN
General Robbins. Want me to answer that?
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force plan--the master plan for family
housing is for all of the substandard housing to be brought up
to par, in your terms, by 2010. The specific reason for that is
that there are several bases which are planned to have a
construction project every year from now until 2010, that an
attempt to bring any of those forward to close them out
earlier, we believe would cause substantial disruption on the
individual bases and would effectively dispossess more
individuals from where they are living, and that it would be
inappropriate from a mission perspective and also from how we
want to treat our people to force them to do that.
Senator Feinstein. So they are going to live in substandard
housing?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, they actually have two options. The
housing--yes, to that extent. Or, they can seek Basic Allowance
for Housing (BAH) and live off of the facility.
Senator Feinstein. General Brubaker, this budget includes
just $85 million for the Air Guard and Reserve out of the $2.2
billion overall request and the Air Force MILCON is down
sharply. But the Air Guard and Reserve constitute more than 50
percent of the Air Force's war fighting capability and comprise
more than 25 percent of the work force, yet only 4 percent of
your MILCON budget is being allocated to the Air Guard and
Reserve. Do you believe this is a fair and balanced program?
AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
General Brubaker. Ma'am, we would like to have more and our
needs are greater. The Air Force had to make some real tough
decisions and we played fully in that decision process and it
did not happen that we got more. We are ready to execute the
projects that we did get and we are hopeful next year that we
might see some increases that enable us to do some other
things.
Senator Feinstein. What percentage of your facility
inventory do you consider substandard or inadequate?
General Brubaker. We estimate that approximately 50 percent
of the Air National Guard facilities are substandard. They
would be those that we consider small and antiquated, those
that are malpositioned, those with severe violations for life,
safety and fire codes. The categories of facilities with the
most pressing problems are the operations, training and support
facilities and aircraft pavements.
Senator Feinstein. Can I ask you a question? What was your
request for funding in this area?
General Brubaker. Our total request was for over 30
projects and over $200 million.
Senator Feinstein. And the budget is at what for them? $200
million. So that is a 75 percent cut in essence of your
request.
General Brubaker. We got a lot less than----
Senator Feinstein. You got $50 million rather than $200
million.
General Brubaker. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And you can live with it?
General Brubaker. We are going to make do.
AIR FORCE RESERVE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Senator Feinstein. Okay. I would like to ask a question
about the Reserve. General Duignan, 23 percent of the Air Force
Reserve projects were congressional adds last year. The 2003
Air Force Reserve budget request funds only four projects, all
of them in Portland, Oregon to support the KC-135 tanker
relocation program. For 2004 the future year's defense plan
includes only six Air Force Reserve projects, five of them for
the KC-135 program in Portland. The Air Force Reserve
infrastructure encompasses five major installations, seven air
stations and 55 other locations. Why is the Reserve focusing
its 2003 and 2004 request really solely on Portland?
General Duignan. Like our brothers in the Guard, we
submitted--we have many more projects, but they are submitted
through the corporate process in the Air Force and compete with
the Air National Guard and the active force to fill the most
important needs of the Air Force. In 2003, the most pressing
requirement was the conversion of the rescue unit in Portland
to the KC-135s. That will not be completed in 1 year so we have
to continue that in the 2004 program. We do have additional
projects that we have that we need to complete, but based on
the priorities, the Portland ones are the top ones to get
finished.
KOREA
Senator Feinstein. Okay. General Robbins, at a House
hearing, General Schwartz, the Commander in Chief of our forces
in Korea, submitted a list of potential MILCON inserts for
Korea. The list includes three Air Force projects, a
mechanically protected personnel processing center, a missile
maintenance shop complex and the replacement of an aircraft
fuels maintenance dock. That's $27 million worth of projects
for the Air Force. Are you familiar with this list?
General Robbins. No, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Do you know if General Schwartz
requested them?
General Robbins. No, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Do you know why they were not included
in the budget request?
General Robbins. Why they were or were not?
Senator Feinstein. Were not.
General Robbins. I am not familiar with those three
projects.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Could we get answers to those
questions?
General Robbins. Sure.
[The information follows:]
The projects referenced by Senator Feinstein are shown below. None
are in the fiscal year 2003 budget request.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programmed
Project amount PACAF priority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kunsan AB Consolidated Personnel $4.9 Fiscal year 2007
Processing Facility.
Osan AB Fuel System Maintenance 7.5 ( \1\ )
Shop.
Kunsan AB Missile Maintenance 16.O ( \1\ )
Facility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not in FYDP.
The Air Force prioritizes requirements, based on each command's
priority and their impacts to mission, readiness, and quality of life,
into one integrated priority list (IPL). This IPL is submitted to Chief
of Staff of the Air Force and Secretary of the Air Force for
endorsement, then to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
eventually Office of Management and Budget, for inclusion into the
President's Budget.
The Air Force fiscal year 2003 MILCON submission includes $73.1
million for overseas bases in the Pacific theater. It includes projects
at Diego Garcia, Wake Island, Guam, and Korea.
GLOBAL HAWK AT BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Feinstein. I wanted to ask a question about Global
Hawk at Beale. Are the funds in this budget sufficient for
Global Hawk?
Mr. Gibbs. Ultimately--I cannot answer your question.
Ultimately but for what is planned out for the next couple of
years. Yes, ma'am. Do you know?
General Robbins. Yes. The 2003 budget as you know, has the
three projects I guess at Beale. And then in 2004 there are two
more, and in 2005 there are two more, or one more, and then
2006 one more. So it's spread out ranging from the initial bed
down mission support type requirements which are in the early
years going out to a dormitory to bed down the additional
people that will flow in as we get the iron into Beale, and
then even a visiting quarters to handle the TDY rotations that
will go up as a result of the bed down and new mission.
General Robbins. So it extends out through 2006.
Senator Feinstein. And from a military point of view, that
is adequate to meet the mission needs for Global Hawk?
General Robbins. Yes, ma'am. If this 2003 budget request is
supported and we phase these other projects as I have laid them
out here, that will match the flow of the actual aircraft into
Beale.
Mr. Gibbs. I would comment for that. That is based upon the
current----
Senator Feinstein. I'm sorry. I cannot hear you.
Mr. Gibbs. That is predicated on the current anticipated
buy of Global Hawks. Should that change, then we would have
additional facility requirements.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Thank you. I think that takes
care of my questions. Oh, General Robbins, let me ask you about
last week's fire----
General Robbins. Oh, yes.
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. At the 8th Air Force
headquarters at Barksdale in Louisiana?
General Robbins. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. We are told that it may take a year and
$13 million to repair. Could you just describe the extent of
the damage and how the Air Force intends to fund its repair?
General Robbins. Right. They have not even got a definitive
cost estimate on the damage yet, because last I heard, it was
still smoldering. Although they were prepared to go in with
some temporary tarpaulins to cover the undamaged portions of
the roof once they could do that. The $13 million number that
you quote is the first initial estimate for what it would cost.
Some portion of that was for furnishings and equipment, but
about $9 million I believe was facility. Again, first estimate
for facility repairs. Depending upon the cost--how much this
grows or does not grow, we will probably try to do it with
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) dollars. Try to make the
repairs using O&M dollars and the appropriation. But again
until we get----
Senator Feinstein. Sorry. Using what dollars?
General Robbins. O&M. Operations and Maintenance.
Senator Feinstein. And you have sufficient O&M dollars to
do that?
General Robbins. We would request that, yes.
Senator Feinstein. Oh, I see, but----
General Robbins. Through the Air Force budget. We would
have to go in through--as you know the way the O&M account
works, they control the outlays over the year, there are
residual funds that may not execute. So they would come in by
the end of the year and request that we be allowed----
Senator Feinstein. A rollover.
General Robbins. As you know, there's a $7.5 million
threshold. If a repair project exceeds $7.5 million, we have to
come to this committee and request permission to proceed with
it as an O&M funded project versus MILCON.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Okay. I mean, I would assume you
are going to do that.
General Robbins. We are going to fix it. And if it is over
$7.5 million, we will come to you with a request. If that is
the--we really have to wait and see how much damage was done on
the facility. We do not know what the total bill's going to be
yet.
Senator Feinstein. Just one last question. I have been very
concerned with the housing in Korea. Do you believe that the
money that is in this request is adequate to do what we began
to do last year to bring our housing up to standard in Korea?
General Robbins. Right. You want me to take it. Yes, ma'am.
That is a three phase project. This request is to cover the
first one-third of the units that are to be required there--it
is around 120 units as I recall--to be followed in subsequent
fiscal years with the remaining two-thirds. The command
sponsored billets tours there at Osan are steady right at about
360, 365. And so if we follow this phased approach, then that
should address the concerns of the Commander and the families
that live there.
Senator Feinstein. Because I know the chairman of the House
subcommittee was very concerned about this and I am too, I just
want to make that clear. I mean, I think we ought to house our
people in decent quarters doing that duty there. So I want to
be sure that what we have committed to last year is followed
through this year. Do I have your assurance?
General Robbins. Yes, ma'am. The budget request includes
the first tower and as I discussed with your staff members when
we met over at our place a few weeks ago, what has changed is
the site where we were going to build this first tower, but the
cost will remain the same. Same number of units. We are just
moving it to a different location on Osan.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Okay. All right. Gentlemen, is there
anything else you would like to say? Otherwise, you are all
just happy campers with your budget. I think that is wonderful
that you set a model for taking 75 and 50 percent cuts and big
smiles and that is wonderful.Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Madam Chairman.
Questions Submitted to Nelson F. Gibbs
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
MILCON FUNDING
Question. Secretary Gibbs, do you have any concern that by reducing
MILCON funding this year, by deferring needed MILCON projects, you will
be setting the Air Force up for a MILCON train wreck in the out years?
Answer. We are very concerned with the magnitude of our military
construction requirements backlog, which is the result of many years of
undersized military construction budgets. Not counting last year's
shot-in-the-arm, the fiscal year 2003 MILCON request is the largest
since fiscal year 1994. Further, we have programmed increasing MILCON
budgets across the future years defense plan, which keeps us moving in
the right direction of gradually buying down the backlog.
It will take a number of years of steady, adequate funding to fully
recapitalize our infrastructure to an acceptable desired condition.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
OVERSEAS PROGRAM
Question. Secretary Gibbs, I understand that your fiscal year 2003
overseas program is consistent with last year's MILCON program. Can you
explain to me how you determine your overseas priorities against the
domestic requirements?
Answer. The Air Force investment strategy concentrates scarce
resources on its Total Force top priorities. The Air Force integrates
Total Force MILCON requirements into a single priority list and funds
the most urgent needs of the Total Air Force within budget constraints.
After ``must pay'' requirements are funded, we utilize a MILCON scoring
methodology to fund remaining urgent requirements. Urgency of need
takes precedence over ``fair share.''
Question. Secretary Gibbs: Your proposed budget for MILCON has very
few projects compared to other years. Did the Air Force place more
emphasis in the 2003 budget on overseas because of the uncertainty of a
future round of base closure?
Answer. No. Future base closures are not factors in determining
MILCON priorities.
Question. Secretary Gibbs, last year, senior DOD officials
testified that after many years of neglect, the Department intended to
start investing in infrastructure. Your proposed budget barely funds
new mission initiatives, let alone replacement facilities. What is the
corporate Air Force position on revitalizing Air Force facilities?
Answer. The Air Force has a balanced program that attempts to
maximize the utilization of its facilities. The MILCON focus is, in
descending order of priority, on (1) environmental, legal, or treaty-
driven requirements; (2) quality of life initiatives; (3) new weapon
systems requirements and (4) fixing C3/C4-rated facilities. In
addition, this budget fully funds sustainment to ensure facilities last
their full life. Our balanced program: (1) attempts to maximize scarce
resources on our top MILCON priorities; (2) continues to reduce
physical plant and associated Operation and Maintenance costs, and (3)
relies on alternative approaches to MILCON, particularly privatization.
BACKLOG OF MILCON REQUIREMENTS
Question. What is the backlog of Active, Guard, and Reserve Air
Force requirements for military construction?
Answer. Active: The Air Force calculates its backlog of restoration
and modernization construction requirements using data from our
Installations Readiness Report, updated and submitted to Congress
annually per 10 USC 117. We define the backlog as the cost to restore
all facility classes to ratings of C-2 or higher. The following table
details that backlog for the Active, Guard, and Reserve components.
BACKLOG OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M MILCON Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Air Force................................................ 1,592 12,016 13,608
Air National Guard.............................................. 388 2,182 2,570
Air Force Reserve............................................... 89 279 368
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,069 14,755 16,546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The table above includes requirements met with MILCON and Facility Restoration and Modernization (O&M)
funding. It does not include an additional $1.8 billion in requirements met with other fund sources (e.g.,
host-nation funding, medical and RDT&E appropriations). Including those other fund sources, the Total Air
Force backlog is $18.3 billion.
Guard: Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC).--The annual funding
for unspecified minor construction is roughly $5 million. The annual
shortfall is roughly $8 million. The fiscal year 2003 budget includes
$4.4 million for unspecified minor construction. This funding is $7.9
million short of the requirement.
Current Mission Military Construction (MILCON).--The Air National
Guard backlog of mission MILCON stands at over $2 billion. This backlog
includes projects that replace or repair aging pavements and facilities
at our 176 locations. The Air National Guard could execute $200-$250
million per year toward the backlog if funding were available.
New Mission MILCON.--There are several critical new mission
beddowns in progress. The outstanding construction bill associated with
the announced conversions is nearly $200 million. Pending conversions
which are being discussed could add another $325 million to this new
mission bill.
Restoration and Modernization.--The Restoration and Modernization
backlog is $928 million. Projects include repairs to degraded airfield
pavements, leaking roofs, failed fire suppression systems, failed
heating and ventilating systems, and other failed utility/building
systems.
Reserve.--The total backlog of currently identified Air Force
Reserve Military Construction projects is $650 million.
______
Questions Submitted to Major General Earnest O. Robbins, II
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CURRENT MISSION
Question. General Robbins, the Air Force MILCON budget appears to
fund only five current mission projects. How many Air Force major
commands did not get their #1 current mission MILCON requirement funded
in this request?
Answer. Eight. They include Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel
Command, Air Force Reserve Command, Air Force Special Operations
Command, Pacific Air Forces, United States Air Force Academy, the 11th
Wing, and Air Intelligence Agency.
Question. General Robbins, can you provide, for the record, a list
of those #1 unfunded priorities?
Answer. Those priorities are:
Air Combat Command.--Hurlburt Field, FL--Air Force Command and
Control Training and Innovation Group Systems/Warrior School Complex
($13.8 million).
Air Force Materiel Command.--Robins AFB, GA--Corrosion Control
Paint Facility ($27.0 million).
Air Force Reserve Command.--Keesler AFB, MS--Fuel Cell ($7.2
million).
Air Force Special Operations Command.--Hurlburt Field, FL--Special
Tactics Advance Skills Training Facility ($7.9 million).
Pacific Air Forces.--Osan AB, ROK--Add/Alter Operations/Aircraft
Maintenance Unit Facility ($15.0 million).
United States Air Force Academy.--Upgrade Academic Facility, Phase
4 ($22.5 million).
Eleventh Wing.--Bolling AFB, DC--Physical Fitness Center ($13.0
million).
Air Intelligence Agency.--Lackland AFB, TX--Information Operations
Center ($8.8 million).
Question. General Robbins, what is the Air Force's recapitalization
rate based on the fiscal year 2003 budget? What was it in fiscal year
2002?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget request has a
fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate of 227 years. The fiscal year
2002 recapitalization rate was 113 years
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
CONDITION OF FACILITIES
Question. General Robbins, I note that the majority of your
facilities are in a condition C-3 or C-4. What would be the bill to
bring all of the Air Force C-3 and C-4 facilities to at least C-2?
Answer. Our installation commanders identified over $18.3 billion
in facilities restoration and modernization investment is needed to
restore the Air Force's C-3 and C-4 facility classes to at least C-2.
MAJCOM UNFUNDED PRIORITIES
Question. General Robbins, how many of the Air Force major air
commands did not get their number one priority MILCON budget funded in
this request? Can you provide a list of those unfunded number one
priorities for the record?
Answer. Eight major air commands did not get their number one
priorities funded in this year's budget request: Air Combat Command,
Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Reserve Command, Air Force
Special Operations Command, Pacific Air Forces, United States Air Force
Academy, the 11th Wing, and the Air Intelligence Agency.Those
priorities are:
Air Combat Command.--Hurlburt Field, FL--Air Force Command and
Control Training and Innovation Group Systems/Warrior School Complex
($13.8 million).
Air Force Materiel Command.--Robins AFB, GA--Corrosion Control
Paint Facility ($27.0 million).
Air Force Reserve Command.--Keesler AFB, MS--Fuel Cell ($7.2
million).
Air Force Special Operations Command.--Hurlburt Field, FL--Special
Tactics Advance Skills Training Facility ($7.9 million).
Pacific Air Forces. Osan AB, ROK--Add/Alter Operations/Aircraft
Maintenance Unit Facility ($15.0 million).
United States Air Force Academy.--Upgrade Academic Facility, Phase
4 ($22.5 million).
Eleventh Wing.--Bolling AFB, DC--Physical Fitness Center ($13.0
million).
Air Intelligence Agency.--Lackland AFB, TX--Information Operations
Center ($8.8 million).
RECAPITALIZATION
Question. General Robbins, with the funding proposed in the 2003
budget for MILCON, what does that do to the Air Force recapilatization
rate? What is the Air Force long term plan regarding recapitalization
of facilities?
Answer. The fiscal year 2003 President's Budget level of funding
results in a recapitalization rate of 227 years for fiscal year 2003,
up from 113 years in fiscal year 2002 and 209 years in fiscal year
2001. Our long-term plan is to properly sustain and modernize our
facilities and infrastructure to ensure we have the right facilities at
the right time and place to support military readiness. To do this, we
are fully funding sustainment across the future years defense plan and
are on a funding path to meet goals of buying out the C3/C4 rated
facilities backlog as well as achieving a 67-year recap rate by 2010.
PLANT REPLACEMENT VALUE
Question. General Robbins, is the Air National Guard portion of
your budget request proportionate to the Guard's share of the Air
Force's plant replacement value?
Answer. The Air Force investment strategy concentrates scarce
resources on its Total Force top priorities. The Air Force integrates
Total Force MILCON requirements into a single priority list and funds
the most urgent needs of the Total Air Force within budget constraints.
After ``must pay'' requirements are funded, we utilize a MILCON scoring
methodology to fund remaining urgent requirements. Urgency of need
takes precedence over ``fair share.''
However, the Air National Guard (ANG) portion of this budget
request is proportionate to the ANG's share of the overall Air Force
plant replacement value (PRV). The same is true for the Air Force
Reserve. The table below shows the breakout.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
PRV share 2003 MILCON
Air reserve component (percent) budget share
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air National Guard...................... 7.9 7.3
Air Force Reserve....................... 3.8 4.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DYESS AFB--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
Question. Last November, the Air Force provided a brief on the
future of Dyess AFB. In that brief, the Service indicated that the next
MILCON for Dyess would be in fiscal year 2004. The plan was to build
164 units of MFH for $14 million. While it appears the Air Force moved
the project up by a year, the number of MFH units the Air Force plans
to buy for $14.8 million has now fallen to only 85. This does not
appear to be a good value. Why did this happen?
Answer. The differences in scope between last year and this year
are due to the different unit size and a more accurate estimate of
associated support costs (site preparation, utilities, streets and
roads, etc.). Starting with the fiscal year 2003 program, the Air Force
implements new size standards which more closely approximate the size
of homes constructed in the local community.
______
Questions Submitted to Brigadier General David A. Brubaker
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CURRENT MISSION
Question. General Brubaker, the Air Guard has been given the
responsibility for executing Operation Noble Eagle. Can you explain
whether that added responsibility has had any impact on your
infrastructure needs?
Answer. Operation Noble Eagle has had a significant impact on the
ANG infrastructure requirements in a number of ways. We have spent
approximately $29.5 Million from our Sustainment, Restoration, and
Modernization (SRM) account in the effort. Alert facilities at numerous
locations were in disrepair prior to 9-11. Aircraft alert facilities
were shut down and placed in a caretaker status in the early 1990's, or
these aircraft alert facilities were re-used to meet other facility
shortfalls. The SRM funds were used to make the alert aircraft
facilities habitable, and to bring the facilities up to current
standards.
--Temporary trailers were leased to provide alert crew quarters to
support these missions: F-15/F-16 fighters, KC-135 tankers and
C-130 airlift aircraft.
--Temporary alert aircraft shelters were constructed at Air National
Guard locations where alert shelters did not exist or where the
number of alert shelters were insufficient for the mission.
--The estimated cost to provide a long term permanent fix for Noble
Eagle requirements, and eliminate the temporary shelters and
leased trailers will require approximately $100 Million in the
Military Construction (MILCON) Program.
Question. General Brubaker, do you need any additional MILCON
funding to meet those needs? If so, what do you need?
Answer. The estimated cost to provide a long term permanent fix for
Noble Eagle requirements, and eliminate the temporary shelters and
leased trailers will require approximately $100 million in the Military
Construction Program. The Air National Guard's most urgent requirements
are identified in the future year defense program and the 10543 report.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Feinstein. I think that completes our hearing for
the day and hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., Tuesday, March 19, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittees was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Baillie, Frederick N., Executive Director, Business Management
Logistics Operations, Defense Logistics Operations, Defense
Agencies, Department of Defense................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Questions submitted to....................................... 55
Brubaker, General David A., USAF, Deputy Director, Air National
Guard, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense...... 109
Questions submitted to....................................... 126
Coleman, Brigadier General (SELECT) Ronald S., USMC, Deputy
Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps for Installation and
Logistics Facilities, Department of the Navy, Department of
Defense........................................................ 83
DuBois, Hon. Raymond, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Questions submitted to....................................... 32
Duignan, Brigadier General Robert E., USAF, Deputy to the Chief,
Air Force Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of
Defense........................................................ 109
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
Opening statement............................................ 83
Questions submitted by.......30, 53, 73, 77, 78, 105, 123, 125, 126
Statement of................................................. 1
Fiori, Hon. Mario P., Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installation Environment), Department of the Army, Department
of Defense..................................................... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Questions submitted to....................................... 73
Statement of................................................. 57
Gibbs, Nelson F., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installation, Environment and Logistics, Department of the Air
Force, Department of Defense................................... 109
Prepared statement........................................... 110
Questions submitted to....................................... 123
Helmly, Major General James R., Commander, 78th Division
(Training Support), U.S. Army Reserve, Department of the Army,
Department of De
fense.......................................................... 57
Questions submitted to....................................... 77
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas:
Questions submitted by........31, 32, 54, 55, 75, 82, 107, 123, 125
Statement of................................................. 10
Johnson, H.T., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installation
and Environment, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense. 83
Prepared statement........................................... 87
Questions submitted to....................................... 105
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 2
Molino, John, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military
Community and Family Policy, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Questions submitted to....................................... 54
Statement of................................................. 40
Preston, Rear Admiral Noel G., USNR, Deputy Director of Naval
Reserve, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense......... 83
Pruett, Rear Admiral David D., Civil Engineer Corps, USN,
Director, Civil Engineering Readiness Division, Chief of Naval
Operations, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense...... 83
Randolph, Major General Leonard, Jr., Deputy Executive Director,
TRICARE Management Activity, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Questions submitted to....................................... 53
Statement of................................................. 38
Robbins, Major General Earnest O., II, USAF, Air Force Civil
Engineer, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense... 109
Questions submitted to....................................... 125
Squier, Brigadier General Michael J., Deputy Director, Army
National Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.. 57
Question submitted to........................................ 78
Tangney, Lieutenant General William, Deputy Commander in Chief,
Special Operations Command, Defense Agencies, Department of
Defense........................................................ 35
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Questions submitted to....................................... 53
Van Antwerp, Major General Robert L., Jr., Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management, Department of Army,
Department of Defense.......................................... 57
Questions submitted to....................................... 78
Zakheim, Hon. Dov, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Questions submitted to....................................... 30
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Agencies
SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND
TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY
MILITARY COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY
DEFENSE LOGISTICS OPERATIONS
Page
Additional committee questions................................... 53
Construction, decrease in appropriations requests................ 53
Department of Defense Education Activity......................... 47
Domestic medical projects........................................ 54
Encroachment issues/Coronado..................................... 53
Environmental stewardship........................................ 46
Excess infrastructure............................................ 55
Fuel:
Facilities infrastructure.................................... 45
Infrastructure:
Other critical........................................... 46
Strategic airlift en route............................... 45
Strategic en-route projects.............................. 55
Gym project...................................................... 54
Hospital projects overseas....................................... 54
Milcon:
Program...................................................... 37
Projects..................................................... 55
Military construction request.................................... 45
Overseas DOD schools............................................. 55
Planning & design funds.......................................... 53
Purpose.......................................................... 37
Supply center investments........................................ 46
TRICARE mangement activity....................................... 48
Twenty-first century force....................................... 36
Department of the Air Force
Accommodate new missions......................................... 112
Additional committee questions................................... 123
Air Force:
Facilities and infrastructure................................ 109
Reserve military construction................................ 120
Air National Guard Military Construction......................... 119
Barksdale Air Force Base......................................... 122
Current and new mission projects...............................116, 117
Current mission................................................125, 126
Demolition of excess, uneconomical-to-maintain facilities........ 114
Dormitories...................................................... 112
Dyess AFB--military family housing............................... 126
F-22 basing...................................................... 110
Facilities, condition of......................................... 125
Family housing................................................... 110
Fitness centers.................................................. 112
Global Hawk at Beale Air Force Base.............................. 121
Housing:
Air Force family master plan................................. 119
Bachelor and family.......................................... 118
Family.....................................................112, 119
Korea............................................................ 120
Majcom unfunded priorities....................................... 125
McClellan Air Force Base.......................................114, 116
Milcon:
Funding...................................................... 123
Requirements, backlog of..................................... 124
New mission projects............................................. 110
Operations and maintenance investment............................ 111
Overseas:
Milcon....................................................... 113
Program...................................................... 123
Overview......................................................... 111
Planning and design/unspecified minor construction............... 113
Plant replacement value.......................................... 126
Public and private resources, optimize use of.................... 113
Quality of life, invest in....................................... 112
Realignment and closures......................................... 114
Recapitalization................................................. 126
Department of the Army
Active and Reserve component milcon projects, backlog of......... 75
Additional committee questions................................... 73
Ammunition demilitarization...................................... 62
Anti-terrorism/force protection..............................77, 78, 81
Army:
Family housing............................................... 63
Reserve, adequate funding for the............................ 77
Base realignment and closure (BRAC).............................. 67
Chemical demilitarization program................................ 74
Efficient basing:
East.........................................................70, 61
South--school enrollment..................................... 70
Europe, increasing costs of the efficient basing initiative in... 80
Facilities strategy.............................................. 60
Family housing:
Construction................................................. 64
Leasing...................................................... 65
Operations and maintenance................................... 64
Fiscal year 2003 summary......................................... 68
Fort Bliss:
Capacity..................................................... 82
Desalinization plant......................................... 71
Homeowners assistance fund, defense.............................. 66
Installation support programs.................................... 62
Interim brigade combat teams (IBCTs)............................. 75
Low milcon budget................................................ 68
Milcon cuts...................................................... 76
Military construction:
Army (MCA)................................................... 61
Army National Guard (MCNG)................................... 65
Army Reserve (MCAR).......................................... 65
Spending and backlog......................................... 75
Mission facilities...............................................61, 65
National Guard, adequate funding for the......................... 78
Planning and design/unspecified minor construction...............63, 65
Project bid savings.............................................. 76
Reprogrammings................................................... 72
Reservists, quality of life for mobilized....................77, 78, 81
Sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM)................. 65
Transformation................................................... 61
U.S. Army south relocation....................................... 76
Unfunded priorities.............................................. 78
United States Forces Korea Bridge................................ 73
Weapons of mass destruction/civil support teams.................. 73
Well being projects.............................................. 61
Department of the Navy
Additional committee questions................................... 104
Base:
Closure cleanup.............................................. 85
Realignment and closure......................................
Cleanup.................................................. 84
Prior.................................................... 95
BQs, force protection in privatized.............................. 108
BRAC............................................................. 107
Budget, the fiscal year 2003..................................... 88
Facilities....................................................... 92
Condition of................................................. 107
Replacement.................................................. 107
Flag officer housing............................................. 97
Homeport ashore.................................................. 108
Housing.......................................................... 90
Housing:
Navy and Marine corps........................................ 101
Public private partnerships.................................. 86
Milcon funding................................................... 105
NATO Sub-Regional HQ............................................. 107
Navy testimony................................................... 84
Overseas financial contribution.................................. 103
Training areas encroachment...................................... 100
Office of the Secretary
Additional committee questions................................... 30
Arrest dismal conditions/large Reserve component cut............. 31
Base:
Closures..................................................... 25
Future................................................... 18
Realignment and closure (BRAC)............................... 8
Reduction due to planned................................. 30
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................................. 3
Business practices, improving.................................... 18
Domestic defense infrastructure.................................. 33
Enabling legislation............................................. 22
Encroachment..................................................... 21
Environmental progress........................................... 19
European allies help............................................. 32
Facilities....................................................... 34
Family housing................................................... 8
Funding overview................................................. 6
Housing.......................................................... 17
Korea, infrastructure in......................................... 29
Master basing study.............................................. 33
Milcon:
Budget....................................................... 31
Projects, low priority....................................... 31
Military construction............................................ 6
NATO:
Military construction........................................ 27
Security investment program.................................. 8
Outyears military construction requests.......................... 31
Recapitalization................................................. 16
Reserve components, reduced requests for......................... 23
Revitalizing installations....................................... 14
Supplemental..................................................... 30
Sustainment...................................................... 16
Utilities privatization and energy management.................... 19