[Senate Hearing 108-738]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-738
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 4837/S. 2674
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-161 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Military Construction
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Dennis Ward
Sean Knowles
Christina Evans (Minority)
B.G. Wright (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Page
Department of Defense:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 1
Department of the Air Force.................................. 39
Wednesday, April 7, 2004
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 57
Department of the Navy....................................... 83
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Burns, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DUBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
opening statement of senator kay bailey hutchison
Senator Hutchison. Our hearing will be called to order, and
I am very appreciative that we could start with Mr. Dubois on
the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee for the
2005 budget request. Today we will focus on the Department of
Defense in general, and the Air Force construction programs.
Navy and Army to follow. I'd like to start with my statement
and then I will turn it over to Senator Feinstein.
This year's military construction request is up slightly
over last year's at $9.49 billion, compared to $9.1 billion.
Certainly this is encouraging, but it is still $1.4 billion
below what the Department projected last year for the 2005
fiscal year. I'm encouraged that the funding request for the
National Guard and Reserve components, at $620 million, is a
rise considerably from last year's request. It is still less
than the amount enacted last year in support of the Guard and
Reserve in our final bill, and we all know what a tremendous
burden in the Global War on Terror our Guard and Reserve units
are under. However, this is going in the right direction and
we're pleased to see that.
One item of continuing interest to the subcommittee is the
investment of our scarce MILCON dollars in our overseas bases.
Clearly the Department has more carefully focused its request
for overseas construction this year, bringing it down from over
$1 billion in its initial fiscal year 2004 request to $823
million this year. I hope that we will be able to see the
overseas master plan soon, so that we will have a better idea
of what is considered to be ongoing and what is going to be
closed.
We're making progress toward providing a better working
environment and better quality of life for our military
personnel and their families. Certainly in the area of family
housing privatization we are able to get more people in better
housing, more quickly than we could under the traditional
military construction approach. And I will say that we will be
working with you on the lifting of the cap for the privatized
housing.
But I would ask you, Mr. Dubois, to be looking long term at
the rise in the O&M costs that we have when there is privatized
housing versus the initial costs, and I know there's a tradeoff
there, but in the out years when we are providing stipends for
off base housing for people it goes into O&M, and I'd like for
there to be a look at whether that is--maybe after we get
caught up if that is in our long term best interest.
But I certainly agree with the priority that we've got to
do better fast, and that lifting the cap on privatization is a
way to do that.
Let me just end my formal remarks by saying I really
appreciate the Department's updating us so well and frequently
on what your priorities are. Certainly on the overseas basing,
I think you have been very forthcoming about what you're going
to be doing. I hope we can get better information on a real
master plan quickly, and I'd like to have a time table on that.
But I think as compared to last year we are way ahead of
the game. I think your focus on overseas basing is better, but
I still want to make sure we are not wasting one dollar for the
welcoming back of troops you will be sending back and you've
already made that public announcement. So I thank you for the
communication, I think it's been terrific this year. I
appreciate it very much.
And now I'd like to turn to my distinguished vice chairman
and just say for the record how much I appreciate our working
relationship. There couldn't be a closer relationship and a
better give and take than we have had on this committee, and
it's my hope that this lasts for a long time. Senator
Feinstein.
statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
I'd like to echo those words, it's a very special privilege to
have you as a friend as well as a colleague, and we have worked
together easily and well and I too appreciate that, and it is
going to go on. So thank you very much, and thank you for your
leadership on this committee.
Mr. Dubois, I want to welcome you, we look forward to
hearing from you today. I think it's clear that it appears at
the top line of the military construction budget request is
that it changed very little from last year's request. However,
last year's budget request was reduced by over 12 percent at a
time when we were preparing for war on a major scale. The low
request came at an unusual time and the committee had hoped to
see a more robust request this year, in light of the military's
ongoing war efforts.
As our missions increase our service members deserve
quality facilities, and their families deserve quality housing
in which to live and work. And in fact over the past 2 years
the requested amounts were substantially decreased. Taking a
closer look at this request, individual accounts appear to have
changed dramatically.
Now, even given the Navy's ability to use land sale profits
to assist with BRAC environmental clean up, I'm very concerned
that the BRAC remediation request is reduced again this year.
The overall BRAC clean up budget request has dropped 56 percent
in the last 2 years, taking a $125 million cut this year alone.
It was only 2 years ago when the services badly underestimated
their environmental clean up requirements and came to the
committee for help. And we provided that help.
So I am hopeful that you will be willing to re-look at that
account because the clean up needs are vast. I mean, I can say
in California alone we can probably use the whole budget, plus.
And that doesn't take into consideration the other 49 States.
I would like to commend the Department for keeping its
promise to the Reserve components to steadily increase funding
for their infrastructure needs. Although the request for
Reserve components is down 15 percent from last year's enacted
amount, it is still 68 percent higher than last year's
requested amount, so that's some good news.
The quality of our military infrastructure impacts the
ability of our forces, as we all well know, to train, to
maintain their equipment, to do their jobs. Adequate
infrastructure in terms of housing and family support
facilities is the overriding quality of life issue for service
members and their families. Where investment in military
construction is needed, this committee wants to meet that need.
But it's up to the Defense Department and to you, Mr. Dubois,
and to the individual services to come before this committee
and tell us what the Department needs.
We all recognize that infrastructure is an essential
element of readiness, it's also an easy target for cuts in the
face of competing demands. And I think that's happened for the
past two years and I really hope it doesn't happen again. So we
look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much for being
here.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. We will have----
Senator Stevens. Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Oh, I'm sorry.
Senator Stevens. Yes. Thank you. I'm invisible.
Senator Feinstein. Not really.
Senator Hutchison. I'm going to pay a heavy price for that.
Mr. Chairman.
statement of senator ted stevens
Senator Stevens. I just stopped by, I have another hearing,
but I do want to echo what you said and to make a request. It's
obvious that we're going to go into a new era now in terms of
installations and bases, and I want to reaffirm the request
made by the Chair to have us fully informed as to the impact of
those plans on this subcommittee.
Last time we went through a base closure round we found we
had put money into bases that were listed on the base closure
list, and at the request of the Department. I don't think that
should happen. I think we're going into this era with both eyes
open, and the demands, particularly for overseas relocation,
are going to be rather extensive, as well as demands at home to
be prepared for the relocation that's been announced.
Some of us were briefed recently by SACEUR when we were
visiting with him, and the extent of those relocations in
Europe are going to be immense.
So I would not want to be in a position we were in before
of responding to requests for improvements of bases that we are
going to close, or installations we're going merge. I would
hope that we'd find some way to really program the budget out
further than we currently have it, as far as overseas
construction and the construction at home.
I encourage you, Madam Chair, to make certain that we
conserve this military construction money to the maximum extent
possible and use it for the future--although I share the
Senator from California's position with regard to the cost of
base closure, installation closure, and merger from the
environmental point of view. Those have to be factored into
these decisions too.
As far as I'm concerned, I do think that the worldwide
strategy that has been discussed so far is going to have
enormous impact on this subcommittee. I think we must be
prepared and not get off on the wrong track again. Thank you
very much.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are
excellent points and in my questioning I am going to ask when
they will start factoring into their MILCON budget request, the
troops they've announced they're bringing home so that we can
have a smooth transition. That's got to be a part of it.
Senator Stevens. Well, base closure and remediation costs
have to be part of this figure too. That's the problem.
Senator Hutchison. That's right.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison. That's exactly right. Well, thank you
very much for coming. We appreciate it. Our first witness is
Raymond Dubois, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment. Mr. Dubois, your full statement
will be a part of the record, if you could summarize. I want
you to cover fully--you have quite a long statement, and it
covers a lot of territory. If you can summarize, we will submit
the full statement for the record, and then we will be able to
ask the questions. Thank you.
statement of raymond f. dubois
Mr. Dubois. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
The questions that you have posed in your opening statements,
along with those of Chairman Stevens, are needless to say
extremely important, both in terms of how we build this year's
MILCON budget, as well as how we are looking at the out years.
Let me take the opportunity just to briefly highlight some
of the remarks that I've made in my written statement, because
I think it's worth--they're worthy of emphasis. Clearly we
believe that we have a strategy for our real property asset
management as well as the important environmental stewardship
obligations which we hold dearly.
Now, I do want to thank this particular committee. As you
know, I testify probably almost as many times as the Secretary
of Defense himself before various committees before the House
and the Senate. But in particular this committee has evidenced
over the years strong support for the quality of life for our
troops, as well as the healthy infrastructure so necessary to
that quality of life.
We believe that we have defined a strategy to address those
conditions of our installations and facilities, which were
inadequate when we came into office. Now, for many years, as
you have pointed out, both today and in the past our facilities
had declined. Had declined in a miserable sense due to
competing priorities. And we can't get around that, can't get
away from that, but it also, we think declined--those
facilities declined due to a poor understanding of how to
properly fund sustainment and recapitalization in particular.
Now, we all remember that at the outset of this
Administration, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld
identified military housing as a central priority of the
Department. We have significantly improved that housing as well
as the military infrastructure through attention to best
business practices and using models that we have taken from the
private sector to improve our facilities.
Now, full facilities sustainment is in our view the
foundation pillar of the Department's infrastructure investment
strategy. As you know, the Department is requesting $6.5
billion for sustainment now, and in most respects that bill is
not a Military Construction Appropriation per say, it comes out
of the O&M account. But it is important to recognize that we
are spending a considerable amount on our infrastructure and we
are obtaining a 95 percent sustainment rate based on standard
commercial benchmarks. 2008 is our goal to achieve full
sustainment.
What does full sustainment do? It prevents the
deterioration and it does preserve the performance of the life
of the facility, and all facilities by category have a useful
life. Managing those sustainment costs and funding to the
appropriate levels is in the long run less expensive than
repairing and replacing unusable facilities.
However, sustainment alone will not keep facilities from
becoming obsolete. We must continue to recapitalize our
facilities to coincide with the military mission and the needs
of our services. The quality of our infrastructure directly
affects their training and readiness, as you have pointed out
in your statement.
The Department is requesting $4.4 billion for the
recapitalization of our facilities, which is the second pillar
of our infrastructure investment strategy. The third pillar is
the quality of life pillar in many respects, because if we do
not focus on those issues we will reap the negative benefits,
if you will, in terms of recruitment, retention, readiness, and
morale. Now, to that end the Department is committed to
providing quality housing. As you have pointed out, how are we
approaching this quality housing dilemma?
We have, one, increased the basic allowance for housing.
Two, we have eliminated the out-of-pocket expense for off base
housing. Three, we have increased the housing privatization
projects, and four, we are maintaining, and with your help we
will continue to maintain, appropriate military construction
funding.
We think that the Department has used privatization in a
skillful manner to advance this goal and obtain maximum
benefits from the Congress' appropriated levels for housing
investment. Now, our policy requires that privatization
projects yield at least three times the amount of housing as
traditional military construction for the same amount of
appropriated dollars. And we believe our housing privatization
efforts have now achieved unqualified success, with the
installation commanders and service members of all ranks
welcoming privatization efforts to revitalize their family
housing.
There will be at the end of this month in excess of 55,000
military family housing units privatized, and we are continuing
to accelerate our effort and project by the end of 2005 fiscal
year, to have awarded over 136,000 privatized units.
Now, it is important at this juncture I think in my opening
remarks to reprise, if you will, your comment, Madam Chairman,
about the issue of the so-called cap. Due to the rapid
acceleration of the program over the last 3 years we have used
about 70 percent of the $850 million budget authority provided
by our original authorities for housing privatization.
That means by the end of this calendar year we will have
used the remaining 30 percent. We have submitted to Congress a
legislative proposal to increase our authority by an additional
$1 billion, that is to say to a level of $1.85 billion,
allowing us to fully implement the President's management
agenda to eliminate all inadequate military family housing
through contractual privatization by the year 2007. And I thank
you for your commitment to help us in that regard.
Another issue that needs to be put on the table I think
today is the importance of our access to needed test and
training ranges, and the fact the Department over the last
several years has asked for Congress' assistance in terms of
mitigating the effects of encroachment in and around our
facilities.
No one would deny the fact that realistic live fire
training is an enormously important aspect to our military
readiness. But that requires substantial natural resources--
air, land, water, brown water, blue water--those natural
resources where the military can train as they would fight.
Those resources must replicate to the extent that we can the
challenges, the stresses, the discomfort, physical and
psychological, the actual conditions of combat.
Now, as we have discussed over the last several years,
encroachment comes from many sources, it's not just an
environmental issue or an endangered species issue, it is also
urban and suburban sprawl. It is also appropriate land use, or
on the negative side, inappropriate land use in and around our
military installations. Air space restrictions, frequency
spectrum competition, all of these issues tend to restrict
somehow, both in and around our installations, our training
opportunities.
The Department appreciates, as I indicated, the action of
Congress in adopting several provisions from our fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2004 requests, and the National Defense
Authorization Act of those 2 years now embrace some of the
requests that we have made. These provisions are key enablers
of what we call range sustainability.
And I also want to point out something that was in last
year's bill that I think was very important because it connects
to a request in this year's bill, and that is section 2811 of
the 2003 Act, which allows the services, the military
departments, to take a proactive role in developing programs to
protect installations and ranges from urban sprawl by working
with the States and local organizations, non-governmental
organizations, to promote sound land use.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes a new
initiative of $20 million targeted on our new authority to
assist in developing those partnerships with the local
communities. The Department is very proud in this regard of our
environmental programs at our military installations, and we're
committed to pursuing a comprehensive environmental program. As
you know, we have the responsibility to manage over 30 million
acres of land. They are important to military training and
readiness. We have completed integrated resource management
plans, as required by the Sikes Act, at 95 percent of our
installations.
As you know, INRMPs, Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plans, provide a management framework to protect threatened and
endangered species while providing for no net loss of test and
training opportunities.
I think I'll stop here, Madam Chairman, and again thank you
for this opportunity to highlight some of our initiatives that
may come up in the questioning as it has in your opening
statements, relative to our BRAC effort.
The BRAC effort is extremely important. I've testified to
this on numerous occasions, as has the Secretary, and with
respect to both your question and that of Chairman Stevens, it
is no doubt true that the overseas rationalization, both of
force structure and of infrastructure, will have a tremendous
impact on domestic BRAC.
The Secretary I know has briefed you, and Chairman Stevens
received a briefing I believe this week. The Secretary intends
to finalize, he and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, finalize
their decisions on these, what I call major building blocks of
our overseas force structure and infrastructure in the May
timeframe of this year.
He knows that he has to do that in order to appropriately
inform the domestic BRAC process and give the military
departments and the joint cross service groups enough time,
i.e. between May and June of next year, to use those decisions
to define and design where that force structure will return, in
terms of the base structure in the United States.
Thank you again, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond F. Dubois
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's Budget request
for fiscal year 2005 and the plan of the Department of Defense for
improving its infrastructure and facilities. The Department is
continuing with its efforts to transform the force structure to meet
new security challenges and the way we do business. In Installations
and Environment, this translates into a renewed emphasis on taking care
of our people, providing facilities to support the warfighter by
eliminating facilities we no longer need and improving those that we
do, and modernizing our business practices--all while protecting the
environment and those assets for which we have stewardship
responsibility.
At the outset, I want to express the Department's appreciation for
the strong support of this Subcommittee for our initiatives. With
regard to infrastructure, the Department has a defined strategy to
address the condition of our installations and facilities. These issues
are an integral component of readiness. Installations are the
``platforms'' from which our forces successfully deploy to execute
their diverse missions. Over many years, our facilities declined due to
competing priorities and poor understanding of funding requirements,
but we are significantly improving our military infrastructure through
focused attention to best practices drawn from standard business
models. Continuing to improve our facilities and military readiness is
a priority of the Secretary of Defense.
The Department currently manages nearly 600,000 buildings and
structures with a plant replacement value of $630 billion, and over
46,000 square miles of real estate. As you know, we have developed
models and metrics to predict funding needs and have established goals
and performance measurements that place the management of Defense
infrastructure on a more data driven business basis. We accelerated our
goal to eliminate nearly all inadequate housing from fiscal year 2010
to 2007. By the end of fiscal year 2005, we will reduce the number of
inadequate housing units by 66 percent (61,000) from our fiscal year
2001 level of 180,000 inadequates. The Department's facilities
sustainment budget funds annual maintenance, predictable repairs and
normal component replacements. We have increased funding for facilities
sustainment consistently since fiscal year 2002, sustaining facilities
at an average of 89 percent, and this year's budget request raises that
rate to 95 percent for each of the Military Services, TRICARE
Management Activity and the Department of Defense Education Activity.
Restoration and modernization--i.e. recapitalization--funds
unpredictable repairs, improvements and total facility replacements. We
have continued to improve our management of the recapitalization of the
inventory. The budget request improves the recapitalization rate to 107
years and we anticipate achieving our 67 year recapitalization goal in
fiscal year 2008.
infrastructure investment strategy
The Department's recent successes were made possible through
effective management and prudent budgeting. Our investment strategy
links the asset management plan to actual funding.
The traditional view of the Military Construction and Family
Housing appropriation funding requests for fiscal years 2004 and 2005
shows a slight increase in this year's request. The Military
Construction and Family Housing top-line is but one indicator of the
health of our program. However, it does not represent a comprehensive
approach to our management practices for the infrastructure as a whole.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2004 Request 2005 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................... 4,574 4,877
NATO Security Investment Program........ 169 166
Base Realignment and Closure............ 370 246
Chemical Demilitarization............... ( \1\ ) 82
Family Housing Construction/Improvements 1,251 1,625
Family Housing Operations & Maintenance. 2,780 2,547
Homeowners Assistance................... .............. ..............
Family Housing Improvement Fund......... 0.3 0.3
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 9,144 9,460
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fiscal year 2004 Request column represents the fiscal year 2004
Amended Budget Submission.
\1\ Chem-Demil included in Military Construction totals for fiscal year
2004. For fiscal year 2005 Chem-Demil has a separate Treasury code.
Facilities Support Investment and Operating Expenses
Managing our facilities assets is an integral part of asset
management. Facilities are the ``platforms'' from which our forces
deploy and execute their missions. The quality of our infrastructure
directly affects training and readiness. In addition, from a purely
financial perspective, it is more cost effective in the long term to
fully fund the general upkeep of facilities than to allow them to
deteriorate and replace them when they are unusable.
SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2004 Request 2005 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainment (O&M-like \1\).............. 6,382 6,531
Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like) 1,012 1,243
Restoration and Modernization (MilCon).. 2,350 3,161
-------------------------------
TOTAL SRM......................... 9,744 10,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host Nation, and
working capital funds.
Facilities sustainment, using operations and maintenance-like \1\
appropriations, fund the maintenance and repair activities necessary to
keep an inventory in good working order. It includes regularly
scheduled maintenance and major repairs or replacement of facility
components that are expected to occur periodically throughout the life
cycle of facilities. Sustainment prevents deterioration and preserves
performance over the life of a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host
nation, and working capital funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To forecast funding requirements for sustainment, we developed the
Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM). FSM uses standard benchmarks drawn
from the private and public sectors for sustainment costs by facility
type and has been used to develop the Service budgets since fiscal year
2002 and for several Defense Agencies beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Full funding of sustainment is the foundation of our long-term
facilities strategy, and we have made significant progress in achieving
this goal. The fiscal year 2004 budget request funded sustainment at an
average of 94 percent of the FSM benchmarks across the Services,
TRICARE Management Activity, and the Department of Defense Education
Activity. The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $6.5 billion improved
this by standardizing sustainment funding at 95 percent for each of the
Components, and we plan to achieve full sustainment in the near term.
Restoration and modernization, together called recapitalization,
provides resources for improving facilities and is funded with either
operations and maintenance or military construction appropriations.
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, to accommodate
new functions, or to replace building components that typically last
more than 50 years.
Recapitalization is the second step in our strategy. Similar
private sector industries replace their facilities every 50 years, on
average. With the types of facilities in the Defense Department,
engineering experts estimate that our facilities should have a
replacement cycle of about 67 years on average.
As with sustainment, we have improved the corporate
recapitalization rate for the third straight year. The budget request
includes funding of $4.4 billion for fiscal year 2005. The request
improves the recapitalization rate from 136 years last year to 107.
When we began our focused attention on this matter, the Department's
recapitalization rate stood at 192 years. Our out-year budget plan
would realize the target rate of 67 years in fiscal year 2008.
Even with full sustainment and a 67-year recapitalization rate, it
will take time to restore the readiness of our facilities from C-3 and
C-4 status to C-2. Sustainment stops deterioration and a 67-year
recapitalization rate stops obsolescence, but more is needed to restore
readiness in the near term. Thus, the third step in our plan is to
accelerate the recapitalization rate to restore existing facilities to
at least C-2 readiness, on average, by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Improving Quality of Life
One of our principal priorities is to support military personnel
and their families and improve their quality of life. Our Service
members deserve the best possible living and working conditions. At the
outset of this Administration, the President and Secretary Rumsfeld
identified military housing and privatization of that housing as a
central priority for the Department. Sustaining the quality of life of
our people is crucial to recruitment, retention, readiness and morale.
To that end, the Department is committed to providing quality housing
using our ongoing approach--increasing the basic allowance for housing
and eliminating the out-of-pocket expense for off-base housing (where
over 60 percent of our Service members live); increasing the number of,
and accelerating the pace of, housing privatization projects; and
maintaining military construction funding for family housing where
necessary.
The fiscal year 2005 budget keeps the Department on track to
eliminate nearly all its inadequate military family housing units by
fiscal year 2007, with complete elimination of some inadequate housing
overseas in fiscal year 2009. The budget continues the Department's
extensive use of privatization to advance this goal and to obtain
maximum benefit from its housing budget.
As I noted earlier, in January 2001, the Department had about
180,000 inadequate family housing units (out of a total of 300,000
housing units worldwide). At the start of fiscal year 2004, through
traditional construction and improvement projects, housing
privatization and demolition, we have reduced that number to roughly
120,000. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget includes funding to
allow us to reduce that number further--by the end of fiscal year 2005,
we will have reduced the number of inadequate housing units to roughly
61,000 inadequate.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request will eliminate the out-of-
pocket housing costs for the average military member through changes in
the basic allowance for housing, a key component of the Department's
approach to quality housing. The fiscal year 2005 budget request
includes necessary funding to ensure that the typical Service member
living in the private sector, where approximately two-thirds of our
members live, will have zero out-of-pocket housing expenses.
Eliminating out-of-pocket expenses is good for military personnel, but
also serves to strengthen the financial profile of the housing
privatization program by providing members the ability to pay
appropriate market rents.
Privatizing military housing is a priority for the President and
the Secretary and is an integral part of the Administration's
Management Plan. The Department has skillfully used privatization to
advance this goal and obtain maximum benefit from its housing
investment. Our housing privatization program is crucial to providing a
decent quality of life for our service members.
We believe our housing privatization efforts have now achieved
identified success, with installation commanders and Service members
welcoming privatization efforts to revitalize their family housing. As
of March 22, 2004, the Department has closed out awards on 29 projects,
which include 58,503 military family housing units (a 50 percent
increase over our privatized units as of January 2003). We project by
the end of fiscal year 2005 DOD will privatize more than 136,000 family
housing units
We project 20 more privatization awards in fiscal year 2004, and
over 25 in 2005--bringing our cumulative total end of year fiscal year
2005 to about 136,000 units privatized. We project by the end of fiscal
year 2007 that we will privatize over 160,000 units or more than 70
percent of our domestic family housing.
During fiscal year 2005, we expect several other bases to have
their renovations and construction completed or close to completion,
including those at Fort Carson, Colorado. Our policy requires that
privatization projects yield at least three times the amount of housing
as traditional military construction for the same amount of
appropriated dollars. Recent projects have demonstrated that leveraging
is normally much higher. The 29 projects awarded thus far reflect an
average leverage ratio of over 1 to 1. Tapping this demonstrated
leveraging potential through our 29 awarded projects to date has
permitted the Department, in partnership with the private sector, to
provide housing for about $550 million of military construction funding
that would otherwise have required over $6.7 billion for those awarded
projects if the traditional military construction approach was
utilized.
The Department has achieved privatization successes by simplifying
the process, accelerating project execution, and institutionalizing
best practices in the Services deals with the private sector. Many of
our projects require use of appropriated funds when subsidies are
provided to the projects, especially as investments, loans and limited
loan guarantees. The amount of such appropriated funds was limited in
Section 2883 of Title 10, United States Code, to $850 million for
military accompanied (family) housing and $150 million for military
unaccompanied housing. Due to the rapid acceleration of the program
over the last three years, we are now in position where almost 70
percent (about $600 million) of the $850 million cap has been used. We
project the remaining 30 percent of the cap will be used up by the
beginning of fiscal year 2005; thus impeding the full implementation of
the President's Management Agenda initiative to eliminate all
inadequate military family housing by 2007. The Administration has
requested that our budget authority for privatized family housing be
increased by $1 Billion so that we can continue to improve housing
options for our military families. We ask your support for this
proposal.
Military construction is another tool for resolving inadequate
military housing. In fiscal year 2005, we are requesting $4.1 billion
in new budget authority for family housing construction and operations
and maintenance. This funding will enable us to continue operating and
maintaining the Department's family housing as well as meeting the goal
to eliminate inadequate housing by 2007--three years earlier than
previously planned.
We recognize that a key element in maintaining the support of the
Congress and of the private sector is the ability to define adequately
the housing requirement. The Department's longstanding policy is to
rely primarily on the private sector for its housing needs. Only when
the private market demonstrates that it cannot provide sufficient
levels or quality of housing should we consider the construction,
operation, and maintenance of government-owned housing.
An improved housing requirements determination process, following
the Deputy Secretary's January 2003 memorandum, combined with increased
privatization, is allowing us to focus resources on maintaining the
housing for which we have a verified need rather than wasting those
resources duplicating private sector capabilities. The improved housing
requirement process is being used by the Department to better determine
the number of family housing units needed on installations to
accommodate military families. It provides a solid basis for investing
in housing for which there is a verified need--whether through direct
investment with appropriated funds or through a privatization project.
By aligning the housing requirements determination process more
closely with the analysis utilized to determine basic allowance for
housing rates, the Department is better positioned to make sound
investment decisions necessary to meet the Secretary's goal to
eliminate nearly all inadequate housing by 2007. Further, as more
military families opt to reside in the private sector as housing out-
of-pocket expenses decrease for the average member, the Services on-
base housing requirement should generally also decline. This migration
should permit the Services to better apply scarce resources to those
housing units they truly need to retain.
Range Sustainment
Another key initiative is our effort to ensure access to needed
test and training ranges and installations to support both current and
future requirements. This involves mitigating the effects of
encroachment around these facilities, and posturing our test and
training infrastructure for sustainable operations.
Training provides our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines the
combat skills they need to win and return safely to their families.
Experience has taught us that realistic training saves lives. Training,
however, requires substantial resources; air, land and water where
military forces can train as they would fight--replicating the
challenges, stress, discomfort, physical and psychological conditions
of actual combat.
Encroachment at installations, training ranges and test sites,
however, interferes with the ability of our military to train and
execute their missions. Encroachment comes from many sources--
environmental, urban and suburban sprawl, airspace restrictions, and
the frequency spectrum. Endangered species and their critical habitats
in or near gunnery or bombing ranges also can reduce test and training
access. As access is restricted due to encroachment, training
opportunities for our men and women in uniform become increasingly
limited in terms of time, scope, or realism with cumulative impact on
military readiness.
The Department deeply appreciates the action of Congress in
adopting key provisions in both the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year
2004 National Defense Authorization Acts that were part of the
Administration's Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI).
These provisions are key enablers of range sustainability. For example,
one of the most useful provisions for countering physical encroachment
due to incompatible development is Section 2811 of the 2003 Act. This
provision allows the Services to take a proactive role in developing
programs to protect installations and ranges from urban sprawl by
working with states and non-governmental organizations to promote sound
land use.
To assist the Services in implementing this authority and forming
compatible land use partnerships at the state and local level, the
President's fiscal year 2005 Budget request includes a new initiative
of $20 million targeted to our new authority--to assist in developing
new policies, partnerships, and tools to assist communities and other
interested stakeholders in executing compatible land use partnerships
around our test and training ranges and installations. The new request
is intended to build upon on-going efforts--innovative win/win
partnerships with our neighbors to enhance conservation and compatible
land use on a local and regional basis
Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2004 included important clarification of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act's (MMPA) definition of harassment. This action allows the Navy to
continue to test and train with active sonar, by clarifying regulatory
criteria that were previously based on imprecise statutory language in
the Act's definition of harassment. The Congress also added a national
security exemption to the MMPA for military activity in time of
national emergency, an exemption provided in other major environmental
legislation that was not present in the original and reauthorized
versions of the act. The fiscal year 2004 National Defense
Authorization Act also authorized the use of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) in lieu of Critical Habitat
designation, if approved by the Secretary of the Interior, thereby
allowing ranges and installations to effectively manage their natural
resources while supporting military readiness.
Another significant environmental accomplishment is in the area of
natural resources, where we are working to ensure continued access to
our critical test and training ranges, supporting our readiness
mission. The Department currently manages more than 30 million acres of
lands which are important to military training and readiness. We have
completed integrated natural resource management plans (INRMPs), as
required by the Sikes Act, at 95 percent of our installations. INRMPs
provide a management framework for our resources for no net loss of
test and training opportunities. Legislation in The National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 authorized the use of INRMPs to
substitute for critical habitat designation under the Endangered
Species Act, if those plans meet certain preparation and implementation
requirements and the Secretary of the Interior determines that the DOD
INRMP provides a benefit to the relevant species. DOD is preparing an
INRMP strategic plan to ensure that its installations coordinate with
all interested stakeholders, complete in a timely manner the next round
of updates to our existing INRMPs due in 2006, and fund all required
projects.
Clearly, to protect our military we must also protect our all
important test and training ranges. Substantial urban growth and other
``encroachment'' around previously isolated ranges have strained our
ability to conduct necessary testing and training essential to
maintaining readiness. In response to this challenge, we are working to
expand efforts to sustain our training mission and protect the valuable
natural resources entrusted to our care. Both are required as we
endeavor to ensure that our men and women in uniform get the best
training available. Our troops deserve the best.
Improving Environmental Management
The Department continues to be a leader in every aspect of
environmental management. We are proud of our environmental program at
our military installations and are committed to pursuing a
comprehensive environmental program.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM--SUMMARY OF REQUEST \1\
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2004 Request 2005 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Restoration............... 1,273 1,305
BRAC Environmental \2\.................. 412 322
Compliance.............................. 1,603 1,665
Pollution Prevention.................... 173 168
Conservation............................ 153 169
Technology.............................. 190 186
International........................... 3 4
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 3,807 3,819
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes operations and maintenance, procurement, RDT&E, and
military construction funding.
\2\ Funding levels reflect total BRAC environmental requirement planned
for execution. Funding levels are higher than the PB request (see page
4 chart) as a portion will be financed with BRAC land sale revenues.
In fiscal year 2005, the budget request includes $3.8 billion for
environmental programs. This includes $1.3 billion for cleanup, $0.3
billion for BRAC environmental, $1.6 billion for compliance; about $0.1
billion for pollution prevention, and about $0.1 billion for
conservation.
By the end of fiscal year 2003, we reduced the number of new
Federal and State Notices of Violations (NoVs) by 80 percent from the
1992 baseline. The Department's success is due to an aggressive self
audit program, which includes root cause analysis and corrective action
plans. While the number of new NoVs decreased, the number of regulatory
inspections increased by 12 percent in fiscal year 2003. Even as
regulators are increasing their oversight, they are finding more
installations in full compliance. In fiscal year 1994, every 100
inspections resulted in 37 new enforcement violations. In fiscal year
2003, every 100 inspections resulted in only 8 new enforcement
violations.
In calendar year 2002, we provided drinking water for over 2
million people worldwide and less than 5 percent of the population
received notices that the water exceeded a drinking water standard at
some point during the year. To further protect people, assets, and
mission, DOD is conducting vulnerability assessments and developing
emergency response plans for all systems serving 25 consumers or more;
far beyond the requirement in the Safe Drinking Water Act to assess
systems serving a population greater than 3,300 persons.
We reduced the amount of hazardous waste we dispose of by over 68
percent since 1992, reducing the cost to manage these wastes. The
Department diverted over 41 percent of all the solid waste generated
from landfills to recycling; thereby avoiding over $138 million in
landfill costs. These pollution prevention techniques continue to save
the Department needed funds as well as reduce pollution. We increased
the number of alternative fueled vehicles that we acquire to 77 percent
of all non-tactical vehicles acquired, exceeding the requirement in the
Energy Policy Act of 75 percent.
The Department's commitment to its restoration program remains
strong as we reduce risk and restore property for productive use by
future generations. We are exploring ways to improve and accelerate
cleanup with our regulatory and community partners. Achieving site
closure and ensuring long-term remedies are challenges we continue to
face. Conducting environmental restoration activities at each site in
the program requires accurate planning, funding, and execution of plan.
The Department must plan its activities years in advance to ensure
that adequate funding is available and used efficiently. As an example,
instead of waiting for Federal and State regulation to determine
cleanup standards before beginning planning for perchlorate
restoration, in September 2003 the Department required the Military
Components to assess the extent of perchlorate occurrence at active and
closed installations, and Formerly Used Defense sites. We will use the
data collected to determine priorities and funding requirements for our
cleanup responsibilities. As soon as perchlorate standards are
determined, the Department will be ready to request the appropriate
funding and begin execution. In addition, the Department has invested
$27 million to research potential health effects, environmental
impacts, and treatment processes for perchlorate. The remediation
technologies we are testing in several states continue to increase the
effectiveness of treatment. We are putting ourselves in the best
possible position to respond to any new requirement established by
regulatory agencies.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program goals assist the
Components in planning their programs and achieving funding for
activities. We achieved our goal to reduce 50 percent of high risk
sites at active installations by the end of fiscal year 2002 and are on
track to achieve 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2007. At the end
of fiscal year 2003, 83 percent of BRAC sites requiring hazardous waste
remediation have a cleanup remedy constructed and in place, and 78
percent have had all necessary cleanup actions completed in accordance
with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) standards.
We also are working to mitigate unexploded ordnance (UXO) on our
military ranges. Our operational ranges are designed to train and make
combat-ready our Nation's warfighters and prepare them for combat. UXO
on ranges is a result of our military preparedness training activities.
However, we are actively developing ways to minimize the amount of UXO
on our operational test and training ranges. The Department is
developing policies on the periodic clearance of UXO for personnel
safety and to ensure chemical constituents do not contaminate
groundwater.
To address UXO problems at locations other than operational ranges,
Formerly Used Defense Sites, some BRAC installations, and closed ranges
on active installations--we have the Military Munitions Response
Program (MMRP). We are currently developing goals and metrics for the
program to track our progress to completion and finishing the
prioritization protocol that will allow us to sequence sites by risk.
We have an inventory of our munitions response sites, which we shared
with the states and EPA, and have made available to the public. This
inventory is being updated as we reconcile our list with the states.
Even though the UXO cleanup program is in the early stages of
development, considerable progress has been made in cleaning up MMRP
sites at our BRAC installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
As of the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD has fulfilled its cleanup
obligations at over 120 of the approximately 195 identified MMRP sites
at BRAC installations, and has cleanup actions underway at 27 sites.
These sites were identified prior to fiscal year 2001 as having UXO
contamination and the Department has been making steady progress to
eliminate their hazards--almost 65 percent of the BRAC MMRP inventory
has been addressed. A similar situation can be found at FUDS sites,
where 45 percent of the MMRP sites identified have had all cleanup
actions completed. Over, 790 of the 1,753 FUDS sites with currently
identified UXO contamination have been addressed, and another 36 are
undergoing cleanup actions.
In addition, we are developing new technologies and procedures
through the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program and
the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. Over 60
percent of the investments in these programs focus on projects to
sustain ranges and range operations. These, along with the Army and
Navy's Environmental Quality Technology Programs, have helped us make
tremendous strides for realizing our goal to reduce current and future
environmental liability.
Across the Department, we are actively implementing environmental
management systems based on the ``plan-do-check-act'' framework of the
international standard for environmental management systems (ISO
14000). Our objective is to transform environmental management in the
Department of Defense from an activity external to the mission to a
systematic process that is fully integrated with mission planning and
execution. This transformation is essential for the continued success
of our operation at home and abroad. Our new management systems target
reduction in our day-to-day compliance costs and long-term
environmental liabilities by increasing environmental awareness and
mobilizing all Defense organizations and employees to reduce
environmental impacts through improved control of day-to-day mission
activities. The Military Departments and Defense Logistics Agency
reported plans to implement environmental management systems at roughly
625 installations. Over 50 percent of these installations have
environmental management system policies in place--the first step
toward full scale implementation. To date, 33 installations have fully
implemented environmental management systems.
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, the Department of Defense is developing a
comprehensive energy strategy that will continue to optimize utility
management by conserving energy and water usage, improve energy
flexibility by taking advantage of restructured energy commodity
markets when opportunities present themselves and modernize our
infrastructure by privatizing our deteriorated and outdated utilities
infrastructure where economically feasible.
With approximately 2.2 billion square feet of facilities, the
Department is the single largest energy user in the nation. Conserving
energy in today's high-priced market will save the Department money--
money that can be better invested in readiness, facilities sustainment,
and quality of life. Our efforts to conserve energy are paying off; in
fiscal year 2003 military installations reduced consumption by 1
percent resulting in a 2.7 percent decrease in the cost of energy
commodities from fiscal year 2002. With a 26.1 percent reduction in
fiscal year 2003 from a 1985 baseline, the Department has, thus far,
maintained a positive track to achieve the 2005 and 2010 facility
energy reduction goals stipulated by Executive Order 13123.
The comprehensive energy strategy will support the use of meters to
manage energy usage at locations where the monitoring justifies the
cost of installing, maintaining and reading the meter. Metering in
itself does not save energy, however use of meters can be beneficial to
determine accurate billing, perform diagnostic maintenance, and enhance
energy management by establishing baselines, developing demand
profiles, ensuring accurate measurement for reporting, and providing
feedback to users.
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. Energy conservation projects make business sense,
historically obtaining about $4 in life-cycle savings for every dollar
invested. The fiscal year 2005 budget contains $60 million for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) to implement energy
saving measures in our existing facilities. This is a 20 percent
increase from the fiscal year 2004 congressionally appropriated amount
of $50 million, partly because of the performance of the program to
date and because of the focused management effort for continued
success. The Department will also continue to pursue renewable energy
technologies such as fuel cells, geo-thermal, wind, solar, and purchase
electricity from these renewable sources when it is life-cycle cost-
effective. In fiscal year 2003 military installations used 3.2 trillion
British Thermal Units of renewable energy, and project an increase in
fiscal year 2004. The pursuit of renewable energy technologies is
critical to the Department's and Nation's efforts in achieving energy
flexibility.
The Department has reaffirmed its preference to modernize military
utility systems through privatization. Following on revised guidance
signed by the Deputy Secretary of October 2002, the DOD Utilities
Privatization Program has made solid progress. The Services have
greatly simplified and standardized the solicitation process for
obtaining industry proposals. The Request for Proposal templates have
been clarified to improve industry's ability to obtain private sector
financing and manage risks. Of 2,602 utility systems serving the DOD,
435 systems have been privatized and 739 were already owned by other
entities. Over 900 systems are currently under solicitation as each
Service and the Defense Logistic Agency continue aggressive efforts to
reach privatization decisions on all systems by September 2005.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
In accordance with the authorizing legislation, the Secretary
certified on March 23, 2004, that the need exists for the closure or
realignment of additional military installations and that the
additional round of closures and realignments authorized for 2005 will
result in annual net savings for each of the Military Departments,
beginning not later than fiscal year 2011. This certification is
contained in the report that was provided to Congress last week.
The Secretary's certification of the need for BRAC is a direct
result of the changed world in which we live. The conclusion that an
additional round of BRAC is needed is shared not just by the
Department's civilian leadership but also by the Chairman and Joint
Chiefs. Changes in the threats we face, how we prepare for those
threats, and changes in technology require that we reconfigure our
force structure to most effectively and efficiently support our forces.
Our force structure and the way we employ it is already transforming
and this will continue. BRAC has proven to be the most effective and
comprehensive tool to position our base structure to accommodate and
facilitate this transformation. Therefore, an additional base
realignment and closure (BRAC) round is essential to the Department's
efforts to transform the Armed Forces to meet the threats to our
national security and to execute our national strategy.
The Secretary's certification that there is a need for BRAC also
reflects the fact that the Department retains excess infrastructure
capacity, even after the previous four BRAC rounds. Excess capacity
diverts scarce resources from recapitalization. The report we have
provided includes a ``discussion of the categories of excess
infrastructure and infrastructure capacity'' as required by the
legislation. Elimination of excess capacity is an important goal of
BRAC because it is important to the Department's stewardship of the
taxpayer's dollar and to its application of taxpayer resources to
achieve their maximum effect. I must note, however, that the Department
is focused on the elimination only of truly excess capacity--that which
is not important to preserving military value. The Secretary has not
established any quantitative capacity reduction targets for BRAC and
the Department will not eliminate assets, even if only used marginally,
wherever these assets are important to the preservation of the
capabilities the Department must retain and enhance. This was a key
consideration in the previous rounds and is even more important now.
BRAC 2005 will be a capabilities-based analysis. The Department
recognizes that the threats our Nation now faces are difficult or even
impossible to forecast through conventional analysis. That realization
compels us to review our facilities in BRAC within the context of the
capabilities they offer instead of viewing our facilities against
definitive requirements. Because it is critically important for the
Department to retain the infrastructure necessary to accommodate its
ability to ``surge'', the Department is gauging its installations
against the range of threats faced by our Nation so that it can
differentiate among and capitalize on those that offer needed
capabilities, and reconfigure, realign or close those that do not. The
previous BRAC rounds demonstrated that DOD has, in fact, focused on the
elimination of assets that are ``reconstitutable,'' that is, available
through construction or purchase in the private sector, while retaining
difficult to reconstitute assets like land maneuver areas and airspace
for training.
The Secretary has directed that BRAC must: further transformation
by rationalizing infrastructure to force structure; enhance joint
capabilities by improving joint utilization; and convert waste to war
fighting by eliminating excess capacity. I know that you share the
Department's goal that BRAC 2005 must result in a base structure
configured to most effectively and efficiently support the capabilities
necessary to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. I also know that
this Subcommittee appreciates the fact that every dollar wasted on
unnecessary infrastructure is a dollar diverted from improving Defense
capabilities. That is why Congress authorized BRAC 2005--it is the only
process that uses a rigorous, objective process rooted in military
value to rationalize the Department's infrastructure.
CONCLUSION
The Department is transforming its installations and business
practices through an asset management strategy, and we are beginning to
see the results of that transformation. We are achieving the
President's goal to provide quality housing for our service members and
their families, and we have made positive progress toward our goal to
prevent deterioration and obsolescence and to restore the lost
readiness of our facilities. We also are transforming our environmental
management to become outcome oriented, focusing on results. We are
responding vigorously to existing encroachment concerns and are putting
a long-term installation and range sustainment strategy into effect.
The Base Realignment and Closure effort leading to the delivery of
the Secretary's recommendations to the independent Base Closure
Commission in May 2005 is a key means to transform our infrastructure
to be more flexible to quickly and efficiently respond the challenges
of the future. Together with the Global Defense Posture Review, BRAC
2005 will make a profound contribution to transforming the Department
by rationalizing our infrastructure with Defense strategy.
In short--we have achieved significant accomplishments over the
last 3 years, and we are well on our way to achieving our goals across
the Installations and Environment Community.
In closing, Madam Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight our successes and outline our plans for the
future. I appreciate your continued support of our installations and
environment portfolio, and I look forward to working with you as we
transform our plans into actions.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, let me
just start right there with your last point and ask you again
to clarify. First of all, apparently you're looking at a May
deadline for the global imprint to know where we're going to be
bringing troops home, where we're going to keep them, where
we're going to add.
Tell me again your time table for getting that information
to the requisite Secretaries for the determination of where
those troops will be deployed back.
Mr. Dubois. Uh-huh.
Senator Hutchison. And in conjunction with the BRAC, will
there be plenty of overlap for the BRAC to be able to consider
where the recommendations are for the returning troops to
return?
Mr. Dubois. As I indicated----
Senator Hutchison. You said May of next year, but----
Mr. Dubois. No, no, May of this year.
Senator Hutchison. I was talking about----
Mr. Dubois. May of this year would be--excuse me, I'm
sorry. May of this year would be the time that the Secretary
would finalize his decisions as to what force structure would
return from overseas.
That gives us a year to plan for where that force structure
would go in the United States.
Senator Hutchison. Well, what is the time table for the
Base Closing Commission to start its deliberations in 2005?
Mr. Dubois. The President of the United States must
nominate, and I believe the Senate must confirm by March 17th
of 2005, the members of the nine member commission. The
Secretary of Defense must report to that commission no later
than May 16th.
Now, I would predict that as soon as the Senate confirms
the nine members, the Secretary is going to be very close to
making his final and formal recommendations. So the timing,
while this President must do it no later than March, and the
Secretary must report no later than May, I suspect that the
report of the Secretary will come prior to that deadline of May
16th.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just try to firm that up
and say, will you make it your goal to assure that before the
first BRAC beginning organizational meeting that you will have
in place the plan for where the troops will go so that can be
part of their deliberations, as well as your own
recommendations for what is to be closed?
Mr. Dubois. Many of the meetings that we've had to date,
internally at the Pentagon, of the infrastructure steering
group, and the joint cross steering groups, and the military
services themselves, has focused principally on process.
Principally on how we would apply the selection criteria which
has been published, as you know.
The issues pertaining to specific deliberations of which
infrastructure would be needed to accept or receive overseas
force structure will happen beginning, as I indicated, in May
of this year. Now, it is true that, in terms of Europe, the
Army is facing the largest potential, potential return of force
structure. And I know that the Army, the Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for installations
and environment, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for infrastructure issues have already begun to lay out a
process by which if--sort of the what-if situations, where the
Secretary and the President decide that a given force structure
is to return, what is the implications for our analytic
process.
So I feel very confident that in this case, the Army has
established a process and they are poised, if you will, to
accept the Secretary and the President's decision on the return
of force structure in order to insert those decisions into
their domestic BRAC deliberations.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. I'm taking that as a yes, it will
be our goal to----
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Make sure those time tables
meet. Okay, I'm going to finish this, and then I'm going to let
my colleagues question. Then I do have a number of other
questions, but I want to try to give everyone a chance.
But again, on this overseas re-stationing, in your
testimony you referred to the bases that will be on the
recommendation list for being maintained, our domestic bases.
It must have a surge capacity, because I think you rightly
point out that we now know that we're probably going to add
maybe 30,000 more Army troops, maybe 40 for a short period of
time. That's a surge. Then likely they would be able to be
winnowed back.
My question is, how are you going to determine the keeping
of bases with surge capacity. What are the factors that go into
that as one of the points that you're going to have as your
criteria for maintaining a base?
Mr. Dubois. The issue of surge, is in our view encompassed
in criteria number 3, under the Military Value Selection
Criteria, and I quote, the ability to accommodate contingency,
mobilization, future total force requirements at both existing
and potential receiving locations to support operations and
training.
It is absolutely critical that in this BRAC in particular
that the rationalization of our infrastructure, the realignment
and in some cases the closure of infrastructure, in no way
diminishes our capability to train. That is to say that you
cannot get rid of impossible to reconstitute assets. And what
falls into that category? Unrestricted airspace, maneuver
training areas, land. These are very much in the forefront of
the minds of those individuals in the Defense Department who
have to wrestle with the notion of what to rationalize, what to
realign and what not to.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask you to add into your
factors that if you're going to have surge capacity in bases,
we're going to need to look at the traditional military housing
construction, as opposed to the privatized housing that
requires then the lease-back through stipends for people to be
there.
I would think that you'd be looking at that--if we're going
to have the ability to house people on a quick basis off and
on, it can't be privatized housing that has to pay leases to
keep our commitments. It's going to have to be more of the
traditional MILCON. So I would hope you would be considering
that.
Mr. Dubois. It is certainly a consideration, Madam
Chairman. I want to point out, though, an oftentimes overlooked
factor today. The United States Army today, has on active duty,
in terms of active duty forces, Reserve components, Army
National Guard, Army Reserves, almost 645,000 people. We have
surged for Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Now we have surged to the battlefield. We have taken
care of our infrastructure needs in the battlefield.
The question is, and you have raised an important issue,
what do we need to maintain within CONUS, within the United
States, in terms of surge and contingencies.
Well, we're living that right now, we're in many ways
getting lessons learned right now, as to what kinds of
infrastructure need to be maintained in this surge that we're
living through. So it is something that we take into
consideration.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. One last question on this, and
then I'm going to turn to my vice chairman. The budget request
for BRAC is $246 million. But it does not reflect an additional
$115 million of land sales which the Navy intends to obligate
for BRAC this year. So you've basically taken about a third off
last year's request for BRAC, but probably are trying to
compensate for that with what the Navy expects to get in land
sales.
My question is, is that the case and what assurances then
do we have that money will go for the other third of BRAC costs
that I assume we are going to need for cleanup. And if the land
sales result in more money, will that also accrue to the BRAC
account?
Mr. Dubois. Madam Chairman, the--any funds derived from
public sale of BRAC properties must go into the BRAC
Environmental Remediation account. It cannot be stripped away,
stolen from or otherwise diverted. My understanding and I would
defer to H.T. Johnson, the Secretary of the Navy for I&E, but I
will certainly talk to him after this hearing is over.
My understanding is a substantial amount of that money is
already in the BRAC Environmental account, coded to the Navy.
In other words, the BRAC Environmental account is a DOD wide
account, but we actually have three separate accounts for each
of the military departments. And my understanding is that much
of that money is already sitting in that account.
Therefore on both of your questions, can we be assured that
monies that enter into it will be spent, the answer is yes. Can
we be assured that the monies yet to enter into it will in
point of fact enter into it? My understanding is that those are
conservative estimates, on the basis of GSA's appraisal of the
value of the land and what would happen under an auction.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, I will have further
questions.
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. But I would like to give my colleagues a
chance to pursue their interests. Senator Feinstein?
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Just on that subject.
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am.
PERCHLORATE
Senator Feinstein. It's my understanding that the Air Force
took a big hit and still is with respect to environmental
cleanup, and particularly McClellan Air Force Base, a major
problem that I'd like to talk to you a little bit about
separately if I might. Twenty-nine States have perchlorate
contamination. This has been a major interest of mine now for
the last 3 years. Perchlorate is now showing up in fresh
produce. Reports are now surfacing where produce grown in
California, and particularly dairy products sold in Texas has
perchlorate in it. The State has just passed its regulation of
six parts per billion.
In the last 2 years, in the MILCON Appropriations Report,
we directed the Department of Defense to provide two reports to
the Congressional Defense Committees regarding perchlorate. The
first encompassing the activities of the Department's
Perchlorate Steering Committee was due December 31, 2003. We
have not received it.
The second report which requires the Defense Department to
identify sources of perchlorate on BRAC properties and to
develop a plan to remediate perchlorate contamination on BRAC
sites is due April 30th. Now, the fact that the Committee has
not received the December report, doesn't seem to bode well for
the April report. Can you give me the status of each report and
let the Committee know when we can expect to receive them?
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am, on the issue of perchlorate, just
let me say in--as an introduction. You made me extremely aware
of the issue of perchlorate almost within months of getting
this job 3 years ago. And quite frankly it had not been on my
radar screen. I took your involvement and concerns very
seriously.
We have, we think, made some substantial investments in
perchlorate remediation and cleanup, perchlorate detection, as
well as the science of perchlorate health. And I can get into
that in a minute.
But I do want to answer specifically your questions about
those reports. It is true that under the NDAA for fiscal year
2004 you required the DOD to provide a report of activities on
the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee by December 31,
2003.
My understanding was that we had discussions with your
staff, quite frankly, Senator, to say that that was in our view
a little bit of an unachievable deadline. Having said that,
last--yesterday in preparation for this hearing I asked the
question, that I presumed that you would ask and I said, all
right, where is the report? Recognizing that we couldn't meet
the December 31 deadline.
It is now prepared in draft form, and we are about to send
it to OMB. As you know, we have to go through our own OMB
clearance process, for the interagency review before submission
to Congress.
This like other issues, but in particular perchlorate. As
you know, there are a number of Federal agencies that have
serious equities here, not the least of which is EPA. We're
going to send it to OMB very shortly within a few days I am
told. And how long that interagency clearance process--comment
process takes is, as you appreciate, something that's totally
out of my control.
However, I am in--a week doesn't go by when I don't talk
about perchlorates with OMB and EPA. In fact Governor Leavitt
of EPA came over to visit with the Secretary of Defense
recently at my request and this is one of the issues that they
discussed. They know about your concerns, and many Americans'
concerns.
Senator Feinstein. And it's getting worse, Mr. Dubois. The
contamination is spreading and the levels in many places are
now higher, and it's permeating the food chain. And that makes
it serious.
Can you give me a--I mean, if--you couldn't make the
December date, are you going to have it to us within weeks, or
is it going to take months?
Mr. Dubois. I would--cannot answer that question
definitively, Senator, the only answer----
Senator Feinstein. Well, could I get an answer from----
Mr. Dubois. I will call OMB tomorrow, or when I get back to
the office today and I will say, we're going to submit this
report to you for clearance, can you give me some indication as
to how long it might take. It's the best I can----
Senator Feinstein. All right. How about the report due
April 30th?
Mr. Dubois. The report--wherein Congress required the
Department of Defense to provide data collected from BRAC
installations, the report is being consolidated by our lead
executive agency, the Department of the Air Force, and we
expect to have that report to Congress by it's due date of
April 30, 2004.
Senator Feinstein. April 30th, could you--I missed that.
Mr. Dubois. The report I believe is due on April 30th.
Senator Feinstein. April 30th.
Mr. Dubois. And we anticipate being able to provide that
report by April 30th.
Senator Feinstein. Good. Good. That's some good news. Now,
in the background--a GAO report published in December,
recommended that DoD revise its plans, first, on the deadlines
for completing its site inventory and initial evaluations.
Secondly, reassess the time table proposed for completing its
reevaluation of sites using the new risk assessment procedures,
and third establishing interim goals.
What I'm interested in, is what progress has been made on
the identification of perchlorate contaminated sites, and how
is DoD planning and prioritizing cleanup activities?
Mr. Dubois. The Department has undertaken what we believe,
and in no small measure because of your resolute position on
this issue, the Department has undertaken an aggressive
environmental sampling program wherein we require--as I say,
the office of Secretary of Defense requires the services, the
Military Service, to sample for perchlorate anyway--anywhere
that there is a reasonable expectation that perchlorate may
exist and there is--and this is critical and there is a pathway
to a human receptor. That is to say, into drinking water. Now,
we have invested approximately $20 million to do that through
fiscal year 2005.
In particular, in California, we formed an ad hoc working
group, with the California regulatory officials, to jointly
prioritize the sampling activities in the State. We've also
directed that our Munitions Action Plan, which you and I have
talked about, the Defense Planning Guidelines, that the
Secretary signs, that components, Military Services, assess the
hazards of off range migration of munitions constituents,
including perchlorate, in their range assessments.
There is, in addition to that sampling, we have invested
approximately $25 million in the development of potential
ground water treatment technologies for perchlorate through our
SERDP and ESTCP programs. Now, these demonstration and
certification treatment projects for perchlorate are in several
key places in California, as well as in other places around the
country. Edwards Air Force Base being one of them.
There's another issue here. In fact, it's something that
you brought up I think last year in this very hearing, and I
looked into it, that is to say what are possible alternatives
to perchlorate. It's one thing to address the perchlorate
issues today. It's another thing to look down the road. And the
Department of Defense has invested so far $9 million into
possible alternatives to perchlorate.
And finally, as you know, the Department along with EPA,
NASA and the Department of Energy have with the Office of
Science and Technology advisor to the President, and OMB asked
the National Academy of Sciences to assess the science to date
and where possible, either certify or comment on the varying
standards quotes.
And remember what California did recently was to publish a
public health goal of six parts per billion. And that goal--but
they also said we--we the State of California as well as the
Department of Defense await the results of the National Academy
of Science panel study to determine what is the proper
scientific basis for contaminant limits.
EPA and the Department of Defense and others have a
disagreement as to what those levels are, based on scientific
evidence. And we hope that the NAS, an objective independent
body, will bring us to conclusion in that regard.
Senator Feinstein. Are you aware that it is entering the
food chain? Specifically in dairy, and lettuce?
Mr. Dubois. I have read in--I have read in the papers that
the--that they're finding perchlorate traces in lettuce and--
but again--
Senator Feinstein. And dairy.
Mr. Dubois. Dairy products.
Senator Feinstein. And California's the largest dairy
State. The milk goes all over the country. And the particular
population at risk are small children, and pregnant women. And
some of the studies have shown substantial levels in milk,
substantial levels being over six parts per billion.
So I'm sending out an alarm to you. I believe that the
Department of Defense has a responsibility here and that we
really have to get cracking and get this stuff cleaned up and
out of our water supply.
And I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, this has been, as you know,
3 years now of trying to push and I'm running out of patience.
I can tell you the concern in my State is very broad. Drinking
wells are contaminated. Certain cities are without half to
three-quarters of their water supply.
Mr. Dubois. Again, Senator, if--when the State of
California, when the Federal Government determines the maximum
contaminant levels for perchlorate in other constituents, the
Department of Defense intends fully to abide by--by the way,
whichever is lower, EPA can come out with----
Senator Feinstein. So in other words, California's
standard, you're not going to abide by that, I recognize it's a
goal. But that--you're not going to abide by that in the
interim.
Mr. Dubois. We are awaiting, as is EPA and the State of
California, the NAS--the completion of the NAS study, which I
have been told will be early fall of this year. But whatever
contaminant level is lower, that is what the DoD will abide by,
as is legally required as you know under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
This is clearly an important issue, and I don't mean in
anyway to diminish our intense focus on this and the amount of
money that we've put behind this. We would only ask that the
interested parties, not the least of whom are the Congress of
the United States and Governor Schwarzenegger's staff in
Sacramento with whom I have discussed this, let--and we all
agree that is a determination that must be made by an
independent body, an NAS study.
We don't know what the contaminant level is that will
impact varying segments of the population. It is something that
is of importance to us.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I've taken this as far as I
should, at this time. But perhaps we can sit down separately,
and I can perhaps use my other questions in the second round.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Dubois. I would like to add, if I might, Madam
Chairman, the importance of this issue. I became seized with it
some time ago. I searched quite frankly around the Federal
Government for experts in water remediation and perchlorates in
particular, water remediation in general. And I have just hired
one of the leading experts from the Department of Interior to
our staff at Defense and she and Alex Beeler on my right here,
the new Environmental Deputy at the Department have this
clearly on the top of their agenda.
Senator Feinstein. I really appreciate that, Mr. Dubois,
this is really serious. And I think you know that now, and
we've really got to work fast so that those levels do not build
up. That's one of the problems that we're finding is the
buildup of the level of contamination. Now two States are the
largest in terms of contamination, one is Texas, and one is
California. So we both have a very serious interest in seeing
that you take some aggressive steps.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator
Burns.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. I was interested in
your comments today, Mr. Secretary, on the ability to train,
especially within the Air Force. Urban sprawl yes, airspace,
yes, spectrum, yes, and so on. And the infrastructure on the
ground. Hang a shingle out there and put Montana on it, would
you?
Mr. Dubois. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns. I've got a--I was going to bring that chart
this morning, and I just turned everything over in my office
trying to find it. It is a chart of 5 hours of air traffic
activity in this country. And it illustrates that, wherever
we've got installations where we're training both tactical and
everything else you're out of airspace, you've got little bitty
holes down there in the southwestern part of this country and--
which commercial uses of airspace, spectrum and this type of
thing, and we just happen to have a lot of airspace and we've
got spectrum, and we've got the infrastructure on the ground to
do that kind of stuff.
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK
I hope to hear your thoughts on this. And I like 40 percent
of this appropriation in environmental work. Forty percent of
$9 billion appropriation, and you've almost got $4 billion
appropriated to deal with environmental issues. I'm interested
in that because whenever we start talking about going into
another BRAC round, how many installations are we now still in
the process of environmental cleanup before it's ready for
sale, or to do something else with?
Mr. Dubois. The cost to complete is currently estimated for
environmental remediation to the standards with the local
redevelopment authority and the military service have agreed
to, for BRAC properties, BRAC to date properties, but not yet
disposed, is approximately $3.9 billion. That's a significant
amount of money, I don't deny it.
But it is--remember, too, that the Department of Defense
even when we close a property, and we've disposed of the
property, we do retain the legal liability to clean it up if
something happens that we were not aware of. It's not like we
push this off on the State, or we push this off on the local
redevelopment authority or the developer who might take it
over, or another Federal agency for that matter.
It's an issue that we live with, and one could ask do we
put enough money behind this every year, it is going down year,
over year, over year.
Senator Burns. I would just like to say that, in the past,
the BRAC Commission has underestimated the cost of cleanup
whenever they made their recommendations of closure or
realignment.
I don't want history to repeat itself because I used to
chair this committee and I know what we had to go through when
that happens. And sometimes I think it's good money thrown
after bad to be honest with you, in some of these activities.
But I just come this morning, I wanted to look at the
housing thing, and I know that they've got more concerns than I
have, but environmental cleanup is something that's very
important to me. I--perchlorate is a problem to those States,
should be looked at very seriously, and of course as we move
down this next round of BRAC, I think we better have some
pretty realistic figures on our obligation in the area of
environmental remediation, once we decide to close a facility.
And I thank you this morning for your report.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
Thank you for coming to brief this subcommittee on military
construction, and for your service to our great Nation. Your work is
critical to developing and maintaining the facilities for our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines around the world. I intend to honor our
men and women serving and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice
for our country by ensuring that our active, reserve, and national
guard have the resources they need to support current and future
requirements.
I am encouraged to learn that our services remain strong in this
time of extended deployments to austere and often hazardous bases
around the world. It speaks well of the character of our airmen, who
accept this duty, who often choose to continue their voluntary service
to our Nation. We must ensure that we provide the resources they need
for their installations while deployed overseas as well as here in the
states.
I am convinced that replacing dangerous and outdated facilities
improves morale for our forces worldwide, contributing to better-
trained service members who can complete the mission more effectively
and safely. Investing in facilities to support the fielding, training,
operations, and quality of life of our forces pays great dividends in
combat effectiveness and lives saved.
This commitment must not end with the active forces. We will also
continue to support essential infrastructure improvements for our
National Guard forces, which have shouldered an increasingly
significant role in the security of our Nation, alongside our active
duty forces.
While not engaged in our current operations against terrorists
worldwide, our strategic forces remain a critical component of national
security. I strongly encourage the investment in training and quality
of life improvements we need to maintain the proficiency, readiness,
and morale of these airmen, whom this Nation relies on to steward the
strategic deterrence capability.
I urge you to judiciously execute the efforts appropriated by this
subcommittee. We must ensure the facilities we invest in overseas are
aligned with our long-term defense posture, and that those investments
in shorter-term bases are balanced against our overall posturing
strategy.
I have seen that the Department of Defense intends to re-align our
forces deployed overseas, and can see the relation between the
realignments overseas and the closures in this country. While I contend
that it may be premature to consider closing bases in this country
until our strategic repositioning overseas is completed, I support
efforts to eliminate excess infrastructure where we are sure we see no
requirement for these facilities in the future. Again, I thank you for
being here today and look forward to the discussion this morning. Thank
you.
Mr. Dubois. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Burns. Follow-up
questions. Housing privatization is moving obviously more of
our military families off base. Now, in some cases I know
privatization is being done on base. But the bottom line is the
impact on local school districts is an issue that we also have
to keep in mind.
We asked for a report from the Department of Defense by
March 15 of this year on the impact of privatization on local
school districts. We haven't gotten that report, but I think
again it should be very much a factor in our overall military
budgets and our support for school districts that are in our
military base towns. Could you look into that, and determine if
we are going to get that report shortly?
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am, I certainly will.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. The Central Command
installations. Earlier this month General Abizaid testified to
the House Appropriations Committee that he had $531 million in
urgent unfunded MILCON requirements in theater, plus $340
million in MILCON which Congress has already provided. The
conference report accompanying last year's supplemental
appropriations bill required a report to this Committee on
CENTCOM's master plan for facilities in its area of
responsibility.
General Abizaid has also said that he wants to move U.S.
troops out of Saddam's palaces and consolidate the 44
installations that we have in Iraq in the Baghdad area to 11.
So I have two questions, one is: we were supposed to have a
report again on the CENTCOM master plan due last December which
we haven't received. When could we expect to see that?
Secondly, how are you going to propose the MILCON for the
consolidation that General Abizaid is suggesting that he would
like to do?
Mr. Dubois. The so-called CENTCOM master plan has been in
the works for sometime, it is overdue I recognize that, Madam
Chairman. It is a plan that I'm not--I'm not directly
responsible for.
However, the--the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the
Joint Chiefs, or the Joint Staff, OSD installations and
Enviro--my portfolio, and General Abizaid's command all hold a
piece of this report, and we owe it to you. Needless to say it
has been somewhat difficult given the situation, the emerging--
the evolving situation in Iraq in particular as to what kinds
of infrastructure was going to be needed, and for how long.
O&M BUDGET
I read recently a remark by a brigadier general out there
that unfortunately he used the term enduring, which has meaning
to you and me and apparently it has a different meaning to the
brigadier general. This also pertains to the issue that has
been discussed between Congress and the Executive Branch on
contingency construction. And what parts of--so called
contingency construction ought to be in the military
construction budget and what parts are legitimately an
emergency compelling need now. And therefore, in the O&M
budget.
As you know, the Comptroller of the Department, Dr.
Zakheim, laid out some pretty strict guidelines when the
Congress pointed out that certain O&M dollars were being spent
on arguably, and I underline that word, installations that were
for a longer term use than a short term use. And I've been to
Iraq, I've actually spent the night in a palace, I've also
spent the night in a tent, with the troops. I am not certain
quite frankly exactly where our installations are going to end
up in Iraq, it is as you pointed out a continuing--as I pointed
out a continuing discussion.
The important thing that we owe you, it seems to me, that
General Abizaid, and the Secretary of Defense owe you is, if we
predict that we're going to remain in Iraq for a period of
time, 2, 3 years, with a substantial level of infrastructure,
what does that mean in terms of the kind of infrastructure
we're going to need.
Now, it gets back to what's temporary and what's not
temporary. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that
if we build something that clearly has a life for the next year
or two, that's temporary. Should that then be a military
construction appropriation? If we can predict it, and in place
certain, I would agree with you that it ought to come before
this committee.
When General Abizaid, however, says, I've got $500-plus
million of immediate construction requirements, new--repairing
runways, or laying concrete slabs for field hospitals. I think
that one has to conclude that that's probably a construction,
or contingency construction requirement that he legitimately
can pull from the O&M accounts of the services. I don't know
how we end off on this.
I do know this, however. That Dr. Zakheim has been very
clear, that when the combat commander, in this case General
Abizaid, can predictably state I need the following
infrastructure for the foreseeable future, something in excess
of several years, then we've got to--we have the obligation to
come back to the MILCON committees.
But there is also probably a substantial amount of
contingency construction. I need it today. It's temporary, I
won't need it 3 years from now, that's probably an O&M related
matter. But it is a matter of discussion between your staff and
my staff.
Senator Hutchison. Well, you're talking about a significant
portion of overseas MILCON budgeting. I for one favor temporary
as long as we can do it so that we have lower costs, and can
reuse much of that temporary equipment. On the other hand, we
also need some way to budget rather than just supplemental and
emergency appropriations.
So we're looking at a huge number there, and the sooner you
can get us something that we can plan with the better, because
that would be a mighty big supplemental if that's the way you
were going to go, which I really don't think is as responsible.
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. On sustainment. Your testimony says and
you said that you're going to fund at a 95 percent rate.
However, some of the services are indicating that a significant
amount of those funds are going to be diverted from facility
sustainment to base operation support and that sustainment will
be significantly lower.
Now, I think--your priority is exactly right, on
sustainment. I see us tearing down buildings and building new
ones when just basic maintenance would have made these
buildings last a longer time. As you know, we're in old
buildings all over our government, and I think we should be in
old buildings longer than just tearing things down and
rebuilding them when they're perfectly good buildings. So I
like your priority. However, is it realistic?
Mr. Dubois. When the Army established the Installation
Management Agency, and the Navy has a similar agency, it
recognized the fact that sustainment dollars are often stolen.
Let's face it. Diverted.
Senator Hutchison. Sure.
Mr. Dubois. To use another term, a nicer term, in order to
give appropriate visibility into how sustainment dollars are
budgeted, and how they're actually spent, the Army and the Navy
took this management action. Air Force in a similar fashion
watches it carefully but I don't defend taking dollars out of
that account and using them for other things.
But when it comes to base operating services, when you have
the notion that I've got a roof that just started leaking, and
I've got so many dollars to sustain the infrastructure on my
installation, and I'm the installation commander, I've got to
use the dollars where they're immediate--the immediate need is
required.
Now, interestingly enough, I am the installation commander
of a place called the Pentagon Reservation, a 280-acre campus
if you will. A building that has in excess of 6 million square
feet. We are re-capitalizing the Pentagon today, 60 plus years
after it was originally built. It was reasonably well
maintained over those years.
But what has happened? The building itself as the national
command center of the United States military has become
obsolete, in terms of electronics, in terms of computers, in
terms of communications, and in terms of how best to use that
space. That's an example of why sustainment is important but
recapitalization is also important.
In any event, I do watch, and continue to watch carefully,
as do my three colleagues in the Military Departments, the
three assistant service secretaries for I&E, how those dollars
are being spent well.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I thank you, and I would hope that
your services would look at the fact that you're operating out
of a 60 year old building and you're going to upgrade it rather
than tearing it down and starting all over. I think that could
be well used in the Services as well.
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES
Last question, for me, and this will be my final question.
Special Operations Forces. Our staff has been visiting several
of the facilities this year, and found them overflowing with
equipment, seriously short on space, and yet with all of the
added requirements and the proposals to add more in Special
Operations Forces, there doesn't seem to be anything in the
budget that indicates you're asking for military construction
to house the added needs. Are you addressing this segment, or--
--
Mr. Dubois. Let me address--I'm sorry.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Do you have plans that we
don't see? How are you going to meet these demands?
Mr. Dubois. The Special Operations Forces worldwide are a
special focus of the Secretary's integrated global presence and
basing strategy work.
As a matter of fact, this very issue, not just where SOF
Forces are positioned, but how to appropriately support them in
terms of infrastructure has been teed up by--in particular,
Admiral Fargo in the Pacific Command, and General Jones in the
European Command. I've been present at meetings with those two
gentlemen and the Secretary of Defense, it is--it always comes
up in no small measure because of some of the things, and some
of the observations that your staff has made, as well as I have
made in my travels around the world to now in excess of 100--
nearly 120 installations some of which are the SOF
installations.
It is a concern, we believe, that the SOF infrastructure
needs to be rationalized and realigned with the SOF Force
presence.
And again, if we're going to bring back some of that SOF
Force structure to the United States, we want to make sure that
we've made the appropriate investments--military construction
investments in bases in the United States to accept and receive
it.
It's also true about overseas, we're looking at
consolidation. Those small bases that your staff and I have
gone to look at are crowded and they are--and we're trying to
figure out does this make the most sense, is this the best
expenditure of our dollars, both MILCON and O&M dollars. We
have kind of concluded that it probably isn't and that's why
it's been put on the table with respect to this global
presence, and this global basing study.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Well, we need to address that, and
provide for it if in fact it's as bad as we think it is.
Mr. Dubois. Uh-huh.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much. Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. While
you were speaking about the CENTCOM request I was reading
General Abizaid's testimony to the House MILCON Committee,
which he said and I quote, ``CENTCOM has prioritized another 44
projects at an estimated cost of $531 million, in urgent and
unfunded contingency construction requirements. We submitted
these requests to the Joint Staff in January 2004, we expect
that other requirements will emerge due to changes in the
situation, new missions and the evolution of our basing
strategy.''
And so he's saying that there will be additional ones, and
this $531 million appears nowhere. Now you say you'll take it
out of O&M in the Defense budget, in other places, is that
correct?
Mr. Dubois. Well, when a combat commander such as General
Abizaid comes to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs
and the Joint Staff with a request in January, clearly it
couldn't have entered into our 2005 budget request. The extent
to which these projects are prioritized by CENTCOM, and yet to
be prioritized, and I have to underline this, yet to be
prioritized by the Military Services, there is a shared
responsibility overseas for installations and infrastructure,
it is not entirely the combat commander's priorities.
Senator Feinstein. So you're saying, and I don't want you
to spend a lot of time on this.
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. But you're saying it will not be in the
O&M of the Defense budget this year, is that correct?
Mr. Dubois. I see----
Senator Feinstein. It means we leave it for another
supplemental?
Mr. Dubois. I suspect that some will, but there will be the
question--the question is on the table, will there be a
supplemental and if so, when? I think the Secretary of Defense
has indicated that he believes because of the uncertainties of
OIF and OEF that there will be a supplemental. The question is
timing, as you know, and the question is size.
We're dealing with a set of uncertainties. Abizaid
himself--General Abizaid, while he comes in with his wish list,
that wish list has already been adjusted by virtue of what's
happened in the last 60 to 70 days.
Senator Feinstein. Well, this was his testimony as of March
3rd, of this year, before the House MILCON Committee, it
appears on page 40 of the----
Mr. Dubois. Yes, ma'am, I'm aware of it.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I think one of the problems that I
have, is when you can include projects in the budget, they're
not there, and therefore the cost of the war has essentially
been taken up by a supplemental appropriation which I find not
the most optimum situation.
EUROPEAN BASES
But let me go into the issue of our European bases. The
request includes $428 million for MILCON in Europe and I think
it's based on the assumption that several existing bases
Grafenwoehr, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Vicenza, Aviano,
Lakenheath, and Mildenhall will be enduring bases.
So my question is, has a final decision on the future of
these bases been made, and has the Secretary of Defense
designated these specific bases to be enduring installations?
Mr. Dubois. I'm not sure that the Secretary has actually
stated it in such definitive terms, Senator, but let me say on
his behalf that the military construction requests for those
European bases that you mentioned in our view reflect critical
military requirements. And yes, we believe those bases are
enduring in the sense that they may not--the force structure on
those bases today may not be--the same force structure on those
bases today, may not be the same force structure on those bases
in a year or two or three.
But clearly bases like Ramstein, bases like Vicenza, bases
like Sigonella, bases like Rota in Spain, are bases that are in
our plan for the future.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. So the intent is to make them
enduring bases. Has the President approved the designation of
these bases as enduring installations?
Mr. Dubois. I'll have to just say I don't know whether the
President has used the term enduring. All I know is that the
Secretary in his discussions with me and my understanding is
with the President, although the final, final decision has not
been made, clearly has set aside, places as I mentioned like
Ramstein, that you mentioned Grafenwoehr, as places where we
will remain, we the United States Military will remain. I don't
know whether the President's----
Senator Feinstein. So the answer is no, he has not approved
the designation at this point?
Mr. Dubois. I would have to say you're correct in that
regard.
Senator Feinstein. Okay. Has the Defense Department
calculated the overall cost of the proposed overseas basing
realignment and when will you have a comprehensive cost
estimate for the Congress?
Mr. Dubois. The--we have looked at various alternatives
should the Secretary and the President decide that they'll
bring back, shall we say force package A, what would be the
cost to not just bring it back, but to build to bring it back.
We're looking at various alternatives in this regard.
But as it is the case with BRAC, domestic BRAC, there must
be an upfront investment in building--military construction
investment in building facilities at the receiving locations.
We as you know, are very forthright in what we estimate that
cost to be. But we also are forthright in saying the savings
derived from that BRAC adjustment, realignment, and closure
will also in our view--the estimates, we have made those
estimates too.
Senator Feinstein. Could you give us the cost estimate, you
said you're very forthright in those cost estimates.
Mr. Dubois. When we--yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. What is the cost estimate of the
overseas base----
Mr. Dubois. I have not finished that calculation at this
time. Now, it is--please remember it is dependent upon what
decisions the Secretary and President ultimately make. If they
say bring back one division, that has a cost estimate. If they
say bring back another division that has another cost estimate.
If they say bring back an F-16 squadron, that has a cost
estimate.
We are building--I use the term building blocks. We are
trying to assess the individual building block estimates so
that when the Secretary and the President make those final
determinations, which as I indicated I anticipate to be in May,
we will be able to bring to you those cost estimates.
Senator Feinstein. As you know, we spent a lot of time last
year on these European bases, and Grafenwoehr and Ramstein and
Vilseck, and Aviano there new ones added this year, but you're
asking essentially for $218,553,000 for the German bases, and
we don't know whether they're going to be enduring bases. And
this is the second year now that we still don't know. And yet
we'll most likely appropriate the money, and I guess the
problem is, do we appropriate the money and then the plans
change?
Mr. Dubois. I think that the discussion that we've had over
certainly beginning last year--and what I--I don't want to
mislead this Subcommittee in any way shape or form. My view is
the Secretary has indicated that these bases which we have
asked for a military construction appropriation are enduring.
You've asked me a question, since I haven't talked to the
President whether he has said, oh yes they are enduring, I
believe that the Secretary of Defense has concluded that they
are enduring.
Senator Feinstein. Can we therefore--well, I guess we can't
conclude they're enduring.
Mr. Dubois. Well, as I said, he intends to make that
final--you know, there are a lot of moving parts here, Senator.
And he wants to make that recommendation to the President
ultimately and discuss it with the Congress.
Senator Feinstein. The frustration we have is there were
moving parts last year too.
Mr. Dubois. Right. And we also cut back----
Senator Feinstein. It took us a long time to come together
on this.
Mr. Dubois. We cut back seriously on what we've asked for
in terms of Europe.
Senator Feinstein. I know you did.
Mr. Dubois. Because of these very reasons.
Senator Feinstein. All right. So we're no further--we're no
clearer.
Mr. Dubois. Well, I wouldn't--I don't think I can agree
with that. I think we are substantially clearer. The question
is will the Secretary of Defense make decisions and discuss
them with Congress prior to your markup? That's the question at
hand, and my understanding is depending upon when your markup
is, that is his intention. He knows that you will have a
difficult time making these appropriations and decisions absent
a certainty to the extent that we can be, on these overseas
bases. He appreciates that.
KOREA
Senator Feinstein. No, I think you know, we don't want to
waste money. I went to Korea and saw some new facilities, but
the plan for Korea proposed essentially to do away with them.
And we don't want to get into that.
Mr. Dubois. But as you well know many of those new
facilities that you saw were MILCON appropriations from several
years ago. And rightly so, Korea had suffered for a number of
years with not very many dollars for----
Senator Feinstein. I understand that, I don't want to
belabor it. We've spent $15 million on a community center
expected I think to last for a while.
Mr. Dubois. Uh-huh.
Senator Feinstein. And that's the point I want to make. And
the new housing as well.
Mr. Dubois. In terms of Korea of course, we've only asked
for military construction on bases and land that we control in
concert with our announced strategy with respect to our
reconfiguring force structure on the peninsula.
Senator Feinstein. Well, can you, give us a progress report
on moving out of Seoul and moving south. Where is that?
Mr. Dubois. The two governments, our government and the
Korean government have concluded that we will move out of the
Yongsan Garrison to Camp Humphrey, the Camp Humphrey Osan
footprint. South of the Han. The question quite rightly is, how
long will it take, and does the Korean government agree that
the monies derived from their use of Yongsan, no longer the use
of the United Nations command, and the United States--the
Eighth Army. And the United States forces of Korea to be
reinvested in infrastructure in the Camp Humphreys Osan
footprint. The decision has been made we're moving out.
Senator Feinstein. Is there an approved agreement?
Mr. Dubois. My understanding is there is.
Senator Feinstein. That has been approved by the
legislature? Or by the Korean government?
Mr. Dubois. That's my understanding and I will clarify that
for you when I get back to the Pentagon.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Dubois. Now, with respect to the land purchases as we
discussed this last year, around Camp Humphreys and around
Osan, that has been approved by the Korean legislature, and the
monies have been appropriated and they're in the process of
actually buying the parcels, because they were owned by 150
different farmers, but we didn't ask for military construction
on those properties, until they are assembled and transferred
to our use.
Senator Feinstein. But there is agreement on Yongsan, and
the price?
Mr. Dubois. There is agreement on Yongsan and the
concurrent cost to build new for that garrison and our troops,
headquarters troops to move south.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I would certainly, and I think the
Chairman would certainly be very interested in knowing the
details of that agreement. I notice there's nothing in this
budget.
Senator Hutchison. Madam Vice Chairwoman, I would agree
with you totally on wanting to know how much of the agreements
have been made on costs and cost sharing, but there's one
little semantic thing, we don't need the permission of Korea to
leave a base or any other country.
Senator Feinstein. No, I understand. I understand.
Senator Hutchison. But the terms certainly do require
agreements and I would be interested in that as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Dubois.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Secretary, we do appreciate your
time, and the updates that you have given us along the way. I
think we are moving in the right direction, but there's still a
lot to be done on both of our parts. Thank you very much.
Mr. Dubois. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
OVERSEAS BASING/BRAC
Question. Mr. Dubois, have decisions been made on redeployment of
specific units and/or numbers of forces to the United States? If so, of
what size?
Answer. Decisions have not been made. The Department of Defense is
formulating a set of recommendations based on Combatant Commander and
Service input. Per the President's instruction, the State and Defense
Departments are consulting closely with our allies and conducting site
surveys to determine feasibility of initial proposals. The Department
has frequently briefed members of Congress and their staffs on the
proposals under consideration. A report to Congress will be provided
during Summer 2004.
Question. Mr. Dubois, to what extent do you envision that costs
associated with redeploying any forces from overseas to stateside
locations (movement, military construction, etc.) would be paid for out
of the designated BRAC account or provided for separately?
Answer. The BRAC statute limits how the Department may spend money
in the BRAC account. Basically, the BRAC account can only be used to
fund the implementation of approved closure and realignment
recommendations. To the extent that redeploying forces from overseas to
stateside locations is part of an approved BRAC closure and realignment
recommendation, the Department may fund that action from the BRAC
account.
Question. Mr. Dubois, what is the restationing of overseas forces
going to cost? If we don't yet know, when will we know?
Answer. Current working cost estimate is continually being updated,
but represents less than half of 1 percent of the FYDP. As a rough
estimate, it will be refined as more detailed plans are developed. This
reflects the worldwide scope of global reposturing and the evolving
nature of this initiative due to the relatively large number of
locations and the diplomatic, cost and savings variables involved.
Question. Mr. Dubois, if the return of forces to the United States
will be accomplished as part of the BRAC process, and we don't know how
much that restationing effort will cost, how can the Secretary have
certified this month that BRAC will result in a savings by 2011? Do the
calculations on which the Secretary's certification was based include
the costs of accommodating troops returning from overseas? Other Due
Outs: Perchlorate Report; School Impact Report; CENTCOM Master Plan;
Land and Cost-Sharing Agreements with Korea; and Information on C-17
Basing decisions, specifically with reference to Dyess AFB and Kelly
USA.
Answer. As required by statute, the Secretary's certification was
based on the force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and
economic analysis provided to Congress pursuant to Section 2912 of the
BRAC statue. That economic analysis was based on the experience of
previous BRAC rounds, which suggests that each military department will
achieve annual net savings beginning not later than fiscal year 2011,
the 6 year of implementation. The actual costs and savings from BRAC
2005 actions will depend on the specific recommendations adopted.
Perchlorate (BRAC) Report and Land and Cost Sharing Agreements with
Korea will be submitted to Congress in July 2004. The Department is in
the final stages of report development on the CENTCOM Master Plan and
School Impact Report and plans to submit a final report to Congress in
August 2004.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
UTILITY PRIVATIZATION
Question. Mr. Dubois, what is the status of utility privatization
within the Department? What problems do you see in the future with
utility privatization?
Answer. Through the Utilities Privatization (UP) Program, the
Department of Defense (DOD) will take advantage of industry
innovations, efficiencies, financing and economies of scale to obtain
safe, environmentally sound and reliable utilities services. The
Defense Components are actively pursuing a privatization evaluation of
the utility systems at every Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard
installation, within the United States and overseas, that is not
already designated for base closure.
Of the 1,867 DOD utility systems that are eligible for
privatization, the Defense Components have privatized 446 systems and
exempted 244 systems for economic or security reasons. Within a 5
percent range DOD is on track to complete evaluations on the remaining
systems by September 30, 2005. Of those systems with active
solicitations, RFPs have been issued and are pending closure on 95
systems; and RFPs have closed and are under evaluation on over 860
systems.
The ongoing solicitations are normally receiving adequate interest
to achieve competition. This follows a successful effort by the
Services to share lessons learned and industry feedback to improve
solicitation templates and better align the program with industry
practices.
Many systems included in earlier solicitations, which closed prior
to March 2003 did not receive adequate interest. Most of these systems
were located on small Reserve or National Guard sites. Utilities had
not been interested in participating in the privatization of these
systems for a variety of reasons. In general, they perceived that the
cost of developing a proposal in a competitive arrangement did not
provide a cost effective business opportunity. With the improved
templates and engagement with industry representatives, interest has
improved. The Services are continuing discussions with industry to
identify barriers and develop resolutions.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
BRAC
Question. Mr. Dubois, what role will the availability of training
ranges play in determining realignment at Air Force installations?
Answer. The BRAC process is the means by which the Department can
reconfigure its current infrastructure into one in which operational
capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and efficiency. The BRAC
2005 process is intended to ensure a comprehensive analysis of all
military installations in the United States and Territories, on an
equal footing. Training ranges are an important part of this
installation inventory, and will be evaluated using the final selection
criteria published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2004. As
required by law, military value will be the primary consideration in
analyzing and making recommendations for the closure or realignment of
military installations. Training capabilities, as reflected in criteria
two (one of the four military value criteria), are essential to
maintaining military capability.
Question. Mr. Dubois, there has been discussion of placing Air
Guard units within the boundaries of active installations for cost
savings and security purposes--to what extent will this be considered
by the Department in the upcoming closure and realignment process?
Answer. The Department will analyze all installations by the same
process, to include consideration of movement of National Guard forces
to active bases and active duty people to National Guard bases.
Military value will be the primary consideration for making
recommendations for base closures and realignments, as required by
statute.
Question. Mr. Dubois, what steps will be taken in the base closure
and realignment process to ensure consistency with the Strategic
Capabilities Assessment (SCA)? Will the current policy be adjusted to
reflect the Department's closure and realignment needs or is it the
intent to continue the policy of retention of 500 land-based missiles?
Answer. The Strategic Capabilities Assessment is a periodic review
of progress in implementing the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR). The NPR recommended that the planned strategic nuclear force in
2012 would comprise 14 Trident II SSBNs, 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, 76 B-
52H bombers, and 21 B-2 bombers. The Strategic Capabilities Assessment
was recently completed and the results are being reviewed within the
Department. At this time there is no action underway to change the
planned strategic nuclear force structure for 2012.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Question. Mr. DuBois, the fiscal year 2005 budget request for BRAC
environmental cleanup is $246 million, down nearly 36 percent from the
$370 million requested in fiscal year 2004. No funding has been
requested for the cleanup of Navy BRAC installations because the Navy
is expected to finance its fiscal year 2005 BRAC cleanup requirements
out of the revenue from land sales.
Can you explain why the Department has chosen to reduce its
request, rather than using the proceeds from land sales to supplement
funding and accelerate necessary cleanup?
Answer. The Navy opted to finance its prior BRAC fiscal year 2005
program with land sales revenue in lieu of seeking appropriated funds
because it believed that proceeds from the sale of El Toro and Oak
Knoll properties would be available in sufficient time to pay for
caretaker and environmental cleanup costs, thus allowing the Navy to
use appropriated funds for other needs. The Navy used conservative
estimates in its fiscal year 2005 land sale revenue projection, and has
successfully sold a number of prior BRAC properties in the last few
years that have generated $230 million in revenue that is being used to
accelerate cleanup at prior BRAC locations.
Question. Could the Services execute a larger BRAC environmental
cleanup program in fiscal year 2005 if additional funds were made
available?
Answer. We believe the Services can execute a larger program if
additional funds were made available by Congress. However, we have
sufficient funds to meet our legal/regulatory obligations and believe
the requested level of funding is an appropriate balance between
environmental and other DOD mission requirements.
Question. Did the Navy request any funding from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission? Was it
a Navy decision or an OSD decision for the Navy to self-finance its
entire BRAC cleanup program out of land sale revenues?
Answer. The Navy did not request any funding from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for its fiscal year 2005 budget submission. It was
a Navy decision to self-finance its BRAC cleanup program out of land
revenue.
As you know, I am extremely concerned about the BRAC environmental
cleanup program because so many communities in California are impacted
by environmental contamination on closed bases that will take many
years and cost many millions of dollars to remediate.
Question. Can you assure me that the fiscal year 2005 BRAC round
will not delay or in any way divert resources from the environmental
cleanup of installations closed under previous BRAC rounds?
Answer. Based on resources currently available, the Services have
sufficient capacity and capability to execute a new round of BRAC while
finishing requirements associated with the previous rounds. The 2005
round of BRAC will not divert funds specifically appropriated for
restoration projects supporting previous BRAC rounds.
Question. What lessons have you learned from the previous BRAC
rounds that you plan to apply to environmental cleanup associated with
the 2005 round?
Answer. We are evaluating lessons learned over the past four round
of BRAC and developing options associated with environmental processes.
Some considerations are:
--Should cleanup be done by DOD or the new owner?
--How do we maximize property value?
--Use of early transfer authority (ETA) should be optimized to get
property in the hands of new owners faster.
--Use of environmental services cooperative agreements (ESCAs) should
be encouraged to help the Military Components fulfill their
environmental cleanup responsibilities and integrate cleanup
with redevelopment. For example, at Bayonne Military Ocean
Terminal in New Jersey, the Army transferred both property and
the responsibility for cleanup to the Bayonne Local Reuse
Authority under ETA and an ESCA. The ESCA effectively put the
local reuse authority in charge of their own destiny in terms
of both cleanup and property reuse. This action saved the Army
approximately $5 million and successfully defused on-going
frustrations over the pace and scope of cleanup actions and
changing reuse plans. The action was a win-win for all parties.
--The environmental condition of the property could be documented
early in the process for potential transferees.
--Work closely with Local Reuse Authorities (LRAs) and developers
earlier in the process to return property to productive reuse
faster.
--Increased use of performance-based contracting will contribute to
improved cleanup and property transfer. The Department
currently has 15 BRAC installations where performance-based
contracting is setting the pace for cleanup.
--Increased use of the Conservation Conveyance Authority where it
presents the best option for transfer and reuse. For example,
Honey Lake, a section of Sierra Army Depot in California, was
DOD's first land transfer using the conservation transfer
authority. Over 57,000 acres were transferred to four public
and private entities which make up the Honey Lake Conservation
Team. The team is completing the restoration and conservation
efforts.
RESERVE COMPONENTS
Question. The Department is finally showing that it is concerned
with the infrastructure needs of the reserve components. Although this
year's overall request is 15 percent less than last year's enacted
amount, as compared to the requested amount, the reserve components
request amount has increased by 67 percent.
Several facilities for the National Guard and Reserves are
considered Federal facilities--rather than state-owned facilities. It
is my understanding that these federally designated reserve component
facilities may be subject to the upcoming BRAC consideration. Is this
true--and if so, will criteria such as distance to training ranges,
jointness, and community need be considered?
Answer. The Department is approaching BRAC with an eye toward the
Total Force--Active, Reserve, and Guard. This approach reflects the
importance of accommodating Guard and Reserve training, basing, and
quality of life needs by incorporating them into the comprehensive
analyses of all military installations. This comprehensive analysis
will use the final selection criteria published in the Federal Register
on February 16, 2004, for making closure and realignment
recommendations.
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Question. Mr. DuBois, the fiscal year 2002 Military Construction
Appropriations report mandated an assessment of renewable energy
resources, including solar, wind, and geothermal, on U.S. military
installations. As I have watched gasoline prices climb steadily in
recent weeks, I am becoming increasingly concerned that spikes in
electricity costs cannot be far behind. I have not for a moment
forgotten the energy crisis of 2002 that hit California so hard, and
that in part prompted this subcommittee's requirement for an assessment
of renewable energy resources.
I am interested in how OSD views the importance of this assessment,
to what degree OSD supports the study, and whether OSD is actively
requiring each of the Services to participate fully in the assessment.
Can you assure me that this assessment is in fact a priority of OSD and
that no foot-dragging or lack of cooperation will be tolerated?
Answer. OSD considers the renewables assessment very important. We
are fully committed to developing and executing an action plan with
Congress's help, according to the requirements set forth in the
Department's May 2002 Interim Report to Congress. This action plan will
address the full range of issues for instituting a renewable energy
program at DOD.
Under the Air Force lead, we are moving forward now, trying new and
different approaches to acquiring renewable energy and developing
institutional approaches to simultaneously serve the military mission,
reduce costs to the Services and the taxpayer, educate the military
about renewable products and services, and streamline procurement.
Question. The Committee earmarked $2.5 million in the fiscal year
2004 Senate report to continue the renewables assessment. Can you tell
me when this funding will be released?
Answer. The Air Force, designated as the renewable study program
lead, is in the process of drafting an investment plan for the fiscal
year 2004 $2.5 million Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP)
appropriation consistent with the Congressional intent to continue the
renewable study effort. Once their plan is finalized, it will be
coordinated with the other services and OSD will release the funding.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS
Question. Mr. DuBois, in discussions with the Services, we have
heard strong support for increasing the minor military construction
ceiling from $1.5 million to $3 million for all minor construction
projects, not just those involving life, safety and health.
Would OSD support raising the limit on minor construction projects
to $3 million, and if so, do you intend to submit proposed legislation
to Congress to achieve this change?
Answer. This year's fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals'
submission includes language to raise the limit of minor construction
projects to $3 million.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENTS OF:
HONORABLE NELSON F. GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
MAJOR GENERAL DEAN FOX, CIVIL ENGINEER, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
ACCOMPANIED BY:
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID BRUBAKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM M. RAJCZAK, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF, AIR
FORCE RESERVE
Senator Hutchison. Now we have the Honorable Nelson Gibbs,
the Assistant Secretary of Air Force for Installations,
Environment and Logistics, Major General Dean Fox, the Air
Force Civil Engineer, Brigadier General David Brubaker, the
Deputy Director of the Air National Guard, Brigadier General
Rajczak, the Deputy to the Chief of Air Force Reserve. I
understand there is a joint statement that will be given by Mr.
Gibbs.
While you all are getting seated, I'll just tell you a
little story that I came away with from Albania in the early
stages of our presence there.
Several years ago we went to the two sides of the airfield
in Tirana, and we visited with the Army side first where they
were just beginning to set up the airfield and I talked to the
soldiers and the Army guys. I asked, how are things going here?
They said, ``well except for the mud, the bugs, the food,
taking showers with hoses, everything's really pretty good.''
I go to the Air Force side, where they have air conditioned
tents for food, and they have really nice setups with air
conditioned tents for the soldiers. We said, ``well how are
things going.'' They said, ``well, you know, it's rough over
here. We don't even have cable TV.''
So with that, I welcome all of you from the Air Force, and
welcome your testimony, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Mrs.
Feinstein, it's a pleasure to appear before you to talk about
the Air Force military construction program for fiscal year
2005. I have with me, the Air Force Civil Engineer for his
first appearance before this Committee, General Fox. Generals
Brubaker and Rajczak have been here before so they're prepared
to answer any of your questions
But we've made one slight modification. I've asked General
Fox to do the opening statement to give him at least a minute
or two to be able to speak and therefore feel comfortable with
the Committee. But then when he's completed, we look forward to
your questions.
Senator Hutchison. So he will be giving the only statement,
you will not be giving a statement.
Mr. Gibbs. That's correct. You have a copy----
Senator Hutchison. Just questions.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Of my prepared statement.
Senator Hutchison. I do.
Mr. Gibbs. I think that was submitted for the record.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I do have that.
Mr. Gibbs. But he'll make the general opening remarks on
behalf of the Air Force.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, General Fox.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DEAN FOX
General Fox. Madam Chairman and Senator Feinstein, good
after--good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you to discuss the Air Force fiscal year 2005 military
construction program. We sincerely thank you for the support
you've given the Air Force missions, and our people around the
world.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
Our military construction and military family housing
programs are absolutely essential to the Air Force mission
whether it's on the flight line, in the workplace, or in the
home.
Although higher priorities have not always allowed us to
address all our facility needs, the Air Force certainly
recognizes the importance of investing in our facilities. We
fight from our bases, whether from expeditionary locations as
has been previously discussed, or otherwise, which makes our
facilities critical to our mission.
The importance our senior leaders place on our facilities
is seen in recent budget submissions. Our military construction
and housing facility budget has increased in fiscal year 2003,
and 2004, and increased further in this year's program request.
We sincerely appreciate your great support for our programs.
In addition to the military construction and the housing
request, we're continuing an upward trend in our operations and
maintenance sustainment, restoration, and modernization
accounts. The Air Force is committed to taking care of our
people and their families. Quality of life projects such as our
dormitories, and military family housing help support them.
As our members are more frequently deployed away from home,
knowing their families are well taken care of, helps our airmen
keep focused on the Air Force's and our Nation's task. With a
$1.7 billion request for military family housing we're able to
maintain our good housing and continue on our path to eliminate
inadequate housing in the Air Force by 2007 in the Continental
United States (CONUS), and 2009 overseas.
PRIVATIZATION
Through privatization initiatives and traditional housing
construction funds, we plan to invest in more than 10,000
housing units in fiscal year 2005 alone.
Providing adequate housing does not stop with families.
We're investing over $128 million to provide 1,104 rooms this
fiscal year in our dormitories, keeping us on track to
eliminate our inadequate dorms for our junior enlisted
personnel both in the United States and overseas. The quality
of our overseas installations remains a priority. Our airmen
are sent to foreign lands from their homes in the United States
to protect our Nation's interest. It is essential we provide
them with the right tools and facilities for them to carry out
their role.
With 20 percent of our airmen stationed overseas, it is
extremely important to make sure we continue to invest in those
installations supported as enduring locations by our combat
commanders.
Our budget request of $140 million for these locations
consists of the most essential facility needs to ensure our
airmen can efficiently perform their task and we ask for your
support of both the operational and quality of life projects.
Our military construction budget also consists of projects
to support the Air Force's new weapons systems which will
provide our combatant commanders the capabilities to meet our
security needs.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, we thank the committee for
its strong support of Air Force military construction and
family housing. As Mr. Gibbs mentioned, this is my first year
I've had the honor and privilege of bringing our program before
your committee and I look forward to appearing before you again
in the future. We'll be happy to address any questions you may
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson F. Gibbs
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the
strength and flexibility of airpower and our joint warfighting success
in the Global War on Terrorism is directly enabled by three
interdependent factors; outstanding men and women in uniform, superior
weapons platforms, and an agile support infrastructure. The Air Force
fiscal year 2005 military construction (MILCON) budget request reflects
our commitment to ensuring the Air Force's continued ability to execute
the full range of air and space missions. In turn, the Air Force
continues to maintain the commitments made last year to invest wisely
in installations from which we project air and space power, take care
of our people and their families with adequate housing and quality of
life improvements, and to sustain the public trust through prudent
environmental management.
INTRODUCTION
Air Force facilities, housing, and environmental programs are key
components of our support infrastructure. At home, bases provide a
stable training environment and a place to equip and reconstitute our
force. Overseas bases provide force projection platforms to support
combatant commanders.
As such, the Air Force has developed an investment strategy focused
on sustaining and recapitalizing existing infrastructure, investing in
quality of life improvements, continuing strong environmental
management, accommodating new missions, optimizing use of public and
private resources, and reducing infrastructure wherever we can.
Total Force military construction, family housing, sustainment,
restoration, and modernization programs each play vital roles
supporting operational requirements and maintaining a reasonable
quality of life for our men and women in uniform.
While the Air Force has always acknowledged the importance of
proper funding for facility sustainment and recapitalization, too often
competing priorities have not permitted us to address all the problems
we face with our aging infrastructure. Despite competing priorities,
you supported our request last year. The Air Force sincerely
appreciates your support.
Continuing a positive trend into fiscal year 2005, the Air Force
military construction program included in the Presidents Budget request
is approximately the same as last year with an increase in the military
family housing program. The requested $2.6 billion for Total Force
military construction and Military Family Housing is a $200 million
increase over last year's request. This request includes $664 million
for Active military construction, $127 million for Air National Guard
military construction, $84 million for Air Force Reserve military
construction, and more than $1.7 billion for Military Family Housing.
The Air Force has also increased Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) funding. This year,
the amount dedicated to SRM is more than $200 million greater than in
the 2004 request. With the fiscal year 2005 budget request, more than
$2.2 billion will be invested in critical infrastructure maintenance
and repair through our O&M program. This year's request is up almost 11
percent from last year, to continue to move to the Air Force goal of a
facility recapitalization rate of 67 years by 2008.
Considering the level of effort across the entire infrastructure
spectrum (military construction, MFH, and O&M SRM), the overall Air
Force fiscal year 2005 budget request is more than $4.8 billion.
Overseas Military Construction
Even though the majority of our Air Force personnel are assigned in
the United States, 20 percent of the force is permanently assigned
overseas, including 29,000 Air Force families. Old and progressively
deteriorating infrastructure at these bases requires increased
investment. While a new Global Basing Strategy is under development by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force fiscal year 2005
military construction request invests in overseas installations
supported as enduring locations by the combatant commanders. The
request for overseas construction in the Pacific and European theaters
of operation is $140 million for 13 projects. The program consists of
infrastructure and quality of life projects in the United Kingdom,
Germany, the Azores, Italy, Spain, Japan, and Korea. I also want to
thank you for the essential overseas MILCON funding you approved in the
fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for construction
projects in Southwest Asia as well as at critical en route airlift
locations, needed to directly support ongoing operations in that
region.
Planning and Design/Unspecified Minor Construction
This year's request includes planning and design funding of $160
million. These funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year
2006 construction program, and to start design of the fiscal year 2007
projects so we can be prepared to award these projects in the year of
appropriation. This year's request also includes $24 million for the
unspecified minor construction program, which is the primary means of
funding small, unforeseen projects that cannot wait for the normal
military construction process.
SUSTAIN, RESTORE, AND MODERNIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
Operations and Maintenance Investment
To sustain, restore, and modernize infrastructure, there must be a
balance between military construction and Operations and Maintenance.
Military construction restores and recapitalizes facilities. O&M
funding is used to perform facility sustainment activities necessary to
prevent facilities from failing prematurely. Without proper
sustainment, facilities and infrastructure wear out quickly. O&M
funding is also used to directly address many critical restoration and
less-expensive recapitalization needs. These funds enable commanders in
the field to address the facility requirements that impact their near-
term readiness.
INVEST IN QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS
The Air Force recognizes a correlation between readiness and
quality of life. Quality of life initiatives acknowledge the sacrifices
our Airmen make in support of the Nation and are pivotal to recruiting
and retaining our country's best and brightest. When Airmen deploy,
they want to know their families are safe, and secure. Their welfare is
a critical factor in our overall combat readiness. Family housing,
dormitories, and other quality of life initiatives reflect the Air
Force commitment to provide the facilities they deserve.
Family Housing
The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan provides the road map for
our Housing military construction, O&M, and privatization efforts, and
it is designed to meet the goal of ensuring safe, affordable, and
adequate housing for our members. The fiscal year 2005 budget request
reflects an increase of more than $180 million over the fiscal year
2004 budget for family housing. With the exception of four northern-
tier locations, inadequate housing will be eliminated in the United
States by 2007. The inadequate units at those four northern-tier
locations will be eliminated by 2008. For fiscal year 2005, the $847
million requested for housing investment will provide over 2,200 units
at 16 bases, improve more than 1,300 units at six bases, and support
privatization of over 6,800 units at six bases. An additional $864
million will be used to pay for maintenance, operations, utilities and
leases to support family housing.
Dormitories
Just as we are committed to provide adequate housing for families,
we have a comprehensive program to house our unaccompanied junior
enlisted personnel. The Air Force is well on its way in implementing a
Dormitory Master Plan. The plan includes a three-phased dormitory
investment strategy. The three phases are: (I) fund the replacement or
conversion of all permanent party central latrine dormitories; (II)
construct new facilities to eliminate the deficit of dormitory rooms;
and (III) convert or replace existing dormitories at the end of their
useful life using an Air Force-designed private room standard to
improve quality of life for Airmen. Phase I is complete and we are now
concentrating on the final two phases of the investment strategy.
The total Air Force requirement is 60,200 dormitory rooms. The Air
Force Dormitory Master Plan achieves the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's (OSD) fiscal year 2007 goal to replace all inadequate
permanent party dormitory rooms and the Air Force goal to replace all
inadequate technical training dormitories by fiscal year 2009. This
fiscal year 2005 budget request moves us closer to those goals. The
fiscal year 2005 dormitory program consists of seven dormitory
projects, 1104 rooms, at both stateside and overseas bases in direct
support of unaccompanied personnel, for a total of $128 million.
Fitness Centers
Fitness centers are a critical component of the Air Force quality
of life program. The growing expeditionary nature of our activities
requires that Airmen increasingly deploy to all regions of the world,
in extreme environments and therefore must be physically prepared to
deal with the associated challenges. In other words, Airmen must be
``fit to fight.'' Our new fitness program directs Airmen to devote more
time and energy to being physically fit, and the use of our fitness
centers has dramatically increased to support this reorientation in our
culture. The fiscal year 2005 military construction program includes
three fitness centers: Lajes Air Base, Azores; Hill Air Force Base
(AFB), Utah; and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.
CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
The Air Force continues to ensure operational readiness and sustain
the public trust through prudent environmental management. As part of
the overall military transformation program, we actively seek and
employ smarter solutions to long-standing environmental challenges. We
are applying lessons learned in terms of how, and the extent to which,
pollution can be prevented and contamination can be controlled. We are
investing in more efficient contracting methods as a key element in our
approach to future environmental restoration. Additional use of
performance based contracting will focus on cleanup performance goals
and thereby reduce process requirements. Finally, we are establishing
systems to better identify the equity value of our installations'
environmental resources to the surrounding community. For example, land
that provides habitat for an endangered species may be valuable as open
space in a community's redevelopment plan. That value should be
identified and understood.
In addition to ensuring our operations comply with all
environmental regulations and laws, we are dedicated to enhancing our
existing relationships with both the regulatory community and the
neighborhoods around our installations. We continue to seek
partnerships with local regulatory and commercial sector counterparts
to share ideas and create an atmosphere of better understanding and
trust. By focusing on our principles of ensuring operational readiness,
partnering with stakeholders, and protecting human health and the
environment, we remain leaders in environmental compliance, cleanup,
conservation, and pollution prevention.
The $3.3 million environmental project in the fiscal year 2005
military construction program will allow Shaw AFB to meet current
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for wastewater
discharge.
ACCOMMODATE NEW MISSIONS
As indicated earlier, joint warfighting success in the Global War
on Terrorism has been possible in part due to superior weapons
capabilities. New weapon systems are the tools of combat capability
that enable our combatant commanders to respond quickly to conflicts in
support of national security objectives. The fiscal year 2005 Total
Force new mission military construction program consists of 45
projects, totaling more than $403 million. These projects support a
number of weapons systems; two of special significance are the F/A-22
Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster III.
The F/A-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air
superiority and ground attack fighter. F/A-22 flight training and
maintenance training will be conducted at Tyndall AFB, Florida, and
Sheppard AFB, Texas, respectively. Our fiscal year 2005 military
construction request includes two F/A-22 projects at Tyndall AFB for
$19 million, and one F/A-22 project at Sheppard AFB totaling $21
million.
The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is replacing the fleet of C-141
Starlifters. C-17s will be based at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; Travis AFB
and March Air Reserve Base (ARB) in California; Dover AFB, Delaware;
Hickam AFB, Hawaii; Jackson Air National Guard Base, Mississippi;
McGuire AFB, New Jersey; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Charleston AFB, South
Carolina; and McChord AFB, Washington. Thanks to your support,
construction requirements for Charleston and McChord were funded in
prior-year military construction programs. The request for fiscal year
2005 includes two projects for $15 million at Elemendorf AFB, two
facility projects for $15 million at Travis AFB, two projects for $10
million at March ARB, and five facility projects for $26 million at
Hickam AFB.
Other new mission requirements in fiscal year 2005 include the
Global Hawk beddown at Beale AFB, California; Predator force structure
changes at Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada; Combat
Search and Rescue aircraft beddown at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; C-
130J simulator facility at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter test facilities at Edwards AFB, California; and various
projects supporting Homeland Defense, such as the Air Sovereignty Alert
missions flown by the Air National Guard at Andrews AFB, Maryland;
Duluth International Airport, Minnesota; Atlantic City International
Airport, New Jersey; and Truax Field, Wisconsin.
OPTIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES
In order for the Air Force to accelerate the rate at which we
revitalize our inadequate housing inventory, we have taken a measured
approach to housing privatization. We started with a few select
projects, looking for some successes and ``lessons learned'' to guide
the 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 have been constructed and are occupied by military
families. Since then, we have completed three more projects (Elmendorf
AFB, Alaska; Robins AFB, Georgia; and Dyess AFB, Texas) and have three
more under construction (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Patrick AFB,
Florida; and Kirtland AFB, New Mexico). Once these three projects are
complete, there will be nearly 5,500 privatized units. We are on track
to privatize 60 percent of our U.S. based family housing by 2007. The
fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $83 million to support the
privatization of nearly 7,000 units at six bases: Tyndall AFB, Florida;
Scott AFB, Illinois; Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Keesler AFB,
Mississippi; Holloman AFB, New Mexico; and Fairchild AFB, Washington.
continue demolition of excess, uneconomical-to-maintain facilities
For the past 8 years, the Air Force has pursued an aggressive
effort to demolish or dispose of facilities that are unneeded and no
longer economically feasible to sustain or restore. From fiscal year
1998 through fiscal year 2003, we demolished 15.5 million square feet
of non-housing building space at a total cost of $200 million. This is
equivalent to demolishing more than three average size Air Force
installations. For fiscal year 2004 and beyond, we will continue to
identify opportunities for demolition and facility consolidation. In
general, the facility demolition program has been a success, enabling
us to reduce the strain on infrastructure funding by getting rid of
facilities we don't need and can't afford to maintain.
CONCLUSION
The near and long term readiness of our fighting force depends upon
this infrastructure. We will continue to enhance our installations'
capabilities, remain good stewards of the environment, and ensure Air
Force infrastructure is properly distributed to maximize military
readiness.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, and thank all of you
for being here. I want to start, General Fox, or Mr. Secretary,
with the issue of privatization. I think we discussed it fully
with Mr. Dubois and the need to raise the cap. And I have
certainly a great interest in the Air Force privatization
projects at Lackland and Sheppard Air Force Base. There are
others. And I will be working to lift the cap so that those can
stay online.
BUILD-TO-LEASE HOUSING OVERSEAS
But my question is really on build-to-lease housing
overseas. The Air Force is requesting $44 million for family
housing this year at RAF Lakenheath, and an additional $131
million would be requested over the next four years, it
obviously will be an enduring base. And it includes $58 million
for family housing at Ramstein this year, with another $10
million in the out years.
The state of Rheinland-Pfalz has proposed a build-to-lease
program for military family housing in the Ramstein AB area, an
approach which has met with success in other places in Germany.
My question is, are you aware of this and have you considered
build-to-lease in lieu of traditional family housing at
Ramstein and could this be a more prominent part of your
building housing overseas at other bases including Lakenheath
where you're going to make a substantial investment.
GERMANY
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, I am aware of those proposals in Germany
for the build-to-lease. That is a potential solution. We have
had other build-to-lease projects in Germany previously. But
they currently have a--they have not reached resolution with
the Federal Government. The difficulties there is----
Senator Hutchison. Federal government of Germany?
Mr. Gibbs. Federal government of Germany. Their proposals
there would be to build on the--on Federal land, and they don't
currently have permission to do that. So they have some more
work to do internally within their governments, federal and
state level, to allow those projects to move forward.
To my knowledge, and this was through last week, they
hadn't made any proposals to do any of those activities on
private land at this point. But certainly----
Senator Hutchison. He said that, however----
Mr. Gibbs. Certainly.
Senator Hutchison. Is it something that you would consider?
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. Are you really looking at it seriously.
I'm sure that they will get over the hump and there would be
other options to look at if it's working so well in the United
States, is it something that we ought to be looking at
overseas?
Mr. Gibbs. Absolutely. We would encourage them to go beyond
the build-to-lease, to go into--to what effectively would be a
private--more closely--would look more similar to the
privatization that we do here. Which would be for them to
construct housing and effectively put it at our disposal in
exchange for the allowance for quarters over there. Which would
not give us a long-term commitment as a build-to-lease does.
We have had some preliminary discussions with them about
that. They've been a little apprehensive because of the
increased risk. One of the things that we want to talk with
them further about is the success it has enjoyed here. Try to
convince them to consider that in addition to the build-to-
lease.
Senator Hutchison. Well, since you are making commitments
to enduring bases, which I certainly support because it will
mean that we can do no military construction at bases that will
not be designated right now as enduring, I hope that you will
factor that in as quickly as possible as we are looking at some
pretty substantial investments in traditional housing. And
perhaps prioritize the traditional housing that you know would
be best on base whether it's general, officer, or----
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Or whatever would be right.
So that we can save any dollars that might be able to be saved
down the road.
Mr. Gibbs. Absolutely.
GUARD AND RESERVE
Senator Hutchison. I'd like to ask General Brubaker and
General Rajczak. In past Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
rounds our Guard and Reserve forces have not been treated as
well, and perhaps you can say, well, we haven't used them to
the extent that we are now using Guard and Reserve units.
However, would you just make a brief statement about where you
think we are now in the planning for BRAC and in military
construction ongoing, as it relates to assuring that our Guard
and Reserve units have the capacity and the military
construction that they need.
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
General Brubaker. If I may start, I would just say that
first of all we are, I think, very fairly and well represented
in the BRAC process. From the National Guard perspective we are
a sitting member of the Air Force Base Closure Executive Group
(BCEG). And I'm very pleased with our interaction and our
ability to express any concerns from the National Guard
perspective.
As far as how we will play in BRAC and whether or not that
will be considered, I think again we will be equally
represented in that process as the Air Force works its way
through the BRAC and makes its formal recommendations.
RESERVE
General Rajczak. I agree with General Brubaker's comments.
We are also a representative, or also a member of the Base
Closure Executive Group, for the Air Force. And to address your
second point about new construction, or being able to get
adequate support for our construction requirements, most of the
new construction that is in our fiscal year 2005 budget request
as a matter of fact is for new mission support. Including
installations and activities in Texas and California both, as
well as in Ohio, and in Oregon.
Again, we compete very well through the Air Force budgeting
process and I think we're very fairly represented both in the
BRAC and in new construction requirements.
C-17
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Gibbs, I read in your testimony the
commitment and the military construction that you're asking for
to support the F/A-22 and the C-17. And I just wanted to ask
you and perhaps you can answer this for the record, because
it's somewhat parochial.
C-17 BASING
But in looking at all of the places that there would be
basing for the C-17, I would just like to ask you to look at a
couple of places in Texas, where there might be some savings in
military construction. Either Dyess, where there is excess
capacity still, ramp space. And of course for the B-1s, and
Kelly where there is significant space, hangar space still
available and could take C-17s. If any of those would be able
to save military construction in the other basing, I would
appreciate your just looking at that.
Senator Feinstein. You know they're going to California.
Senator Hutchison. Well, some aren't.
They're going to California, Alaska----
Senator Feinstein. I'm shocked at you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. California, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii,
Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and the
State of Washington. I'm not suggesting that we mess with
California, but I'm just wondering if with all of the bases
that are in the works here, if there would be some savings.
That's what I'm asking you to----
Senator Feinstein. Texas doesn't have enough--no, never
mind.
Senator Hutchison. Well, we have capacity that is unused.
And particularly Dyess, and then for repairs and maintenance
would be the only place that Kelly would work. But there is
significant space--hangar space there because of the losses.
Mr. Gibbs. The short answer to your question is yes. The
longer answer, if I could take about 2 or 3 minutes. What you
just described to a great extent is the beauty of the BRAC
round. There are a lot of numbers that are thrown around as to
excess capacity and what it is and it's obviously in the eye of
the beholder.
But in the eye of this beholder it's a substantially
different environment that we have today, than we had in all of
the preceding rounds that considered Base Closure and
Realignment. In all of those previous periods, what we had were
a number of bases that were significantly underused. They were
using only 20 or 30 percent of their capacity. So the BRAC was
approached at, well, if we have this base that's 30 percent
used and this space that's 30 percent used, let's just close
one and move that mission to the other one, and that was easily
done.
We don't have that condition existing today to any
substantial extent. Certainly not in the Air Force. What we
have is a lot of bases that are 60 to 90 percent used. When we
come out of this BRAC round, the task, the goal to be achieved
here is to get the utilization on the remaining bases up into
the 85 to 90 percent range.
So we will no longer have the luxury of keeping bases, all
bases at a mission unique category. We cannot afford to have a
70 percent utilized base. We have to find a mission to take it
up to 85 or 90. So that's exactly what we are attempting to do
in the analysis leading up to the BRAC round, to make sure that
we as effectively use as we possibly can, making allowances--to
respond to a question you asked to the previous panel--for the
ability to surge and also to look out for the unknown unknowns
that will be occurring over the next 20 years, the time period
that the Congress has directed that we look to for sizing this
base structure.
Senator Hutchison. Well, certainly placement is a big part
of it. The facilities that you are looking at for this year's
MILCON would be Alaska, Hawaii and California. But there are a
lot of other smaller bases that you're saying are going to take
C-17s, and I would hope that you might look at an enduring base
which would be Dyess as a possible recipient of some the C-17s
when there is that excess capacity.
GENERAL OFFICER QUARTERS
Just a last question. On the general officer quarters. The
Air Force rating for adequacy apparently according to the
Defense Department IG is different from the other services. And
therefore there's a significant difference in the Air Force
declaration that 82 percent of its general officer quarters are
inadequate, while Army and Navy deem all of theirs adequate.
My question is, should everybody be coming up to your
standards, or should you be looking at it in a more uniform
way, and are you addressing those issues that the IG has
raised?
Mr. Gibbs. I'll ask General Fox to answer it both from an
Air Force, and a personal perspective, I think.
General Fox. Madam Chairman, I would tell you that we have
set goals for family housing, military family housing of 2007
across the continental United States, and 2009 overseas and
we're meeting those goals. We're doing a terrific job through
privatization and our housing MILCON program of upgrading
quarters for our troops.
Since Mr. Gibbs said, let me give you the personal
anecdote. I can tell you that at Bolling Air Force Base here in
Washington we are well along with taking care of quarters for
our airmen and our non-commissioned officers. And we're
developing those quarters to commercial standards, the same
thing that they would be able to rent or buy downtown. That's
the standard.
Similar for senior officers, the goal is commercial
standards. What we live in at Bolling Air Force Base is 70 year
old quarters, that are very rundown. We have put those quarters
at the end of the cycle to upgrade taking care of our troops
first. As we get towards the goal of 2007, the people who will
be left remaining to have quarters fixed to a commercial
standard, to a decent standard that they would rent or buy
downtown will be the senior officers.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you gentlemen for your service. I just want to assure
that the bed down costs for the C-17 and the C-5 transformation
are in the FYDP, aren't they?
Mr. Gibbs. To the extent that we know them, yes, ma'am.
BEDDOWN FOR C-17 AND C-5
Senator Feinstein. Okay. To the extent that you know them,
right. So the commitment is to put them in the Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP). I recognize that in the 2005 bill we
have two facility projects, two at Travis for $15 million, and
two projects for $10 million at March. So I think that
California is going to be very happy about that, and we thank
you for that.
Mr. Gibbs. That's one of the earlier locations.
Senator Feinstein. Pardon me?
Mr. Gibbs. That's one of the earlier locations from the
list that the Chairman read.
General Fox. Senator Feinstein, if I can answer. The way
that we prioritize our military construction program, when we
bring in a new weapon system like the C-17 to California we
will ensure that those requirements are funded up front in our
President's budget submission.
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Feinstein. Good, that's what I really wanted to
hear. Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much, General.
Last year we were unable to fund the consolidated fitness
center requested by the Air Force for Vandenberg. However, we
included language in the conference report supporting the
project and urging its inclusion in the 2005 budget request.
And it's not in the 2005 budget request. Could you tell us what
the reason is? It's not even in the future, in the FYDP, any
longer.
Mr. Gibbs. I think it's----
Senator Feinstein.--and it was requested.
Mr. Gibbs. I think it's out about 4 years, 3 or 4 years.
General Fox. 2008.
Mr. Gibbs. 2008. It's a--I'll give you an answer that I
know when I give it to you before I start, it's going to be
inadequate from your perspective. Putting together the military
construction budget for the Air Force, since there are always
needs, and there are always more needs than there are resources
to fill them. So we plan out over a period of time, and the
military construction funds are held quite dearly and the
competition is severe within the Air Force to obtain those.
When the Congress eliminates something that the Air Force
had put into its budget, it makes it very difficult to get that
thing back into the budget in the near term. Because there are
too many people that have the competing needs and say the
Congress has already told you you don't need it, if you put it
again, you stand the chance of losing it again.
So it--it becomes very difficult to get those back in
shortly after they're taken out.
Senator Feinstein. Well, let me just say what the signal
was, we had some major problems fitting in the European basing
towards the end. And we had many protracted negotiations and it
turned out that I had to give up a project, so we gave up
Vandenberg with the commitment that it would be funded this
year. And we put the report language in the bill saying that we
would fund it this year. So----
Mr. Gibbs. Ma'am, I'm not aware of any discussions like
that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you should be aware, respectfully,
of the report language.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Senator Feinstein. It was in the bill which says that we
would fund it. So you're saying it isn't a necessity any
longer, or you would have submitted it to us.
Mr. Gibbs. No, ma'am, I think I said it the way I believe
it, that in fact when the Congress takes something out of the
budget, it's very difficult to get it back within the process.
Senator Feinstein. So that is for all the overseas basing?
Several were eliminated last year, and they were included in
the President's 2005 budget. I think that's somewhat
disingenuous. I mean, we deleted things in Europe last year.
So how can you come back and say, you know, it's--true, it
is a fitness center. But that also was a priority in your
opening statement, the commitment to fitness.
Mr. Gibbs. Absolutely.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just ask you----
Mr. Gibbs. The same amount of money is going into fitness
centers in 2005 as was--if you'll go back and look at the 2004
plan for 2005, those projects are still there and the same
amount of money is committed to fitness centers as we had said
there would be the previous year.
Senator Feinstein. But you just are putting them somewhere
else?
Mr. Gibbs. No, they're the ones that were in for 2005.
They're the same ones.
Senator Feinstein. But you're not applying the same
standards to the fitness center that you apply in Europe, where
a project denied last year comes back this year.
Mr. Gibbs. No, I think what I just said was that the same
amount of money is included in 2005 request for fitness centers
as we told you in the 2005 plan would be applied to fitness
centers. And without looking at each one individually and I
will go back and confirm that for you, but I think it's the
same ones we said a year ago were going to be in 2005.
Senator Feinstein. Well, in my view, Mr. Secretary, you're
splitting hairs. You clearly didn't put the money in for the
Vandenberg fitness center, right?
Mr. Gibbs. That's correct.
Senator Feinstein. And we clearly said in our report
language that if you did, we'd fund it this year.
And--okay. I have no other questions, Madam Chairman.
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Well, I would just like to follow-
up and ask General Fox, would you say that Vandenberg is still
a priority, as it was last year?
General Fox. Madam Chairman, we have a lot of priorities
that we weren't able to get into the fiscal year 2005
President's budget. I would tell you even from Secretary
Dubois' comments about how the Department of Defense is
beginning to build back its military construction program, we
believe that the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air
Force are very committed to building back the military
construction program, such that we'll be able to bring a
healthier MILCON program to you in following years after this
submittal in fiscal year 2005.
To answer your question specifically, I believe the
Vandenberg fitness center is a very viable project. There were
actually three projects that we were unable to have headroom in
our military construction submittal to get into the fiscal year
2005 program. When we buy our new mission requirements for C-
17, and other aircraft, then buy the must do legal requirements
for environmental compliance, and look at the dormitories as a
priority, we were constrained in 2005.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
But I believe the major command that owns the requirement
for the Vandenberg fitness center will push it very very hard
in the near term.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
FITNESS CENTERS
Question. Your written testimony notes the Air Force's new emphasis
on fitness. Our staff just visited a number of Air Force bases in
Europe and found that even brand new fitness centers, such as the one
that just opened at Aviano, are overcrowded because of the new fitness
emphasis. Is the Air Force adjusting its design guidelines for fitness
centers to account for the increased demand, and are the three fitness
centers in this year's budget adequately sized to accommodate that
demand?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force is changing the Fitness Center Facility
Design Guide to accommodate the impact of the ``Fit to Fight''
initiative; increased use of fitness centers by both individual users
and larger groups. Proposed changes include the addition of indoor
running lanes, adjustments in size requirements for locker rooms, group
exercise areas, and equipment areas, and the addition of parent-child
workout area.
The three fitness center projects in the fiscal year 2005
President's Budget (Elmendorf AFB, AK; Hill AFB, UT; and Lajes AB,
Portugal) all are currently under design based on the current guide.
Elmendorf AFB is developing a companion O&M project to improve their
facility. The combination of MILCON and O&M work will meet immediate
needs. Hill AFB's only major scope concern is an indoor running track,
which they identified as an optional bid item. If construction bids are
favorable, they will include the indoor running track in the fiscal
year 2005 project. The Lajes fitness center project will provide an
additional 1,300 SM of space to greatly improve their existing
conditions.
GENERAL OFFICER HOUSING
Question. The Air Force has an elaborate system for rating the
adequacy of its General Officer Quarters and is to be commended for
establishing a systematic approach to this question. However, the
system has resulted in the Air Force declaring 82 percent of its
General Officer Quarters as ``inadequate'' while the Army and Navy deem
all of theirs to be adequate. The Defense Department Inspector General
issued a memorandum in January noting significant issues in the Air
Force's approach and suggesting steps to improve it. What are you doing
to address the issues raised by the IG?
Answer. The Air Force uses the Condition Assessment Matrix (CAM) to
assess/rate the condition of its Military Family Housing (MFH)
inventory, including the existing General Officer Quarters (GOQ)
inventory. This system rates the condition of each component of the
house and evaluates its functional adequacy with regard to Air Force
standards. The goal of these standards is to construct and maintain
housing that is comparable to what Airmen can rent or buy downtown.
Through this systematic approach, the Air Force developed the GOQ
Master Plan. This plan identifies 82 percent of the GOQ inventory as
requiring a one-time MILCON project. These whole-house improvement
projects would address all deficiencies, conditional and functional.
For the remaining 18 percent of the GOQ inventory, deficiencies can be
addressed through routine MFH operations and maintenance cycles.
The Air Force non-concurred with the Department of Defense
Inspector General (DOD IG) memorandum regarding the GOQ Master Plan,
stating: ``We appreciate the efforts of the DOD IG during the past 4
years regarding the Air Force GOQ Master Plan and agree that there are
minor administrative procedures that may warrant improvements. However,
in reviewing the assumptions and findings contained in the audit
memorandum, Air Force policy is misstated and there are factual errors
that warrant a response.'' The Air Force provided a 45-page, detailed
response, which addressed assertions contained in the DOD IG
memorandum.
Prior to the completion of the DOD IG audit, the Air Force
independently took action to refine and improve the Condition
Assessment Matrix (CAM) definitions. The Air Force also proactively
corrected administrative errors found within the GOQ Master Plan.
The Air Force fully supports the Condition Assessment Matrix (CAM)
process and the GOQ Master Plan as excellent planning tools for
managing its GOQ inventory. The GOQ Master Plan methodology is
supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD AT&L). The OSD
AT&L Housing and Competitive Sourcing director endorsed the GOQ Master
Plan methodology in a November 20, 2003 memorandum to the DOD IG.
Furthermore, the American Planning Association Federal Division
recognized the GOQ Master Plan as the ``Outstanding Federal Program of
the Year'' for 2004.
C-17 BASING DECISION
Question. Information on C-17 Basing decisions, specifically with
reference to Dyess AFB and Kelly USA
Answer. The Air Force briefed a comprehensive Mobility Roadmap to
Congress on 15 April 2002. The roadmap was part of a detailed force
structure plan that included 33 states and 53 bases and identified the
beddown plan for 180 C-17s, 112 C-5s, and the remaining C-130 fleet
following the reduction of 56 C-130s. The roadmap development
considered numerous options while building a plan that balanced
requirements and fiscal constraints.
Given the current and authorized mobility force structure, the Air
Force plan is to maintain the C-130 mission at Dyess AFB and the C-5
mission at Lackland AFB (Kelly Field). Additionally, the Air Force will
transfer the C-5 Flying Training Unit mission to Lackland AFB in fiscal
year 2007.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
REDUCED REQUEST
Question. When comparing the active component military construction
funding requests, the Air Force, by far, asked for much less funding
this year than in previous years. For example, this year's request is
20 percent less than last year's requested amount, and 36 percent less
than the enacted amount. With the recapitalization rate of your
infrastructure climbing, how do you justify this reduced request?
Answer. The Air Force has a balanced program and we continue to
concentrate on our backlog and achieving OSD's 67-year recap rate goal
by 2008.
Although the active portion of the Air Force's fiscal year 2005
military construction request ($664 million) is 14 percent less than
the fiscal year 2004 request ($773 million), the total force (active,
Guard, and Reserve) request of $876 million is $89 million greater than
our fiscal year 2005 projection in the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget (PB) request and near the same level as the fiscal year 2004 PB
request of $878 million. Also, our fiscal year 2005 recapitalization
rate of 148 years is better than the 180 years of last year's budget
request, putting us on track to achieve and maintain a 67-year rate by
2008. Although we are taking some near-term risk in our facilities, we
expect our outyear investment increases will help us make significant
improvements.
FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
Question. This year your request for funding family housing is 16
percent greater than last years request. Conversely, the Navy's request
has decreased by almost 19 percent from last year's requested amount.
It is my understanding that the Navy attributes this decrease to family
housing privatization. As your testimony states, the privatization
concept allows the services the opportunity to leverage through
contractors, private funds, that will get military families into
modern, adequate housing more quickly.
Initially, the Air Force was more reluctant to use privatization to
fill this housing deficit. However, now, at least in the continental
United States, the Air Force program is well underway. Could you
describe the Air Force's current position on family housing
privatization?
Answer. With over 40,000 housing units requiring revitalization,
the Air Force recognizes housing privatization as a key part of OSD's
three-pronged strategy of using local community housing, privatization,
and MILCON to provide adequate housing for our Airmen. Privatization
allows the Air Force to attract private sector capital and expertise to
provide quality housing for Air Force members, thereby leveraging our
construction dollars. As of March 2004, the Air Force has privatized
6,092 units by contributing $122.3 million for a total development cost
of $647.3 million--a leverage of 6.28:1. Eight more projects are
planned for award by June 2004 to privatize 10,027 units for a leverage
of 22.85:1. With housing privatization providing quality housing sooner
and at less cost, the Air Force has budgeted $39.1 million in fiscal
year 2005 to develop privatization concepts and acquire 48 projects
valued at over $5.6 billion. Besides leveraging Air Force construction
dollars, housing privatization is proving to be more cost effective
than traditional MILCON. Of seven awarded projects, privatization is
6.5 percent less costly than traditional MILCON over the 50-year life
cycle; and of six projects pending award, privatization is 14.5 percent
less. Succeeding with housing privatization, the Air Force is
considering every base with housing areas not yet privatized for
privatization during updates to the Family Housing Master Plan (FHMP)
to revitalize remaining inadequate housing units. Currently,
feasibility studies are on going at 25 separate installations.
Privatization will be selected when payback meets OSD criterion and the
life cycle cost analysis indicates privatization to be cheaper than
continued government ownership. With continued support from the budget
authority for military family housing privatization and on-going
successes in housing privatization, the Air Force's FHMP will meet the
Secretary of Defense's 2007 goal.
DERF FUNDS USE
Question. The Committee has become extremely frustrated by the
poorly planned use of Defense Emergency Response Funds (DERF) to
implement physical security measures. It appears that neither the Air
Force, nor any of the other services for that matter, has adopted a
standardized plan regarding certified and tested physical security
measures and the products used to ensure these measures.
The Department of State has a long-standing physical security
program including product testing and certification. Time-proven
security measures could be adopted immediately by each of the services.
Has the Air Force made efforts to explore standardized measures for
security enhancement and to immediately adopt products and measures
that are proven?
Answer. The Air Force employs a multi-pronged approach to the
acquisition of physical security technologies. This approach includes
capitalizing on Research and Development (R&D), and operational testing
efforts, as well as tapping into existing governmental and commercially
available solutions. Several entities including the Electronic Systems
Center at Hanscom AFB MA, the Force Protection Battlelab at Lackland
AFB TX, and the DOD Physical Security Equipment Action Group (PSEAG)
are integral to this effort.
The PSEAG is a Joint-service R&D program that supports the Physical
Security Equipment requirements of the four Services. The PSEAG selects
or designs, evaluates, and acquires the most efficient and productive
security equipment at the most reasonable cost to ensure the effective
protection of DOD resources, including personnel, classified
information, material, and readiness assets. The PSEAG provides
programming, planning, and funding support for both near and long term
requirements, and eliminates duplication of R&D while ensuring
interoperability between essential elements of security systems fielded
by the DOD components to ensure Joint Interest/Joint Capability. The
acquisition of SmartGate technology is an example of a successful
product and operational development.
In addition, the Air Force is fully engaged with the Technical
Support Working Group (TSWG). The TSWG, the U.S. national forum that
includes the Department of State, identifies, prioritizes, and
coordinates interagency and international R&D requirements for
combating terrorism. The TSWG rapidly develops technologies and
equipment to meet the high priority needs of the combating terrorism
community, and addresses joint international operational requirements
through cooperative R&D with major allies. Since 1986, the TSWG has
pursued combating terrorism technologies in the broad context of
national security by providing a cohesive interagency forum to define
user based technical requirements spanning the Federal interagency
community.
The Air Force recently fielded the Integrated Base Defense Security
Systems (IBDSS) contract which provides a critical line of defense for
all critical assets, fixed, temporary or mobile by way of electronic
detection, alarm assessment, access control, communications and
command, control and display capabilities to support an effective
response. The intent of this effort is to provide security personnel
with standardized and integrated security systems that neutralize or
mitigate anticipated threats while reducing manpower levels wherever
possible.
IBDSS acquisition is a contract vehicle for satisfying all of the
Force Protection Command and Control Directorates acquisition
requirements for the next 5 years. This contract supports quick
reaction temporary and permanent fixed site deployments as well as
multiple installations at different locations in parallel throughout
the world. It will also be the vehicle of choice for providing
standardized material solutions to combat mission need statements in
support of the global war on terrorism, after appropriate approvals are
obtained, if required.
From a MILCON standpoint, construction guidance supports security
operational and acquisition development. The Air Force recently fielded
an Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Facility Investment Strategy
(FIS) to effectively manage AT/FP facility requirements. To get the
most for our AT/FP facility investment, FIS assigns highest priority to
securing our perimeters. Once perimeters are secure, we can ``move in''
to take care of critical and mass gathering facilities. Combined with
new Air Force entry control facility design standards and SmartGate
acquisition, FIS succeeds making the most of our construction funds to
protect our installations.
AIR FORCE BRAC
Question. The Air Force's budget request for BRAC environmental
cleanup took a $53 million (-27 percent) cut. Only 2 years ago, under
my Chairmanship, the Air Force was desperately short funding for BRAC
environmental remediation, and Senator Hutchison and I added an
additional $25 million to assist you. Now, only 2 years later, the
request is on a downward glide slope while the needs are equally, or
maybe even more pressing.
Six of the Air Force's National Priority list sites are in
California. With cleanup at McClellan AFB estimated to continue until
2034, it's inconceivable to me that 27 percent less funding is
required. How do you justify this greatly reduced request?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Air Force BRAC environmental
President's Budget request was not a result of a program cut. As our
overall program matures, we move from high cost construction projects
to lower cost system operation and maintenance projects. The shift to
system operation and maintenance requirements will be reflected in more
level funding requests in this and in future years.
As the BRAC environmental program moves forward, we are taking
advantage of remedial system optimization efforts to reduce our overall
program long-term costs in order to deal with our challenges and meet
our commitments at McClellan and other bases.
MC CLELLAN AFB
Question. Air Force representatives, and representatives of
McClellan Park met the week of March 22nd to negotiate the early
transfer of McClellan. I was happy to add funding to the Defense Bill
last year to advance to sewer replacement which I understand will begin
construction this summer. Could you please describe the progress that
has been made in these negotiations and which items remain open?
Answer. Regarding the sewer project, we have budgeted $3.0 million
in fiscal year 2004 to augment the OEA grant of $4.9 million to begin
the replacement project. The Air Force portion of the sewer project is
the removal of contaminated soil encountered during the sewer trenching
operation. The Air Force, Sacramento County, along with McClellan Park
are working to finalize an Environmental Services Cooperative
Agreement. Project is on track to begin July 2004.
Regarding privatization, the Air Force, County, California State
regulators, EPA Region IX, and McClellan Park met on March 25, 2004 to
initiate the project. The meeting was considered a success by all
attendees; agencies committed to completing general action items and
agreed on delivery dates, and to move ahead on the privatization
proposal. The County is preparing a project for a specific parcel of
land for the agencies to consider. This project, which is due by the
end of April 2004, will provide the basis for developing the required
agreements and documents to execute privatization.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Well, we'll work with you and with
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for your time, we
appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:51 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison and Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MAJOR GENERAL LARRY J. LUST, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MAJOR GENERAL WALTER F. PUDLOWSKI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL GARY M. PROFIT, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. First, I apologize for being late for
this hearing. We just finished our second vote and so I was
detained on the floor. I talked to Senator Feinstein on the
floor and because of the delay she is not going to be able to
make it to this hearing; she had an emergency briefing in the
Intel Committee that was just called so she is not going to be
able to make it. She had intended to come and then leave, but I
told her I certainly understood and I knew that you would.
But we do have quite a bit to discuss and I appreciate very
much the Army and the Navy coming in today to talk about
Military Construction. And I would like to start with the Army
budget and say that in the remarks that you have put forward,
Mr. Prosch, the Army Military Construction is 15 percent above
last year's request and National Guard is 75 percent above last
year's request and Reserve is up 27 percent. However, even
though Guard and Reserve are up they are still below the levels
that we enacted last year, and I am concerned that we are
getting further and further behind in Guard and Reserve
Military Construction. I am very hopeful that you will talk
about the Residential Communities Initiative. I have seen some
of those at Fort Hood, I think it is a wonderful concept, and I
know that this is a priority for you, which I totally support;
it's what we ought to be doing for our military families, and I
hope we can work together to raise the privatization cap so
that you will have the opportunity to do that.
I think the fact that it has been announced that we are
bringing mostly Army troops back from Germany and Korea in the
next 5 to 6 years is very important for the Military
Construction issue but I also am concerned, and I hope you will
address this, that with the numbers that we are looking at,
roughly half what we have in Europe today in the Army are going
to be coming home, when will we start seeing the Military
Construction affects of this? When will we start seeing what
you're going to need for those bases to which these people will
be coming? In addition, General Abizaid has testified before
Congress that he has 44 unfunded MILCON projects with a price
tag of $531 million, most of which will be in Army support. I
said last week that we really need to start looking at that
because that's a major part of any Military Construction
funding that we would be looking at.
So with that let me say welcome. I am glad we've been able
to visit. I look forward to hearing the summary of your
statement, and then I will have some questions. Thank you.
Mr. Prosch. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am
pleased to appear before you with my Army Installation
partners--Major General Larry Lust from the Active Army; Major
General Walt Pudlowski from the Army National Guard and
Brigadier General Gary Profit from the Army Reserve--to discuss
the Army's fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget. We
have provided a detailed written statement for the record but I
would like to comment briefly on the highlights of our program.
We begin by expressing our deep appreciation for the great
support that the Congress has provided to our soldiers and
their families who are serving our country around the world. We
are a Nation and an Army at war and our soldiers would not be
able to perform their mission so well without your support.
We have submitted a robust Military Construction budget of
$3.7 billion, 13 percent over fiscal year 2004 amended budget
request, that will fund our highest priority, Active Army, Army
National Guard and Army Reserve facilities, along with our
family housing requirements. This budget request supports the
Army vision encompassing current readiness, transformation and
people. As we are fighting the global war on terrorism we are
simultaneously transforming to be a more relevant and ready
Army. We are on a path with the transformation of installation
management that will allow us to achieve these objectives.
We currently have almost 250,000 soldiers mobilizing and
demobilizing, deploying and redeploying. More troops are coming
and going on our Army installations than in any era since World
War II. Our soldiers and installations are on point for the
Nation.
The Army recently identified key focus areas to channel our
efforts to win the global war on terrorism and to increase the
relevance and readiness of the Army. One of our focus areas is
installations as flagships, which enhances the ability of our
Army installations to project power and support families. Our
installations support an expeditionary force where soldiers
train, mobilize and deploy to fight and are sustained as they
reach back for enhanced support. Soldiers and their families
who live on and off the installation deserve the same quality
of life as is afforded the society they are pledged to defend.
Installations are a key ingredient to combat readiness and
well-being. Our worldwide installation structure is critically
linked to Army transformation and the successful fielding of
the future force. Military Construction is a critical tool to
ensure that our installations remain relevant and ready. Our
fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget will provide the
resources and facilities necessary for continued support of our
mission. Let me summarize what this budget will provide for the
U.S. Army: new barracks for 4,200 soldiers; adequate on-post
housing for 14,200 Army families; increased MILCON funding for
the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve over last year's
request; new readiness centers for over 3,000 Army National
Guard soldiers; new Reserve centers for over 2,800 Army Reserve
soldiers; a $287 million military construction investment and
training ranges; a battalion-size basic combat training complex
and facilities support and improvements for four Stryker
brigades.
With the sustained and balanced funding represented by this
budget our long-term strategies will be supported. With your
continued help we will be able to improve soldier and family
quality of life while remaining focused on the Army's
transformation to the future force.
In closing Madam Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity
to outline our program. As I have visited Army installations I
have witnessed progress that has been made and we attribute
much of this success directly to the long-standing support of
this committee and your able staff. With your continued
assistance the Army pledges we will use fiscal year 2005 MILCON
funding to remain responsive to the Nation's needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
subcommittee. Me and my partners here will be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geoffrey G. Prosch
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Army's Military Construction budget
request for fiscal year 2005. This request includes initiatives of
critical importance to the Army and this committee, and we appreciate
the opportunity to report on them to you. We would like to begin by
expressing our appreciation for the tremendous support that the
Congress has provided to our Soldiers and their families who are
serving our country around the world. We are a Nation and an Army at
war, and our Soldiers would not be able to perform their missions so
well without your support.
OVERVIEW
The Army has begun one of the most significant periods of
transformation in its 228-year history. We are ``An Army at War--
Relevant and Ready.'' This maxim will define how we meet the Nation's
military requirements today and into the future. As we are fighting the
Global War on Terrorism, we are simultaneously transforming to be a
more relevant and ready Army. We are on the road to a transformation
that will allow us to continue to dominate conventional battlefields
and provide the ability to deter and defeat adversaries who rely on
surprise, deception, and asymmetric warfare to achieve their
objectives. To accomplish our objective, our operational force will
temporarily increase by 30,000 soldiers. We currently have almost
250,000 soldiers mobilizing and demobilizing, deploying and
redeploying--more troops are coming and going on our installations than
in any era since World War II. Military Construction is an important
tool to our network of installations to meet our challenging
requirements.
As part of this transformation, the Army is fielding and equipping
six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) to meet Combatant Commanders'
requirements and to continue the Army's commitment to the Global War on
Terrorism. These SBCTs allow the Army to continue modernizing and
transforming the Current Force. The rapid development and fielding of
six SBCTs is leading the transformation of the Army--physically and
culturally.
To meet the challenges of today's missions, 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 deployment platforms to generate the capabilities
necessary to sustain a lethal force. We must ensure that a trained and
qualified force will be in place to support the Future Force of a
transformed Army. To meet that goal and ensure continued readiness, we
must take care of Soldiers and families. Our installations are a key
component in this effort.
INSTALLATIONS AS FLAGSHIPS
The Army recently identified 17 Army Focus Areas to channel our
efforts to win the Global War on Terrorism and to increase the
relevance and readiness of the Army. One of the Focus Areas--
Installations as Flagships--enhances the ability of an Army
installation to project power and support families. Our installations
support an expeditionary force where Soldiers train, mobilize, and
deploy to fight and are sustained as they reach back for support.
Soldiers and their families who live on and off the installation
deserve the same quality of life as is afforded the society they are
pledged to defend. Installations are a key component in the tenets of
the Army Vision. Our worldwide installations structure is inextricably
linked to Army transformation and the successful fielding of the Future
Force.
INSTALLATION STRATEGIES
There is much work to be done if all installations are to be
flagships with the ability to both project power and support families
to an equitable standard. We are a world-class combat ready force being
supported by substandard facilities that impair our ability to meet the
mission. To improve our facilities posture, we have specific
initiatives to focus our resources on the most important areas--
Barracks, Family Housing, Focused Facilities, Ranges, and
Transformation.
Barracks.--The Army is in the 11th year of its campaign to
modernize barracks to provide 136,000 single enlisted permanent party
Soldiers with quality living environments. This year's budget request
includes 19 barracks projects providing new or improved housing for
4,200 Soldiers. The new complexes provide two-soldier suites, increased
personal privacy, larger rooms, walk-in closets, new furnishings,
adequate parking, landscaping, and unit administrative offices
separated from the barracks. With the approval of $700.4 million for
barracks in this request, a significant portion of our requirement will
be funded. We are making considerable progress at U.S. installations
and the Army funded two barracks projects, based upon the Combatant
Commander's request, for Grafenwoehr, Germany.
Family Housing.--This year's budget continues our significant
investment in our Soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to
have funding in place by 2007 to eliminate inadequate housing. We have
included funding in this year's budget request to privatize 11,906
houses. In addition we will replace 1,313 houses, build 100 new houses
to support Stryker Brigade Combat Team deployment, and upgrade another
875 houses using traditional Military Construction. For families living
off-post, the budget request for military personnel increases the basic
allowance for housing to eliminate out of pocket expenses. Once
overseas basing decisions are made, we will adjust our plans for new
housing construction overseas.
Focused Facilities.--Building on the successes of our housing and
barracks programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of
Army infrastructure with the Focused Facility Strategy. The
Installation Readiness Report is used to determine facilities quality
ratings of C-1 to C-4 based on their ability to support mission
requirements.
Installation Readiness Report--Facilities Quality Ratings
--C-1 facilities fully support mission accomplishment
--C-2 facilities support the majority of assigned missions
--C-3 facilities impair mission performance
--C-4 facilities significantly impair mission performance
We are a C-1 Army living and working in C-3 facilities. Our goal is
to reach an overall Army average of C-2 quality by 2010 by
concentrating on seven types of C-3 and C-4 facilities. These focus
facilities are general instruction buildings, Army National Guard
Readiness Centers, Army Reserve Centers, tactical vehicle maintenance
shops, training barracks, physical fitness centers, and chapels. We are
requesting $207 million in fiscal year 2005 to support this initiative.
Army Range and Training Land Strategy.--Providing ranges and
training lands that enable the Army to train and develop its full
capabilities is key to ensuring that America's forces are relevant and
ready now. The Army's Deputy Chief of Staff G-3 developed the Army
Range and Training Land Strategy to support the Department of Defense's
Training Transformation, Army Transformation, and the Army's
Sustainable Range Program. It identifies priorities for installations
requiring resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and
acquire training land. The strategy serves as the mechanism to
prioritize investments for these installations and seeks to optimize
the use of all range and land assets. The result is a long-range plan
that provides the best range infrastructure and training lands based on
mission and training requirements.
Current to Future Force.--The Army is undergoing the biggest
internal restructuring in the last 50 years. As part of this
transformation effort, we are fielding and equipping six Stryker
Brigade Combat Teams throughout the Army. This transformation will
drive our efforts to ensure that our ``training battlefields'' continue
to meet the demands of force structure, weapons systems, and doctrinal
requirements. Providing ranges and training lands that enable the Army
to train and develop its full capabilities is crucial to ensure that
America's forces are relevant and ready now. Our fiscal year 2005
Military Construction budget requests $305 million for projects for
operations and training facilities, training ranges, maintenance
facilities, logistics facilities, utilities, and road upgrades in
support of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
The former Army Strategic Mobility Program ended in fiscal year
2003 with the capability of moving five and one-third divisions in 75
days. We must improve current processes and platforms so intact units
arrive in theater in an immediately employable configuration.
The new Army Power Projection Program (AP3) is a combat multiplier
for Army transformation and a catalyst for joint and Service
transformation efforts related to force projection. AP3 is a set of
initiatives and strategic mobility enabling systems, including
infrastructure projects, that ensures we are able to meet Current and
Future Force deployment requirements. AP3 funding began in fiscal year
2004. AP3 ensures the capability to deploy Army forces in accordance
with Regional Combatant Commanders' operational plans.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
The Army's fiscal year 2005 request has increased over fiscal year
2004 and includes $3.7 billion for Military Construction appropriations
and associated new authorizations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of
Military Construction Appropriation Authorization Appropriation Appropriation
Request Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction Army (MCA)....................... $1,535,400,000 $1,771,285,000 $1,771,285,000
Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG)....... N/A 295,657,000 295,657,000
Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR).............. N/A 87,070,000 87,070,000
Army Family Housing (AFH).............................. 636,099,000 1,565,006,000 1,565,006,000
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 2,171,499,000 3,719,018,000 3,719,018,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)
The active Army's fiscal year 2005 Military Construction request
for $1,771,285,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) and $1,535,400,000 (for authorization) is for People,
Current Readiness, and Transformation to the Future Force. These funds
are critically needed to provide new barracks, invest in training
ranges and land, recapitalize existing facilities, and support three
Active Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams in Alaska, Hawaii, and
Louisiana. The request also includes funds for planning and design for
future projects, along with Unspecified Minor Military Construction.
The Department of Defense continues to assess its global stationing
strategy. We have included only minimal, but critical, overseas
projects in the fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget request.
These projects are required to provide the infrastructure necessary to
ensure continued Soldier readiness and family well-being that is
essential throughout any period of transition.
People.--We are requesting $798 million to improve the well-being
of our Soldiers, civilians, and families. Approximately 50 percent of
our MCA budget request will improve well being in significant ways--
providing 19 unit barracks complexes for 4,200 Soldiers ($700 million),
a basic trainee barracks complex ($50 million), a physical fitness
center ($18 million), a chapel ($10 million), two child development
centers and a youth center ($20 million).
Current Readiness.--Our budget request includes $504 million to
keep our Soldiers trained and ready to respond to the Nation's needs.
Current readiness projects include operational and training
instructional facilities ($92 million), training ranges ($122 million),
logistics facilities ($31 million), utilities and land acquisition ($27
million), maintenance/production and tactical equipment facilities ($82
million), communication/administration facilities ($104 million), a
research and development facility ($33 million), and community support
facilities ($13 million).
Current to Future Force.--Our budget request also includes $298
million for projects to ensure the Army is trained, deployable, and
ready to rapidly respond to national security requirements and support
transformation for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. Projects include
operations and training facilities ($63 million), training ranges ($79
million), a maintenance facility ($49 million), logistics facilities
($19 million), and utilities and roads ($88 million).
Other Worldwide Support Programs.--The fiscal year 2005 MCA request
includes $171 million for planning and design, along with Unspecified
Minor Military Construction. Planning and design funds ($151 million)
are used to accomplish final design of future projects and oversight of
host Nation construction. As Executive Agent for the Department of
Defense, the Army uses planning and design funds for oversight of
construction projects funded by host Nations for use by all Services.
Finally, the fiscal year 2005 MCA budget contains $20 million for
Unspecified Minor Military Construction to address unforeseen critical
needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal
programming cycle.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)
The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2005 Military Construction
request for $295,657,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) is focused on Current Readiness and transformation to
the Future Force.
Current Readiness.--In fiscal year 2005, the Army National Guard
has requested $116.1 million for nine projects. These funds will
provide the facilities our Soldiers need as they train, mobilize, and
deploy. They include one Readiness Center, one Armed Forces Reserve
Center, three Army Aviation Support Facilities, two Ranges, and two
Training projects.
Current to Future Force.--This year, the Army National Guard is
requesting $144.2 million for 23 projects needed to transform from
Current to Future Force. There are 16 projects for the Army Division
Redesign Study, three for Aviation Transformation, two for the Range
Modernization Program, and two for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team
initiative.
Other Worldwide Support Programs.--The fiscal year 2005 MCNG budget
request contains $30.8 million for planning and design of future
projects, along with $4.5 million for Unspecified Minor Military
Construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE (MCAR)
The Army Reserve's fiscal year 2005 Military Construction request
for $87,070,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations)
is for current readiness and other worldwide unspecified programs.
Current Readiness.--The Army Reserve will invest $72.9 million in
current readiness projects. We will invest $58.6 million to construct
four new Reserve Centers, and one military equipment park; invest $7.9
million to modernize and expand one Reserve Center, invest $3.9 million
to construct two ranges; and invest $2.5 million to acquire land for a
future Armed Forces Reserve Center.
Other Worldwide Unspecified Programs.--The fiscal year 2005 MCAR
budget includes $11.2 million for planning and design. The funds will
be used for planning and design of future projects. The fiscal year
2005 MCAR budget also contains $2.9 million for Unspecified Minor
Military Construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent
mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION (AFHC)
The Army's fiscal year 2005 family housing request is $636,099,000
(for appropriation, authorization of appropriation, and authorization).
It continues the successful and well-received Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization initiative approved by Congress in fiscal year 1992 and
supported consistently since that time, and our Residential Communities
Initiative program.
The fiscal year 2005 new construction program provides additional
housing in Alaska in support of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team and Whole
Neighborhood replacement projects at nine locations in support of 1,413
families for $394.9 million.
The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our
housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2005,
we are requesting $75.4 million for improvements to 875 existing units
at three locations in the United States and two locations in Europe, as
well as $136.6 million for scoring and direct investment in support of
privatization of 11,906 units at six Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI) locations.
In fiscal year 2005, we are also requesting $29.2 million for
planning and design in support of future family housing construction
projects critically needed for our Soldiers. Privatization. RCI, the
Army's Family Housing privatization program, is providing quality,
sustainable housing and communities that our Soldiers and their
families can proudly call home. RCI is a critical component of the
Army's effort to eliminate inadequate family housing in the United
States. The fiscal year 2005 budget request provides support to
continue implementation of this highly successful program.
We are leveraging appropriated funds and Government assets by
entering into long-term partnerships with nationally recognized private
sector real estate development and management firms to obtain financing
and management expertise to construct, repair, maintain, and operate
family housing communities.
The RCI program currently includes 34 installations with almost
71,000 housing units--over 80 percent of the family housing inventory
in the United States. By the end of fiscal year 2004, the Army will
have privatized 19 installations with an end state of 42,000 homes.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS (AFHO)
The Army's fiscal year 2005 family housing operations request is
$928,900,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations),
which is approximately 59 percent of the total family housing budget.
This budget provides for annual operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, leased family housing,
demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds supporting
management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative.
Operations ($150 million).--The operations account includes four
sub-accounts: management, services, furnishings, and a small
miscellaneous account. All operations sub-accounts are considered
``must pay accounts'' based on actual bills that must be paid to manage
and operate family housing.
Utilities ($132 million).--The utilities account includes the costs
of heat, air conditioning, electricity, water, and sewage for family
housing units. While the overall size of the utilities account is
decreasing with the reduction in supported inventory, per-unit costs
have increased due to general inflation and the increased costs of
fuel.
Maintenance and Repair ($402 million).--The maintenance and repair
account supports annual recurring maintenance and major maintenance and
repair projects to maintain and revitalize family housing real property
assets. While the overall account is smaller than fiscal year 2004, the
reduced inventory allows for greater per-unit funding than has been
possible in the recent past. This allows us to better sustain our
housing inventory.
Leasing ($218 million).--The leasing program provides another way
of adequately housing our military families. The fiscal year 2005
request includes funding for over 13,600 housing units, including
existing Section 2835 (``build-to-lease''--formerly known as 801
leases) project requirements, temporary domestic leases in the United
States, and approximately 7,700 units overseas.
RCI Management ($27 million).--The RCI management program funding
includes procurement requirements, environmental studies, real estate
requirements, management, operations, implementation, and oversight of
the overall RCI program.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
In 1988, Congress established the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission to ensure a timely, independent and fair process
for closing and realigning military installations. Since then, the
Department of Defense has successfully executed four rounds of base
closures to rid the Department of excess infrastructure and align the
military's base infrastructure to a reduced threat and force structure.
Through this effort, the Army estimates approximately $9 billion in
savings through 2004.
The Army is requesting $100.3 million in fiscal year 2005 for prior
BRAC rounds ($8.3 million to fund caretaking operations of remaining
properties and $92.0 million for environmental restoration). In fiscal
year 2005, the Army will complete environmental restoration efforts at
three installations, leaving 11 installations requiring environmental
restoration. We also plan to dispose of an additional 8,000 acres in
fiscal year 2005.
Fiscal year 2003 was a superb year! Using all the tools the
Congress provided, including the Conservation Conveyance Authority and
Early Transfer Authority, the Army transferred 100,957 acres of BRAC
property. This is almost 40 percent of the total Army BRAC excess
acreage, and almost as many acres as all prior years combined. To date,
the Army has disposed of 223,911 acres (85 percent of the total acreage
disposal requirement of 262,705 acres). We have 38,794 acres remaining
to dispose of at 28 installations. The Army continues to save more than
$900 million annually from previous BRAC rounds.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance budget includes
funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM--$2.54
billion) and Base Operations Support (BOS--$6.57 billion). The SRM and
BOS accounts are inextricably linked with our Military Construction
programs to successfully support Installations as Flagships.
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM).--The fiscal year
2005 budget for SRM is $2.5 billion, of which $2.42 billion funds
sustainment at 95 percent of the requirement. SRM provides funding for
the Active and Reserve Components to continue making positive progress
towards our goal to prevent deterioration and obsolescence and restore
the lost readiness of facilities.
Sustainment is the primary account in installation base support
funding responsible for maintaining the infrastructure to achieve a
successful readiness posture for the Army's fighting force. It is the
first step in our long-term facilities strategy. Installation
facilities are the deployment platforms of America's Army and must be
properly maintained to be ready to support current Army missions and
any future deployments.
The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is the
recapitalization by restoring and modernizing our existing facility
assets. In fiscal year 2005, the Active Army request for Restoration
and Modernization is $93.2 million. Restoration includes repair and
restoration of facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive
age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization
includes alteration or modernization 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.
Base Operations Support.--The fiscal year 2005 budget for Base
Operations Support is $6.57 billion (Active Army, Army National Guard,
Army Reserve). This is 70 percent of the requirement. This funds
programs to operate the bases, installations, camps, posts, and
stations of the Army worldwide. The program includes municipal
services, family programs, environmental programs, force protection,
audio/visual, base communication services and installation support
contracts. Army Community Service and Reserve Component family programs
include a network of integrated support service that directly impact
Soldier readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to military life
during peacetime and through all phases of mobilization, deployment,
and demobilization.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE
The Army is the Department of Defense 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 2005, there is no request for appropriations and
authorization of appropriations. Requirements for the program will be
funded from prior year carryover and revenue from sales of homes.
Assistance will be continued for personnel at ten installations that
are impacted with either a base closure or a realignment of personnel,
resulting in adverse economic effects on local communities.
SUMMARY
Madam Chairman, our fiscal year 2005 budget is a balanced program
that supports our Soldiers and their families, the Global War on
Terrorism, transformation to the Future Force, and current readiness.
We are proud to present this budget for your consideration because
of what this $3.7 billion fiscal year 2005 request will provide for the
Army:
--New barracks for 4,200 Soldiers
--Adequate housing for 14,200 families
--Increase in Army National Guard and Army Reserve funding over
fiscal year 2004
--New Readiness Centers for over 3,000 Army National Guard Soldiers
--New Reserve Centers for over 2,800 Army Reserve Soldiers
--80-year recapitalization rate for the Army
--$287 million investment in training ranges
--A new Basic Combat Training Complex
--Facilities support for four new Stryker Brigades
Our long-term strategies for Installations as Flagships will be
accomplished through sustained and balanced funding, and with your
support, we will continue to improve Soldier and family quality of
life, while remaining focused on the Army's transformation to the
Future Force.
In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today and for your continued support for our Army.
This concludes my statement. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much and thank all of you
for attending. Let me start by talking about the housing
privatization authority, the $850 million cap. I am
particularly focused on two areas, Fort Bliss and Fort Hood,
that have major privatized housing in the works and I want to
know what the $850 million cap will do to those projects and
others that you have planned for this year, for this year's
budget.
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION--CAP
Mr. Prosch. Madam Chairman, if the $850 million cap is not
lifted the Army estimates an additional $2.2 billion would have
to be programmed in Army family housing construction to
eliminate the inadequate housing at the 12 installations that
would be impacted when we believe that we will hit the cap in
November of 2004. Now, that would otherwise be eliminated with
our $256 million of equity with our current program invested in
privatization. The Army would not have a program in place to
eliminate inadequate housing in the United States by 2007 as we
had pledged to our soldiers. And as you stated, Fort Sam
Houston and Fort Bliss are two of the installations that would
be impacted; I can list the others.
Senator Hutchison. I would like for you to, yes.
Mr. Prosch. Fort Drum, New York.
Senator Hutchison. Just for this year's budget, right?
They're in the works?
Mr. Prosch. These are RCI projects that would stop in
November when the $850 million cap is hit because we could not
put the equity investment into all these future projects.
Fort Drum, New York; as we said, Fort Sam Houston, Texas;
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Picatinny and Fort Monmouth in
New Jersey; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort
Knox, Kentucky; Fort Rucker, Alabama; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas;
Fort Gordon, Georgia and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
And General Lust, would you like to say anything about this
important program?
General Lust. I would just add that realistically it would
be folly to think we're going to get $2.2 billion to put
against housing when we could make that up with $256 million of
our equity put into it.
You mentioned Fort Hood. Fort Hood was in the first go-
around; it has already been privatized and that project is
done. And I know you visited there and I know you've been to
Comanche Village.
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
General Lust. They used to have their ups and downs, but
with $51,000, that contractor has made that all one nice set of
quarters. They used to have people not wanting to live in
Comanche Village, now they have people standing in line to live
there. The RCI partners have done just a wonderful, wonderful
job.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I agree with you and I have never
seen family housing that good anywhere on any base that I have
visited, really anywhere in the world, certainly in our
country. I do want that to be available to every family, every
military family, every base where you are going to make it a
priority, and we will work to lift that cap. I just hope you
will keep putting that concept in place. In your testimony you
talk about the areas of focus that you're going to have, and
I'm glad you've said this should be one of them, because I love
what General Schoomaker is saying he's going to do in letting
our new entrants stay in one place longer to get a community
support base for families. I think that's a very important new
concept, and we need to have the nice places for them to be.
RETURNING OVERSEAS FORCES
I want to also ask about when you are looking at returning
the forces from Europe and Korea. I'd like to ask you what your
criteria are for where the people are going, particularly I
want to say, again, Fort Hood and Fort Bliss have such a huge
space for training, and one of the problems you have, even at
Grafenwoehr, where you're going to still want Military
Construction, but their training space is so limited compared
to Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and some of the other places around
the country, that I'd like to ask you, in your preparations for
bringing those people home, will that space be a factor, and
what are the other factors that you're going to consider?
Mr. Prosch. Ma'am, Secretary of Defense has indicated that
no later than early May he will publish his integrated global
presence and basing strategy, which will tell us which units,
which probably brigade-size units he would like to be sending
back to the United States. We believe that the timing is
perfect for this ongoing BRAC process to allow us to do the
analysis to determine where the good capacity is, where the
excess capacity is, posts that you mentioned that have good
military value; that will assist us in doing that.
General Lust, would you like to expand?
General Lust. There are several criteria. First off,
wherever we place them, there's got to be training space. I
mean it doesn't make any sense to put a unit somewhere where
you've got a postage stamp, and then you'd automatically have
to move them somewhere to train; so where we've got to have
training space. It has not been lost on us that 68 percent of
the Army's training land is at one particular post in your
state, and we haven't got a maneuver unit there.
Senator Hutchison. Fort Bliss?
General Lust. Yes ma'am.
What installation's got facilities which wouldn't cause us
to have to build more. And that will all be cranked into part
of the BRAC process so as they go look at what we've got for
space and facilities, that's what's important about having the
overseas basing study completed so we can hand that requirement
off to the BRAC people so when they do their analysis that's
all been factored in. The other thing is what kind of housing
we've got there, how quickly can we get it built. Obviously if
I had RCI housing at an installation I could get it built
quicker than I would if I have to go through the MILCON
process. And also another part that plays on it, what can the
community absorb? Because 60 percent of our people we plan to
have live off-post, and also that community's got to be able to
absorb those folks into the school system, etcetera. So all
that's got to be taken into account as the BRAC people figure
out we're going to position returning units.
Now, you would be naive to think we've got a place that
fits all that. So what we'll try doing is identify the
locations where we have the least amount of effect.
MILCON TO SUPPORT RETURNING OVERSEAS FORCES
Senator Hutchison. So when do you think you would start
requesting the Military Construction to support those returning
units?
General Lust. I believe that first request you'll see will
be in the fiscal year 2007 budget because we will not have the
BRAC announcement until May of 2005 the 2006 budget which will
be locked in by that time. So we see fiscal year 2007 being the
first year that we'll be able to have requirements in, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask Mr. Prosch if it
wouldn't make some sense to begin at least a year earlier than
that. It just seems that if you're going to have by April of
next year, at the very latest, an idea where you're going to
move them, it surely would help if we could not wait for the
whole BRAC process, just sitting stagnantly on Military
Construction and losing a year. Because once you make the
decision that you're going to leave a base, say in Germany,
then you know that you're not going to add any Military
Construction there. It's going to start deteriorating, so the
more delay you have, the harder it's going to be to service the
troops who are still there. You do not want to just bring them
home and have something ongoing. You want something that would
be perhaps a little more continuous. That's something I know
you can't answer right now, but I would ask you to consider it.
Mr. Prosch. Yes ma'am, we will consider that and we will
try and we will get back with you and tell you our progress.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. I do have more questions, but
I'd like to defer to my colleague who has just gotten here.
I'll let her have a few minutes for your questions and then
I'll come back with a second round.
JOINTNESS
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome,
thank you all for being here. I know that the Chair had spoken
generally about the reorganization which we obviously generally
support or just a realignment and the importance of refocusing
our troop strength, saving money and doing some realignment
from Europe and other places in the world and getting ready for
this BRAC closing, which I've generally supported, sometimes
hesitantly in the sense that you never want to see that happen
in your own State but you do want to save money and so we can
refocus it. And Louisiana as Texas has as well but Louisiana's
been very cooperative in the sense that we've seen some of our
bases added to and we've had some of our bases, you know,
closed, but we think we've made lemonade out of lemons in those
circumstances and look forward to the next couple of years to
try to realign and save dollars. But we have been operating
under a theory, which I want to ask each of you, if we are
going to continue to operate under, the assumption that joint
operations is better than individual operations. We've got
several joint operations, obviously the one that would come to
mind, General, you've served as our commanding general at Fort
Polk in Louisiana. So my question would be to each of you and
whomever wants to go first, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that
a high priority should be placed on the military value of joint
bases in the upcoming BRAC round and generally. Do you share
that vision? Is it the same operating principle that we'll be
moving forward on, the jointness of these bases, both among
Actives as well as Reserve units?
Mr. Prosch. Yes ma'am, I'll start off. I think that this
BRAC, more so than any previous BRAC rounds, is really going to
get into the joint analysis piece. We have seven joint cross
service groups that were put together that we didn't have in
previous BRAC rounds and we have a flag-level official from
each service on each one of these joint cross service groups
that's going to analyze different functional areas such as
headquarters, training and education, medical, supply,
etcetera. And so I see a real effort this time to really take a
look at the jointness. And this BRAC is going to enable us to
have better joint cooperation and realignment. It's going to
allow us in the Army to reshape. I really don't think we could
do our transformation and reshaping to go from 33 to up to 48
modular unit of action brigades if we didn't have this
opportunity with BRAC that will give us the legislative ability
to do this and to put these units in the right locations. And
it's proven over time that BRAC will save us some money in
doing this. So yes ma'am, I believe we're really doing that.
And I would ask General Lust to amplify.
General Lust. I agree with everything Mr. Prosch said and I
would not be surprised, coming out of this BRAC, if we do not
have an Army unit being positioned on another service's base if
it will allow us to get a quicker deployment and it's got the
training space and so forth. Because wherever I can have joint
basing I don't have to pay the fixed cost of running two bases
and that money can be put somewhere else. So from my position
as the ACSIM wherever I can get jointness and still be able to
meet the training needs and other stuff for the units,
absolutely.
Senator Landrieu. Now maybe this--could you just estimate
for us, maybe you don't know but, what percentage of your
bases, General, are in a joint situation now and what
percentage aren't? I mean, just roughly.
General Lust. I wouldn't venture a guess but I do know when
I was out at Fort Sam Houston about a month-and-a-half ago I
was unaware we had all services represented on that base, yet
we don't consider it a joint base.
Senator Landrieu. Because I think, Madam Chair, as we move
forward I think that is a concept that I'm hoping there's some
consensus and unanimity if we fight jointly we should train,
you know, jointly. And I think there's a movement which I've
been happy to see, and I think it's more effective. It's not
what maybe we're used to over the last several decades but I
can testify, actually representing a State that has two very
strong joint Reserve bases here that it seems to be working and
we're getting very positive feedback from the individual
services. So as we move forward I just wanted to ask Mr. Prosch
and the General, but General would you add your comments? And
if you feel differently this would be a good time to discuss it
because these are the issues that we're going to be dealing
with.
General Pudlowski. Yes ma'am, we're in agreement from the
Army National Guard perspective. We currently have 164 of our
facilities that are joint use and we share those facilities
with all Reserve components
Senator Landrieu. Out of how many? One hundred sixty-four
out of how many, I'm sorry.
General Pudlowski. Out of almost 3,000 armories, looking at
how we are organizing based across America with the number of
armory facilities we have. And we're looking at increasing that
for numbers of reasons. One, because of many that you had said
but two, it does give us a better relationship with the other
services as we step forward into the future. Currently in the
fiscal year 2005 FYDP budget we have one joint use facility and
we've got 14 others that are scheduled over the next 5 years.
We're working to increase the number of those facilities. The
Army National Guard is also working in conjunction with other
Reserve components, and we participate in the Joint Service
Reserve Component Facility Board. What those boards do is
identify potential joint projects for the services that affect
the Reserve components. Those boards review on a quarterly
basis. They're facilitated by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Reserve Affairs Office, and in this case we have
seen some future benefits for our organizations in sharing
that.
I would also add that in many of the armories across
America and in the territories there's another portion that
goes beyond joint between the services and that is working with
some of the civilian organizations who are first responders in
homeland defense and homeland security. So there's another
style of jointness from the National Guard perspective and how
we look at this.
Senator Landrieu. General.
General Profit. Ma'am, if I could add two things. First of
all, as a part of the BRAC process we've chartered with the
Army and the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, a
Reserve component process action team that will, I think, offer
us some insight into opportunities that can be created to
create jointness in establishing more of the joint Reserve
bases that you've referenced and that's, I think, an initiative
that's very useful at this point in the process.
The other thing I would say is we were privileged last
Monday at Ellington in Texas to participate in an event that I
think will produce a joint opportunity and we'd just like to
thank the Chair for her leadership in helping us do that. So I
think those are some of the kinds of opportunities that we see
coming out of the process and we're trying to be as aggressive
as we can be to find ways to make those things a reality.
Senator Landrieu. So the bottom line from all of you would
be from the Garrison Commander and the Generals that jointness
is a plus in this restructuring effort and that it's something
that we are moving more aggressively to as we fight together,
to train together and that's one of the underlying premises of
our, you know, future plans. Does that generally summarize
that?
General Pudlowski. Absolutely, ma'am.
General Profit. Yes, I agree with that.
SCHOOLS
Senator Landrieu. One other question and then I have others
but we'll switch back, the troops overseas, at least I've
gotten back from individuals one of their not highlights but
strengths of that overseas deployment, although it's difficult
because you're away from the mainland, if you would, your
families are usually with you but the quality of the schools--
It's not something we talk about often in this committee but
Madam Chair, quality of life issues are very important for
military families, housing and general quality of life issues
obviously schooling is part of that. Do we have any plans at
all for the integration as these troops do move back? And I
bring this up because we have a model program in Louisiana that
I'd like to speak about, maybe not at length at this time, but
we've created the first military charter school in the Nation,
at the Bell Chase Academy. Have any of you given any thought to
that particular quality of life issue as these troops are
resettled and the quality of the military schools that are
found abroad compare to what might be found in some areas in
the country? I don't know who would want to make just a general
comment about that.
Mr. Prosch. Well, I'll talk a little bit then I'll turn it
over to General Lust here. My spouse is a teacher and she
taught overseas and in the continental United States in both
DoD schools and local county schools. We really worked very
hard to try to partner with the schools. When I was the
Garrison Commander at Fort Polk I was a member of the Vernon
Parish school board. And so I really had a chance to impact on
that. I will tell you that we worked really hard with our RCI
partners so that as we build our new houses on post that we
make sure that the schools are there to support the additional
population when they come onboard. You'll find quite frequently
that the teachers on the post are spouses of the soldiers so
that's another opportunity. The DoD schools overseas are good;
the DoD schools in the United States are good also. And we have
to continue to support the DoD schools as we expand the
population on post and partner with DoD for the Military
Construction to make sure those schools are built. And likewise
we have to work with our neighboring communities, like we have
in Vernon Parish, to continue to ensure that the schools are
supported. At Fort Polk we have three schools; they are Vernon
Parish schools but the land was donated by Fort Polk and
they're excellent schools. My two children attended them and my
wife also taught in that school system. So we have to continue
to focus and keep the emphasis on that.
General Lust.
General Lust. In reference to your question about
consideration of schools, as the units return back from
overseas it will definitely be one of the things that needs to
be looked at. First and foremost is where do we position that
unit so it can in fact be trained and ready and etcetera and so
forth. But one of the things that will definitely have to be
looked at is how many children do we think are going to go
there, and there will be a team that will go get with the local
school system to make sure that they're not surprised when so
many kids show up. I will not say we've done that well in the
past; I will tell you we've done it better each time. When we
had the big drawdown in Europe, we got a lot better at the end
of that than we did at the very beginning and those lessons are
going to carry over here. But schools will definitely be
something that's going to have to be addressed because there
are three things I think a soldier owes his family: a good
education, health care, and a good place to live. And those all
three kind of go in tandem if you want to have a quality of
life.
Mr. Prosch. I might also add that we're going to strive
when we move the units from overseas to do it in the summer so
we don't disrupt the school year for the children.
Senator Hutchison. I think that is a very important point,
and on jointness, which the Senator from Louisiana has focused
on, the Ellington Field concept is just a wonderful one, and I
appreciate so much the Army's support for moving to what is now
an air base but will hopefully be a joint base in the near
future because one of the things that you mentioned, General,
and I want to emphasize and am going to especially emphasize
with the Navy, is that I think the Coast Guard needs to be more
of a factor here. The Coast Guard is at Ellington, there's a
huge need for homeland security on these bases, particularly in
the bases that are close to water, and I believe the Coast
Guard should be an integral part of joint use as we are melding
national security and homeland security and trying to make the
best use of our dollars. So I think the Ellington concept is
going to be everybody; it's going to be Navy, Marine, Army, Air
Guard and Coast Guard and I can't think of a better
combination.
But I also, I wanted to go back to something that General
Lust said, and then I'm going to leave this concept. But when
you said that the Army would be willing to move to a base that
is another service base, if that made the most sense, it seems
to me that we were just talking earlier about space and we
have, seems to me, some huge Army bases that might be the host
for other services to move in and create more of a joint
concept. Is that something that you also think?
General Lust. Absolutely. I could take Fort Huachuca. Fort
Huachuca has, I think, the largest military controlled air
space where you can fly UAVs without having to have a chase
plane. And you know, there would be a place where you could
move other services onto that location, if it was desired and
met the other services' training needs and such.
Senator Hutchison. Or White Sands.
General Lust. We're not only looking to go somewhere else
but also we're going places that people can move in. Again,
first and foremost, so now you know it, wherever you put them
it's going to meet the mission need. The last thing we want to
do is jointness for jointness, just check the block there.
Senator Hutchison. Right.
General Lust. Because that doesn't do anybody any good. But
yes, I can see it going the other way.
Senator Hutchison. I mentioned White Sands as well. That
should be an opportunity with air space that is coordinated
with big land space.
SUSTAINMENT
Well, let me move on to the sustainment subject. We are
very interested on the Military Construction Subcommittee in
sustainment. Everyone is saying they're going to have 95
percent sustainment so that we can make use of our facilities
for a longer term. However, all of us know that sustainment
funds are the ones that get raided when you've got the base
operations support accounts that are must pay. So let me ask
you to give me a realistic assessment of what you think you're
going to be able to spend on sustainment and what you do to try
to prevent migration of these funds away from sustainment.
Mr. Prosch. Well ma'am, we applaud the initiative that OSD
has done to try to come up with a model that funds sustainment
initially at 95 percent. But as you accurately stated all too
often that is used to migrate money to your base operations
accounts, which are more and more becoming must fund accounts.
It would make sense to develop a base operations support model
for all the services along the lines for sustainment, and we
have been working with DoD to develop such models. And once we
had these models adopted it would permit us to effectively
budget for the base operation support as we do the sustainment.
When you look at the base support accounts, the base operations
portion is the biggest for the Army, and it contains such
things as salaries, contracts. And as we have more contracts to
do services on our installations, and as we privatize utilities
and as we privatize Army housing more of these base operation
support things are going to be executed at about the 95 percent
level. And so, when you're only funded at 70 percent you're
going to have to find a bill payer and all too often it's been
sustainment. So we would welcome an opportunity to try to fix
that. General Lust.
General Lust. On the sustainment model, the military
departments are given guidance by OSD to put 95 percent funding
in sustainment, but with the other priorities and stuff we end
up taking risk in the base ops area. And in the year of
execution, we end up migrating money back. Now, part of your
question says what are we doing about controlling that? You may
recall in October 2001 we stood up an organization called
Installation Management Agency, which took over control of the
garrisons of our Army and the money now flows from Department
of the Army to the Installation Management headquarters, then
from there directly down to the installations. And this year
they were given guidance, the garrisons were given guidance
that they were to fund their base ops which were brought up to
85 percent and the SRM was brought down to 70 percent and no
other migration could take place without coming back into the
headquarters of IMA. They have done a very aggressive spending
of their SRM money this year to get it committed, etcetera, and
as we go back in a mid-year review, the Headquarters Army is
very aware that there is a need now to move additional money
back into base ops so we don't have to go in and take any money
from SRM.
I think another part of your question is where do we think
we'd eat if we have to? If we have to migrate any more money
out of SRM, we believe we'll end up in the 65 to 68 percent of
SRM, about 65 percent, to finish our must funds on base ops,
which is better than we have been in the previous 4 years of
spending money, being able to commit money to SRM. Please do
not mistake, that is not where we want to be. But we had to
take risks in those areas.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I understand and the point of the
question is, just to make sure that we keep sustainment as a
priority. I realize we're in a very tough time right now, and
the Army is in the most transition of any of our services. So
I'm just saying that should be a factor. I understand when it
slips but we do pay a price down the road.
General Lust. Yes ma'am.
ARMY GUARD AND RESERVE REQUESTS
Senator Hutchison. I'm going to ask one more question and
then turn it over to Senator Landrieu, but I'm not finished.
But I want to give her opportunities as well. And that is to
you, General Pudlowski. You have in the President's request
about 18 percent of the Guard requirements, and I'm concerned
about this. And General Profit also I'd like the Reserve
perspective here because what we have is a budget that
shortchanges Guard and Reserve in my opinion. You correct me if
you think that I'm wrong, but I think we are shortchanging the
Guard and Reserve and this is an area where members of Congress
are going to step in, the members of Congress support the Guard
and Reserve; we acknowledge and respect the incredible job that
they are doing as a part of our war on terrorism. And I told
Senator Stevens this morning that I wanted to have more than
the President's request for Guard and Reserve, that I think
probably the Department expects the Congress is going to plus
that up, but it's going to have to come from something else. So
Senator Stevens didn't give me an answer, I might add, about
what my allocation would be, but I am trying to increase it to
increase the amount of Guard and Reserve because I'm very, very
worried about the Army's submission. So please, General Profit,
General Pudlowski.
General Pudlowski. Here, let me take it first. Ma'am, the
MILCON program for the Army Guard for the fiscal year 2005 to
2009 time frame is increasing dramatically. We went from $265.6
million in fiscal year 2005 to $819 million in fiscal year
2009. That has actually increased because of Commanche
cancellation to plus up to $30 million, which has taken our
fiscal year 2005 figure to $295.6 million. So there has been an
increase. I would also add that if everything holds true with
the current FYDP we will reduce our revitalization rate from
144 years down to 67 years by fiscal year 2008. So the program
is becoming more conducive to what our needs are.
Senator Hutchison. You are increasing from your last year's
request but it is a decrease from what we actually did last
year. My question really is are you really satisfied that you
have enough for the job you're being asked to do?
General Pudlowski. There is opportunity for increased
usage. Because of some of the capabilities that we have and the
ability to contract all these at one given time we may not be
able to handle it all at one point in time, thus the FYDP and
thus the way we developed this program over a 5-year period.
There is opportunity to take on more and to increase that.
Senator Hutchison. General Profit.
General Profit. Ma'am, I guess it would be--I would be
disingenuous if I suggested to you that if resources were
unconstrained that we couldn't buy down our recapitalization
rate quicker. But having said all of that let me just suggest
to you that, you raised the issue of global repositioning and
let me just make that analogous to the transformation that I
believe is going on within the Army Reserve. And I would just
suggest to you that as we do that we believe that there are
opportunities for us to create greater efficiencies with
respect to facilitization that will enhance our ability to
provide quality of service and quality of life for our
soldiers, which is really what this is all about to us. And one
of the pieces I would just add at this time that is important
to us and we think we can leverage with your continued support
is the Real Property Exchange Program in the Army Reserve and I
think that it has great promise to further enhance that. And so
we in fact have a legislative proposal on the Hill as a part of
this budget that I think would even leverage that opportunity.
So there are lots of ways I think to get at the quality of
service and quality of life for our soldiers that we're looking
at in the Army Reserve.
Senator Hutchison. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Prosch. Madam Chairman, I'll just add that we will
strive to ramp up the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard
MILCON over this FYDP. That's our current plan.
Senator Hutchison. Okay, thank you. We'll be working on it.
My hope is that we get more than we now have, but we have not
gotten a final answer on that yet.
Senator Landrieu. I just want to support the comments that
the Chair has just made about the Guard and Reserve and to add
again for the record that it's my understanding, and if I'm
wrong I would be corrected, but I think 40 percent, or 45
percent of our troop strength today is from our Guard and
Reserve. And I understand that there would be reasons why you
wouldn't want to say well, if they are 40 percent of the
frontline they should be 40 percent of the budget. And I
understand that there are other factors that play into that but
clearly being 45 percent of the frontline they warrant more
than 8 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent or even 20 percent
of the budgets that support their facilities, their equipment,
their training, etcetera. And the reason that we feel this so
strongly is not that we don't also represent Actives in our
State but I just left Louisiana Monday, visiting with the 256
Army Reserve that's shipping out, 3,000 soldiers strong, one of
the largest brigades in the--and they say and I believe the
best trained and ready to go, and they're all saying yes and
nobody's trying to stay home. And I mean, that's just kind of
how those guys and gals are, and I just visited with them but
you know, they're going right to the frontline and I think that
the Chairman's remarks should be taken as really representing a
broad feeling in the Congress that we'd like to see the
resources in our budgets committed to that support, both for
Active and Reserve that are carrying their more equal, seeming
to us, share of the responsibilities. So, with that said I
really don't have any additional questions on that subject so
I'll----
Senator Hutchison. Did you have another round?
Senator Landrieu. Not at this time.
MILCON--FORT STEWART
Senator Hutchison. Okay. I do have a couple of other
things. The Army has notified the committee that it intends to
spend $18.5 million in Military Construction funds for
construction that is not now authorized at Fort Stewart to
support the reorganization of the 3rd Infantry Division from
two brigades into three units of action. Is it your view that
this initiative justifies bypassing the normal authorization
and appropriations process?
Mr. Prosch. Yes ma'am. Let me start off and I'll turn it
over to General Lust, who actually is our point of contact on
the Army staff for working this action. Now the site work is
being done right now for a temporary modular building complex
for the unit of action, and Fort Stewart is the pilot program
for where we are creating modular brigades, so the three
brigades will become four brigade-size units of action. And the
project includes connections to the utilities systems, it
includes hard stand concrete for the motorpools, and as you
stated, it was $18.5 million. General Lust can you explain why
we need this money now?
General Lust. Yes sir, I can. And to start off, let me make
sure, we weighed very heavily about asking the Secretary of the
Army to use emergency procedures; we did not use it lightly. We
have a policy first in, first out. The 30th Division was the
first deployed in support of Operation Iraq, Freedom-1, and
they came back. Things we learned from that deployment, things
we learned from the fight, and things that we knew on
transition we had to get on with it. The Chief decided there
was no time better than right now. To get the Division ready to
deploy when needed is what has driven us to this timeline. The
point I'm trying to get to is that if we want the 30th to be C-
1 by July 1, I've got to start doing spade work by the end of
April, first week of May to start having things go. And that is
what's driving this timeline. We tried every other way we
thought we could get around it that was legal and it drove us
to this path here. Like I said in the beginning, we did not
take this lightly. The only option I had to be able to make
this Division C-1 by July is to start having groundwork done by
the end of April, first of May, ma'am.
REQUIRED MILCON TO SUPPORT TRANSFORMATION
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Mr. Prosch, General
Schoomaker has said we're going to have a 30,000 temporary
increase in Army personnel. Is there any Military Construction
that you're going to need to accommodate 30,000 more people
plus 100,000 activated Guard and Reserve units? Are we
sufficiently able to take care of that kind of an add without
something more?
Mr. Prosch. The 30,000, as you know, is needed for us to do
our transformation.
Senator Hutchison. By the way, I support the 30,000
totally.
Mr. Prosch. Yes ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. My question is just do we have the
MILCON to accommodate them?
Mr. Prosch. Well, at this time we're not using Military
Construction for the same reason that General Lust was just
explaining with our modular units. Downstream as we go through
the BRAC process and we use these 30,000 soldiers to allow us
to create and expand our number of brigades and as we know
where we're going to bring the troops back from Europe,
hopefully more in 2006 as you suggested, we will do that.
General Lust, would you like to add?
General Lust. I know of no MILCON plan to take care of the
30,000 because we only plan to have them for about a 4-year
period and as you know by the time they go through the MILCON
process I can't have it done. Where I need facilities and stuff
the intent is to take care of them by temporary structures,
etcetera, with the plan being that we spend our MILCON money
against projects for the additional brigades we're going to
create plus the way we are going to relook how we mobilize. The
model we use to mobilize for the Cold War is not the model
that's going to work in the future and I believe there will be
some MILCON required to support that new model, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Okay, well we'll be looking for how that
transpires.
ARMY RESERVE CENTER--PUERTO RICO
Now, my final question to you is something that I just want
an explanation for. You've got $26 million for an Army Reserve
Center in Puerto Rico. After what happened in Vieques and
losing a training place that we really had the right to keep,
why are we investing more in Puerto Rico and are we concerned
about losing training capabilities for a Reserve Center there
as we lost Vieques?
Mr. Prosch. Let me say something about that. Your question
is very timely because General Profit and I last weekend were
in Puerto Rico looking at what you are talking about. How do we
make sure that we do smart things and have joint facilities?
And our vision would be to try to have Fort Buchanan, which is
becoming a U.S. Army Reserve installation, as the Special Ops
Command and the Army South moves up to Fort Sam Houston. It
will be part of the Installation Management Agency, and we
believe that it will have a useful purpose downstream for joint
units in Puerto Rico.
General Profit, you want to comment on that?
General Profit. Yes ma'am. First of all, let me just say
that we have reached what I believe with the Navy and with
other joint partners an island-wide solution to our needs in
Puerto Rico. It is, as Mr. Prosch suggests, with Fort Buchanan
as an Army Reserve installation as of last October at the
centerpiece and with, I'll call them subinstallations for lack
of better, at Naval Station Roosevelt Roads and with the very
important training areas that are actually run by the Puerto
Rico Army National Guard at Camp Santiago. And then the final
piece of that island-wide solution is really a plethora of
joint installations that the Army Guard and the Army Reserve
and other joint partners are entering into. And I would just
tell you that it's our view right now, having reached that, I
think final accommodation with the Navy that we have a very
sound, very realistic and very executable program to recognize
a very important part of the Army that is stationed in Puerto
Rico.
Senator Hutchison. Well, that's a big investment.
General Profit. Yes ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. In a place that has not kept its
commitments to our Services, and I just would like to have a
little more explanation about why we're doing it there and
making that kind of investment.
General Profit. With your concurrence we'd like to work
with your staff on the Committee to explain it to you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Landrieu. If I could just add something on Vieques
too, I've had the opportunity to tour Roosevelt Roads before it
was closed and to spend some time on the island. I was very
disappointed to see the training facility close because I
thought it was an opportunity that the Navy had but we've moved
on. But my point, besides what the Chairperson brought up is, I
mean, obviously to be fair to the island and to the men and
women that serve in uniform from Puerto Rico and have for many,
many decades honorably in our Armed Services, but also to raise
the issue of the cost of that environmental cleanup. I hope we
don't make the mistake of underestimating the cost of that
environmental cleanup, and as we work with and through the
regular routine of transferring and going through this transfer
that we can minimize the cost to the American taxpayer for the
cleanup that's going to occur. Now obviously we're responsible,
the Navy is primarily responsible but this is very valuable,
very valuable property and could be very valuable. And I've
read the different versions and views of the hopefully new
governor of Puerto Rico who I happen to admire a great deal and
think he's been an extraordinary leader, hopefully the
governor-to-be, but I just hope that whatever we do we can
minimize the cost to the taxpayer as the value of that property
is added to, as value is added. And I'm going to be following
it pretty closely. Puerto Rico doesn't have a Senator so some
of us have to take a little special interest in this issue, and
because I serve on the Energy Committee, Madam Chair, which is
the authorizing committee for Interior, which does a lot of the
regulations for our territories, I'm going to be following this
very carefully to make sure that Puerto Rico gets a fair shake,
but also that our taxpayers are spared some expense, hoping
that maybe as we develop the island some of it can be offset.
This is what I'm saying. And I don't know, Mr. Prosch, if you
want to just say something briefly because I know we have
another panel.
Mr. Prosch. Yes ma'am. And I'm sure that my partner,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, H.T. Johnson, can comment on
this in the next session. But he and I did sign a memorandum of
agreement last week and I do believe the Navy has a good game
plan to sell the valuable property with the wonderful port in
the Moskrit portion of Roosevelt Roads that would address
everything you just talked about. And I think that's exactly
what we should be doing.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. Well thank you all very much. I
appreciate it. It's been a good exchange, and I appreciate that
very much. As I said earlier, you are in the most
transformation of any of our Services and, we want to work with
you to anticipate your needs and make sure that the people who
are brought back from overseas do have the housing and you have
a good place to put them and also keep up with the present day
needs that you have. So we'll be working with you. 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 Geoffrey G. Prosch
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
INSTALLATIONS IN IRAQ
Question. Secretary Prosch, soon, the United States will no longer
maintain bases in Saudi Arabia. We will have to look elsewhere for
basing opportunities in the Middle East. DOD has said Iraq will soon
become a new locus for U.S. troops in the Middle East. In some cases,
DOD plans to upgrade military installations used by Saddam Hussein for
future use by American armed forces. What plans does the Army have for
long-term basing in Iraq?
Answer. The Army is constantly assessing courses of action to
enhance support to the Joint Force Commanders worldwide, to include
within this region, with trained and ready Army forces to support the
Defense Strategy and Joint and Combined operations. Currently, our
focus is on near-term combat operations and related activities in
support of the Coalition objectives in and around a free and sovereign
Iraq. There are no current Army plans for long-term basing in Iraq.
Question. How many soldiers does the Army intend to station in
Iraq?
Answer. The number of units and Soldiers in Iraq will vary based on
Combatant Commander requirements.
Question. When will the Army begin to budget for the military
construction needed to house the U.S. Army in Iraq?
Answer. There are no current plans for long term basing in Iraq.
Question. Thru a Supplemental Appropriation?
Answer. We currently budget only for temporary projects in Iraq
that support our troop rotations. Some of these projects are being
funded with Military Construction, but we are only building the minimum
necessary to support the mission. The only billeting type projects are
relocatable facilities. We anticipate the military construction needs
in Iraq to remain temporary in nature.
Question. If not Iraq, what other countries within Central Command
might the Navy and Army seek to expand their presence?
Answer. In the context of a Department of Defense review of
worldwide posture and presence, the Army is working with the Department
of Defense, the Joint Staff and the commanders within the Central
Command Area of Responsibility to determine the requirements for
forward-presence forces. The long-term plans for both the presence and
the posture footprint in that region are still under review.
Consultations are on-going with congressional, inter-agency and
diplomatic leaders to review the key strategic principles and
implementation concepts.
DOD REALIGNMENT OF FORCES IN EUROPE
Question. Secretary Prosch, nearly 2 years ago, DOD began
discussions on the realignment of forces in Europe. In that time,
Congress has not received any concrete details for what DOD has in
mind. We have seen reports that DOD plans to move some personnel and
infrastructure out of Old Europe and into New Europe and the Former
Soviet states. When asked for elaboration on these plans, DOD has
provided little. I am pleased to see this Subcommittee will hold a
hearing on Europe's realignment on April 21st. Can you shed any light
on how many Army soldiers within Europe may be realigned from current
installations to new installations?
Answer. The Army and its Component Command to U.S. European Command
(EUCOM) are full participants in the Defense Department review of
Global Posture, and will transform both posture and presence in
accordance with the final DOD approved Posture plan. Until that time we
cannot know the impact on installations.
Question. What current facilities do you anticipate will continue
to operate?
Answer. Efficient Basing initiatives will consolidate capabilities
and allow for ease of projection while maintaining the training
necessary for readiness. The Army and U.S. Army Europe will ensure that
our Soldiers and their families in Europe will have superior Quality of
Life infrastructure and services during any potential re-stationing
period. It will be essential to continue to support projects at key,
enduring installations and facilities upon final determination of the
posture in Europe.
Question. If we reduce forces in Europe, won't we see an increase
of troops and equipment returning to the United States for basing?
Answer. The potential for reducing the posture footprint in Europe
is still under review; the final composition and disposition of forces
in Europe has not yet been approved determined.
Question. Does it make sense to enter into BRAC in 2005 if we have
not yet fully determined the shape and size of our presence abroad?
Answer. The force composition and its disposition are under
constant review. The Defense Strategy, Combatant Commanders' concept
plans, and the on-going Army transformation of capabilities all inform
the Army requirements for posture of forces. Similarly, imperatives for
manning, equipping, training, deploying and sustaining the future force
guide key decisions for presence and basing. Future force decisions
will be an element within the analysis for BRAC 2005.
BRAC AT FORT POLK AND BELLE CHASSE--HOW CAN JOINT OPERATIONS BENEFIT
THESE BASES?
Question. Secretary Prosch, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that a
high priority should be placed on the military value of Joint bases for
the upcoming BRAC round. Do you share Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for
our military to move toward and support Joint bases?
Answer. The future Joint Force will train, deploy and fight in an
interdependent and closely related battle space. The value of joint
basing solutions must be measured against those key imperatives for
fielding, training, rapidly deploying and then employing a joint force
for combat operations. Concepts to support these imperatives, such as
joint logistics and sustainment operations, are maturing now in order
to inform the upcoming analysis.
Question. As the former Garrison Commander of Fort Polk, could you
please discuss how Fort Polk's Joint Readiness Training Center, where
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Special Ops can all train
together, meets Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for jointness.
Answer. The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) is one of the
U.S. Army's three maneuver Combat Training Centers. All these centers
have and are continually improving their programs and infrastructure to
meet the Secretary of Defense's vision to train in a Joint, Inter-
agency, Inter-governmental, and Multi-national Force context during
peacetime, in order to improve joint capabilities during worldwide
contingencies. JRTC has resident U.S. Air Force and Special Operations
Command trainers on the ground now, to build the essential
relationships and interdependencies between these joint team members
and the Army's tactical units. JRTC has also forged a training
relationship with the U.S. Marine Corps, to include United States
Marine Corps (USMC) training exercises at JRTC alone, or as part of a
larger U.S. Army exercise. This initiative continues to improve land
forces interoperability, as well as achieving the vision for joint
training. JRTC is scheduled to participate in a Joint Forces Command
(JFCOM) sponsored Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) exercise in
August 2004, and has two exercises on the JNTC planning calendar for
fiscal year 2005. The effort to nest the Army's Combat Training Center
Program within JFCOM's JNTC effort is a specified task from the Chief
of Staff, Army in support of the Secretary of Defense's Vision.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
UNFUNDED FORCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Question. Mr. Prosch, following 9/11, through a Defense
Supplemental bill, the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) was used
heavily by Army to address force protection requirements. However, this
past year the Army returned to the Committee asking for reprogramming
of unspecified minor construction funds to address force protection
needs that they deemed needed for life, safety, and health. What are
the Army, Army Guard, and Army Reserve unfunded force protection
requirements?
Answer. Current operations in support of the Global War on Terror
continue to generate force protection requirements for installations
both at home and abroad: The Army has not identified all the
requirements on force protection. It continues to plan to meet existing
and emerging challenges. Below is information on unfunded requirements
relevant at this time knowing more requirements will come in the way of
the Military Construction planning and programming process.
--Active Component requirements include installation access control,
barriers, blast mitigation, communication systems, explosive
detection devices, and site improvements for various facilities
worldwide. The validated unfunded requirement is $15.4 million
for Military Construction, with a longer list of projects
totaling approximately $263 million currently under review.
--Army Reserve requirements include facility hardening and correcting
long-standing physical security deficiencies at approximately
1,100 facilities worldwide. These projects provide barriers,
blast mitigation, intrusion detection systems, exterior
lighting, fencing, and access control. There is no unfunded
Military Construction requirement because no single project is
anticipated to exceed the $750,000 threshold. The validated
unspecified minor construction unfunded requirement is $24.1
million in Operations and Maintenance.
--Army National Guard requirements include design for electronic
security systems; facility hardening, security fencing, closed
circuit television; access control; arms, ammunition, and
explosives storage area security improvement measures; and
intrusion detection. The validated unfunded requirement is
$27.8 million for Military Construction.
______
Question Submitted to General Walter F. Pudlowski
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
guard wmd/cst facilities
Question. General Pudlowski, with the addition of WMD/CST
facilities throughout the country, has the Guard budgeted for the
required facilities? If not, please supply me a list, detailing the
locations of each facility needed and how much funding will be required
to complete the needed construction.
Answer. The Army National Guard did not fund for these projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA \1\............................ Hayward............. $1,348,000
CT................................ East Granby......... 2,442,464
DE \2\............................ Smyrna.............. 0
DC................................ TBD................. 1,549,500
GU................................ Barrigada........... 3,353,118
IN \2\............................ Gary................ 0
MD................................ Pikesville.......... 1,436,624
MS................................ Jackson............. 1,334,008
MT \1\............................ Ft. Harrison........ 1,488,000
NC................................ Morrisville......... 1,514,856
ND................................ Bismarck............ 1,576,832
NE................................ Hastings............ 1,344,168
NH................................ Concord............. 2,190,496
NJ................................ Lawrenceville....... 1,424,432
NV................................ Henderson........... 1,515,872
OR................................ Salem............... 2,461,768
PR................................ Sabana Seca......... 1,665,224
RI................................ East Greenwich...... 2,063,496
SD................................ Rapid City.......... 1,576,832
UT................................ West Jordan......... 1,519,936
VT \2\............................ S. Burlington....... 0
VT................................ TBD................. 1,549,500
WI................................ Madison............. 1,522,984
WY................................ Guernsey............ 1,645,920
P&D............................... various............. 3,031,923
---------------
Total....................... 39,555,953
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of 7 April, 2004: Project awaiting approval from Congress as part
of an Unspecified Minor Construction Formal Reprogramming.
\2\ Included in a new Readiness Center and does not require separate
facility or funds for CST facility.
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL LOOSE, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIE WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT
FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS (FACILITIES), UNITED STATES
MARINE CORPS
Senator Hutchison. We're very pleased to have the Honorable
H.T. Johnson, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations, along with you, Admiral Loose and General
Williams. And we obviously have looked at what you're going to
say. Your funding requests are down, and I know that you will
talk about that. I particularly want to mention your Home Port
Ashore plan that I think is a great beginning effort that you
are making and one that we want to fund as we can because I
think it does make being a sailor a whole lot easier to get off
the ship from time to time. And I do want you to talk about
your Reserve funding, which seems to be somewhat less than you
might need. So with that, let me welcome you to the committee
and ask for your opening statement.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you ma'am. I'd like to say a few words
and if you don't mind just a couple of words from my partners.
We're pleased to have Admiral Loose and General Williams with
us. We have a strong Navy-Marine team, as you well know. Our
budget shows strong support for the Navy and Marine Corps bases
around the world. In most cases our budget request is lower
this year but there's a reason for it; we've been able to find
efficiencies and we think we have the proper priorities.
Better housing, as you mentioned, for our single Sailors
and Marines, as well as our families is a very high priority.
We've done a lot with the family public-private venture and we
really want to take that same concept and make it work for our
bachelors. Bachelors are a little different than families
because we have to have the dormitories, if you will, in places
that are severable and we have to ensure that we can keep the
dormitories full. If you put it at a base that everybody's
going to move from, into combat or whatever, it makes it more
difficult. But our public-private ventures for housing are very
important, and I appreciated your comments with the Army about
raising the cap. This year we will have 26,000 homes at ten
Navy and Marine Corps bases. This will give us a total of
31,000 public-private venture homes across these two Services.
As the increase in the housing allowances continue we find that
more and more of our Sailors and Marines want to live in the
community, and living in the community is the first priority
for us. You talk about our Sailors aboard ships; we've seen
examples where we bring them ashore while in port and it makes
a very big difference, and we want to continue that.
We have three projects that we want to use for public-
private ventures with barracks. Initially we will have a room
they call the one plus one arrangement, where you have a room
and share a bath, and usually we'll put two Sailors from aboard
ships in each of these rooms until we get enough of them so
they can have a private room. We are very pleased that in 2005
that the Marine Corps gets rid of its last gang head barracks;
the Navy will do so in 2007.
Our MILCON is a robust program; it's $1.1 billion along
with sustainment and modernization funds of $1.9 billion. We
have refined our sustainment model and both the Navy and Marine
Corps are funded at 95 percent of the requirement, and I'm sure
you'll ask us a question as you did the Army about being able
to spend at that level and we'll appreciate that question when
it comes.
We mentioned earlier about closing Roosevelt Roads. I for
one was very concerned because of what happened when we closed
Vieques. The 31st of March came and there was nothing; it was
very smooth and we're very pleased with Puerto Rico, and our
people who are working hard to make that a picture perfect
transition. We're going to keep the schools open until the end
of the academic year. So we think everything is in good shape;
all of our people have been cared for, the civilians and of
course the military have moved.
I'd be remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about BRAC. I'd
like to give you three assurances. First of all, we'll
meticulously follow the law. Secondly, there's no closure or
realignment list in anyone's desk drawer; there will not be one
until we have certified data, it's been carefully analyzed,
compared against the force structure and rigorously assessed
for each activity using military value, and we meet all the
requirements of the law. While eliminating excess capacity to
generate savings is an important driver, the Secretary of the
Navy, the CNO, the Commandant and I view BRAC 2005 as a unique
opportunity to do things that are positive for our Military
Forces. We talked about a joint approach, I heard you talk
about it with the Army. We're pleased that this time the
difference is we're taking a look at everything in a joint
fashion. And I echo what the Army friends said.
Environmentally we're doing very well. We think that we
have been going about it in the proper way, we're closing some
bases and of course we have to do the environmental work after
we close it but we find that selling property is a win-win for
everyone. We get it back on our tax roles very quickly, a
community gets the reuse, and the Department of Navy gets the
funds for cleanup. We have spent $2.3 billion so far on BRAC
clean-up and we have about one-half a billion dollars left and
we are moving forward on that.
This year we had a great event. Last month, we transferred
Adak, which was 71,000 acres. After that we'll be down to only
7 percent of the total remaining acres to be disposed of. So
Adak was transferred and that was a monumental process.
We are very pleased at what the Congress did last year on
the Readiness Range Preservation Initiative. We are working all
of those authorities, Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal
Protection Act, along with Migratory Bird Treaty Act of the
year before. We are implementing them and we are very pleased
with the results. Certainly as we implement these changes we
will maintain the special trust and confidence that you gave us
in these authorities. We'll be careful not to misuse them.
Environmental programs total about $1 billion, about the same
as what we had last year.
We've done quite well on the cleanup of active bases; 69
percent of all of our sites have remedies in place or is
completed. And these are a lot of different ones on different
bases and if you visit our bases and talk to the environmental
cleanup people you'll be really impressed with their enthusiasm
and the successes that they have had.
I'd like to ask Admiral Loose for a couple of words and
then General Williams.
Admiral Loose. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. It's a
pleasure to be here today to discuss the Navy's fiscal year
2005 Shore Infrastructure Budget Request. The Navy's Facility
Investment Strategy focuses on making prudent investment
decisions that balance the Shore Infrastructure improvements
and enhance readiness and the quality of service while
maintaining assets to effectively sustain the operations in
support of our Navy forces. I'd like to add just a few comments
and amplify some of the areas mentioned by Secretary Johnson in
his opening statement.
Our budget concludes a 4-year effort to eliminate the
average out-of-pocket expenses for Navy family housing. The
increase in basic allowance for housing means our Sailors can
now find good affordable housing in the community without
additional out-of-pocket expenses. We are achieving excellent
results for our family housing privatization program. The
Navy's public-private ventures are eliminating inadequate
family housing and delivering better quality, new homes,
meeting the DoD's goals. We have developed a better strategy
that eliminates our liability by managing risk. Our approach
incorporates essential safeguards and protections. This
business strategy and acquisition approach have been accepted
by others both in the government and in the private sector, and
PPV enables us to provide a higher quality of affordable
housing to our Sailors and their families faster and at a lower
initial cost and at a lower lifecyle cost. It also benefits the
local communities by refreshing aged housing stock and
stimulating local businesses.
For the Navy's part, we have now awarded nine PPV projects
for a total of 9,700 homes and during fiscal year 2004 and 2005
we plan to award another six projects, resulting in another
20,000 homes. However, the success at providing adequate homes
for our Sailors and their families is clearly at risk due to
the statutory cap on the amount of budget authority that can be
used in military family housing privatization. We project that
DoD will reach the current cap by the fall of this year. This
will impact our ability in the Navy to award approximately
5,500 of the 20,000 homes we were planning to award in 2005.
Military family housing privatization is successfully providing
quality self-sustaining houses for the Navy families. We feel
it's very important that we stay the course and we greatly
appreciate your support in ensuring that our Sailors and their
families will continue to live in quality housing.
We're also very committed to improving the quality of
housing for our single Sailors. As you are aware, we have
roughly 17,500 Sailors living onboard ships while they're in
home port. These Sailors, like all Sailors in the Navy endure
an austere lifestyle aboard ship while it is underway on
deployment. While their ships are in home port it's imperative
that we offer them a better place to call home, one that is
similar to their shipmates ashore, married and single. This is
a major quality of life issue that we take seriously. We have a
program and are executing projects to address this challenge
and we are looking at innovative ways to make additional
quality housing available for all our single Sailors such as
privatized bachelor housing. The privatized bachelor housing
concept in San Diego looks very promising; we hope to bring
this project to you for consideration in the near future. The
goal is to provide all shipboard Sailors the opportunity to
live in quarters ashore when their ship is in home port by
fiscal year 2008. Again, this initiative will improve the
quality of life for these Sailors and ensure a comparable
standard of living between Sailors assigned aboard ships and
those assigned to shore duty.
In conclusion I sincerely thank you for the continued
support that this committee and your staff have provided the
Navy and very much look forward to working with you now and in
the future. And I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Johnson. General Williams brings tremendous experience
at all levels in managing bases, so if he doesn't do it
correctly he's forgotten his previous lessons. So, just a few
words.
General Williams. Thank you. Madam Chair, it's certainly a
pleasure for me to appear before you today and with Secretary
Johnson. But first, on behalf of our Marines and their
families, I want to thank you for your continued support for
Marine Corps Military Construction, family housing,
encroachment and environmental programs. Our installations are
the fifth element of our Marine Air-Ground Task Force and as
such they're critical to our war fighting and our war fighting
readiness.
Our fiscal year 2005 Active and Reserve budget request
devotes over a $1 billion to Military Construction facilities
sustainment and maintenance, family housing and environmental
initiatives at our Marine Corps installations. And although the
total program is a little less than fiscal year 2004 our
installations will be in better condition at the end of 2005
than at the beginning. The Active and Reserve Construction
Program provides some urgently needed readiness, compliance and
quality of life construction projects. We're investing about
$75 million for our barracks project, which will enable us to
eliminate our gang head barracks for our permanent personnel.
Our family housing, we're requesting approximately $270 million
and that's to keep us on track to eliminate inadequate family
housing by the end of fiscal year 2007. And as has been
mentioned, public-private venture is very key to our success in
that area. So your support of the proposal to eliminate the
$850 million cap certainly will be needed and is very much
appreciated. Our sustainment programs that we're proposing
maintains funding of our facilities at 95 percent of the OSD-
established goals.
The Marine Corps is committed to maintaining a ready force
and our installations are critical to the maintenance and
sustainment of that readiness. We take this mission very
seriously, as we do our Environmental Stewardship Program,
which is also key to our ability to train as we fight.
Madam Chair, the Marines and families make great sacrifices
in serving our great Nation. And the Marine Corps prides itself
on its legacy of taking care of our own and we will reward that
sacrifice that they have made. And this 2005 budget supports
the continuance of that legacy.
Again, the Marine Corps would like to thank this committee
for its strong support of our infrastructure program and the
benefits that this support provides in improved readiness and
quality of life. Thank you, Madam Chair, this concludes my
statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hansford T. Johnson
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am H.T. Johnson,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). It is
a pleasure to appear before you today to provide an overview of the
Department of the Navy's shore infrastructure and environmental
programs.
fiscal year 2005 budget overview
Projecting power and influence from the sea is the enduring and
unique contribution of the Navy and Marine Corps to national security.
The Department of Navy (DoN) fiscal year 2005 budget request of $119.4
billion ($1.4 billion below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of
$120.8 billion) balances risks across operational, institutional, force
management and future challenges identified by the Secretary of
Defense.
The Navy and Marine Corps installations and environmental programs
total $9.1 billion in fiscal year 2005, or about 8 percent of the DoN
budget. That our portion of the DoN budget is declining bears witness
to the successes we have had in the last few years managing costs and
pursuing innovative solutions to long-term problems. We continue to
meet all Department of Defense (DOD) and DoN installations and
environmental goals. This budget provides funds to operate,
recapitalize and transform our fleet assets and our shore
installations.
Base Operations Support funds provide fundamental services such as
utilities, fire and security, air operations, port operations, and
custodial care that enable the daily operations of our bases. Our
fiscal year 2005 request of $4.3 billion is about $200 million above
the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $4.1 billion. This increase
includes an $83 million transfer of Navy Working Capital common support
services to O&MN, $44 million for Marine Corps military to civilian
conversion costs, $24 million for Marine Corps to transition to the
Navy-Marine Corps Corporate Intranet, and $24 million for the fiscal
year 2004 pay raise.
Our Military Construction request is a very robust $1.1 billion. It
keeps us on track to eliminate inadequate bachelor housing, and
provides critical operational, training, and mission enhancement
projects.
The Family Housing request of $844 million provides funds to
operate, maintain and revitalize the worldwide inventory of 36,600
units. Our Family Housing request declines because of increases in the
military pay accounts for Basic Allowance for Housing, which makes
finding affordable housing in the community more likely, and the
success of our housing privatization efforts. Through privatization and
future construction funds, both the Navy and Marine Corps achieve the
DOD goal to eliminate inadequate homes by fiscal year 2007.
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) includes military
construction and Operations and Maintenance funds. To avoid double
counting military construction, the funding shown in the chart includes
only the Operations and Maintenance accounts. Facilities sustainment
requirements are based on a DOD model. The budget achieves 95 percent
of the model requirement for Navy and Marine Corps bases, an increase
of 2 percent for the Navy above the fiscal year 2004 request. While the
fiscal year 2005 recapitalization rates decline slightly for Navy and
improve for Marine Corps, both the Navy and Marine Corps meet the DOD
67-year recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008.
Our fiscal year 2005 request for environmental programs totals $1.0
billion. This request is sufficient to meet all known environmental
compliance and cleanup requirements, invest in pollution prevention,
and fund cultural and natural resources conservation efforts, including
implementation of Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans.
I will now discuss these areas in more detail.
HOUSING
We have made a special effort in this budget to maintain progress
in improving the quality of housing for our Sailors and Marines.
Family Housing
Our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad:
--Reliance on the Private Sector.--In accordance with longstanding
DOD and DoN policy, we rely first on the local community to
provide housing for our Sailors, Marines, and their families.
Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine Corps families
receive 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.
--Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).--With support from the Congress, we
have used statutory PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to partner
with the private sector to use private sector capital. These
authorities, which I like to think of in terms of public/
private partnerships, allow us to leverage our own resources to
provide better housing considerably faster to our families.
--Military Construction.--Military construction will continue to be
used where PPV authorities don't apply (such as overseas), or
where a business case analysis shows that a PPV project is not
financially sound.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2004/2005 PPV Homes
Navy
--Hawaii: 1,948
--Northeast: 4,210 \1\
--Northwest: 2,705
--Mid-Atlantic: 5,930
--Great Lakes/Crane: 2,823
--San Diego: 2,668
Marine Corps
--Yuma/Camp Pendleton: 897
--Lejeune: 3,516
--Twentynine Palms: 1,382
--Kansas City, 137
\1\ Scope being revised to retain 250 more units previously planned
for divestiture at Mitchel Housing Complex in Long Island, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Importance of BAH
Higher BAH allowances help more Sailors and Marines and their
families to find good, affordable housing in the community without
additional out-of-pocket expenses. This reduces the need for military
housing, allowing us to divest excess, inadequate homes from our
inventory. Higher BAH also improves the income stream for PPV projects,
making them more economically attractive to potential developers. The
fiscal year 2005 request completes a 5-year DOD goal to increase BAH
and eliminate average out-of-pocket expenses for housing.
Eliminating Inadequate Homes
The DoN remains on track to eliminate its inadequate family housing
units by fiscal year 2007. We continue to pursue privatization at
locations where it makes sense. We will eliminate almost three-quarters
of our inadequate inventory through the use of public/private ventures.
As of February 1, 2004, we have awarded 11 projects totaling over
16,000 units. We recently awarded a joint Army/Navy military housing
project at Monterey, California that includes 593 homes at the Naval
Postgraduate School. During fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, we
plan to award projects totaling over 26,200 homes at ten Navy and
Marine Corps locations. This will allow us to improve our housing stock
and provide more homes to Sailors, Marines and their families much
faster than if we relied solely on traditional military construction.
The Navy is now taking a regional approach to accelerate progress and
improve the financial viability of its PPV projects.
There will still be a residual inventory of Government-owned
housing after fiscal year 2007 with a continuing need for family
housing construction, operations, and maintenance funds. However these
requirements will decline as family housing is privatized. We continue
to review these requirements, particularly in the management sub-
account, as we transition from ownership to privatization.
The single biggest challenge in our efforts to eliminate inadequate
family housing by fiscal year 2007 is the statutory ``cap'' on the
amount of budget authority that can be used in military family housing
privatization. DOD projects that the Services will reach the current
cap of $850 million in fiscal year 2004, and that it will impede our
ability to carry out our fiscal year 2005 privatization effort.
Military family housing privatization is a successful tool to provide
quality, self-sustaining housing for Navy and Marine Corps families. It
is important that we stay the course. We will continue to work with the
Congress to ensure that our Sailors and Marines live in quality
housing.
Bachelor Housing
Our budget request of $205 million for bachelor quarters
construction continues our emphasis on improving living conditions for
unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. There are three challenges:
--Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.--There are
approximately 17,500 Sailors worldwide who are required to live
aboard ship while in homeport. Based upon actions taken by the
Navy and funds provided by Congress through fiscal year 2004,
we have now given 4,900 Sailors a place ashore to call home.
This is our most pressing housing issue. The Navy will achieve
its ``homeport ashore'' initiative by fiscal year 2008 by
housing two members per room. Our fiscal year 2005 budget
includes one ``homeport ashore'' project at Naval Shipyard,
Bremerton, Washington. By housing two members per room, this
project will provide spaces for almost 800 shipboard Sailors.
--Ensure our Barracks Meet Today's Standards for Privacy.--We are
continuing our efforts to construct new and modernize existing
barracks to provide more privacy for 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. The Navy will achieve these barracks construction
standards by fiscal year 2013; the Marine Corps by fiscal year
2012.
--Eliminate Gang Heads.--The Navy and Marine Corps remain on track to
eliminate inadequate barracks with gang heads for permanent
party personnel.\1\ The Marine Corps will eliminate their
permanent party barracks with gang heads the fiscal year 2005
budget request; the Navy by fiscal year 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we believe privatization will be as successful in
accelerating improvements in living conditions for our single Sailors
and Marines as it has been for families, it does present a different
set of challenges. For years, we have built barracks to military rather
than local community standards. For example, there were limits on room
size, and no common area for occupants to prepare meals or to
socialize. I want to thank the Congress for legislation last year to
allow building privatized barracks to private sector standards.
We must now consider other unique aspects in privatizing bachelor
housing: the impact of extended deployments on unit occupancy and
storage requirements; their location outside the fence line of the
base, or inside the fence line but on severable Government land; and
sharing a unit by two or more members. We are confident that the
Government can join with a private partner to fashion a solution to
these concerns that preserve the viability of a project while
protecting Government interests. We are developing pilot unaccompanied
housing privatization projects for San Diego, CA; Hampton Roads, VA,
Camp Pendleton, CA.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Military Construction Projects
Our fiscal year 2005 military construction program requests
appropriations of $1.086 billion and authorization of $1.045 billion.
It includes $406 million for 12 waterfront and airfield projects; $205
million for eight bachelor housing projects; $69 million for six force
protection projects, and $64 million for three environmental compliance
projects. There is $87 million for planning and design, and $12 million
for unspecified minor construction.
In aggregate, about 66 percent of the military construction request
is for restoration and modernization projects. The remaining 34 percent
is for new footprint projects that provide new capabilities, e.g.,
force protection, bachelor quarters, and facilities for new platforms.
There are 5 projects totaling $94 million at non-U.S. locations
overseas--Rota, Spain; Andros Island, Bahamas; Diego Garcia; and two
projects in Sigonella, Italy. The Naval Reserve construction program
has four projects for a total of $25 million.
Eleven projects totaling $467 million in fiscal year 2005 have
construction schedules (including fiscal year 2004 continuing projects)
exceeding 1 year and cost more than $50 million, thus meeting the
criteria for incremental funding. Five of these projects received full
authorization in fiscal year 2004 and are being continued or completed
in fiscal year 2005. We are requesting $289 million appropriations and
$607 million in new authorization to start six incrementally funded
projects in fiscal year 2005.
Outlying Landing Field, Washington County, North Carolina
The new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is replacing F-14 and older F/A-18C
aircraft. The DoN prepared an Environmental Impact Statement that
examined a range of alternatives for homebasing these new aircraft on
the East Coast. A Record of Decision was signed in September 2003 to
base eight tactical squadrons and a fleet replacement squadron at Naval
Air Station Oceana, VA, and two tactical squadrons at Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point, NC.
This homebasing decision requires a new Outlying Landing Field
(OLF) to support fleet carrier landing practice (FCLP) training. The
current site near Virginia Beach, VA is not as effective for night-time
training due to ambient light sources, and lacks the capacity to handle
a training surge such as experienced for the war on terrorism and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Washington County site is about halfway
between NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point. We believe it is the best
alternative from an operational perspective.
In fiscal year 2004 the Congress provided authority to acquire
approximately 3,000 acres for the core area of the OLF and to begin
constructing the runway. We are now seeking authority to acquire a
30,000-acre buffer zone for noise, build a control tower, and erect
fire and rescue facilities. We are asking for this authority over 2
years, with the first increment of $61.8 million in fiscal year 2005.
There is some local opposition to the OLF site we selected; two
lawsuits challenge the sufficiency of the Department's Environmental
Impact Statement. The Navy wants to be a good neighbor, and will
consider the concerns of local property owners. For example, the Navy
has committed that all land not required for actual OLF operations will
be available for continued agricultural use. The Navy believes it has
met all legal and regulatory requirements, and is proceeding with
property acquisitions and construction planning.
VXX
Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1), located at the Marine Corps
Air Facility, Quantico, VA, now performs helicopter transportation for
the President, Vice President and heads of state. Numerous
modifications and improvements have limited the mission effectiveness
of the current VH-3D and VH-60N helicopters. The planned acquisition of
a replacement helicopter, called VXX, will improve transportation,
communication, and security capabilities and integrate emerging
technologies. The total acquisition cost is $5.9 billion. Originally
planned for an initial operating capability in 2013, the acquisition
schedule has now been accelerated to December 2008.
The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $777 million in Research and
Development for VXX system design and demonstration, and $106 million
in appropriations ($166 million authorizations) for military
construction to support VXX. Facilities are required to support the
test and evaluation of three VXX scheduled for delivery in October
2006, to provide hangar space for the eventual full complement of 23
aircraft, and to provide in-service support for the life cycle of the
aircraft.
The accelerated VXX acquisition schedule required us to make some
judgments in the fiscal year 2005 military construction program to
ensure that facilities would be available in time to house the aircraft
and the combined government/contractor support team. There is
insufficient excess hangar capacity to house VXX at Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, MD, where the Navy conducts most of its test and
evaluation of new aircraft. Similarly, the 1935 era hangers at Quantico
are inadequate to meet current HMX-1 needs.
However, before committing large sums to construct new facilities,
we are studying whether there is excess capacity elsewhere in the
National Capital Region that could be adapted to accommodate both the
test and evaluation phase and the operational mission for VXX at lower
cost than building new facilities at Patuxent and Quantico. In
addition, the VXX program manager has a business case analysis underway
to determine whether a government owned, contractor operated facility
at Patuxent is the most cost effective solution for in-service support.
As another variable, the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD)
and initial production solicitation released in December 2003 gives the
vendor the option to use its own facilities. We plan to complete these
studies, consider the vendors' proposal, and decide this spring on the
most cost effective location for the facilities. This timeframe
supports the current acquisition timeline. In the absence of specific
locations, we labeled two VXX projects in our fiscal year 2005 program
under the title ``Various Locations.''
FACILITIES
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)
Sustainment.--The Department of Defense uses models to calculate
life cycle facility maintenance and repair costs. These models use
industry wide standard costs for various types of buildings.
Sustainment funds in the Operations and Maintenance accounts maintain
shore facilities and infrastructure in good working order and avoid
premature degradation. The Navy and Marine Corps achieve 95 percent
sustainment of the model requirements in fiscal year 2005. Sustainment
dollars decreased by 9 percent due to the removal of old facilities in
our inventory as a result of our demolition program, and revised
pricing assumptions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB-03 FY-04 PB-05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy
Sustainment (percent)........................... 84 93 95
Recap Rate (years).............................. 116 140 148
Marine Corps
Sustainment (percent)........................... Full 97 95
Recap rate (years).............................. 156 88 78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recapitalization.--Restoration and Modernization provides for the
major recapitalization of our facilities using Military Construction
and Operations and Maintenance funds. While both the Navy and Marine
Corps achieve the Department of Defense goal of a 67-year
recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2008, the fiscal year 2005 recap
rate rises to 148 years for Navy while improving to 78 years for the
Marine Corps. The Navy will manage its near term facilities investment
to limit degradation of operational and quality of life facilities.
Closure of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico
The Navy closed Naval Station Roosevelt Road on March 31, 2004, as
directed by section 8132 of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations
Act. We have begun the required environmental reviews and the initial
phases of the property disposal process. The Navy is taking great care
in relocating military personnel and families, and assisting civilian
employees with relocation and outplacement. The DOD school will remain
open until the end of the school year.
As directed in the law, the closure and disposal is being carried
out in accordance with the procedures contained in the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990, as amended. The Navy
established Naval Activity Puerto Rico as a successor organization to
maintain the property and preserve its value through disposal, which we
expect to occur in late 2005. The Commonwealth has formed a Local
Redevelopment Authority (LRA) that has begun land use planning for the
property. The Navy and DOD Office of Economic Adjustment are
coordinating with the LRA. We will ensure the needs of the military and
civilian employees are met as we carry out this closure and property
disposal. Nebraska Avenue Complex
At the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the
Navy has agreed to relocate 10 Navy commands with 1,147 personnel from
its Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) in Northwest Washington, D.C. The
556,000 square feet of office space will provide a headquarters
facility for DHS personnel. DHS will pay for the Navy's first move, and
if necessary, the first year's lease costs. As of the end of January
2004, seven Navy commands with 469 personnel had relocated. The
Administration has requested authorizing legislation that would allow
the remainder to move by January 2005. To meet this timeline, the
requested legislation must be enacted by April 30, 2004. Several of the
Navy commands will relocate to government-owned facilities, while
others will move to leased spaces until we identify permanent
government-owned facilities.
The requested legislation allows the Navy to transfer custody of
the NAC property to the General Services Administration (GSA), who will
manage the facilities for DHS. We will require a legislative waiver
from Section 2909 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
(BRAC), which specifies that bases many not be closed except through
the BRAC process. The Navy will receive consideration for the fair
market value of NAC in the fiscal year 2006 budget process.
EFFICIENCIES
Naval Safety Program
Senior level management attention to safety concerns, coupled with
selected financial investments, can yield profound benefits to the well
being of our Sailors, Marines, civilians, contractors, and the bottom
line mission costs. Ensuring the safety of our people has been and
remains a top priority for Secretary England's and myself. Secretary
Rumsfeld recently challenged the Military Services to reduce the rate
of mishaps by 50 percent by fiscal year 2006.
That has amplified efforts to reduce mishaps and reaffirm the value
we place on safety. We have elevated the position of Commander of the
Naval Safety Center from a one-star to a 2-star Flag Officer. Secretary
England recently convened the first senior-level Navy and Marine Corps
Safety Council to review DoN mishap reduction plans. Navy Flag and
Marine Corps General Officers chair or co-chair four of the nine
Defense Safety Oversight Council Task Forces. We are reducing lost
workdays due to injuries in our civilian workforce. I personally
visited several commands and installations and witnessed the great
teaming between our command staff, management, and labor organizations
to reduce injuries and lost workdays.
Human error is a factor in over 80 percent of our mishaps. We are
studying ways to modify high risk driving behaviors, particularly by
young Marines. Our fiscal year 2005 budget will expand our Military
Flight Operations Quality Assurance initiative, a highly successful
program used in commercial aviation that downloads flight performance
data (black box data) after every flight and allows the aircrew and
aircraft maintenance team to replay a high fidelity animation of the
flight and aircraft performance parameters.
Commander, Navy Installations
The Navy established Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) on October
1, 2003 to consolidate and streamline management of its shore
infrastructure. Instead of eight Navy commands responsible for
planning, programming, budgeting and executing resources for shore
installations, there is a single command--CNI. The Navy now has an
enterprise wide view of installation management and resources.
CNI will guide all regions and installations towards Navy strategic
objectives. The centralized approach will identify and disseminate best
business practices across all regions/installations. The ability to
identify standard costs and measure outputs is improving the capability
based budgeting process. Managing from a program centric knowledge base
allows for a top-level assessment of capabilities and risks.
This central focus on facilities can leverage capabilities between
the military services to avoid duplicate investments while still
creating surge capacity through joint use opportunities. CNI has
developed strategic partnerships with Naval Supply Systems Command
(NAVSUP) and Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) to apply
their logistics and contracting expertise.
The Navy is already realizing savings, estimated at $1.6 billion
across the FYDP, AND improving services from CNI initiatives.
--Consolidating functions at the regional level vs. installation
level (e.g., housing management, administrative functions,
contracting, supply, comptroller, business management,
maintenance, warehousing).
--Combining command staffs (e.g., NAB Coronado and NAS North Island;
CBC Port Hueneme and NAS Point Mugu)
--Consolidating installation contracts (e.g., tug and pilot
contracts; custodial and grounds maintenance; negotiating area
wide utility rates).
--Shifting installation level supply and contracting functions to
NAVSUP and NAVFAC (e.g., eliminate duplication at the
installation and regional levels).
--Studying in 2004 the merger of other overlapping installation
functions from Naval Bureau of Personnel (e.g., morale, welfare
and recreation programs, fleet and family support programs,
child care), NAVSUP (personnel support programs such as food
services), and NAVFAC (facilities management).
Joint Cooperation on Installation Management
I had the pleasure in February to witness the signing an agreement
between the installation commanders from Naval Air Engineering Station,
Lakehurst, the Army's Fort Dix, and McGuire Air Force Base. This
partnership encourages joint solutions for common problems between the
three contiguous bases and their tenant commands. The three
installation commanders are already reducing operating costs by
consolidating firearms training, radar information for air operations,
and contracts for pest control, linen service, and hazardous waste
disposal. We want to encourage such cooperation wherever we have
opportunities to partner with the other military departments.
BRAC 2005
Now more than ever, we need to convert excess capacity in our U.S.
shore infrastructure into war-fighting capability. BRAC 2005 may well
be our last significant opportunity to reduce excess infrastructure,
and apply savings to improve readiness. More importantly, it will allow
us to transform our infrastructure to best support the force structure
of the 21st Century.
The Congress gave considerable thought on how to structure a BRAC
2005 process that sets fair and objective evaluation standards and
incorporates the lessons learned from four previous BRAC rounds. We
will be meticulous in meeting these statutory standards. We will treat
all bases equally. We will base all recommendations on the 20-year
force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and published selection
criteria. In no event will we make any decisions concerning the
reduction of infrastructure until all data has been collected,
certified and carefully analyzed.
We will look for joint use opportunities in our analysis and
recommendations. This is a fundamental change from past BRAC processes.
I believe, as does the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, that we can and
must apply the type of joint warfighting successes witnessed in
Afghanistan and Iraq to a more efficient and effective Department of
Defense shore infrastructure.
Within the DoN, the overall BRAC 2005 process is under the
Secretary of the Navy's oversight and guidance. The Secretary of the
Navy established three groups to support the process. The
Infrastructure Evaluation Group (IEG) which I chair, will develop
service unique recommendations for closure and realignment of the DoN
military installations. It will also ensure that the operational needs
of the fleet commanders are carefully considered.
The Infrastructure Analysis Team (IAT) will develop the analytical
methodologies, collect certified data from Navy and Marine Corps
activities, examine joint and cross-service basing opportunities,
perform in-depth analysis, and present the results to the IEG for
evaluation. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Infrastructure Strategy and Analysis, who is a member of my staff,
leads the IAT. The IAT has 93 military, civilian and contract personnel
with a broad range of expertise and warfare disciplines.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DoN Infrastructure Evaluation Group
Asst Sec Navy, Installations & Environment (Chair)
Dep Asst Sec Navy, Infrastructure Strategy & Analysis (Vice Chair)
Dep CNO Fleet Readiness and Logistics
Dep Commandant Installations and Logistics
Dep Commandant Aviation
Dep Asst Sec Navy Research Development Test & Evaluation
Dep Asst Sec Navy Manpower & Reserve Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Functional Advisory Board (FAB) reports directly to the IEG and
bridges the analysis by the DOD Joint Cross Service Groups and the DoN.
The FAB includes Navy and Marine Corps flag officers and senior
executives who are assigned to the seven Joint Cross Service Groups
(JCSG). The FAB ensures that the DoN position on joint functions are
clearly articulated and the leadership is kept current on JCSG matters.
Demolition/Footprint Reduction
After the Navy and Marine Corps achieved the fiscal year 2002 DOD
goal of 9 million square feet and two million square feet,
respectively, they have continued to demolish excess and vacant
facilities. In fiscal year 2005, the Navy has budgeted $49 million to
demolish 1.6 million square feet, and the Marine Corps $5 million to
demolish about 305 thousand square feet.
The demolition effort has evolved from just eliminating ``eye-
sores'' to encouraging installations to consolidate, move out of costly
leased or antiquated facilities, and eliminate the most inefficient
facilities. We want to avoid spending SRM and base operating support
funds on facilities we no longer need.
Utility Privatization
Privatizing DOD electricity, water, wastewater, and natural gas
utility systems to corporations who own and manage such systems will
allow DOD to concentrate on core defense functions and yield long term
cost savings. The Secretary of Defense has directed that each Service
evaluate the potential for privatizing their utility systems, while
10USC 2688 provides the legislative authority to convey utility
systems where economical. The DoN is on track to meet the DOD goal of
reaching a source selection authority (SSA) decision for all of its
utility systems by 30 September 2005. To date, we have made SSA
decisions for 111 systems, or 17 percent of the 654 systems available
for privatization. Of the 111 systems with an SSA decision to date, 15
systems have been privatized, 41 systems have been exempted, and 55
systems are under review. DoN expects to achieve SSA decisions for
approximately half of its systems by the end of fiscal year 2004. It is
still too early to predict what percentage of our utility systems will
successfully be privatized.
Strategic Sourcing
Our strategic sourcing program examines cost effective options to
deliver service and support services to our shore installations. There
are three components: OMB Circular A-76 Competitive Sourcing program,
Strategic Manpower Planning, and Divestiture.
A-76 competitions compare performance costs for civilian employees
vs. contract performance for facility management, logistics support,
real property maintenance, and other similar functions that are widely
available in the commercial sector. The program has competed 24,700
positions since 1998 and generated over $640 million in cost avoidance
through fiscal year 2005. Our fiscal year 2005 program will begin
studies on 6,480 positions as part of a plan to examine 29,000
positions in fiscal year 2004 through 2008, with expected cost
avoidance of $250 million.
Strategic manpower planning ensures uniform service members perform
assignments that are inherently military while converting functions
that are commercial in nature to civilian or contractor performance.
The Department will study about 4,700 military positions in fiscal year
2004 and fiscal year 2005 for potential conversion.
We are examining opportunities to divest functions that are not a
core competency of the Department and are readily available in the
commercial sector. As an initial effort, the Department is studying
whether to divest Navy's optical fabrication to private industry. Navy
employs 380 military and civilian personnel, and spends $36 million to
produce 1.3 million pairs of eyeglasses each year. The study is
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004.
PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP & PROPERTY DISPOSAL
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 have been a major
tool in reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings.
The Department has achieved a steady State savings of $2.7 billion per
year since fiscal year 2002. All that remains is to complete the
environmental cleanup and property disposal on all or portions of 22 of
the original 91 bases. We have had significant successes in sales,
disposal, and cleanup.
Property Sales
We have used property sales as a means to expedite cleanup and the
disposal process as well as recover the value of government owned
property purchased by taxpayers. We have successfully completed several
sales. We sold 235 acres last year at the former Marine Corps Air
Station Tustin, CA on the GSA Internet web site for a net $204 million.
We sold 22 acres at the former Naval Air Facility Key West, FL in
January 2004 for $15 million. The city of Long Beach, CA opted to pre-
pay its remaining balance plus interest of $11.3 million from a
promissory note for the 1997 economic development conveyance of the
former Naval Hospital Long Beach. We are applying these funds to
accelerate cleanup at the remaining prior BRAC locations.
More property sales are planned that will finance the remaining
prior BRAC cleanup efforts. We are close to resolving legal issues in
the aftermath of the lawsuit by the LRA at the former Oak Knoll Naval
Hospital in Oakland, CA. We are monitoring progress on the lawsuit
filed against the City of Irvine on the environmental impact report it
prepared under California statutes for annexation of the former Marine
Corps Air Station El Toro, CA and expect to proceed soon with the sale
of that property. We will use the proceeds from both sales to finance
our fiscal year 2005 program of $115 million. If necessary, we will use
the funds from the Long Beach and Key West sales as a cash flow bridge
if the Oak Knoll and El Toro sales are delayed.
Property Disposal
The DoN had about 161,000 acres planned for disposal from all four
prior BRAC rounds, with the former Naval Air Facility Adak, AK
accounting for nearly half of those acres. I am pleased to report that
last month the Navy relinquished over 71,000 acres of its Adak land
withdrawal to the Department of Interior, and Interior exchanged
portions of that land with other lands held by The Aleut Corporation.
Statutory authority provided by the Congress last year was the key
enabler for this successful land exchange. The Navy has fenced and is
retaining about 5,600 acres due to the presence of munitions.
The transfer of Adak, along with recent successful property
conveyances at Louisville, KY; Key West, Fl; Indianapolis, IN; and
Richmond, CA means that by the end of this fiscal year the DoN will
have less than 7 percent (or about 11,000 acres) of the property from
all four prior BRAC rounds left to dispose.
Cleanup
The DoN had spent $2.3 billion on environmental cleanup at prior
BRAC locations through fiscal year 2003. We expect the remaining cost
to complete cleanup at about $495 million for fiscal year 2006 and
beyond, most of which is concentrated at fewer than twenty remaining
locations. Any additional land sale revenue beyond that currently
budgeted will be used to further accelerate cleanup at remaining prior
BRAC locations. These sites are primarily former industrial facilities
that tend to have the most persistent environmental cleanup challenges.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Cleanup Program at Active Bases
We continue to make substantial progress toward completing our
environmental restoration program and are on target to complete the
cleanup on active bases by the DOD goal of 2014. For the third year in
a row, the number of cleanups completed at active bases exceeded the
planned target. The program Cost to Complete (CTC) continues to
decline: it is now $3.0 billion for fiscal year 2004 and beyond. Almost
70 percent of all sites have remedies in place or responses complete.
We have kept a stable funded program and predict steady progress to
cleanup the remaining sites. We believe the Department of Navy cleanup
program is one of the best in government.
--Our Alternative Remedial Technology Team reviews innovative
technologies and promotes their use in the field.
--Our process improvements have reduced the number of sites being
``re-opened'' by regulators from 50 in 1999, to 20 in 2001 to 9
in 2003.
--Our partnering with regulators minimizes disputes and has served as
a model for other agencies. Our Environmental Management
Executive Council brings together two EPA Regions and six
states on the west coast to jointly resolve issues.
--Our acquisition strategy matches the type of work to be performed
with the most cost-effective contractual vehicle while
enhancing opportunities for small businesses.
Munitions Response Program
We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to
develop Munitions Response Program (MRP) objectives for discarded
military munitions and unexploded ordnance (UXO) at locations other
than operational ranges. We completed an extensive inventory of our
installations to identify potential MRP sites, finished nine
Preliminary Assessments (PAs), and initiated PAs at 31 installations
through the end of fiscal year 2003. We will initiate PAs at 13 other
installations in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 and expect to
achieve the DOD PA completion goal by fiscal year 2007. The $8 million
budgeted in fiscal year 2004 and $16 million in fiscal year 2005 is
sufficient to complete all PAs. Site Inspections (SIs) will begin in
fiscal year 2006. Any imminent human health or environmental concerns
identified during our investigations will be addressed immediately.
Vieques Cleanup
We ceased military training on Vieques in 2003 and, as required by
law, transferred 14,572 acres on eastern Vieques to the Department of
Interior (DoI) in April 2003. Interior will manage the majority of it
as a wildlife refuge, with the former Live Impact Area (about 900
acres) designated as a wilderness area. The Governor of Puerto Rico has
proposed listing Vieques and Culebra on the National Priorities List
(NPL). We expect to sign a Federal Facilities Agreement to govern the
cleanup after the NPL listing becomes final.
Cleanup on western Vieques (the former Naval Ammunition Supply
Detachment (NASD)) is proceeding as we work closely with the Puerto
Rico Environmental Quality Board. Seventeen sites have been identified,
but none with major environmental contamination, as NASD was not an
industrial operation. These sites make up 490 acres of the 8114 acres
transferred. We expect to spend about $16 million on these sites and
complete the cleanup by 2007.
Cleanup assessments are also underway on eastern Vieques (former
training/bombing range). Twelve sites consisting of 80 of the 14,572
acres transferred require assessment and potential cleanup. The sites
include routine waste disposal areas used to support the former Camp
Garcia, a landfill, and sewage lagoon. Other areas of concern will be
examined. We expect to spend about $14 million on cleanup for the 12
non-munitions sites and complete the cleanup by 2014.
The former bombing ranges will require munitions assessment and
cleanup. In the spring of 2003 the Navy investigated two beaches for
potential munitions. The Navy has budgeted $8 million in fiscal year
2005 for range assessments and initial clearance actions. Beaches and
the live impact area will be high priorities. We estimate a cleanup
cost of $76 million in fiscal year 2006 and beyond for munitions
assessments and clearance actions based on the land uses designated in
the statute. We will be working closely with the EPA and DoI. Worker
safety and minimizing disturbance of the natural environment will be
important considerations.
Kaho'olawe
Kaho'olawe is a 28,800 acre uninhabited island in Hawaii used as a
naval gunfire and bombing range from 1942 through 1990. In accordance
with Title X of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act, the
Navy transferred title of Kah'olawe to the State of Hawaii in 1994, and
has been clearing ordnance according to the State's priorities.
Navy relinquished control of access to Kaho'olawe to the State on
November 11, 2003, as required by Title X, ending a ten-year cleanup
effort. The Congress appropriated a total of $460 million for the
cleanup, including $44 million provided to the State to assist them in
preparing a reuse plan and managing the island. As of January 16, the
Navy had cleared a total of 22,059 acres, consisting of 1,543 acres
cleared of surface ordnance only; 20,516 acres cleared of surface
ordnance and all scrap metal (known as Tier I); and 2,636 Tier I acres
that were further cleared up to a four-foot depth (known as Tier II).
During the cleanup, the Navy completed many non-clearance State goals,
including road construction, historic and archaeological assessments,
and shipped over 10 million tons of scrap metal, along with more than
14,000 tires and aircraft debris used as targets.
The cleanup contractor is completing demobilization, removing
remaining scrap items and equipment not needed by the State. The Navy
has signed an agreement with the State, as required by Title X, to
respond to newly discovered, previously undetected ordnance found on
the island in the future. The Navy believes it has accomplished the
original Title X goal to provide reasonably safe and meaningful use of
the island, as several thousand visits by the public have already been
recorded. However, there is no technology that can assure the complete
removal of all ordnance. We will remain partners with the State to
manage the risk to humans from ordnance that certainly remains on the
island.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Marine Mammals
The Navy is proud of its record of environmental stewardship,
particularly our marine mammal research efforts and protective measures
for military training activities.
We are leaders in marine mammal research and are committed to find
ways to avoid harm to animals while still performing our mission at
sea. The Navy spends about $8 to $10 million per year in marine mammal
research, representing about half of all known worldwide investments in
this area. We coordinate with and share findings with other agencies
such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and the National
Science Foundation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DoN Marine Mammal Research Focus Areas
Underwater sound propagation
Marine mammal locations and densities
Behavior effect thresholds
Mitigation techniques
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Navy has protective measures to avoid harm to marine mammals
during training and operations at sea while preserving training
realism:
--Planning.--Using historical marine mammal location information to
plan training activities. Protective measures are tailored to
the type of training, location, and season.
--Detection.--Posting trained lookouts 24 hours per day on surface
ships. Submarines employ passive acoustic detection devices to
determine range and bearing of vocalizing marine mammals. We
may launch aerial searches for marine mammals in training areas
before, during and after training events.
--Operations.--Establishing buffer zones during training exercises,
and suspending operations when necessary. Navy may limit active
sonar training through standoff distances, source power level
reductions, limit nighttime and bad weather operations, or opt
to train in deep rather than shallow water.
The changes made by the Congress to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act will allow us to better balance our readiness requirements with our
legal obligations to ensure military activities are protective of
marine mammals, and will allow us to ``train as we fight'' when our
activities do not have biologically significant effects on marine
mammals. We urge the Congress to reaffirm those changes as they
consider reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Shipboard Programs
The Navy invested $465 million in the last decade to install
pulpers, shredders, and plastic waste processors on its surface ships.
This equipment avoids the need to discard plastics into the world's
oceans and allows environmentally acceptable disposal of other solid
wastes such as food, paper, cardboard, metal and glass. Submarines will
be outfitted with similar solid waste equipment by the end of 2005,
well in advance of the December 2008 deadline established in the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships.
The Navy has been converting air conditioning and refrigeration
plants on its surface fleet from ozone depleting CFCs to
environmentally friendly coolants. We plan to spend a total of $400
million on this effort, including $30 million in fiscal year 2005. We
expect to complete the conversion of nearly 900 CFC-12 plants by 2008,
and over 400 CFC-114 plants by 2012. We expect to spend about $35
million to install suites of pollution prevention equipment (e.g., HVLP
paint sprayers, aqueous parts washers) on ships, including $5 million
in fiscal year 2005. This equipment, combined with management actions,
reduces 10,000 pounds per year of hazardous material brought aboard our
large ships.
We continue efforts with EPA to establish uniform national
discharge standards for all armed forces vessels. This has proven to be
a very complex undertaking. Navy and EPA have opted to segregate the 25
types of discharges into ``batches'', with control standards for the
first batch of 5 discharges (including hull coatings) to be published
by September 2005.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
For the second year in a row, the Navy-Marine Corps Team
substantially exceeded the Energy Policy Act requirement that 75
percent of covered fleet vehicle procurements be alternative fuel
vehicles. At the Pentagon, our Navy Public Works Center in Washington,
D.C. converted the entire executive motor pool to alternative fueled
vehicles.
We are hoping to expand our procurement of hybrid vehicles in
fiscal year 2004 and beyond and increase the use of bio-diesel and
ethanol. We are working with the Army's National Automotive Center to
place hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles at Marine Corps Recruit
Depot, San Diego, and to open a fueling station at Camp Pendleton.
These actions help develop a regional hydrogen-fueling infrastructure
and provide us with hands-on experience with hydrogen and fuel cell
transportation technology. While there are important environmental
benefits, these investments also provide opportunities for technology
transfer to future weapons systems.
Conservation
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) are the
foundation upon which Navy and Marine Corps activities protect and
manage lands. The DoN has 96 bases that require INRMPs: 82 INRMPs are
in place; 13 are being revised because they have passed the end of
their 5-year cycle; and one is for the Barry M. Goldwater Range. This
one is being prepared jointly with the Air Force and Department of
Interior, and is delayed due to litigation. Navy and Marine Corps
INRMPs already address endangered species and migratory birds. We have
revised our INRMP guidance to ensure they provide a conservation
benefit to endangered species. Our bases work closely with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and game agencies to prepare the
INRMPs. We are serious about our obligation to conserve natural
resources entrusted to us by the American people as a means to ensure
continued access to these resources to enable our military mission.
Good conservation practices and military training operations can be
mutually beneficial:
--Navy efforts increased the population of federally protected
California least terns from 13 nests in 1977 to 1,200 today,
and the snowy plover population from 12 nests in 1992 to 101
today at the Silver Strand portion of Naval Amphibious Base
Coronado. Because of this success, the Fish and Wildlife
Service reduced training restrictions for our Special Forces.
--Using animals provided by the Government of Mexico, the Marine
Corps, Air Force, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and State of
Arizona have established a captive breeding program for the
Sonoran pronghorn ram, an endangered species that inhabits the
Goldwater Range. Increasing the population of this species will
reduce restrictions on the timing and tempo or ordnance
delivery to target areas on this joint military training range.
ENCROACHMENT
We have made great strides in addressing encroachment issues over
the past 2 years. Congress has provided much needed relief through
enactment of legislation in the 2003 and 2004 National Defense
Authorization Acts that allows the DoN to balance military readiness
and environmental stewardship.
--We worked closely with the Department of the Interior to implement
congressional direction to develop a rule that clearly defines
the relationship between military readiness activities and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Department of the Interior plans
to publish the proposed rule soon.
--The Marine Corps is sponsoring conservation forums to help identify
land and conservation partners as a means of limiting
encroachment on its training areas from commercial development.
With the Nature Conservancy as a partner, we have completed one
project for 2,500 acres adjacent to Camp Lejeune tank and rifle
ranges. Other efforts are underway in California, South
Carolina, and Georgia with partners such as San Diego County,
the Trust for Public Land and the Sierra Club.
--The Congress amended the Endangered Species Act to allow the
Secretary of the Interior to exclude military installations
from critical habitat designation when such installations are
managed in accordance with an INRMP and the Secretary
determines the INRMP provides a benefit to the endangered
species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is under court
order to designate critical habitat for a number of species in
April 2004, including four species \2\ that occur on Marine
Corps Air Station Miramar and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
INRMPs at these bases provide benefits to these species. The
legislative change should allow the Secretary of the Interior
to exclude both installations from critical habitat
designations, thus ensuring our ability to continue to conduct
realistic military training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Southwestern arroyo toad, Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego
fairy shrimp, California coastal gnatcatcher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--We will use the revised definition of harassment of marine mammals
in analysis of new technologies for military readiness training
programs (such as the Virtual At Sea Training (VAST) system for
naval gunfire), littoral warfare training, and supplemental
analysis on deployment of the SURTASS LFA sonar system. The
revised definition ensures that analysis of impacts on marine
mammals is based on science, not speculation. The changes
approved by Congress reflect current methodologies used by Navy
and the National Marine Fisheries Service and reduce the
likelihood of costly, time-consuming litigation caused by
ambiguous language.
Notwithstanding the gains we've achieved thus far, encroachment
continues to be a very real problem--one that will become more complex
as populations grow, pressures on ecosystems mount, and the means
required to sustain military readiness evolve through new technologies
and threats.
Coming to grips on when military munitions become solid wastes
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act can ensure effective
range management for both military readiness training and waste
management. Flexibility for implementing the general conformity
requirements of the Clean Air Act will allow more effective deployment
of new weapons systems and the realignment of existing assets. We
continue to discuss these important issues with the states and groups
such as the National Governors Association and the Environmental
Council of the States.
Congressional efforts to address balancing military readiness and
environmental stewardship have not gone unnoticed by State
legislatures. Following your example, three states--California,
Arizona, and Texas--have enacted laws requiring local governments to
consider impacts on military readiness during environmental planning
and land use planning processes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would ask the members of this committee to judge
the merits of the Department of the Navy's installations and
environmental program through the considerable progress we are making
in virtually all areas. Funding reductions are driven by reduced
requirements, less costly alternatives, and improved business
processes.
That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support of each
member of this committee, and will try to respond to your comments or
concerns.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Thank you all. You've
answered my question on housing privatization so I'm not going
to ask that again for the record. I think we're going to have
the same problem in all the Services on sustainment. But my
goal is just to make sure that we do try as hard as we can to
keep the 95 percent rate or something as close to that as
possible.
OVERSEAS BASING
Let me move to the overseas basing. Obviously, Army is the
biggest one that has announced so far that they are moving from
Germany and Korea a large number of their troops. Do you see
Navy bases overseas coming back, and is that something that is
going to figure into your BRAC and our Military Construction
decisions in the future?
Mr. Johnson. Without the-we obviously cannot yet announce
what's going to happen but we don't see large units coming back
like the Army and the Air Force. Now, some individuals will
come back and some small bases might close but nothing in
comparison to what the Army and the Air Force. The Marines have
almost no presence in Europe but they have presence in the
Pacific. That may change a little bit but on the margins as
opposed to nothing like the other two Services.
PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER PROGRAM
Senator Hutchison. The presidential helicopter program. You
have an $80 million request for the test and evaluation
facilities, and I noticed in your remarks, or your written
text, that you are looking for places around the Capital area
where you might be able to do that, but you're not yet sure. My
question really is, do you think you're going to need that
money or all of that money in this year's budget?
Mr. Johnson. As best we can determine, I'll let my expert
talk here, if the selection had gone earlier, as they had
planned, the MILCON funds would have probably been short to
need. If it's delayed until, say, the end of the year it will
be about right to have the MILCON, or the MILCON will be in the
right sequence. There are two parts of that. One is a test and
evaluation as you mentioned. Patuxent River is where we
normally do that but in the sense of fairness we're looking at
alternatives; that should be completed pretty quickly. The
Marines have long needed a new facility at Quantico, that's the
second part, and that's needed with a new or a continuing
helicopter program. So both of them will be needed in this
year's budget. It would have been nice to have had them in last
year's budget, if we'd gone through with the original time
frame.
You want to add anything?
Admiral Loose. Everything the Secretary said-again, the
construction, I'm sorry, the acquisition award was delayed a
little bit. They're now determining what the impact would be on
the first aircraft, which was before November of 2006. And
right now we envision no impact at this point and we definitely
need the money in the fiscal year 2005 program.
Senator Hutchison. We may want to look at that as we get
closer to the time that we're going to pass our bill and see if
there's any efficiency in this number for this year or if it
can be put somewhere else that would be a higher priority
within the Navy budget.
Mr. Johnson. We'd be pleased to continue to interact with
you and your staff on it.
JOINT BASING
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Let me ask you a question on joint
use. It came up in the Army but particularly as I look at some
of the bases that you have around Corpus Christi and Ingleside,
already we have joint use with the Coast Guard. We have joint
use with the Army in some of them but I'm just wondering if the
Navy has really looked at the Coast Guard as a real joint use
partner as much as it could in light of the very enhanced Coast
Guard responsibility in homeland security and their need to be
all along the Gulf Coast, really, for homeland security
purposes. Are you really factoring in as a major partner and of
course, I know the Corpus Christi-Ingleside area, I'm sure the
Senator from Louisiana has the same type of potential, because
you have a Coast Guard presence. Are you really looking at
that?
Mr. Johnson. In the government there's no closer
relationship between two departments than the Coast Guard, the
Navy and all the Services for that matter. We treat them as a
part of Department of Defense and we recognize they're
certainly not but they're full partners in everything we do and
I know that at Joint Reserve Base Carswell we have all five
services there. And I think we have it at Belle Chasse also,
Coast Guard is at that Joint Reserve Base, and we try very
hard; sometimes there might be an oversight but it's an
oversight when it doesn't occur.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, well, Carswell is a great example
and that's a different priority. But I just wondered on the
coasts if you're looking at your coastal bases for partnership
with Coast Guard.
Mr. Johnson. As you and others visit our bases along the
Coast you'll find that Coast Guard is inevitably present. And
also more and more Customs; we don't always acknowledge that
but at Corpus Christi they have built a new hangar, as I
recall, just for Customs.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, Customs is right there with Coast
Guard and Army in the depot and so there is quite a bit of
interaction there.
Mr. Johnson. And when you go to pilot training bases no
matter where they are you see all services who fly, Corpus
Christi being a good example and some in Louisiana also.
General Williams. Madam, I would just also like to add that
although Camp Lejeune is not designated a joint base we in fact
do have Coast Guard presence there at Camp Lejeune. And we
certainly are always looking for opportunities to train jointly
with the Coast Guard as well as other services. So we do have
some presence there as well.
Senator Hutchison. One of the things that I would just like
to ask you to do, as we're moving into BRAC, since the Coast
Guard isn't in the same category as the Navy in BRAC, it might
be that the Navy could be proactive in looking for places that
there could be consolidation that would be to the benefit of
both, even though it wouldn't be all Department of Defense. But
I just think because they're different, we shouldn't forget
about them as a way to become more efficient.
Mr. Johnson. We cannot forget about them if we wanted to;
we don't want to and your friend and my boss feels very
strongly about homeland security and so do we.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, that is a good connection. I forgot
about his recent past. But you, of course, being from the Air
Force yourself, are someone who can help on joint use
opportunities so I think that could be very helpful if the Navy
would sort of take the lead.
Senator Landrieu.
NEW ORLEANS JOINT RESERVE BASE
Senator Landrieu. Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I
appreciate the Chairman's line of question and wanted just to
follow-up along the same lines because the city of New Orleans,
which is my hometown, of course, and the State I represent, has
been somewhat negotiating with the Navy about a plan that would
just make a tremendous amount of sense from our perspective. We
have the Navy Reserve, you know, headquartered in New Orleans.
There's a move underfoot with a broad base in our community to
try to consolidate some of the different components, freeing up
some of the very valuable riverfront space for the expansion of
the cruise ship industry, which has become very important to
New Orleans and we've reached out but they've actually reached
to us because it becomes one of these favorite destinations of
people, or launching off points, I should say, to leave from
the city, which we're grateful for. But in that there's a real
possibility that with just a little bit of out of the box
thinking but with no cost to the Navy we could end up with
really substantial facilities in a consolidated format that,
you know, add to the footprint of that great base in New
Orleans.
So I wanted, Mr. Secretary, to ask you if you're familiar
with these negotiations? Is it possible for them to, you know,
continue because again, it's not just related to BRAC, it's
related to the Coast Guard, related to this other industry and
other businesses that have a real economic interest in the
outcome of these plans.
Mr. Johnson. I've been there, I've seen it and General
McCarthy came to visit me Monday or Tuesday; I gave him some
very encouraging guidelines and I checked with my staff and I'm
going to give him some different ones next week. But when we
give those guidelines they will be so those in the community
and others can rely on. I liked what he proposed but we have to
look at it in a larger context and we'll come up with some
guidelines that the city can understand, he can understand and
hopefully we'll work all sides' interest.
Senator Landrieu. Well, is it fair to ask you if these next
set of guidelines is going to be as encouraging as the last
ones that you gave him?
Mr. Johnson. It will be a little bit different because we
have to look at the larger context. The last thing we want to
get into is to have a community that's coming and saying, we
will build you a new building if you won't leave. So we have to
make sure that when the city does it it's at the right time.
And what I suggested to him was we should know that when we're
making decisions, but we want to put it in the right context so
that others, some of your other Senators, couldn't say we did
it wrong. And I was pleased when my staff asked me to pause and
come up with the right guidelines so that we can do it
correctly.
Senator Landrieu. Because I really appreciate that and look
forward to working with you because it's of course important,
you know, to our community and there's just such an opportunity
if this would work out for the Navy to be benefitted, the
taxpayers to be benefitted, the city and a variety of other
industries.
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
The other is to compliment you all on the work that you're
doing here in the District on the revitalization of the Navy
Yard. Would that be under your jurisdiction?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And to compliment you all on the way that
you're doing that with the leadership team here in the city. I
also wear another hat as the Appropriator for the District of
Columbia, so I'm fairly closely associated. And I'm just seeing
tremendous progress along that whole corridor. I hope, I'm
certain that what you're doing is benefitting the Navy but the
way that you're engaging in a very integrated process with the
other parts of the government, as well as with the local
community here in the city I think is going to have just
tremendous long-term benefits to this whole region. And I just
wanted to commend you and to encourage you and to let you know
that I'm looking closely at that and if there's anything I can
do to help you. I know the Navy may have some special needs in
regards to the relocation of a museum and some other things
that you all may need some help with and I'd be particularly
interested in working with you on that.
Mr. Johnson. I'd very much like to work with you on that.
And we have worked well with the city. We're concerned,
encouraged, whatever, about the Southeast Federal Center, if we
can ever get that moving.
Senator Landrieu. Southeast? I'm sorry.
Mr. Johnson. It's the land next door, it's owned by GSA,
it's on the contract.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, the development for the housing
units and the--I was telling them, I was complimenting them,
Madam Chair, on the good work that they're doing at the Navy
Yard and how they've done it in a very integrated fashion with
the city and the community and if it continues, and hopefully
as it has even improved and getting better it's going to be a
tremendous legacy for the Navy as well as for the city and the
region, that it will have an impact on the region that we're
in.
Mr. Johnson. We hope that we can make the museum a center
part of that but we have some troubles.
Senator Landrieu. And there may be a better, you know,
location or avenue. But opening up that whole area in the
appropriate ways to give access to the waterfront for the
neighborhood and the region and then have a very vibrant and
dynamic community, which the Military shares with other aspects
of the government as well as the local city, I just think it's
been a real testimony to you all and to the leadership the
Navy's provided. So I just wanted to thank you for that.
Mr. Johnson. The last time I was there I went through the
Southeast Federal Center and the new building for the
Department of Transportation is really springing forth out of
the ground; it's quite exciting to watch that development.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
General Williams. Senator, I'd just like to add to that
also. As you probably know we'll be opening our Marine barracks
that we're building there this Summer, probably around the June
timeframe and we certainly would----
Senator Landrieu. They look beautiful and you've done a
beautiful job.
General Williams. Yes.
Senator Landrieu. And I just--because I live a few blocks
from there so not only professionally do I focus on it but
because I live in the general neighborhood I see it and I've
been able to watch firsthand the development. The Marines have
done a beautiful job, that whole corridor, and I just want to
communicate how happy the people that live in this neighborhood
are with the way that you have conducted yourself. And it's
going to be a tremendous help, not just to the, you know, to
the neighborhood but to the whole region and a real feather in
the cap of the Navy and Marines.
General Williams. Yes ma'am.
NEBRASKA AVENUE COMPLEX
Senator Hutchison. Just one last question on the Nebraska
Avenue Complex and obviously the Navy is moving. I noticed in
your testimony that you're going to be in some cases going to
lease space. All I would like to ask is, are you going to make
sure that the Navy doesn't incur any costs from moving out to
accommodate the Department of Homeland Security?
Mr. Johnson. Yes ma'am. To date we have not incurred any
costs. Now, we incurred some costs because we planned some of
the moves but not for the moves and not for the changes up in
Nebraska Avenue. We can move approximately half of the people
before we touch the BRAC requirements. The last two large
organizations we cannot do that until we get permission from
Congress, and there's a bill over here, a legislative package.
In that case the GSA folks will pay for our interim quarters
and also the new buildings up to their appraised value.
Nebraska Avenue is being appraised by a third party and up to
that level GSA will reimburse us. Every indication is that
level is above what we need. We've also gotten the Department
of Homeland Security to pay for the move, this is the last half
again, and also to pay for the first year's lease. Then GSA
picks it up through the move to the final quarters.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. Well, I know you'll be very attentive to
that but certainly we don't want any DoD cost.
Mr. Johnson. And we appreciate your strong support in that
area.
Senator Hutchison. You have it.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hansford T. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
RECAPITALIZATION RATE
Question. Secretary Johnson, your testimony asserts the Navy will
meet DOD's 67-year recapitalization goal by 2008. But your
recapitalization rate is clearly headed in the wrong direction, moving
from 116 years in fiscal year 2003 to 140 years in fiscal year 2004 and
148 years under this budget request.
How is the fiscal year 2008 target of 67 years going to be met
without extraordinary and unrealistic investments over the next couple
of years?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps are funded to meet the 67-year
recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008 in the current
President's Future Year Defense Plan. This investment requirement will
be met through a combination of initiatives such as (1) minimizing new
footprint as appropriate while taking into account new mission
requirements and (2) reducing footprint and therefore plant replacement
value to ensure that we are investing in only needed recapitalization
requirements.
Question. What confidence do you have that the needed outyear
investment will materialize?
Answer. Through a combination of initiatives to reduce footprint
thus plant replacement value, and investment of funds, I am optimistic
that the Navy and Marine Corps will meet the 67-year recapitalization
rate goal by fiscal year 2008.
BRAC
Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy has not asked for any
appropriations for BRAC cleanup this year. Your testimony states that
you intend to spend $115 million in proceeds from land sales for BRAC
cleanup. I applaud the Navy's aggressive use of land sales to defray
BRAC costs, but I am a little uneasy about making BRAC cleanup efforts
dependent on this mechanism.
If the land sale proceeds don't materialize, what assurances do we
have that the $115 million will be spent?
Answer. It is possible that we will not receive all the proceeds
anticipated in fiscal year 2005. If it appears that predicted land
sales revenue may be delayed, the Department of Navy will take steps to
preserve available cash to meet fiscal year 2005 expenses. The
Department of Navy had received substantially more land sale revenue in
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 than anticipated, which was to be
used to further accelerate environmental cleanup. The Department may
opt to defer accelerating some of this cleanup work to carryover
portions of these funds to cover the most critical projects planned in
fiscal year 2005 until the planned land sales revenue materializes.
Question. If you get more than $115 million from land sales, can
you spend it this year?
Answer. Generally, yes, substantially more than $115 million can be
spent for BRAC cleanup in fiscal year 2005. The Department of Navy will
ensure that all land sale revenue funds are spent prudently. Depending
on the amount of additional funds received, environmental cleanup
schedules, and regulator reviews, we may opt to carryover some excess
land sale revenue into fiscal year 2006 and beyond as we pursue the
cleanup in the most effective manner we can.
Question. Do you need any additional authorization to spend
proceeds in excess of $115 million?
Answer. We do not need additional authorization from the Congress
to spend more than $115 million. However if land sales revenue exceeds
our prediction in the budget, we would require additional obligation
authority from OMB.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING
Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy has requested no funding for
BRAC environmental remediation in the fiscal year 2005 budget request
because you intend to finance your fiscal year 2005 BRAC cleanup
requirements out of the revenue from land sales.
According to your prepared testimony, the Navy has realized $230
million from BRAC land sales at Tustin and Long Beach, California, and
Key West, Florida. In addition, you are anticipating $115 million in
revenues from the sale of Oak Knoll Naval Hospital at Oakland and
property at El Toro to finance your fiscal year 2005 program.
What is the status of the $230 million you have already realized?
Has that money been committed to specific projects, and if so, can you
give the Committee a breakdown of those projects?
Answer. Most of the $230 million received has been obligated and
the remainder is funding critical projects this year and next. The
bases that have received the most funding to date from these land sales
are:
NAF Adak, AK; NAS Alameda, CA; MCAS El Toro, CA; Hunters Point
Annex, CA; NAS Moffett Field, CA; FISC Oakland (Point Molate) Richmond,
CA; NAS South Weymouth, MA; NS Treasure Island, CA; MCAS Tustin, CA;
Mare Island NSY (Vallejo), CA.
Question. Secretary Johnson, your prepared testimony includes the
following statement: ``If necessary, we will use the funds from the
Long Beach and Key West sales as a cash flow bridge if the Oak Knoll
and El Toro sales are delayed.''
It appears from that statement that you are uncertain when the El
Toro and Oak Knoll land sales will be complete.
What is your current estimated timetable for those sales--what
level of confidence do you have that you will have proceeds from those
sales available backfill the BRAC account by the beginning of the 2005
fiscal year in October?
Answer. We expect both El Toro and Oak Knoll sales to be initiated
this year (fiscal year 2004) and result in funds being available in
fiscal year 2005, though it may be later in the year. As a precaution,
we are prepared to defer fiscal year 2004 funds in hand, which were
previously planned to accelerate cleanup, in case the land sale revenue
does not materialize in time. There is sufficient funding and workload
to assure a continuous and steady clean up effort in fiscal year 2005.
Question. Was it a Navy decision or an OSD (Office of Secretary of
Defense) decision for the Navy to self-finance it's entire fiscal year
2005 BRAC cleanup program out of land sale revenues?
What is the Navy's remaining cost to complete its BRAC
environmental cleanup program?
Answer. Based on the data used to prepare PRESBUD 2005, the cost to
complete for the BRAC environmental cleanup program is about $0.5
billion in fiscal year 2006 to completion.
Question. How much of that could you execute in fiscal year 2005,
if additional funding were available?
Answer. The Navy could execute about an additional $150 million.
Question. What lessons has the Navy learned from the previous BRAC
rounds that you plan to apply to the environmental cleanup requirements
associated with the 2005 BRAC round?
Answer. The following concepts are being pursued:
--Combining cleanup with redevelopment saves time and money for all
parties.
--Use CERCLA ``early transfer'' authority to get property quickly
to the developer.
--Early transfer of BRAC property can accelerate redevelopment and
parallel cleanup.
--Reliable characterization of the contamination allows potential
new owners to consider cleanup costs as part of the
purchase price of the property, and provides safe transfer
with interim land use controls.
--Cleanup program in far better shape than previous BRACs. Most sites
are either done, cleanup is underway, or contamination is well
characterized.
--Local Redevelopment Authorities are best at traditional
governmental functions of planning/zoning.
--Developers are best at property development within established
zoning rules.
--Involve regulators early in process. CERCLA early transfer
authority requires approval by State Governor, and EPA if it's
a National Priorities List site.
MARINE ONE HELICOPTER (VXX)
Question. Secretary Johnson, in your testimony, you note that
military construction is required to support the test and evaluation of
three VXX helicopters scheduled for delivery in October 2006.
What impact will the delay in awarding the VXX contract have on
that delivery schedule?
Answer. The delay in awarding the VXX contract is not expected to
have any significant impact on the arrival of the first aircraft,
currently planned for November 2006.
Question. Does the Navy have a new target date for awarding the VXX
contract?
Answer. Award of the VXX contract is expected by December 2004.
Question. Given the delay in awarding the contract, has the Navy
determined whether it still requires full funding for construction of
the test and evaluation project requested in the President's fiscal
year 2005 budget submission?
Answer. Because the delay in awarding the contract is not expected
to cause any significantly delay in the arrival of the first aircraft,
facilities are still required in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
outlying landing field (washington county, north carolina)
Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy is requesting $61.8 million
in fiscal year 2005 MilCon to acquire land and begin construction on an
Outlying Landing Field in Washington County, North Carolina, to support
the basing of new F/A-18E Super Hornet squadrons in Virginia and North
Carolina. In fiscal year 2004, this Committee appropriated $27.6
million for the first increment of land acquisition.
I understand that there is opposition to this project from the
local communities of Washington and Beaufort counties, and that several
lawsuits have been filed.
What impact has the lawsuits had on the Navy's timetable or plans
to acquire the land for the outlying field?
Answer. Two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Court
challenging the Navy's decision regarding home basing of the Super
Hornet on the east coast. These lawsuits allege that the Navy's
environmental analysis conducted pursuant to NEPA was inadequate to
support the Navy's basing decision, including the selection of a site
for an outlying landing field (OLF) in North Carolina. The lawsuits
were file under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Under the APA,
the Federal District Court will review the adequacy of the analysis
underlying the Navy's decision and determine whether additional
environmental analysis is needed. The court could enjoin the Navy from
engaging in land acquisition activities until the additional analysis
was completed. However, the court cannot substitute its judgment for
that of the Navy and direct that the OLF be sited at a location other
than Washington County, NC.
Question. There was a hearing in Federal court on March 30 on a
request from opponents of the landing field for a temporary injunction
against the Navy. Has any ruling been made on that request, and if not,
when do you expect a ruling?
Answer. Plaintiffs in the two lawsuits on the Navy's home basing
decision requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the Navy from engaging in further activity regarding the
OLF pending final adjudication of the lawsuits. On April 21, 2004, the
Court issued a preliminary injunction precluding the Navy from engaging
in any direct or indirect activities related to construction and
operation of an OLF in Washington County, NC. On May 4, 2004, the Navy
asked the Court to reconsider its decision to issue a preliminary
injunction. The Court has yet to rule on the Navy's request for
reconsideration. In the meantime Navy is taking steps to move forward
with the trial on the merits in order to obtain a final decision in the
matter.
Question. If the judge grants a temporary injunction, how will that
affect the Navy's acquisition process?
Answer. The Court did grant the plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Navy from engaging in any
direct or indirect activities related to the construction and operation
of an OLF in Washington County, NC. The preliminary injunction will
remain in effect until the Court makes a final ruling on the lawsuits.
The preliminary injunction is very broad in scope and prohibits the
Navy from acquiring land, preparing management plans or even conducting
environmental studies. At present the Navy has discontinued all of its
land acquisition efforts, including negotiations for the voluntary sale
of land to the Navy by private citizens, as well as studies that would
form the basis for a Bird Aircraft Strike (BASH) Plan and the
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan required by the Sikes Act.
If land acquisition were precluded for an extended period, the effort
to base Super Hornet aircraft on the East Coast could be delayed. On
May 4, 2004, the Navy filed a request that the Court to reconsider its
decision and either terminate the preliminary injunction or modify the
scope of the injunction. The Court has yet to rule on the Navy's
request for reconsideration.
Question. What is the status of the $27.6 million we appropriated
for this project in fiscal year 2004? When do you expect to obligate
that funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 funds consisted of $16.9 million for
acquisition of 3,024 acres of core land, and $10.7 million for design
and construction of horizontal work, for a total of $27.6 million.
Progress to date with fiscal year 2004 Funds:
--1,157 acres of the 3,024 have been purchased, obligating $4.1
million of the $16.9 million.
--Offers have been made to 9 owners for another 1,826 acres,
--Navy is ready to make offers to the remaining 4 owners.
--$539 thousand has been spent on planning and design.
The Navy filed a request asking the Court to reconsider its
decision and either terminate the preliminary injunction or modify the
scope of the injunction. The court has not yet ruled on the Navy
motion. Navy is prepared to obligate additional funds immediately if
the judge relaxes the terms of the injunction he issued on 20 April.
Question. Is the Navy undertaking any further environmental studies
on the potential impact of activities at the landing field on
waterfowl?
Answer. The Navy believes it has thoroughly analyzed environmental
impacts on waterfowl in the Environmental Impact Statement that was
completed in August 2003. Therefore, no further environmental impact
studies have been undertaken or believed necessary. The Navy had begun
preliminary work on development of a Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH)
plan. That preliminary work included radar studies of waterfowl
activities in the vicinity of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge and the proposed OLF site. Further progress on BASH was halted
as a result of the Court's decision.
Question. In light of the lawsuits, how confident are you that the
Navy will be able to obligate the fiscal year 2005 land acquisition
funding requested during the 2005 fiscal year?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for OLF totals $95.7
million ($33.9 million for horizontal construction, $4.8 million for
vertical construction, and $57.0 million for buffer land acquisition.
The Navy has filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider
the scope of the injunction. If the Court agrees, the Navy will resume
voluntary land sales and low impact design work such as soil borings
and surveying.
Under a best-case scenario, the fiscal year 2005 projects can be
executed in fiscal year 2005. Under a likely-case scenario, land sales
would be executable in late fiscal year 2005, but construction projects
would not be executed until fiscal year 2006.
NEBRASKA AVENUE COMPLEX
Question. Secretary Johnson, I understand that the Navy expects the
appraised value of the Nebraska Avenue Complex to cover the cost of
relocating Navy personnel.
Have you determined what the final cost will be, where the Navy
personnel will go, and whether the relocation will require any new
MilCon? Would any MilCon requirements come out of the military
construction appropriation, or would they be paid for by the GSA out of
its appropriation?
Answer. The appraisal of the Nebraska Avenue Complex will be
completed in late April. We have defined the scope of the remaining
work--the move out, interim leasing, permanent construction and move in
of two Navy commands, SSP and NIPO. This involves 578 people. We expect
the BRAC analysis process to determine in mid-2005 where the final
location would be for these two commands. Since we have not determined
their final location, we cannot know the final cost of the replacement
facility, but expect the costs to be within the appraised value of
Nebraska Avenue Complex. It is premature to say what, if any, MILCON
requirement would come out of the Military construction appropriation.
Question. If GSA is responsible, how can you be sure that the
Navy's requirements will be met in a timely manner, since you have no
control over the GSA's budget?
Answer. This is a legitimate concern. OMB has taken responsibility
to manage the overall flow of funding to ensure that Navy does not pay
for these moves, and that they are accomplished in a timely manner.
Question. Did the Navy give any consideration to keeping the chapel
at the complex and continuing to use it as a chapel? Do you have any
concern about the reaction from the Navy community to turning this
chapel into a conference room?
Answer. Because of potential concern from the Navy community,
consideration was given to keeping the Chapel. However, the chapel has
not been used on a regular basis since the Security Group personnel
moved out of NAC, and it does not meet a specific Navy requirement.
Since that time it has only been used for weddings, funerals,
retirements and a few all hands meetings for tenants aboard the
Nebraska Avenue complex. The burden for financial upkeep, manpower
requirements and the limited accessibility to military and families
were also considered. In addition, Homeland Security's decision to move
all military off the complex would make access even more difficult to
the Navy community. Plans for a deconsecrating service are being
developed and consideration is being given to removing the large
stained glass window, the E.B. Skinner pipe organ and other historical
keepsakes.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
INSTALLATIONS IN IRAQ
Question. Secretary Johnson, soon, the United States will no longer
maintain bases in Saudi Arabia. We will have to look elsewhere for
basing opportunities in the Middle East. DOD has said Iraq will soon
become a new locus for U.S. troops in the Middle East. In some cases,
DOD plans to upgrade military installations used by Saddam Hussein for
future use by American armed forces.
What plans does the Navy have for long-term basing in Iraq?
Answer. The Navy supports the interim Iraqi government and a
peaceful transition of power to a democratic state. To complete this
goal, the Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any long-
term basing requirements in Iraq.
Question. Does the Navy intend to build any facilities on Iraqi
waters of the Persian Gulf, perhaps near Um Quasr?
Answer. No. The Navy does not intend to build any facilities in
Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf.
Question. How many sailor does the Navy intend to station in Iraq?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate the need to station additional
personnel in Iraq outside of those already provided in support of the
Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander and Naval Forces Central Command
(NAVCENT)/Fifth Fleet Commander.
Question. When will the Navy begin to budget for the military
construction needed to house the U.S. Navy in Iraq?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any
long-term basing requirement in Iraq. Hence, military construction will
not be required to support our current presence.
Question. Through a Supplemental Appropriation?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any
long-term basing requirement in Iraq. Hence, additional military
construction funding will not be required to support our current
presence.
Question. If not Iraq, what other countries within Central Command
might the Navy seek to expand its presence?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to expand its
presence in the Central Command Area of Responsibility.
DOD REALIGNMENT OF FORCES IN EUROPE
Question. Secretary Johnson, nearly 2 years ago, DOD began
discussions on the realignment of forces in Europe. In that time,
Congress has not received any concrete details for what DOD has in
mind. We have seen reports that DOD plans to move some personnel and
infrastructure out of Old Europe and into New Europe and the Former
Soviet States. When asked for elaboration on these plans, DOD has
provided little. I am pleased to see this Subcommittee will hold a
hearing on Europe's realignment on April 21st.
Can you shed any light on how many Navy sailors and ships/aircraft
within Europe may be realigned from current installations to new
installations?
Answer. By our expeditionary nature, the Navy does not maintain a
significant garrison force overseas. However, the Navy is reviewing its
overseas posture to ensure that we can best support our existing
operational assets. This support is being explicitly addressed in
Secretary Rumsfeld's Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy
(IGPBS) initiative. In consultation with our friends, allies and
partners, these basing initiatives are being closely scrutinized to
ensure that they directly support Defense strategy. Although the Navy
expects to reduce its permanent force structure in Europe, the final
decision to modify existing base structure is still being reviewed.
Question. What current facilities do you anticipate will continue
to operate?
Answer. The Navy does not anticipate closing any of its existing
main operating bases in Europe. However, operations at a few of these
bases may be significantly curtailed. The final decision to modify
existing base structure is still being reviewed.
Question. If we reduce forces in Europe, won't we see an increase
of sailors and equipment returning to the United States for basing?
Answer. Yes. The Navy does expect to return some Navy assets based
in the European theater to the United States. In order to maximize our
existing infrastructure, the Navy intends to use the BRAC 2005 process
to determine the final disposition and maximize Navy capabilities.
Question. Does it make sense to enter into BRAC in 2005 if we have
not yet fully determined the shape and size of our presence abroad?
Answer. The Navy is committed to conducting a 2005 round of base
realignment and closure (BRAC), as authorized by the Congress. The
convergence of ongoing strategy and overseas basing actions, the
transformational direction in all the Services and force structure
changes together afford us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly
transform the Services' combat capability in an enduring way.
The ongoing overseas basing review is nearly complete and those
assets that are identified to return to the United States will be
considered in the BRAC 2005 process. The timing of the overseas basing
review and the BRAC 2005 process is perfect to ensure appropriate
consideration is given to the optimal stationing of all of our naval
assets.
BRAC AT FORT POLK AND BELLE CHASSE--HOW CAN JOINT OPERATIONS BENEFIT
THESE BASES?
Question. Secretary Johnson, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that a
high priority should be placed on the military value of Joint bases for
the upcoming BRAC round.
Do you share Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for our military to move
toward and support Joint bases?
Answer. We strongly support Secretary Rumsfeld's vision of joint
use of installation assets because it helps us reduce lifecycle
investments and share overhead. In addition, joint bases are a more
accurate reflection of how our forces operate jointly in wartime. Navy
is participating in DOD efforts to revise policies, processes,
procedures, and practices to enhance joint base operations and support.
I know you have visited Belle Chasse on a number of occasions.
Question. Could you please discuss how Belle Chasse--the home to
the Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Reserve, Army Reserve, Air
National Guard, and Coast Guard--meets Secretary Rumsfeld's vision for
jointness?
Answer. Joint use of installation assets is a way of life in Belle
Chasse. The Navy serves as host of the air station, providing logistics
support to its DOD and non-DOD tenants for airfields, air traffic
control, bachelor quarters/barracks, family housing, galley, recreation
activities, fire and safety, etc. None of these services are duplicated
among the tenants. Also an Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) is under
construction on the air base to accommodate additional Reserve units of
the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. This new facility
consolidates these Reserve functions from other locations in or near
New Orleans, reducing overhead and providing greater access to military
personnel and family support programs available on the base.
Question. Secretary Johnson, over 550 new town homes were recently
built at the Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base New Orleans. This is
uncommon because our Citizen Soldiers are not generally provided with
military housing, although the base in Belle Chasse is actually a full-
time Reserve base.
How many installations within the Navy provide housing for the
Reserve Component?
Answer. Three Navy installations provide military family housing
primarily for the Reserve Component--Naval Air Station and Joint
Reserve Base (NAS JRB) New Orleans, LA; NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX; and NAS
JRB Willow Grove, PA. Reservists housed in family housing at these
three bases are serving in the active component, i.e., for the training
and administration of reservists or as part of an unit activated for
more than 180 days and, therefore eligible for assignment to military
family housing.
Question. Are any Public Private Partnerships projects currently
under way to provide housing for the Reserve Component?
Answer. The housing at New Orleans has been privatized. There are
currently no plans to privatize the housing at the other locations.
However, it is possible that members of the Reserve Component could
rent privatized housing at other locations.
Question. How much funding out of the Family Housing budget is
allocated for the Reserve Component?
Answer. The Family Housing budget is used to support the overall
operation and maintenance of military family housing, regardless of who
occupies it. As such, there is no specific allocation of the Family
Housing budget to the Reserve Component.
KEEP NAVY RESERVE O&M SEPARATE FROM BIG NAVY
Question. Secretary Johnson, last year, DOD's budget request called
for the merging of Reserve and Active Personnel accounts, which
Congress roundly rejected because Congress feared the Active Services
would rob the Reserves of personnel funding.
The Navy established the Commander of Navy Installations (CNI) for
the management of in-shore installations in fiscal year 2003. As a
result, CNI now provides O&M dollars to Belle Chasse, not the Commander
of Naval Reserve Forces.
Is CNI keeping the funding for Reserve Installations separate from
Active Installations?
Answer. Yes. Operations and maintenance funding for Reserve
activities flows from the Operations and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
appropriation while Operations and Maintenance funding for Active
activities flows from the Operation and Maintenance, Navy
appropriation.
Question. Is there any effort to merge the Navy's O&M and O&M
Reserve accounts? I do not support such a merger if the Reserve cannot
guarantee big Navy will not siphon funds.
Answer. There is no current initiative to merge the Navy's active
and reserve Operations and Maintenance accounts.
BELLE CHASSE--COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE--STILL ON TARGET
Question. Secretary Johnson, groundbreaking is scheduled for July
on a new Commissary and Naval Exchange. It will serve the 7,500 men and
women stationed at Belle Chasse and up to 100,000 veterans in Greater
New Orleans.
Is the groundbreaking still on schedule for July?
Answer. Yes. Based on a construction contract award in July, the
groundbreaking is still on schedule for that same month.
______
Question Submitted to Rear Admiral Michael Loose
Question Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BARRACKS
Question. Admiral Loose, your testimony expressed appreciation for
the authority to build barracks to private sector, rather than
military, standards.
Can you tell us what plans the Navy has to make use of this
authority?
Answer. The Navy initially plans to use this authority in
combination with our bachelor housing privatization initiative.
______
Question Submitted to General Willie Williams
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT--MARINES
Question. General Williams, the Navy has created the position of
Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) to consolidate management of its
shore infrastructure.
Does the Marine Corps take a similar approach to consolidation and
to what extent are you working with the Navy to share lessons learned?
Answer. The Marine Corps is committed to managing its installations
in ways that are both effective and efficient. With 15 major bases and
stations to manage, Marine Corps installations are organized in a
consolidated approach similar to CNIs. For example, while our
installations are not regionalized exactly like those under CNI, Marine
Corps operating force installations are consolidated under the most
senior Marine Corps operational commanders: Marine Forces Atlantic,
Pacific and Reserve. In this way, Marine Corps bases and stations are
closely linked to those operational forces they directly support within
their region. Our remaining installations (recruit depots, logistics
bases and training bases), receive their support directly from Marine
Corps headquarters much like Navy installations are supported by CNI.
We continuously look for ways that improve installation management
while supporting our operating forces requirements. We work very
closely with CNI to share experiences and, where practicable, implement
similar practices across both Services. Examples include employing
similar readiness reporting systems, utilizing regional Facility
Support Contracts, and managing Family Housing from a regional
perspective.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Hutchison. All right, well, that is all the
questions that I have and I appreciate very much your time and
effort and the great job that you're doing. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thanks very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m. Wednesday, April 7, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Brubaker, Brigadier General David, Deputy Director, Air National
Guard, Department of the Air Force, Department of the Defense.. 39
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 25
Questions Submitted by....................................... 34
Statement of................................................. 23
Dubois, Raymond F., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Installations and Environment, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of................................................. 4
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
Questions Submitted by..............................35, 52, 80, 107
Statement of................................................. 2
Fox, Major General Dean, Civil Engineer, United States Air Force,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense............. 39
Statement of................................................. 40
Gibbs, Honorable Nelson F., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Installations, Environment, and Logistics, Department of the
Air Force, Department of Defense............................... 39
Prepared Statement of........................................ 41
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
Opening Statements...........................................1, 57
Questions Submitted by........................33, 51, 106, 112, 113
Johnson, Hansford T., Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 83
Prepared Statement of........................................ 87
Questions Submitted to....................................... 106
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by..................................................78, 110
Loose, Rear Admiral Michael, Commander, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, Department of
Defense........................................................ 83
Question Submitted to........................................ 112
Lust, Major General Larry J., Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department of
Defense........................................................ 57
Profit, Brigadier General Gary M., Deputy Chief, Army Reserve,
Department of the Army, Department of Defense.................. 57
Prosch, Geoffrey G., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Installations and Environment, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense.......................................... 57
Prepared Statement of........................................ 59
Questions Submitted to....................................... 78
Pudlowski, Major General Walter F., Special Assistant to the
Director, Army National Guard, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense.......................................... 57
Question Submitted to........................................ 80
Rajczak, Brigadier General William M., Deputy to the Chief, Air
Force Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of the
Defense........................................................ 39
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Question Submitted by........................................ 34
Statement of................................................. 3
Williams, Brigadier General Willie, Assistant Deputy Commandant
for Installations and Logistics (Facilities), United States
Marine Corps, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.... 83
Question Submitted to........................................ 113
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
Page
Accommodate New Missions......................................... 43
Additional Committee Questions................................... 51
Air:
Force BRAC................................................... 54
National Guard............................................... 46
Beddown for C-17 and C-5......................................... 48
Build-to-Lease Housing Overseas.................................. 45
C-17............................................................. 46
Basing....................................................... 47
Decision................................................. 52
Continue:
Demolition of Excess, Uneconomical-to-Maintain Facilities.... 44
Environmental Leadership..................................... 43
DERF Funds Use................................................... 53
Family Housing Requests.......................................... 52
Fitness Centers.................................................. 51
General Officer:
Housing...................................................... 51
Quarters..................................................... 48
Germany.......................................................... 45
Guard and Reserve................................................ 46
Invest in Quality of Life Improvements........................... 42
McClellan AFB.................................................... 54
Military Family Housing.......................................... 40
Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources..................... 44
Privatization.................................................... 40
Reduced Request.................................................. 52
Reserve.......................................................... 46
Sustain, Restore, and Modernize our Infrastructure............... 42
Vandenberg Air Force Base........................................49, 50
Department of the Army
Additional Committee Questions................................... 78
Army Family Housing:
Construction (AFHC).......................................... 63
Operations (AFHO)............................................ 63
Army:
Guard and Reserve Requests................................... 73
Reserve Center--Puerto Rico.................................. 76
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).............................. 64
BRAC at Fort Polk and Belle Chasse--How can Joint Operations
benefit these bases?........................................... 79
DOD Realignment of Forces in Europe.............................. 79
Guard WMD/CST Facilities......................................... 80
Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense.............................. 64
Housing Privatization--CAP....................................... 65
Installation:
As Flagships................................................. 60
In Iraq...................................................... 78
Strategies................................................... 60
Jointness........................................................ 68
Milcon:
Fort Stewart................................................. 75
To Support Returning Overseas Forces......................... 67
Military Construction............................................ 61
Army:
(MCA).................................................... 61
National Guard (MCNG).................................... 62
Reserve (MCAR)........................................... 62
Operation and Maintenance........................................ 64
Overview......................................................... 59
Required Milcon to Support Transformation........................ 76
Returning Overseas Forces........................................ 66
Schools.......................................................... 70
Sustainment...................................................... 72
Unfunded Force Protection Requirements........................... 80
Department of the Navy
Additional Committee Questions................................... 106
Barracks......................................................... 112
Belle Chasse--Commissary and Exchange--Still on Target........... 112
BRAC............................................................. 106
At Fort Polk and Belle Chasse--How can joint operations
benefit these bases?....................................... 111
Environmental Funding........................................ 107
DOD Realignment of Forces in Europe.............................. 110
Efficiencies..................................................... 93
Encroachment..................................................... 100
Environmental:
Cleanup...................................................... 96
Quality...................................................... 98
Facilities....................................................... 92
Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Overview................................. 87
Housing.......................................................... 88
Installation:
In Iraq...................................................... 110
Management--Marines.......................................... 113
Joint Basing..................................................... 102
Keep Navy Reserve O&M Separate From Big Navy..................... 112
Marine One Helicopter (VXX)...................................... 108
Military Construction............................................ 91
Nebraska Avenue Complex........................................105, 109
New Orleans Joint Reserve Base................................... 103
Outlying Landing Field (Washington County, North Carolina)....... 108
Overseas Basing.................................................. 101
Presidential Helicopter Program.................................. 101
Prior BRAC Cleanup & Property Disposal........................... 95
Recapitalization Rate............................................ 106
Washington Navy Yard............................................. 104
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions................................... 33
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 15
BRAC............................................................. 34
Environmental Cleanup........................................ 35
Environmental Work............................................... 24
European Bases................................................... 30
Infrastructure Investment Strategy............................... 8
Korea............................................................ 32
Minor Construction Thresholds.................................... 37
O&M Budget....................................................... 26
Overseas Basing/BRAC............................................. 33
Perchlorate...................................................... 20
Renewable Energy Resources....................................... 36
Reserve Components............................................... 36
Special Operations Forces........................................ 28
Utility Privatization............................................ 34
-