    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 109-123]

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                           MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC AND
                          HISTORIC-ELIGIBLE FACILITIES

                                   __________

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 8, 2006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    33-591                      WASHINGTON : 2007
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

                        JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado, Chairman
    JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LANE EVANS, Illinois
    JIM RYUN, Kansas                     GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    JEFF MILLER, Florida                 SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
    MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
    JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan                ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS, Washington           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
    HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
        California                       MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          TIM RYAN, Ohio
    ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             MARK UDALL, Colorado
    JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire           G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CANDICE MILLER, Michigan
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
                     Jeff Green, Professional Staff Member
                    Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff Member
                        Heather Messera, Staff Assistant

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                         CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
                                      2006

                                                                       Page

    Hearing:

    Wednesday, March 8, 2006, Department of Defense Management of
      Historic and Historic-Eligible Facilities......................     1

    Appendix:

    Wednesday, March 8, 2006.........................................    25
                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2006
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC AND HISTORIC-ELIGIBLE
                                   FACILITIES
                  STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hefley, Hon. Joel, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman,
      Readiness Subcommittee.........................................     1
    Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Ranking
      Member, Readiness Subcommittee.................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Armbruster, Hon. William A., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
      Army, Installations & Environment, Privatization and
      Partnerships, Department of the Army...........................     7
    Flock, Brig. Gen. James F., Assistant Deputy Commandant for
      Installations and Logistics, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps...    10
    Grone, Hon. Philip W., Deputy Under Secretary for Installations
      and Environment, Office of the Secretary of Defense............     4
    Kuhn, Hon. Fred W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
      for Installations, Department of the Air Force.................    11
    Shear, Rear Adm. Wayne G., Commander of U.S. Naval Installations,
      Director, Ashore Readiness Division, Office of Chief of Naval
      Operations.....................................................     9

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Armbruster, Hon. William A...................................    45
        Flock, Brig. Gen. James F....................................    68
        Grone, Hon. Philip W.........................................    29
        Kuhn, Hon. Fred W............................................    78
        Shear, Rear Adm. Wayne G.....................................    56

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        [There were no Documents submitted.]

    Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:

        Mr. Jones....................................................    89
        Dr. Snyder...................................................    89
        Mr. Taylor...................................................    89

      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT OF HISTORIC AND HISTORIC-ELIGIBLE
                                   FACILITIES

                                  ----------

                      House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Armed Services,
                                        Readiness Subcommittee,
                              Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 8, 2006.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m., in
    room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joel Hefley
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
               COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mr. Hefley. The committee, such as it is, will come to
    order.
        Today, the Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear testimony
    from the Department of Defense (DOD) on the management of
    historic facilities.
        Historic property management is a challenging task for the
    Department. Not only is DOD responsible for managing tens of
    thousands of historic properties, ranging from hangars to
    houses and barracks to bunkers, but their properties are often
    greatly appreciated by local historians.
        While the Department has a responsibility to identify and
    preserve these historic facilities under the National Historic
    Preservation Act of 1966, for many properties the price of
    doing so is becoming a difficult one to bear.
        Over the past year, I have personally walked through the
    historic homes of the Army chief of staff, the Air Force chief
    of staff, the chief of naval operations and the superintendent
    of West Point. I have seen the tremendous amount of work that
    needs to go into these facilities to repair and upgrade them to
    modern standards. And in many cases, I cannot imagine the day
    that Congress will provide the amount of money necessary to
    fund all of these necessary repairs.
        For example, last year, the Army requested authority to
    spend more than $1 million to repair the roof at the
    superintendent's home at West Point, New York. According to the
    Army, this home may require an additional $6 million in
    repairs, even after the roof structures are fixes.
        Also, last year, the Navy requested authority to spend more
    than $300,000 to study a mold problem at an historic house at
    the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., but according to the Navy,
    complete repairs to this unit are likely to cost between $2.6
    million and $5.2 million.
        And most recently, the Navy submitted to spend over $5
    million for historic remediation at Naval Air Station
    Pensacola, Florida, in order to meet the terms of a negotiated
    settlement between the State Historic Preservation Office
    (SHPO), the Navy and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation.
        While preserving our nation's history is important, the
    Federal Government does not have unlimited resources, so it is
    essential that we strike a balance between historic interests,
    common sense and fiscal reason.
        As much as we might want to keep and repair certain
    historic houses, our nation simply cannot afford to spend
    millions of dollars on any one home. We must find other ways to
    fund these needs, reduce costs or transfer the asset to someone
    who can afford it.
        I spend a large portion of my time in Congress working on
    DOD's facility budgets. I am well aware of the Department's
    annual failure to fully fund and execute sustainment at base
    operations budget. I have seen the leaking barracks, the
    substandard child care development centers and failing family
    housing units that result fro underfunding.
        Readiness budgets, alike, are under extraordinary
    pressures. Training, body armor, weapons, vehicles and daily
    operations all cost great amounts of money. Failure to fund
    these requirements costs readiness, a price that can be paid
    with the lives of our service members.
        So it is in this context that we must consider the relative
    merits of spending millions of dollars to repair any single
    housing unit.
        Unfortunately, there are no simple solutions. We cannot and
    should not tear every expensive historic structure. We cannot
    simply give every historic facility away without compromising
    the security of our installations, and we cannot afford the
    massive sums necessary to support all the historic structures.
        In my opinion, the solution is likely a combination of the
    following: First, DOD should take an aggressive a more
    aggressive approach of preservation for those facilities that
    are truly historic and demolition of those that are not;
    second, DOD and Congress must do some thinking outside of the
    box to find ways to reduce costs associated with preservation;
    and, third, DOD must more frequently employ adaptive reuse,
    enhanced use leasing and other authorities to maximize the
    value of any given historic structure.
        I hope that our witnesses will take this opportunity to
    have a frank discussion with the subcommittee about these
    issues. I hope that they will tell us about the true nature of
    the challenge, the roadblocks to overcoming these challenges
    and share any ideas they may have for more effective historic
    property management at the Department of Defense.
        This is not a new deal. Mr. Grone and I, back in 1995, took
    over the Military Construction Committee, and we realized what
    a deplorable status our family housing was at many of the
    bases, and we set about to develop what is now the
    Privatization Program, which has done, and is still doing, a
    tremendous amount toward getting our service members in decent
    housing.
        But one of the things that always bothered us then, and
    now, at least me, and I think Phil would agree, probably, is
    that while we were clawing out with our fingernails trying to
    get the money for family housing so we would have adequate
    housing for our young soldiers, we were also having to deal
    with these horribly expensive historic properties.
        And I am an historic preservationists. I like to preserve
    history, and I often cite Warren Air Force Base as an example
    of how you can take historic structures and use it for modern
    purposes. It was a cavalry post and now is a missile base,
    beautifully done. There are others that we could cite, but as I
    walk through some of these deteriorating structured, I am just
    dismayed at what we ought to be doing with them.
        Someone asked me a while ago at lunch that mentioned that
    we were having this hearing and they said, ``Are you really
    going to jump on them?'' And I said, ``No, we are not going to
    jump on them. We want to sit down with them and decide together
    what ought to be done to solve this problem.'' And it is not an
    endless source of money.
        Let me refer now and turn the microphone over to Solomon
    Ortiz who has, during most of this time, been with me in this
    process, as we have tried to struggle with this. And,
    obviously, we have not come up with the answer yet, and we hope
    our witnesses will.
        Solomon, I turn it over to you.

       STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
             TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming
    our distinguished witnesses, and I look forward to hearing
    their testimony on this very important issue.
        Historic facilities are a difficult issue for this
    committee and the DOD to tackle. Our country may not be old by
    many standards, but we have a storied history in which our
    military has played a very, very vital role. It is impossible
    to separate many of the significant events in our national
    history from the military or its facilities. Locations like
    West Point, Pearl Harbor, Hill Air Force Base and Quantico are
    some representatives of the rich history.
        The culture of the military and its connections to the past
    makes it especially difficult to solve some of the problems
    that will be presented by our witnesses today.
        Historic buildings can be expensive to maintain and are
    often not easily converted for modern purposes. In my district,
    there are Navy aircraft hangars that required very expensive
    renovations because of the historic status. This presented a
    significant financial and time problems for the installations
    as it attempted to balance its historic preservation duties
    against its mission in a constrained facilities maintenance
    budget.
        I recognize the upkeep and operation of historic structures
    is a strain for the Department of Defense. The services did not
    ask to be saddled with old buildings, leaking roofs and mold in
    the basements, but it is their slice of American history, and
    they are currently the stewards of that history.
        I believe that a careful balance must be struck between
    preservation and progress. We must seek innovative solutions
    that will serve our past but allow us to move forward into the
    future.
        Mr. Chairman, the military's mission is to defend our
    nation. This is their paramount task. But they also must
    balance other interests when meeting this mission. They must be
    good stewards of the environment, the employees and in this
    case the nation's history. I look forward to hearing the
    testimony of our witnesses and their thoughts on how we can
    continue to honor our past and provide for the national
    defense. And, you know, my good friend is going to abandoned
    me. He said he is thinking about retirement. I hope he changes
    his mind so we can find a solution to this problem.
        Mr. Hefley. Good. And let's hope it will not take that
    long, but I may have to get back in the race, Solomon, if we do
    not get this solved.
        Mr. Ortiz. I hope so.
        Mr. Hefley. But it is something that, as both of us have
    stated, that we have all been working on a long time, and we
    really do need to find a solution.
        And I do not know anybody that has devoted himself to
    looking at this more than you have, Mr. Grone. Of course, you
    did not have such a long and fancy title when you started
    looking at this, and I want you to know, this committee is
    impressed.
        And so we will turn the microphone over to you, and then we
    will kind of go down the line there with your thoughts and
    hopefully with your answers to the problem.

     STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP W. GRONE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
       INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
                                DEFENSE

        Secretary Grone. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ortiz,
    members of the subcommittee. It is, indeed, a pleasure to be
    back before the Subcommittee on Readiness to discuss matters of
    general management practice for the Department of Defense.
        And this afternoon, in particular, I am pleased to be here
    to discuss our management of historic properties in the built
    environment as well as other cultural resources that are
    managed by the Department of Defense.
        And I appear here with a multiplicity of capacities. I am
    the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and
    Environment. I am the senior policy official for Federal
    Preservation in the Department and the Secretary's
    representative to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    as well as the senior real property officer of the Department
    of Defense.
        And, in many ways, what we are doing is unifying our
    treatment, unifying our policy approaches within the context of
    the inventory in a comprehensive asset management strategy to
    provide for some of the solutions or at least a path forward on
    some of the solutions that both the chairman and the ranking
    member spoke of the need to secure.
        The Department currently manages nearly 507,000 buildings
    and structures with a plant replacement value of over $650
    billion and more than 46,000 square miles of real estate. And
    as part of that inventory, DOD has management responsibility
    for 75 national historic landmarks, as well as nearly 600
    historic entries listed on the National Register of Historic
    Places, which encompass more than 19,000 individual historic
    properties--buildings, structures, objects and sites--located
    on over 200 military installations.
        And within the inventory itself, the Department currently
    manages nearly 345,000 buildings. The National Historic
    Preservation Act (NHPA) requires us to evaluate properties when
    they reach 50 years of age to determine if they are eligible
    for the National Register of Historic Places. Currently, about
    32 percent of DOD's buildings are older than 50 years, and
    based upon current inventory forecasts that do not yet take
    into account the effects of Base Realignment and Closure
    (BRAC), that percentage will increase rapidly over the next 20
    years.
        Ten years from now, the inventory could have over 55
    percent of our inventory older than 50 years, and we will need
    to evaluate each of those buildings to determine their
    eligibility for the register and therefore whether they are
    subject to the requirements of the National Historic
    Preservation Act. And in 20 years, that percentage could grow
    to nearly two-thirds.
        Our efforts, however, are focused on the development of a
    comprehensive program that enables us to manage these resources
    efficiently and effectively.
        Executive Order 13327, concerning Federal real property
    asset management, requires all Federal agencies to identify and
    categorize all Federal real property. In addition, Executive
    Order 13287, concerning Preserve America, requires all Federal
    agencies to improve their accountability of their historic
    property assets. And working in concert, these executive orders
    present a unique opportunity to integrate how the treatment and
    management of historic properties into the broader real
    property asset management process of the Department, frankly,
    as assets that must meet the day-to-day mission needs of all
    Federal agencies, to include the Department of Defense.
        And to speak frankly to a couple of the points that the
    chairman and ranking member have made, there are three items I
    would like to just mention very briefly. One is the question of
    data, what are we doing to understand what we own, where it is
    and what its condition is.
        As part of the Business Management Modernization Program
    for which this subcommittee has jurisdictional oversight, we
    are working to provide that kind of data that GAO has
    previously and rightly criticized us for lacking in our
    inventory control processes. And as we are planning historic
    status, worked out in concert with the Advisory Council on
    Historic Preservation, for purposes of the broader Federal real
    property inventory reporting requirements, has been adequately
    defined as part of our Federal responsibility, the interagency
    responsibility, as well as those internal to the Department.
        As of today, our plan would have the Army and Washington
    Headquarter Services reporting historic status, comprehensively
    with the fiscal year 2005 inventory report, per the guidance of
    the Federal Real Property Council. The Air Force and the Navy
    will be submitting those revised inventory reports with the
    fiscal year 2006 inventory submission. So we are making
    progress significantly on the question of raw data.
        Second, to the question of program approaches and asset
    management planning, the assets that the chairman, in
    particular, spoke about are important assets. They are critical
    assets, and we can talk about those particular projects in
    detail as our discussion today evolves.
        We often think, and many often think, of the National
    Historic Preservation Act in the context of its 106 and the
    consultation process around singular and specific assets; in
    many cases, the assets that the chairman mentioned. That is
    important in and of itself and provides a process that is
    critically important.
        But the National Historic Preservation Act also provides
    for alternative processes that have allowed us the latitude, in
    working with the interagency, working with external
    stakeholders, state historic preservation officers, tribes, as
    well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to
    design a process that utilizes full programmatic approaches.
        The Program Comment, fully authorized under the 1966 act,
    utilized for the first time in the context of Capehart-Wherry
    housing for the Department of the Army. And building on that
    approach with the programs of the Navy and Marine Corps and the
    United States Air Force, we now have 82,000 units of Capehart-
    Wherry era housing that are subject to the programmatic
    agreement with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
        That process, that approach, streamlines our compliance
    costs. We estimate that we will save $80 million to $90 million
    in compliance costs through the utilization of that one
    programmatic treatment.
        Now, we are building on that for the future with
    programmatic approaches to take on the question of post-World
    War II era barracks and ammunition storage facilities. The Navy
    is also looking to a programmatic approach to deal with the
    question of Navy ships.
        So we are using the act flexibly, creatively in ways that
    are authorized by the statute but with a new business approach
    and a new business model to try to provide treatment for,
    appropriate documentation of but not necessarily the direct
    preservation of each unit of a given class of housing. And that
    is a critically important balancing act that we are effectively
    utilizing.
        For our overarching business practices, the chairman spoke
    about the question of sustainment, the question of base
    operating support, the question of our facilities
    recapitalization strategy. The President's budget request
    provides for 90 percent of the need to sustain our facilities.
    Last year, we improved our execution of facilities sustainment
    significantly, and we are looking with controls in our
    financial systems to improve that execution every year.
        Critically important in the development of our sustainment
    and recapitalization model are that we are continuing to
    improve our private sector benchmarks, to improve the
    benchmarks that we draw from the public sector, to ensure that
    as we build a program and a budget that we have an adequate
    understanding of the cost of maintaining our facilities.
        And as the members know, it is a significant and sizeable
    hole which we have dug ourselves over many, many years.
    Adequate sustainment is the foundation of our broader
    facilities strategy in which historic properties are also a
    part.
        And one of the reasons that a number of reports have
    demonstrated that the cost of historic assets and the
    maintenance of them are so high is because they have lacked
    adequate facilities, they would call it maintenance, we would
    call it sustainment, over many years. And that once those
    assets are normalized for adequate sustainment, once they are
    normalized in relation to size and put on a square footage
    basis, the cost to sustain those assets over time is roughly
    equivalent, if only marginally more expensive, for an historic
    asset than it is for a non-historic asset. All the data, all
    the private sector data demonstrate that.
        The question is, will we undertake the business approaches
    that the chairman spoke about--enhanced use leasing, furthering
    that as part of the area within the Department's management
    responsibility? Will we forcefully move out on further adaptive
    reuse? We are all committed to looking at new approaches in
    both the enhanced use lease area and in adaptive reuse to
    provide ourselves with a solid foundation for the future.
        In addition, we are privatizing a good number of our
    housing assets through the military housing privatization
    initiative with appropriate treatment for historic character,
    landscapes, viewscapes in a way that is consistent with what
    state historic preservation officers have consulted with us
    upon.
        So we are building a variety of tools in our toolkit to
    deal with the underlying problems in historic properties. We
    will not turn this problem around tomorrow, but I believe that
    we, as a department, have begun to put ourselves on sound
    management footing, looking ahead to the future to be able to
    treat these assets with the full mission capability that they
    deserve.
        The key is appropriate asset management at the end of the
    day, while recognizing our responsibility for cultural resource
    preservation in the context of the mission needs of the
    Department of Defense. And, again, we believe that the policy
    approach that we have taken, the management approach that we
    have taken is leading us down that path.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Grone can be found in
    the Appendix on page 29.]
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Grone.
        And now representing the Army, Mr. Bill Armbruster.

       STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. ARMBRUSTER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
          SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS & ENVIRONMENT,
         PRIVATIZATION AND PARTNERSHIPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

        Secretary Armbruster. Mr. Chairman, members of the
    subcommittee, it is a pleasure for me to be here today to
    represent the Army and to discuss the Army's historic
    properties program.
        The Army is a responsible steward of our historic legacy
    and the cultural resources that have been entrusted to us. As
    the oldest of the defense services, the Army has strong ties to
    its history and the places that have helped to shape this
    country's destiny.
        Of our U.S. inventory of over 153,000 structures and
    buildings, 41 percent currently are over 50 years old and are
    subject to compliance of the NHPA. And in the next 20 years, 68
    percent of our buildings will be over 50 years and require NHPA
    compliance.
        Well, this large and growing inventory of historic
    properties obviously poses a challenge and has cost
    implications that we must address, but there continue to be
    questions regarding the high cost of renovating and maintaining
    historic properties.
        And as Mr. Grone has indicated, evaluations and studies
    have shown that when reviewed over the per square foot or the
    life cycle of this particular structure, that the costs are
    approximately the same as for non-historic buildings and often
    the initial costs for materials used in historic buildings are
    high, but those materials last longer and they result in a life
    cycle cost savings.
        We in the Army continue to seek innovative solutions to
    address the challenges of limited funding, underutilized space
    and compliance requirements. There are three options for us in
    managing our historic properties. We can use and maintain them,
    we can privatize them or we can demolish them.
        The Army chooses to use and maintain most of our historic
    properties, and in concert with the Advisory Council on
    Historic Preservation, we have established several initiatives
    to streamline the project management and consultation processes
    and reduce costs.
        Mr. Grone has referred to most of these, but, of course,
    one of our most important and effective NHPA compliance tools
    is to address our growing inventory through the Program
    Comment. And in conjunction with the advisory council, the Army
    completed a Program Comment for Cold War era Capehart-Wherry
    housing, as Mr. Grone had mentioned. And this satisfied the
    NHPA compliance requirements for nearly 20,000 Army buildings
    and has proven especially beneficial for family housing
    privatization projects under our residential communities
    initiative.
        Additional Program Comments are in the final stage of
    coordination, as Mr. Grone indicated--World War II, Cold War
    era barracks, ammo storage facilities and ammo plants as well.
    These Program Comments will satisfy the NHPA compliance
    requirements for approximately 35,000 Army buildings.
        Now, the Army has also initiated something we call the Army
    alternate procedures, and this is a unique NHPA compliance
    approach that streamlines the process and allows installations
    to better manage compliance requirements. These alternate
    procedures are based on consultation and agreement among key
    stakeholders to create a five-year NHPA compliance plan.
        These procedures eliminate the need for consulting on
    individual projects and allow installations to proceed in
    accordance with agreed standards. We have just learned that our
    first pilot effort under the alternate procedures process has
    been approved at Fort Sam Houston in Texas, and this was
    approved by the advisory council last week.
        We expect that Fort Benning, Georgia will follow shortly as
    a second pilot effort, and we have about seven additional
    installations in the queue to implement this program.
        The Army is also pursuing enhanced use leasing of historic
    properties to the private sector. At Fort Sam Houston in Texas,
    the Army leased to a private developer three historic
    buildings, containing approximately a half million square feet
    of space. The resulting actions preserved the buildings and
    eliminated the Army's responsibility to rehabilitate and
    maintain them. And we are pursing another enhanced use leasing
    opportunity for the William Beaumont Hospital Historic District
    at Fort Bliss, Texas.
        There are 278 historic buildings identified as important by
    the SHPO in Texas that were competitively offered to the
    private sector for restoration and utilization. Now, the
    selected bidder and the Army are currently negotiating a
    business and lease plan that we hope will lead to the execution
    of a lease.
        The Army is also taking advantage of the private sector by
    including these properties in our residential communities
    initiative, or RCI. And you mentioned that, Mr. Chairman. The
    Army is very proud of that program. We have achieved phenomenal
    success with RCI, and, to date, we have privatized 64,000 homes
    at 27 installations. And included in this number are over 2,500
    historic units.
        And, finally, I want to tell you about a program the Army
    has initiated, which we call the Army Community Heritage
    Partnerships Program. And this initiative is intended to
    strengthen the economic, historic and social ties between Army
    installations and the adjacent communities. The program, which
    is now extended to seven communities, supports the President's
    executive order, Preserve America, and it partners with the
    National Trust Main Street Center.
        In concluding my comments, Mr. Chairman, the Army has a
    wealth of historic properties that support our mission
    requirements. We are proud of our leadership role. It balances
    stewardship with responsible management of historic property.
        We appreciate your continued support for our initiatives,
    and I look forward to discussing this topic further with
    members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you very much, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Armbruster can be
    found in the Appendix on page 45.]
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Armbruster.
        And now representing the Navy, Rear Admiral Wayne Shear.
        Mr. Shear.

    STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. WAYNE G. SHEAR, COMMANDER OF U.S. NAVAL
     INSTALLATIONS, DIRECTOR, ASHORE READINESS DIVISION, OFFICE OF
                       CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

        Admiral Shear. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. I am
    the director of ashore readiness in the Office of Chief of
    Naval Operations and really appreciate the opportunity to speak
    today about the Navy's program for complying with the National
    Historic Preservation Act.
        Historic buildings, clearly, just as in the Army, are a
    valuable part of our portfolio. They remind us of the people
    and events of our history, and they are important to our
    veterans, our retirees and our communities and certainly the
    people that work on our installations.
        As has been noted previously, the Navy, as well as the
    other services, have been able to strike a balance between
    mission requirements and rehabilitation of historic buildings
    in a way that supports our mission and effectively uses those
    assets and strikes a solid balance. The Navy Yard right here is
    an excellent example of this on a very large scale.
        Other situations, and you have noted a couple, are more
    challenging. Some historic properties are easily adapted to
    changing requirements. Other buildings, especially temporary
    structures or specialized structures, may be much harder to
    adapt.
        In some places, the mission of the installations has
    changed over the years. You noted the national historic
    landmark at the Naval Air Station Pensacola. It includes
    properties from the 19th century Pensacola Navy Yard, seaplane
    facilities associated with the first days of naval aviation
    early in the 20th century, and the district is located on the
    waterfront, as you would expect navy yard and seaplane
    facilities to be. However, the mission focus of the
    installation has shifted away from the waterfront years ago.
        The national historic landmark district bore the full force
    of Hurricane Ivan in the fall of 2004, as you well know. Now,
    the naval air station mission is no longer focused on the
    waterfront. We had to think very carefully with the help of
    Congress about how to balance our risk for future storms with
    the preservation of that historic resource and continuing the
    mission effectively in Pensacola.
        Historic property management offers opportunities as well
    as challenges, as we have seen, and we appreciate the
    leadership of the Department of Defense in exploring new ways
    to succeed. We have been able to partner with other services
    and organizations to streamline our compliance actions, where
    appropriate to find continued use for historic buildings and to
    ensure our real property inventories accurately reflect
    historic buildings.
        We look forward to answering your questions and working
    with you on this very important issue. Thanks for the
    opportunity to speak today.
        [The prepared statement of Admiral Shear can be found in
    the Appendix on page 56.]
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Admiral.
        And now representing the Marine Corps is Brigadier General
    James Flock.
        General Flock.

       STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. JAMES F. FLOCK, ASSISTANT DEPUTY
    COMMANDANT FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S.
                              MARINE CORPS

        General Flock. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
    the committee. I am the assistant deputy commandant for
    installations and logistics, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps. I
    appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today, and
    with your approval, I will submit my full statement for the
    record and give you a brief summary of that statement.
        I am particularly pleased that you have chosen to focus on
    the management of historic buildings by the military services.
    These buildings remind us of the sacrifices and accomplishments
    of those that have gone before us. In short, they inspire us to
    continue to strive to be the best and serve as touchstones that
    bind all Americans to a common heritage.
        We are proud to be the stewards of these resources;
    however, they pose a management challenge.
        Although we are a small military service in terms of the
    numbers of installations we manage, these installations support
    about 7,000 buildings that are over 50 years old. Of these, 347
    buildings are currently listed on the National Register of
    Historic Places, including 6 general officer quarters. An
    additional 398 buildings are eligible for listing on the
    national register.
        Our inventory of historic eligible buildings has the
    potential to grow to over 14,000 buildings in the next 10
    years. We have demolished some historic family housing
    buildings and are developing plans to demolish more.
    Ultimately, about 4,000 family housing dwellings will be
    replaced with new construction through a variety of means,
    including public and private ventures.
        In 1994, we implemented a long-term plan to properly care
    for our historic general officer quarters with limited
    disruption to the occupants and minimal financial impact on the
    remainder of the family housing program. We successfully
    completed this program in 2002.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
    committee for its interest and support in our management of
    historic buildings. We take our stewardship of these resources
    very seriously. Many of these resources are national icons, and
    we view their protection as a moral imperative.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be
    pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of General Flock can be found in
    the Appendix on page 68.]
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, General Flock.
        And, Mr. Kuhn, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United
    States Air Force Installations, would you please present to the
    committee.

     STATEMENT OF HON. FRED W. KUHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
      THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

        Secretary Kuhn. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ortiz, members of the subcommittee, it is
    indeed a pleasure to be with you today to talk about this
    subject.
        The Air Force well recognizes that there is a balance
    between preserving the nation's history, which has been
    entrusted to us at our installations, and the costs associated
    with maintaining those buildings.
        Rather than go into great detail and perhaps be repetitive
    of my colleagues to my right, because we do share the same
    issues, I would like to highlight four areas that the Air Force
    is at least attempting to focus on as we deal with this
    problem.
        One, as Mr. Grone said, the programmatic comment process
    associated with Wherry housing I think is a very significant
    process; adaptive reuse, which we have or about to use, both in
    housing and in non-housing buildings associated with the
    Historic Preservation Act; housing privatization itself, our
    housing privatizations are whole-based, everything is included,
    including the historics, and we are trying to work our way
    through some mechanisms that will allow the historic nature of
    a house to perhaps be a tax incentive to the successful
    offeror.
        And, finally, we think that if we could develop, and are
    developing now, a real property asset management system that
    will allow us to drill down into the costs of any building,
    both its historic nature and its non-historic nature, I think
    we would be able to have a much better grasp on the problem.
        With that, I would like to yield any remaining time I have
    to you, Mr. Chairman, for the discussion period.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Kuhn can be found in
    the Appendix on page 78.]
        Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much, all of you.
        I think I will defer my questions until later and turn it
    over to Mr. Solomon if you have questions.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, it appears that each service is managing their
    historic facilities in a decentralized fashion. Individual
    installations are forced to negotiate directly with the state
    historic preservation offices and on the local level, and I
    have seen that in my state and my community.
        This decentralized management fails to establish a uniform
    standard for maintaining historic facilities and fails to
    assist the local installations when extreme local requirements
    are placed upon a base.
        Do you feel that the Department will benefit from a more
    centralized management of historic facilities? Anyone that
    would like to answer.
        Secretary Kuhn. At least, I think my Air Force view is
    going to be that I think that negotiating and dealing with
    these issues at the installation level is the place we need to
    start. Historic preservation is one of the many consultative
    processes we engage in at the installation level with both the
    state and the Federal regulators, be they environmental,
    historic preservation, et cetera.
        I think that that process has worked for us. If there have
    been abuses, they have never come to my attention. Could they
    always be better? I am sure, but I think we have attempted and
    are pretty much striking the balance between historic
    preservation and costs. And I think the more we deal with that
    person at the installation level face to face, it seems to have
    been working for the United States Air Force.
        Secretary Armbruster. I might just add----
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. Go ahead.
        Secretary Armbruster [continuing]. For the Army, I would
    echo what Mr. Kuhn was saying. We work very closely with the
    SHPOs and have found in most cases the SHPOs to be very
    cooperative and it has been a good relationship.
        We have provided guidance to our installations just in the
    last couple of years to ensure that they know the process and
    they are working very closely again with the state officials as
    well as with our headquarters efforts and with OSD. We work
    very closely with Mr. Grone's office and with the ACHP as well.
        So I think we have got the procedures in place, and we have
    strengthened the hand of our garrison commanders in terms of
    how they deal in a responsible way with their historic
    properties.
        Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
        Secretary Grone. Mr. Ortiz, if--I am sorry, Admiral, do you
    want to carry forward? We will do the services first.
        Admiral Shear. If I could make one comment. In the last two
    years, the Navy has organized with the commander of Navy
    Installations Command, and that has really helped us make a
    focus on this and many other areas from a portfolio standpoint
    across the entire Department of the Navy. So we have a cultural
    resources expert, we can make decisions looking across the
    whole Navy now that we could not really do as effectively a
    couple years ago. So I think we have gotten better in that
    regard.
        Secretary Grone. Mr. Ortiz, from an Office of the Secretary
    of Defense (OSD) level perspective, certainly, the services
    execute programs. Much of that negotiation, as was mentioned,
    occurs at the local level, and as issues need to be resolved,
    they move up through the varying service management structures
    for installations.
        But what we are trying to provide at the defense-wide
    level--and on page 10 of my prepared remarks there is an
    enumeration of some of the most recent projects and
    programmatic development that we have been working on on a
    joint basis to ensure consistency of treatment.
        So whether it is providing a sustainability guide, as we
    have previously for historic properties, working on now what we
    are working on, a handbook for contracting in the cultural
    resource compliance area at DOD installations, we are
    developing individual tools.
        In some cases, they will be guidance, and in some cases,
    they will be guides or checklists or very technical manuals to
    give installation commanders and people who execute our
    installation programs, at whatever level in the process they
    need to be executed, have consistency of treatment, consistency
    of guidance so that as they enter into a consultative process
    at the local, state or Federal level, that there is a solid
    foundation on which they can have that consultation.
        So in my mind, one of the important management approaches
    that we have tried to take is to try to provide that unitary
    set of guidance and structure to how to treat the asset so that
    in the field people have some surety about how to proceed.
        Mr. Ortiz. How do you, when you do it at the local level--
    and maybe this is the way to do it--how do you budget? I mean,
    how do you set priorities as to which facility should get the
    money? I mean, how do you work that?
        When you make a request--let's say we have 10 states that
    have 10 old facilities. How do you set priorities so that you
    get enough funding to take care of that one or two, three
    facilities?
        Secretary Armbruster. Well, the Army, through its
    installations management agency, we work very closely with each
    installation, submitting their budget requirements and requests
    based on their installation and facilities requirements. And
    those come forward as military construction (MILCON) requests.
    And do we make a distinction between the historic properties?
    Again, depending on mission need and requirements, that is how
    we are going to prioritize them.
        So we recognize in many cases, again, the initial cost for
    some of our historic properties are going to be higher, but, as
    we was commented on earlier, we feel like if we are successful
    in sustaining these facilities, that over the long haul those
    costs will be no more than they would be for a newer
    construction building.
        But we have a very good program for sustainment and, again,
    identifying our mission needs and requirements. And, of course,
    with the new restationing requirements and modularity that the
    Army is facing, we have had to prioritize a number of those as
    well. But we do not shortchange it in terms of whether they are
    historic or not, but just on what the mission requirements
    might be.
        Mr. Ortiz. No more questions.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. McHugh.
        Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, welcome.
    Secretary Grone, welcome back.
        Secretary Grone. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. McHugh. Good to see you again. Just by way of comment,
    I was somewhat surprised to hear the service representatives
    strike such an optimistic tone with respect to dealing with the
    various SHPOs on a state-by-state basis. That is certainly good
    news.
        I know in New York state we have had some challenges out at
    West Point with regard to the superintendent's home that is
    going to cost about $7 million. I do not want all of that
    against the State Historic Preservation Office, but, clearly,
    they have a significant role to play.
        Admiral, you commented at how you are making progress. You
    had a lot of problems down at Pensacola. It took you a year, I
    believe, to get through that negotiation.
        So I guess that is a long, around-the-dock way of saying to
    Secretary Grone, I am pleased you are trying to work to try to
    establish some reasonable parameter within which everybody's
    interests can be best served, because this is an enormous
    problem. I am stating the obvious.
        I saw some data here. I have never seen these numbers,
    although I was pretty well aware of the initiative. GAO, 73,600
    properties within the Department will turn 50 years of age by
    2011, and I guess that is one of the prime determinants.
        How many properties--and if you gave this testimony
    earlier, gentlemen, I apologize, I arrived a little late--but
    how many properties--let's do it by department-wide--can you
    assess per year? You get to 2011, you are sitting there with
    over 73,000 properties that need to be assessed. How many are
    you going to knock off of here?
        Secretary Grone. Well, Mr. McHugh, those numbers also
    include individual to military family housing units. So if
    there were 3,000 Capehart-Wherry housings at an installations,
    there would be 3,000 items on that checklist that you were
    speaking about.
        One of the items that we discussed earlier was this
    question of programmatic treatment. And for individual assets,
    particularly crown jewel or other significant assets, those
    individual eaches are of significant consequence.
        But when we were talking about whole classes of assets,
    Capehart-Wherry era housing, hammerhead barracks, ammunition
    storage bunkers and the like, what we are trying to do in
    consultation with the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation
    and the interagency process and in close consultation and
    coordination with the National Conference of State Historic
    Preservation Officers, is to develop an approach that allows us
    to get beyond individual consultation on each one of those
    assets to a programmatic treatment that allows us to document
    the significance of the assets as a class of assets and that
    provides some surety and streamlining in the consultative
    process.
        And that allows us to do those assessments far more
    quickly, to get on with programmatic approaches and the
    modernization of some of those assets far more quickly than
    would otherwise be the case.
        Mr. McHugh. And I appreciate that, and that goes back, I
    think, to my earlier compliment, intended to be a compliment,
    that that needs to be done. But let's set those aside. On those
    areas where you have to go in and do a parcel-by-parcel
    evaluation, are you aware of how many you can, on average,
    handle a year?
        Secretary Grone. I would have to check for the record on
    how many we might do in a year. I have not looked at the
    question in quite that way.
        Mr. McHugh. That is an answer, and I appreciate that.
        In our background materials, and this did not come directly
    from your comments but I suspect it is consistent, stating the
    obvious, it talks about the total, how many properties are out
    there to be assessed. It says, the totals change regularly as
    historic properties are removed from the inventory, period.
    Assuming it is not a categorical removal on an evaluation, how
    do you remove a property that is deemed historic, say a Cold
    War era property, and take it off? Do you know the process for
    that?
        It just does not seem to me if you have got a property, in
    my experience, that is deemed historic you are going to get it
    off, short of somebody blowing it up in the middle of the
    night.
        Secretary Grone. Well, I mean, if we are talking about--it
    depends on what we mean by historic in this context. Is it
    eligible, is it listed, is it a national historic landmark? The
    process will vary slightly for each of those. But at the
    highest level of sensitivity, those items that are on the
    register, only the keeper of the register at the Department of
    Interior has the authority to delist, and there is a standard
    process for exercising that.
        We have other classes of assets that may be 50 years old
    but for which there is no historic value, an off warehouse or
    something like that. And through our demolition programs and
    the identification of that at the service level, if they
    execute their programs, we can effectively do that.
        Just a few years ago, in 1998, you recall there was a
    demolition program established for the Department. And,
    ultimately, over a 6-year period we took down, outside the BRAC
    process, 86 million square feet of property. Some of that was--
    I do not know what the percentage of it might have been--but
    there was no question some of it was older World War II wood
    structures. With appropriate consultation, we were able to move
    out on an effective demolition program. And based on a renewed
    survey, which we started in 2004, the services have identified
    an additional 50 million square feet, again, not necessarily
    related to the BRAC process, of unneeded facilities that we
    intend to move out on to dispose of by the year 2013.
        So through our organic facility asset management process,
    and this is why the question of data is so important, and
    getting our inventory controls correct and understanding the
    condition of an asset in relation to its age, in relation to
    the mission need, that then provides a solid foundation for us
    to engage in consultation if necessary, and then if deemed not
    historic, not worthy of being preserved for which there is no
    adaptive reuse ability, then we can move out to remove those
    structures from the inventory. And that is the framework within
    which we try to manage the program.
        Mr. McHugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
    expired. I did have another question, but maybe I could submit
    that for the record.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentleman.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. McHugh.
        Mr. Snyder.
        Dr. Snyder. Mr. Chairman, let me--Mr. McHugh, let me yield
    to you, like, two minutes or something so you can ask your
    final question.
        Mr. McHugh. I appreciate that. Thank the gentleman from
    Arkansas. I will be very brief. I take it by your answer--and I
    will direct this to Secretary Grone--given the process, the
    categorization initiative you have underway there, you are not
    at this time contemplating a request for any program
    legislation to amend the procedures under the National Historic
    Preservation Act.
        Secretary Grone. I am not.
        Mr. McHugh. Okay. Thank you.
        Thank you. Thank the gentleman.
        Dr. Snyder. Sure. General Flock, I appreciate you gentlemen
    being here today. This has kind of opened up a whole world for
    me I had not really thought much about, but I wanted to ask a
    question on your written statement, General Flock.
        I did not understand the last two or three sentences that
    begin at the end of page seven of your written statement:
    ``There is no question that maintenance of historic buildings
    on a structural basis appear to be more costly than buildings
    that are not historic. However, it appears that the life cycle
    costs of historic buildings is similar to non-historic
    structures.'' I think it is the jargon for me. I do not
    understand those last two sentences.
        General Flock. Well, Mr. Snyder, the thought there was when
    you take a look at the life-cycle costs of these buildings or
    when you take a look at the cost of maintaining another type of
    building that may not have historic significance, anecdotally,
    the difference in cost may not be there.
        Dr. Snyder. I do not understand the first phrase of it that
    talks about maintenance on a structural basis does appear to be
    more costly. What does the phrase, ``structural basis,'' mean?
        General Flock. Sir, the structural basis, we are talking
    about the foundation, we are talking about the supports, the
    wall supports, but for the record, we will submit a more
    detailed response.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 89.]
        Dr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. Jones.
        Mr. Jones. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will be
    brief with my questions.
        I am like, I think, Mr. Snyder said, with all the issues
    dealing with our military and sometimes we forget some of the
    important things like the historical properties that you have
    been talking about today, so this has really been very helpful.
        I guess, and probably it is in the testimony from Secretary
    Grone, but I did not read the testimony, I just got here, in
    the budget--well, how much in the budget, what percent of the
    budget is allocated for these properties that are 50 years old
    and also those that have been designated as historical? Can you
    give me in the billions or the millions? I am trying to get a
    feel for it, and maybe, again, if I had read the testimony, it
    is in there, but I just have not read it yet.
        Secretary Grone. Mr. Jones, I do not know that--well, we do
    not budget that way for sustainment and recapitalization of
    assets that are of a certain age. We have a programming and
    budget process to develop the resource requirements that are
    necessary for the sustainment and recapitalization of the
    entire asset base.
        But in order to get at precisely those questions under the
    Federal Real Property Council's mandates for the development of
    revised data to understand the cost of ownership, we are
    developing systems that will allow us to report costs at the
    constructed asset level. We do not have that data with great
    precision across the Department today, very few agencies do.
        But one of the things that we are doing under the context
    of the President's executive order on real property is to
    define a system and data reporting requirements that allow us
    to speak to the cost of ownership at the constructed asset
    level so that we are better able to address the question that
    you have raised. And that, frankly, will give us better
    information to be able to make judgments about adaptive reuse
    or disposal or privatization or whatever the preferred method
    of coping with that asset might be.
        Mr. Jones. General Flock, of the 7,000 homes that I believe
    you said, if I heard it correctly, that are--I guess, 7,000
    homes that are 50 years and older, being that I have Camp
    Lejeune and Cherry Point down in my district, where are the
    majority of these homes--and I know Camp Pendleton but where
    would the majority of those homes be that--which base seems to
    have the largest number?
        General Flock. Mr. Jones, the majority of our homes are
    going to be at Camp Pendleton and at Camp Lejeune, but for the
    record, I will provide you with a detailed list of exactly what
    bases those homes are at.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 89.]
        Mr. Jones. Well, yesterday, I had a relic of the Marine
    Corps to visit my office, the assassin, General Fred McCorkle.
        General Flock. I know him well, sir. I have worked with
    that gentleman.
        Mr. Jones. That was quite a thrill for my staff, because
    they have never met him, but we really enjoyed the visit.
        Let me ask Secretary Armbruster, are you familiar with the
    civil war cannon that was used during the civil war down at
    Fort Fisher in Wilmington, North Carolina?
        Secretary Armbruster. No, sir, I am not.
        Mr. Jones. Well, it is probably not fair to do this, but I
    might just drop you a note. This has been an ongoing issue.
    Somewhere along the way I think it was sent back--excuse me, it
    was used during the civil war down at Fort Fisher and it was on
    loan to West Point and now it is on loan back to Fort Fisher,
    and I have got a feeling that the state of North Carolina,
    which I am from North Carolina, obviously, is going to be
    involved in that.
        But we were somewhat working with Congressman McIntyre
    along the way. But I might just drop you a note and ask you for
    a current status on that issue in the months ahead.
        Secretary Armbruster. Be glad to follow up on that, sir.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you.
        And, Admiral, I would like to--this is a little bit off
    course, Mr. Chairman, but I think I have got two more minutes.
    You have talked about the museum down at Pensacola, and this
    has nothing to do with housing at all, but I hope maybe if I
    get reelected, I am going to probably bring this up next year.
        We got involved last year with a fellow from Minnesota who
    went down to my district and recovered a Brewster Corsair out
    of the swamps of Craven County and the pilot had ejected--or
    not ejected, but parachuted and was killed, a Marine pilot,
    back in 1944.
        And we ended up talking with Secretary England. This man
    was being sued by the Federal Government because he recovered
    the property, he was going to rebuild it and in the process of
    rebuilding it, stripping it and everything, it will be
    original, as close as it can be, when he finishes.
        This has not to do with housing, but I wanted to bring this
    up quickly. I do not understand the military's position when
    there is a property that is part of the history of this country
    and the military is not going to recover the property and they
    are not going to rebuild it and they are not going to do those
    kind of things.
        And this gentleman--real quickly, Mr. Chairman--this
    gentleman actually called the museum down at Pensacola, told
    them what he had done, that he was going to rebuild the plane,
    it would take him six, seven years to do it, and at that time
    he wanted to donate the Corsair that could fly back to the
    museum, and the only thing he wanted was that he would have
    another Corsair to recover and rebuild.
        The first gentleman he spoke to at the museum said, ``This
    is a great idea. There should be no problem.'' And then the
    superintendent of the museum heard about it and he said, ``That
    is our property,'' so they ended up suing him. It all worked
    itself out after a year and a half, thanks to Secretary England
    and Mr. Mora, the lawyer with the Navy.
        But I guess what I wanted to bring that up, Mr. Chairman, I
    think that some of these properties, the body has been removed
    years ago, and some of these properties that are out there
    sitting, rotting that could be part of the aviation or naval
    history of this country, I hope next year--and I am sorry you
    will not be back, by the way--but I hope that next year that
    maybe this committee, in addition to what we are talking about
    today, will look into how we can protect and preserve the
    military history of this country. So I have rambled enough.
    Thank you for your time and your answers. Thank you.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. Jones, could I cosponsor that anyway,
    because I think you----
        Mr. Jones. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hefley. I think you have a great idea, and I hope you
    will pursue that.
        Mr. Jones. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Grone, this is
    just an opportune moment to ask you a question non-related to
    today's subject but I hope within your jurisdiction.
        As you know, late August the hurricane hit the Mississippi
    Gulf coast. I feel very confident that our Navy construction
    battalion has been adequately--that the plan is there to
    rebuild that installation. I feel very good about Keesler Air
    Force Base.
        I have great troubles when it comes to the Armed Forces
    Retirement Naval Home. It is my understanding from walking the
    building that almost nothing has been done to that installation
    since the storm. In fact, the staff has been let go in spite of
    the fact that Congress has allocated about $60 million toward
    that project.
        Now, that home, although it is fairly new, is the latest of
    a historical commitment to our nation's veterans. The citizens
    have spent about $45 million to build that facility. And just
    last week a commission, I presume, put together by Secretary
    Rumsfeld, has been coming back with some numbers. I think the
    low number was, like, $90 million and a high end of $590
    million to fix or replace it.
        What is going on? And I would remind you, Mr. Grone, that
    you did not say it, I did not say it, but no one less than the
    President of the United States stood on the gymnasium floor at
    St. Stanislaus High School in Bay St. Louis and said, quote, he
    was going to repair every Federal installation on the
    Mississippi Gulf coast.
        That is a Federal installation, and so what is happening?
    What is the game plan? Because no one has articulated it on
    behalf of the Administration what we are going to do to fix
    that facility.
        Secretary Grone. Well, Mr. Taylor, I, frankly, became aware
    of your concern on the question this afternoon. The armed
    forces retirement homes are not within my direct policy
    jurisdiction. They are generally managed from a policy
    perspective by the undersecretary of defense for personnel and
    readiness, but I understand the concern and the concern that
    you have expressed here today.
        I will go back and look into the question, and we will come
    back to you with an answer as quickly as we are able, because
    it is an important question and one you have raised some
    justified concern with, and we should get you an appropriate
    answer.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    on page 89.]
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Can you give me a timeline when I can
    expect an answer? Because, quite frankly, given the immediate
    needs of the citizens, this was kind of put on the backburner.
    But now that things are starting to get stabilized, it is a
    concern, it is a Federal installation, we have sunk a lot of
    money into it, and, quite frankly, it is a commitment to those
    guys who have been since picked up, transported to D.C. who
    would like to be returned to the Mississippi Gulf coast.
        Second thing is--I am searching for a little help on this--
    I know that somewhere in the naval inventory, the USS
    Constitution is still carried on the books. One of the
    downsides of the storm was that hundreds of ancient oak trees,
    live oaks, were destroyed. The only good that could possibly
    come of that is if someone, if you could put us in touch with
    someone in the Navy who would be looking for that lumber since
    it is undoubtedly some of the best oak lumber you are ever
    going to find.
        If we could be put in touch with the folks responsible for
    the USS Constitution so that it just does not go to a landfill,
    that hopefully that if there is a use for it on the ship, that
    they could come down, survey it before this stuff is hauled off
    and either just shredded or burned.
        Admiral Shear. Sir, I understand that we did some of that
    after Hurricane Hugo, so I would imagine we could do the same
    thing.
        Mr. Taylor. Again, I will hopefully just pass the
    information on, and I hope you get it in the hands of the right
    people. Secretary Grone, again, please place a priority on the
    naval home.
        Secretary Grone. Yes, sir. I will go back and whatever I
    know this afternoon I will give you a call back and tell you
    what I know.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hefley. Mr. Abercrombie.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Grone,
    what a pleasure to be able to say that to you. And I do not
    know, Mr. Chairman, whether it has already been said for
    purposes of the record, but it is difficult for me to call you,
    Mr. Secretary, Phil because of my personal affection for you
    and my high regard for the work you did while you were working
    with this committee and most particularly with Mr. Hefley.
        Secretary Grone. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Abercrombie. You have, Mr. Chairman, I will say a
    record of staff and members meeting the needs and the requests
    of the membership on behalf of the people of this country that
    will be the envy of any member serving on this committee and I
    can tell you of any member that has ever served in this body.
    You will rank in the very top row, as far as this member is
    concerned and as far as every other member that I know of as
    well.
        And as I said, that is setting you up, of course, Mr.
    Secretary, because of your previous record of competence,
    right? I particularly am pleased with the testimony or the
    report. I just want to differentiate a couple of things.
        Separating housing from homes. I understand the whole
    question of maintenance and all that, and, as you well know,
    the military housing project, of which you, again, can be
    justly proud of the legislation which came from this committee
    and is now manifesting itself, I differentiate between historic
    homes and housing.
        In some respects, I could call the housing where the Army
    is concerned at Schofield Barracks, that was housing, the
    barracks there. And I think we worked that with the whole
    barracks renewal in almost a perfect way. We took barracks
    that--as I just the other day saw, ``From Here to Eternity,''
    again, the film, the barracks, as shown in that picture more
    than a half century old, were the way they were right virtually
    from the beginning until we did the whole barracks renewal.
        Now, we showed respect for the quadrangle, at Quadrangle D
    where the planes came in. All that facade and the grounds have
    been preserved, respectfully and truthfully. And at the same
    time then, the barracks have been, not restored, but renewed in
    a way that meets the most modern standards with regard to
    county codes, earthquakes, et cetera.
        So I do not have any problem with changing the definitions
    if you agree that there is a difference between historic homes,
    such as we have at Pearl Harbor, which may cost a good deal of
    money to restore and preserve and utilize, as opposed to
    housing, per se. If you agree.
        In reading your testimony, I take it that you were able to
    make that differentiation under the President's wording of
    existing legislation. Is that a correct statement?
        Secretary Grone. I believe that is a correct statement.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Okay. That said then, I am interested then
    in historic buildings versus merely old buildings, i.e., in my
    definition, historic only in the sense they are still standing.
    And that is where I think we may have a problem, and I am going
    to cite Fort Island. You cite yourself in the testimony that
    Fort Island has a particular emotional pull and historic value
    because of December 7.
        But I tell you, not everything that is standing there is
    historic, and we have had some real problems there right now.
    They are just old. Old hangars are not historic. They are just
    old and still standing. Shops and so on, we need to get rid of
    it, and I need to figure out how to get that done.
        Because if somebody is simply claiming they are historic,
    architecturally, they have no distinction; aesthetically, they
    are, at best, an eyesore; environmentally, they are a menace,
    they have no practical value at all, none, zero, not even to do
    another film such as was done out there at Pearl Harbor.
        So I say Scoffield barracks versus Fort Island. I do not
    want to get trapped. I know that there is an agreement there--
    oh, hell, what is it called?
        Mr. Hefley. Your time is almost up, Mr. Abercrombie. You
    had better ask a question.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, the question has to do with this
    agreement that is cited in here--I forget the name of it--about
    historic preservation. I have got really severe problems with
    that, because I think that we are putting the Fort Island
    legislation, which, again, you are very familiar with, in
    jeopardy, because we are expecting either those who are trying
    to put the air museum together, that kind of thing, or the
    developer that is working with the Navy out there to get into
    expenditures that are totally unwarranted, and there will be no
    practical or historic value to preserving a lot of these
    buildings.
        So I hope we are not stuck on some kind of an agreement
    which maybe avoided lawsuits from fanatics but I do not think
    contributes anything in the way of historic preservation; in
    fact, undermines and undercuts the ability of those of us who
    do care about it.
        Secretary Grone. Mr. Abercrombie, I thank you for you
    earlier remarks, and I will try not to disappoint in the answer
    to your question.
        When I last looked at the Fort Island question, and it was
    sometime ago, and I am happy to go back at it look at it again,
    I was reasonably satisfied by the Navy, as we looked at that
    question, that process of the agreements would not have
    deleterious effect or significantly negative effect on the
    ability to proceed with the Fort Island development. If there
    are other issues that have arisen since then----
        Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I will tell you what, since I used
    so much time----
        Secretary Grone [continuing]. I would be happy to look at
    it.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Okay. Why don't we leave it at that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        If you would be willing to sit down, just take another
    look----
        Secretary Grone. Absolutely.
        Mr. Abercrombie [continuing]. Particularly with some of the
    things that I think might be able to happen at Fort Island that
    will benefit the Navy and the national security interests, I
    would be appreciative. I think it would be useful and helpful
    all the way around. Thank you so much.
        Secretary Grone. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hefley. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you for your
    kind words as well. Gentlemen, I deferred my questions. We have
    got a series of votes coming up, and I do not want to keep you
    through that series, so we may submit to you some questions to
    come back to us in writing.
        But let me just ask this. As I mentioned earlier, the
    superintendent's house, it sounds to me, first of all, like you
    have, kind of, a handle on the routine historical thing. You
    have got a process to deal with that.
        But the exceptional ones, and let me refer back again to
    the superintendent's house at West Point, $1 million to repair
    the roof. Now, most Americans do not live in a $1 million home.
    And $6 million in additional repairs, probably, and an
    extremely small percentage of the American public live in a $7
    million home.
        You look at the--I think it was $3 million a few years ago
    when we looked at the superintendent's house at the Navy
    Academy, and at the Air Force Academy, I do not know how much
    that is going to be. They are talking about a lot of that. And
    down at the Navy yard, they are talking about $300,000 just to
    study a mold problem; not doing anything about it, just to
    study the mold problem. And then they are talking maybe as much
    as $5 million to do some kind of remediation.
        And so I guess what I am asking is, have you considered two
    things? One is taking these kind of properties and changing
    their use. Do not make them a home. Up at West Point, the
    superintendent has great affection for that home, and I
    understand why. It is right there in the middle of things, and
    it has a history, and great people have lived there and all
    that kind of thing.
        But in talking with the cadets that I got to talk to while
    I was there and talking with the graduates that I have had an
    opportunity to talk to, most of them told me they were never in
    that home, they do not have any particular tie to it.
        And so could that home could be made an alumni house or
    could it be made something for entertainment or something,
    which would not require, perhaps, the kind of renovation
    necessary for a place that is going to be a home?
        Certainly, down at the Navy yard the home we talked about,
    if you made it something else other than a home, it would not
    require that kind of expense.
        So same thing at the Air Force Academy. I mean, the Air
    Force Academy--at least at West Point, it is right there in the
    middle of things. At the Air Force Academy, it is a lovely
    home, old ranch house that has been added on to and so forth,
    but it is back in the trees. I wonder if many cadets ever even
    see the thing. But it is so nice, it is a wonderful home.
        And, second, have you thought about changing the law to the
    extent that we could have alumni associations and so forth come
    in and do the funding for these kind of homes?
        Secretary Grone. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and then I
    will yield to my colleagues for whatever comments they care to
    make about specific projects.
        I do believe it is important for us to keep our options
    open with regard to end use of any asset. And we have done
    adaptive reuse on some general officer and flag officer
    quarters over the years. Whether we would in those cases or
    not, I think is still subject to study as a class. I do not
    want to comment about them all specifically. So, yes, I mean, I
    think adaptive reuse is clearly an issue.
        The underlying problem, however, on at least two of those
    three cases that you mentioned are we are frankly digging
    ourselves out of a hole that, in large measure, we created for
    ourselves.
        And in the context of the United States Military Academy,
    the life cycle, as I understand it, cost-to-benefit ratio of
    what is being requested in relation to how old the existing
    roof truly is, I think, is something that is worth looking at,
    that the total dollar amount at any one time is, yes, it is a
    large bumper sticker, it is a large number, but the fact of the
    matter is that we have not adequately sustained those assets
    over time.
        And I think a number of us are probably institutionally
    have a role to play, for example, in the Tingey House question.
    We had an opportunity to fully recapitalize the asset, the air
    conditioning and all those systems. Folks looked at the bill,
    decided it was too big. We did not do the HVAC system. Three,
    four years later, what do we have? A large mold problem. So we
    are going to pay for it twice.
        So the fundamental challenge is to get all of these assets
    into a program of adequate sustainability over time while
    leaving our options open on the adaptive reuse question, as you
    mentioned.
        Secretary Armbruster. I might just comment on your
    question. I share your concern, the Army does, in terms of the
    enormous cost figure that was associated with that.
        Several things. Yes, we are looking at alternative uses for
    that. That is an option for us up there. But immediate concern
    is a safety issue with respect to the roof, and I am told that
    West Point is submitting another work request for the roof and
    its support, and that is coming up to the Army, and I am told
    the estimated cost for that is somewhere around $500,000. So we
    do need to address that, and we will be coming back to you for
    that particular need.
        But also engaging with the graduates at West Point, the
    Congress has given us the authority to work in terms of private
    donations and the Association of Graduates that we believe are
    going to step up and provide and assist in that regard.
        So we have got a number of things working there. But the
    last major renovation on the Soups House was back in 1961 to
    1964. We have not been very good in terms of maintaining that
    over the sustainment piece. We have just got to do better on
    that.
        So we are looking at a number of options, but you are
    absolutely right, that $7 million figure was indeed sobering
    and staggering. We just simply have to do something other than
    accommodate to that figure. So we are working a number of
    options.
        Mr. Hefley. When you do these things, would you also look
    at the possibility of building a new Soups House and using this
    for something else? And any of these kind of buildings such as
    this. In this particular case, I do not think, no matter what
    we put into it, it is going to be a modern home for families to
    be raised in and things like that, because it is just a
    wonderful old building, it really is. I do not want to lose it,
    but----
        Secretary Armbruster. The historic part, of course, is the
    original hospitality rooms that go back to the early part of
    the 19th century. And it has been added on to, so you have got
    over 16,000 square feet up there now that--you know, whether
    all of that needs to survive is a question as well.
        Mr. Hefley. Well, thank you very much. I have got to get to
    the vote, but thank all of you, and we will submit some
    questions for the record. And work with us on this, because we
    want to work with you. We want to solve this problem in some
    way that will not take away from housing that our young
    soldiers need, soldiers and sailors and Marines, but at the
    same time preserve some of these things that really need to be
    preserved.
        And I am not suggesting we bulldoze any of the things I
    have mentioned, but, golly, we have got to bring the cost under
    control. And you are doing a good job of it. You came down
    $500,000 on the roof just today. I appreciate that. The
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

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

                                A P P E N D I X

                                 March 8, 2006

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

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 8, 2006

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

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3591.057

    ?

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

                 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 8, 2006

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

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER

        Dr. Snyder. I do not understand the first phrase of it that talks
    about maintenance on a structural basis does appear to be more costly.
    What does the phrase, ``structural basis,'' mean?
        General Flock. ``Structural basis'' refers to architectural
    features of buildings, such as foundations, walls and roofs. Some of
    our very old buildings have unique architectural features that appear
    to result in increased maintenance costs. For example, some of our
    general officer quarters have slate roofs. A slate roof will last about
    100 years as compared to an asphalt shingle roof (the kind of roofing
    material sold at home center stores like Home Deport and Lowes) that
    will last about 20 years. Of the two, a slate roof is more expensive to
    install. However, when compared to an asphalt shingle roof, the life-
    cycle costs are similar or less as it would be necessary to replace the
    slate roof once in 100 years whereas it would be necessary to replace
    the asphalt shingle roof 5 times in 100 years. For buildings we intend
    to keep, the ability to use the materials with the lowest life-cycle
    cost clearly makes financial sense.
                                     ______

                       QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TAYLOR

        Mr. Taylor. The Armed Forces Retirement Naval Home is a federal
    installation, and so what is happening? What is the game plan? Because
    no one has articulated it on behalf of the Administration what we are
    going to do to fix that facility.
        Secretary Grone. [The information was not available at the time of
    printing.]
                                     ______

                        QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES

        Mr. Jones. General Flock, of the 7,000 homes that I believe you
    said, if I heard it correctly, that are--I guess, 7,000 homes that are
    50 years and older, being that I have Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point
    down in my district, where are the majority of these homes--and I know
    Camp Pendleton but where would the majority of those homes be that--
    which base seems to have the largest number?
        General Flock. Currently, the Marine Corps has about 7,400
    buildings that are over 50 years old. Of these, about 90 are family
    housing buildings that are mostly located at Marine Corps Air Station
    Cherry Point (49 buildings) and Marine Corps Base Hawaii (31
    buildings). In ten years, an additional 7,150 buildings will turn 50
    years old. Of these, about 1,200 are family housing buildings; about
    50% are located at Cherry Point and 30 percent at Hawaii. The majority
    of these family housing buildings at these two locations will be
    demolished and replaced as a result of privatization efforts planned
    for the next two years.