    [Senate Hearing 110-201]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     S. Hrg. 110-201, Pt. 3

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      2008

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1547

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
       FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
    PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   ----------

                                     PART 3

                        READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

                                   ----------

                             APRIL 10 AND 24, 2007

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                 2008--Part 3  READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

                                                     S. Hrg. 110-201, Pt. 3

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      2008

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                    S. 1547

         TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR MILITARY
    ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND
       FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE
    PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR
                                 OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                                     PART 3

                        READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

                                   __________

                             APRIL 10 AND 24, 2007

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    39-437 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                         CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

    EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JOHN WARNER, Virginia,
    JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
    E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
    EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    JIM WEBB, Virginia                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

                       Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director

                 Michael V. Kostiw, Replublican Staff Director

                                     ______

                Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

                       DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman

    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
    EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina

                                      (ii)
    ?

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                        CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
        Military Installation, Environmental, and Base Closure Programs
                                 april 10, 2007

                                                                       Page
    Grone, Hon. Philip W., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
      Installations and Environment..................................     5
    Eastin, Hon. Keith E., Assistant Secretary of the Army,
      Installations and Environment..................................    15
    Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations
      and Environment................................................    25
    Anderson, Hon. William C., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
      Installations, Environment and Logistics.......................    41

                    Readiness of United States Ground Forces
                                 april 24, 2007

    Beech, COL Michael F., USA, Commander, 4th Brigade Combat Team,
      4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX...........................    96
    Craparotta, Col. Lewis A., USMC, Commander, 1st Marine Regiment,
      Camp Pendleton, CA.............................................    98
    Orr, COL Timothy E., USARNG, Commander, 2nd Brigade Combat Team,
      34th Infantry Division, Iowa Army National Guard...............    99

                                     (iii)

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      2008

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007

                               U.S. Senate,
                      Subcommittee on Readiness
                                and Management Support,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        MILITARY INSTALLATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BASE CLOSURE PROGRAMS

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m. in
    room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K.
    Akaka (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators Akaka, Inhofe,
    Sessions, and Ensign.
        Majority staff members present: Peter K. Levine, general
    counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member.
        Minority staff members present: Gregory T. Kiley,
    professional staff member; David M. Morriss, minority counsel;
    and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member.
        Staff assistants present: David G. Collins and Benjamin L.
    Rubin.
        Committee members' assistants present: David E. Bonine,
    assistant to Senator Byrd; Jeremy Shull, assistant to Senator
    Inhofe; and D'Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator Ensign.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN

        Senator Akaka. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
    Readiness and Management Support on the fiscal year 2008 budget
    request for the Department of Defense (DOD) installations and
    environmental programs will come to order.
        We now reconvene this hearing in open session. I want to
    publicly welcome our witnesses: Philip Grone, Secretary Keith
    Eastin, Secretary B.J. Penn, and Secretary William Anderson. It
    is good to have all of you back with us again this year.
        We meet this afternoon to discuss DOD's fiscal year 2008
    military construction (MILCON), housing, and environmental
    programs, as well as the implementation of the 2005 base
    realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds. Much has happened since
    our hearing with all of you a year ago. The fiscal year 2007
    MILCON appropriation bill got sidetracked by objections from a
    few members and ended up in a year-long continuing resolution.
    About $3 billion of funding requested to implement the 2005
    BRAC round ended up being deferred from that bill to the
    pending supplemental.
        Lost for good was an appropriation to match the
    authorization for dozens of projects my colleagues and I in the
    House and the Senate had worked to secure to help the military
    and civilian workers at installations in our States.
        DOD now has a new Secretary of Defense and under the new
    leadership, DOD has reversed its opposition to increasing the
    size of the ground forces. This budget was submitted with
    placeholders, essentially seeking a blank check of over $2.5
    billion for Army and Marine Corps facilities to support this
    proposal. Last week the Army started filling in the details of
    their proposal, but we have yet to receive similar details on
    the specific Marine Corps projects that you are requesting, and
    we will need more information from both Services if we are to
    properly address this important issue in our markup.
        This ``Grow the Force'' proposal will be a challenge for
    all of us. It appears that the proposal before us would commit
    taxpayer funds to facilities to support the entire 5-year
    planned growth in end strength, not just the end strength
    increases through fiscal year 2008 that we will be acting on in
    the personnel section of the bill.
        Due largely to those two factors, BRAC and the growing
    force, the fiscal year 2008 MILCON request is, I think, the
    largest any of us have ever seen, $21 billion, compared to $12
    billion just 2 years ago. Yet, absent these two factors, the
    underlying program is still the same size that it was back in
    2006, about $10 billion.
        Because of the closed session that preceded this open
    session, we do not have as much time as we normally do.
    Therefore, without objection, all of your prepared statements
    will be made a part of the record, as will your responses to
    the advance questions sent to you by the committee. In
    addition, there will be questions for the record on topics we
    do not have time to address this afternoon.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
                 Prepared Statement by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

        Good afternoon. We now reconvene this hearing in open session. I
    want to publicly welcome our witnesses: Mr. Grone, Secretary Eastin,
    Secretary Penn, and Secretary Anderson, it is good to have all of you
    back with us again this year. We meet this afternoon to discuss DOD's
    fiscal year 2008 military construction, housing, and environmental
    programs, as well as the implementation of the 2005 base closure round.
        Much has happened since our hearing with all of you a year ago. The
    fiscal year 2007 military construction appropriation bill got
    sidetracked by objections from a few members and ended up in the year-
    long continuing resolution. About $3 billion of funding requested to
    implement the 2005 base closure round ended up being deferred from that
    bill to the pending supplemental. Lost for good was the appropriation
    to match the authorization for dozens of projects my colleagues and I
    in the House and the Senate had worked to secure to help the military
    and civilian workers at installations in our states.
        In addition to this unfortunate delay in funding the implementation
    of this BRAC round, we now have, pending in conference on the
    supplemental, an attempt to re-open that BRAC round with respect to
    Walter Reed. Whatever one may think of the merits of any particular
    BRAC decision, if we start to reopen past BRAC decisions, that will
    greatly complicate our work on planning and building the infrastructure
    we need to support our troops.
        The Department now has a new Secretary of Defense, and under that
    new leadership, the Department has reversed its opposition to
    increasing the size of the ground forces. This budget was submitted
    with placeholders essentially seeking a ``blank check'' of over $2.5
    billion for Army and Marine Corps facilities to support this proposal.
    Last week the Army started filling in the details of their proposal,
    but we have yet to receive similar details on the specific Marine Corps
    projects that you are requesting. We will need more information from
    both Services if we are to properly address this important issue in our
    markup.
        This ``grow the force'' proposal will be a challenge for all of us.
    It appears that the proposal before us would commit taxpayer funds to
    facilities to support the entire 5-year planned growth in end strength,
    not just the end strength increases through fiscal year 2008 that we
    will be acting on in the personnel section of the bill.
        Due largely to those two factors--base closure and growing the
    force--the fiscal year 2008 military construction request is the
    largest I think any of us have ever seen--$21 billion, compared to $12
    billion just 2 years ago. Yet absent those two factors, the underlying
    program is still the same size as it was back in 2006, about $10
    billion.
        Because of the closed session that preceded this open session, we
    do not have as much time during this open session as we normally do.
    Therefore, without objection all of your prepared statements will be
    made part of the record, as will your responses to the advance
    questions sent to you by the committee. In addition, there will be
    questions for the record on topics we do not have time to address this
    afternoon.

        Senator Akaka. Senator Ensign?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN

        Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The 2008 budget request for MILCON and family housing
    programs supports the transformation of our forces around the
    world to more efficient bases and smarter alignments to address
    our Nation's most urgent national security needs. DOD is
    proposing to spend billions in 2008 for barracks and other unit
    facilities to support BRAC, global realignments, modularity,
    and most recently the need to grow the Army and Marine Corps
    end strength. These are absolutely critical projects that must
    be funded as soon as possible to ensure that permanent
    facilities are ready when the forces arrive at each
    installation.
        But I am concerned that this limited budget request does
    not allow the military Services to construct all required
    facilities ahead of incoming forces. We cannot afford to risk
    the safety and security of our personnel by relying on trailers
    and inadequate facilities to be used as interim living quarters
    for the next 5 years.
        The unfortunate conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical
    Center have reaffirmed this committee's consistent concern over
    the past years on the relatively low priority placed within
    each military Service on maintaining facilities and the
    replacement of deteriorated infrastructure. This year's budget
    request for MILCON reinforces my concern that very little
    funding is being used to replace deteriorated facilities
    supporting current missions.
        The budget goals established by DOD for funds to sustain
    and recapitalize facilities have been persistently overcome by
    higher priorities. While we support DOD's need to maintain
    flexibility in operations and maintenance expenditures, this
    flexibility must be accompanied by congressional confidence in
    DOD's ability to use that flexibility wisely. This confidence
    was shaken by leaders in the Army who did not act quickly and
    decisively to correct the deplorable living conditions at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
    initiatives under way by military leaders to ensure adequate,
    safe facilities are provided to our military personnel and
    their families. What are you doing today to identify and
    quickly get rid of all the other Building 18s in the military?
        I also ask each of the witnesses to discuss the challenges
    they face in complying with environmental laws and regulations
    and the impact of encroachment on their ability to carry out
    force realignments, the introduction of new missions, and the
    conduct of realistic combat training.
        I look forward to a discussion of any new problems or
    changes in the law the witnesses believe Congress should
    consider. Again, Senator Akaka, I thank you for this hearing
    and look forward to it.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]

                   Prepared Statement by Senator John Ensign

        Thank you Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our witnesses for
    testifying this afternoon, and for their dedicated service to our
    country. You have outlined in your written statements a tremendous
    amount of construction and environmental work in progress that will
    have a significant impact on our military for many years to come.
        The 2008 budget request for military construction and family
    housing programs supports the transformation of our forces around the
    world to more efficient bases and smarter alignments to address our
    Nation's most urgent national security needs. The Department is
    proposing to spend billions in 2008 for barracks and other unit
    facilities to support base realignment and closure, global
    realignments, modularity, and most recently, the need to grow the Army
    and Marine Corps end strength. These are absolutely critical projects
    that must be funded as soon as possible to ensure that permanent
    facilities are ready when the forces arrive at each installation. But,
    I am concerned that this limited budget request does not allow the
    military Services to construct all required facilities ahead of the
    incoming forces. We cannot afford to risk the safety and security of
    our personnel by relying on trailers and inadequate facilities to be
    used as interim living quarters over the next 5 years.
        The unfortunate conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have
    reaffirmed this committee's consistent concern over past years on the
    relatively low priority placed within each military Service on
    maintaining facilities and the replacement of deteriorated
    infrastructure. This year's budget request for military construction
    reinforces my concern that very little funding is being used to replace
    deteriorated facilities supporting current missions. The budget goals
    established by the Department for funds to sustain and recapitalize
    facilities have been persistently overcome by higher priorities. While
    we support the Department's need to maintain flexibility in operations
    and maintenance expenditures, this flexibility must be accompanied by
    congressional confidence in the Department's ability to use that
    flexibility wisely. This confidence was shaken by leaders in the Army
    who did not act quickly and decisively to correct the deplorable living
    conditions at Walter Reed.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about initiatives
    under way by military leaders to ensure adequate, safe facilities are
    provided to our military personnel and their families. What are you
    doing today to identify and quickly get rid of all the other building
    18s in the military?
        I also ask each of the witnesses to discuss the challenges they
    face in complying with environmental laws and regulations and the
    impact of encroachment on their ability to carry out force
    realignments, the introduction of new missions, and the conduct of
    realistic combat training. I look forward to a discussion of any new
    problems or changes in the law the witnesses believe Congress should
    consider.
        I again thank you, Senator Akaka, and look forward to an
    informative hearing.

        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Grone.

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

        Mr. Grone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief so
    that we can get to the questions and the dialogue with you,
    Senator Ensign, and the other members of the subcommittee.
        My colleagues and I are certainly pleased to appear before
    you today to discuss the budget request for the DOD for fiscal
    year 2008, particularly for those programs that support the
    management of installation assets. As you noted, sir, the
    MILCON budget for this coming year is the largest in recent
    memory. In support of the responsibilities of all of us, all of
    us as portfolio managers across DOD, the budget request,
    whether it is MILCON, military family housing, BRAC,
    installation support, or environmental programs, the entire
    management portfolio of DOD to support installations is $56
    billion in this budget request.
        The budget request supports a number of key elements of our
    comprehensive asset management strategy and I want to highlight
    just a few. The budget request supports a recapitalization rate
    of 67 years. That includes the investment we are making through
    BRAC as we reposition missions to provide more modern
    facilities, to recapitalize those assets at aging locations,
    from which we are to realign or close.
        We have achieved our goal in this budget of a 67-year
    recapitalization cycle. In 2001 that rate stood at 192 years.
        The budget request provides 88 percent of the funds needed
    to sustain our facilities. Last year's budget, as enacted,
    positioned DOD to fulfill our commitments to eliminate
    inadequate military family housing in the United States, and we
    remain on track to achieve the elimination of such units
    overseas by fiscal year 2009. Military housing privatization is
    central to our strategy. In the end state we expect 90 percent
    of DOD's then-existing military family housing inventory to
    have been privatized.
        On the matter of encroachment, efforts such as the
    readiness and environmental protection initiative and our
    outreach to the States, local communities, private and
    nonprofit land trusts, and the environmental community are
    bearing fruit. DOD has requested $30 million in the fiscal year
    2008 budget to support this important program.
        We also continue our aggressive approach to energy
    conservation and the purchase and development of renewable
    sources of energy. In fiscal year 2006, military installations
    reduced their consumption by 5.5 percent, exceeding the energy
    conservation goal of 2 percent.
        Certainly the largest portfolio of investment we have for
    the coming year is $8.2 billion in the request to support BRAC
    efforts all across the country, across the 800 locations all
    across America that will bear in one way or another closure,
    realignment, or an inbound mission. These moves are critically
    important to the future of the armed forces. The timely receipt
    of an authorization and appropriation to support these actions
    is critically important to keeping us on schedule to meet our
    legally mandated deadline of September 15, 2011, to conclude
    implementation of the BRAC.
        Sir, thank you for your attention and certainly to the
    members of the subcommittee for all the support you have
    provided to DOD over many years. We look forward to your
    questions. Thank you, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Grone follows:]

                   Prepared Statement by Hon. Philip W. Grone

        Chairman Akaka, Senator Ensign, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
    to address the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 and to
    provide an overview of the approach of the Department of Defense (DOD)
    to the management of the Nation's military installation assets.

                                    OVERVIEW

        As our Nation's security challenges become more complex, the
    military must become an increasingly agile joint force that is dominant
    across the full spectrum of operations. Installations are a critical
    component to this Nation's force capabilities. DOD is vigorously
    managing its facilities and infrastructure to ensure that it delivers
    cost effective, safe, and environmentally sound capabilities and
    capacities to support the National Defense Mission.
        Not only is the Department incorporating best business practices
    but it is also expanding these practices into new, previously
    unexplored areas. For example, DOD's infrastructure investment strategy
    uses key metrics to provide quality facilities that directly support
    mission and readiness and also developed advanced business processes
    that align more closely to warfighter mission area requirements.
    Implementation of the Real Property Inventory Requirements document
    provides the basis for a more accurate and current asset inventory
    database which will maximize asset management and provide senior
    leaders with an improved decisionmaking tool to measure performance.
    With the development of a net-centric data warehouse for the
    Department's real property infrastructure and utilization information,
    timely and accurate real property data will be readily available to
    support key facilities metrics. The rigor provided by these practices
    in planning, managing, and maintaining DOD installations improves
    overall efficiency while improving investment decisionmaking.

                             GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE

        The Department continues its efforts to realign its permanent base
    structure at home and abroad to effectively enable military
    transformation and to better deal with 21st century security
    challenges. The Department has begun the process of realigning or
    closing a number of large permanent bases overseas in favor of small
    and more scalable installations better suited for rapid deployments.
    The Global Defense Posture realignment effort identified an overall set
    of plans for returning overseas forces back to military installations
    in the U.S. These plans were integrated with the base realignment and
    closure (BRAC) process regarding relocations from overseas to domestic
    bases during the prescribed BRAC time period. All Services factored
    requirements of returning forces into their domestic infrastructure
    requirements and this resulted in recommendations to accommodate forces
    at U.S. installations.
        Some overseas changes have already been implemented in accordance
    with ongoing Service transformation efforts and within the framework of
    negotiations with host nations. In many cases, the changes involve
    units that are inactivating or transforming with no significant BRAC
    impact. As we begin implementing the BRAC recommendations there are
    overseas posture changes still being developed or being phased to be
    implemented after the BRAC implementation period. DOD will continue to
    consult with Congress on its plan and will seek your support as we
    implement these far-reaching and enduring changes to strengthen
    America's global defense posture.

                 IMPLEMENTING BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 2005

        The President approved and forwarded the commission's
    recommendations to Congress on September 15, 2005. Congress expressed
    its support of these recommendations by not enacting a joint resolution
    of disapproval and on November 9, 2005, the Department became legally
    obligated to close and realign all installations so recommended by the
    Commission in its report. BRAC 2005 affects over 800 locations across
    the Nation through 25 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765
    lesser actions. The significant transformation to the Total Force and
    its operational capability, the Departments business operations, and to
    the savings ultimately derived from BRAC require resources to meet
    adequately the challenges of implementation.
        Congress provided $1.5 billion to the Department in fiscal year
    2006 ($1.9 billion was requested in the fiscal year 2006 President's
    budget) to begin implementing the BRAC recommendations. This initial
    funding was used to begin planning, design and construction, program
    management, and the environmental studies that serve as the foundation
    for constructing and renovating facilities to accommodate missions at
    receiving sites. Notable examples include the Brigade Combat Team
    complexes at Fort Carson, CO; Fort Knox, KY; and Fort Bliss, TX; and a
    Division Headquarters and Sustainment Brigade Headquarters at Fort
    Riley, KS.
        The fiscal year 2007 President's budget requested $5.6 billion to
    continue implementation. Previous continuing resolutions for fiscal
    year 2007 provided $542M to the Department for this purpose. However,
    the recently passed Joint Resolution limits fiscal year 2007 funding to
    $2.5 billion, a $3.1 billion (55 percent) reduction from the
    President's budget. This seriously affects construction timelines
    because over 80 percent of the BRAC budget in fiscal year 2007 directly
    supports military construction. This 55 percent reduction will
    significantly jeopardize our ability to execute BRAC 2005 by the
    statutory deadline of September 15, 2011, thereby sacrificing savings
    that could have been achieved during the delayed timeframe, and delay
    achievement of operational mission requirements. The magnitude of the
    reduction requires careful evaluation to support allocating the reduced
    funding within the Department so that only those projects with the
    highest priority, determined by their operational and/or business case
    effects, go forward on the schedule previously provided to Congress.
    While operational impacts are self-explanatory, business case
    considerations are worthy of note. These include cases where
    incrementally funded projects started last year must continue, and/or
    where projects support follow-on actions, produce significant savings,
    or lead to expeditious asset disposal. This evaluation formed the basis
    for the BRAC portion of the expenditure report required by the Joint
    Resolution that was provided to the appropriations committees on March
    16, 2007. Implementing BRAC 2005 actions represents a significant
    financial commitment by the Department. In the fiscal year 2007 budget
    justification material provided to Congress, the Department indicated
    that, in some cases, the out-year program did not fully reflect
    expected costs for the remainder of the BRAC implementation period
    (fiscal years 2008-2011). The Department of Army anticipated a
    shortfall as much as $5.7 billion and the Air Force estimated its
    shortfall at approximately $1.8 billion over the program.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request is approximately
    $3.0 billion more than the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget request
    and the $8.2 billion requested, as well as the outyear program,
    represents full funding for BRAC 2005 implementation assuming funding
    is restored for fiscal year 2007. In previous BRAC rounds, the third
    year of implementation was generally the peak of the ``bell shaped''
    investment curve. For BRAC 2005, the fiscal year 2008 budget request
    represents the critical year of execution in the 6-year statutory
    implementation period and includes $6.4 billion for military
    construction, $1.2 billion for operations and maintenance (O&M) to
    relocate personnel and equipment, $112 million for environmental
    studies and remediation, and $453 million for ``other'' costs primarily
    associated with installation communications, automation, and
    information management system equipment in support of construction
    projects.
        The Department has embarked on assessing the domino impact the $3.1
    billion reduction will have on the fiscal years 2008-2011
    implementation program should it not be restored. The complexity and
    duration of many implementation actions required fiscal year 2007
    funding. Military construction projects and other expenditures related
    to the movements of missions contained in the fiscal year 2008
    President's budget will need to be re-baselined.

                             ASSISTING COMMUNITIES

        The Department, through the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and
    the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, continues to work with States
    and communities across the country as they respond to the effects of
    broad changes in Defense infrastructure, including efforts resulted
    from BRAC, Global Defense Posture Realignment, and modularity. In the
    context of BRAC, to date, the Department has recognized 121 Local
    Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) that are responsible for creating a
    redevelopment plan for property made available for civilian reuse as a
    result of BRAC and to directing implementation of the plan. The
    majority of these communities, with assistance from OEA, are presently
    working to develop a consensus for redevelopment that reflects the
    specific market forces, public facility and service needs, and private
    sector circumstances found at each location and to gauge local homeless
    and community economic development interests in these properties. At
    the same time, efforts are being made between these LRAs and the
    military departments to link local civilian redevelopment activities
    with the Department's environmental and property disposal efforts,
    including any necessary environmental remediation.
        At the same time, DOD is working with several communities where
    mission growth is projected to impact the surrounding region. Across
    these locations, resources are being applied to assist communities to
    understand and respond to anticipated impacts on local housing,
    schools, water and sewer, and transportation. Additionally, spousal
    employment, health care, public services, and child care are of some
    concern. A primary concern for all is how to develop and apply local,
    State, and private resources to address local need. Through this
    process, possible gaps in these civilian sources are also being
    recognized as opportunities for third party and Federal assistance.
    Presently, these communities are in close dialogue with the local
    installations to understand the timing and scope of these growth
    actions.
        The ability to capably assist these communities, regardless of
    whether there is downsizing or mission growth, must include our Federal
    agency partners. On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, I chair the
    President's Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) at the sub-cabinet
    level to coordinate efforts across 22 Federal agencies to assist these
    communities. Under the auspices of the EAC, team visits will likely be
    undertaken to locations to better understand the local adjustment
    challenge and more capably address potential needs for other Federal
    assistance. A report documenting the efforts of the EAC to date will be
    submitted shortly for your review.

                            MANAGING INFRASTRUCTURE

        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 will permit the
    Department to continue its efforts to manage installation assets
    comprehensively and efficiently. Along with continued improvement in
    business practices and a focus on environmental sustainability, the
    Department is focused on improving the quality of military
    installations as evidenced by the emphasis on more accurate Quality
    Ratings that are currently being collected by the military departments.
    Managing DOD real property assets is an integral part of comprehensive
    asset management. The Department currently manages over 533,000
    buildings and structures, which reside on over 51,400 square miles of
    real estate.
        The President's Management Agenda Real Property Asset Management
    initiative focuses on improved asset management planning, inventory and
    performance measure data, and the disposal of unneeded assets. DOD has
    implemented an asset management plan and provides inventory and
    performance data to the Federal Real Property Profile annually. DOD's
    Real Property Inventory Requirements implementation continues to refine
    the quality of data collected and reported to the government-wide
    database. We continue to improve our progress on the Real Property
    Scorecard.
        The quality of infrastructure directly affects training and
    readiness. To that end, the Department is incorporating installations
    assessments more fully into the Defense Readiness Reporting System. DOD
    has made significant progress in integrating its installations into
    this Department-wide program. There is currently an operational system
    in the Navy, Defense Readiness Reporting System-Navy, which is based on
    the contribution of installations to the achievement of mission
    essential tasks. To better manage infrastructure investments, the
    Department continues to develop models and metrics to predict funding
    needs. The Facilities Program Requirements Suite, a Web-based suite of
    real property inventory data models and fact sheets, continues to be
    refined and further expanded to more accurately determine requirements,
    predict funding needs, and better manage infrastructure investments.
    Sustainment
        Facilities sustainment provides funds for maintenance and major
    repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to
    occur periodically throughout the life cycle. Sustainment prevents
    deterioration, maintains safety, and preserves performance over the
    life of a facility. To forecast funding requirements, DOD developed the
    Facilities Sustainment Model using standard benchmarks for sustainment
    unit costs by facility type (such as cost per square foot of barracks)
    drawn from the private and public sectors. This model has been used to
    develop the Service budgets since fiscal year 2002 and for several
    Defense Agencies since fiscal year 2004. Full funding of facilities
    sustainment has been and continues to be the foundation and first
    element of the Department's long-term facilities strategy and goals. In
    fiscal year 2007, the Department-wide sustainment was budgeted at 90
    percent. In balancing risk across the Department's program, the fiscal
    year 2008 budget request reflects a slight decrease in the department-
    wide sustainment funding rate to 88 percent, although the total amount
    of funds requested for the program represent an increase of $466
    million. The Department-wide long term goal remains full funding for
    sustainment to optimize the investment in our facilities and ensure
    their readiness.

                    SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST
                   (President's Budget in Millions of Dollars)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal Year Request
                                                     -----------------------
                                                         2007        2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sustainment (O&M-like) *........................       6,276       6,733
    Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like plus) *.         992       1,353
    Restoration and Modernization (MilCon)..........       6,093       6,736
                                                     -----------------------
      Total SRM.....................................      13,352      14,822
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host nation, and
      working capital funds and other appropriations such as RDT&E.

    Recapitalization
        Recapitalization includes restoration and modernization, provides
    resources for improving facilities, and is the second element of our
    facilities strategy. Recapitalization is funded primarily with either
    O&M 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.
        The current DOD goal remains a recapitalization rate of 67 years.
    In fiscal year 2001, the Department's recapitalization rate was 192
    years. This budget request supports a recapitalization rate of 67
    years, an improvement over last year's budgeted rate of 72 years. The
    improvement in the rate is largely due to investments associated with
    BRAC construction investments and the Global Defense Posture
    realignment. Currently, DOD is in the process of developing and
    fielding a new recapitalization model for assessing the replacement
    cycle that will improve upon the existing recapitalization metric
    through the inclusion of depreciation schedules and other benchmark
    improvements that are derived from private and public sector standards.
        The Department remains committed to maintaining a rate of
    investment in facilities recapitalization that will improve, modernize,
    and restore existing facilities while at the same time replacing
    facilities in support of efforts to reshape and realign infrastructure.
    However, as the Department consolidates and reshapes its
    infrastructure, it will also experience localized growth in the size of
    the facilities footprint. This is necessary to provide the quality and
    quantity of facilities and assets necessary to support military
    personnel and their families. These efforts include facilities to
    support Army Transformation, Navy and Marine Corps barracks, and
    facilities for the beddown of new weapons systems such as Predator, F-
    22, and the Joint Strike Fighter.
        On January 24, 2006, DOD joined 16 other Federal agencies in
    signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Federal Leadership in
    High Performance and Sustainable Buildings. The MOU indicates a
    commitment to incorporate sustainable design principles through a
    comprehensive approach to infrastructure management.
        The Department continues to emphasize the elimination of excess and
    obsolete facilities, and to encourage the aggressive pursuit of
    demolition to avoid unnecessary facilities sustainment and support
    costs. This effort to eliminate facilities that are no longer needed is
    separate and distinct from the BRAC process. With approximately 48
    million square feet of infrastructure identified for elimination, the
    military Services and selected defense agencies are in the process of
    refining their annual targets for disposal and consolidation of excess
    capacity.
        The Department established a common definition for Facilities
    Operation, formerly referred to as ``Real Property Services.'' The
    budget request includes $7.15 billion for this program, to address
    utilities, leases, custodial services, grounds maintenance, and other
    related functions. The Facilities Operation Model was fielded to
    develop standard requirements, and the Department is continuing to
    refine the model with particular emphasis on Fire and Emergency
    Services, and Real Property and Engineering Management.
    Installations Support
        The Defense Installations Strategic Plan articulates the need to
    define common standards and performance metrics for managing
    installation support, and the Department has made considerable progress
    in this area. DOD's objective is to introduce capabilities-based
    programming and budgeting within a framework for the Common Delivery of
    Installations Support which will link installation support capabilities
    to warfighter requirements. The Common Delivery of Installations
    Support also will play a large role in implementation of Joint Basing
    required by BRAC 2005. Guidance for implementing Joint Basing was
    developed in coordination with the Military Components and is currently
    in the review process.
        During the past year, DOD made significant progress toward
    developing Common Output Level Standards for all other functions of
    Installations Support to include Environment, Family Housing Operations
    and Services (formerly known as Base Operations Support). This effort
    is yielding common definitions and tiered performance output levels.
    These metrics are currently being further refined and a costing model
    initiative will soon be underway.
        The military construction appropriation is a significant source of
    facilities investment funding. The fiscal year 2008 Defense Military
    Construction and Family Housing Appropriation request totals $21.2
    billion. This funding will enable the Department to rapidly respond to
    warfighter requirements, enhance mission readiness, and provide for its
    people. This is done, in part, by restoring and modernizing enduring
    facilities, acquiring new facilities where needed, and eliminating
    those that are excess or obsolete.

         COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
          (President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal Year Request
                                                     -----------------------
                                                         2007        2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Military Construction...........................       6,390       9,480
    NATO Security Investment Program................         221         201
    Base Realignment and Closure IV.................         191         220
    Base Realignment and Closure 2005...............       5,626       8,174
    Family Housing Construction/Improvements........       2,092       1,080
    Family Housing Operations and Maintenance.......       1,989       1,851
    Chemical Demilitarization.......................         131          86
    Family Housing Improvement Fund.................           3         0.5
    Energy Conservation Investment Program..........          55          70
                                                     -----------------------
      Total.........................................      16,698      21,165
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE

        A principal priority of the Department is to support military
    personnel and their families and improve their quality of life by
    ensuring access to suitable, affordable housing. Servicemembers are
    engaged in the frontlines of protecting our National security and they
    deserve the best possible living and working conditions. Sustaining the
    quality of life of our people is crucial to recruitment, retention,
    readiness, and morale. At the outset of this administration, the
    President and the Department's leadership identified revitalizing
    housing, largely through privatization, as a central priority for the
    Department. An aggressive target of 2007 was established to meet that
    goal. By late fiscal year 2007, DOD will effectively complete all
    procedures to eliminate nearly all inadequate domestic family housing.
    More than 90 percent of our inadequate housing will be turned over to
    the private sector for replacement or renovation and the remainder will
    be in the final stages of solicitation for award. As of February 2007,
    over 110,000 housing units determined to be inadequate have been
    privatized. Inadequate units are considered to be eliminated when they
    are conveyed to the private owner, who then revitalizes the housing.
        The Department continues to rely on three pillars to improve
    housing thereby, enhancing the quality of life for our servicemembers:
    (1) Provide the basic allowance for housing (BAH) at zero-out-of-pocket
    expense for the average servicemember living in private sector housing
    (achieved in 2005, now maintaining); (2) Privatization of family
    housing, where feasible; and, (3) Military Construction funding for all
    other domestic and all overseas locations.
        The Department relies on a ``community first'' (private sector)
    approach to provide quality housing to its members and their families.
    Only when the private market demonstrates that it cannot supply
    sufficient levels of quality, affordable housing does the Department
    provide housing to our military families; first through the use of
    privatization, and where that is not feasible through government-owned
    and leased housing. For example, in the absence of privatization
    authorities overseas, we address our housing needs there through
    military construction and leasing.
        To ensure the Department is making the best investment decisions
    when determining the appropriate level of housing, the government
    provides a single and consistent methodology for calculating its
    housing requirement. This methodology was introduced in January 2003
    and is being utilized extensively by the Services. Currently, 75
    percent of military families living in the continental United States,
    Alaska, and Hawaii receive BAH (with 60 percent living in the local
    community, and 15 percent in privatized housing). An additional 22
    percent of our military families are provided government-owned housing
    and 3 percent live in leased housing. DOD projects that by the end of
    fiscal year 2008 over 90 percent of military families will be receiving
    BAH, thus allowing families the opportunity to make housing choices
    according to their individual preferences.
        As of February 2007, the Department has awarded 71 privatization
    projects, which includes over 147,000 total military family housing
    units privatized. The private sector's cumulative contribution to the
    71 awarded deals awarded thus far totals over $20 billion (or 90
    percent) of total project development costs. The Services have
    contributed $1.5 billion in development costs primarily through equity
    investment or government direct loans.
        For fiscal year 2008, the Department requests $2.93 billion, a
    decrease of $1.2 billion from the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
    request. The decrease reflects cost savings realized by the Department
    achieving its respective goal to eliminate inadequate housing and to
    privatize the inventory on a cost-effective basis. The Department's
    privatization plans in the fiscal year 2008 budget will ultimately
    result in the privatization of over 90 percent of its domestic family
    housing inventory, or roughly 194,000 units privatized by the end of
    fiscal year 2008.

             Fiscal year 2008 funding provides for the continuation
            of the privatization program to reduce costs to the government
            and provide quality housing to service members and their
            families. The fiscal year 2008 request will privatize 4,261
            family housing.
             Fiscal year 2008 request provides $353 million for the
            Army and Navy ``Grow the Force'' initiative, which will provide
            housing support for end-strength increases.
             1.9 billion to operate and maintain approximately
            80,000 government-owned family housing units, and lease 38,000
            units worldwide.

        In fiscal year 2008 and beyond, DOD will monitor the military
    housing privatization projects over the next 40+ years and conduct
    oversight of their financial performance. DOD will protect the
    government's interest while acknowledging that it is the responsibility
    of the private sector to take the lead on operating these projects.
    Current project highlights include:

             The majority of the awarded privatization projects
            initial development plans for renovation/construction are on
            schedule.
             Thirteen projects have completed their construction/
            renovation schedules.
             The privatization projects are achieving 90 percent
            occupancy across all projects.
             There have been no defaults for the awarded projects.
             Awarded projects are receiving high tenant
            satisfaction ratings.

        Finally, in fiscal year 2008 DOD will continue to push expansion of
    the privatization authorities for unaccompanied housing and lodging. In
    fiscal year 2007, the Navy executed the first Unaccompanied Housing
    pilot project in San Diego in December 2006, with two additional
    projects planned--Hampton Roads, VA (award April 2007), and Mayport, FL
    (future date to be determined). The Army anticipates award of the first
    Lodging Privatization project in September 2007.

                              COMPETITIVE SOURCING

        The DOD continues to strongly support the President's Management
    Agenda Initiative for Competitive Sourcing. Introducing private sector
    competition into commercial functions performed by the Department
    improves business efficiency and reduces cost to the taxpayer. Public/
    private competitions using the procedures of OMB Circular A-76 have
    demonstrated substantial savings whether the in-house or private sector
    wins the competition. During Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006, the
    Department completed 870 such competitions encompassing about 91,000
    positions. These competitions will have resulted in over $9 billion in
    savings (cost avoidance) over the life of the resulting performance
    periods, normally about 5 years. The Department has an additional 7,969
    positions currently undergoing competitions, plans to compete 10,000
    positions in fiscal year 2007, and expects to maintain the same level
    of competitions in fiscal year 2008.
        These new competitions use the procedures of OMB Circular A-76
    which evaluate public and private proposals concurrently using the
    Federal Acquisition Regulations. As the Department's designated
    Competitive Sourcing Official, my office is working continuously to
    improve the competition process. For example, competitions that used to
    take up to 48 months to complete can now be completed in as little as
    12 months. Such improvements will reduce stress on our workforce and
    will make savings available earlier to reinvest in the Department's
    operation.

                               ENERGY MANAGEMENT

        The Department continues to aggressively attempt to reduce its
    energy consumption and associated costs, while improving utility system
    reliability and safety. To that end, DOD developed a comprehensive
    energy strategy and issued updated policy guidance incorporating the
    provisions and goals of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005 and is
    implementing the recent enactment of the new chapter 173 of title 10,
    U.S.C. The Department is also in the early stages of implementation of
    Executive Order 13423, recently issued by the President to strengthen
    Federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. This
    strategy will continue to optimize utility management by conserving
    energy and water usage, improving energy flexibility by taking
    advantage of restructured energy commodity markets when opportunities
    present themselves.
        DOD, as the largest single energy consumer in the Nation, consumed
    $3.5 billion of facility energy in fiscal year 2006. Though overall
    cost continues to increase due to commodity costs, consumption has
    decreased from the 2003 baseline. Our program includes investments in
    cost-effective renewable energy sources or energy efficient
    construction designs, and aggregating bargaining power among regions
    and the Services to achieve more effective buying power.
        The Department's efforts to conserve energy are paying off. In
    fiscal year 2006, military installations reduced consumption by 5.5
    percent, exceeding the energy conservation goal of 2 percent. Energy
    conservation projects accomplished through Energy Savings Performance
    Contracts (ESPC) typically account for more than half of all facility
    energy savings. Lapse of ESPC authority in 2004 negatively affected the
    Department's ability to reach the 30 percent reduction goal under
    Executive Order 13123. However, with ESPC authority reauthorized in the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and extended
    for an additional 10 years in the EPAct of 2005, DOD has launched an
    aggressive awareness campaign and is well on its way to meeting the new
    goals established in the EPAct of 2005. Use of ESPC for 2006 increased
    316 percent, reaching an award value over $586 million.
        DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable
    energy and developing resources on military installations. Renewable
    energy projects are consistently more expensive than similar
    conventional energy sources, resulting in limited opportunities but
    that are life cycle cost effective. The Department has increased the
    use of Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funds for
    renewable energy projects from $5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $17
    million planned in fiscal year 2007, and to $24 million budgeted for
    fiscal year 2008 out of a $70 million ECIP request. The fiscal year
    2007 program for ECIP also contains $2.6 million in hydrogen fuel cell
    projects. The Department easily exceeded the EPAct 2005 renewable
    energy goal of 2.5 percent in fiscal year 2006. The Department's total
    renewable energy purchases and generation accounted for 9.5 percent of
    all electricity use. Also, while EPAct 2005 did not articulate a
    specific water reduction goal, the new Executive Order 13423 does have
    a goal of a 2 percent water reduction per year. The Department has
    reduced water usage by an impressive 29.6 percent from the fiscal year
    2003 baseline year.

                            ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

    Managing Cleanup
        The Department is committed to cleaning up property that, as the
    result of past military activities, is contaminated with hazardous
    substances and military munitions. DOD has achieved ``remedy in place''
    or ``restoration complete'' status at 85 percent (16,833 out of 19,796)
    of its environmental restoration sites on active installations. As of
    the end of fiscal year 2006, 85 percent (4,275 out of 5,010) of the
    environmental restoration sites at BRAC locations closed or realigned
    by the first four rounds of BRAC or closed in BRAC 2005 have a cleanup
    remedy constructed and in place and operating successfully, or have had
    all necessary cleanup actions completed in accordance with
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    of 1980 (CERCLA) standards. Hazardous substance cleanup at Formerly
    Used Defense Sites (FUDS) has achieved ``remedy in place'' or
    ``restoration complete'' status at 53 percent (2,487 out of the 4,654)
    of known sites.
        As of the end of fiscal year 2006, DOD fulfilled its cleanup
    obligations at over 122 of the approximately 373 identified Military
    Munitions Response Plan (MMRP) sites at BRAC installations, and has
    cleanup actions underway at 251 sites. A similar situation can be found
    at FUDS, where 29 percent of the MMRP sites identified have had all
    cleanup actions completed. Over 473 of the 1,633 FUDS with currently
    identified Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) contamination have been addressed,
    and another 1,160 are undergoing cleanup actions or study.
    Environmental Management Systems
        DOD implemented environmental management systems (EMS) as required
    by Executive Order 13148 at all appropriate facilities. This
    transformation embeds environmental management as a systematic process,
    fully integrated with mission planning and sustainment and is essential
    for continued successful operations at home and abroad. Implementing
    EMS helps preserve range and operational capabilities by creating long-
    term, specific and measurable targets in comprehensive programs to
    sustain capability while maintaining healthy ecosystems. Benefits
    accrued to date are an increased awareness of environmental issues and
    how they can impact operations, increased communication and cooperation
    between departments, new initiatives to mitigate environmental impact
    and risk, and strengthened relationships with communities and
    regulators.
    Pollution Prevention
        Maintaining compliance with environmental laws is an integral part
    of sustaining DOD operations. From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year
    2006 the Department reduced the number of new Federal and State
    enforcement actions received by 18 percent while the number of
    regulatory inspections increased by 6 percent during the same time
    period. In 2005, DOD installations reached a 95 percent compliance rate
    with wastewater treatment permits. For the 3.4 million customers served
    by DOD drinking water systems, in 2005, less than 7 percent of the
    population received notice that their water exceeded a drinking water
    standard (most ``exceedences'' were not immediate health concerns and
    both interim and long-term solutions are either completed or underway).
    The Department continues to demonstrate a commitment to reduce solid
    and hazardous waste. From 2000 through 2005, the Department reduced
    hazardous waste over 15 percent by using various pollution prevention
    opportunities. In 2006, over 3.7 million tons of solid waste was
    diverted from landfills which avoided approximately $153 million in
    landfill costs. This 59 percent diversion rate exceeds the Department's
    diversion goal of 40 percent in 2005. Integrating a strong compliance
    program into installation environmental management systems will
    strengthen this program.

                           SUSTAINING THE WARFIGHTER

        Our Nation's warfighters require the best training and the best
    equipment available. This means sustaining our vital range and
    installation infrastructure, both here and abroad, where we test
    equipment and conduct training. Development in the vicinity of DOD
    installations and ranges continues to challenge sustainability. The
    unintended consequences of this encroachment upon our ranges and
    installations are varied, and include such issues as more noise
    complaints from new neighbors; diminished usable airspace due to new
    structures or increased civil aviation; a compromised ability to test
    and train with the frequency needed in time of war; and a loss of
    habitat for endangered species.
        History and experience gained over decades demonstrate that proper
    training of U.S. troops will result in victory. Assured access to
    operational ranges is the only way to continue that training. In 2001
    the Department undertook the Readiness and Range Preservation
    Initiative to achieve a balance between national defense and
    environmental policies. As a result, DOD has successfully balanced the
    statutory requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act with our National
    defense mission requirements. However, the Department continues to seek
    legislative clarification under the Clean Air Act, the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
        Congress provided statutory authority to use O&M funds to create
    buffers around our ranges and installations. Using this authority the
    Department established the Readiness and Environmental Protection
    Initiative (REPI) and has worked with willing partners to cost-share
    land conservation solutions that benefit military readiness and
    preserve natural habitat. In fiscal year 2005, REPI leveraged $12.5
    million of O&M funding to secure $48.2 million worth of buffer land and
    easements, encompassing 10,238 acres at 7 installations. The 2006 and
    2007 projects will continue to leverage REPI funds against partner
    contributions. REPI and partner funding has allowed DOD to protect the
    Navy's one-of-a-kind La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility in
    California; to keep training areas open at Marine Corps Base Camp
    Lejeune, NC; and buffer live-fire training ranges at Fort Carson, CO.
    Overall in fiscal year 2006, REPI initiated 23 projects in 17 States,
    and for fiscal year 2007 an additional 32 projects have been identified
    for funding. The Department has requested $30 million in the fiscal
    year 2008 budget to support REPI.
        Partnerships are essential to success and the Department continues
    to work with State governments and other Federal agencies in the
    Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability
    (SERPPAS). In 2006, the State of Alabama joined North Carolina,
    Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina as SERPPAS State members. Through
    this process, the partners hope to promote better planning related to
    growth, preservation of open space and protection of the region's
    military installations. The regional approach to facilitate dialogue
    and to address issues of mutual concern is proving successful, and in
    2006, the Department took the initial steps to establish a regional
    partnership in the western States.
        In 2006, DOD worked closely with other Federal agencies to sustain
    military readiness. At Fort Riley, KS, the Department of Agriculture's
    Natural Resource Conservation Service and DOD signed a MOU to work
    together on conservation efforts that sustain agricultural productivity
    on private lands that will buffer military lands. On energy issues, the
    DOD is working with other Federal agencies to ensure that wind farm
    projects and energy transmission corridors are compatible with military
    readiness activities. The Department is also working with the
    Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our military readiness
    activities and infrastructure in border regions are not impacted by new
    security measures. Outreach to non-Federal and non-governmental
    organizations continues to be a significant part of the Department's
    sustainability program, and today we are working with State, county,
    and local governments, Indian tribal, and environmental groups on
    issues of mutual concern to seek win-win solutions. Overseas, DOD is
    developing mission sustainment procedures to work with our host nations
    Global Defense Posture partners. To sustain today's warfighters, and
    our Nation's future warfighters, DOD will continue its engagement and
    partnering efforts.

                        INTEGRATING BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

        The Department as a whole has made significant strides in breaking
    down the cultural and information technology (IT) systems barriers that
    hinder business agility. There is an increased need for tighter
    alignment of end-to-end business functions, better management
    visibility into operations, and a definitive focus on execution
    excellence. The current climate of making measurable business
    improvements every 6 months, tied to releases of the DOD Business
    Enterprise Transition Plan, has succeeded in driving progress. Changing
    the cultural mindset has meant redefining Defense business in terms of
    functions performed and the customers served, rather than who performs
    them. Breaking down IT systems barriers has meant, among other things,
    using common standards to integrate the business data owned by the
    components.
        The Real Property and Installation Lifecycle Management (RP&ILM)
    Core Business Mission area has had tremendous success with business
    transformation because it has been driven by the top leadership and
    supported across all components and all levels. Over the past few
    years, RP&ILM has developed enterprise wide capabilities for real
    property accountability and visibility, environmental liability
    accountability and valuation, and hazardous materials operational
    controls. These capabilities are founded on requirements for standard
    business processes, data elements, and business rules. The military
    departments and agencies, in coordination with the DUSD (I&E), have
    begun implementation efforts for these capabilities.
        I&E community leadership actively oversees IT system investments to
    ensure that IT systems are being modernized to support the new business
    enterprise capabilities. I&E has become a leader in implementing DOD's
    net-centric vision and has already stood up a site unique identifier
    registry, that will allow all IT systems (and communities) with a need
    for location information to easily get authoritative source
    information. All of this foundational and transformational work has
    been achieved because of the established RP&ILM governance processes.
    These governance processes support federated management because the
    business owners themselves drive business modernization and the
    associated support IT. This work has also been completely integrated
    into the activities of the Business Transformation Agency, ensuring
    that RP&ILM capabilities support the broader DOD enterprise business
    transformation efforts.
        During the past year, the Department expanded its efforts beyond
    defining transformation requirements to actual implementation of
    business transformation. Each military Service has either completed and
    is implementing, or is developing implementation plans, to deliver
    these reengineered capabilities. Some of our recent successes include:

             Ability to assign unique identifiers to all DOD's
            sites. For the first time in our history, the warfighter and
            business mission areas will have the ability to obtain access
            to real property site information at the push-of-a-button, with
            assurance that the data is authoritative and consistent from
            Service to Service.
             Development of Real Property Inventory Requirements
            (RPIR) compliance assessment tools and procedures. These tools
            assure that the Services will implement and maintain
            consistent, accurate, and complete information on our vast and
            geographically diverse real property asset portfolio.
             Update of antiquated policies. Policy change promotes
            behavioral change. Building on this best practice, DOD is in
            the process of updating policies to include modernized
            processes for construction in progress, real property
            acceptance, and workplace hazard communication.
             Completion of standardized requirements for the
            management of regulatory and chemical hazardous materials
            information. This success allows the Defense Logistics Agency
            to serve the entire Department with standardized regulatory
            information on hazardous materials from a central repository of
            authoritative data. As the Services use this information in
            their business processes, DOD will realize cost savings, and
            more importantly, improve operational control of mission
            activities involving hazardous materials.
             The funding of a pilot to utilize geospatial
            information systems and RPIR processes to determine official
            DOD boundaries for land parcels. The pilot also supports
            mapping any known environmental liabilities as outlined in the
            new Environmental Liabilities requirements. This pilot will
            enable DOD to reap many benefits as accurate geospatial
            information will be easily available and no longer isolated in
            the real property community.
             The development of Spatial Data Standards for
            Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE). Precision
            and speed are no longer unique qualifiers of the operational
            community alone. DOD is applying these drivers to core business
            mission areas as well. Fundamental to total asset management is
            knowing exactly where an asset is geographically located. The
            SDSFIE will ensure a level of accuracy and consistency never
            before seen as the Department geospatially enables its business
            areas.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
    opportunity to highlight the Department's successes and outline its
    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 these plans into actions.

        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Grone, for keeping
    it brief.
        Secretary Eastin.

     STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
                  ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT

        Mr. Eastin. Thank you. I will try to be even briefer.
        The Army brings to you this year a rather ambitious program
    and it is ambitious only because we have a lot going on there.
    We are in the midst of transforming our Army from a division-
    centric to a brigade-centric force that can be more reactive to
    world situations. We are involved in the BRAC procedures. We
    are involved in bringing back some of our soldiers from Korea
    and bringing back some likely from Germany. Then on top of
    that, the President has asked us to try to grow the Army, both
    the Active, Reserve, and Guard components.
        So we have a lot going on. In the BRAC realignment itself
    we are looking at something like 45,000 people moving about
    installations, here and there, between military and civilians.
    Global Defense Posture Review (GDPR), you may recall, brings
    back people from Korea and Germany, is another 50,000. All
    these people need places to stay, need places to train, and
    need places to raise their families.
        Add to that the growth of the Army, give or take 74,000
    (65,000 Active, 8,200 Guard, and 1,000 Reserve) here in the
    next 5 years. They too need places to stay, places to train,
    places to deploy from, and the installations to go along with
    it.
        We are under no illusions that this is not just a heck of a
    lot of money, but it also is a heck of a lot of jobs that we
    have in front of us to make this all work. So we look forward
    to answering your questions today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]

                   Prepared Statement by Hon. Keith E. Eastin

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. 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 2008. We have a robust budget that is crucial
    to the success of the Army's new initiatives and sustains vital,
    ongoing programs of critical importance to the Army. We appreciate the
    opportunity to report on them to you. We would like to start by
    thanking you for your unwavering support to our soldiers and their
    families serving our Nation around the world. They are and will
    continue to be the centerpiece of our Army, and they could not perform
    their missions so successfully without your steadfast support.

         OVERVIEW--TRANSFORMING INSTALLATIONS WHILE THE ARMY IS AT WAR

        Installations are the home of combat power--a critical component of
    the Nation's force capabilities. Your Army is working hard to ensure
    that we deliver cost-effective, safe, and environmentally sound
    capabilities and capacities to support the National defense mission.
        The tremendous changes in our National security environment since
    the terrorist attacks on our Nation clearly underscore the need for a
    joint, integrated military force ready to defeat all threats to U.S.
    interests. To meet these security challenges, we require interrelated
    strategies centered on people, forces, quality of life, and
    infrastructure. Regarding infrastructure, we need a global framework of
    Army installations, facilities, ranges, airfields, and other critical
    assets that are properly distributed, efficient, and capable of
    ensuring that we can successfully carry out our assigned roles,
    missions, and tasks that safeguard our security at home and abroad.
        Army infrastructure must enable the force to fulfill its strategic
    roles and missions to generate and sustain combat power. As we
    transform our operational forces, so too must we transform the
    institutional Army and our installation infrastructure to ensure this
    combat power remains relevant and ready. We will accomplish these
    efforts by the combined stationing efforts of Base Realignment and
    Closure (BRAC) 2005, Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR), Army
    Modular Force Transformation, and the President's ``Grow the Force''
    initiative.
    Stationing
        The stationing initiative is a massive undertaking, requiring the
    synchronization of base realignments and closures, military
    construction and renovation, unit activations and deactivations, and
    the flow of forces to and from current global commitments. Our
    decisions to synchronize activities associated with stationing and
    realigning our global basing posture continue to be guided by the
    following key criteria:

             Meeting operational requirements
             Providing economic benefits
             Using existing infrastructure to reduce cost and
            excess capacity
             Funding critical requirements to achieve unit mission
             Compliance with applicable laws
             Minimizing the use of temporary facilities
             Giving facility priority to ranges, barracks, housing,
            vehicle maintenance shops, headquarters and operations, dining,
            and instruction facilities

        Completion of this combined set of initiatives will result in an
    Army that is better positioned to respond to the needs and requirements
    of the 21st century security environment, with our soldiers and
    families living at installations that are truly ``Flagships of Army
    Readiness.''
    Infrastructure Quality
        In addition to mission support, our installations provide the base
    of support for soldiers and their families. The environment in which
    our soldiers train, our civilians work, and our families live plays a
    key role in recruiting and retaining the high quality people the Army
    needs. Through efforts such as Barracks Modernization and Residential
    Communities Initiative (RCI) housing privatization, the Army has made
    tremendous progress in improving the quality of life for soldiers and
    their families. These efforts will combine with the Army's
    stabilization of the force to forge greater bonds between units,
    soldiers, families, and the communities in which they live.
        The quality of our installations is critical to support the Army's
    mission, its soldiers, and their families. Installations serve as the
    platforms we use to train, mobilize, and rapidly deploy military power.
    When forces return from deployments, installations enable us to
    efficiently reset and regenerate combat power for future missions. In
    the past year, the Army has made tremendous progress in enhancing
    training and improving its ability to generate and reset the force.
    Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR)
        The United States' global defense posture defines the size,
    location, types, and roles of military forces and capabilities. It
    represents our ability to project power and undertake military actions
    beyond our border. Together with our overall military force structure,
    our global defense posture enables the United States to assure allies,
    dissuade potential challengers, deter enemies, and, if necessary,
    defeat aggression. The new global defense posture will be adjusted to
    the new security environment in several key ways: (1) expand allied
    roles, build new partnerships, and encourage transformation; (2) create
    greater operational flexibility to contend with uncertainty; (3) focus
    and act both within and across various regions of the world; and (4)
    develop rapidly deployable capabilities, and lastly, the United States
    and its allies and partners will work from a different paradigm than in
    the past: GDPR will relocate approximately 45,500 soldiers and their
    families from Europe and Korea to the United States over the next 5 to
    6 years. These moves are critical to ensure Army forces are properly
    positioned worldwide to support our National Military Strategy. The new
    posture will yield significant gains in military effectiveness and
    efficiency in future conflicts and crises and will enable the U.S.
    military to fulfill its many global roles. The new posture will also
    have a positive effect on our military forces and families. While we
    will be moving toward a more rotational and unaccompanied forward
    presence, these rotations will be balanced by more stability at home
    with fewer overseas moves and less disruption in the lives of spouses
    and dependents.
    Army Modular Force
        The Army Modular Force initiative transforms the Army from units
    based on the division organization into a more powerful, adaptable
    force built on self-sufficient, brigade-based units that are rapidly
    deployable. These units, known as Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), consist
    of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. BCTs increase the Army's combat power while
    meeting the demands of global requirements without the overhead and
    support previously provided by higher commands. The main effort of Army
    transformation is the Army Modular Force, which reorganizes the Total
    Army: the active component, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve into
    modular theater armies, theater support structure, corps and division
    headquarters, BCTs, and multi-functional and functional support
    brigades. The Army is reorganizing from a division-based to a modular
    brigade-based force to achieve three primary goals:
        First, increase the number of available BCTs to meet operational
    requirements while maintaining combat effectiveness equal to or better
    than previous divisional brigades. Second, create brigade-size combat
    support and combat service support formations of common organizational
    designs that can be easily tailored to meet the varied demands of the
    geographic combatant commanders and reduce the complexities of joint
    planning and execution. Third, redesign organizations to perform as
    integral parts of the joint force, making them more effective across
    the range of military operations and enhancing their ability to
    contribute to joint, interagency, and multinational efforts. By
    implementing the Army Modular Force, the Army is transforming to be
    better prepared to meet the challenges of the new security environment
    characterized by continuous full-spectrum operations against adaptive
    enemies in complex environments.
        The fiscal year 2008 budget includes projects to ensure that our
    facilities continue to meet the demands of force structure, weapons
    systems, and doctrinal requirements. As of fiscal year 2006, we have
    funded 93 percent of the military construction requirements for the
    Stryker BCTs, including Army National Guard requirements in
    Pennsylvania. Remaining construction funding for both the Active Army
    and Army National Guard will be requested in future budget requests.
        New facility requirements for transforming units are being
    provided, where feasible, through the use of existing assets. Where
    existing assets are not available, the Army is programming high-
    priority projects to support soldiers where they live and work. The
    Army is requesting $414 million for fiscal year 2008 to provide
    permanent facilities in support of the BCTs. The remaining Army Modular
    Force requirements will be addressed in future budget requests.
    Grow the Army
        The President's recent Grow the Force initiative announced on
    January 10, 2007, will increase the Army by 74,000 soldiers over the
    next 5 years. Part of this year's request, $2.363 billion, supports
    this initiative. Grow the Army projects include essential facilities
    required to support the increase in end strength such as brigade
    complexes and associated combat support, combat service support,
    training, and quality of life facilities worldwide. Funding is
    requested for planning and design and military construction projects in
    the active Army, Army National Guard, and for Army Family Housing.
    Details for these projects will be provided separately.

                                 THE WAY AHEAD

        To improve the Army's facilities posture, we have undertaken
    specific initiatives or budget strategies to focus our resources on the
    most important areas--Range and Training Lands, Barracks, Family
    Housing, and Workplaces.
        Range and Training Lands. Ranges and training lands enable our Army
    to train and develop its full capabilities to ensure our soldiers are
    fully prepared for the challenges they will face. Our Army Range and
    Training Land Strategy supports Army transformation and the Army's
    Sustainable Range Program. The Strategy identifies priorities for
    installations requiring resources to modernize ranges, mitigate
    encroachment, and acquire training land.
        Barracks. Providing safe, quality housing is a crucial commitment
    the Army has made to its soldiers. We owe single soldiers the same
    quality housing that is provided to married soldiers. Modern barracks
    are shown to significantly increase morale, which positively impacts
    readiness and quality of life. The importance of providing quality
    housing for single soldiers is paramount to success on the battlefield.
    The Army is in the 15th year of its campaign to modernize barracks to
    provide 134,500 single enlisted permanent party soldiers with quality
    living environments. The new complexes meet DOD ``1+1'' or equivalent
    standard by providing two-soldier suites, increased personal privacy,
    larger rooms with walk-in closets, new furnishings, adequate parking,
    landscaping, and unit administrative offices separated from the
    barracks.
        Family Housing. This year's budget continues our significant
    investment in our soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to
    have contracts and funding in place to eliminate remaining inadequate
    housing at enduring overseas installations by the end of fiscal year
    2009. The U.S. inadequate inventory was funded for elimination by the
    end of fiscal year 2007 through privatization, conventional military
    construction, demolition, divestiture of uneconomical or excess units
    and reliance on off-post housing. For families living off post, the
    budget for military personnel maintains the basic allowance for housing
    that eliminates out of pocket expenses.
        Workplaces. Building on the successes of our family housing and
    barracks programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of
    Army infrastructure by focusing on revitalization of our workplaces.
    Projects in this year's budget will address requirements for
    operational, administration, instructional, and maintenance facilities.
    These projects support and improve our installations and facilities to
    ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet
    its national security mission.
    Leveraging Resources
        Complementary to these budget strategies, the Army also seeks to
    leverage scarce resources and reduce our requirements for facilities
    and real property assets. Privatization initiatives such as RCI,
    utilities privatization, and build-to-lease family housing in Europe
    and Korea represent high-payoff programs which have substantially
    reduced our dependence on investment funding. We also benefit from
    agreements with Japan, Korea, and Germany where the Army receives host
    nation funded construction.
        In addition, Congress has provided valuable authorities to utilize
    the value of our non-excess inventory under the Enhanced Use Leasing
    program and to exchange facilities in high-cost areas for new
    facilities in other locations under the Real Property Exchange program.
    In both cases, we can capitalize on the value of our existing assets to
    reduce unfinanced facilities requirements.
        The Army is transforming military construction by placing greater
    emphasis on installation master planning and standardization of
    facilities as well as planning, programming, designing, acquisition,
    and construction processes. Looking toward the immediate future, we are
    aggressively reviewing our construction standards and processes to
    align with industry innovations and best practices. In doing so, we
    expect to deliver quality facilities at lower costs while meeting our
    requirements more expeditiously. By encouraging the use of manufactured
    building solutions and other cost-effective, efficient processes, the
    Army will encourage nontraditional builders to compete. Small business
    opportunities and set-aside programs will be addressed, as well as
    incentives for good performance. Work of a repetitive nature coupled
    with a continuous building program will provide the building blocks for
    gaining efficiencies in time and cost.

                                                  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Authorization of
              Military Construction Appropriation              Authorization      Appropriations     Appropriation
                                                                  Request            Request            Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Military Construction Army (MCA).......................     $3,385,329,000     $4,039,197,000     $4.039,197,000
    Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG).......                N/A        404,291,000        4O4,291,000
    Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR)..............                N/A        119,604,000        119,684,000
    Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)................        419,400,000        419,400,000        419,400,000
    Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO)..................        742,920,000        743,920,000        742,920,000
    BRAC 95 (BCA)..........................................         73,716,000         73,716,000         73,716,000
    BRAC 2005 (BCA)........................................      4,015,746,000      4,015,746,000      4,015,746,000
    Global War on Terrorism MCA............................        730,850,000        738,850,000        738,850,000
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
      Total................................................     $9,375,961,000    $10,553,804,000    $10,553,804,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Army's fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $10.6 billion
    for Military Construction appropriations and associated new
    authorizations, Army Family Housing, and BRAC.

                       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)

        The Active Army fiscal year 2008 Military Construction budget
    request is $3,385,329,000 for authorization and $4,039,197,000 for
    authorization of appropriations and appropriation, including
    $1,608,129,000 for Grow the Army. This year's projects support the
    infrastructure necessary to ensure continued soldier readiness and
    family well-being.
        Soldiers as our Centerpiece Projects. The well-being of our
    soldiers, civilians, and families is inextricably linked to the Army's
    readiness. We are requesting $590 million of our MCA budget for
    projects to improve soldier well-being in significant ways.
        The Army continues to modernize and construct barracks to provide
    enlisted single soldiers with quality living environments. This year's
    budget request includes 14 barracks projects to provide improved
    housing for 3,703 soldiers and new barracks in support of major
    stationing moves as we recast the footprint of the Army. With the
    approval of $1,392 million for new barracks in this budget, 82 percent
    of our requirement will be funded at the ``1+1'' or equivalent
    standard.
        We are requesting the third increment of funding, $47.4 million,
    for the previously approved, incrementally funded, multiple-phased
    barracks complex at Fort Bragg, NC. In addition, we are requesting the
    second increment of funding, $102 million, for the brigade complex at
    Fort Lewis, WA. We will award the complex as a single contract to gain
    cost efficiencies, expedite construction, and provide uniformity in
    like facility types. The budget also includes a $175 million for two
    training barracks complexes at Fort Benning, GA; and another at Fort
    Bragg, NC, which will house 2,580 training soldiers.
        Overseas Construction. Included in this budget request is $382
    million in support of high-priority overseas projects. In Germany, we
    continue our consolidation of units to Grafenwoehr as part of our
    Efficient Basing--Grafenwoehr initiative. This allows us to close
    numerous installations as forces relocate to the U.S. and within Europe
    reducing base support requirements and enhancing soldier training. In
    Korea, we are again requesting funds to further our relocation of
    forces on the peninsula. This action is consistent with the Land
    Partnership Plan agreements entered into by the U.S. and Republic of
    Korea Ministry of Defense. Our request for funds in Italy is GDPR
    related and relocates forces from Germany to Vicenza to create a full
    Airborne BCT as part of the Army's transformation to a modular force.
    The Airborne BCT complex also includes new barracks to house 513
    soldiers. Additional locations in Germany will close as construction is
    completed.
        Mission and Training Projects. Projects in our fiscal year 2008
    budget will provide maintenance facilities, brigade complexes and
    headquarters, operational and administration facilities, and training
    ranges. These projects support and improve our installations and
    facilities to ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to
    respond to meet our National Security mission. The budget request also
    includes two overseas Forward Operating Site base camps for $74 million
    that will provide a brigade (minus)-sized operational facility to
    support rotational training, allow for increased U.S. partnership
    training, and promote new military to military relationships.
        We will also construct a battle command training center and
    simulations training facility, urban operations terrain, urban assault
    course, modified record firing ranges, and digital multipurpose
    training ranges. These facilities will provide our soldiers realistic,
    state-of-the-art live-fire training. We are requesting a total of $177
    million for these high-priority projects. We are also requesting
    funding of $22.3 million for two defense access roads.
        Army Modular Force Projects. Our budget continues support of the
    transformation of the Army to a modern, strategically responsive force
    and contains $315 million for three brigade complexes and other
    facilities. The new barracks will house 1,156 soldiers in support of
    the Army Modular Force.
        Southern Command Headquarters Project. Our budget supports a new
    consolidated headquarters building with other support facilities. Our
    budget request contains $237 million for the new facilities that will
    replace multiple leased facilities scattered throughout the Miami, FL,
    metropolitan area. The new consolidated building will support over
    2,800 Active, Reserve, and civilian personnel whose mission is to
    achieve U.S. strategic objectives within their area of responsibility
    which spans 32 countries.
        Global War on Terrorism Projects. The budget request also includes
    $738.8 million for 33 critical construction projects in Iraq and
    Afghanistan to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom
    including $19.4 million for planning and design. These funds will
    provide force protection, airfield facilities, operational facilities,
    support facilities, fuel handling and storage, and roads.
        Other Support Programs. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $481
    million for planning and design of future projects, including $383
    million to Grow the Army. As executive agent, we also provide oversight
    of design and construction for projects funded by host nations. The
    fiscal year 2008 budget requests $23 million for oversight of
    approximately $800 million of host nation funded construction for all
    Services in Japan, Korea, and Europe.
        The budget request also contains $23 million for unspecified minor
    construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
    requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.

                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

        The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2008 Military Construction
    request for $404,291,000 for appropriation and authorization of
    appropriations, including $77 million for Grow the Army, is focused on
    current readiness, transformation, other support, and unspecified
    programs.
        Current Readiness. In fiscal year 2008, the Army National Guard is
    requesting $36.9 million for four projects to support current
    readiness. These funds will provide the facilities our soldiers require
    as they train, mobilize, and deploy. Included are one logistics
    building and three readiness centers.
        Army Modular Force. The Army National Guard is also requesting
    $237.8 million for 28 projects in support of new missions. There are 13
    projects for the Stryker BCT initiative, 4 for the Army Division
    Redesign Study, 8 range projects to support the Army Range and Training
    Land Strategy, and 3 Aviation Transformation projects to provide
    facilities for modernized aircraft and change unit structure.
        Other Support Programs. The fiscal year 2008 Army National Guard
    budget also contains $43.8 million for planning and design (including
    $17 million for Grow the Army) of future projects and $8.7 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

        The Army Reserve fiscal year 2008 Military Construction request for
    $119,684,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is
    for Current Readiness, other support, and unspecified programs.
        Current Readiness. In fiscal year 2008, the Army Reserve will
    invest $73.2 million to build five new Army Reserve Centers, $17
    million for a combined maintenance facility, and $8.5 million to
    construct a regional medical training facility--for a total facility
    investment of $98.7 million. Construction of the five Reserve centers
    will support over 1,700 Army Reserve soldiers and civilian personnel.
    In addition, the Army Reserve will invest $7.0 million to construct a
    training range and a training range support facility, which will be
    available for joint use by all Army components and military services.
        Other Unspecified Programs. The fiscal year 2008 Army Reserve
    budget request includes $10.9 million for planning and design for
    future year projects and $3.0 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 2008 family housing request is $419,400,000
    for authorization, authorization of appropriation, and appropriation,
    including $266 million for Grow the Army. It continues the successful
    Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative approved by Congress in
    fiscal year 1992 and our RCI program.
        The fiscal year 2008 new construction program provides a whole
    neighborhood replacement project at Ansbach, Germany, in support of 138
    families for $52.0 million using traditional military construction.
        The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our
    housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2008,
    we are requesting $266.0 million in support of Grow the Army, as well
    as $99.4 million for direct equity investment in support of the
    privatization of 3,998 homes at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Fort Sill,
    Oklahoma, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
        In fiscal year 2008, we are also requesting $2.0 million for
    planning and design for future family housing construction projects
    critically needed for our soldiers.
        Privatization. RCI, the Army's housing privatization program, is
    providing quality housing that soldiers and their families can proudly
    call home. The Army is leveraging appropriated funds and existing
    housing by engaging in 50-year partnerships with nationally recognized
    private real estate development, property management, and home builder
    firms to construct, renovate, repair, maintain, and operate housing
    communities.
        The RCI program will include 45 locations, with a projected end
    state of over 86,000 homes--99 percent of the on-post family housing
    inventory in the U.S. To date, the Army has privatized 35 locations,
    with almost 75,000 homes. Initial construction and renovation at these
    35 installations is estimated at $9.8 billion over a 3 to 10 year
    development period, of which the Army has contributed about $0.8
    billion. Although most projects are in the early phases of their
    initial development, since 2001 our partners have constructed 8,613 new
    homes, and renovated 8,415 homes. The fiscal year 2008 budget request
    of $99.4 million will allow the Army to expand the portfolio of
    privatized family housing to three additional installations.

                     ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS (AFHO)

        The Army's fiscal year 2008 Family Housing Operations request is
    $742,920,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations),
    which is approximately 64 percent of the total family housing budget.
    This account 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 ($139 million). The operations account includes four
    subaccounts: management, services, furnishings, and a small
    miscellaneous account. All operations subaccounts are considered ``must
    pay accounts'' based on actual bills that must be paid to manage and
    operate family housing.
        Utilities ($145 million). The utilities account includes the costs
    of delivering heat, air conditioning, electricity, water, and
    wastewater support 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 ($216 million). The maintenance and repair
    account supports annual recurring projects to maintain and revitalize
    family housing real property assets. Since most family housing
    operational expenses are fixed, maintenance and repair is the account
    most affected by budget changes. Funding reductions result in slippage
    of maintenance projects that adversely impact soldier and family
    quality of life.
        Leasing ($206 million). The leasing program provides another way of
    adequately housing our military families. The fiscal year 2008 budget
    includes funding for 11,836 housing units, including 3,680 existing
    Section 2835 (``build-to-lease''--formerly known as 801 leases) project
    requirements, 1,907 temporary domestic leases in the United States, and
    6,249 foreign units.
        Privatization ($37 million). The privatization account provides
    operating funds for implementation and oversight of privatized military
    family housing in the RCI program. RCI costs include selection of
    private sector partners, environmental studies, real estate surveys,
    and consultants. These funds support the preparation and execution of
    partnership agreements and development plans, and oversight to monitor
    compliance and performance of the privatized housing portfolio.

                      BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

        The Army is requesting $4,015,746,000 for BRAC 2005 which is
    critical to the success of the Army's new initiatives, and $73,716,000
    for legacy BRAC to sustain vital, ongoing programs. All BRAC activity
    takes place within the context of achieving the Army's goals of winning
    the global war on terrorism, transforming from a division-structured,
    forward-deployed force to one comprised of agile BCTs stationed on U.S.
    soil and growing the Army in a manner that maintains the Army's ability
    to win decisively any time, any where.
        BRAC 2005 is carefully integrated with the Defense and Army
    programs of GDPR, Army Modular Force, and Grow the Army. Collectively,
    these initiatives allow the Army to focus its resources on
    installations that provide the best military value, supporting improved
    responsiveness and readiness of units. The elimination of Cold War era
    infrastructure and the implementation of modern technology to
    consolidate activities frees up financial and human resources to allow
    the Army to better focus on its core war fighting mission. These
    initiatives are a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization of
    base closures, realignments, military construction and renovation, unit
    activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from
    current global commitments. If done efficiently, the end results will
    yield tremendous savings over time, while positioning forces, logistics
    activities, and power projection platforms to efficiently and
    effectively respond to the needs of the Nation.
        As an essential component of Army transformation, BRAC 2005
    decisions optimize infrastructure to support the Army's current and
    future force requirements. Under BRAC 2005, the Army will close 13
    Active component installations, 387 Reserve component installations and
    8 leased facilities. BRAC 2005 realigns 53 installations and/or
    functions and establishes Training Centers of Excellence, Joint Bases,
    a Human Resources Center of Excellence, and Joint Technical and
    Research facilities. To accommodate the units relocating from the
    closing Reserve component installations, BRAC 2005 creates 125 multi-
    component Armed Forces Reserve centers and realigns the Army Reserve
    command and control structure. By implementing BRAC 2005 decisions, the
    active Army will maintain sufficient surge capabilities to expand to 48
    maneuver brigades and handle increased production, training, and
    operational demands now and in the future. BRAC 2005 better postures
    the Army for an increase in end strength by facilitating the Army's
    transformation to a modular force and revitalizing and modernizing the
    institutional Army through consolidation of schools and centers.
        In total, over 150,000 soldiers and civilian employees will
    relocate as BRAC is implemented over the next 5 years. The over 1,300
    discrete actions required for the Army to successfully implement BRAC
    2005 are far more extensive than all four previous BRAC rounds combined
    and are expected to create significant recurring annual savings. BRAC
    2005 will enable the Army to become a more capable expeditionary force
    as a member of the joint team while enhancing the well-being of our
    soldiers, civilians, and family members living, working, and training
    on our installations.
    BRAC 2005 Implementation Strategy
        The Army has an aggressive, carefully synchronized, fully
    resourced, BRAC fiscal years 2006-2011 implementation plan, designed to
    meet the September 2011 deadline, while supporting our National
    security priorities. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    requirements necessary to support our implementation plan were
    initiated in fiscal year 2006 to enable the early award of essential
    construction projects. Our BRAC construction plan is fully coordinated
    and carefully synchronized to support our overall strategy for re-
    stationing, realigning, and closing installations while continuing to
    fully support ongoing missions and transformation initiatives. This
    construction plan identifies requirements, defines scope, and considers
    existing installation capacity and infrastructure needs. It is an
    extremely complex plan that manages numerous construction projects, re-
    stationing actions, BRAC moves, and deployment timelines to allow the
    Army to implement the BRAC statute while supporting critical missions
    worldwide.
        Seventy-five percent of all required construction projects are
    planned for award by the end of fiscal year 2009, and 100 percent by
    the end of fiscal year 2010. This will enable the major movement of
    units and personnel in fiscal years 2010 and 2011, with expected
    completion by the mandated BRAC 2005 deadline.
        In fiscal year 2006 the Army awarded 11 BRAC military construction
    projects to support restationing and realignments, including: three
    projects to support GDPR; two incremental projects for BCTs, and five
    Armed Forces Reserve Centers, totaling over $788 million. In fiscal
    year 2007, the Army plans to award and start construction on 75
    projects: 23 projects to support GDPR; 27 Reserve component projects in
    14 States, and 25 other Active component projects estimated to cost
    over $3.3 billion, including planning and design for fiscal year 2008
    and 2009 projects. This will lay the foundation for follow-on projects,
    and in earnest, start the implementation of our synchronized
    construction program.
        As signed into law, the Revised Continuing Appropriations
    Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5) does not allow us to accomplish our
    fiscal year 2007 BRAC construction and threatens to derail our
    carefully integrated implementation plan. The Appropriation provides
    less than half of the total BRAC funds requested, creating a shortfall
    of approximately $2 billion for the Army. If the Army program is not
    fully funded, we will be significantly challenged to execute BRAC as
    intended. Construction of required facilities will be delayed, and the
    resulting impact will cascade through our restationing, transformation,
    and growth plans for years to come.
    BRAC 2005 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
        The Army's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $4,015,746,000 will
    continue to fund both BRAC and GDPR actions necessary to comply with
    BRAC 2005 Law. The Army plans to award and begin construction of 89
    military construction projects, plus planning and design for fiscal
    year 2009 and 2010 projects. This is estimated to cost $3,241,521,000
    and includes: 16 additional GDPR projects, 31 Army National Guard and
    Army Reserve projects, and an additional 42 Active component projects.
        A significant portion of the Army's BRAC request supports the
    transformation and restationing of the operational force. BRAC military
    construction projects support major realignments of forces returning to
    the United States from Europe, as well as several stateside
    relocations. The fiscal year 2008 budget request also funds projects
    supporting Reserve component transformation in 19 States. This is a
    healthy start to addressing BRAC 2005 recommendations impacting the
    Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
        The BRAC budget request will also fund furnishings for 86 BRAC
    projects awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 as the buildings reach
    completion and occupancy. The request also funds movement of personnel,
    ammunition, and equipment associated with 25 BRAC Commission
    Recommendations.
        The Army will continue to procure investment type equipment in
    fiscal year 2008 in support of our BRAC military construction program
    as part of the ``other procurement'' budget line. This equipment
    exceeds the investment and expense unit cost threshold of $250,000 each
    and includes information technology infrastructure and equipment for
    the 86 previously awarded BRAC projects, which will be impacted if
    fiscal year 2007 funding is not fully restored.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Army will initiate environmental closure
    and cleanup actions at 14 BRAC properties. These activities will
    continue efforts previously ongoing under the Army Installation
    restoration program and will ultimately support future property
    transfer actions. The budget request for environmental programs is
    $86,756,000, which includes Munitions and Explosives of Concern and
    Hazardous and Toxic Waste restoration activities.
    Prior BRAC
        Since Congress established the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
    Commission in 1990, the Department of Defense has successfully executed
    four rounds of base closures to reduce and align the military's
    infrastructure to the current security environment and force structure.
    As a result, the Army estimates approximately $11.7 billion in savings
    through 2007--nearly $1 billion in recurring, annual savings from prior
    BRAC rounds.
        The Army is requesting $73.7 million in fiscal year 2008 for prior
    BRAC rounds ($3.4 million to fund caretaking operations of remaining
    properties and $70.3 million for environmental restoration) to address
    environmental restoration efforts at 147 sites at 14 prior BRAC
    installations. To date, the Army has spent $2.7 billion on BRAC
    environmental restoration for installations impacted by the previous
    four BRAC rounds. We disposed of 235,361 acres (89 percent of the total
    acreage disposal requirement of 258,607 acres), with 23,246 acres
    remaining.

                           OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

        The Army's fiscal year 2008 Operation and Maintenance budget
    includes $2.740 billion in funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and
    Modernization (S/RM) and $8.133 billion in funding for Base Operations
    Support (BOS). The S/RM and BOS accounts are inextricably linked with
    our military construction programs to successfully support our
    installations. The Army has centralized the management of its
    installations assets under the Installation Management Command to best
    utilize this funding.
        Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization. S/RM provides funding
    for the active and Reserve components to prevent deterioration and
    obsolescence and restore the readiness of facilities on our
    installations.
        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 mobilization and deployment platforms of America's
    Army and must be properly maintained to be ready to support current
    missions and future deployments.
        The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is
    recapitalization by restoring and modernizing our existing facility
    assets. 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. This account funds programs to operate the
    bases, installations, camps, posts, and stations for the Army
    worldwide. The program includes municipal services, government civilian
    employee salaries, 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 services that directly
    impact soldier readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to
    military life during peacetime and through all phases of mobilization,
    deployment, and demobilization.

                                    SUMMARY

        Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2008 Military Construction and BRAC
    budget requests are balanced programs that support our soldiers and
    their families, the global war on terrorism, Army transformation,
    readiness, and DOD installation strategy goals. We are proud to present
    this budget for your consideration because of what this budget will
    provide for our Army:

             138 homes replaced or renovated
             3,998 additional homes privatized
             Approximately 42,600 government-owned and leased homes
            operated and sustained at the end of fiscal year 2008
             Portfolio management of 78,426 privatized homes
             33 projects in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and
            Enduring Freedom
             9,461 soldiers get new barracks
             $254 million in Training Ranges
             $6.1 billion invested in Soldier/Family Readiness
             $2,363 million to Grow the Army

        Base Realignment and Closure:

             Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC
             89 Military Construction projects
             Planning and Design for fiscal years 2009-2010
            Projects
             Remaining NEPA for BRAC 2005 actions
             Continued Environmental Restoration of 23,246 acres

        Army National Guard:

             Improved Readiness Centers and an Armed Forces Reserve
            Center
             Completion of eight range projects
             Continued support of our Stryker BCT
             Three Aviation Transformation projects
             Three maintenance facilities

        Army Reserve:

             Medical personnel get new training facility
             New combined maintenance facility
             New live-fire training range facility
             1,743 soldiers get new Reserve centers
             Center of gravity for Army Reserve families

        Base Operations Support:

             Goal is to meet essential needs for all BOS programs:
            Base Operations, Family, Environmental Quality, Force
            Protection, Base Communications, and Audio/Visual.

        Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization:

             Funds Sustainment at 86 percent of the Office of the
            Secretary of Defense requirement, with plans to achieve 90
            percent of the requirement through efficiencies.

        Our long-term strategies for installations 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 Army and Defense transformation goals.
        In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
    appear before you today and for your continued support for America's
    Army.

        Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn?

     STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
                     INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT

        Mr. Penn. Chairman Akaka and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the
    Navy installations and environmental efforts. I would like to
    briefly highlight a few topics that are discussed in more
    detail in my written statement.
        I am pleased to report a very substantial increase in the
    investment for installations and environment programs in this
    budget. We are asking for a total of $11.5 billion in fiscal
    year 2008, which is an increase of $1.8 billion above last
    year's request. I appreciate the efforts by Congress to restore
    $3.1 billion for BRAC 2005 implementation in the fiscal year
    2007 supplement. The funds are critical to allow us to stay on
    track and attain the attendant operational efficiencies while
    maximizing further turbulence in the future of our personnel
    and communities affected by BRAC '05.
        We continue to finance our prior BRAC environmental cleanup
    and property disposal from the sale of prior BRAC property. We
    have budgeted to spend the last of the $1.1 billion in land
    sale revenue in fiscal year 2008, while our cost to complete
    environmental cleanup on all remaining prior BRAC property has
    increased by $725 million since last year. Most of the increase
    is due to recognition last year of substantial low-level
    radioactive contamination at the former Hunters Point Naval
    Shipyard in San Francisco. The low-level radioactive material
    is buried underground, undetectable on the surface, and poses
    no risk to humans, if left undisturbed. We are working this
    issue with the city, the regulators, and the congressional
    delegation.
        I commend the Marine Corps for its commitment to eliminate
    by 2012 its barracks shortfall for enlisted marines for their
    current approved 175,000 end strength. The budget includes $282
    million for 10 barracks projects at 7 Marine Corps locations.
    The budget also includes about $950 million across the baseline
    and supplemental budgets for a mix of facilities to grow the
    Marine Corps permanent end strength to 202,000 by 2011. This
    initiative, which is separate from the current operations in
    Iraq and Afghanistan, will allow the Marine Corps to reduce the
    strain on individual marines by establishing a more stable
    deployment-to-dwell ratio and enhanced irregular warfare
    capabilities.
        Both the Navy and Marine Corps continue the family housing
    privatization efforts. Our investment of less than $600 million
    has attracted over $6.6 billion in private sector capital to
    eliminate inadequate homes for our sailors and marines with
    families. The Navy is successfully applying privatization to
    improve housing for unaccompanied sailors. The Navy signed the
    first DOD barracks privatization contracts in December 2006.
    Located in San Diego, the project will provide 941 new two-
    bedroom, two-bathroom apartments and privatize an existing
    building. Construction will be completed in 2009. The Navy is
    in exclusive negotiations with a developer for a second
    barracks privatization project in Norfolk.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Penn follows:]

                      Prepared Statement by Hon. B.J. Penn

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you today to provide an overview of the Department of Navy's
    (DoN) shore infrastructure.

                      THE NAVY'S INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES

        The DoN's shore infrastructure is where we train and equip the
    world's finest sailors and marines, while developing the most
    sophisticated weapons and technologies. The DoN manages a shore
    infrastructure with a plant replacement value of $187 billion on 4.5
    million acres. Our fiscal year 2008 shore infrastructure baseline
    budget totals $11.5 billion, representing about 8 percent of the DoN's
    fiscal year 2008 baseline request of $139 billion. There is an
    additional $410 million for facilities in the fiscal year 2007 global
    war on terror supplemental, and $169 million in the fiscal year 2008
    global war on terror request. Together, that represents a $1.8 billion
    increase compared to the fiscal year 2007 request of $10.3 billion.
        The Base Operating Support (BOS) request of $5.6 billion, excluding
    environmental, comprises the largest portion of the Navy's facilities
    budget request. This account funds the daily operations of a shore
    facility, e.g., utilities, fire and emergency services; air and port
    operations; community support services; and custodial costs.

        Our fiscal year 2008 request of $5.6 billion for BOS reflects a
    $558 million increase from the enacted fiscal year 2007 level. The Navy
    increase of $356 million and Marine Corps increase of $202 million will
    return capability levels to those executed in fiscal year 2005,
    restoring reductions taken during fiscal year 2007 that are
    unsustainable, particularly in the area of information technology and
    counterterrorism and security guards as we substitute civilian and
    contract personnel in place of military personnel.
        The fiscal year 2008 military construction (MILCON) (Active +
    Reserve) baseline request of $2.2 billion is $992 million more than the
    enacted fiscal year 2007 level of $1.2 billion. The fiscal year 2008
    request includes $59 million for Navy and Marine Corps Reserve
    construction efforts. This level of funding supports traditional
    recapitalization projects for the existing infrastructure. It also
    provides facilities for 15 new Navy weapon systems, new facilities for
    the Marine Corps' plan to Grow the Force from the current 175,000
    permanent end strength to 202,000 by 2011, and new barracks to ensure
    that all unaccompanied enlisted Marines are suitably housed by 2012.
        The fiscal year 2008 Family Housing baseline request of $670
    million is $140 million less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level of
    $810 million. Within this sum, there is $299 million for replacement
    family housing on Guam and Marine Corps privatization. Housing
    operations and maintenance funds decline to $371 million as government-
    owned worldwide inventory of 26,335 homes in fiscal year 2007 falls by
    15,481 homes to 10,854 homes in fiscal year 2008 due to privatization.
        Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM) includes MILCON
    and operation and maintenance funds. Our fiscal year 2008 request of
    $1.83 billion represents only the amount of S/RM funded with Operations
    and Maintenance, and is $133 million above the enacted fiscal year 2007
    level of $1.70 billion. Although fiscal year 2008 funding is 8 percent
    higher than fiscal year 2007, sustainment levels are lower because of
    inflation and an increase in modeled requirements.
        Our fiscal year 2008 request of $898 million for environmental
    programs at Active and Reserve bases is comprised of operating and
    investment appropriations. This amount is about the same as the fiscal
    year 2007 request.
        Our Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program consists of
    environmental cleanup and caretaker costs at prior BRAC locations, and
    implementation of BRAC 2005 recommendations.

             Our fiscal year 2008 prior BRAC program of $179
            million is $163 million below our fiscal year 2007 program of
            $342 million. The entire prior BRAC effort continues to be
            financed with revenue obtained from the sale of prior BRAC
            properties. We have not sought appropriated funds for prior
            BRAC since fiscal year 2005, however, the fiscal year 2008
            program depletes the remainder of the land sale revenue
            received in previous years from disposing prior BRAC property.
             The fiscal year 2008 budget of $733 million to
            implement the BRAC 2005 recommendations is $434 million above
            the amount allocated by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the
            DoN following the reduction enacted in the House Joint
            Resolution 20.
    Impact of House Joint Resolution 20
        The DOD has been proceeding with BRAC 05 implementation through
    most of fiscal year 2007 under a series of Continuing Resolutions
    (CRs). The enactment of the House Joint Resolution 20 on 15 February
    provided an annual DOD BRAC 05 appropriation, albeit at a substantial
    $3.1 billion reduction to the PB-07 $5.6 billion request. The DoN had
    received $66 million of the $690 million budget request under the CRs,
    with most of the funds provided in January. The duration of the CR, and
    the magnitude of the funding reduction, has severely complicated
    program execution.
        The BRAC 05 account is a DOD account. The Office of the Secretary
    of Defense has now allocated $297 million of the $2.5 billion
    appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2007 to the DoN, leaving us
    with a $398 million shortfall in fiscal year 2007. There is, however,
    no doubt that a 55 percent reduction from the President's fiscal year
    2007 budget request will create substantial turmoil in all of the
    Services and defense agency implementation plans and schedules. Our
    BRAC 05 design and construction projects represent 81 percent of the
    fiscal year 2007 (49 construction projects at 20 locations) and 69
    percent of the fiscal year 2008 request (29 construction projects at 18
    locations), so any reduction of funds in fiscal year 2007 will require
    that we defer numerous construction projects, causing a bow wave of
    construction projects into fiscal year 2008. This will require a
    wholesale review of fiscal year 2008 execution plans and schedules as
    we accommodate construction projects deferred from fiscal year 2007.
    Delaying closures and realignments also requires us to replace funds
    which had been taken as savings in the budget. Finally, it adds further
    uncertainty in the lives of our military, civilian, and contract
    employees as they ponder their future, and jeopardizes our ability to
    meet the September 2011 deadline to complete all closures and
    realignments.
        The President submitted an amended fiscal year 2007 request on 8
    March 2007 with accompanying offsets for $3.1 billion in additional
    BRAC 05 funds. I urge your support for the amended fiscal year 2007
    budget submitted to Congress.
        Here are some of the highlights and additional details on these
    programs.

                             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Military Construction Projects
        The DoN's fiscal year 2008 MILCON program requests appropriations
    of $2.1 billion including $110 million for planning and design and $10
    million for Unspecified Minor Construction. This fiscal year 2008
    baseline request is $975 million above, and nearly doubles, the fiscal
    year 2007 enacted level of $1.129 billion. The fiscal year 2008
    authorization request is $1.8 billion. This level of construction funds
    presents what I believe will be a substantial, long-term commitment for
    naval facilities.
        The Active Navy program totals $1,126 million and includes:

             $486 million for 15 construction projects supporting
            the fielding of new weapons system platforms or research
            facilities for future weapon systems. All construction projects
            are scheduled to finish building and outfitting the facility
            just-in-time to coincide with the arrival of the new platform
            and its planned initial operating capability. The new platforms
            include: LPD-17, T6-A, LCS, SSN-774, E2-D, JPALS, FA-18E/F, MH-
            60, MUOS, EA-18G, T-AKE, and D5 LE. One example of these new
            platforms is a $101.8 million extension to Kilo wharf in Guam
            to support the arrival of the new T-AKE class Combat Logistics
            Force ships in fiscal year 2010 that provide underway
            replenishment to Navy ships at sea, replacing the current T-AE
            and T-AFS class ships;
             $175 million to continue funding for six previously
            approved incrementally funded construction projects. An example
            is a $16.6 million recruit training center infrastructure
            upgrade at Naval Training Center Great Lakes IL. This project
            is the final phase of the infrastructure improvement effort at
            Great Lakes. In accordance with administration policy, there
            are no new incrementally funded construction projects in this
            budget request;
             $146 million for four other waterfront
            recapitalization projects not associated with new weapons
            systems. An example is a $91 million CVN maintenance pier
            replacement at Naval Base Kitsap, WA;
             $139 million for utilities infrastructure improvements
            to meet current mission and operational requirements at Naval
            Base Guam and Naval Support Activity Diego Garcia;
             $24 million for training projects at Naval Air Station
            Corpus Christi, TX and Naval Station Great Lakes, IL; and
             $22 million in three infrastructure improvement
            projects at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti in support of CENTCOM's
            forward operating base.

        The active Marine Corps program totals $1,037 million, including:

             $361 million for facilities to support the ``Grow the
            Force'' initiative, which I will discuss this in greater detail
            below;
             $282 million for 10 bachelor quarters at 7 locations
            including Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, and Marine Corps
            Air Station Yuma, CA;
             $167 million for 11 operations and training
            facilities, including an Infantry Squad Defense Range at Marine
            Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA, and 3 facilities for the Marine
            Corps Special Operations Command units at Camp Pendleton, CA,
            and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC;
             $52 million for two training facilities, including
            student quarters for the basic school at Marine Corps Base
            Quantico, VA;
             $32 million for three other quality of life projects,
            including a fitness center at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton,
            CA;
             $31 million for four maintenance projects including a
            jet engine test cell at Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC;
            and
             $13 million for infrastructure improvements including
            main gate improvements at the Blount Island Command, FL, and
            Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA.

        The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve MILCON appropriation request is
    $59.2 million, $16 million more than the enacted fiscal year 2007 level
    of $43 million. There are three Reserve centers at various locations
    and a Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit operation facility at Naval
    Station Everett WA.
    Marine Corps Grow the Force
        To meet the demands of the Long War and respond to inevitable
    worldwide crises that arise, the Marine Corps must be sufficiently
    manned in addition to being well-trained and properly equipped. A key
    objective is to establish a 1:2 deployment-to-dwell ratio for all
    Active component forces. This ratio relates how long our forces are
    deployed versus how long they are at home. The goal is for every 7
    months a marine is deployed, he will be back at his home station for 14
    months. Marine operating forces are routinely falling short of this
    target. To fix this imbalance, the President announced in January a
    need to increase the Marine Corps permanent end strength from 175,000
    to 202,000 by 2011, along with a larger increase for the Army. The
    Marine Corps growth will occur in stages, the first of which will build
    3 new infantry battalions and elements of their supporting structure of
    about 5,000 marines.
        The fiscal year 2008 baseline budget includes $4.3 billion for pay
    and allowances for the first increment of marines, MILCON and BOS for
    permanent barracks and operations centers, procurement of additional H-
    1 aircraft and increased aviation support, along with recruiting,
    training, equipment, and ammunition to bring units to full operational
    capability. The funding for infrastructure and facilities to initially
    support this initiative are in three separate budget documents now
    before Congress:

             The fiscal year 2007 supplemental includes $324
            million for planning & design, and eight MILCON projects;
             The fiscal year 2008 global war on terror includes
            $169 million for planning and design, 10 MILCON projects, and
            family housing privatization seed money for follow-on projects;
            and
             The fiscal year 2008 baseline budget includes $458
            million for planning and design, 20 MILCON projects including 2
            Wounded Warrior barracks, and additional family housing
            privatization seed money for follow-on projects.

        Because marines will begin to arrive before construction at many
    locations is complete, the Marine Corps is planning to lease, rent, or
    purchase temporary support facilities. Based on the composition of the
    additional units, we are determining the optimal permanent bed down
    locations for these units for future construction requirements.

                             FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

    Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)
        The DOD uses a sustainment model to calculate life cycle facility
    maintenance and repair costs. These models use industry-wide standard
    costs for various types of building and geographic areas and are
    updated annually. Sustainment funds in the Operation and Maintenance
    accounts are used to maintain facilities in their current condition.
    The funds also pay for preventative maintenance, emergency responses
    for minor repairs, and major repairs or replacement of facility
    components (e.g. roofs, heating, and cooling systems). Both the Navy
    and the Marine Corps have accepted more risk in facilities sustainment
    funding in fiscal year 2008 to fund higher priority requirements. With
    respect to the table, the Marine Corps moved additional funds to
    sustainment in fiscal year 2006 to restore reductions taken in fiscal
    year 2005. The Navy would require $240 million and the Marine Corps $64
    million to fund sustainment to the DOD goal of 100 percent of model
    requirements in fiscal year 2008.

        Restoration and modernization provides major upgrades of our
    facilities using MILCON, Operation and Maintenance, Navy Working
    Capital Fund, and Military Personnel funds. The DOD uses a ``recap''
    metric to gauge investment levels. The ``recap'' metric is calculated
    by dividing the plant replacement value by the annual investment of
    funds and is expressed in years. The DOD goal is to attain a 67-year
    rate by fiscal year 2008. This is a relatively coarse metric, as
    demonstrated by the dramatic improvement in execution as a result of
    funds from the fiscal year 2006 Hurricane Supplemental, which
    substantially improved only those bases affected by the storm. The Navy
    recap rate also benefits from MILCON included in BRAC 05
    implementation. We are working with the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense and the other components to develop a recap model similar to
    the Sustainment model, planned for release in the next budget cycle.
    Naval Safety
        The DoN has embraced the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), which seeks
    to foster a cooperative relationship between management, labor, and
    OSHA as a means to improve workplace safety. The VPP focuses on four
    major tenets: increased leadership and employee involvement in safety;
    effective worksite hazard analysis; a focus on hazard prevention and
    control; and effective safety and health training for employees. The
    DoN has achieved ``Star'' status, OSHA's highest level of achievement,
    at four sites representing over half of the VPP star sites in DOD. The
    naval activities include three naval shipyards, our largest industrial
    facilities. Statistical evidence for VPP's success is impressive. The
    average VPP worksite has a Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART)
    injury case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry,
    which is consistent with what we have seen.
    Joint basing
        The Office of the Secretary of Defense released a draft Joint Base
    Initial Implementation guidance on 31 January 2007 for coordination by
    the components. The Navy and Marine Corps have been working closely
    with the components for over a year in developing a common framework
    and standards to establish joint bases. The DoN supports the transfer
    of funding and real estate from the supported component to the
    supporting component for installation management functions, which will
    be the responsibility of the supporting component to provide at the
    joint base.
    Encroachment Partnering
        We are successfully applying the authority in the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to enter into agreements with
    State and local governments and eligible nongovernment organizations to
    address potential incompatible development near our installations and
    ranges, and to preserve nearby habitat to relieve current or
    anticipated environmental restrictions that might otherwise restrict
    military training, testing, or operations on the installation. Both the
    Navy and Marine Corps are using this authority to reduce or eliminate
    encroachment concerns. Through fiscal year 2006 DoN has protected
    nearly 16,000 acres near its installations under this program at a cost
    of $12.5 million while our partners have contributed $20.5 million. The
    DoN has also entered into several longer-term agreements under which we
    and our partners will seek additional encroachment buffering
    opportunities. Examples include:

             An agreement with Beaufort County, South Carolina
            under which we will share costs to acquire interests in the
            vicinity of Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort.
             An agreement with Churchill County, Nevada under which
            we will share costs to acquire interests in the vicinity of
            Naval Air Station Fallon.
    Energy
        The DoN is pursuing ways to meet the requirements of Executive
    Order 13423 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Central to this plan is
    our continued development of geothermal power plants. Navy has
    partnered with the renewable energy industry on a 270 MW geothermal
    plant at Naval Air Warfare Station China Lake, CA; awarded a geothermal
    power plant contract for Naval Air Station Fallon, NV; and is
    evaluating a project at Naval Facilities Engineering Center El Centro,
    CA. Other on-base renewable projects include photovoltaic, wind, wave
    and ocean thermal energy conversion projects. I issued a new DoN policy
    last fall requiring all new buildings to be built to a Leadership in
    Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver level.

                                    HOUSING

        Our fiscal year 2008 budget continues to improve living conditions
    for sailors, marines, and their families. We have programmed the
    necessary funds and expect to have contracts in place by the end of
    fiscal year 2007 to eliminate all inadequate family housing. Renovation
    and new construction will be completed such that sailors and marines
    are no longer occupying inadequate homes by fiscal year 2012. We
    continue to provide homes ashore for our junior shipboard unaccompanied
    sailors, to provide appropriate living spaces for our junior enlisted
    bachelor Marines, and to address longstanding family housing deficits.
    We have programmed the necessary funding to eliminate over 99 percent
    of the inadequate permanent party unaccompanied bachelor quarters (BQs)
    housing spaces still served by ``gang heads.'' As we near finishing
    privatizing existing military family housing, we are making tangible
    progress in applying that same privatization approach to meet our
    unaccompanied housing needs.

    Family Housing
        As in past years, 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 a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and
            own or rent homes in the community.
             Public/Private Ventures (PPVs). With the strong
            support from this committee and others, we have successfully
            used PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to partner with the
            private sector to help meet our housing needs through the use
            of private sector capital. These authorities allow us to
            leverage our own resources and provide better housing faster to
            our families. Maintaining the purchasing power of BAH is
            critical to the success of both privatized and private sector
            housing.
             MILCON. MILCON 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.

        As of 1 March 2007, we have awarded 24 privatization projects for
    over 50,000 homes. As a result of these projects, over 30,000 homes
    will be replaced or renovated, about 5,000 new homes will be built, and
    the remaining 15,000 were privatized in good condition and did not
    require any improvements. Through the use of these authorities we have
    secured over $6 billion in private sector investment from $588 million
    of our funds, which represents a ratio of almost twelve private sector
    dollars for each taxpayer dollar.
        During the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and in fiscal year 2008,
    we plan to award 9 Navy and Marine Corps family housing privatization
    projects totaling over 13,000 homes. By the end of fiscal year 2007,
    the Navy and Marine Corps will have privatized 95 percent and over 99
    percent, respectively, of their U.S. housing stock.
        Our fiscal year 2008 and out-year family housing privatization
    projects are targeted at reducing family housing deficits by
    constructing additional housing for our families where the private
    sector cannot accommodate their needs. These authorities will ensure
    the availability of housing to address increased requirements
    associated with the Marine Corps' ``Grow the Force'' initiative, stand-
    up of the Marine Corps Special Operations Command, and address our
    remaining housing deficit.
        Our fiscal year 2008 baseline family housing budget request
    includes $298 million for family housing construction and improvements.
    This amount includes $188 million for the Government investment in
    family housing privatization projects planned for fiscal year 2008
    award. It also includes the replacement or revitalization of housing in
    Guam and Japan where privatization is not planned. Finally, the budget
    request includes $371 million for the operation, maintenance, and
    leasing of remaining Government-owned or controlled inventory. The
    latter represents a 66 percent decline since 1999 when the DoN began in
    earnest to privatize its inventory of government owned housing. In
    addition, our fiscal year 2008 family housing global war on terrorism
    request includes another $12 million for the Marine Corps in family
    housing improvements.
    Unaccompanied Housing
        Our baseline budget request of $323 \1\ million for 11
    unaccompanied housing projects continues the emphasis on improving
    living conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. Marine
    Corps has an additional BQ for $41 million in the fiscal year 2007
    global war on terror supplemental, and another BQ and dining hall in
    the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror. There are three challenges:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Excludes two Marine Corps Wounded Warrior barracks.

              1. Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.
            Approximately 13,000 E1-E3 unaccompanied Sailors worldwide
            lived aboard ship even while in homeport. The fiscal year 2008
            budget supports Navy's goal of providing ashore living
            accommodations for these sailors. It includes one ``homeport
            ashore'' construction project for $47 million to complete Naval
            Base Kitsap Bremerton, WA (198 modules). We are requesting a
            second phase of funding for this project previously authorized
            in fiscal year 2005. The primary demographic are sailors
            assigned to the nuclear carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis, which
            is homeported in Bremerton. Efforts to build this barracks as a
            pilot BQ PPV proved uneconomical due to the large number of
            vacancies that would occur when Stennis deployed.
              In addition to the E1-E3 shipboard sailors, there are
            approximately 6,000 unaccompanied E-4 sailors with less than 4
            years service who are assigned to sea duty. Although they are
            entitled to receive BAH, funding for housing allowances remains
            un-programmed. We will accommodate those sailors within our
            existing unaccompanied housing capacity to ensure they do not
            return to live aboard ship upon promotion to E4.
              2. Ensure our Barracks Meet Today's Standards for Privacy. We
            are building new and modernizing existing barracks to increase
            privacy for our single sailors and marines. Reflecting the
            Commandant of the Marine Corps' priority to ensure single
            marines are adequately housed, the fiscal year 2008 budget
            includes $282 million in MILCON funding (a 124 percent increase
            over fiscal year 2007 funding levels) for the construction of
            3,750 permanent party and trainee spaces at seven Marine Corps
            installations. The Marine Corps has programmed the necessary
            funding from fiscal year 2008 through -11 to ensure marines for
            their current approved 175,000 end strength are adequately
            housed by 2012. These barracks will be built to the 2 + 0 room
            configuration, as have all Marine Corps barracks since 1998.
              We appreciate Congress authorizing the Services to adopt
            private sector standards for the construction of military
            unaccompanied housing. We believe that we can provide market-
            style housing with improved amenities (such as increased common
            space for residents) at a cost equivalent to that associated
            with building smaller modules to rigid military specifications.
            In implementing this authority, we will ensure that Service-
            specific operational requirements are not compromised, such as
            the core Marine Corps' tenets for unit cohesion and
            teambuilding.
              3. Eliminate Gang Heads. The Marine Corps had programmed all
            necessary funding, through fiscal year 2005, to eliminate
            inadequate unaccompanied housing with gang heads \2\ for
            permanent party personnel. They will, however, continue to use
            these facilities on an interim base to address short-term
            housing requirements resulting from temporary end strength
            increases in recent supplemental appropriations. The Navy will
            achieve over 99 percent of this goal by fiscal year 2007.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unaccompanied Housing Privatization
        We awarded our first pilot unaccompanied housing privatization
    project to Pacific Beacon LLC in December 2006. When complete in
    apartments for E-4 and above enlisted personnel in San Diego, CA who
    are unsuitably housed in the private sector or who are living in
    Government quarters that could be used by shipboard sailors. An
    existing unaccompanied housing building, containing 258 modules, was
    also privatized as part of this agreement. Our partner will provide
    additional quality of life amenities to existing buildings, such as a
    swimming pool.
        We are in exclusive negotiations with a prospective private partner
    for a second pilot project at Hampton Roads, VA. This project is set
    for contract award this spring, after the required Congressional
    notices. This project will build more than 1,000 new two-bedroom/two-
    bathroom apartments and privatize over 700 existing unaccompanied
    housing modules for unaccompanied shipboard E1-E3 personnel.

        We appreciate Congress extending the authorities and streamlining
    the notification process in last year's National Defense Authorization
    Act. We continue to pursue candidates for the third pilot, targeting
    the Mayport/Jacksonville, FL, area, and expect to have preliminary
    results this spring on a feasibility study. We will also look at other
    candidates including additional phases at San Diego and Hampton Roads.
        Recognizing that these are long-term endeavors, we take seriously
    our responsibility to monitor the agreements to ensure that the
    Government's interests are adequately protected. We have instituted a
    portfolio management approach that collects and analyzes financial,
    occupancy, construction, and resident satisfaction data to ensure that
    the projects remain sound and that the partners are performing as
    expected. Customer surveys show overall improvement in member
    satisfaction after housing is privatized.

                                BUILDUP ON GUAM

        U.S. national interests and treaty commitments require
    strengthening of U.S. military capabilities in the Western Pacific.
    U.S. forces must be positioned to maintain regional stability, ensure
    flexibility to respond to regional threats, project power throughout
    the region, defend our assets as well as those of our allies, and
    provide forces to respond to global contingencies.
        The relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force personnel from
    Okinawa to Guam under U.S.-Japan Alliance Transformation and
    Realignment is part of a broader realignment that, when implemented,
    will strengthen our regional posture, deter potential aggressors, and
    provide capabilities that can be flexibly deployed in contingencies,
    which are essential for the Defense of Japan and for peace and security
    in the region. For the marines, this development will balance the
    Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) lay down across the region with
    improved flexibility. The  8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents
    leaving Japan will reduce the footprint of U.S. forces in Okinawa. This
    will facilitate consolidation of U.S. bases on Okinawa to allow
    additional land returns in Japan, while reinvigorating Guam's economy
    through economic stimulus, infrastructure improvements, and external
    investments.
        The Government of Japan will fund most of the infrastructure
    construction costs over the planned 7-year time period to implement the
    realignment actions in mainland Japan, Okinawa, and Guam. On Guam,
    Japan will contribute $6.09 billion of cost sharing toward the
    estimated $10.27 billion development cost associated with the
    realignment of marines from Okinawa to Guam. Japan's contribution
    consists of $2.8 billion in cash for operational facilities, barracks,
    and quality of life facilities, and $3.29 billion in equity investments
    and loans to special purpose entities that will provide housing and
    utilities for the marines on Guam.
        The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to establish a
    Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO) to coordinate and manage the
    relocation of the marines from Okinawa to Guam. There will be JGPO
    offices in Arlington, VA, and in Guam, along with a liaison billet in
    Hawaii with USPACOM, and another in Japan with USFJ. The JGPO will work
    closely with the Office of Economic Adjustment and the Government of
    Guam to ensure this initiative is mutually beneficial to DOD and to the
    people of Guam.
        JGPO will oversee National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies
    that will provide the foundation for the Environmental Impact Statement
    (EIS) and parallel development of a Guam Master Plan. We have $10
    million in fiscal year 2007 and are requesting $28 million in multiple
    appropriations in the fiscal year 2008 baseline budget to continue
    these efforts. My office released the NEPA Notice of Intent in the
    Federal Register on 7 March 2007. The Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record
    of Decision, including public comment periods could take up to 3 years
    to complete. The EIS will address the impact of relocating III MEF with
    the Air, Ground, and Combat Service Support elements from Okinawa to
    Guam. The housing, operational, quality of life, and services support
    infrastructure for the marines will be identified during the planning
    process, and assessed through the environmental analysis. It will also
    assess the impacts of improving the Apra Harbor waterfront to construct
    a pier capable of berthing a transient aircraft carrier as well the
    infrastructure requirements needed to station a U.S. Army ballistic
    missile defense task force on Guam. We will ask for the necessary
    MILCON funds beginning with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission.

                                  ENVIRONMENT

    Endangered Species Protection
        For nearly a century, San Clemente Island, CA, was ravaged by the
    destructive forces of invasive species, which severely degraded the
    island's entire ecosystem. Eleven endemic and/or native plants and
    animals neared extinction, and are now protected under the Endangered
    Species Act.
        Today, the status of most of these species has been significantly
    enhanced because of the Navy's environmental stewardship. The Navy
    eradicated all non-native feral grazing animals in the early 1990s and
    removed exotic plants which were overwhelming native species. The
    island has been healing through natural processes and Navy protective
    measures and restoration efforts. In response to a request from the
    Navy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October 2006 recommended
    delisting the Island Night Lizard on San Clemente Island as a result of
    a 5-year review. The final decision is still pending.
        Camp Pendleton uses its Integrated Natural Resources Management
    Plan (INRMP) to manage the ecosystem on this 125,000-acre installation,
    recognizing that the military mission as a central and integral element
    of the ecosystem. During the last 2 years, the INRMP demonstrated its
    benefit by excluding the base from Critical Habitat (CH) designations
    by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for seven species. In
    each case, the Secretary of the Interior found that Camp Pendleton's
    INRMP provided a benefit to the species, and agreed to exclude all
    Base-managed lands from designation as critical habitat, per Section
    4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act., and required no further
    restrictions on military training activities.
        In 2006, the USFWS released 5-year status reviews for two species
    inhabiting Camp Pendleton: the least Bell's vireo and the California
    least tern. The USFWS recommended both birds be upgraded from
    ``endangered'' to ``threatened'' due in large measure to Camp
    Pendleton's management efforts, such as habitat enhancement, cowbird
    control, and focused predator management. A final decision is pending.
        Navy Marine Mammals/Sonar R&D investments
        The Navy recognizes the need to protect marine mammals from
    anthropogenic sound in the water. The Navy invests $10 million to $14
    million per year for research into hearing and diving physiology,
    behavioral response to human-generated sound, mitigation options, and
    simulation tools. Approximately 33 universities, institutes, and
    technical companies are supported by Navy research grants. All the
    research is aimed a developing a broad, scientific understanding of
    marine mammals. The Navy recently expanded its research on the effects
    of mid-frequency sonar to include effects on fish.
    MMPA National Defense Exemption
        On 23 January 2007 the DOD issued a National Defense Exemption
    (NDE) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for all military
    readiness activities that employ mid-frequency active sonar or Improved
    Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys during major training exercise, within
    established DOD maritime ranges, or establish operating areas. A 6-
    month NDE had expired on 30 December 2006.
        The Navy is working closely with the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has jurisdiction on MMPA
    enforcement, to address procedural issues, identify and implement
    mitigation and monitoring measures to minimize potential effects to
    marine mammals, and establish mutually acceptable threshold criteria.
    The Navy has also established an outreach workgroup with the many non-
    governmental organizations that have a vested interest in the
    protection of marine species. The Navy has begun the public NEPA
    process on its three most active ranges--Hawaii, Southern California,
    and east coast, and is committed to completing environmental
    documentation for all ranges by the end of 2009.
    Shipboard Programs
        The Navy continues modernizing its vessels to comply with more
    stringent environmental regulations. The Navy completed its Afloat
    Pollution Prevention Equipment installations in September 2006 with 152
    installations on Navy surface ships. The equipment reduces the need for
    hazardous material, and the generation of hazardous waste. The Navy
    continues to convert its shipboard air conditioning and refrigeration
    plants from Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) to non-ODS refrigerants.
    As of 1 March 2007, we had completed 516 of 690 conversions of
    shipboard air condition systems and 600 of 614 conversions of shipboard
    refrigeration systems. Navy expects to complete its transition to non-
    ODSs by 2014.
        The Navy has also completed 114 of 334 upgrades to its plastic
    waste processors (PWPs), which allow ships at sea to compress plastics
    into a solid disk for disposal or recycling ashore. The new PWPs reduce
    maintenance, improve reliability and throughput, and include a self-
    cleaning future, giving our sailors the best equipment to meet no-
    plastics discharge requirements while at sea.
    Environmental Compliance by Shore Installations
        The Navy continues to improve its shore installation compliance
    environmental standards. Solid waste diversion has climbed from 42
    percent in fiscal year 2004 to 60 percent in fiscal year 2006 for
    combined municipal waste and construction and demolition debris,
    compared with an EPA national average diversion rate of 32 percent. Our
    hazardous waste disposal amounts are down to an all time low of 54
    thousand tons of hazardous waste, compared to 207 thousands tons when
    DOD starting using this metric in 1992, this despite increased optempo
    to support the global war on terror. Domestically, 91 percent of Navy
    permits are in full compliance with Clean Water Act standards, and 97
    percent meet all Safe Drinking Water Act standards, both increases from
    recent years.
        The Marine Corps has made similar progress. For example, the number
    of new enforcement actions against the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2006
    has declined by 25 percent compared to the average number in fiscal
    year 2001 through fiscal year 2005. This decrease occurred at a time of
    high operational tempo and more regulatory inspections.
    Alternative Fuel Vehicles
        The Navy has many initiatives to reduce its reliance on imported
    oil. Last year, Navy doubled biodiesel usage for non-tactical vehicles.
    Biodiesel fuels are now available at Navy Exchange fuel stations in
    Norfolk, VA; Crane, IA; and Charleston, SC. After successfully
    completing a pilot scale system, the Naval Facilities Engineering
    Services Center (NFESC) is building a full-scale biodiesel production
    facility at Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, CA. NFESC
    distributed 92 neighborhood electrics last year. These electric
    vehicles can be charged at any 110 volt outlet and are well-suited for
    use in ports, air stations, and large supply buildings.
    Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
        The DoN has completed cleanup or has remedies in place at 78
    percent of our 3,700 contaminated sites. We plan to complete the
    program by 2014. The cost-to-complete the installation restoration
    program continues a downward trend with efficiencies of $600 million
    over the past 10 years. Use of new technologies, land use controls,
    remedy optimizations, contract efficiencies, and a dedicated
    professional staff have contributed to these efficiencies. Our fiscal
    year 2008 request of $301 million consists of $271 million for IRP, and
    $41 million for program management, and $43 million for munitions
    response.
    Munitions Response Program (MRP)
        The DoN is proceeding with cleanup of Munitions and Explosives of
    Concern (MEC) and Munitions Constituents (MC) at all Navy and Marine
    Corps locations other than operational ranges. We plan to complete
    preliminary assessments this year at all 213 known sites on 56 active
    installations. Site inspections and sampling will be completed by 2010.
    We will not have credible cleanup cost estimates until these
    assessments are completed in 2010.
        Navy continues clearing munitions from Vieques, PR. About 65 acres
    of beaches have been surface cleared of munitions on the eastern side
    of the island, and we are removing surface MEC and MC on 1,100 acres of
    the former bombing range Live Impact Area and the artillery range. A
    total of 290 acres, including the ``Red'' and ``Blue'' beaches have
    been cleared. Our revised cost to complete for Vieques is $255 million,
    with completion expected in 2020.

                                    BRAC 05

        In developing the BRAC 2005 recommendations, the DoN sought to
    eliminate excess capacity, improve operational readiness, capitalize on
    joint basing opportunities with the other components, maintain quality
    of service, and achieve cost savings. The BRAC 2005 Commission
    recommendations became legally binding on the DOD on 9 November 2005.
    In contrast to prior BRAC commissions, the BRAC 2005 recommendations
    have fewer closures and many more realignments, particularly
    realignments that involve more than one military Service or Defense
    Agency. The DoN has 6 ``fence line'' closures and 81 realignment
    recommendations involving 129 bases. Our remaining environmental cost
    to complete for fiscal year 2008 and beyond is $94 million.
    Accomplishments
        Given that all closures and realignments in BRAC 05 must by law be
    completed by September 2011, we must move quickly to construct the
    necessary facilities to relocate units from their current location to
    their new location. We initiated BRAC 05 implementation in fiscal year
    2006 by awarding 12 BRAC construction projects at the ``receiver''
    locations. The DoN obligated 96 percent of the total fiscal year 2006
    $252 million BRAC 05 funds we received.
        Nearly all impacted communities have established a Local
    Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to guide local planning and redevelopment
    efforts. The DOD Office of Economic Adjustment has been providing
    financial support through grants and technical assistance to support
    LRA efforts.
        To date, the Navy has terminated leases at 11 Reserve centers,
    thereby returning these properties to their owners; and completed 14
    surplus determinations, allowing us to proceed with disposal actions to
    non DOD recipients at these locations. We expect to complete the
    remaining two surplus determinations this spring. We also completed 23
    Environmental Condition of Property Reports, providing copies to local
    communities and Federal agencies to support their redevelopment
    efforts. These environmental reports provide a comprehensive summary of
    all known environmental contamination, as well as the studies,
    analyses, and cleanup that have been done, are now underway, or remain
    to be done.
        Navy has completed operational closure of 12 bases. We have
    received approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for
    58 out of 64 business plans for which the DoN is the executive agent.
    These business plans, which average 40 pages in length, include
    extensive details on costs, savings, schedules, and support documents
    for each construction project. We continue efforts to gain OSD approval
    for the remaining business plans, which involve more complex moves and
    joint basing decisions.

                     PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP & PROPERTY DISPOSAL

        The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in
    reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The DoN
    has achieved a steady state savings of approximately $2.7 billion per
    year since fiscal year 2002. All that remains is to complete the
    environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions of 17 of the
    original 91 bases.
    Property Disposal
        Last year we conveyed 906 acres in 12 separate real estate
    transactions at 6 prior BRAC bases. We also completed Findings of
    Suitability for Transfer (FOST) for 940 acres. The FOST certifies that
    DOD real estate is environmentally suitable for transfer by deed under
    section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 42 U.S.C. Section 9620(h).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Land Sale Revenue
        We have continued our success in using property sales to assist in
    funding environmental cleanup and property disposal as well as recover
    value for taxpayers from the disposal of Federal property. Through a
    combination of cost Economic Development Conveyances, Negotiated Sales,
    and Public Sales, the DoN has received over $1.1 billion in revenues
    from the sale of prior BRAC property. Nearly all of this revenue has
    been generated since fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2006, we
    completed the sale of 3,719 acres at the former Marine Corps Air State
    El Toro, CA for $649.5 million. We also sold 167 acres at the former
    Naval Hospital Oakland, CA for $100.5 million. Beginning in fiscal year
    2003, we have used these funds to accelerate environmental cleanup, and
    to finance the entire DoN prior BRAC effort including caretaker costs
    since fiscal year 2005.
        We have put this land sale revenue to good use! We have issued
    Findings of Suitability to Transfer for over 4,500 acres which enabled
    us to continue our disposal efforts. A few of the significant disposals
    include the last parcels at Naval Shipyard Charleston, SC; Naval Air
    Station Key West, FL; San Pedro Housing Area for Naval Shipyard Long
    Beach, CA; and Naval Hospital Oakland, CA, as well as the first parcel
    at Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard. In addition, Navy accelerated cleanup
    on the majority of MCAS El Toro, a National Priorities List (NPL) site.
    We have also completed the cleanup of over half of Naval Station
    Treasure Island and determined it acceptable for transfer. Significant
    cleanup activities were undertaken at both Hunter's Point Naval
    Shipyard, as well as Alameda Naval Air Station, all of which are NPL
    sites, greatly improving the protection to human health and the
    environment.
        Two significant property sales remain, both planned to begin in
    fiscal year 2009: approximately 176 acres at the former Naval Training
    Center Orlando, FL; and about 1,450 acres at the former Naval Station
    Roosevelt Roads, PR. We will spend the last portions of the $1.1
    billion in land sale revenue in fiscal year 2009. Revenue projections
    for Orlando and Roosevelt Roads are unknown, but are expected to be
    well below that obtained from the sale of California property at El
    Toro and Tustin. In the absence of additional land sale revenue, we are
    evaluating the need to resume appropriated funds in future budgets.
    Prior BRAC Environmental Cleanup
        The DoN has spent about $3.5 billion on environmental cleanup,
    environmental compliance, and program management costs at prior BRAC
    locations through fiscal year 2006. With our planned programs of $342
    million in fiscal year 2007 and $179 million in fiscal year 2008, we
    expect the environmental cost to complete for fiscal year 2009 and
    beyond at $1.168 billion. This is an increase of $725 million since
    last year. Nearly all of this cost increase is due to the recent
    discovery of substantially more low level radioactive waste at the
    former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, CA and some at
    the former Naval Air Station Alameda, CA.
    Hunters Point Naval Shipyard
        Hunters Point Shipyard represents one of the most unique prior BRAC
    challenges. Maritime use of Hunters Point began in the 1850's. The Navy
    purchased the property in 1939, and began to expand the shipyard and
    build facilities. Between 1939 and 1974, Hunters Point was one of the
    Navy's largest industrial shipyards and was home to the Naval
    Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). The Navy used Hunters Point to
    decontaminate ships that had been used during atomic weapons testing
    under Operation Crossroads. NRDL conducted radiological research in
    numerous buildings on the base.
        The Navy closed Hunters Point in 1974, and then leased most of the
    property in 1976 to a private ship repair company. The Environmental
    Protection Agency placed the shipyard on the National Priorities List
    in 1989. The DOD listed the shipyard for closure as part of BRAC 1991.
        The Navy has conducted expansive records and data search to
    identify all areas of potential contamination, as required under
    CERCLA. This included conducting a Historic Radiological Assessment and
    extensive sampling to identify potential contamination from past
    radiological activities. There are 78 installation restoration sites
    and 93 radiological sites, and Navy has spent about $400 million on
    cleanup efforts. While the base does not present a risk to human
    health, the additional data has revealed a much greater degree of
    contamination than previously known. The previous cost to complete was
    $110 million. The revised fiscal year 2008 cost to complete is $670
    million, which excludes submerged lands. We will have an independent
    outside consultant review the situation and seek options that balance
    cleanup costs and health risks to humans and the environment. Land use
    controls must be part of the remedy for Hunters Point.
        The City of San Francisco recently proposed building a new football
    stadium using a portion of Hunters Point. Such a proposal represents a
    very compatible reuse that could be effectively integrated into the
    cleanup program. While this appears to be an excellent opportunity for
    combining cleanup with transfer and redevelopment of Hunters Point, it
    will require significant financial resources in the near term that are
    not now budgeted.

                            HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS

        Following the experience learned from Hurricane Ivan in 2004, the
    Navy was prepared to respond quickly to the Hurricane Katrina and
    lesser storms in 2005 that affected eight major Navy bases. With
    supplemental funds provided by Congress, we have made the necessary
    repairs to get our facilities back to full mission capability. The
    funding allowed us to begin the cleanup as the long term
    reconstruction. We have awarded 37 percent of the $493 million in
    MILCON and family housing construction projects to date, with plans to
    award the balance by the end of this fiscal year.

                  MEETING THE CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION CHALLENGE

        The ambitious programs I have outlined, encompassing military and
    family housing construction, continuing recovery efforts in the Gulf
    Coast, BRAC-related construction, and support for the global war on
    terror represent an execution effort of over $4 billion in fiscal year
    2008 compared to the fiscal year 2005 effort of $2.5 billion. The Grow
    the Force and barracks initiative by the Marine Corps, and the buildup
    on Guam initiative will add a sustained annual program of $2 to $3
    billion through the FYDP.
        The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) has, with
    the exception of fiscal year 2006, obligated between 92 percent to 98
    percent of all authorized and appropriated DoN construction projects
    (including congressional adds) in the first year funds became
    available. That obligation rate dropped to 74 percent in fiscal year
    2006, primarily due to pricing issues caused by material and labor
    shortages in the aftermath of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005.
        NAVFACENGCOM has substantial additional contracting capacity, and
    will seek to aggregate related projects while preserving competition
    and small business interests. For example, NAVFACENGCOM sponsored an
    industry conference in January 2007 to explore opportunities for cost
    and scheduling efficiencies. This is an execution challenge that
    NAVFACENGCOM can do.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Navy cannot meet the threats of tomorrow by simply maintaining
    today's readiness and capabilities of our physical plant. We must
    continue to transform and recapitalize for the future without
    jeopardizing our current readiness and the strides we have made--and
    continue to make--in managing our shore infrastructure. With our
    partners in industry, the acquisition community, and with the
    continuing support of Congress, the DoN will build and maintain
    installations that are properly sized, balanced--and priced for
    tomorrow.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. I
    look forward to a productive dialogue with Congress on the DoN's shore
    infrastructure.

        Senator Akaka. Secretary Anderson?

     STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
        THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS

        Mr. Anderson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of
    America's airmen, it is a pleasure to be here and thank this
    subcommittee for its continued support of America's Air Force.
        As our Nation and Department finds itself engaged in
    hostilities and war for the 16th consecutive year, we are also
    in a transition period, where the Air Force continues to evolve
    and remain indispensable as threats to our Nation emerge and
    change. The Air Force is getting smaller, but our commitments
    are not. Airmen perform critical installations, environmental,
    and logistics tasks that are intrinsic to every facet of the
    success of our missions.
        During these challenging times, the Air Force priorities
    remain constant: winning the global war on terror, developing
    and caring for our airmen, and recapitalizing and modernizing
    our air and space systems. Among our priorities is the Air
    Force's energy program, with efforts geared to reduce energy
    demand, increase supply, and create a culture where all airmen
    take energy as a consideration in everything that we do.
        One initiative focuses on aviation fuel. During fiscal year
    2006, our aviation operations accounted for 82 percent of all
    of Air Force's energy use. To wean us off of foreign energy
    sources, last year we began testing and certifying a coal-to-
    liquid synthetic jet fuel for our aviation fleet beginning with
    the B-52. We will continue this program, with a goal to certify
    the entire fleet by 2010.
        Another Air Force initiative is targeted at work-related
    injuries, a problem that is costly to the Air Force and, more
    importantly, it is a problem that negatively impacts the
    quality of life for our airmen and their families. The
    Secretary and Chief of Staff have directed launching OSHA's
    voluntary protection program across the Air Force. Once fully
    implemented, every airman will be empowered to actively
    identify and take action to eliminate safety and health hazards
    in their workplace.
        Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC
    programs are key to supporting Air Force priorities. At home
    our installations provide stable training environments as we
    equip and reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and
    overseas bases provide force projection platforms to support
    combatant commanders. Our bases are weapons systems to the Air
    Force and in order to support these base-centric concepts of
    operations the Air Force has developed an infrastructure
    investment strategy that focuses on enabling combatant
    commanders.
        The fiscal year 2008 presidential budget request for
    traditional MILCON is $1 billion and this budget carefully
    balances our needs for facility operation and maintenance
    accounts so that we can enable support of the Air Force
    mission. That budget request also includes $363 million for
    housing investment, which balances new construction,
    improvements, and planning and design work. Housing continues
    to be a good news story for airmen and our families, including
    privatization, as my colleagues have discussed.
        Our request also includes $933 million for direct-funded
    non-BRAC environmental programs--restoration, compliance,
    conservation, and other environmental efforts.
        To continue the BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal
    year 2008 budget requests $1.2 billion in BRAC-related
    activities, of which $910 million is for construction. Full
    support of this funding request is critical to ensure we remain
    on track to meet the requirement of compliance by 2011.
        We are committed to making BRAC and joint basing a raging
    success. However, several joint basing policy elements run
    counter to the spirit of efficiency and cost savings in the
    joint basing construct. The Air Force believes total obligation
    authority for real property services would serve as a
    disincentive to cost savings, efficiency, and effective
    execution on customer expectations. These customers, our
    operational commanders, should define the requirements
    necessary to execute the mission and manage the funds to meet
    their needs. The Air Force believes that joint basing provides
    a unique opportunity to actually improve the quality of life
    for every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and their families.
        This year we commemorate the 60th anniversary of our proud
    service, a service born of revolutionary ideas, forged in
    combat, and proven through decades of progress and achievement.
        We look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

                 Prepared Statement by Hon. William C. Anderson

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Ensign, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, as our Nation, and Department, finds itself in a
    transition period, the Air Force continues to evolve and remain
    indispensable as threats emerge and change. The Air Force is the
    preeminent force for operations beyond the bounds of earth, and is
    vital and relevant in the conduct of ground operations as well. The Air
    Force has been continually engaged in War for the past 16 years. The
    Quadrennial Defense Review guides the Air Force and enables us to
    deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of
    America and its global interests. The Air Force is getting smaller, but
    our commitments have not. Airmen performing critical installations,
    environment and logistics tasks are intrinsic to every facet in the
    success of our missions. My Civil Engineers are critical to every facet
    in the success of our missions. We currently have over 2,500 engineers
    in the theater of operations directly supporting Operations Enduring
    Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In order to fulfill our mission, we are
    making process changes at every level of the Air Force with results in
    resource savings and more efficient operations. We have more work to
    do, but by institutionalizing Air Force Smart Operations 21 concepts
    into our daily operations we are leaning our internal processes to
    reduce workload and reduce or eliminate unnecessary work. These efforts
    allow us to meet the enormous challenges of today, the foreseeable
    future, and ultimately, sustain and modernize the world's best air,
    space, and cyberspace force. In these tumultuous times our priorities
    remain consistent: fighting and winning the war on terror, developing
    and caring for our airmen and their families, and recapitalizing and
    modernizing aging aircraft and spacecraft.
        Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs are
    key components of our support infrastructure. At home, our
    installations provide stable training environments as we equip and
    reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and overseas bases provide
    force projection platforms to support combatant commanders (COCOMS).
    Our bases use weapons systems and in order to support our base-centric
    concept of operations, the Air Force has developed an infrastructure
    investment strategy that focuses on enabling COCOM's to fight and win
    the war on terror, providing quality of life facilities, implementing
    BRAC, protecting and restoring our natural environment, sustaining our
    infrastructure and striving to recapitalize our aging infrastructure,
    while proactively supporting the operational environment. We are the
    DOD's leader in expeditionary combat support and continue that role
    with pride. Our total force military construction (MILCON), family
    housing, environmental and sustainment, restoration, and modernization
    programs are paramount to successful operations and maintaining the
    quality of life that our men and women in uniform and their families
    deserve.
        The fiscal year 2008 President's budget request for Air Force
    construction is over $2.3 billion, comprised of traditional MILCON
    ($1.0 billion), BRAC 2005 ($910 million) and housing investments ($363
    million). The Total Force MILCON portion ($1 billion) of Air Force
    fiscal year 2008 President's budget (PB) construction request reflects
    our highest construction priorities. This request includes $912 million
    for Active MILCON, $86 million for the Air National Guard, and just
    over $27 million for the Air Force Reserve. While the 2008 traditional
    MILCON budget request is approximately $300 million lower than last
    year's, it reflects our highest priorities and most urgent needs.
    Unfortunately, we face demands on our resources that require some very
    tough choices. Our current challenging budgetary environment includes:
    increased operations, maintenance, and personnel costs; the cost of the
    long war; reduced Air Force total obligation authority (TOA); and
    absorbing inflation factors that reduce overall buying power. These
    factors have forced us to self-finance the centerpiece of future
    dominance--a massive and critical recapitalization and modernization
    effort of our aging air and space force. In order to accomplish this we
    are accepting manageable risk in facilities and infrastructure funding
    in order to bolster our recapitalization and modernization efforts.
    This budget carefully balances our facility operations and maintenance
    accounts for sustainment, restoration, modernization with MILCON
    programs to make the most effective use of available funding in support
    of the Air Force mission. The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding
    in fiscal year 2008 is $2 billion, 92 percent of the amount called for
    by the Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). The fiscal year 2008 Total
    Force restoration and modernization (R&M) funding is $346 million.
        The Air Force fiscal year 2008 PB request of $363 million for the
    Military Family Housing investment program balances new construction,
    improvements, and planning and design work. While we continue to strive
    to eliminate inadequate housing, we cannot allow more housing to fall
    into disrepair. In addition to the $363 million requested for housing
    investment, we request nearly $688 million for operations and
    maintenance, for a total housing investment of more than $1 billion.
        To continue our proactive and responsive environmental compliance,
    conservation, pollution prevention and restoration programs, the fiscal
    year 2008 PB request includes $933 million for direct-funded non-BRAC
    environmental programs. In addition to the $429 million we requested
    for traditional environmental restoration activities, the fiscal year
    2008 PB request includes $321 million for environmental compliance
    activities and projects, $84 million for pollution prevention
    initiatives, $51 million for funding environmental conservation
    activities, $29 million for munitions response activities, and $19
    million in investments in promising environmental technologies.
        To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal
    year 2008 PB request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC related activities
    of which $910 million is construction. The Air Force is lead for 64
    BRAC business plans and has equity in an additional 16 business plans.
    Full support of this funding request is critical to ensure we remain on
    track to meet the requirement for compliance by 2011.
        Sound investment in our installations postures the Air Force to
    support our priorities of winning the global war on terror, support our
    airmen and their families, and recapitalize and modernize our force. We
    believe the fiscal year 2008 President's budget proposal will provide
    the construction bedrock for continued success of our mission.

                 FIGHTING AND WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

        The Air Force's first priority is to fight and win the global war
    on terror. We plan to invest $192 million on global war on terror-
    related projects that support and enhance the AF's ability to deliver
    intelligence, maintenance, and operational capabilities to our COCOMs.
    At MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), FL, the Air Force is executing two
    projects at Central Command (CENTCOM) by completing the Joint
    Intelligence facility and altering the CENTCOM headquarters facility.
    CENTCOM's area of responsibility is the geographic and ideological
    heart of the global war on terror. A war without borders, it spans 27
    countries in the Central Asian region of the world. The Joint
    Intelligence Center provides the CENTCOM Commander with the situational
    awareness and long range analyses needed to defeat adversaries within
    the area of responsibility, promote regional stability, support allies,
    and protect U.S. national interests, all aimed toward victory in the
    global war on terror. Two projects at Royal Air Force (RAF) Menwith
    Hill Station, U.K. and one at Offutt AFB, NE, enhance intelligence
    gathering and analysis capabilities for the United States and our
    allies. The Basic Expeditionary Airman Skills Training at Lackland AFB,
    TX, provides facilities for expanded field training that will equip our
    airmen as they enter the Air Force with the warfighting skills and
    mindset vital in today's operational environment.

                 DEVELOP AND CARE FOR AIRMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES

        The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of
    life. The Air Force is committed to creating and maintaining a
    consistent, high quality, and safe environment in locations where
    airmen work, reside, and recreate. Our Total Force airmen are the most
    valuable assets we have in fighting the global war on terror and
    ensuring our air, space and cyberspace dominance. We have to continue
    to recruit, train, equip, and retain the airmen of tomorrow. As our Air
    Force becomes more capable, more efficient and more lethal, so will our
    airmen. The quality of life we provide for our airmen and their
    families is a distinct determining factor in how long they remain in
    our service. The sacrifices our airmen and their families make are
    enormous. We are deeply committed to providing every airman and their
    family with the best possible quality of life as they serve our Nation.
    In this year's budget we strive to promote a wide spectrum of projects
    that take care of our airmen and their families; from quality family
    housing for our families, quality dormitories for unaccompanied airmen,
    functional fitness centers, and safe child development centers, to
    exceptional training and operational facilities.
    Workplace
        Work-related injuries cost the Air Force over $130 million annually
    and have a significant impact on operational capability. Most
    importantly, workplace injuries negatively impact the quality of life
    for our airmen and their families. One program being used to achieve a
    reduction in workplace injuries is OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program
    (VPP). The SECAF and CSAF have directed ``launching the VPP throughout
    the Air Force . . . for service-wide implementation.'' Through VPP,
    every airman and his wingman are empowered to actively identify and
    take action to eliminate safety and health hazards in the workplace.
    Our goal is to offer an accident-free work environment for each and
    every airman.
    At Home
        When airmen deploy, time spent worrying whether their families are
    safe and secure is time not spent focusing on the mission. Quality of
    life initiatives are critical to our overall combat readiness and to
    recruiting and retaining our country's best and brightest. Our quality
    of life initiatives reflect our commitment to our airmen.
    Family Housing
        The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing
    MILCON, operations and maintenance, and privatization efforts. It is
    designed to ensure safe, affordable, and adequate housing for our
    members. To implement the plan, our fiscal year 2008 budget request for
    family housing is over $1 billion. Consistent with Department of
    Defense Strategic Planning Guidance, the Air Force is on track to fund
    projects through 2009 that will eliminate inadequate overseas housing.
        For fiscal year 2008, the requested $363 million for our housing
    investment program will replace and improve approximately 2,100 housing
    units at eight overseas bases. An additional $688 million will pay for
    operations, maintenance, utilities and leases to support the family
    housing program.
        We have used the privatization authorities granted by Congress to
    accelerate our family housing improvement program. By the beginning of
    fiscal year 2008, we will have privatized over 44,000 housing units, or
    72 percent of our U.S. housing inventory, far exceeding the Office of
    the Secretary of Defense (OSD) goal of 60 percent. The Air Force is
    strategically leveraging its $596 million investment to bring in $7.37
    billion in equivalent MILCON investment from the private sector; that
    is nearly $15 of private investment for each public tax dollar. The Air
    Force is aggressively researching privatization at remaining U.S.
    MILCON installations where feasible.
    Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
        The fiscal year 2008 total Air Force requirement for dormitory
    rooms is 60,200. We have made great progress using the three-phased
    investment strategy outlined in our Dormitory Master Plan. Phase I, now
    construction complete, eliminated central latrine dormitories. With the
    fiscal year 2007 MILCON we have funding necessary to complete phase II
    of our Dormitory Master Plan, our dorm room shortage (deficit), by
    building new dormitories. In Phase III, now underway, we will replace
    existing dormitories at the end of their useful life with a standard
    Air Force designed private room configuration under the `Dorms-4-
    Airmen' concept. Our `Dorms-4-Airmen' concept capitalizes on our
    wingman strategy and keeps our dorm residents socially and emotionally
    fit.
        Our fiscal year 2008 Program reflects this strategy. The $47
    million request for dormitory investment will replace 368 rooms for
    unaccompanied personnel at both stateside and overseas bases. We are
    equally committed to providing adequate housing and improving the
    quality of life for our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel as we
    are to our families.
    Fitness and Child Development Centers
        The Air Force maintains its strong commitment to the `Fit-to-Fight'
    program. Our goal is for airmen to make fitness and exercise a regular
    part of their lives and prepare them to meet the rigors of a deployed
    environment, not simply to pass an annual fitness test. Our goal is to
    replace at least one fitness center per year until we have the
    resources to do more. This year we will construct a new fitness center
    at Tyndall AFB, FL.
        We also remain committed to the children of our airmen and are
    dedicated to provide them with adequate and nurturing day care
    facilities. In 2008 the most urgent need is at Patrick AFB, FL. Our $12
    million effort at Patrick AFB will provide supervised care for 266
    infants and preschool children, replacing a child development center
    that was established in a warehouse built in 1958.
    Operations and Training
        Our MILCON program supports our expanded view of quality of life
    for airmen by providing facilities from which to train in and operate.
    A new Security Forces Operations Facility at Scott AFB, IL, will
    provide the men and women of the active duty and National Guard in one
    of our most stressed career fields a functional, consolidated facility.
    The Fire Training Facility at Ramstein AB is jointly funded by NATO and
    provides military critical live-fire and structural fire/crash rescue
    training. Finally, a recapitalization project at the Air Force Academy
    continues the phased upgrade of Fairchild Hall academic building. The
    final renovation and upgrade of Fairchild Hall will be complete with a
    $15 million effort programmed in our fiscal year 2009 MILCON program.
    Environmental Management Programs
        Our environmental management programs continue to ensure our most
    basic quality of life needs are being met for our airmen and
    surrounding communities: clean air, clean drinking water, and healthy
    working and living conditions for our workforce and base residents. We
    are also implementing refinements to our environmental management
    approach to incorporate best practices where we find opportunities:

             A comprehensive Air Force Green Procurement Program
            policy was implemented last year to require our purchasing
            systems to consider environmentally-preferable products as a
            first choice;
             All 174 Air Force installations have implemented and
            continue to utilize their Environmental Management Systems to
            identify environmental aspects of base operations, assess their
            impacts, and allow commanders to make informed decisions and
            investments to reduce environmental risks and compliance costs;
             I also challenged our installation commanders to
            significantly reduce new environmental enforcement actions last
            year, and I'm proud to tell you we cut our new enforcement
            actions by 40 percent last year from the previous year--a major
            success story;
             Our restoration program continues to increase the use
            of performance-based contract mechanisms as one tool to reduce
            the cost and time to achieve remedy-in-place or response-
            complete (RIP/RC). As an example, one of our major commands,
            Air Combat Command, has shaved 10 years and almost $40 million
            off the restoration projections with a four-base regional
            performance-based contract.

                       RECAPITALIZATION AND MODERNIZATION

        Our third priority is to modernize and recapitalize the Air Force.
    Air forces succeed when they anticipate and are allowed to shape the
    future strategic environment, and ultimately develop the capabilities
    required for the next fight. Air forces succeed when they are able
    organize, train, and equip themselves properly for both the current and
    future fights and purposefully build in the flexibility to operate
    across the spectrum of conflict and deliver effects at all levels of
    war -tactical, operational and strategic. Air forces succeed when they
    remain focused on their primary mission of providing asymmetric range
    and payload as an independent force that is part of an interdependent
    joint team. Our 2008 MILCON program is a direct reflection of our
    strong commitment to the success of our Air Force and is heavily
    weighted toward modernization and recapitalization support. The fiscal
    year 2008 Total Force MILCON program consists of 43 projects that are
    essential to modernization and recapitalization, totaling $544 million.
        The F-22A Raptor is the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter
    and key enabler, providing operational access, homeland defense, cruise
    missile defense and force protection for joint forces. Combat-capable
    Raptors are in full rate production on the world's only 5th generation
    production line. Elmendorf AFB, AK, will be the second operational
    Raptor base. We are constructing five Active-Duty and Reserve projects
    to beddown the world's premier fighter at a cost of $75 million. The F-
    35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is our 5th generation
    multi-role strike fighter aircraft optimized for air-to-ground attack.
    The F-35A will recapitalize combat capabilities currently provided by
    the F-16 and A-10 and will complement the capabilities of the F-22A.
    Projects at Eglin AFB, FL, begin the beddown for joint F-35 training
    squadrons and combines Air Force and Navy funding totaling $74 million.
    Our legacy aircraft remain a vital part of our National defense. We are
    constructing much needed facilities for the Reserve F-16 Wing at Hill
    AFB, UT, and the active duty F-15 Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK.
        We are also modernizing the weapons these 5th generation aircraft
    and legacy stalwarts will carry. The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) enhances
    our payload and strike capability while increasing the standoff
    distance for our pilots. We are constructing munitions storage igloos
    at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom and Ramstein AB, Germany to provide
    this capability to the warfighter where storage capacity does not
    exist. Our Tactical Air Controllers are embedded with ground forces,
    directing Air Power, like the SDB, in support of ground operations.
    This year's MILCON program provides active duty and Guard Air Support
    Operations Squadrons the facilities they need on Army installations
    like Fort Carson, CO; Fort Riley, KS; Camp Beauregard, LA; and Fort
    Indiantown Gap, PA. These facilities support U.S. Army brigade
    transformation and provide the Air Force Tactical Air Controllers the
    training space required to support the critical Close Air Support
    mission.
        We are modernizing and recapitalizing our facilities in support of
    large-frame aircraft as well. The C-17 continues its outstanding
    support for humanitarian operations and the Joint warfighter. MILCON
    projects at Altus AFB, OK; Hickam AFB, HI; and Travis AFB, CA, nearly
    completes the beddown of our intertheater mobility workhorse. The C-5
    provides the strategic span in our air bridge and we are investing in
    six projects worth $50 million at Memphis, TN, and Martinsburg, WW.
    Hangar projects at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, and Cannon AFB, NM, increase
    maintenance capabilities for Combat Search and Rescue EC-130s and AC-
    130s, respectively.
        Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR),
    communications, and space systems play an ever-increasing role in what
    we do. The Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) provides real-time,
    net-centric, decision-quality information to commanders. Projects that
    enable the DCGS operations will be constructed at Hickam AFB, HI;
    Hulman RAP Terre Haute, IN; and Otis ANGB, MA. MILSTAR is a joint
    service communications system that provides secure, jam-resistant,
    worldwide communications to meet essential wartime requirements for
    high priority military users. Investments at McGhee Tyson IAP, TN,
    support this vital communications beddown. The lethal combination of
    air and space assets the United States possesses gives us capabilities
    that are unmatched. The Air and Space Integration facility at Schiever,
    AFB, CO, enables us to continue this dominance and widen the gap on our
    adversaries. Finally, the Communications Frame facility at Bolling AFB
    will modernize this critical node for communications in the National
    Capital Region.
        Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation remains
    essential to revitalizing depots using LEAN principles to increase
    aircraft availability by reducing depot cycle time, defects, and costs.
    This program has played a significant role in transforming our
    industrial base to support warfighter requirements more effectively.
    The 2008 program continues with four projects at Hill AFB, UT; Robins
    AFB, GA; and Tinker AFB, OK, totaling $66 million.
        The 2008 MILCON program has six other modernization infrastructure
    projects worth $178 million. These projects span the globe; from a
    Mobility Processing Center in Germany and storm damage repair in the
    Gulf of Mexico, to an infrastructure project on Guam that provides
    increased force protection for the entrance to Anderson AFB. These
    projects recapitalize our aging infrastructure and enable us to support
    our vision for a modernized force.

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        As we continue supporting our three main priorities, implementing
    the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations is an important
    vehicle for the Air Force to ensure we are more lethal, agile, and
    capable of maintaining total dominance in air, space, and cyberspace
    domains. While the Commission's final decisions fell short of the Air
    Force's overall goals for BRAC, particularly in eliminating excess
    physical capacity, they did help the Air Force take a major step
    towards reshaping its Total Force structure. The Joint Cross Service
    Group recommendations which make up the vast majority of the fiscal
    year 2008 PB request are pivotal to transforming the way the Air Force
    and our sister services train and fight together.
        The Air Force developed and is implementing an aggressive schedule
    for its BRAC 2005 recommendations, and we are working in close
    partnership with our Joint partners and with the Air National Guard,
    the Air Force Reserve, and our major commands to further develop and
    refine this schedule.
        The Air Force is lead military service for 64 BRAC Business Plans,
    and has equity in an additional 16. Our fiscal year 2008 BRAC program
    is comprised of $910 million in MILCON, $223 million in 0&M, and the
    balance in the personnel and environmental accounts. Of the $910
    million in MILCON projects, $749 million is driven by Joint Cross
    Service Group recommendations. Joint interdependence adds complexity to
    the execution of this BRAC funding. Business Plans developed to assist
    in execution of BRAC actions have been coordinated and approved by OSD
    and also coordinated with other Service agencies. Coordinating,
    completing, and implementing these plans will ensure the Air Force is
    successful in effectively and efficiently implementing the BRAC 2005
    recommendations. We are confident the Air Force is heading in the right
    direction. We believe if we stay on course we can meet all expectations
    and objectives of the BRAC 2005 round, while minimizing disruptions to
    the mission, our warfighters, their families, and the communities that
    support our Air Force.
        Given the many external influences, and as good stewards of
    taxpayer dollars. we cannot look at BRAC implementation as an isolated
    activity. To be successful, we must orchestrate BRAC implementation
    activities in concert with new Air Force mission beddowns, legacy
    weapons systems and force drawdowns, emerging missions, Total Force
    Integration (TFI), and cross Service initiatives. An example of our
    attainment of this objective from BRAC 2005 recommendations is at Kulis
    Air National Guard Base, AK. The 2005 BRAC Commission recommended that,
    contingent on the availability of adequate MILCON funds to provide the
    necessary replacement facilities at Elmendorf AFB, Kulis ANGB be
    closed. After an in depth analysis of detailed concepts of operations
    and available infrastructure, the Air Force, the Air National Guard,
    Pacific Air Forces, and my staff, collectively concluded on Jan 30,
    2007, that operations at Kulis ANG Base could and would be relocated to
    Elmendorf.
        When this move is complete, the 176th Wing, Kulis ANGB and the 3rd
    wing, Elmendorf AFB will form one, in a growing number of, Air National
    Guard and active duty associate units in the Air Force. This
    association will facilitate a unique opportunity for the Air Force to
    merge all our Total Force elements--Air National Guard, Air Force
    Reserve and active-duty operations--across multiple mission areas,
    including airlift, Combat Search and Rescue, Airborne Warning and
    Control Systems and 5th generation fighters, all in one location and in
    a theater key to our global activities.
    Joint Basing
        The concept of Joint Basing poses new BRAC implementation
    challenges and is also an example of transformational joint activity.
    Under this concept, adjoining Service installations or installations in
    close proximity would share common in installation, support and
    management activities. Of the 12 recommended joint bases, 10 of them
    involve Air Force installations, with the Air Force designated as the
    lead service for 6. A Senior Joint Base Working Group, led by the
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment),
    developed guidance to implement the Joint Basing concept by October 1,
    2007. The Air Force continues to work with OSD to refine the
    implementation guidance.
        The Air Force believes that for the welfare of the warfighter and
    their families that Joint Basing must be a raging success. To that end,
    the Air Force stands ready to step into the lead role at each
    installation where the Air Force has equity.
    Environmental Cleanup and Property Transfer
        As stewards of public assets the Air Force must manage them to
    achieve maximum value for the taxpayer while at the same time
    overseeing those assets with the utmost regard for environmental
    issues.
        Environmental clean up and transfer of BRAC real property is often
    technically challenging and has involved extended timeframes to
    complete. Nevertheless, the Air Force has deeded 82 percent of 87,000
    acres of BRAC property from previous BRAC rounds. Our real property
    disposal efforts have led to the creation of more than 54,000 reuse
    jobs in the affected communities. To complete the clean up and transfer
    of the remaining property, the Air Force is attempting to leverage
    private sector experience in redeveloping former industrial property
    similar to Air Force facilities. Our way ahead for legacy BRAC property
    includes an emphasis on performance-based contracting including
    guaranteed fixed price terms, regionalized contracts, and innovative
    tools such as early transfer, negotiated sales, and privatization. Our
    objectives remain clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities that best meet
    the needs of the Air Force and local communities, (2) move the process
    along smartly in each situation to get property back into commerce as
    soon as practical, and (3) provide transparency in the process.
        The Air Force takes its responsibility to protect human health and
    the environment seriously. Since 1991 we have spent $2.6 billion on
    environmental clean up at our BRAC installations--an investment that
    protects human health and the environment for our airmen, our
    communities, and future generations.
    Way Ahead
        As you are well aware the House and Senate recently approved a
    Continuing Resolution Authority which approved $2.5 billion in BRAC
    funding for the Department of Defense, which is $3.1 billion less than
    requested for fiscal year 2007. If left unchanged, the reduction will
    result in the Air Force receiving far. less than expected in fiscal
    year 2007 funding. If not corrected, the Air Force, and our sister
    Services will have to re-evaluate our plans and will likely experience
    delays and disruptions in construction and the movements of our people
    and assets. Delays could impact mission readiness and the ability to
    meet mandated completion deadlines.
        Prompt action and restoration of full funding will permit the Air
    Force to stay on course in executing our obligation for timely
    completion of the BRAC recommendations approved by Congress.
        We solicit your support in advocating that action.

                              ENHANCED USE LEASING

        At remaining non-BRAC facilities, the Air Force is reshaping our
    infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Air Force
    seeks fair market value and utilizes new tools such as Enhanced Use
    Leasing to optimize our resources and obtain value from our excess
    capacity--value we can return to the warfighter. Enhanced Use Leasing
    allows undeveloped and unused military facilities to be used by private
    industry, by leasing them to private entities. For example, an Enhanced
    Use Lease of a vacant 8.33-acre parcel on Kirtland AFB, NM, allows the
    New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to construct a 20,000
    square feet commercial office building lab research facility and
    secondary educational facility, which provides rent to the Air Force
    and will improve scientific and educational opportunities for Kirtland
    AFB, the Air Force Research Laboratory, New Mexico Tech and the public
    in general. The Air Force has six current and pending Enhanced Use
    Lease projects and twenty potential Enhanced Use Leases across the
    country.

           MAINTAINING OUR FACILITIES AND OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

        The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and
    modernizing our operational infrastructure. We have been benchmarking
    the ``best of the best'' asset managers that our country has to offer.
    We are finding and implementing ways to manage better, utilize
    resources more wisely, leverage private sector investment potential,
    and use smart information technology. Our aim is to manage assets by
    optimizing resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the
    warfighter at our installations and ranges. In 2008, we have focused
    sustainment funding on keeping our ``good facilities good'' and
    targeted limited Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to fix
    critical facility and infrastructure deficiencies to maintain
    readiness.
        Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our
    facilities and infrastructure in order to preserve our existing
    investment. Without proper sustainment, our facilities and
    infrastructure wear out more rapidly. In addition, commanders in the
    field use operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts to address facility
    requirements that impact their mission capabilities.
        When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a
    balanced program of O&M and MILCON funding to make them ``mission
    ready.'' Unfortunately, restoration and modernization requirements in
    past years exceeded available O&M funding, causing us to defer much-
    needed work. It is important for us to steadily increase the investment
    in restoration and modernization in order to halt the growth of this
    backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the life of our
    facilities and infrastructure.
        The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2008
    is $1.99 billion, 92 percent of the amount called for by the FSM. The
    fiscal year 2008 Total Force R&M funding is $346 million, a slight
    improvement over our fiscal year 2007 PB request. This is an area where
    the Air Force is taking manageable risk given our other budgetary
    priorities.

                   DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, OBSOLETE FACILITIES

        In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we
    also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are
    focused on facilities we need, not on sustaining those we do not. For
    the past 9 years, the Air Force has aggressively demolished or disposed
    of facilities that were unneeded or no longer economically viable to
    maintain. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2006, we demolished
    21.9 million square feet of non-housing facilities and infrastructure
    at a cost of $260 million in O&M funding. This is equivalent to
    demolishing more than three average size Air Force installations and
    has allowed us to target our O&M funding on facilities we need for the
    long-term mission. For fiscal year 2008 and beyond, the Air Force will
    continue to aggressively identify opportunities to eliminate excess and
    obsolete facilities.

               PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION

        This year's Air Force MILCON request includes $75 million for
    planning and design, of which $12 million is for military family
    housing. The request includes $52 million for active duty, $8 million
    for the Air National Guard, and $4 million for the Air Force Reserve.
    These funds will allow us to complete the design work for fiscal year
    2009 construction programs and to start the designs for fiscal year
    2010 projects, allowing us to award contracts in the year of
    authorization and appropriation.
        This year's request also includes $26 million for the Total Force
    unspecified minor construction program which is our primary means for
    funding small, unforeseen projects that cannot wait for the normal
    MILCON process. Because these projects emerge over the course of the
    year, it is not possible to program the total funding requirement.

                             UTILITY PRIVATIZATION

        Similar to our efforts in privatizing housing, the Air Force is
    privatizing utilities where it makes economic sense and does not
    adversely affect readiness, security, or mission accomplishment.
    Because our installations are key to our operational capabilities, our
    network of bases provides necessary infrastructure for deploying,
    employing, and sustaining air and space operations and re-deploying and
    reconstituting the force afterwards. Reliable utility systems are
    critical infrastructure components and essential to air operations and
    quality of life at every Air Force base. Additionally, these systems
    must be consistent with modern technology to optimize energy
    conservation. We believe privatization offers the best solution for
    simultaneously meeting both these requirements.
        To date, under OSD's utilities privatization program, the Air Force
    has conveyed 11 systems under 10 U.S.C. 2688 and 6 additional systems
    using standard FAR clauses, for a total of 17 privatized systems with a
    plant replacement value in excess of $300 million. We are currently
    evaluating an additional 338 systems for privatization. We anticipate
    that we will more than double the number of our privatized utility
    systems in fiscal year 2008. By the time the program concludes, we
    anticipate more than 120 of about 500 systems could be privatized.
    During the course of this process, we expect many competitive
    solicitations will end up as sole source procurements from local
    utility companies.

                                     ENERGY

        The Air Force is serious about being a global leader in facility
    energy conservation and renewable energy. In the last year the Air
    Force chartered a Senior Focus Group and set its strategic vision of
    making energy a consideration in all we do. Our strategy is built
    around a balance of supply side energy assurance and demand side energy
    efficiency. Our new energy strategy for the 21st century is focused on
    meeting the President's new energy mandates outlined in Executive Order
    13423. Our strategy covers not only our facilities infrastructure, but
    also fuel optimization in our aviation operations and ground
    transportation fleet.
        The Air Force facilities infrastructure strategy is to eliminate
    waste in energy use as the major conservation priority. Conducting
    effective energy audits to identify energy waste streams is the first
    step. Optimizing the efficiency of heating and cooling systems, and
    eliminating overlighting are just two of the initiatives in our energy
    toolbox.
        Our traditional project goals of delivering high quality facility
    projects on schedule and within budget is expanding the term
    ``quality'' so that our goal becomes the creation of functional,
    maintainable, and high performance facilities. Under Executive Order
    13423 the Air Force will employ the Federal Leadership in High
    Performance and Sustainable Building Guiding Principles to reduce total
    cost of ownership, improve energy efficiency and water conservation, to
    provide safe, healthy, and productivity enhancing environments. We
    currently employ Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
    criteria created by the U.S. Green Building Council as design
    guidelines. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the Nationally
    accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high
    performance green buildings. We are incorporating day-lighting and
    improved building envelop designs to reduce heating, ventilation, and
    air conditioning loads and power use. By fiscal year 2009, 100 percent
    of Air Force eligible MILCON projects will be ``capable of
    certification'' in LEED registration. High quality energy-efficient
    facilities is our goal.
        The Air Force is responding to the effectively doubling of the
    energy conservation mandate of Executive Oorder 13423 by strengthening
    management of our energy programs from base level Energy Management
    Steering Groups, and technically competent energy managers through
    major command and headquarters United States Air Force governance
    groups. Additionally, we are building an investment program based on
    high value initiatives that save energy and help the Air Force mitigate
    the impact of rising utility costs. We are hiring energy professionals
    to assist our major commands and installations target the right
    initiatives. We are also partnering with the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), and others to implement best practices across our enterprise.
        In the area of renewable energy, this year we awarded a contract
    that will result in an 18 megawatt (MW) peak power photovoltaic (PV)
    solar array at Nellis AFB, NV--projected to be the largest PV array in
    the world once on line in late 2008. The Air Force is building on a
    long history of facility energy conservation success. Our new energy
    initiatives will enhance our campaign to meet or exceed the goals of
    the new executive order.
        Our efforts were recognized in fiscal year 2006 when we received
    the EPA Climate Protection Award as the number one purchaser of
    renewable energy in the Nation. The Air Force continues to be the
    largest user of renewable energy as defined by the Energy Policy Act of
    2005 with the purchase of 990,319 MW of green power representing 9.6
    percent of our total electrical consumption last year. Also, for the
    third year in a row, the Air Force heads the EPA's list of Top 10
    Federal Government green power purchasers in the Green Power
    Partnership.

                         CIVIL ENGINEER TRANSFORMATION

        The Air Force Civil Engineers have a long history of supporting all
    the critical Air Force programs mentioned earlier. The engineers are
    also benchmarking with the private sector and aggressively transforming
    their business processes to be more effective and efficient. The Air
    Force civil engineers developed several initiatives to minimize the
    impact of Air Force-wide personnel reductions on their ability to
    provide combat capability and home-station installation support. Rather
    than settle for a fair share distribution across specialties and major
    commands, these transformational initiatives targeted specific process
    improvements which resulted in realignments for military and civilian
    authorizations to balance workload and increase combat capability. The
    civil engineers are transforming civil engineer functions at all
    organizational levels to centralize the core engineering capabilities
    and streamline their processes. This includes centralizing the
    execution of new and current mission MILCON, housing, and environmental
    restoration construction projects at the Air Force Center for
    Environmental Excellence in San Antonio, TX. The civil engineers also
    applied operational risk management concepts to the way we accomplish
    the fire emergency services support mission. By accepting capability-
    based risks, civil engineers can provide the same level of fire and
    crash rescue service for the airfield and installation, while reducing
    the numbers of firefighters required on duty during times when events
    are less likely to occur. The transformational initiatives mentioned
    above will allow us to execute our civil engineer mission more
    effectively and increase our combat capability for Explosive Ordnance
    Disposal and Air Force heavy construction units, known as Red Horse
    Squadrons. As a whole, these initiatives ensure civil engineer support
    to the warfighter remains steadfast and our garrison installation
    support remains at an acceptable level.

                                   CONCLUSION

        September 18, 2007, marks the 60th anniversary of the creation of
    our independent United States Air Force. This year we commemorate this
    anniversary of our proud Service--a Service born of revolutionary
    ideas, forged in combat, and proven through decades of progress and
    achievement. The readiness and capability of our fighting force to
    fight and win our Nation's wars, now and in the future, depends heavily
    upon the state of our operational infrastructure. As the Air Force
    continues to modernize and recapitalize, we will continue to wisely
    invest our precious MILCON, BRAC, and environmental funding to fight
    and win the war on terror, develop and care for our airmen and their
    families, while recapitalizing and modernizing our air and space
    systems.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.

        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much for your testimony.
        Secretary Eastin, last week the Army briefed the committee
    staff on your proposal on how to use your ``Grow the Force''
    funds in fiscal year 2008. This involved investments at most
    major Active-Duty Army installations with maneuver units. A
    notable exception was Hawaii. When the staff asked the reason
    for this, they were told that the Army was going to be cautious
    about making any further investment in Hawaii until the Stryker
    lawsuit was resolved.
        We understand that the flaw the court found in the Stryker
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not unique to Hawaii,
    though this is where the challenge came from. Therefore, it
    seems unfair to me that Hawaii would now be treated differently
    from other States based on a case involving Federal and not
    State law. My question is, is Hawaii going to get equal
    consideration with other States in terms of basing new brigades
    or other units, or is it going to be penalized due to this
    lawsuit?
        Mr. Eastin. We have no intention of penalizing Hawaii or,
    for that matter, any other installations where we have
    substantial operations. As was pointed out in the Stryker
    litigation, there was a failure to perform a programmatic EIS
    on where else these Strykers could have been based--Fort
    Carson, Fort Lewis, or some other installations.
        So we went back and are in the process of redoing that. We
    expect that the EIS will be out probably late September. We
    cannot at this time commit to you where any of the ``Grow the
    Force'' assets in terms of brigade combat teams (BCTs) will be
    located because we are in the process of doing another
    programmatic EIS for stationing those additional six brigades.
        So it would be totally premature to tell you that we are
    going to put a brigade in Hawaii or not put one there. We do
    not know whether we are going to put one at Fort Bliss or Fort
    Bragg or Fort Benning or any of the other installations either.
    It is just premature and we have to await the EIS and its
    record of decision, which we also expect will probably be
    released in the October-November timeframe.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Grone, based on actions of the courts in
    the Hawaii Stryker brigade case and the North Carolina outlying
    field case, is the Department getting a better understanding
    that making sure EISs are done right the first time ultimately
    saves time and trouble down the road?
        Mr. Grone. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the
    specifics of any particular litigation. But suffice it to say I
    think it is imperative that we ensure that we execute the
    administrative procedures required under the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), clearly and crisply. There is
    always an avenue potentially for disagreement. There is always
    an avenue potentially for litigation. But my view on this is
    that we should be very, very clear and very crisp in terms of
    how we implement studies and how we administer that process,
    because occasionally, it does create circumstances to which you
    have alluded, which in some cases are avoidable.
        Senator Akaka. Mr. Grone, what is the DOD's legal
    interpretation of the impact of section 1906 of H.R. 1591, as
    passed by the House of Representatives on March 23, on the
    Department's ability to construct new medical facilities at
    Fort Belvoir, VA, and Bethesda Naval Medical Center, MD,
    pursuant to the 2005 BRAC recommendations?
        Mr. Grone. Mr. Chairman, the Office of General Counsel has
    not issued a legal interpretation, but suffice it to say that
    DOD and the administration oppose any attempt to prohibit or
    otherwise redirect actions of the BRAC Commission which have
    been duly enacted and which we have an obligation to implement.
        The realignment of Walter Reed and the effort we have under
    way at Fort Belvoir, both of which you referred to, are
    critically important to the delivery of medical care in this
    region, and it is also critically important to the
    implementation of the round overall. So certainly we oppose any
    attempt to undo any of that.
        Senator Akaka. Secretary Anderson and Secretary Eastin, the
    Army wants to expand its force structure and the Air Force has
    underutilized infrastructure at Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) in
    New Mexico. The Air Force plans to put some Air Force Special
    Operations Forces there. My question is, in cases like this,
    are the Services going to look for joint basing opportunities
    that may exist or are we only going to see joint basing take
    place when it is forced upon you, as in the last BRAC?
        Mr. Anderson. Senator, as you pointed out, let me give just
    a little bit of background for the committee on the status of
    Cannon AFB. As you all are probably well aware, Cannon AFB was
    in the 2005 BRAC recommendations to be closed unless the
    Secretary of Defense determined an alternative mission for
    Cannon AFB. About June timeframe of last year, working with the
    Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Air Force
    determined that the Air Force Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM) had an alternate mission which very nicely fit into the
    footprint of Cannon AFB. That decision was approved by the
    Secretary of Defense.
        During that time period and subsequent to that, SOCOM has
    been determining whether there are alternatives or additional
    uses for Cannon AFB which are consistent with the Air Force
    SOCOM activities that are moving there, and the command will
    stand up in October of this year.
        I do not want to necessarily comment for SOCOM. I do not
    think it is appropriate for me to speak in their place. But I
    do know that there are active discussions going on as to
    additional activities that could work within the footprint and
    the mission that has been assigned for Cannon AFB, and we are
    certainly open to that. It does not require any legislative
    action at all. We are open to that. If it meets the needs of
    the military and it fits within the footprint, we are more than
    happy to talk about those opportunities.
        Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, any comment?
        Mr. Eastin. A little bit out of my lane, since my role is
    mainly having to do with installations. But I agree with
    Secretary Anderson. If it makes some sense to put some of our
    Special Forces out at Cannon AFB we do not have a problem doing
    that, at least in theory. The devil is always in the details on
    these things. But if we have available training land somewhere
    within the military, I think we ought to take our best
    advantage of that.
        Senator Akaka. Senator Ensign.
        Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We have a supplemental pending before Congress. We have
    passed that in the Senate and waiting for the House and the
    Senate to get together and have action on that. Have each one
    of you studied what the impacts would be on delaying the
    implementation of the supplemental and how that would impact
    readiness, installations, MILCON, the various other aspects of
    our military operation?
        Mr. Grone. Yes, sir. Certainly the Secretary of Defense and
    the Deputy Secretary of Defense and others, including most
    recently the Service Chiefs by letter, have spoken to the
    question of delay of the supplemental itself. It certainly
    would represent a fairly significant and very difficult harm to
    the mission. We certainly urge Congress to expedite
    consideration of the supplemental so that we can get funds to
    operating forces as quickly as we can.
        Senator Ensign. When is the date that you are going to
    start seeing effects, the drop-dead date that we absolutely
    will start doing harm to our military?
        Mr. Grone. Sir, my colleague, the Under Secretary of
    Defense, Comptroller, keeps very careful tabs on that and,
    frankly, I would not want to misspeak or misrepresent a date.
    So I would like to get that back to you for the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Grone. As I say, certainly from my perspective, the
    supplemental also carries implications for the implementation
    of the pending round of BRAC. Because this round is so heavily
    weighted toward MILCON, because the time lines for
    implementation are challenging, every bit of delay that we have
    eats into the 70 months of implementation time that we have.
    Although it is quite clear that members understand the
    importance of funding itself, and we are very grateful for
    that, but the issue of delay has effect on having forces ready
    as we get ready to move missions, as you in your opening
    statement indicated, Senator, was such a strong concern of
    yours.
        We desire to have all of our installations have adequate
    facilities at the point at which the new mission arrives, when
    personnel arrive, the mission arrives.
        Senator Ensign. How does the delay affect cost? Does it
    increase costs, does it save money if you delay it, or does it
    have no effect?
        Mr. Grone. I think inevitably if you get into a
    circumstance where if the extraordinary were to happen and the
    $3 billion was not forthcoming, that requirement would roll
    into fiscal year 2008 and beyond. Given that the program is so
    heavily weighted toward MILCON, it is inevitable that we would
    see increased costs.
        Senator Ensign. I am just talking about a delay. Let's just
    say the $3 billion is in there and we have a delay. We have
    certainly, at least anecdotally, been told that does increase
    the cost. If you cannot sign the contracts on time, with
    construction costs going up, I know certainly in my home town
    each month that you delay the cost of concrete, the cost of
    steel, the cost of all materials, continues to go up almost on
    a monthly basis.
        Mr. Grone. Yes, sir. We are very much concerned about that.
        Senator Ensign. Would each one of the secretaries like to
    comment on the supplemental?
        Mr. Eastin. Senator, we have a little north of $2 billion
    hanging up in the supplemental in the BRAC area alone. What
    this is going to cause us to do is basically we can with the
    money we have, award only 36 out of 75 MILCON contracts. The
    rest will have to be deferred until the supplemental money
    comes to us, assuming it does.
        As I think everybody knows, we are working against a
    September 15, 2011, deadline to get BRAC put together. All of
    these projects are interdependent. If you design something this
    year, you expect to begin constructing it next year, and you
    expect to begin constructing it at the cost that you would
    expect it to have put in when you had it designed.
        Sticking this out another 8, 10, 12 months even, not only
    puts your deadline in jeopardy, but it increases your costs and
    fouls up other schedules that we have interrelated in the BRAC
    operation.
        Senator Ensign. I know all of you so far have been
    concerned about just the BRAC aspect of it. But last year when
    the supplemental was delayed we received feedback--this was one
    of the things we hopefully learned from the mistake that was
    made last year by delaying the supplemental--that readiness was
    actually hurt, that training was hurt, that folks had to be
    laid off that were involved in training, that readiness of our
    troops was actually affected.
        Mr. Eastin. Let me add another aspect to it, at least as
    far as the Army is concerned. We went painfully, and more so
    embarrassingly, through this type of operation last year.
    Rightly or wrongly, installations and base operating support
    (BOS), and sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM)
    happen to be a handy place that can be borrowed from while you
    are trying to operate the rest of the Army and run a war. So if
    we get pressed down to the wire and do not have enough money to
    pay our troops and conduct our operations in Afghanistan and
    Iraq, they look elsewhere within the Army to get the money.
    Here we are in the installation community with grass that could
    be cut later, roofs that could be repaired later, dining
    facility lines that we could stretch out another half an hour,
    gates that could be closed because we are only going to run
    them until 11 o'clock at night instead of having an extra shift
    at there.
        What that leads to is layoffs. It leads to not paying the
    light bill at Fort Sam Houston, as we did last year because we
    had a better priority and we were pretty sure the city was not
    going to turn us off. Luckily, we were right. I am not sure
    they are going to be so patient this year when we come back.
        But it hits us in the installation community in a way that
    perhaps people do not realize, because we are the low man on
    the totem pole in terms of priorities when the chips are down
    and we have to support our troops.
        Senator Ensign. Any of the other secretaries want to
    comment?
        Mr. Penn. I agree, the delay will impact our schedule. It
    will definitely do that. The Navy has already started working
    the requests for proposals to 1391, so as soon as some money
    hits we will be able to spend it. A delay will create a domino
    effect across many interrelated moves. As you said, it will
    affect costs.
        But I am more worried about the impact it will have on our
    military and civilian communities. That is something we cannot
    measure.
        Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson?
        Mr. Anderson. I have to agree with everything that I have
    heard coming down the table here. Quality of life is always an
    issue. Pushing stuff off as the year progresses, as we have
    done analysis, not only are you facing inflation, which is very
    real in many communities, Senator, as you rightfully pointed
    out, but as we have done our analysis prices actually creep up
    just as you move through the year, inflation-adjusted. As you
    come to the end and you rush, that drives price up.
        As far as the Air Force is concerned, I do not think we
    have a hard broke date for our non-BRAC activities. Our people
    are working very hard, as Secretary Penn had suggested, in
    posturing everything ready to go the moment the money comes.
    There are some work-arounds going on, as is obvious.
        On the BRAC side we do know, though, because we have
    detailed project plans for every single one of the BRAC actions
    and they are domino effect one over another. We have of course
    the September 2011 deadline. We estimate that if we do not get
    the second tranche of money by, say, July, we will begin to be
    hard broke on some of these projects, that they will either
    begin to significantly affect mission or we will have to tell
    you that we cannot make the 2011 deadline because of the pieces
    that have to come into play to make that happen.
        Senator Ensign. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Akaka. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        That is the main reason I came to this meeting. I can
    remember so well last year when General Cody came around and he
    was really, really desperate. We were not talking about little
    things we could put off. They always talk about what used to be
    called the Real Property Maintenance (RPM) accounts. RPM
    accounts are now called SRM, where you do not put the roofs on
    and those kids, every time there is a storm, they are out there
    protecting their equipment.
        Those things can happen. But what happens when you get to
    the point where we are looking at reenlistment bonuses, we are
    looking at widow's benefits? That is where I would like to get
    as specific as possible.
        Secretary Grone, I was hoping we would get a more specific
    answer right now, because I want to stop that trauma before it
    gets here. If we do not exaggerate, if we do not talk about
    that now, we are not going to be able to get anything done.
    People in the United States Senate and the United States House
    of Representatives have to know the dire consequences of
    inaction, and I do not think they are getting it.
        I really want you to come forth, because if we are faced
    with the same thing we were last year then you guys have not
    really done a good enough job of letting us know the crisis is
    coming. I know it is not so much you, but it is more the Army,
    I think, Secretary Eastin, than anyplace else.
        So anyway, I have already beat that one up. The other
    thing, too, I would have to say, Mr. Chairman: These
    communities that are around military installations, they make
    commitments having to do with the BRAC policies. When they come
    out with this they say: All right, we will take care of
    housing, we will do this, some of the things, some of the
    health care for the troops and their kids. Quite frankly, that
    is predicated on the timely release of these funds to get the
    things done in conjunction with BRAC. So I am very much
    concerned about that.
        Last week I was at Vicenza, Italy, where they have the
    Southern European Task Force and they are working on the
    European Airborne BCT there. They are doing a great job with
    the resources they have, limited resources. But I am a little
    bit concerned about what is going to happen there as we look at
    the restructuring of our European forces.
        Now, some time ago I went to Bulgaria, Romania, the
    Ukraine, and places in Eastern Europe where they have resources
    available for us where they would actually billet our people.
    They do not have the environmental encroachment that Senator
    Ensign talked about. I think that is very serious. In Western
    Europe right now, we know there are times when they cannot use
    live ranges more than so many days a week and so many hours a
    day. We do not have that problem in some of the other places.
        So I guess I just ask you to comment on what you envision
    the final shape of our forces in Europe and what sufficient
    training grounds will be available to them as they transform
    into the BCTs? That is addressed to Secretary Eastin or
    Secretary Grone.
        Mr. Grone. Senator Inhofe, I very much appreciate the
    question. As we move forward with the implementation of the
    GDPR, we remain of the view that issues like the transition,
    the transformation of the 173rd at Dal Molin, Vicenza, remain
    very critical to our overall strategy. The notion of the use of
    other locations that you have suggested for training and other
    purposes are all critically important to us and we believe that
    they can continue to be executed in exactly the way we have
    laid it out for you previously.
        Senator Inhofe. I watched Vicenza. That is where they have
    the 173rd. Remember when they would not let us go through
    Turkey to go to Northern Iraq. Those guys were up and gone. We
    came back, we enhanced their deployment area. In fact, if it
    had been raining at that time they would have had a hard time
    in their staging area getting that thing done. So I think that
    is important.
        The concept of joint basing emerged out of the BRAC 2005 as
    a tremendous cost-saving measure. However, the Services seem to
    be progressing rather slowly on that. Secretary Anderson, I
    understand the Air Force has some concerns about that. Do you
    have any comments to make about that?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir, Senator. First of all, let me state
    that the baseline concept and purpose behind joint basing, that
    is to save money, to be more efficient, we could not be more
    behind that one at all. We think that is exactly the right way
    to go. Consolidating contracts, consolidating work effort, what
    have you, is going to save the American taxpayer money.
        The question is not the ``what,'' because I think we are
    all in total agreement on the what. The question is ``how.''
    Our concern is on two levels. The first is we want to make sure
    that as we move into this joint basing construct that quality
    of life is paramount in this process. The Air Force is very
    proud of its installations. It is very proud of the way it does
    quality of life for its airmen, and it is based in large part
    on the retention profile of the Air Force.
        We want to make sure that as we move forward in joint
    basing that the DOD, the military, uses this as an opportunity
    to improve quality of life across the board, not to go to some
    mediocre level of quality, but to improve it for everyone,
    every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and, most importantly,
    their families.
        The ``how'' from our perspective is, we look at this as an
    opportunity to use market pressures, where you have a provider
    of service who provides a service for a fee, the customer who
    wants the service defines what the service ought to be, goes
    out and gets the budget to pay for that service, and then pays
    for it when it is appropriately delivered.
        So the tension between the customer and the supplier, just
    like everybody deals with every day when you get your lawn
    mowed or you get your air conditioning fixed, we believe is the
    right way to go after joint basing, therefore leaving the real
    property and the budget, the dollars, with the customer and
    have a service provider provide that service at a mutually
    agreeable price, where that tension continues all the time.
        Senator Inhofe. I think you've covered that. I wanted to
    ask you one more question. We talked about the synthetic fuels,
    the coal-to-liquid. I was participating in the decision to try
    that out in the B-52. Are they using that in more than two
    engines at this time?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. First of all, I really do want to
    thank you for your leadership last year. If it would not have
    been for your pushing this, we would not have had the 100,000
    gallons of synfuel that we needed to complete the test.
        Senator Inhofe. I think it is really critical. We never
    dreamed 10 years ago that we would have the needs that we would
    for fuel. Yet the other committee that I am on, Environment and
    Public Works Committee, they are opposed to the coal-to-liquid
    concept.
        I would just like to have you, for the record, not now,
    give me some of the strongest points that you can give me in
    favor of the particular program. Would you do that?
        Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir, I will do that.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        The benefits of the Air Force synthetic fuel program are numerous
    both from environmental as well as security and economics. The Air
    Force is currently testing and certifying the fleet to use a blend of
    synthetic fuel and JP-8. If successful, the entire Air Force fleet will
    be certified by 2010. It also is the goal of the Air Force to acquire
    50 percent of its domestic fuel requirements from domestic alternative
    fuel sources by 2016. The goal is focused on acquiring a synthetic fuel
    blend produced by domestic plants that have carbon capture and
    sequestration (CCS).
        The Air Force recognizes that the production of synthetic fuel from
    coal using the Fischer Tropsche (FT) process can produce 1.8 times as
    much CO2 as a conventional oil refinery. This fact makes it imperative
    that the production of synthetic fuel be done in an environmentally-
    friendly manner. In this respect, the Air Force will expect any
    domestic producer of synthetic fuel to use CCS technology and
    procedures.
        It should be noted that one major difference concerning the FT
    process versus an oil refinery is that the CO2 is concentrated and more
    easily captured. An oil refinery is unable to capture the CO2 it
    produces. The concentrated stream of CO2 captured in the FT plant is
    compressed and can be sold, or sequestered in old or tired oil fields
    for enhanced oil recovery which has been shown to increase oil
    production by 300-800 percent, or it can be injected into saline
    aquifers or limestone for permanent storage. This technology is being
    studied by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency
    and it has been shown the United States has over 3,900 gigatons of CO2
    storage capacity (11,000 GtCO2 worldwide).
        In addition to capturing and sequestering the CO2, the Air Force
    and Department of Energy are looking at adding biomass to the coal
    feedstock to further reduce the CO2 emissions. Biomass is considered
    CO2 neutral because it captures CO2 during its life. Current testing is
    focused on introducing 20-30 percent biomass to the feedstock (coal).
        The FT process has the ability to extract the mercury, ammonia
    nitrate, sulfur, and other chemical properties in coal that can be used
    for other products, i.e. fertilizer and munitions. This serves to
    produce a synthetic fuel that is free of SOx and has very little
    particulate matter. If the FT process is tuned to make clean diesel,
    the fuel has shown decreased levels of NOx.
        The testing performed on the TF-33 engines on the B-52 has shown
    that CO2 is reduced 1.6-2.0 percent from the exhaust (after being
    burned). While not substantial it is a reduction that is beyond that of
    oil-based fuels.
        The implementation of new ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standards in
    the United States has the potential of making FT coal to liquids a
    substantial source of ``clean diesel'' in the near future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this expanded, written
    response to your question. I have attached a copy of the Air Force's
    schedule for testing and certifying the entire fleet. I thought you
    would find it of interest based on your strong support of this program.
        If you should have any additional questions concerning the Air
    Force's work with synthetic fuels, please feel free to contact me at
    anytime.

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Grone, it is really a challenge you are facing.
    We have the redeployment from Europe. Our goal is to bring
    about 70,000 back from Europe. You have the South Korean move,
    10,000, 12,000, 15,000 from South Korea. We are moving from
    Okinawa to Guam, I know. Then the end strength increases that
    have been projected for the military, and the whole BRAC
    transformation at the same time.
        I guess my question to you is, are we possibly on course to
    do that? Do we really have the money in the budget and the
    supplemental to get there? If not, how much more do we need?
    Because I think these are all good decisions. I support the
    BRAC. I really support the European reduction. There is no
    reason for us not to do that. Senator Chambliss, Senator Enzi,
    and I visited Ramstein, Brussels, Vicenza, Rota, Sigonella, and
    Naples a couple of years ago. Those, I believe, will be
    surviving bases.
        But all of this was to discuss the realignment in Europe.
    Are we on track? Can we do it with what you have been given?
        Mr. Grone. Senator Sessions, certainly from the perspective
    of finances we continue to be on track. The budget request
    contains a number of initiatives, to include facilities for the
    173rd at Vicenza. It includes funding to continue the return of
    forces from Germany to the United States through the BRAC
    process.
        Each of these major initiatives that you have mentioned has
    a funding stream almost solely dedicated to themselves. One of
    the things that we will do for you is to demonstrate how those
    funding streams are related to the initiative, so you can see
    where they are in the budget and how they are financed, because
    it is an enormously complicated, complex process, as you
    described, where we have issues associated and financing
    associated with ``Grow the Force,'' BRAC, the regular MILCON
    program, global defense posture. All of those initiatives are
    out there. All of them are present to one degree or another in
    the various funding proposals that are currently pending before
    Congress.
        I do believe that we are generally on track with what we
    desire as a Department to accomplish. Timely receipt of those
    funds, of course, is a major factor in that equation, as well
    as receiving the funds that we've requested for those purposes
    is a major part of that equation.
        So certainly we look forward to working with you. But yes,
    I do believe that we are well-positioned from a budget and
    program perspective to accomplish a good deal of what we have
    laid out for you.
        Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure. I believe it
    was Secretary Rumsfeld or senior DOD leaders that talked about
    the advantages of consolidation of bases. One of them is,
    someone expressed a goal that the average soldier could expect
    in his deployments to stay at a given base for as long as 7
    years. The bigger the base is, the more chance you have to be
    promoted and not have to be moved, and that sort of thing.
        Maybe, Secretary Eastin, you would comment on the quality
    of life for soldiers. Is there any hope or plan that we might
    be able to create stronger bases, larger bases, so that it
    would reduce perhaps the number of moves a family might expect
    in a person's career?
        Mr. Eastin. I cannot say that it is going to reduce them
    substantially. But what we have right now is a continual in-
    and-out of troops going through, going to the front, with the
    pressures on their families that they have.
        Senator Sessions. But those families get to stay at the
    facility and you would expect the soldier to return to that
    facility.
        Mr. Eastin. Yes, I would.
        Senator Sessions. If you come up for promotion or some
    other cause, and you are moved from one base to another, would
    it reduce the number of moves for that reason?
        Mr. Eastin. I would once again not want to step out of my
    lane and affect what other senior Army leaders might want to do
    about moving people around. The tendency, of course, is to
    maintain as much flexibility as you have. If you need a major
    someplace and you do not need one where he happens to be, the
    Army has a criticality of needing to move him or her to the
    other place.
        Of course, the larger the operation, the larger the
    installation you have, the more opportunities there are going
    to be on that particular place. But it might be just
    coincidental that where that major would be needed would be on,
    say, Fort Bragg when they had been living at Fort Bragg.
        What we are trying to do is to keep them in the Army, and
    you keep them in the Army by providing them a quality of life
    that is roughly equivalent to what they might get in the
    private sector, especially the quality of life for their
    families. While they are deployed, they want to know that their
    families are safe, and well-provided for, back in the States.
    So that is our goal here in the Army installation community.
        Senator Sessions. I could not agree with you more. We are
    asking incredible things of our men and women in uniform and
    they are being deployed far more regularly in harm's way than
    we would like that to be. They have performed exceedingly well,
    and reenlistment has remained high. I do not know in the last
    couple of months, but last year it was remarkably high in light
    of the demands we are placing on them.
        So I am concerned that we not go too far and that we have
    to think about the quality of lives, the men and women who
    serve. That means better housing. It means I think where
    possible longer stays at posts. Wives often have jobs. Kids are
    in school.
        I do not know if any of the others would like to share
    thoughts with that. But I assume those are factors that are
    involved in any of your decisions about BRAC or redeployment.
        Mr. Penn. That is correct.
        Senator Sessions. When we look at the challenges that we
    face, I believe that we need to complete the move from Europe.
    In fact, I have doubts whether we should keep as many troops in
    Europe as we presently are planning to keep. I believe we
    should move forward with the South Korean redeployment, pulling
    those numbers down from well in the 30,000s now. For over 50
    years we have been there. South Korea is a healthy, strong,
    vibrant, free country that all of us can be so proud of, and I
    think they are willing to accept more responsibility.
        I absolutely do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that anybody
    should see the reductions that we are planning to undertake in
    South Korea as any sort of lack of commitment to South Korea
    and its independence, its willingness to help them resist any
    attack from the North that could come. I think, in fact, we
    will be better positioned and better able to do that.
        So we have a lot of movement going on. You have been really
    challenged. General Schoomaker in his last testimony talked
    about these delays in getting the supplemental done, the
    raiding of accounts and budgets that come as a result of it,
    coming from your accounts often times. He said it was like
    wading through a bog waste-deep, trying to do your job, fight a
    war, deploy and redeploy all these people, and then never know
    whether you have the money to do so.
        We need to do better. It does cost us in any number of
    ways, I think, when we are unpredictable in Congress in meeting
    the commitments that we have given you and that we have
    approved and we have said we want you to do. So I believe we
    can do better.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
        I want to thank the witnesses today. As was mentioned by
    Senator Sessions, we have huge challenges ahead of us. We look
    forward to the 21st century and all of these movements are
    parts of that. I just wanted you to know that our feeling here
    is that we want to work together with you in trying to do the
    best we can for our troops, and especially for our country. We
    are doing this together and I look forward to continuing to do
    that.
        So again, thank you so much for your responses. This
    hearing is adjourned.
        [Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Philip Grone prior to
    the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

                            Questions and Responses

                 POLICY ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ON LEASED LAND

        Question. What is the Department of Defense's (DOD) policy on the
    use of military construction (MILCON) funds to construct facilities on
    land that is leased from a non-Federal entity?
        Answer. 10 U.S.C. 2852 and 10 U.S.C. 18239 (for Reserve components)
    provide for the waiver of certain restrictions, one of which is
    ownership in fee simple of the underlying land to accommodate a MILCON
    project. A MILCON or family housing project may proceed if the
    Secretary concerned determines that the interest to be acquired (lease,
    easement, et cetera) is sufficient to support the project.
        The Department prefers to own the land upon which MILCON funds are
    used to construct facilities. If the land is not held by the
    government, the Department should have sufficient real property
    interests in order to protect the Federal Government's interests and
    investment.
        Question. If no policy exists, what guidance is provided to the
    military departments and defense agencies regarding the use of MILCON
    on leased land?
        Answer. Guidance to the components is provided in DODI 4165.71,
    Real Property Acquisition.
        Question. Does the DOD currently lease land on which MILCON funds
    have been used to construct facilities?
        Answer. Yes, the Air Force (Active, Reserve, and Air National
    Guard) has several long-term leases at airports where MILCON funds have
    been used. Section 801 housing is also on leased land. DODI 4165.71,
    Real Property Acquisition, states that if the Government's requirement
    cannot be reasonably met by fee simple acquisition than a lesser
    interest may be acquired. The lease must be for a government purpose.
        Question. If so, what are the general terms of the leases and
    specifically the status of the ownership of improvements upon the land
    upon termination of the ground lease?
        Answer. DODI 4165.71 states that if DOD plans to construct
    facilities, then the lease must address the disposition of the
    facilities at the end of the lease.
         assessing the 2005 defense base realignment and closure round
        Question. How would you assess the success of the 2005 Defense Base
    Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round?
        Answer. I would assess the success of the 2005 round in terms of
    meeting a series of key strategic objectives. Among the objectives the
    Department established were:

             Supporting force transformation through global
            repositioning, modularity, and Total Force management (IGPBS
            and Modularity).
             Rebasing forces and missions to address strategic
            threats and force protection considerations.
             Consolidating business-oriented support functions.
             Promoting joint and multi-Service missions and basing.
             Achieving savings.

        The BRAC 2005 process strengthened national security by reshaping
    the domestic installations at which U.S. military forces perform their
    assigned missions and aligns the Department's base structure with the
    force structure that is expected to be needed over the next 20 years.
    Additionally, the recommendations accommodate the Department's global
    reposturing of its forces; facilitate the ongoing transformation of
    U.S. forces to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st
    century; and restructure important support functions to capitalize on
    advances in technology and business practices.
        Question. Are all BRAC 2005 business plans fully funded through
    2011 in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2008? If not,
    what is the current funding shortfall by Service?
        Answer. Yes--the business plans are fully funded through 2011.
         status of forces agreement for overseas military construction
        Question. What is the current DOD policy on MILCON in foreign
    countries that have not entered into a Status of Forces Agreement
    (SOFA) with the United States? In absence of a SOFA, what other types
    of agreements are required?
        Answer. SOFAs concern themselves primarily with privileges and
    immunities for DOD personnel (i.e.. entry/exit, jurisdiction,
    taxation). They do not normally address access to facilities and
    construction, et cetera.
        For a project to qualify as MILCON, it must be on a military
    installation. In the case of an activity in a foreign country, that
    means property ``under the operational control of the secretary of a
    military department or the Secretary of Defense, without regard to the
    duration of operational control.'' Whatever the nature of the agreement
    with a foreign country, the Department ensures it has ``operational
    control'' before undertaking MILCON.

                             GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE

        Question. What is the status of the implementation of the
    Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, now known as the Global
    Defense Posture (GDP) Realignment?
        Answer. During the past year, DOD has made important strides in
    transforming its GDP and associated infrastructure needs. The objective
    is to realign and reshape the structure of installations abroad to
    better support individual services and joint warfighting needs while
    making the best use of limited defense resources. Funding for the GDP
    program for fiscal years 2008-2011 is $3.7 billion; of which $1.7
    billion is funded through the BRAC 2005 account. The Department
    continues to review its requirements on a global scale and lo implement
    the plan.

    USE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR FACILITY LEASING AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
                                   ACTIVITIES

        Question. What is the current DOD policy on the use of service
    contracts to enter into contracts for the lease of facility space or to
    construct or improve facilities?
        Answer. Our policy is simple and straight forward. We do not
    condone the use of services contracts to procure office space or to
    construct or improve facilities.

                      STANDARDS FOR DOD MEDICAL FACILITIES

        Question. Does the Department have a standard or guidance regarding
    the minimally acceptable condition of DOD medical facilities? If so,
    how are these standards enforced?
        Answer. DOD meets the same facility condition requirements as the
    private sector and are inspected/accredited by the same agency, the
    Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organization. In
    addition, DOD requires medical facilities to comply with DOD-wide
    criteria assessment and reporting requirements through the military
    departments. Each facility is inspected on an annual basis at the
    installation level to ensure adherence to these condition standards.

       REQUIREMENT FOR STRATEGY FOR URBAN OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES

        Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) prohibits the DOD from
    carrying out projects to construct facilities to provide training in
    urban operations, such as Combined Arms Collective Training Facilities,
    until the Secretary of Defense approves a strategy for such operations
    that would establish the requirements for such facilities. The Under
    Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is also required to
    certify that such projects comply with this strategy, once it has been
    approved.
        Is the DOD in compliance with this provision? When did or will the
    Secretary approve a strategy for facility requirements to support
    training in urban operations?
        Answer. The Department is complying with the provision. The Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
    (USD(P&R)) is implementing the strategy through issuance of DOD
    Instruction 1322.27, dated April 13, 2007. Certifications arc expected
    to be signed by the USD(P&R) by early May.

                              ENHANCED USE LEASES

        Question. Has the DOD issued guidance to the military departments
    and defense agencies about the use of transparent, competitive
    procedures to assess, review, and carry out transactions for enhanced-
    use leases?
        Answer. DOD is in the process of considering the issuance of
    Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) policy guidance that would standardize the
    process Department-wide and provide general guidelines for assessing,
    reviewing, selecting, and executing EULs.
        All EULs are accomplished in accordance with OMB Circular A-11
    which provides the OMB scoring rules for lease-purchases and leases of
    capital assets.

                             CHILD CARE FACILITIES

        Question. Does the DOD have a position on extending the temporary
    authority provided by section 2810 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 for increased MILCON thresholds
    to construct child development centers, which is set to expire on
    September 30, 2007?
        Answer. In recent testimony before the House Armed Services
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the Deputy Under Secretary of
    Defense for Military Community and Family Policy requested that the
    authority to construct child care development centers with operations
    and maintenance funding be extended.
     policy on use of funds for land purchases in accident potential zones
        Question. What is the Department's policy on the use of government
    funds to purchase land in accident potential zones (APZs) adjacent to
    runways?
        Answer. DOD Instruction 4165.57 covers use of government funds to
    purchase land in airfield APZs. That policy states (4.2.2.2.2) that
    Services should ``program for the acquisition of interests first in
    APZs and second in high noise areas only when all possibilities of
    achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have been
    exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is
    manifestly threatened.''

             LEGAL IMPACT OF PROHIBITION OF CLOSURE OF WALTER REED

        Question. What is the Department's legal interpretation of the
    impact of section 1906 of H.R. 1591, as passed by the House of
    Representatives on March 23, on the Department's ability to construct
    new medical facilities at Fort Belvoir, VA, and Bethesda Naval Medical
    Center, MD, pursuant to the 2005 base closure recommendations?
        Answer. Undertaking a legal interpretation prior to receiving
    enacted legislation is premature. The Department strongly opposes any
    provision that would alter the approved recommendations of the 2005
    BRAC Commission. The BRAC process, as authorized by Congress, requires
    that both the President and Congress approve or disapprove the
    Commission's recommendations in their entirely to allow the process to
    remain apolitical. Legislating a specific change to a BRAC Commission
    recommendation would adversely affect the integrity of the BRAC 2005
    process.
                                     ______

        [Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Keith E. Eastin prior
    to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

                            Questions and Responses

                IMPROPER USE OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS

        Question. Can you provide the status of the Army investigations,
    including investigations of potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations,
    into the use of operations and maintenance funds for military
    construction and procurement activities through the Logistics Civil
    Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) in Iraq?
        Answer. The Army opened five investigations of potential
    Antideficiency Act violations related to the potential improper use of
    operations and maintenance funds for the procurement of items through
    LOGCAP. Cumulative dollar value of the five investigations is
    approximately $38 million. Army tasked the Department of Defense (DOD)
    Inspector General to conduct one of the five investigations due to
    potential involvement of senior level personnel.
        Completed investigations are provided to Congress and include the
    nature of the violation, accountable personnel, and disciplinary action
    taken.
        Question. What is the status of the Army Audit Agency (AAA) report
    on the expenditure of operations and maintenance funds in support of
    the development and construction of the National Museum of the United
    States Army at Fort Belvoir, VA?
        Answer. The AAA completed their report on 31 January 2007. The AAA
    analysis covered contract actions from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal
    year 2005, as well as fiscal year 2006 contract solicitation
    requirements.
        The executive summary of the audit found the Center for Military
    History (CMH) and its National Museum Division failed to follow all of
    the required procedures for: setting contract requirements, using the
    proper type and fiscal year of funds to execute contracts, providing
    the necessary guidance for contractor personnel, and accounting for
    property furnished to contractors. Several recommendations were issued,
    which the Army and CMH agreed with, and the recommendations are being
    implemented. The key recommendations implemented were to enhance
    training for personnel overseeing contract performance, as well as
    cancelling a draft contract solicitation.
        The Army is currently conducting two separate investigations of
    potential Antideficiency Act violations involving the potential
    improper use of operations and maintenance funds in support of the
    National Museum of the United States Army.

                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AT DAL MOLIN, ITALY

        Question. Has the Government of Italy authorized the United States
    to commence military construction at Dal Molin, Italy? If not, when is
    this approval expected?
        Answer. No, not yet; formal approval is expected within the next
    few days, as Italian Defense Minister Parisi told U.S. Ambassador
    Spogli on 3 April 2007. According to Minister Parisi, U.S. embassy
    officials in Rome should receive formal approval sometime the week of
    9-13 April 2007.
        Question. When will a contract for the military construction
    authorized in fiscal year 2007 be awarded?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2007 projects are slated for award in
    September 2007.

                        WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

        Question. What is your position on proposals to delay, reverse, or
    accelerate the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
    decision related to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center?
        Answer. Soldiers are the centerpiece of our Army, and the quality
    of their care is non-negotiable. Closing Walter Reed, as required by
    BRAC law by September 15, 2011, will improve the health care of our
    servicemembers and their families.
        The Army is opposed to reversing the current BRAC recommendations
    for WRAMC. The implementation of the recommendation is necessary to
    replace and expand the Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir and
    construct and expand facilities at Bethesda, to be named Walter Reed
    National Military Medical Center. When the projects are completed, we
    will be better equipped to provide world class health care for
    soldiers, veterans, and their families well into the future.
        Proposals to accelerate the BRAC projects at Bethesda and Belvoir
    are currently being evaluated.

        Question. In your opinion, will the BRAC Business Plan for the
    closure of Walter Reed, which is managed by the Department of the Army,
    result in adequate capabilities and facilities being built at the
    designated receiving locations?
        Answer. BRAC Business Plan 169, Walter Reed, is developed with
    input from physicians, medical support personnel, architects, and
    engineers. The plans are formally coordinated with the Navy, Air Force,
    Medical Joint Cross Service Group, and TRICARE Management Activity/
    Health Affairs. All concurred that the scope and cost of the projects
    in the business plan provide adequate capabilities and facilities
    required at the designated receiving locations.

       REQUIREMENT FOR STRATEGY FOR URBAN OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES

        Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) prohibits the DOD from
    carrying out projects to construct facilities to provide training in
    urban operations, such as Combined Arms Collective Training Facilities,
    until the Secretary of Defense approves a strategy for such operations
    that would establish the requirements for such facilities. The Under
    Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (USD(P&R)) is also
    required to certify that such projects comply with this strategy, once
    it has been approved. Is the Department of the Army in compliance with
    this provision?
        Answer. At this time the DOD Instruction 1322.jj which establishes
    an overarching Urban Training Facilities Strategy has not been approved
    by the Secretary of Defense. According to USD(P&R) it is in the final
    stages of the approval process and should be approved within the next
    week. The Army has submitted the fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
    Urban Operations Training facilities project lists and has received
    notification from USD(P&R) that they meet the requirements of the
    strategy. Once the strategy has been approved the DOD can certify the
    projects and will notify Congress.

              SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION ACCOUNTS

        Question. Do you believe the amount requested for sustainment,
    restoration, and modernization in the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2008 is adequate?
        Answer. Yes. The Army is requesting 86 percent of the DOD Facility
    Sustainment Model and intends to achieve 90 percent level of effort
    through efficiencies.
        Question. What is the Department of the Army doing to identify and,
    if necessary, correct facility conditions similar to those found at
    Building 18 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that may exist at other
    medical hold facilities across the Army?
        Answer. Installation Management Command (IMCOM) MHO facilities meet
    life/health/safety standards.
        Garrisons reviewed their requirements to support the MHO program.
    Thirty-nine projects totaling $24 million were tentatively identified.
        These projects focus on improving quality of life and increasing
    our capability and capacity to support current and future MHO
    populations.
        We will further canvass installations for any additional projects
    and conduct an analysis of all projects to ensure they comply with all
    applicable statutes and makes the best use of taxpayer dollars.

     POLICY ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LAND PURCHASES IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

        Question. What is the Department's policy on the use of government
    funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways?
        Answer. The Department of the Army follows DOD policy set forth in
    DOD Instruction 4165.57 on use of government funds to purchase land in
    airfield accident potential zones (APZs). That policy states, ``. . .
    program for the acquisition of interests first in Accident Potential
    Zones and second in high noise areas only when all possibilities of
    achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have been
    exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is
    manifestly threatened.''
        In compliance with that policy, when local governments do not enact
    effective land use controls to prevent incompatible development or
    where it believes existing zoning will not be an effective long-term
    strategy due to local development pressures, the Army attempts to
    acquire appropriate interests in lands in APZs. When acquisition of an
    interest in real property interests is required to protect operational
    integrity, the Army seeks to prevent development or use of property in
    APZs that would be incompatible with the mission of the installation by
    entering into agreements with eligible entities using authorities in
    section 2684a of title 10, U.S.C. Budgeting for acquisition of property
    interests as part of the military construction program is only
    considered when these measures are not practicable or effective.
                                     ______

        [Prepared questions submitted to Hon. B.J. Penn prior to
    the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

                            Questions and Responses

                 OUTLYING LANDING FIELD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC

        Question. What is the status of the Navy's plan related to the
    outlying landing field (OLF) in Washington County, NC?
        Answer. The proposed OLF will add an essential training capability
    to support the East Coast basing of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet at NAS
    Oceana, VA, and MCAS Cherry Point, NC. On February 23, 2007, Department
    of the Navy published the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
    Statement (SEIS) for public review and comment. The public comment
    period on the draft SEIS, originally scheduled to close on April 24,
    2007, has been extended until May 9, 2007, to assure that all
    interested parties have the opportunity to provide comments on this
    important matter. Public hearings have been held in Perquimans, Bertie,
    Washington, Hyde, Craven, and Beaufort Counties. An additional public
    hearing is scheduled in Charlotte on April 17. The Navy will fully
    consider all comments received during the comment period, and will
    respond to such comments in the final SEIS, scheduled for completion in
    fall 2007. Not less than 30 days following publication of the final
    SEIS, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and
    Environment) may sign a Record of Decision (ROD).
        Unless constrained by further legal actions, after the ROD the Navy
    will commence activities to implement the decision, which would include
    acquisition of required property interests (fee title and/or easements)
    and project design and construction. We expect that property
    acquisition activities would commence in fiscal year 2008, and that the
    OLF will be fully operational by 2012.
        Question. What is the status of the SEIS?
        Answer. On February 23, 2007, Department of the Navy published the
    draft SEIS for public review and comment. The draft SEIS provides
    additional analysis of potential environmental impacts of construction
    and operation of an OLF at five alternative OLF sites while addressing
    the SEIS deficiencies identified by Federal district and appellate
    courts. The draft SEIS is the culmination of 20 weeks of fieldwork and
    12 technical reports produced through consultation with the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (Cooperating Agency), wildlife experts, and
    acoustic engineers. The Navy obtained the services of three noted
    waterfowl experts (PhDs) to provide technical expertise and independent
    peer review of the study.
        As noted above, the public comment period on the draft SEIS,
    originally scheduled to close on April 24, 2007, has been extended
    until May 9, 2007, to assure that all interested parties have the
    opportunity to provide comments on this important matter. The Navy is
    holding seven public meetings during the public comment period to
    receive comments on the draft SEIS from interested parties. Each public
    meeting is preceded by an open information session to enable interested
    parties to review information presented in the draft SEIS. The Navy
    will fully consider all comments received during the comment period,
    and will respond to such comments in the final SEIS.
        We are aware from media reports of Senator Dole's letter to the
    Secretary of the Navy regarding OLF, but have not received a copy. We
    will respond to her concerns upon receipt of the letter.
        Question. What further actions by the Department of the Navy are
    required to satisfy the legal requirements of the Federal court?
        Answer. The Department of the Navy must complete and publish a SEIS
    that addresses the deficiencies in the 2003 final EIS identified by the
    Federal district and appellate courts, and publish a ROD.
       requirement for strategy for urban operations training facilities
        Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) prohibits the Department of
    Defense from carrying out projects to construct facilities to provide
    training in urban operations, such as Combined Arms Collective Training
    Facilities, until the Secretary of Defense approves a strategy for such
    operations that would establish the requirements for such facilities.
    The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is also
    required to certify that such projects comply with this strategy, once
    it has been approved. Is the Department of the Navy in compliance with
    this provision?
        Answer. The Department of the Navy is in compliance with this
    provision and the proposed DODI ``Urban Training Facilities'' 1322.XX
    instruction. Final approval of the instruction is currently in
    staffing. P-1063 Military Operations in Urban Terrain Enhancements at
    Camp Lejeune has been reviewed and certified by the Deputy Under
    Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Urban Training
    Facilities Review Group as being an appropriate and valid project.
    P971C at Twentynine Palms is an additional phase of a previous
    congressionally-approved project and as such does not need to be
    further validated. This project will be funded with fiscal year 2008
    Grow the Force military construction (MILCON) funds.

              SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION ACCOUNTS

        Question. Do you believe the amount requested for Navy and Marine
    Corps Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) in the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2008 is adequate?
        Answer. SRM funding requirements are based on a mature DOD model
    with inputs from the Services and which uses industry standards for
    comparable types of facilities. As a general rule, I believe the
    Department of the Navy should sustain its existing facilities, or
    dispose/demolish excess inventory before building new facilities. Both
    the Navy and Marine Corps opted to take additional risk compared to
    previous budgeted levels by reducing SRM in fiscal year 2008 and
    applying the asset to other priorities:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budgeted percent of model requirement     Funding to achieve 100
                                                ------------------------------------------      percent of model
                                                         2007                 2008                requirement
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Navy.......................................                  95                   83                $240 million
    Marine Corps...............................                  93                   89                 $63 million
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With limited SRM Funds, facility managers at the installation level
    will have to prioritize requirements and execute only critical
    sustainment project with limited or no renovation and modernization
    projects in fiscal year 2008, particularly for the Navy.
        While the DOD goal of 100 percent sustainment may be a bit
    ambitious given the risk routinely taken in other DOD programs, I would
    prefer that Navy and Marine Corps budgeted and executed facilities
    sustainment in the range of 93 to 95 percent of the model requirements.
    I have accepted the risk proposed by the Navy and Marine Corps as an
    exception, and hope to raise facility sustainment levels in future
    budgets to where I believe they belong. The Navy has committed to an
    enhanced effort to reduce the existing inventory through demolition and
    footprint reductions.

     POLICY ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LAND PURCHASES IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

        Question. What is the Department's policy on the use of government
    funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways?
        Answer. The Department of the Navy follows DOD policy set forth in
    DOD Instruction 4165.57 on use of government funds to purchase land in
    airfield accident potential zones (APZs). That policy states, ``. . .
    program for the acquisition of interests first in Accident Potential
    Zones and second in high noise areas only when all possibilities of
    achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have been
    exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is
    manifestly threatened.''
        Consistent with that policy, Department of the Navy seeks to
    acquire interests in lands in APZs when local governments do not take
    pro-active and effective measures to prevent incompatible development
    through land use controls. When acquisition of property interests is
    indicated to protect operational integrity, Department of the Navy
    seeks first to prevent development or use of property in APZs that
    would be incompatible with the mission of the installation by entering
    into agreements with eligible entities using authorities in section
    2684a of title 10, U.S.C. Budgeting for acquisition of property
    interests as part of the MILCON program is only considered when these
    measures are not practicable or effective.
                                     ______

        [Prepared questions submitted to Hon. William C. Anderson
    prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

                            Questions and Responses

                    STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

        Question. What is the current status of the environmental impact
    statement (EIS) related to the realignment of special operations
    missions to Cannon Air Force Base (AFB), NM? If not yet completed, what
    is the schedule?
        Answer. The EIS is on schedule to meet beddown requirements.

        EIS Timeline: July 2006-September 2007.
        Public scoping meetings held: Noise, public leases and range fires
    from air operations were main issues.
        Public release of Draft EIS: 30 Mar 07 (starts 45-day comment
    period).
        Public hearings: April 2007--scheduled the week of April 16.
        Projected date to sign Record of Decision: September 2007.

                         FACILITY RECAPITALIZATION RATE

        Question. What is the facility recapitalization rate for the Air
    Force, with and without consideration of the amounts for the 2005 base
    closure round, as reflected in the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2008?
        Answer. BRAC reduces the overall Air Force recap rate by 56 years
    in fiscal year 2008. The Active Duty recap rate includes those large
    infrastructure projects that contribute to total force training and
    mission. The following table shows the Air Force recap rates as
    reported in the Office of the Secretary of Defense facility database:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Air Force                        Fiscal Year 2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Without BRAC........................................                153
    With BRAC...........................................                 97
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

        Question. What is the Department's policy on the use of government
    funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways?
        Answer. The Air Force policy is to not use government funds to
    acquire real estate interest in the accident potential zones. The Air
    Force endeavors to only acquire the minimal interest necessary to
    protect the Air Force mission.

                  SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION

        Question. Do you believe the amount requested for Air Force
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) in the President's
    budget request for fiscal year 2008 is adequate?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2008 President's budget request adequately
    funds Air Force Total Force SRM to include addressing our most critical
    facility and infrastructure mission requirements. The funds will
    preserve the value of existing investment in facilities and
    infrastructure by maximizing service life and preventing premature
    deterioration, in essence keeping good buildings good. Air Force
    recognizes adequate FSRM is a mission readiness issue, and investment
    in infrastructure translates to readiness of Air Force power projection
    platforms.
        Question. What is the current status of the Air Force initiative to
    purchase land in the clear zones and aircraft accident potential zones
    at Luke AFB, AZ?
        Answer. Congress specifically provided $13 million in fiscal year
    2003 and $14.3 million in fiscal year 2004 for acquisition of land in
    the clear zones (CZs) and accident protection zones (APZs) at Luke Air
    Force Base. To date, $12.6 million of the fiscal year 2003
    appropriation and $7.0 million of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation
    have been obligated. We arc proceeding in the following order:
    addressing CZs first and then addressing APZs. The Air Force is moving
    forward consistent with its policy to acquire the minimal interest
    necessary to protect the Air Force mission.

                LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL ON THE AIR FORCE MEMORIAL.

        Question. What are the estimated annual costs to the taxpayer
    should the Department of Defense legislative proposal regarding the
    management, maintenance, and repair of the Air Force Memorial be
    enacted?
        Answer. The estimated annual costs for maintenance of the memorial
    are $376,000. Maintenance includes grounds and landscaping; custodial
    services; pest control; snow removal/ice treatment; trash removal;
    spiral cleaning; and O&M services. The Pentagon Force Protection Agency
    baseline program has been supplemented to cover the incremental
    $135,000 annual cost for protection of the memorial.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin

                                AFRICAN COMMAND

        1. Senator Levin. Mr. Grone, what are the potential overseas basing
    implications related to the establishment of the African Command?
        Mr. Grone. [Deleted.]

        2. Senator Levin. Mr. Grone, are permanent bases envisioned as part
    of the new command?
        Mr. Grone. [Deleted.]

        3. Senator Levin. Mr. Grone, what criteria will be used to
    determine the size, location, and management of these locations,
    including the site of a permanent headquarters somewhere on the
    continent?
        Mr. Grone. [Deleted.]

        4. Senator Levin. Mr. Grone, what, if any, additional cooperative
    security locations does the Department of Defense (DOD) hope to
    establish in Africa? What is the estimated cost of establishing and
    operating these locations?
        Mr. Grone. [Deleted.]

                                    DJIBOUTI

        5. Senator Levin. Mr. Grone, what, if any, plans does DOD have to
    expand the size of military presence and/or facilities (temporary or
    permanent) at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti?
        Mr. Grone. [Deleted.]
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Akaka

                TRAINING RANGE EXPANSION AT TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA

        6. Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn, the proposal to increase the size
    of the Marine Corps is likely to require additional training space. I
    understand the Marine Corps believes there is the potential to expand
    its premier training facility at Twentynine Palms, CA. Is the Navy
    going to move quickly to reach the agreements necessary to expand your
    training range and then fund those agreements?
        Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps has identified a requirement to conduct
    large-scale Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) training exercises to
    allow for the training of three to four battalions simultaneously in
    live-fire MAGTF operations. The DOD currently lacks a comprehensive
    training opportunity that exercises all elements of the MAGTF beyond
    two battalions simultaneously in an environment that replicates current
    operational conditions--something that is critical for our forces in
    today's deployed environment and which will meet future warfighting
    capabilities and technology. The Marine Corps prepared a Required
    Capabilities Document (RCD) that defined the optimum land area
    requirements for this training. The RCD, along with other documented
    studies, supported the requirement for extensive contiguous land areas
    capable of supporting live-fire and maneuver training. The Marine Corps
    has proposed that the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine
    Palms, CA, be considered to accommodate this requirement by the
    acquisition of an additional 198,000 acres of land at Twentynine Palms.
    The land considered for acquisition is approximately 95 percent
    government-owned, undeveloped, and managed by Bureau of Land Management
    with the remaining 5 percent owned privately. Acquisition is planned to
    occur in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 through a combination of
    public land withdrawal and fee simple acquisition pending the
    successful completion of environmental analysis and documentation.
    Funding for the acquisition is included in the fiscal year 2008 Future
    Years' Defense Plan (FYDP), beginning in fiscal year 2012.

        7. Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn, I am not aware of such
    initiatives in the 2008 budget request, yet if you are serious about
    growing the force, isn't this an essential part of that effort?
        Mr. Penn. Having adequate, state-of-the-art training facilities is
    absolutely critical to our requirement to train marines for current and
    future MAGTF operations. The expansion of the Marine Corps' premier
    training facility at Twentynine Palms is a key element in being able to
    meet this requirement, particularly in our efforts to grow the force.
    Fiscal year 2007 appropriations included funding to begin the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, real estate assessment, and
    encroachment control plan development for the expansion effort at
    Twentynine Palms. Approximately $50.3 million has been programmed for
    this initiative in the fiscal year 2008 FYDP.

                    MARINE CORPS ``GROW THE FORCE'' PROJECTS

        8. Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn, the President's budget requested
    $361 million as a lump sum place-holder for Marine Corps ``Grow the
    Force'' military construction projects, plus an additional $57 million
    for unspecified family housing construction funds. The Department has
    yet to provide the necessary information to Congress on the locations
    or specific projects for which these funds are being sought. Please
    provide this information as soon as possible.
        Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps is currently completing a cost review of
    the individual military construction projects associated with the $361
    million lump sum place-holder. The detailed project documentation will
    be provided once this cost review is complete this month.
        The Marine Corps included project documentation for the individual
    family housing projects with the detailed budget submission provided to
    Congress in February 2007.

        9. Senator Akaka. Secretary Penn, is an environmental impact
    statement (EIS) required before these funds can be executed? Please
    provide a proposed timeline for any such EIS.
        Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps will comply with the requirements of the
    NEPA in executing Grow the Force actions for both temporary and
    permanent beddown of marines.
        An EIS will be required for proposed Grow the Force actions at MCB
    Camp Lejeune, MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry Point, NC. At this time
    other Marine Corps installations are planning environmental assessments
    and the use of categorical exclusions where appropriate.

                        ARMY ``GROW THE FORCE'' PROJECTS

        10. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, the President's budget
    requested over $2 billion in lump-sum amounts for military construction
    and family housing as a place-holder for the Army's ``Grow the Force''
    proposal. Please provide the specific locations and projects for which
    these funds are being sought, including the intended function of the
    new companies or other units that would be based in these new
    facilities. Please provide this information as soon as possible.
        Mr. Eastin. Detailed project information for the $2.3 billion
    requested for Army growth in fiscal year 2008 was provided to Congress
    at the end of March 2007. This $2.3 billion in military construction
    funding includes $1.76 billion in critical Combat Support and Combat
    Service Support requirements, $266 million for family housing
    privatization, and $77 million in Army National Guard training
    requirements.

        11. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, is an EIS required before
    these funds can be executed? Please provide a proposed timeline for any
    such EIS.
        Mr. Eastin. No, execution of these finds is not dependent on an
    EIS. The Army takes compliance with the NEPA very seriously. Many of
    the fiscal year 2008 projects are already covered in environmental
    assessments or EISs, or are categorically excluded. Those that require
    some analysis or documentation will be completed in the near future.
    All growth projects requested for fiscal year 2008 are expected to be
    awarded within the fiscal year.

        12. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, I understand the funds
    requested in fiscal year 2008 to ``Grow the Force'' are not related to
    the six new combat brigades the Army proposes to add. What then is the
    rationale for adding these units and these projects?
        Mr. Eastin. Growing the Force is more than building six new brigade
    combat teams (BCTs). The fiscal year 2008 funds will support projects
    for the growth of fiscal years 2007-2009 Combat Support and Combat
    Service Support (CS/CSS) units such as Military Police, Engineer,
    Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Transportation, Chemical, and Personnel
    Service Units. This initiative will grow and rebalance capabilities in
    order to mitigate high demand/low density shortfalls and increase CS/
    CSS capacity.

        13. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, please identify the location
    estimated cost of any temporary facilities the Army plans to use in
    conjunction with these projects or with the overall plan to ``Grow the
    Force.''
        Mr. Eastin. The Army will use existing facilities across all
    installations to the maximum extent possible, temporarily use
    facilities vacated by deploying units and, when absolutely necessary,
    use relocatables. We will provide details on the costs and locations
    for required facilities, to include relocatables if necessary, by the
    end of the year.

                TRAINING RANGE EXPANSION AT FORT POLK, LOUISIANA

        14. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, the proposal to increase the
    size of the Army by adding six light infantry brigades is likely to
    require additional training space. I understand the potential exists to
    significantly expand the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center for
    light infantry units at Fort Polk, LA, if Forest Service land can be
    acquired. What is the Army doing to reach the agreements necessary to
    expand this training range and then fund those agreements?
        Mr. Eastin. In December 2006 the Army's maneuver land shortfall was
    2 million acres. It is projected to be 4.9 million acres after base
    realignment and closure (BRAC), Army Modular Force (AMF), and Global
    Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR). While the Army's requirement for
    training land grows, the capacity of, and accessibility to Army lands
    is decreasing. There are significant challenges that must be actively
    addressed to sustain Army training readiness. The Army is competing
    with its neighbors for access to land, airspace, and frequency
    spectrum. Urbanization and urban sprawl are encroaching on military
    lands and creating ``islands of biodiversity'' on Army installations.
    Urbanization concentrates endangered species and their habitat on areas
    traditionally used for military training. Increases in the
    concentration of endangered species at Army installations cause
    increased environmental restrictions. Environmental restrictions tend
    to translate into reduced accessibility to training land.
        In 2003, Headquarters, Department of the Army G-3, approved the
    Range and Training Land Strategy (RTLS). The purpose of the RTLS is to
    address the increasing land deficit facing the Army. The RTLS serves as
    the mechanism to prioritize Army training land investment, and helps to
    optimize the use of all Army range and training land assets. The RTLS
    provides a long-range plan for the Army to provide the best range
    infrastructure and training land to units. The deliberate phases of the
    RTLS provide the framework for the Army to select the most appropriate
    course of action to address training land shortfalls. The options that
    the Army can pursue include focused management to maximize existing
    land holdings, buffering through partnerships, utilization of other
    Federal lands where possible, and land acquisition. Fort Polk is an
    installation where the Army would want to assess the potential for
    expansion. Current agreements with the United States Forest Service
    provide much of the training land used by units at Fort Polk. A
    detailed assessment could result in a request for acquisition should it
    be deemed feasible. We base any specific project on the doctrinal need,
    availability of large contiguous parcels, cost of land, and a number of
    environmental issues.

        15. Senator Akaka. Secretary Eastin, I am not aware of such
    initiatives in the 2008 budget request, yet if you are serious about
    growing the force, isn't more training land for light infantry forces
    an essential part of that effort?
        Mr. Eastin. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming Grow the
    Army stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities
    and training resources, particularly maneuver land and range
    sustainability. The Army currently has available space at multiple
    installations to build facilities for additional Army Growth combat and
    combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing
    analysis for the six BCTs will include consideration of training land
    and ranges as a significant factor. However, while the Army's
    requirement for training land grows, the capacity of, and accessibility
    to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant challenges that
    must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness.
    Urbanization and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental
    restrictions are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

          AUTHORIZED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ADDED BY CONGRESS

        16. Senator Akaka. Mr. Grone, it is my understanding that under the
    fiscal year 2007 spending plan for military construction, family
    housing, and BRAC submitted to Congress by Deputy Secretary England on
    March 15, 2007, pursuant to section 113 of the Revised Continuing
    Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5), no military projects that were
    authorized in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) that were added by Congress and
    not contained in the original fiscal year 2007 budget request submitted
    by the President in February 2007 were funded or will be carried out
    with fiscal year 2007 military construction or family housing
    appropriations. Is that correct?
        Mr. Grone. Yes, that is correct.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor

                          BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

        17. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, BRAC and GDPR can yield
    significant gains in military effectiveness and efficiency in future
    conflicts and crisis and will enable the U.S. military to fulfill its
    many global roles. What is the Army doing to ensure this transformation
    runs smoothly and does not adversely affect readiness and training?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army is working hard to execute BRAC and GDPR
    actions, along with other MILCON projects, to adjust our global
    footprint. The resulting changes in our strategic posture will enable
    the Army to better execute the National Defense Strategy, support
    operational deployments, and sustain operational rotations.
        The Army synchronizes and integrates its BRAC and GDPR actions with
    all of its other title 10 activities, such as training and readiness,
    manning, and equipping, through the Army Campaign Plan (ACP). The ACP
    directs planning and execution of Army operations and transformation
    within the context of ongoing strategic commitments. Additionally, the
    ACP Management process, codified within the ACP, provides an active,
    Army Senior Leader forum to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize
    BRAC, GDPR, and other title 10 functions with operational requirements,
    ensuring there are no adverse affects on readiness and training.
        With respect to BRAC and GDPR specifically, the Vice Chief of
    Staff, Army (VCSA) chairs a Senior Stationing Review Group (SSRG)
    monthly to ensure the Army synchronizes ongoing BRAC, GDPR, and MILCON
    actions with operational requirements. This forum proactively manages
    the execution plans for BRAC and GDPR based on changing conditions,
    such as delays in funding and changes in unit deployment schedules to
    meet increased operational requirements. Additionally, the Army reviews
    the results of these SSRGs monthly in the broader ACP forum to ensure
    synchronization of BRAC and GDPR actions across the Army. The VCSA also
    chairs this forum and senior representatives from every major Army
    Command attend via worldwide video teleconference. In combination,
    these forums ensure the Army's execution of BRAC and GDPR actions is
    smooth, timely, and efficient and does not adversely affect our ability
    to provide trained and ready forces to combatant commanders.

        18. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, how is funding for the global
    war on terror affecting BRAC, housing, military offices, and training
    facilities?
        Mr. Eastin. Full and timely funding is essential to meet the Army's
    increasing global commitments, facilitate growth, and ensure soldier
    and family quality of life. Any delay in receiving supplemental funding
    negatively impacts the Army's carefully synchronized stationing plan
    and puts BRAC, Army growth, and global war on terrorism operations at
    risk. If $2 billion BRAC funding is not restored, the Army must re-
    prioritize projects, which puts at risk the Army's requirement to
    complete all BRAC actions by September 2011.
        The fiscal year 2007 supplemental request includes $844 million in
    Active Army MILCON for projects supporting global war on terrorism
    operations in accordance with combatant commander requirements. These
    projects provide theater force protection, airfield facilities,
    operational facilities, support facilities, billeting, fuel handling
    and storage, utility systems, and roads.
        In addition, $445 million requested in the supplemental funds
    replacement for a critical intelligence facility recently destroyed by
    fire at Fort Meade, MD, site preparation for a BCT at Fort Riley, KS,
    and facilities to Grow the Army.
        There are no Army family housing requirements associated with the
    fiscal year 2007 supplemental funding; thus, delayed receipt of the
    supplemental has no impact on the Army family housing appropriation.

        19. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, the Army's modular force
    initiative transforms units into a more powerful, adaptable force built
    on self-sufficiency and the ability to rapidly deploy. In order to
    provide quality training for new modular units like a BCT, the Army
    must significantly expand its range facilities. What is the plan for
    acquiring more land for training purposes?
        Mr. Eastin. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming Grow the
    Army stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities
    and training resources, particularly maneuver land and range
    sustainability. The Army currently has available space at multiple
    installations to build facilities for additional Army Growth combat and
    combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing
    analysis for the six BCTs will include consideration of training land
    and ranges as a significant factor. However, while the Army's
    requirement for training land grows, the capacity of, and accessibility
    to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant challenges that
    must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness.
    Urbanization and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental
    restrictions are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

        20. Senator Pryor. Secretary Eastin, as you've said, BRAC 2005
    implementation strategy is an extremely complex plan that manages
    numerous construction projects and re-stationing actions. How does the
    Army determine which critical MILCON projects have priority?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army established a banded hierarchy with priority
    for BRAC MILCON projects to the operational Army, followed by training
    base consolidation, industrial base realignments and lastly,
    headquarters moves. We then synchronized the construction program to
    accommodate deployment schedules and sequential moves necessary to free
    up space at gaining installations required to meet BRAC law.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Ensign

             USE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS TO ENTER INTO PROPERTY LEASES

        21. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, the DOD Inspector General (IG)
    released a report in January of this year which highlighted their
    concerns about the award of a service contract by the Department of the
    Interior on behalf of the DOD's counter intelligence field activity to
    provide leased office space and the installation of communication and
    other equipment. The DOD IG contended that ``the 10-year, $100 million
    lease was disguised as a service contract and exceeded all thresholds
    that require congressional notification and approval.'' As a result of
    the DOD IG review, the DOD Comptroller is currently conducting an
    investigation to determine whether any violations of the Anti-
    Deficiency Act (ADA) may have occurred. Do you know the status of the
    internal DOD investigation into ADA violations?
        Mr. Grone. Under the Department's established potential ADA
    investigation process, the Department completed the preliminary review
    and has determined that a formal investigation is now required.

        22. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, if not, please provide a current
    status, the estimated completion date, and at the conclusion of the
    investigation, the results and any punitive or corrective measures.
        Mr. Grone. The formal investigation will commence shortly and the
    estimated completion date is no later than January 2008.

        23. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what is the current DOD policy on
    the use of service contracts to enter into property leases?
        Mr. Grone. Our policy is simple and straight forward. We do not
    condone the use of services contracts to procure office space or to
    construct or improve facilities.

        24. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, the DOD IG also identified
    the use of a service contract to lease and install an administrative
    facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. The Department of the Army has since
    determined that this contract for the building may have been awarded in
    violation of the ADA. Please provide a current status of the
    investigation, the estimated completion date, and at the conclusion of
    the investigation, the results and any punitive or corrective measures.
        Mr. Eastin. This case, Army 06-02, is currently under
    investigation. Once completed (anticipated end of August), we will
    provide the results and any punitive or corrective measures to the
    proper oversight authorities.

                BRAC ACTIONS AT WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

        25. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, in 2005, the DOD recommended, and
    the BRAC Commission concurred, on the closure of Walter Reed Army
    Medical Center and the transfer of its functions primarily to Bethesda
    and Fort Belvoir by September 2011. In light of the recent disclosure
    of poor facility conditions and outpatient processes at Walter Reed,
    certain Members of Congress have introduced legislation to delay or
    reverse that BRAC decision. Is the closure of Walter Reed still the
    right thing to do?
        Mr. Grone. Yes, the closure of Walter Reed is still the right thing
    to do. The Department's decision to realign Walter Reed was based on a
    rigorous assessment of the capacity, military value, and beneficiary
    population of the National Capital Region's four inpatient hospitals at
    Walter Reed, Bethesda, Andrews Air Force Base (AFB), and Fort Belvoir.
    The analysis indicated that excess capacity (including surge) exists in
    the region, Walter Reed and Andrews had the lowest military value of
    the four facilities, the beneficiary population lives primarily south
    of the Potomac River and Fort Belvoir and Walter Reed suffer from
    significant space, functional, and building system deficiencies. These
    assessments (and the projected savings) supported the Department's
    recommendation to realign Walter Reed by creating state-of-the-art
    facilities at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir.

        26. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what would be the impact of a
    reversal or delay to a 2005 BRAC decision on the Department's ability
    to carry out the decisions of the 2005 BRAC round?
        Mr. Grone. Reversing this or any other recommendation would
    adversely impact the overall BRAC process. The BRAC process, as
    authorized by Congress, requires that both the President and Congress
    approve or disapprove the Commission's recommendations in their
    entirety to allow the process to remain apolitical. Legislating a
    specific change to a BRAC Commission recommendation would adversely
    affect the integrity of the BRAC 2005 process. Additionally,
    legislatively overturning a BRAC action establishes a precedent that
    could open the door to other recommendations being overturned.

        27. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, the Department of the Army is
    responsible for ensuring that adequate facilities are constructed at
    receiving locations to transfer functions from Walter Reed and to
    maintain at a minimum the same capabilities as the existing campus. In
    recent testimony before this committee, Army leadership has voiced
    concerns that the current plan may not accomplish this goal due to
    funding restrictions. Is the construction plan to support the closure
    of Walter Reed fully funded to ensure all functions and capabilities
    transferred to new locations will exceed current capabilities? If not,
    what parts of the plan are not fully funded and why?
        Mr. Eastin. The BRAC decision did not intend to exceed current
    capabilities of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Army plan to
    execute the BRAC decision was fully coordinated with the Navy, Air
    Force, Medical Joint Cross Service Group, and the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) TRICARE Management Activity and Health
    Affairs. All concurred that the scope and cost of the projects provide
    adequate capabilities and facilities required at the designated
    receiving locations. The DOD-approved plan, as is, fully funds the BRAC
    decision.

        28. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, in your answers to our
    advance policy questions for this hearing, you did not provide a
    response on whether you support a congressional initiative to
    accelerate construction related to the closure of Walter Reed. Why?
        Mr. Eastin. At this time, we are analyzing our ability to
    accelerate construction related to Walter Reed National Military
    Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Fort Belvoir and will provide our position
    as soon as we complete that analysis.
        (Note: Subsequent to the hearing, on May 1, 2007, the Acting
    Secretary of the Army signed a memo that affirms the Army's support for
    the facility enhancements and construction acceleration proposals for
    WRNMMC and Fort Belvoir for a total cost of $443 million above BRAC-
    approved project costs to accelerate construction related to the
    closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Accelerating the National
    Capital Region military health system projects will allow construction
    completion in late fiscal year 2010, vice the currently projected May
    2011. Earlier completion of construction will afford more time to
    complete initial outfitting of the buildings and allow more time to
    transition staff and patients from Walter Reed Army Medical Center to
    the new WRNMMC and Fort Belvoir community hospital.)

                    PROPER USE OF FUNDS FOR FACILITY REPAIRS

        29. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, on the issues of Walter Reed,
    in my review over the past 2 months into the facility conditions at
    Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I have come to the conclusion that the
    appalling conditions in Building 18 were the result of a failure in
    leadership to respond to and correct identified deficiencies. We heard
    witnesses testify that the Army and Defense Health Affairs did receive
    adequate resources from Congress, despite the pending BRAC decision to
    close Walter Reed by 2011, to maintain this facility at an acceptable
    level. In fact, over $630,000 was spent on renovations for this
    facility between 2000 and 2005. What struck me is that in order for
    this money to have been spent in Building 18, a military engineer
    needed to have walked through the facility, talked to building
    residents, and identified problems. So, this wasn't an issue of lack of
    oversight, it was an issue of misplaced priorities. My concern is that
    this prioritization still exists today in the deteriorated barracks at
    Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, and Fort Sill, just to name a few. What is
    the Army doing to ensure we don't waste $630,000 on the next Building
    18 by, to use a little known veterinary term, putting lipstick on a
    pig?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army is continuously challenged to balance facility
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects to meet mission
    and life/safety/health requirements. This sometimes means some projects
    must be phased over a period of years using available funding rather
    than being completed as a single project in a single year. Phasing
    certain projects is the most practical way to meet overall facilities
    requirements within constrained resources and competing priorities. I
    view the problems with Building 18 as an anomaly in an otherwise well-
    run prioritization system for facilities sustainment, restoration, and
    modernization.

        30. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, Secretary Eastin, Secretary Penn,
    and Secretary Anderson, Congress provides operations and maintenance
    funds to the military services for facility sustainment with the
    understanding that these funds will be applied wisely by military
    leaders to address the most urgent requirements: on dormitories to fix
    failing roofs instead of new drapes and carpets for senior officer
    quarters; on deteriorated runways to protect our pilots and aircraft
    instead of upgrading golf courses; and on piers, ranges, and motor
    pools that are in such poor condition that training and readiness are
    significantly impacted. What is each Service doing to ensure we direct
    the taxpayers' funds to ensure there are no more building 18s out there
    in the DOD inventory?
        Mr. Grone. Each military Service has developed specific tools,
    systems, and processes suitable to its mission to identify, prioritize,
    and fund its facilities' requirements. Significant effort is invested
    in this process, and often involves a combination of centralized
    control of large-scale projects and local control of smaller-scale
    requirements. Typically, installation commanders make the final
    decisions on the best use of sustainment funds to support their mission
    readiness, and Service Chiefs hold them accountable for these decisions
    as for their stewardship of their people and any other resources in
    accomplishing their missions.
        Mr. Eastin. For the last 2 years, the Army has protected and
    focused sustainment funding on those facilities most critical to our
    high-priority missions and those in the worst condition. The
    Installation Management Command (IMCOM) has developed and implemented a
    Project Prioritization System to assist in focusing discretionary
    funding on the most urgent facilities requirements. Barracks are among
    our highest-priority facilities and have received over $400 million of
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization work over the last 2 years.
    To ensure this money is spent wisely, IMCOM developed a focused
    facility inspection system that gives a higher priority to living space
    and bathrooms in barracks. The Installation Status Report-
    Infrastructure (ISR-I) is a very valuable tool in assessing the
    condition of facilities. The ISR-I condition reports are used
    extensively in focusing funding on our worst-condition facilities.
        Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps executes its Facilities Sustainment,
    Restoration, and Modernization funding through two tracks to ensure
    that day-to-day repairs are accomplished and the highest priority major
    repairs are completed. The first track lies with the base commander who
    receives funding to cover day-to-day maintenance requirements. The
    commander has full control of these funds to apply them to cyclic
    maintenance and emergent small repairs. The second track lies with
    Headquarters Marine Corps who field validates and selects all major
    repair projects. Readiness ratings and quality of life concerns, along
    with base priority, arc major factors in project selection. We believe
    this process protects and repairs the facilities most needed for
    mission readiness and quality of life. But even given our emphasis on
    spending money properly, there are still problems. The Marine Corps has
    approximately a billion dollars worth of repairs and improvements
    needed to improve facilities to an acceptable readiness condition. This
    is a result of historic underfunding that occurred before the
    sustainment metrics and other facilities metrics were developed that
    have resulted in increased funding for facilities. Because of this, as
    you travel around bases, you will, from time to time, see buildings in
    a poor state of repair.
        The Navy ensures that facilities sustainment funding is directed to
    maintenance and repair of class I and II real property by closely
    monitoring the execution of maintenance and repair programs at the
    installation, region, and Navy level. Commander, Navy Installations
    Command distributes funds to regions based on detailed requirements
    generated by the OSD approved Facilities Sustainment Model, which
    provides facility sustainment requirement details down to the facility
    level. Accounting records are systematically reviewed to ensure that
    funds are expended in the proper accounts.
        Mr. Anderson. The Air Force is committed to making the best use of
    every taxpayer dollar so that each one goes towards only those programs
    providing the highest mission capability rate and quality of life for
    our airmen.
        We have a keen interest in caring for our facilities because of the
    unique emphasis the Air Force places on its installations, which are
    our warfighting platforms. Our bases provide stable training
    environments and force projection platforms for the Nation's combatant
    commanders.
        Within the Air Force, the single person responsible for this
    warfighting platform, as well as the readiness of the unit, is the wing
    commander. He or she is responsible for ensuring limited facility
    dollars go towards only our most critical requirements--the appropriate
    roofs, runways, and dorms that best support the unit mission and the
    airmen.
        To help these commanders care for the facilities, we've increased
    funding in both our restoration and modernization and facility
    sustainment accounts in fiscal year 2008.
        In regards to our medical facilities, it has been a long-standing
    practice of my engineers to put ``eyes on'' as many facilities as
    possible when they visit bases. This practice includes our medical
    facilities. My team has personally inspected five facilities this year
    looking beyond the front lobby and doctors' offices to the patient care
    areas, staff locker rooms, loading docks, mechanical rooms, et cetera.
    Additionally, the Air Force recently completed a full review of all our
    medical facilities in the wake of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center
    situation.

                    FUNDS FOR THE SUSTAINMENT OF FACILITIES

        31. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, Secretary Penn, and Secretary
    Anderson, on the issue of facility sustainment, you note, Secretary
    Eastin, in your answers to advance policy questions that in fiscal year
    2008 the Army has proposed a budget that funds 86 percent of
    requirement, as opposed to the 100 percent goal established by the DOD.
    Secretary Penn, in your witness statement, you note that the Navy only
    actually funded 79 percent of your facility sustainment requirement in
    2006 after having proposed a budget to Congress for 95 percent of the
    total requirement. Secretary Anderson, in your testimony, you state
    that the Air Force is ``accepting manageable risk'' by reducing
    facilities and infrastructure funding in order to bolster other
    accounts. My concern is that this chronic underfunding of facility
    sustainment accounts has resulted in deteriorated facility conditions
    in barracks and working facilities around the DOD that don't become an
    issue until the public sees them or they result in a tragic accident.
    In your view, are we spending enough money on facilities to ensure our
    servicemembers have safe and adequate facilities to live and work? If
    not, how do we fix it?
        Mr. Eastin. Quality of life is a top Army priority to ensure
    soldiers and families have safe and adequate facilities to live, work,
    and train. The Army has made substantial progress in the last 4 years
    increasing Base Operations Support 41 percent and Facility Sustainment/
    Restoration and Modernization 15 percent since 2004. Although we are
    still not doing as much as we would like in this time of war and
    constrained resources, we continue to make consistent and steady
    progress towards improving the installation services necessary to
    sustain the All-Volunteer Force.
        Mr. Penn. Given competing priorities, the Department of the Navy
    views the reduced investment in sustainment as an acceptable risk. The
    overall strategy to reduce this risk is an effort to aggressively
    validate facilities sustainment requirements, and reducing footprint in
    order to reduce sustainment costs.
        Mr. Anderson. I assure you Air Force facility programs have my
    personal attention as I'm watching them close to ensure they support
    the highest mission capability rates and quality of life for our
    airmen. That's what I meant when I said we're accepting ``manageable''
    risk.
        We built this budget by carefully balancing our facility
    sustainment, restoration, and modernization and MILCON accounts to make
    the most effective use of available funding to support Air Force
    missions. We did this by making a conscious decision to take some risk
    in the MILCON program for the next couple of years. This is not a
    permanent reduction to the program; we just chose to delay some
    facility investment for a few years to help us re-capitalize the
    aircraft fleet. In the meantime, to ensure our facilities did not
    deteriorate to an unacceptable level, we increased funding to our
    restoration and modernization account and funded our facility
    sustainment program to 92 percent of the requirement. This will allow
    us to ``keep our good facilities good'' as we re-capitalize the fleet.

        32. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, are we tracking the
    increasing backlog of facility maintenance and repair requirements in
    order to inform investment decisions?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army tracks the backlog of facility maintenance and
    repair requirements via the Installation Status Report, a system
    designed to improve installation management and decisionmaking by
    providing information on the condition and readiness of facilities,
    infrastructure, and services. Investment decisions are also influenced
    by the Army's operational requirements to restation and reconfigure
    units as a result of BRAC, GDPR, and AMF transformation.
        Strong congressional support for the Army's MILCON and base support
    programs has helped tremendously to offset and decrease the facility
    maintenance backlog.

        33. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, how is each Service assessing
    the risk to readiness and training associated with underfunded facility
    accounts?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army uses the Installation Status Report, portions
    of which are incorporated in the Defense Readiness Reporting System, to
    assess risk to readiness and training in several ways.
        First, ratings for mission support, quality, and quantity provide
    commanders a picture of the health of facilities and infrastructure at
    each installation, both for individual facility types and for a broader
    view of all facilities. The associated quality and quantity improvement
    costs provide a means to quantify funding required to improve facility
    quality to standards and reduce existing facility deficits.
        Second, a more focused facilities assessment on readiness and
    training impacts is rendered by the Commander's Readiness Ratings for
    nine separate facility classes. They are based on the commander's
    experience, judgment, and knowledge of current and future mission
    requirements and take into consideration ratings for mission support,
    quality, and quantity, as well as any other factors the commander
    considers appropriate.
        A C1 readiness rating means facilities fully support primary unit
    missions without limitations to readiness. A C2 rating means facilities
    support the majority of primary unit missions with only minor
    limitations to readiness. A C3 rating means facilities present
    challenges to primary unit missions with impaired mission performance,
    requiring units to establish alternative means to support readiness. A
    C4 rating means facilities present significant challenges to the
    primary unit missions, requiring units to expend considerable
    additional effort to compensate for shortcomings. These considerations
    collectively provide a clear vision of factors which enable commanders
    and the Department of the Army to assess the impact of underfunding on
    readiness and training.

                          REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION

        34. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, in your written statement you
    advocate for congressional support for the authorization in 2008 for
    $237 million to construct a new headquarters complex for Southern
    Command (SOUTHCOM) in Miami, FL. The Army is proposing to build this
    complex on land leased from the State of Florida. The lease for part of
    the land will expire in 2015, with four 10-year options upon mutual
    agreement by both parties. The lease requires that the new construction
    must be used for a SOUTHCOM headquarters, or the lease is terminated.
    Finally, upon termination of the lease for any reason, ownership and
    control of the headquarters complex will revert to the State of
    Florida, and the State has the option to require the DOD to tear down
    the headquarters at DOD expense and to restore the land to a pre-
    existing condition. The lease also requires SOUTHCOM to grant the State
    of Florida access and inspections rights to any part of the
    headquarters complex, including areas for classified and coalition
    forces operations. Does the Department of the Army or DOD have any
    policy or guidelines for the construction of facilities on land that is
    subject to these types of conditions? If so, please provide.
        Mr. Eastin. Yes, the Army and DOD have general policy for
    construction of facilities where the interest in land is leasehold
    contained in Army Regulation 405-10 (Acquisition of Real Property and
    Interests Therein) and DOD Instruction 4165.71 (Real Property
    Acquisition).

        35. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, does the Department of the
    Army have a precedent for this type of request? If so, please provide
    details.
        Mr. Eastin. Yes, the Department of the Army has leased land for a
    construction project. For instance, the Army leased 20 acres of land
    under a 50-year minimum term at a nominal rental consideration of $1.00
    at the Manhattan Regional Airport, Manhattan, KS. This lease supports a
    fiscal year 2006 Fort Riley, KS, project to construct a $5.5 million
    Deployment Facility Ramp Expansion, which includes an airfield
    operations building, aprons, staging area, and vehicle parking.

        36. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, did the Department of the
    Army ever request an outright deed transfer of the land from the State
    of Florida in order to secure ownership? If so, what was the State's
    response?
        Mr. Eastin. The Department of the Army has not requested an
    outright deed transfer of the land from the State of Florida in order
    to secure ownership. However, USSOUTHCOM has been conducting
    discussions with the State of Florida regarding a deed transfer. Early
    feedback is that the State of Florida may transfer title to the land if
    approved by the State Board of Trustees and if the U.S. Government pays
    fair market value or exchanges land of comparable value.

        37. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, currently, Homestead Air
    Reserve Base (ARB) supports the training and operation of the 482
    Fighter Wing and 24 F-16 Falcons. The Marine Corps recently decided to
    locate USMARSOUTH headquarters at Homestead ARB. I've also heard that
    the Air Force is considering new missions for Homestead, to include the
    stationing of C-130 aircraft and Active-Duty Forces as part of total
    force integration initiatives. Please provide a brief review of the
    current proposals to be considered for Homestead and their status.
        Mr. Anderson. As part of our Total Force Integration effort,
    numerous associations were explored to maximize the utilization of our
    installation and range infrastructure. The Air Force routinely explores
    scenarios as to the viability and effectiveness of the proposals. Some
    proposals advance beyond the concept stage to site surveys and
    opportunities. Others prove not to be viable early in the concept
    exploration stages, often as a result of costs, equipment availability,
    or infrastructure environmental incompatibility. Other non-Air Force
    units exploring locating on Homestead ARB are required to go through a
    site survey approval process to ensure their proposed relocation does
    not interfere with ongoing or planned actions at Homestead ARB. As
    such, there we have no announced proposals for new mission activities
    at Homestead ARB beyond those identified in BRAC 05.
        Turning to the question on the Marines, United Stated Marine Corps
    South (MARFORSOUTH) is currently located in leased facilities in Miami,
    FL. Due to planned demolition of these leased facilities in 2010,
    MARFORSOUTH is evaluating other locations in the Miami vicinity.
    Analyses are still ongoing. The final decision is pending
    determinations of these analyses and other options under consideration.

        38. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, if the Air Force decided to
    station Active-Duty Forces at Homestead ARB, what facilities supporting
    military community services would be required to be constructed at
    Homestead?
        Mr. Anderson. Construction requirements would depend on the number
    of Active-Duty Force that might be assigned to Homestead ARB. No such
    plan is currently being contemplated.

                         TOTAL COSTS TO GROW THE FORCE

        39. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, regarding
    the decision to grow the Army by 74,000 personnel and the Marine Corps
    by 27,000 marines over the next 5 years, do you have an estimate of
    total investment required in equipment, facilities, and increased base
    operating expenses to complete the growth for each Service?
        Mr. Eastin. At this time, we are refining estimates for the overall
    cost to Grow the Army (GTA). Once stationing decisions for the six
    additional BCTs are made later this year, we will have greater fidelity
    on the expected costs and can provide an estimate for GTA at that time.
        Mr. Penn. The total estimated fiscal years 2008-2013 cost to grow
    the Marine Corps by 27,000 was initially calculated at $30.8 billion.
    That amount was reflected in our fiscal years 2008-2013 President's
    budget submission. Within that amount, $7.025 billion was for the
    procurement of equipment, $3.230 billion was for MILCON and family
    housing projects, and $620.6 million was for additional base operating
    expenses.

        40. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, is the
    Army and Marine Corps planning to address these costs as an increase to
    each Service's top line, or do you anticipate that other existing
    requirements will have to be deferred?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army's top line will increase to accommodate GTA.
        Mr. Penn. The President's decision to increase Marine Corps end
    strength to 202,000 was accompanied by a top line increase of $30.8
    billion across the FYDP (2008-2013).

        41. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, what do
    you expect will be the impact to the MILCON account over the next 5
    years in terms of recapitalizing existing deteriorated facilities and
    infrastructure?
        Mr. Eastin. GTA construction funding will provide facilities for
    the incremental increase in the strength of the Army. The Army will
    utilize existing facilities wherever possible and build new facilities
    when mission requirements dictate. While an indirect impact of
    construction will be a general overall improvement in the condition of
    Army facilities, GTA funding will generally not recapitalize existing
    deteriorated facilities and infrastructure. There may be some cases
    where deteriorated infrastructure will have to be replaced or upgraded
    to support construction of new facility complexes, but this will only
    be done on an ``as needed'' basis. If any existing requirements must be
    deferred to fund growth, the existing requirements will be reviewed
    during development of the fiscal years 2010-2015 FYDP. For this reason,
    it is important that the GTA requirements be fully funded.
        Mr. Penn. Many of the projects in the Department of the Navy
    baseline and supplemental requests will recapitalize some of the
    existing deteriorated facilities in anticipation of new marines
    arriving at our installations. As we begin to build new structures in
    2010 and beyond, these new facilities (as they come on line and are
    added to the Marine Corps plant value) will actually increase our
    recapitalization requirements in the future.

        42. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, are the
    Services considering the increased use of privatization authorities for
    unaccompanied housing as a tool to address the challenge of a
    constrained budget environment?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army will execute five privatized unaccompanied
    personnel housing projects for single staff sergeants and above. The
    first project at Fort Irwin, CA, includes 200 apartments. The second
    project is at Fort Drum, NY, and includes 180 apartments. The remaining
    three projects are based on the lack of available adequate off-post
    housing for single staff sergeants and above at Fort Bliss, TX; Fort
    Bragg, NC; and Fort Stewart, GA. Apartment quantities at these three
    locations will be determined during the development of the
    privatization plan at each installation. We expect the existing
    Residential Communities Initiative developers to execute these
    projects.
        Mr. Penn. The Marine Corps has no planned unaccompanied housing
    privatization projects. Thus far the unaccompanied housing
    privatization projects have not been cost effective or feasible for the
    Marine Corps. Under current rules, the Marine Corps would be unable to
    assign young single marines to barracks. This would negatively impact
    the unit integrity and unit cohesion that are so important in
    developing the camaraderie essential to unit readiness.

        43. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, does the Department of the
    Army have available land on your military bases in the United States in
    order to support the basing, training, and operations of additional
    combat and support brigades? If not, what plans are underway to satisfy
    the land requirement?
        Mr. Eastin. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming GTA
    stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities and
    training resources, particularly maneuver land and range
    sustainability. The Army currently has available space at multiple
    installations to build facilities for additional Army growth combat and
    combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing
    analysis for the six BCTs will include consideration of training land
    and ranges as a significant factor. However, while the Army's
    requirement for training land grows, the capacity of, and accessibility
    to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant challenges that
    must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness.
    Urbanization and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental
    restrictions are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

        44. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, does the Department of the Navy
    have available land on your military bases in the United States in
    order to support the basing, training, and operations of additional
    combat and support brigades for the United States Marine Corps?
        Mr. Penn. Yes. The basing, training, and operations of additional
    combat and support brigades will be sited on existing Marine Corps
    installations.

           IMPACT OF CHANGES TO SCORING RULES FOR PRIVATIZED PROJECTS

        45. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, according to the August 2005 memo by
    the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the DOD will be required
    beginning in 2010 to follow traditional scoring rules for approval of
    co-owned limited liability corporation structures for privatization of
    family and unaccompanied military housing. What do you see are the
    near-term and long-term impacts from this guidance on the ability of
    the DOD to use privatization as a tool to address the military housing
    challenges emerging from recent end strength increase initiatives?
        Mr. Grone. In the near-term, the August 2005 OMB memorandum should
    not affect the Department's pursuit of the 2007 goal to eliminate DOD-
    owned inadequate housing within the continental United States. New
    projects or modifications to executed projects supporting troop
    increases can be pursued through fiscal year 2010 according to current
    scoring rules provided to DOD by OMB in June 1997. In the long-term, it
    is not clear what impact the limitations will have. The August 2005 OMB
    memo does not define traditional scoring, so if a military Service
    proposes any Military Housing Privatization Initiative projects for
    execution after fiscal year 2010, DOD will seek clarification of
    scoring rules to be applied. In any case, the restriction applies
    primarily to the use of partnerships and would still allow use of lease
    agreements such as those structured in current Air Force projects.

                         BRAC PROPERTY RE-USE POLICIES

        46. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, I have a question about the DOD's
    policy related to the proposed use by the local community of land made
    available by the 2005 BRAC round. In your testimony before this
    committee last year, you stated ``The Department will not dictate a re-
    use approach to the community. We will not dictate the form of
    disposal. It is a partnership and a collaboration.'' This was good news
    for the committee and the local communities affected by BRAC. But
    recently, the Department of the Army stated in a formal letter signed
    on March 16, 2007, to local communities that ``the Army will select the
    methods of property disposal'' and furthermore ``the Army will employ a
    highest and best use analysis of your redevelopment plans.'' These
    statements seem to contradict your position stated to this committee
    last year. Do you agree?
        Mr. Grone. Regarding the seeming contradiction between the Army's
    letter and the Department's policy, let me clarify that the
    Department's policy is to work in close collaboration with affected
    communities throughout the closure, disposal, and redevelopment
    process. The Department takes great care to ensure Local Redevelopment
    Authorities have information on surplus property for the community's
    consideration in their formulation of a redevelopment plan, including
    data derived through military department site assessments and highest
    and best use studies. At the same time, DOD strives to preserve local
    ownership of the uses identified in these plans and does not subject
    redevelopment plans to any highest and best use analysis. On the
    contrary, the Department views the redevelopment plans as the
    community's foreseeable use of the property and uses it to inform any
    highest and best use analysis of the property. In disposing of surplus
    property, the Department is careful to not preclude any disposal method
    until a redevelopment plan is completed. As part of the NEPA decision,
    the military departments give substantial deference to the Local
    Redevelopment Authority's redevelopment plan and flexibly apply
    disposal methods from our ``mixed tool kit,'' ranging from those that
    may be at no cost or discounted consideration to those that yield fair
    market value to the Department, to be responsive to the Department's
    BRAC and community redevelopment needs.

        47. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, has the DOD changed their policy on
    the relationship between the local community and each military
    department regarding proposed use of BRAC property? If so, how?
        Mr. Grone. The Department's policy on the relationship between the
    local community and each military department has not changed from that
    expressed in my prior testimony and the DOD BRAC implementation policy
    guidance contained in the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual
    issued March 1, 2006.

        48. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, if a conflict exists, will
    the Army clarify its position in writing? If so, will you ensure that
    this committee is notified of any future guidance provided to local
    communities regarding this matter?
        Mr. Eastin. As the disposal agency, the Army has the responsibility
    of selecting the methods of disposal. However, the Army does give
    substantial deference to the redevelopment plan submitted by the
    redevelopment authority when preparing decision documents. If a
    disposal decision is inconsistent with the approved redevelopment plan,
    the Army will clarify its position to the community in writing. The
    Army is working diligently with local communities to preclude this from
    happening. We will notify the committee of any future guidance provided
    to the local communities regarding this issue.

               SCOPE REDUCTIONS FOR BRAC CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

        49. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, in the area of funding for MILCON
    related to the 2005 BRAC round, the military services testified last
    year about a significant shortage of funds planned for BRAC
    construction activities. I note that the 2008 budget request seems to
    address that issue. My concern is that as each military Service
    attempts to keep BRAC construction costs for each project in check,
    they are reducing the scope of construction for each project by as much
    as 40 percent to stay within the pre-determined budget. This
    unacceptable approach will result in realigned units and functions to
    be moved into new facilities that do not meet their requirement and may
    detrimentally affect their mission and operations. Who has the
    responsibility to determine whether the size and capability of a new
    facility built as a result of BRAC decisions will meet mission
    requirements?
        Mr. Grone. The component responsible for implementing a BRAC
    recommendation is also responsible for ensuring that necessary MILCON
    projects are properly sized/scoped to meet mission requirements and
    that it is fully funded and justified in the budget documentation
    provided to Congress. Additionally, the Department continues an
    important oversight role of the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG).
    This senior group reviews and approves all business plans to ensure the
    Department's resources are effectively applied to implement
    recommendations efficiently and in a manner to ensure the Department's
    missions are supported.

        50. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what is the DOD position or guidance
    on adhering to the project scopes as described in BRAC business plans?
        Mr. Grone. The DOD position is that the responsible component
    should adhere to the scope of a MILCON project as described in the
    approved BRAC business plan. Recognizing that the requirements
    necessary to support the operations of the DOD are fluid, changes to
    project scope may be necessary. Those changes should be evaluated by
    the component business manager assigned to that recommendation and
    forwarded for review and processing for approval along with other
    business plan updates. The Department continues the important oversight
    role of the ISG which reviews and approves all business plans to ensure
    the Department's resources are effectively applied to implement
    recommendations efficiently and in a manner to ensure the Department's
    missions are supported.

        51. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, are BRAC 2005 construction projects
    subject to the statutory requirement provided by section 2853 of title
    10, U.S.C., for authorized cost and scope of work variations?
        Mr. Grone. The Department provides congressional notification of
    changes to BRAC 2005 MILCON projects through the annual reporting
    requirements specified in the BRAC Act (Public Law 101-510, as
    amended). Specifically, as directed by Section 2906A(c), the Department
    notifies Congress of any changes to BRAC construction projects,
    explaining the differences between what was included in the budget
    justification material and what actually occurred, with appropriate
    explanation of changes, including changes to cost or scope.

                 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STANDARDS IN DOD FACILITIES

        52. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, regarding the concept of sustainable
    design standards incorporated into MILCON projects, Congress is
    currently considering a bill which would require all Federal facilities
    to achieve certain standards for energy efficiency and environmental
    impact as dictated by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
    (LEED) Green Building Rating System, as developed by the U.S. Green
    Building Council. What is the current DOD policy on incorporation of
    LEED standards into MILCON projects?
        Mr. Grone. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4170.11,
    Installation Energy Management, states: ``The DOD components shall
    strive to obtain the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED level of
    performance or equivalent. `` DODI 4170.11 also requires sustainable
    development cost to be documented on DD Form 1391, the form used for
    MILCON projects. Additionally, Executive Order 13423, Strengthening
    Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, requires
    new construction and major renovation to comply with the Guiding
    Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable
    Buildings set forth in the Federal Leadership and High Performance
    Buildings Memorandum of Understanding, which established several energy
    conservation and environmental compliance requirements.

        53. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what is the Department's position on
    the mandatory compliance with LEED standards?
        Mr. Grone. Through DODI 4170.11, Installation Energy Management,
    the Department has established LEED level of performance as the
    standard for new construction.

        54. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what are the costs and benefits
    associated with mandating the standard?
        Mr. Grone. Empirical evidence shows the cost of complying with LEED
    level of performance varies with facility type and location, but in
    general adds 1 to 3 percent to the overall building cost. In return, we
    gain the benefit of a proven industry-based standard for reducing
    energy demand and improving building performance. Evidence shows the
    combined energy and environmental benefits generally cover the costs
    over the life of the facility.

                   DOD POLICY ON USE OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES

        55. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, I am concerned that the massive
    amount of MILCON required over the next 5 years to support current
    operations, BRAC, Army modularity, the Global Base Posture
    Realignments, and now Grow the Force, will not be constructed in time
    to meet the demand of incoming forces at each affected location. As a
    result, the military departments will turn to the acquisition of
    temporary facilities and trailers as a last minute solution, and once
    we ask our military personnel to live and work in these trailers,
    they'll be forgotten as the Services turn to other priorities. What
    policies and programs can the DOD implement to ensure the minimum use
    of and the quick replacement of temporary facilities with permanent
    construction?
        Mr. Grone. The most important practice is to fully identify the
    need for permanent facilities and program for them as early as
    possible, which is what was done in the Department's rebasing plans
    submitted last year. The Department is prepared to execute those plans.
    When relocatable (or ``temporary'') facilities are required, permanent
    facilities are programmed to replace them as soon as feasible.
        For example, in July 2004 the Army approved 91 temporary buildings
    for an incoming BCT at Fort Drum, NY. Eight MILCON projects have been
    programmed for permanent facilities to replace the temporary buildings.
    Three of these projects were started this fiscal year, three will be
    awarded in fiscal year 2008, and the remaining two are programmed for
    fiscal year 2011. These projects will include all the necessary
    facilities for a complete BCT complex, including brigade headquarters,
    battalion headquarters, company operations facilities, and other
    buildings.

        56. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, please provide DOD's definition of a
    temporary facility.
        Mr. Grone. ``Temporary Facility'' is not a defined DOD term. DOD
    uses the term ``relocatable'' to refer to facilities filling a
    temporary need. Relocatable facilities are facilities designed to be
    readily moved, erected, disassembled, stored, and reused.

        57. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, what is the Department of the
    Army's current status and plan to eliminate trailers and other modular
    facilities purchased in the last 4 years to support emerging modularity
    requirements?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army continues to utilize relocatable facilities to
    accommodate modular force transformation. Our strategy is to phase out
    relocatable facilities and replace them with permanent construction. In
    our fiscal year 2007 base budget, we requested funds which Congress
    supported to begin this effort at several of our installations. For the
    fiscal year 2008 budget, the Army is requesting funds to construct
    permanent facilities to continue replacing these relocatable
    facilities, and requesting funds to accommodate Army growth in
    permanent facilities rather than purchasing relocatable facilities.

        58. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, please provide a schedule
    detailing the plan, timing, and costs to replace the temporary
    facilities in the United States acquired in the past 4 years.
        Mr. Eastin. The Army will use a phased approach to replace
    relocatable facilities acquired in the past 4 years as quickly as
    possible within available funding. Later this year, we can provide
    details on the plan, timing, and costs once our analysis is complete,
    but, in essence, we have already begun to construct permanent
    replacement facilities beginning in fiscal year 2007 and will continue
    to request funds in succeeding budgets.

           DOD POLICY ON LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT RELATED TO BRAC 2005

        59. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, as the DOD gets into the heart of
    carrying out the decisions of the 2005 BRAC, Congress is seeing an
    increasing call by local communities for assistance related to housing,
    roads, and schools to support those bases that will experience a
    significant increase in their military and civilian populations. Can
    you provide a review on how the Department is handling requests by
    local communities seeking Federal assistance with the construction of
    roads and schools to support incoming personnel?
        Mr. Grone. Upon request from affected State and/or local government
    officials, the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) will tailor a
    responsive program of technical and/or financial assistance in light of
    their specific needs and resources. This assistance may include
    organizational staff, growth management planning, and follow-on
    specialized studies: for example, planning for public facilities,
    schools, roads, and other community development initiatives. OEA may
    also coordinate other Federal agency support and participation to
    assist locally.
        As specific needs for assistance are identified for road and/or
    school support, the involved military department and OEA will work with
    the cognizant Federal programs, State, local resources, and private
    sector to develop a responsive program. Generally, each location will
    present a unique situation and a responsive program will likely involve
    Federal, State, local, and sometimes private participation.

        60. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, in you opinion, will the
    availability of local housing, roads, and schools in communities
    gaining large populations have an impact on the DOD's schedule and
    implementation of the 2005 BRAC decisions?
        Mr. Grone. The Department intends to meet the statutory deadline of
    September 15, 2011 for BRAC 2005 implementation.

        61. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, this committee continues to hear
    complaints from local communities that the Department still cannot
    provide accurate projections for incoming populations and school-age
    children. This uncertainty seriously impacts the ability of local
    communities to plan for and to address the need for schools, roads, and
    support services. What is the DOD doing to address this problem?
        Mr. Grone. The Department is working with the Services to refine
    the timelines and schedules of military, DOD civilian, and associated
    contractor movements to include student projections. The Department,
    through the OEA and the Economic Adjustment Committee, is working to
    link the Services with the Department of Education, Military Community
    and Family Policy (MC&FP), in the Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Personnel and Readiness and local community initiatives so
    those trying to respond to this growth have adequate information on the
    nature, timing, and scope of military growth.
        In November 2006, DOD, through MC&FP, provided a Report on
    Assistance to Local Educational Agencies for Defense Dependents
    Education, which contained student growth projections at continental
    United States (CONUS) installations. An update to this report is due in
    January 2008. In May 2007, the Department, through the Army, provided
    Congress and the Department of Education with an update on CONUS
    military personnel increase projections (student projections included).
    It is anticipated that as projections change DOD will provide both
    Congress and communities the most current information.

         CONSTRUCTION OF OUTLYING LANDING FIELD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC

        62. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, the Department of the Navy has
    a requirement to acquire land and to construct an OLF on the east coast
    of the United States to support aircraft operations at Naval Air
    Station (NAS) Oceana, VA, and Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry
    Point, NC. For the past 4 years, the Department has studied an area in
    Washington County, NC, as the preferred location approximately half way
    between NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point by air. As required by the
    NEPA, an EIS was prepared by the Department to study the impact of a
    new OLF on the local environment and nearby nature preserves in North
    Carolina. This study has been the subject of intense scrutiny and a
    lawsuit, which eventually resulted in a Federal court order to the
    Department of the Navy to expand its scope of the environmental study.
        The Department of the Navy has included in the budget request for
    fiscal year 2008 MILCON funds totaling $10 million to be used to
    acquire land and initiate construction activities. This is the fourth
    year in which the Department has requested funds for this project, and
    in each of those years, Congress has rescinded funds due to the
    inability of the Department to obligate them in a timely manner. What
    is the current status of the Navy's SEIS actions?
        Mr. Penn. The Draft SEIS was released for public comment on 23 Feb
    07. Public hearings have been conducted in each of the six counties in
    Northeastern North Carolina that could be impacted by a final decision
    on the OLF site. At the request of Senator Dole, a seventh public
    hearing will be held in Charlotte, NC, on 17 April. The public comment
    period is scheduled to end on May 9, 2007. The Navy is collating and
    cataloguing the public comments which will be included in the Final
    SEIS along with the Navy's response where appropriate.

        63. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, what is the estimated date for
    a release of a record of decision?
        Mr. Penn. The Final SEIS is expected in fall 2007, to be followed
    by a Record of Decision in late 2007.

        64. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, what further actions are
    required by the U.S. Government to satisfy the Federal court order and
    to be able to proceed unencumbered with the land acquisition and
    construction of the OLF?
        Mr. Penn. The Navy must complete and publish the Final SEIS and the
    Record of Decision to satisfy the Federal court order. At Record of
    Decision the Navy can advertise for a construction contract and can
    begin to acquire the necessary property interests at the selected OLF
    site unless there is further litigation and an injunction that prevents
    us from proceeding.

        65. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, in light of the results of the
    EIS and continued opposition by certain representatives in the local
    community, has the Department given consideration to a reassessment of
    the final location of the OLF? If so, would this reassessment include
    reconsideration of the 2003 decision by the Department of the Navy to
    base eight squadrons of F-18 Superhornets at NAS Oceana and another two
    squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point?
        Mr. Penn. While the Washington County, NC, location remains the
    Navy's preferred site among the five OLF alternative sites in
    Northeastern North Carolina considered in the Final EIS and the draft
    SEIS, the views that have been expressed about those alternatives by
    the citizens of North Carolina and their elected leaders deserve our
    most careful consideration before final decisions are made. If the Navy
    receives new information about additional sites that potentially meet
    our OLF siting requirements, the Navy will consider and evaluate that
    new information and determine whether adjustments in the current SEIS
    process are warranted to enable formal analysis and consideration of
    additional sites under the NEPA.
        There is no plan at this time to reconsider the aircraft homebasing
    decision.

        66. Senator Ensign. Secretary Penn, does NAS Oceana have the
    capability in terms of aircraft parking ramps, hangars, and support
    facilities to be able to accommodate the basing of all 10 F-18
    squadrons? If so, would a revised decision to base all 10 squadrons at
    NAS Oceana expand the range of potential locations for construction of
    a new OLF to meet the training requirements for carrier pilots?
        Mr. Penn. The two F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet squadrons scheduled to be
    homebased at MCAS Cherry Point could be based at NAS Oceana in
    currently available facilities (and will be while facilities at MCAS
    Cherry Point are being upgraded to support these two squadrons), but
    permanent stationing would require additions to two hangars to meet
    recommended Facilities Planning Criteria.
        Siting all 10 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet squadrons and the Fleet
    Replacement Squadron at NAS Oceana does not expand the range of
    potential locations for construction of a new OLF based on current OLF
    siting criteria. The study area radius around a homebase is based
    primarily upon fuel consumption rates for flights to and from the OLF,
    performing field carrier landing practice, and the required safety
    margin.

                     FUTURE STATUS OF FOB #2, ARLINGTON, VA

        67. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, DOD has proposed legislation for
    consideration in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2008 that would amend existing law to delay from January 1, 2010, to
    January 1, 2013, the transfer of certain real property to Arlington
    National Cemetery (ANC) that is currently under the control of the
    Washington Headquarters Service (WHS). The property, known as FOB #2,
    contains multiple office buildings currently occupied by military
    tenants displaced by the ongoing renovation of the Pentagon. These
    office buildings are scheduled to be torn down prior to transfer of the
    property to the ANC. The justification accompanying the legislation
    states that ``the proposed change is necessary to take into account
    more recent projections on ANC out-year requirements as well as
    realignments mandated under the BRAC process.'' What projections have
    changed in reference to out-year requirements for ANC that supports the
    delay in the transfer of the property?
        Mr. Grone. The ANC stated they do not require the land prior to
    2014 at that time they will begin to prepare the land for gravesites
    for use in 2020 or later. The Navy currently has 900 occupants in FOB
    #2 which must relocate to the Arlington Service Center. Our request to
    defer this transfer until January 1, 2013 is economically prudent since
    occupants of that building are included in BRAC relocations currently
    programmed to occur in 2011. Demolition of the facility and site
    preparation will occur in 2012 once it is vacated. The Army will
    receive the property from WHS after the buildings are demolished and
    the site is cleaned at which time it will be made available to ANC for
    the use of gravesites. Extension of the transfer date prevents needless
    double moves of Department of the Navy and Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
    relocating under BRAC, as well as hundreds of personnel relocated back
    to the Pentagon upon completion of the Pentagon Renovation in late
    2011. Loss of FOB #2 in 2010 would needlessly cause thousands of
    employees to be temporarily moved at a very high cost.

        68. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, which functions and how many
    personnel currently occupy FOB #2?
        Mr. Grone. Current population - 3,464.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Population
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) to Pentagon                 225
     (PNT) @ closing of FOB #2.............................
    WHS to PNT @ at closing of FOB #2......................              26
    MDA BRAC'd to Huntsville, AL and Fort Belvoir..........             838
    Marine Corps to PNT (after renovation)/Arlington                    908
     Service Center (ASC) (after BRAC).....................
    OSD to PNT after renovation............................              25
    Navy to ASC after BRAC.................................             880
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Functions--Administrative policy/management/manpower for the USN/
    USMC.

        69. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, since the Pentagon's renovation is
    on track to be completed in December 2010 and BRAC actions are required
    by law to be completed by November 15, 2011, specifically which
    functions and how many personnel are planned to occupy FOB #2 in 2011
    and 2012?
        Mr. Grone. FOB currently has a total population of 3,464, broken
    out by entity as follows: PFPA (225); WHS (26); MDA (1,400); Marine
    Corps (908); Navy (880); and the OSD (25). The Department will relocate
    all entities affected by BRAC by the statutory deadline of September
    15, 2011. The Department will relocate all other entities, upon
    completion of the Pentagon renovation, currently anticipated to occur
    in October 2011. After the completion of both actions, there will no
    longer be any tenants in FOB #2. Demolition of FOB #2 and site
    preparation for the cemetery will occur once the facility is vacated,
    and is expected to take approximately 12-14 months. The departure of
    tenants in September-October 2011 together with the 12-14 month
    demolition and site preparation timeline, generates the requirement to
    retain ownership of the facility until Jan. 1, 2013.

        70. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, the DOD justification accompanying
    the request for legislation states that ``in a period of 2 years alone,
    office space at FOB #2 will cost approximately $20 million less than
    the equivalent office space elsewhere in the National Capitol Region.''
    Exactly how was this estimate developed in terms of estimated lease
    costs and operating costs of the existing buildings?
        Mr. Grone. The cost to relocate personnel, prepare new space, and
    procure furniture for a 2-year period is dramatically more expensive
    than the personnel remaining in FOB #2 until the new space is complete.
    Total program cost comparison is: FOB #2 Option = $113.25 million vs.
    Leased Space Option = $186.4 million. The comparable lease costs were
    calculated by analyzing over 100 current leases which WHS has and
    applying a projected increase in current lease costs based on anti-
    terrorism/force protection compliance issues (setback, hardening of
    building, et cetera) and historic inflationary increases. In essence,
    the cost to relocate everyone to more expensive space is far more than
    is currently incurred. Being housed in a federally-owned building
    limits ``rent'' to the cost of operation and maintenance of the
    building. These costs are significantly lower than the rent and General
    Services Administration fees currently paid. In addition, costs
    associated with vacating in 2009 (such as furniture, moving costs, et
    cetera) are estimated to total over $91.7 million that when added to
    the additional rents yield a significant result in unnecessary expense
    to the Department and the taxpayer.

                FAMILY HOUSING FOR U.S. MILITARY FORCES IN KOREA

        71. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, the DOD has proposed
    legislation for consideration in the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2008 that would amend existing law to increase the
    amount the Secretary of the Army can pay to lease a house for a
    military family stationed in the Republic of Korea. Currently, the
    Secretary has the authority to lease up to 5,200 housing units in
    Korea. For those units, the Secretary has the authority to pay up to
    $34,481 annually for each unit or approximately $2,873 per month. The
    proposed legislation would permit the Secretary to pay up to $51,824
    per year per house, or $4,319 per month per house for 2,800 of those
    units. The Congressional Budget Office recently determined that this
    provision, if adopted, would have a budget impact equal to $530 million
    in potential additional expenses. Congress previously gave the
    authority to the Secretary of the Army to be able to enter into lease
    agreements for a 15-year time period with the intent that the longer
    period would provide an opportunity to seek a lower annual lease cost.
    We would also anticipate that the Secretary would be able to negotiate
    a lower lease cost per house if soliciting for a large block of housing
    to be constructed on land already owned by the Federal Government,
    which is the plan for new housing in Korea. This committee is also
    aware that a favorable contracting climate in Korea has resulted in the
    MILCON projects we have authorized for Korea over the past 3 years
    being awarded at approximately 60 percent of their planned amount,
    meaning construction costs are relatively cheap right now in Korea.
    With all these factors affecting the potential cost of a lease, why
    does the Department estimate they will need to spend up to $4,319 per
    month per house, which exceeds most monthly mortgage costs for a decent
    house even in this area, one of the most expensive in the country?
        Mr. Eastin. Actually, the leasing authority in Korea at the $34,481
    annual level you mentioned pertains to the 1,175 units authorized at
    the $25,000 lease cap, the substantive majority of which are currently
    encumbered. The proposed legislation is solely for the 2,800 units
    authorized and intended by Congress to provide the leased housing
    required to honor the various agreements between the United States and
    the Republic of Korea. The leased housing will not reside on land owned
    by the United States Federal Government, and every effort will be made
    to ensure the lowest leasing costs under competitive sourcing.
        While it is true that there has been a favorable bidding climate in
    Korea in the past for construction projects funded by Congress, some of
    this can be attributed to the differences between the official exchange
    rate and the market rate of exchange in the time interval between the
    budget request and award. The planned housing is similar to three to
    five bedroom condominium units that include underground parking and
    similar other amenities typically found in condominium common areas.
    The $4,319 per month per house figure you cite is the maximum possible
    for the 2,800 units authorized and includes the base rent, operations,
    utilities, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and management costs.
    Moreover, Army leases in Korea are paid in Korea Won, so the dollar
    cost of these leases rises with dollar depreciation. A weaker dollar
    translates into higher adjustments in the annual lease cap, which is
    determined by a formula under existing statute.

        72. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, in you opinion, is $4,319 per
    month per house an acceptable amount to pay in a build-to-lease (BTL)
    transaction?
        Mr. Eastin. Yes, the figure is acceptable for two reasons. First,
    there has been significant and sustained depreciation of the U.S.
    dollar against the Korean Won since the original authority for the
    $35,000 lease cap was enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2003. The depreciation of the dollar since fiscal year
    2002 has resulted in a reduction of 20 percent in purchasing power.
    Second, the dollar figure incorporates all the costs associated with
    newly constructed housing for Army families including all utilities,
    operations, maintenance, and repair of the facilities over the lease
    term. I want to stress that this is the maximum authorization for this
    housing, and the Army intends to remain under this ceiling. The final
    project costs will be determined by a number of factors, including the
    business conditions of the local Korean real estate market, private
    financing available, the currency exchange rate, and the cost of labor
    and materials.

        73. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, can you briefly summarize
    where the Department of the Army has entered into similar BTL
    arrangements around the world and the costs to the Department of the
    Army for these leases?
        Mr. Eastin. The Army has successfully completed several BTL
    projects in Germany and is finalizing negotiations for a project in
    Italy. However, there are differences between all of the BTL projects
    that affect the cost structure of the leases. These cost structures are
    influenced by local market conditions and the manner in which the
    Status of Forces Agreements in the various theaters are governed. For
    example, besides differences in exchange rates, labor, and materials
    costs, the Germany BTL projects are in rural locations that are not
    expected to see increases in population comparable to Camp Humphreys,
    and the lease is between the owner and the German government with a
    real property obligation document held between Germany and the United
    States. The distinct differences between legal and economic conditions
    worldwide have demanded unique approaches to leasing in overseas
    theaters. The annual costs for the active BTL project at Grafenwoehr,
    Germany, are currently about $21,000 per unit per year.

        74. Senator Ensign. Secretary Eastin, has this government estimate
    been validated by any actual contracting action which would allow the
    market to competitively bid on the lease cost? If not, why not?
        Mr. Eastin. Yes, construction cost estimates based on recently
    constructed Army family housing, as well as market and economic
    analyses, constitute the basis for the requested lease authorization
    for our BTL Army family housing program. We have not competed under
    current authorities because our estimates indicate this program would
    not be financially viable. Further, our timeline to meet our treaty
    obligations is a solicitation during fiscal year 2008 with the first
    units available for occupancy in fiscal year 2010.

                                  JOINT BASING

        75. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, the 2005 BRAC Commission approved a
    recommendation by the DOD to establish 12 joint bases. This decision
    will result in the consolidation of installation management activities
    at multiple military bases of close proximity to each other in the
    United States. In his written statement for this hearing, Secretary
    Anderson noted that ``The Air Force believes that for the welfare of
    the warfighter and their families that joint basing must be a raging
    success.'' Yet, this committee has received testimony today that the
    Air Force is concerned about the potentially detrimental impact of
    implementing the joint basing decision. Can you describe the intent and
    goals of the DOD in implementing the BRAC decision related to joint
    basing?
        Mr. Grone. The goal is to ensure that the Department fully
    implements the BRAC 2005 Joint Basing recommendations in a way that
    expeditiously achieves the optimal level of long-term savings, while
    preserving or enhancing the Department's warfighting capabilities.
    Currently, the Department is developing guidance to establish a
    comprehensive framework for joint basing implementation to capture and
    continue the most practical savings for DOD through the consolidation
    of installation support functions while meeting mission requirements.

        76. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, can you comment exactly
    what concerns the Air Force has with the intent, goals, and
    implementation of the decision?
        Mr. Anderson. The Air Force is committed to making BRAC and joint
    basing a raging success. However, several joint basing policy elements
    currently under development by OSD run counter to the spirit,
    efficiencies, and costs savings intended under the joint basing
    construct. The Air Force believes total obligation authority and real
    property transfer would serve as a disincentive to cost savings,
    efficiency, and effective execution of customer expectations.
    Installation customers, specifically operational commanders, should
    define the requirements necessary to execute the mission and manage the
    funds to meet their needs, regardless of the activity that executes
    those requirements. The Air Force believes that joint basing provides a
    unique opportunity to actually improve the quality of life for every
    soldier, sailor, airman, and marine, including their families, by
    establishing the highest standards at each joint base.
        The Air Force is very concerned that as we move into the joint
    basing construct, that quality of life and support to the warfighter
    are paramount in this process and that neither is degraded as a result
    of joint basing. In our approach to reach common standards for these
    joint bases, we cannot move to some mediocre level of quality or
    service, but we must strive to either maintain existing high levels or
    improve low levels to a common performance level that supports everyone
    on a joint base, every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, civil servant,
    and most importantly, their families.
        The Air Force will continue to work with the OSD and our sister
    Services to establish policy and guidance to the field that supports
    these goals. We look forward to pressing on with these endeavors and
    developing the anticipated efficiencies and reduction in duplication
    that these consolidations will produce, however, we need to establish
    the common standards first, or this will fail.

        77. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, is your statement that
    joint basing ``must be a raging success'' ultimately determined by the
    impact to the Air Force, or to the entire DOD?
        Mr. Anderson. The Air Force is fully committed to making joint
    basing a raging success in providing quality installation support as
    efficiently as possible. The Air Force has been working diligently with
    the OSD as well as our sister Services in developing policy to
    implement joint basing that will benefit all the installations
    involved, not just the Air Force. Joint basing is an opportunity to
    drive the highest standards that will impact the Air Force and all our
    sister Services . . . every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine as well
    as their families. To ensure joint basing is a raging success, we must
    guard against accepting standards that are least common denominator or
    an average and we must allow the natural tension between customers and
    suppliers to exist by keeping the buying power and ownership with those
    acquiring and needing the services, our commanders.
        The success of joint basing will be ultimately judged based on
    whether we take this opportunity to improve the quality of life of
    every individual who puts on the uniform and their families. At the
    same time, this effort will be evaluated based on whether operational
    commanders retain the ability to impact all inputs necessary to execute
    their assigned mission.

        78. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, can you respond to this committee
    what the DOD is doing to address the concerns of the Air Force related
    to this matter?
        Mr. Grone. The OSD has been working closely with all the military
    Services to ensure their concerns are addressed in the development of
    implementation guidance.

                   CLOSURE OF WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

        79. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, in light of the recent concerns
    about the quality of care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
    Washington, DC, this committee has been reviewing the business plan to
    close Walter Reed as required by the 2005 BRAC round and to establish a
    joint National Medical Center at the current Naval Medical Center in
    Bethesda, MD, and to construct a new community hospital at Fort
    Belvoir, VA. I have substantial concerns that the costs to establish
    fully integrated and state-of-the-art facilities for the new hospital
    complexes are not fully funded within the amounts included in the BRAC
    budget request for fiscal year 2008 and subsequent years. Can you
    confirm whether the Department of the Navy and/or Army has identified
    additional requirements at Bethesda or Fort Belvoir needed to provide a
    state-of-the-art facility to include renovations to existing hospital
    facilities for realigned support functions from Walter Reed? If so, can
    you briefly describe the scope of these requirements and the estimated
    cost of each project to satisfy the requirements?
        Mr. Grone. The Department is in the process of assessing the
    requirements and costs necessary to accelerate the establishment of the
    National Military Medical Center at Bethesda and the community hospital
    at Fort Belvoir. The types of projects and a range of associated costs
    will be provided to Congress after the internal review is completed.

        80. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, what is the Department's plan to
    accomplish this work?
        Mr. Grone. As previously noted, the Department is in the process of
    assessing the requirements and costs necessary to accelerate the
    establishment of the National Center at Bethesda and the community
    hospital at Ft. Belvoir. The Corps of Engineers and the Naval
    Facilities Engineering Command have begun to work on the detailed
    planning and contracting activities necessary to execute the
    construction projects associated with these efforts. The Assistant
    Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the Departments of the Army
    and Navy are working closely to ensure the projects adhere to the
    accelerated schedule and all necessary funds are available.

        81. Senator Ensign. Mr. Grone, will the work be accomplished prior
    to the final realignment of activities from Walter Reed?
        Mr. Grone. Yes, the work will be accomplished prior to the final
    realignment of activities from Walter Reed.

            SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AT CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, NM

        82. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, in May 2005 after 2 years
    of thorough analysis and review, the Secretary of Defense forwarded his
    recommendations for base closures and realignments to the 2005 BRAC
    Commission. One of those recommendations was to close Cannon AFB, NM,
    which would have saved the Air Force over $206 million annually and
    over $2.6 billion over the next 20 years. The Commission responded by
    agreeing to close Cannon by 2009 if the Secretary of Defense could not
    find ``other newly-identified'' missions to replace the F-16s currently
    operating out of Cannon AFB. The Secretary of Defense announced in 2006
    that Air Force Special Operations (AFSOC) units would be relocated to
    Cannon AFB. The Air Force did not conduct a formal analysis of
    alternatives of other potential receiving installations, as is done
    with all other Air Force weapon system beddowns. The Air Force is
    currently preparing an EIS to study the environmental impact of basing
    various aircraft and missions associated with the AFSOC mission at
    Cannon and on the Melrose training range. This study does not consider
    alternative locations for AFSOC missions, as most EISs do, but only
    addresses Cannon AFB. If the record of decision for the EIS concludes
    that the introduction of AFSOC aircraft operations at Cannon AFB will
    result in unacceptable impacts to the environment, what is the Air
    Force's plan for Cannon AFB?
        Mr. Anderson. The Air Force is currently preparing an EIS on moving
    an AFSOC mission to Cannon AFB, which should be completed in the fall
    of 2007. If the EIS process finds impacts to the environment that
    cannot be overcome, the Air Force would be compelled under BRAC law to
    either identify another mission for Cannon, or close the base.
        With that being said, and for clarification on the genesis of this
    mission search, I offer the following background information in support
    of the potential AFSOC mission relocation to Cannon AFB.
        AFSOC has desired for some time to base assigned forces in the
    western United States. In support of that effort the command has
    evaluated several bases, finally focusing on both Davis-Monthan AFB and
    Cannon AFB. Site surveys have been conducted at each.
        AFSOC's search for another base began back in the mid-1990s with a
    plan called Commando Vision. This plan looked at several locations in
    the western United States. Unfortunately, the plan could not get enough
    support to implement. Since Commando Vision was originally conceived,
    AFSOC has added 4 AC-130, 9 U-28 (light administrative airlift), medium
    unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 12 MC-130W, and CV-22s to their
    inventory, and they are continuing to grow.
        The relevance of special operations in the war on terror is
    demonstrated in the approximately 30 percent growth in the Special
    Operation Forces (SOF) ground components and the addition of a U.S.
    Marine component to SOCOM. Steps are being taken to ensure SOF airlift
    capability grows commensurate with the other SOF components in order to
    guarantee the level of support they need to conduct operations. A key
    factor is that any additional aircraft and personnel will need a home
    and place to train.
        Also being considered by AFSOC is the implications of the Secretary
    of Defense's global defense posture that could bring OCONUS special
    operation groups based at Kadena AB, Japan, and RAF Mildenhall, U.K.,
    back to the United States, which will drive beddown/training
    requirements.
        AFSOC's challenge can be summed up by considering range, ramp, and
    weather conditions at their current location at Hurlburt Field, FL.
        AFSOC's primary range is the Eglin range. This range is saturated
    and cannot support additional training requirements.
        The Hurlburt ramp is also quickly reaching maximum capacity. By
    fiscal year 2008, the ramp will be full. Another limiting factor is
    Hurlburt Field is located in the middle of hurricane alley. There is no
    alternate location to train or operate should Hurlburt be devastated by
    a hurricane.
        As mentioned, AFSOC conducted site surveys at both Davis-Monthan
    AFB, and Cannon AFB. Using Hurlburt Field as a base line, each location
    was evaluated on its ability to support the addition of an AFSOC
    mission, based on the areas highlighted below. Hurlburt is the
    benchmark as it has been a SOF base since AFSOC's inception.
    OPSEC
        Ability of base to support low visibility operations with joint/
    other customers. SOF prefer to train as far away as possible from the
    general populous to avoid curiosity seekers wanting to see what is
    going on when different looking individuals, aircraft, or vehicles are
    operating nearby. Hurlburt was rated moderately desirable due to its
    location in a relatively remote area of the Florida gulf coast, within
    close proximity to Highway 98. Davis-Monthan was rated least desirable
    due to its location within the Tucson city limits and near a major
    interstate. Cannon was rated most desirable due to its location 8 miles
    from the nearest built up area and its ability to support low
    visibility operations.
    Weather
        Number of Visual Flight Rule (VFR) flying days. Hurlburt was rated
    moderately desirable. Both Davis-Monthan and Cannon were rated most
    desirable. Although all three bases have over 300 good days of VFR
    flying weather (Hurlburt = 307, Cannon and Davis-Monthan both over 325
    days), the southeastern United States is plagued by daily thunderstorms
    particularly in the spring/summer. This affects the Hurlburt local
    flying area and along the low-level training routes in Florida,
    Alabama, and Tennessee.
    Encroachment
        Proximity of civilian population and possible limitations on day
    and night operations. Population density near a base limits its ability
    to expand as new capabilities or facilities are added to an
    installation. Persons located under the runway flight path or aircraft
    traffic pattern are the first to express their displeasure of aircraft
    operating over their property. This is of course compounded when
    aircraft are operating late at night when people are normally trying to
    sleep. Having a base located away from population minimizes the
    potential noise complaints and allows room to expand the base if
    needed. Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated least desirable due to
    proximity of civilian populace and quiet hour restrictions. Davis-
    Monthan AFB observes ACC ``Quiet Hours'' from 2230 to 0600 local time.
    Cannon was rated most desirable due to its remote location and least
    restrictive flying limitations (no quiet hours imposed).
    Training/Mission Essential Task List
        Ability to accomplish SOF-unique training requirements. Hurlburt
    was rated moderately desirable due to the competition for range time on
    the Eglin range complex. Davis-Monthan was rated moderately desirable
    because AFSOC forces would have to compete for range priority due to
    the number of customers using the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR).
    Cannon was rated most desirable because AFSOC forces would be replacing
    the 27th Fighter Wing as the primary user and would control usage of
    Melrose range. Melrose/BMGR and the terrain features in the States of
    New Mexico/Arizona provide more efficient training opportunities than
    those found in the Florida panhandle. Training sorties are more
    efficient because of the short distance to training ranges. Although
    approximately 95 percent of the mission training events that are
    required to keep SOF combat ready can be accomplished in very close
    proximity to both Cannon and Davis-Monthan, the Cannon/Melrose
    combination is highly desirable because ability to own a range and to
    be able to lure other SOF components to New Mexico and train with
    Cannon-based units (for hours at a time) vice Cannon-based units
    burning up scarce flying hours to go to someone else's base and conduct
    training on someone else's limited range time.
    Community Support
        During site visits, the AFSOC team was received favorably by all
    communities. No differentiation was made between the bases.
    Flexibility
        Ability of AFSOC to control operations on the base and local
    ranges. Ownership/control of airspace and range operating hours were
    major factors. Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated moderately
    desirable due to competing with other users for the same airspace/
    ranges under AETC/ACC/AFMC control. Cannon was rated most desirable
    because AFSOC would own/control the base and Melrose range.
        Melrose is 70 percent utilized and BMGR is 85-90 percent utilized.
    Approximately 95 percent of the Melrose Range availability is utilized
    by Cannon aircraft. Once the 27th Fighter Wing leaves Cannon, AFSOC at
    Cannon would become the primary user and control all operations on the
    range. This opportunity is highly desirable because controlling the
    range schedule would mean that the range would operate around SOF
    training requirements. This would not be the case in the BMGR. Luke AFB
    range office believes that adding over 100 AFSOC aircraft to Arizona
    would completely saturate the complex. This would put the AFSOC west
    base in the same position that the Hurlburt wing faces today with Eglin
    Range saturation. Additionally, BMGR has only three impact areas that
    can support live munitions expended by over 18 military squadrons in
    Arizona. When given a choice, sharing range priority at BMGR with
    Yurna, Luke, and other Davis-Monthan aircraft is not ideal.
    Growth Potential
        Availability of land within or adjacent to the base or range to
    expand the existing base or range complex. Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan
    were rated least desirable because the bases are surrounded by
    geographic features or civilian developments. Cannon was rated most
    desirable due to 400+ undeveloped acres on base and adjacent property
    on three sides of the base to support other growth. Additionally,
    Melrose range could be expanded to support SOF-unique requirements to
    include projected use by joint Special Forces.
    Terrain
        Proximity of mountainous terrain to support training. Hurlburt was
    rated moderately desirable due to the distance to/from mountainous
    terrain. Davis-Monthan and Cannon were rated most desirable due to the
    close proximity of mountainous terrain.
    Facilities
        Availability of facilities to support projected force structure.
    The force list used to evaluate Davis-Monthan and Cannon were based on
    a smaller force projection because Global SOF Posture hadn't been
    approved as of winter/spring 2006. The final Cannon site survey
    included a more robust force projection (included AFSOC OCONUS forces).
    Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated least desirable due to the lack
    of available facilities and the requirement to build all new
    facilities. Cannon was rated most desirable due the facilities freed up
    by the 27 FW departure.
    MILCON
        The QDR move will create a duplicate wing mirroring what is
    currently at Hurlburt. For this reason, the MILCON projection to build
    a similar wing was based on the cost to duplicate the Hurlburt wing's
    Plant Replacement Value (PRV) and then adjusted for available
    facilities and local construction costs. Hurlburt's PRV is $1.1
    billion. Adjusting for increased construction costs in Tucson, the cost
    to build a similar wing at Davis-Monthan is $1.4 billion. At Cannon,
    the cost is $886 million due to available facilities when the 27 FW
    departs.
        In support of the language in the Defense BRAC Report to the
    President, which stated ``seek newly-identified missions . . . for
    possible assignment to Cannon AFB,'' the Air Force used an eight-step
    process to determine the future use of Cannon AFB. During this search
    process, there were six inquiries of interest that were reviewed. AFSOC
    was the only permanent re-use proposal for Cannon AFB received. The
    AFSOC requirement was evaluated by Secretary of the Air Force and
    Secretary of Defense and Cannon AFB was selected to host the AFSOC
    mission.
        In summary, the selection of Cannon was the primary focus of the
    mission search due to the language in the Defense BRAC Report to the
    President, but it was not the only base reviewed by AFSOC for use as a
    west base.

        83. Senator Ensign. Secretary Anderson, the Air Force has announced
    that the AFSOC mission will be established at Cannon AFB starting
    October 1, 2007, and will include the relocation of UAV operations from
    Nevada. What regulations and policies must be followed in order to
    operate an UAV in U.S. airspace and is the Air Force in compliance with
    all laws, policies, and procedures regarding the operation of UAVs at
    Cannon?
        Mr. Anderson. To the maximum extent practical, the DOD conducts UAV
    operations or more commonly referred to as unmanned aircraft system
    (UAS) operations in restricted areas or warning areas. For those
    operations that cannot be contained wholly within restricted areas or
    warning areas, UAS operations are conducted in accordance with
    procedures outlined in FAAO 7610.4, paragraph 12-9-3.
        In general, specific authorization to conduct unmanned aircraft
    operations in the national airspace system outside of active
    restricted, prohibited, or warning area airspace must be requested by
    the proponent. The two methods of approval are either a certificate of
    authorization (COA) or the issuance of a special airworthiness
    certificate. As a public applicant, DOD utilizes the COA process while
    civil applicants must utilize the special airworthiness process.
    Although DOD is allowed to self certify under title 10, U.S.C., under
    the authority of title 49, U.S.C, the Administrator of the Federal
    Aviation Administration (FAA) may inspect, at any time, any operator
    issued a COA or special airworthiness certificate for compliance with
    any provision or limitation specified by this guidance document.
        Unless specifically authorized, UAS operations in non-segregated
    airspace other than Class A airspace would require visual observers,
    either airborne or ground-based. While considerable work is ongoing to
    develop a certifiable ``detect, sense, and avoid'' system, no
    acceptable solution exists. As a result, compliance with the ``see and
    avoid'' aspect of 14 Code of Federal Regulation 91.113, Right-of-Way
    Rules: Except Water Operations, becomes one of the primary issues in
    UAS operational approvals. Alternate methods of compliance are required
    to accomplish the ``see and avoid'' function. An applicant may propose
    any reasonable type of mitigation or system, however, the FAA will
    approve only those UAS flight activities that can demonstrate that the
    proposed operations can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety.
        By summer of 2008, AFSOC plans to conduct MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9
    Reaper operations utilizing new airframes from the production line at
    Cannon AFB and utilize Melrose Range and White Sands Missile Range for
    this training. Because the aircraft will be based out of Cannon AFB, a
    COA for Class D operations will be required and COAs will be required
    to allow the aircraft to transit to/from the ranges.
        AFSOC is actively working prerequisites for the COAs to include
    coordinating with local airspace representatives and base officials to
    ensure that they have captured all the requirements and have solid
    operating procedures and guidance in place. Chase aircraft are planned
    as a mitigation strategy and AFSOC recently held a meeting to explore
    using Civil Air Patrol to provide chase aircraft.

        [Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      2008

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007

                               U.S. Senate,
                      Subcommittee on Readiness
                                and Management Support,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                    READINESS OF UNITED STATES GROUND FORCES

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m. in
    room SR-232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K.
    Akaka (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Committee member present: Senator Akaka.
        Majority staff members present: Michael J. McCord,
    professional staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional
    staff member.
        Minority staff members present: Derek J. Maurer, minority
    counsel; and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member.
        Staff assistants present: Micah H. Harris and Benjamin L.
    Rubin.
        Committee members' assistants present: Darcie Tokioka,
    assistant to Senator Akaka; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator
    Bayh; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator Pryor; Todd
    Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions; and D'Arcy Grisier,
    assistant to Senator Ensign.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN

        Senator Akaka. The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management
    Support will come to order.
        Good afternoon to our witnesses, and welcome to what I
    believe may be one of the most interesting and useful hearings
    we will have on the current readiness of our ground forces.
        My welcome today will be brief, because I want to make the
    most of our time today to ensure that our witnesses can fully
    share with us their observations, insights, and opinions, as
    well as to give our members plenty of time to ask questions.
        I also want to welcome the spouses and members of families
    that we have here today.
        Our committee, and, indeed, the entire Congress, shares the
    concern that our ground forces are under tremendous stress and
    may be on the threshold of breaking. We have watched with
    apprehension as the scope and pace of combat operations over
    the last 5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan have degraded the
    readiness of our Army and Marine Corps. All of our military
    readiness systems are challenged. At the moment, recruiting and
    retention in general are stable, but not assured. Troops and
    their families are enduring multiple and longer separations,
    but not without risk. Equipment is not available to meet all
    unit requirements, and it is wearing out faster than it can be
    repaired or replaced. Training is compromised by equipment
    shortages and compressed time limits to meet accelerated
    deployment schedules.
        This afternoon, we welcome Colonel Michael Beech, U.S.
    Army, Commander of the 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, at
    Fort Hood, TX; Colonel Lewis Craparotta, U.S. Marine Corps,
    Commander of the 1st Marines at Camp Pendleton, CA; and Colonel
    Timothy Orr, Commander, 2nd Brigade, 34th Infantry Division,
    Iowa, Army National Guard.
        In my preparation for today's hearing, I enjoyed learning
    about the inspiring accomplishments of your units. It is
    abundantly clear that your soldiers and marines are proud of
    what they do, and are eager to write another glorious chapter
    in your distinguished histories. When you return to your units,
    in addition to explaining that testifying before the United
    States Senate is really not too painful, please pass to your
    soldiers and marines, and especially their families, how deeply
    we appreciate their service, professionalism, and their
    sacrifice.
        As commanders, today's witnesses are responsible for
    everything that their units do, or fail to do. These officers
    are entrusted with the planning, organization, management, and
    evaluation of their units' preparation for war, and, when
    called upon by the Nation, they must lead their soldiers and
    marines in combat. This is an awesome responsibility for which
    we have the utmost respect and gratitude. We appreciate your
    willingness to help us better understand the challenges of
    executing that responsibility, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        I want to say that our ranking member, Senator Ensign, is
    not here today, but I know he's here in spirit. He is presently
    on the floor, participating in a bill that's being considered.
    So, as a result, not knowing that was going to happen, he has
    to be there, instead of here, and we'll continue without him.
    Of course, we'll miss him, as he has a deep interest in what
    this committee is doing.
        I'd like each of you to take a moment to very briefly
    introduce your units and what they are doing currently and when
    you expect to deploy next, if that's on the schedule. I would
    ask you that, if you have any family members here, will you
    please introduce them before you give your testimony.
        So, with that, let me call on Colonel Beech, and ask for
    your testimony.

    STATEMENT OF COL MICHAEL F. BEECH, USA, COMMANDER, 4TH BRIGADE
           COMBAT TEAM, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION, FORT HOOD, TX

        Colonel Beech. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Akaka, distinguished members of the committee, it
    is my pleasure to appear before you today and give my testimony
    on the readiness of my brigade.
        I entered the Army in 1984, and participated in Operation
    Just Cause, Operation Joint Endeavor, and, most recently,
    Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I currently command the 4th
    Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and have commanded it since its
    activation in December 2004. I also commanded the brigade for a
    1-year tour in Iraq that just recently ended, this past
    December.
        While in Iraq, my brigade conducted security operations in
    the Rashid district of Baghdad. We were also responsible for
    securing the international zone, and my brigade was responsible
    for training and operating with both Iraqi Army and national
    police units.
        My brigade, the 4th Brigade, is a life-cycle manned unit
    under the Army unit manning system. We are nearing the end of
    our life cycle, and will change out a significant portion of
    our leadership by the end of June. We currently anticipate the
    brigade will redeploy to Iraq sometime within the next year.
    Our brigade is a fully digitized, modernized, and we are a
    modularized heavy-brigade combat team with all the latest of
    Army equipment. We are currently equipped with M1A2 SEP Abrams
    tanks, M2A3 infantry fighting vehicles, and M109A6 Paladin
    howitzers.
        For the past 3 months, my brigade has been focused on reset
    and reconstitution, as we have left the majority of our combat
    equipment in Iraq. We expect to be fully resourced again with
    the majority of our combat systems, come mid-May. These, along
    with thousands of other pieces of equipment that we are
    currently being fielded and issued will be sufficient to
    conduct our training as we prepare and conduct our training
    prior to our redeployment to Iraq. However, until deployed, we
    will continue to have shortfalls in some pieces of equipment
    which could limit our capability if called upon to perform
    other strategic contingencies. If called upon to do so, my
    brigade would require some equipment augmentation or theater-
    provided equipment.
        We have also been conducting sustainment training on our
    critical individual tasks as we begin again our training cycle
    in preparation for deployment. This train-up will include crew
    qualification, counterimprovised explosive device training, and
    countersniper training. It will include collective training to
    prepare our combat platoons and our combat companies. Our
    training will culminate with a mission rehearsal exercise at
    the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, LA.
    That exercise is currently scheduled for this September. On
    completion of this exercise, I know our brigade will be fully
    prepared to redeploy to Iraq and conduct security and
    counterinsurgency operations.
        Although we have optimized our training cycle to suit
    specific counterinsurgency operations, I believe our training
    strategy is sufficiently broad to support a variety of other
    contingencies. However, if deployed in support of other
    emerging contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy
    of some specific tactical skills unique to the higher-intensity
    conflicts. My brigade is currently fully manned, near our full
    authorization of over 3,700 soldiers. I am projected to
    maintain this current level of manning. However, we are also
    going through a significant period of turbulence associated
    with the end of our life cycle, which is in June.
        My most significant personnel challenge is with my new
    junior officers who are to lead my platoons during the ongoing
    crew qualification and the upcoming platoon training, in June.
    We are projected to have these leader shortfalls filled prior
    to our mission rehearsal exercise in September.
        Our soldiers continue to amaze me in their dedication and
    patriotism that we face in this long and difficult war. Many of
    my soldiers are preparing for their second or third year-long
    tour in Iraq. In spite of this, our brigade met all our recent
    retention goals. We met our first-quarter goal, our second-
    quarter goal, and we are on target to meet our third-quarter
    retention goal in all categories.
        Recent targeted incentives offered to the population
    specifically in the mid-careerist and the captain level, where
    we're experiencing our biggest challenges on retention, are
    particularly worthwhile investment to the long-term quality of
    our Army. The strength of our Army has always been in our
    sergeants and in our junior officers.
        In conclusion, I'd like to thank this committee for your
    time and interest in the training and welfare of our fine young
    men and women who sacrifice so much for our freedoms. I look
    forward to answering your questions on the combat readiness of
    the 4th Brigade.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Colonel Beech.
        Colonel Craparotta?

      STATEMENT OF COL. LEWIS A. CRAPAROTTA, USMC, COMMANDER, 1ST
                  MARINE REGIMENT, CAMP PENDLETON, CA

        Colonel Craparotta. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    for the opportunity to speak today.
        I currently command the 1st Marines at Camp Pendleton, and
    I took command in June 2006. During the 10 months that I've
    been in command, I've had the opportunity to oversee and
    supervise the training of four subordinate infantry battalions,
    and three of those battalions are currently deployed; the
    fourth will deploy this summer; and the regimental headquarters
    will deploy in December of this year.
        During this period, my headquarters and the subordinate
    battalions have been able to train and to maintain the
    capability to execute our required mission-essential tasks.
        Our number-one priority is to ensure that our marines are
    trained and ready for deployment. Our current schedule, and the
    pace of operations, dictates that we primarily focus our
    training for operations in Iraq.
        Now, the deployment schedule requires us to closely manage
    our training time while ensuring that personnel and equipment
    are in place and available during that same period. So, the
    real task is effectively managing personnel and equipment
    resources in a time-constrained environment.
        In my regiment, we've maintained the ability to provide the
    necessary resources to meet the training requirements. I think
    that our past readiness reporting indicates that fact. I
    believe that the current readiness reporting system has allowed
    us to accurately reflect readiness, based both from a numbers
    and percentages perspective, as well as from an analysis by the
    commanders.
        Our greatest challenge is, and will remain, available
    training time, and, because that time is limited, our training
    will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq.
        This has, and will continue to limit our ability to train
    for other operations. For example, we do not have time to send
    units to jungle or mountain warfare training. We have not
    conducted large-scale amphibious training, and we have not
    conducted large-scale, high-intensity, combined-arms exercises.
        The second challenge is manpower. Again, to ensure we have
    the personnel in place at the right time to allow us to
    maximize our training window. Current policies have allowed
    battalions to reach required staffing between 150 and 120 days
    prior to deployment. This allows them to execute the necessary
    training, and then to deploy. I suspect that these policies
    will remain in place and effective in the future.
        My third challenge is equipment availability. Currently, we
    have enough equipment to train at home station, but they're
    somewhat limited, in that each battalion does not have its own
    complete set. Therefore, I'm forced to transfer equipment
    between units to support training. But, again, we have been
    able to support all the necessary requirements, and I expect
    that will continue. In fact, we have a plan to ensure that that
    continues.
        Additionally, ongoing efforts in maintenance,
    recapitalization, redistribution within the division will
    improve equipment availability, as will new fieldings and other
    efforts to replace some of our aging and worn out equipment.
        I will close by saying that we're meeting our current
    requirements. Units that are deploying are trained, manned, and
    equipped for the mission. In some cases, our nondeploying units
    are paying a tax in manpower and equipment while we prepare
    these other units to deploy, but this allows us to meet current
    requirements and focus on marines preparing for combat.
        I believe, as our end strength increases and our deployment
    cycle improves beyond the current one-to-one dwell, we'll begin
    to gain additional flexibility in our scheduling, and we'll
    have more opportunity to train for missions other than Iraq.
        Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak
    today, and I look forward to your questions.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Colonel Craparotta.
        Colonel Orr?

    STATEMENT OF COL TIMOTHY E. ORR, USARNG, COMMANDER, 2ND BRIGADE
     COMBAT TEAM, 34TH INFANTRY DIVISION, IOWA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

        Colonel Orr. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the
    3,800 soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, Iowa
    National Guard, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
    address you today and address the readiness of the 2nd Brigade.
        I'm currently the commander, and have been for the last 3
    years, of the brigade. I'm what we call an Active Guard/Reserve
    officer, dual status, also serving as a commander. I'm also the
    Director of Operations, Training, and Mobilization for the Iowa
    National Guard.
        Since 2001, the 2nd Brigade has provided the Nation with
    soldiers and units to fit the mission required. Unlike other
    infantry teams in the Army, the 2nd Brigade has not deployed as
    an entire combat organization. Instead, the brigade deployed
    individual battalions, companies, and select individuals of
    command and staff leaders based on theater requirements. The
    total number of the 2nd Brigade soldiers that have mobilized is
    4,200 soldiers. Over 1,000 of those soldiers have volunteered
    to mobilize more than once, with the brigade and with other
    units within the State of Iowa. Currently, the brigade has 765
    soldiers deployed with the 1st Brigade, 34th Infantry Division,
    in Iraq. These troops mobilized in September 2005. They spent 6
    months at the main operating base (MOB) station at Fort Shelby,
    Mississippi, completed 1 year boots-on-the-ground, and have
    been extended for up to 125 days. By the time these soldiers
    complete their end-of-tour leave, they will have completed 24
    months of continuous Active Duty.
        In addition to this mobilization, we have 48 soldiers and
    leaders mobilizing for the Afghanistan National Army Embedded
    Training Team mission, two battalions for the Kosovo campaign,
    and two companies for Iraq. Within the next 3 months, the 2nd
    Brigade will mobilize over 845 soldiers, and we will demobilize
    765 soldiers. As part of our homeland security mission, the 2nd
    Brigade supported the Midwest snowstorm this past February,
    with over 200 additional soldiers on State Active Duty.
        Despite all these missions and the increased operational
    tempo (OPTEMPO), the 2nd Brigade has been able to exceed its
    enlistment, accessions, and retention goals for the last 3
    years. Much of this success has been credited to the variety of
    State and Federal recruiting, retention, and educational
    incentives that have been offered to our soldiers. However,
    this success has not been without its challenges. The increased
    OPTEMPO and the need to cross-level personnel and equipment
    from nondeploying units to increased readiness of deploying
    units over the last 5 years has resulted in a decline of
    readiness in the brigade.
        We continue to reset units from deployment, conduct
    premobilization training, provide equipment sets for
    postmobilization training, and unit deployment equipment
    packages, while simultaneously maintaining a capability in the
    State to react to homeland missions. Our ability as a brigade
    to perform these missions continues to be degraded by continued
    equipment shortages, substitutions, and the cross-leveling of
    equipment between the State and Nation to support our deploying
    units. These practices hinder our ability of my units to
    conduct premobilization training to standard and add time at
    the mobilization station before deployment. It can also slow
    our ability to respond to disasters and terrorist incidents
    within the State and the region.
        One of the greatest assets of the 2nd Brigade is our
    extremely dedicated full-time workers. That small team of
    Active, Guard, Reserve, and military technicians back in our
    communities look after our soldiers and their families on a
    day-to-day basis. The lack of full-time manning continues to be
    a critical issue for the brigade, and with all of our units,
    which has an adverse effect upon our retention and the quality
    of life for our soldiers and their families. The 2nd Brigade's
    current full-time manning is at 59 percent of the Army-
    validated requirement.
        Finally, the current policy on the reintegration of our
    soldiers and their families back from deployment into the
    Reserve status hampers our ability to properly identify and
    meet our soldiers' and their families' postdeployment needs in
    a timely manner.
        Mr. Chairman, the 2nd Brigade continues to answer the call
    of duty. Given the proper amount of resources, training, and
    deployment predictability, we will be able to continue our
    support for our State and our Federal missions while minimizing
    the impacts on our soldiers, their families, and employers.
        I am grateful for this opportunity to address this
    committee today, and I welcome your questions.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Colonel Orr.
        Before we begin with the questions, I want to introduce a
    group that's here today. We are visited today by a group of
    West Point Cadets from the United States Military Academy,
    Department of Social Sciences. [Applause.]
        Will you please rise, Cadets? Thank you very much.
        We welcome you all, and thank you for your willingness to
    serve our Nation as future Army officers. The witnesses that we
    have today are icons for you, and officers that you can look
    forward to following, because they've served our Nation now for
    a number of years.
        I think all of you have been serving for about 20 years
    already, so, let me ask a question to all of you. Congress has
    consistently expressed concern, as I did in my opening
    statement, over the readiness of forces, deployed and preparing
    to deploy, in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Short dwell time at home station drives compromises in manning,
    training, and equipment that impact unit readiness and increase
    risk. I'm quoting: ``What keeps you awake at night?'' Because
    you are the billpayers, how would you characterize the
    readiness of your units for your mission-essential tasks and
    worldwide deployment? What are the greatest challenges, in
    terms of people, equipment, or training? Please paint for us a
    picture of your units' readiness, without getting into details
    that may be classified?
        Colonel Beech, will you begin, please?
        Colonel Beech. First and foremost, what characterizes the
    readiness of my brigade is the process of reset and
    reconstitution. Right now, my brigade is in the process of
    being issued all our major combat systems, so that is the focus
    of what my brigade is doing. We have not even yet begun the
    full training cycle for our redeployment to Iraq, which will
    happen sometime in the next year. So, right now we're in the
    process of receiving equipment, having change-over in
    personnel, and then we'll begin our training cycle.
        So, as it stands today, my brigade is focused on the reset
    and reconstitution, and that characterizes everything we're
    doing.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. Yes, sir. My experience over the past
    10 months is that we've had the ability to shift manpower,
    personnel, and resources to prepare our forces for combat.
    There is a very short period of time when a unit returns from
    deployment, where we send the marines on leave, giving them an
    opportunity to reunite with their families; during that same
    period, we reconstitute equipment sets. So, within that 7-month
    period, there's 6 months where they have adequate time,
    adequate people, adequate equipment to do the training they
    need for the next rotation.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, our strength in the brigade is personnel.
    We continue to have our citizen soldiers and volunteers step up
    to the plate. Our retention and recruiting--our numbers are
    good. I think our challenge is the equipment piece. Our
    challenge here is that when our soldiers leave the mobilization
    station and go overseas, they're very well-equipped, and
    they're very well-trained. We have this continuing challenge,
    since September 11, as a brigade, that was a non-enhanced
    brigade; we were at about 63 percent of equipment going into
    the current war. We've currently dropped to about 53 percent,
    and a lot of that is because we've transferred equipment within
    the State to support other units. We've also left about 5.7
    million in theater as part of what we call the stay-behind
    equipment, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
        What's concerning, as a brigade commander, is our ability
    to train. We have four training sets that we're required to
    use, and the first one is, is to train our soldiers to prepare
    for mobilization. We then move into what we call the equipment
    set that we need for the actual mobilization station. They
    train for a series of days with the equipment set that they'll
    actually fight with. Finally and foremost, we train for our
    State mission. The homeland mission, we train with the
    equipment we need for a natural disaster and any kind of
    terrorist incident that we could potentially see in our area.
        I think what's important here, as a brigade, is that
    training with equipment builds confidence, and it's more than
    proficiency, it's their ability to work together as teams and
    to certify our soldiers. My readiness really revolves around my
    ability to train on equipment, and equipment availability, sir.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        To all of you, our soldiers and marines have tremendous
    combat experience, but is that enough? What are your
    observations with regard to the quantity and quality of your
    mid-grade and junior officers, and your quantity and quality of
    noncommissioned officers (NCOs) among your subordinate units?
    Do your officers and NCOs have the education, training, and
    experience necessary to provide the most effective management
    and tactical leadership for their soldiers and marines? What
    steps are you taking to mitigate these challenges?
        Let me begin with Colonel Beech.
        Colonel Beech. Certainly, I have seen no degradation in
    performance or capability of our junior officers and our NCOs.
    The soldiers, those sergeants, lieutenants, and captains that
    are on the streets of Iraq in Baghdad, and Afghanistan, and
    elsewhere, they're where the rubber meets the road in this war
    on terrorism. It is my experience that the soldiers, the
    sergeants, the lieutenants, and captains are performing
    magnificently.
        During our recent deployment, I know our NCOs and our
    officers did everything we asked of them. But the challenge I
    have is for my NCOs and officers, 40 percent of whom who have
    been to Iraq once already and are looking at going back on
    their second or third time, is retaining those mid-grade NCOs
    and those junior officers. They're the future of our Army, and
    they're the decisive element in this war on terrorism.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. Our mid-grade and junior officers, and
    our NCOs, are in the best shape that I have seen them in 24
    years of service. They have combat experience, they're
    educated. We take the time to send them to professional
    military education. I have no indication that any of them, in
    numbers that would differ from generations, are leaving the
    service to do something else, other than serve their country.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, in 29 years of service, I've probably
    worked with the best corps of NCOs, enlisted soldiers, and
    officers that I've ever seen. Not only are they professionals
    in the military, but they're professionals in their civilian
    occupation, and what they do for their communities. We
    currently have 1,000 of the brigade soldiers that have deployed
    two or more times, which is significant in the eyes of the
    quality of folks that we have that continue to step up and
    volunteer to go two, three times. Our retention rate has stayed
    above an 85-percent, which is very significant. It's lower than
    the national average for the National Guard, which is at 18
    percent.
        I think that the significance for our force is the
    education. The majority of my soldiers and leaders are in the
    education field, they're going to get an education, and they're
    taking advantage, and so, we have very highly-qualified
    educated soldiers that I think that, thanks to our State and
    the Federal incentives, are staying with our force and helping
    us through these times.
        Senator Akaka. Each of you have indicated, and have
    mentioned, the word ``retention,'' especially in the middle
    grades. What do you think about retention among our mid-grade,
    junior officers, and NCOs? If you are short in key leaders,
    what impact does that have on your ability to effectively plan,
    organize, and manage your material and training readiness? How
    are you dealing with this kind of challenge on retention?
        Colonel Beech?
        Colonel Beech. The shortage I have in junior officers is
    particularly infantry and armor lieutenants as we go into our
    crew qualification phase in our platoon lanes. I'm confident
    that those shortages we do have in those positions will be
    filled prior to going into our mission rehearsal exercise. So,
    I'm confident we'll be prepared with qualified leaders for our
    deployment. However, during this period right now, what we're
    experiencing is a challenge meeting our retention goals both
    for junior officers and for mid-grade NCOs. Of course, the
    targeted incentives at those populations help us significantly
    to maintain the qualified leaders that we need to conduct our
    training, conduct operations.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. I have not experienced any shortages of
    junior officers or NCOs. My recent first-term re-enlistment
    requirement was raised from 27 to 34 percent of a very small
    population, and we're already at 83 percent of that goal. So,
    retention is not going to be a problem for me, either.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, we continue to maintain our level of the
    senior leaders, both at the junior grade and at the NCO grade.
    I think the challenge for us is our families and employers, and
    that's really where our retention effort helps us carry our
    soldier on to another term of service. Really, what we're
    looking at is, there's a lot of incentives that are currently
    out there that benefit both our enlisted soldiers and our
    officers. However, I do think there needs to be some targeted
    incentives at that senior captain to major level, where we're
    making some decisions at the 20-year mark with their civilian
    career that causes them to make a decision whether they want to
    stay in or they pursue their professional degree as part of
    their civilian career.
        So, I think, overall, we've maintained a fairly solid
    percentage of soldiers that remains in the ranks, both in
    senior-level officer and NCO. I think we're a solid force
    because of their experience.
        Senator Akaka. Equipment has always been a concern. What
    are your general observations about the numbers and state of
    repair of your most important vehicles, weapons, and
    communications systems?
        Colonel Beech?
        Colonel Beech. Sir, the equipment we are receiving now out
    of the Army Reset Program--obviously, we receive equipment from
    many different sources, but I know the equipment that we have
    received thus far has been fully mission-capable. It certainly
    has some deficiencies on some items of equipment that our
    maintenance folks, our technicians, have to repair during the
    process. However, the vehicles that we're receiving now,
    particularly the combat systems--the Bradleys, the tanks, and
    the howitzers, and those issues that are ongoing right now--
    they are in better shape than the ones that we received 2\1/2\
    years ago when we started this process.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. Our equipment is old--certainly, the
    equipment that we have at home station for training. We're
    wearing it out quicker than we have in the past. At this point,
    we have had plenty of, certainly, money for maintenance, and
    we've had no problems maintaining our equipment well above 80
    percent.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. We continue to reset equipment coming back
    from theater. We receive that weekly in our State. We're also
    receiving, in the brigade, new equipment fielding, which we've
    seen more new equipment today than we've ever seen in my
    history of being in the brigade.
        I think our challenge becomes the fact that we move
    equipment, though, from the brigade to those units that are
    deploying, as our priority. Our ability to train, and to train
    to standard, is affected by the fact that we're moving
    equipment to cover down on these different deployments as we
    move forces into theater.
        Senator Akaka. I'd like to know a little more about your
    reset programs. What is your experience with your Service's
    equipment reset programs? How much of your unit equipment would
    you say is working its way through the reset system? Or do you
    have visibility on its progress? How would you characterize the
    condition of equipment that comes back to you out of the reset
    system?
        Colonel Beech?
        Colonel Beech. Of course, reset is a complicated process,
    and I want to start out by saying that I left all my major
    combat systems in Iraq--tanks, Bradleys, howitzers, uparmored
    Humvees; that all stayed in Iraq. When I came back to home
    station, of course, there was some equipment that I was able to
    repair and bring back to fully mission-capable status myself.
    Those items that I couldn't do that were turned into a local or
    field reset program. Then, I was issued new equipment from the
    Army Support Command for those systems that I left behind.
        It's been my experience, thus far--and we are still in the
    midst of equipment reconstitution--that the major combat
    systems we're getting from the Army Support Command are in good
    shape; in other words, they're fully mission-capable. Again,
    they do have deficiencies, routine-type of maintenance
    shortfalls on those combat systems, but they are certainly
    shortfalls that we can repair.
        Furthermore, we have been augmented with maintenance
    technicians to help us overcome any deficiencies that we should
    find in the early stages of the training process. So, it has
    been my experience, thus far, within the reset and
    reconstitution program, that it's meeting the requirement, and
    I will be able to meet my predeployment training timeline, as
    we currently have it planned.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. We do not do reset like the Army. When
    my battalions deploy to Iraq, they do not take their equipment
    with them. They fall in on equipment sets in the theater. So,
    the equipment that is left behind, currently two battalion sets
    that I am maintaining, we turn to on that gear with a
    maintenance battalion, and repair it, and we won't have any
    issues having that equipment ready when those battalions return
    to train for the next round of deployments.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, in my brigade, we've done reset through
    the National Guard, and in Maine is where we do the reset for
    our Humvees. We are receiving those back in the State. We're
    receiving those in pretty good quantity, in pretty good shape.
        I think the issue that we have is we continue to leave and
    transfer weapons systems, night-vision systems, from unit to
    unit, we're getting the reset equipment, and we're also getting
    new equipment as part of the transformation effort and the
    equipment modernization. I think our real challenge is the
    individual weapons systems and night-vision systems that we
    pass on to our units that are deploying out the door that pull
    the readiness away from the brigade.
        Senator Akaka. I'd like to ask you about your training.
    With regard to training, what are your general observations
    about the quality of training among your subordinate units?
    What are your greatest challenges regarding individual skills
    and occupational specialty qualification? What are your
    challenges in achieving standards for individual and crew-
    served weapons qualifications? What are your challenges in
    providing combat maneuver training for subordinate combat
    units?
        All of these are under training, so let me call on Colonel
    Beech.
        Colonel Beech. Sir, our training that we're currently
    ongoing is primarily individual skills. It's focused on medical
    training and weapons qualification. That's based upon the
    amount of equipping we currently have, because we don't have
    complete combat systems for all our units, because we're still
    in the process of drawing them. We're focused on the individual
    training. As of yet, based upon the reset program, many of our
    small arms, of course, are still in the reset program. So, we
    are doing all the training we can at the individual training
    level until we have all our combat systems. At that point,
    later in June, July, and August, we will begin our training
    cycles that focus on the collective training tasks, and then
    complete our collective training at the JRTC.
        Based upon the current resourcing plan for our materiel, I
    believe that we'll be able to meet our training timelines as we
    prepare to go back to Iraq.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. As I mentioned earlier, I think our
    biggest challenge is time available to train. That forces us to
    focus specifically on the mission at OIF, in Iraq, and prevents
    us from doing things that we might have done in the past, large
    combined-arms maneuver, and amphibious operations.
        Our entry-level training allows us to integrate new marines
    into our units very effectively. They're well-trained. They get
    a great deal of training on weapons systems that they're going
    to employ, so it's very easy to integrate them. They go
    through, I would say, about 90 to 120 days, starting off with
    basic skills. It's a building-block approach. It's very
    specific. We end with the Service Assessment at Twentynine
    Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Training Center, which we
    call ``Mojave Viper,'' before a unit goes to OIF.
        So, our biggest challenge is time. As I mentioned earlier,
    we're able to address that challenge, and I don't have any
    concerns with integrating new marines and training them for the
    mission at hand.
        Senator Akaka. Thank you.
        Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, our training focus is what we call
    premobilization training, focused on individual leader. As we
    move through, right now, in a transformation process of what we
    call the ``reduction of postmobilization training,'' we're
    working very close with the Army and the National Guard Bureau
    to push training in the premobilization requirements. Slide it
    to our weekends and our annual training, in order for us to be
    able to maximize time at home, and allow our soldiers to spend
    more time with their families, and less time at the
    mobilization station.
        Our challenge becomes, as we move those tasks to the home
    station for us to train, because we have the quality trainers,
    and we have the facilities--it's the equipment that we need in
    order to be able to do that premobilization training.
        Our biggest challenge is: to train to standard, you have to
    have the proper equipment. As we look at the rapid-fielding
    initiative, we don't see that until we get to the mobilization
    station, and that's important for us to build confidence,
    important for us to be able to train to standard.
        Senator Akaka. On the topic of training, I would like to
    know a little bit more about what you do with headquarters-type
    personnel, as well as support services. What are your
    challenges in getting command-and-control training for your
    headquarters and your subordinate unit headquarter staffs? Do
    you have challenges getting the appropriate training for your
    support personnel and units?
        Colonel Beech?
        Colonel Beech. Sir, the biggest effect on training my
    battalion and brigade headquarters is the personnel turbulence
    that is currently undergoing, and will go through the end of
    June and into July. Of course, we are a life-cycle unit. The
    end of our life cycle is in June. We'll see the changes of
    command of all six of my battalions and the brigade
    headquarters. We've seen a significant personnel turbulence in
    our field-grade ranks, those staff officers, those majors at
    the battalion and brigade level. So, the personnel turbulence
    associated with the end of my life cycle, which is in mid-June,
    is the primary detractor from battalion and brigade
    headquarters training proficiency. Of course, that'll be
    resolved once the new officers come in to take command of these
    units, and the new officers are assigned to the staff position.
        Likewise, from an equipment perspective, our command-post
    fielding, those command-and-control mechanisms that the brigade
    uses to operate its six battalions, and those command posts for
    the six battalions, will be out of the reset program and be
    fielded to my units beginning in May and, again, complete in
    June. Of course, the primary training exercise to get after
    that is the JRTC mission rehearsal exercise, as well as some
    intermediate-level command-post exercises at Fort Hood.
        From a support capability, we are just now receiving our
    wheeled vehicle fleet, and we'll have sufficient light-,
    medium-, and heavy-wheeled vehicles to conduct our training. We
    will not have all the medium- and heavy-wheeled vehicles we are
    authorized, but we will have enough to conduct our training.
        For my brigade at Fort Hood, the medium- and heavy-wheeled
    vehicles we have are all light-skinned vehicles. There is a
    small training set of armored vehicles that we can use to
    conduct driver's training, but, by and large, the entire set of
    equipment that I'll be training with is light-skinned vehicles.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. Really, my headquarters goes along two
    tracks. One is, as I mentioned earlier, to prepare the
    battalions for deployment. The other is to prepare the
    regimental headquarters. The current construct, we have our
    operations center in place. The newest unit-operations center
    was fielded to us in January. Currently, the headquarters is in
    the field, conducting the second in a series of exercises. The
    headquarters will be fully manned by June of this year, which
    is 6 months prior to deployment. We'll have no problem getting
    in training that we need on the systems that we'll use in
    theater. We'll have all the people in place in order to do that
    training.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, I have a unique challenge, in the fact
    that, since the beginning of my command time, I've deployed
    individual units, and our priority has been to push leaders and
    key members of the staff down to be able to support those units
    that are deploying. What this causes me is a shortfall at the
    brigade headquarters in the ability to do what we would call
    collective staff training.
        Now, that being said, the officers I do have I've put
    through the schooling system, the total Army schooling system.
    They're qualified in the level that they're expected to perform
    at. The other piece that's significant here is, in this last
    deployment, as we're currently preparing, I've sent three teams
    of Afghan National Army Embedded Training Teams out, and that
    pretty much takes the majority of my staff and any senior
    leader that I have remaining in the brigade as we move into
    this deployment year for the brigade. There's not much left at
    the brigade headquarters for me to be able to do a collective-
    level training, though we still assist the units, and their
    preparation is our priority.
        Senator Akaka. Congress is concerned that the low levels of
    readiness in our National Guard is handing the States
    additional risks of public safety. The lack of equipment leaves
    the States very concerned about the Guard's ability to respond
    to domestic contingencies and emergencies.
        Colonel Orr, how do you report to the National Guard Bureau
    of the Department of the Army the readiness of your unit for
    their domestic support missions? How does Iowa measure and
    monitor the readiness of your unit for your domestic support
    missions? What are you doing to try to manage your readiness to
    meet your domestic support missions and reduce risks to public
    safety for your State?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, unlike my wartime mission, we take our
    State mission and the homeland defense mission as a State
    mission. So, we collectively monitor the 10 key areas of
    equipment that we are required to be able to respond, whether
    it's communications vehicles, water capability, or aircraft.
    But we monitor that at the State level, and we report it at the
    State level through our Joint Force Headquarters. So, I don't
    report it as strictly a brigade level, but it's a State-level
    reporting system that we use through the Joint Force
    Headquarters that reflects our ability to respond to the State
    emergencies.
        Just like in February, with the State emergency we had with
    the winter storms, though I'm missing equipment and I have
    equipment that's overseas, we, collectively, had to pull
    together, within the State, the equipment needed for the
    brigade to be able to go out and accomplish the highway-assist
    mission and some of the cordon-and-searches we did within our
    communities. But we still have a shortfall of equipment, and we
    still have a need that requires us to pull that equipment
    together in a collective effort.
        Senator Akaka. Each of you report the current readiness of
    your units using the Global Status of Resources and Training
    Systems. We have seen reports of units, not yours, in which
    they have the lowest objective rating for equipment or
    personnel. But a commander somewhere in the chain, and within
    their authority, has subjectively upgraded the unit to the
    highest rating. How has each of you personally used this
    authority over time? What analysis or criteria do you use in
    the application of your professional judgment? What, in your
    views, are the strengths and the weaknesses of this readiness
    reporting system? That is, what is it about this system that
    gives you confidence or frustrates you in communicating your
    evaluation of the readiness of your command up the chain?
        Colonel Beech?
        Colonel Beech. I think the biggest advantage of the current
    reporting system that I find useful as a commander is the
    qualitative narrative statements that I communicate to the Army
    staff and my higher headquarters, my division commander, every
    month. As I put in what I think are the biggest challenges that
    I have, in a narrative format, I always see feedback, not only
    from my division commander and his staff, but, on occasion, I
    have gotten calls from the Army staff directly to my brigade
    looking at ways to help or improve the readiness of my unit,
    particularly as it applies to personnel and readiness. So,
    those qualitative comments that I write in there, myself, every
    month, I find very useful.
        Less useful in the readiness reporting, on occasion, is the
    quantitative personnel reporting, because in that reporting,
    there are often hidden personnel issues, as I send NCOs off to
    schools for, say, recruiting or drill-sergeant schools, those
    key leaders might still be assigned to my unit, but they're not
    available to me to deploy, making me look more healthy than I
    actually am in personnel. So, those are the types of challenges
    that we see with the reporting. How I overcome any kind of
    hidden issues with the quantitative reporting, I address
    through my commander's narrative to the Army staff.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Craparotta?
        Colonel Craparotta. I think the strength of the system is
    that you balance numbers and percentages with the commander's
    assessment. As Colonel Beech stated, the commander's assessment
    and those narrative comments are what gets read by our
    commanders up the chain, it's what I review specifically from
    my subordinate commanders, but it's a balance between those
    comments and what the percentages and the numbers are telling
    you that is the strength of the system.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, I report quarterly from the brigade and
    the State perspective. I believe that the system we currently
    use is much better than the old system that we replaced within
    the last year. I think that the commander's card accurately
    reflects the strengths and weaknesses in my organization and my
    ability to support the full-spectrum operation brigade.
        There's two challenges that I have, and the first one deals
    with equipment, predominantly focusing on the substitution in
    the Unit Status Report (USR). Though I have equipment on hand,
    and it may be old equipment that's outdated that continues to
    be on our inventory, we're allowed to substitute that for new
    equipment, which doesn't truly reflect our true readiness and
    the ability to go do our full-spectrum mission. The other
    challenge that I have is not within the USR system, but how we
    reflect the data higher. That is a transmission line called a
    Secure Internet Protocol Route (SIPR) line, which is a secure
    line that allows us to send our information forward. When you
    look at Fort Iowa, and we're spread out among all the
    communities, I have organizations 3 to 4 or 5 hours away from
    the headquarters, I don't have the capability to transmit the
    data. It's a significant problem, not just within our State,
    but across the National Guard, in the fact that the
    infrastructure and the dollars are not there to provide the
    SIPR lines. For us, that takes time, and it takes a lot of
    energy in order to report that data forward.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Beech, Secretary Gates recently
    announced that Active-Duty Army combat tours would be extended
    from 12 months to 15 months. How were the families of your
    brigade informed of this decision? Did you, or they, know this
    before the Secretary of Defense announced it in a press
    conference?
        Colonel Beech. No, sir. We learned of this when the
    Secretary of Defense made the announcement. Of course, that was
    followed up widely in the media, even out there at Fort Hood,
    TX. Of course, we've been communicating with our junior leaders
    ever since. That has not specifically changed the situation for
    my brigade, as of yet, and we're waiting to see what the
    impacts of that might be. But we're currently proceeding along
    our training and preparation original timelines.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Beech, how is this impacting the
    morale of the families of your brigade? Has the Army or you put
    any special programs in place to address the family issues this
    unanticipated combat tour extension is sure to create?
        Colonel Beech. Right now, sir, we do not have a deployment
    date, although we expect to deploy sometime in the next year.
    So, we're anticipating what the results might be of these unit
    extensions. For my particular families, what this means is that
    we may have a year or more dwell time at home between
    rotations. What was challenging to my brigade, as about 40
    percent of my junior officers and NCOs have just completed
    their second tour, looking at their third tour, any short-term
    turns back to Iraq in less than a year would be very difficult
    on our families. So, the soldiers are looking forward to the
    prospect of having additional time at home.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr, until recently involuntarily
    mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve personnel were
    limited to 24 cumulative months. Recently, the Secretary of
    Defense changed this policy to limit each mobilization to 12
    months, but removed the 24-cumulative-month limitation. As a
    result, National Guard and Reserve units who have already
    served their complete tour are being mobilized again. How do
    the families of your brigade feel about this change in policy?
    Do you think it will have an impact on your soldiers' civilian
    employment?
        Colonel Orr. From the brigade's perspective, we have nobody
    that's currently being remobilized under that new policy. The
    folks that we currently are sending out to the MOB stations,
    we've known for approximately a year, year and a half, of their
    deployment. We do have units within the State, outside of the
    brigade, that fall into that category. I think that there's
    always that issue, dealing with families and employers, when we
    turn around and we send a unit back-to-back, but I think what's
    probably more important here is what I would call--is the
    deployment cycle support, and that is, is the ability, when we
    bring soldiers home, to reset them, and their families and
    their employers, for the potential next deployment. I think
    there's some work that we need to do, as an organization and as
    a State, to help facilitate that. The current policy, the
    hands-off policy, eliminates us from being able to voluntarily
    get to our soldiers, upon return home from mobilization, for 90
    days. We're finding that the problems that are surfacing from
    deployments, whether medical, physical, psychological, family,
    occur between the time they take leave from returning from
    deployment, to about that 90-day window. Compound that, along
    with the fact that we're spread over, in my case, a battalion's
    worth of 211 communities, we have some unique challenges there
    to communicate with our soldiers. It's important that we have a
    reintegration process very similar to Colonel Beech, 4th
    Infantry Division, and the Active Army, where we're able to
    bring the families, the soldiers, in sooner, and have funding
    that can support that, so we can do a reintegration and take
    care of their physical and family needs prior to finding about
    it 90 days later, and when they return back to duty.
        Senator Akaka. Colonel Orr, do you think that we need new
    or different programs for families of National Guard personnel
    who are mobilized a second time?
        Colonel Orr. Sir, I think that, in dealing with the
    families, we have a pretty solid family support program, as
    long as we continue to fund our family support personnel, and
    that we continue the support programs that are there. I think,
    as I mentioned in my earlier statement, the challenge becomes,
    for us, is the hands-off policy in the reintegration of our
    families. Many of the States--specifically, Minnesota, went out
    for the 1st Brigade that--to include some of the soldiers from
    my battalion that belong with them--they were extended for 125
    days. They've worked very hard with their congressional folks
    to receive additional funding in order to be able to support a
    reintegration program that engages the families, prior to the
    soldiers arriving, and then, through a series of engagements
    after the soldier and their families come home. I think that
    really is the key for us to maintain readiness, retention, and
    really take care of our families and the employers, that early
    engagement with our soldiers and their families.
        Senator Akaka. I want to thank you, Colonel Beech, Colonel
    Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, for your thoughtful and frank
    testimony today. As I expected, this has been an interesting
    and very useful hearing. Although your units face serious
    readiness challenges, we can see that you are trying to deal
    with them in a realistic and creative way. You have given us
    much to think about as we consider how best to support you,
    your soldiers and marines, and your families in this year's
    National Defense Authorization Bill. So, all of this
    information you've given us will help us do that.
        I want to tell you that we are proud of you. We are proud
    of what you're doing and proud of your soldiers and marines and
    what they're doing for our country. These training programs are
    so important to prepare them for whatever the mission will be.
    So, the effort here is to try to learn what is there, the
    status of training at this point. You have given that to us,
    and we hope we can then prepare the proper National Defense
    Authorization Bill that will help you continue to do the good
    job that you're doing with your brigades.
        So, with that, I want to say thank you so much, again, for
    being here today, and I want to also extend that to your
    families and to all the soldiers and marines that you command.
    So, thank you very much.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor

                                    TRAINING

        1. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, how adequate is your training for convoy operations?
        Colonel Beech. Before the end of this fiscal year every one of my
    platoons will have completed a very detailed and deliberate train-up on
    convoy procedures, counter-improvised explosive device (IED)
    operations, counter ambush, and medical treatment and evacuation. In
    June and July, all of our platoons will execute a basic-level IED
    identification and reaction course where they will drive a route in
    convoy and attempt to identify and react to IEDs similar to those found
    in theater. Following this, platoons will move to a more complex
    situational training exercise where they will have to react to enemy
    snipers, more sophisticated IEDs, and a complex enemy ambush. Platoons
    will be externally evaluated in this exercise and will have to deal
    with local civilians and treat and evacuate wounded personnel. In order
    to familiarize soldiers with the unique challenges of operating in a
    dense urban environment, we will require every platoon to conduct a
    convoy operation (unarmed) through the traffic in our surrounding
    communities. This will teach convoy leaders how to maintain cohesion
    and communications in a high traffic environment and how to treat
    locals appropriately while maintaining force protection. Our logistics
    patrols have a unique burden in Iraq given the nature of the threat and
    will receive additional training. In July we will conduct a series of
    convoy live-fire exercises for each one of the logistics elements in
    this brigade. This scenario will build on the force-on-force exercises
    in June but employ live ammunition. Logistics convoys will have to
    respond to a series of threats first while stationary and then on the
    move. They will have to develop methods to synchronize and distribute
    their fires, discriminate between hostile and non-hostile targets, and
    take all the appropriate safety precautions inherent in live-fire
    training. Finally, prior to deployment every soldier who will occupy
    the commander's or gunner's seat in a combat vehicle in Iraq will be
    required to qualify in a series of externally evaluated live-fire
    gunnery tables on the type of vehicle that he will operate in Iraq.
        Our greatest challenge in the training of convoy operations is the
    lack of uparmored M1114 HMMWVs at home station because of the demand in
    theater. I currently do not have any uparmored trucks of any kind in my
    brigade. The M1025 Scout HMMWV is our surrogate vehicle for training
    purposes but lacks the weight and other characteristics to adequately
    replicate driving this armored truck. The shortage of M1025 and M1026
    HMMWVs also limits crew training and qualification. In my brigade we
    have attempted to mitigate this by pooling and rotating a training
    fleet of M1025s among units to accomplish required predeployment
    training.
        Colonel Craparotta. Marine Corps convoy operations training is
    sufficient for the current operating environment. Marines receive the
    level of convoy operations training commensurate with their deployment
    assignment. In our Pre-deployment Training Plan (PTP) block approach,
    all marines deploying to the Central Command (CENTCOM) theater,
    regardless of assignment, are required to receive Blocks I and II
    training which include driver and convoy operations training. Blocks
    III and IV contain unit-specific convoy operations training.
        The training and education continuum begins with entry level
    training and ascends through formal schools, home station, professional
    military education, and culminates with a final exercise such as Mojave
    Viper, Desert Talon, or Mountain Warrior. This ascending-levels-of-
    competency approach allows marines of all ranks to be trained at the
    right level, at the right time, and the right place. This further
    provides a disciplined approach to studying, thinking, and discussing
    the profession of arms. The threading of convoy operations training
    throughout the continuum ensures that all marines will be well-prepared
    for the types of challenges they may face.
        Finally, a rapid, continuous lessons-learned process ensures the
    latest enemy and friendly tactics, techniques, and procedures are used
    in training. Above all, the Marine Corps takes pride in ensuring much
    of the individual training, and virtually all unit training, is
    conducted with the oversight of combat experienced NCOs and Officers.
    Additional Information:
             Block I: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is
            conducted at home station to establish mastery of basic
            warfighting skills. These skills include:

                     Enhanced Marksmanship Package
                     Common Combat Skills
                     Annual Training Requirements (Physical Fitness Test,
                    Gas Chamber, Swim Qualification and Rifle Range)
                     Military Occupational Specialty Proficiency Skills
                     Incidental Driver Training
                     Vehicle Familiarization and Preventive Maintenance
                     Immediate Action Drills
                     Basic Driver Skills
                     Crew-served Weapons Training
                     Weapons Assembly/Disassembly and Maintenance
                     Weapons Loading, Unloading, and Immediate Action

             Block II: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is
            conducted at home station with a focus on current operating
            environment skills. This training includes:

                     Marksmanship
                     Improvised Explosive Devices-Defeat
                     Motorized Operations
                     Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation
                     Vehicle Control Point/Entry Control Point/Escalation
                    Of Force/Law Of War
                     Pre-combat Actions
                     Aspects of Culture
                     Fixed Site Security
                     First Aid
                     High Risk of Capture

             Block III: Focused training for combat support units with the
            following tasks in their Mission Essential Task List (METL)
            (these are collective tasks, usually involving convoy
            operations, conducted at service level training events):

                     Conduct Defensive Actions
                     Conduct Relief in Place
                     Forward-deploy Units
                     Conduct Intelligence Operations
                     Perform Logistics and Combat Service Support (CSS)
                     Exercise Command and Control
                     Protect the Force
                     Conduct Civil Military Operations (CMO) in the Joint
                    Operating Area (JOA)
                     Train Forces and Personnel

             Block IV: For ground combat elements, combat aircrews, and
            those that will be exposed to hostile action on a recurring
            basis. This block is conducted at service level training
            events. These units will typically have the following tasks in
            their METL:

                     Conduct Offensive Action
                     Control or Dominate an Operationally Significant Area
                     Clear Enemy Forces from an Area
                     Conduct Defensive Action
                     Conduct Relief in Place
                     Interdict an Area or Route
                     Forward Deploy Units
                     Conduct Intelligence Operations
                     Provide Fires in Support of Maneuver
                     Perform Logistics and CSS
                     Exercise Command and Control
                     Protect the Force
                     Conduct CMO in JOA
                     Train Forces and Personnel

        Training culminates in a full-scale, intelligence-driven,
    controlled, and evaluated mission rehearsal exercise conducted at
    Twentynine Palms, Bridgeport, Yuma, or a joint venue.
        Colonel Orr. Convoy operation training is integrated into both our
    weekend and annual training requirements. The requirement is for every
    soldier to complete convoy operation training within an 18-month cycle
    of weekend and annual training events. Every unit conducts a minimum of
    two 8-hour convoys annually as they travel to their annual training
    site. Once we get to the annual training site, I require every soldier
    in the brigade to participate in a live-fire convoy lane as part of
    their annual training program. Within this training program, every
    soldier is qualified on individual and crew served weapons, has
    completed advance weapons marksmanship, and completed numerous
    iterations of convoy training in a crawl, walk, and run methodology. In
    addition, my units will conduct numerous convoys throughout the 2 weeks
    as they conduct combat and logistics operations. My greatest challenge
    is the lack of equipment to train my soldiers to standard. Many times,
    I am forced to train my soldiers on a convoy lane without the proper
    individual weapons, vehicles, and crew served weapons. I can train
    soldiers and give them some experience, but once they get overseas,
    they will usually have to retrain with the updated equipment and
    vehicles.

        2. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, how are you training to identify and defeat IEDs?
        Colonel Beech. As I stated above, IED identification and reaction
    are two of the most basic and important individual skills that we will
    train prior to redeployment to theater. The 4th Infantry Division has
    invested a great deal of resources into developing appropriate training
    lanes that teach soldiers how to detect, avoid, and respond to IED
    threats. I have added the completion of this IED lane to our routine
    gunnery certification requirement so that it receives the attention
    that it deserves from every vehicle crew in the brigade.
        We are enrolling many of our mid-level noncommissioned officers
    (NCOs) from my two engineer companies into the Route Reconnaissance and
    Clearance Operators Course (R2C2) taught at the Engineer School in Fort
    Leonard Wood, MO. This course teaches NCOs the fundamentals of counter-
    IED and route clearance operations using the latest techniques that are
    being developed in theater.
        Like convoy operations, our biggest challenge with respect to
    counter-IED training comes down to a shortage of equipment at home
    station. The Army has fielded some exceptional and specialized route
    clearance equipment in Iraq including the Buffalo, RG-31, and Husky.
    Unfortunately, due to resource limitations, these vehicles are not
    available for home station training. Route clearance platoons will
    receive a 2-week block of instruction in Iraq on this equipment once we
    arrive but we will be unable to incorporate these critical tools into
    our home station train-up and mission rehearsal exercise.
        Colonel Craparotta. To ensure all marines receive appropriate
    training prior to deploying to theaters of operations and potential
    combat operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps established the
    U.S. Marine Corps PTP in 2006. Within the PTP, unit commanders build on
    the individual and collective IED-defeat (IED-D) skills learned in the
    institutional training domain. The hallmark of IED-D training within
    this domain is the ability of the marine and leader to apply those
    previously learned individual and collective task skills in
    increasingly more complex scenarios and situations. This integrated,
    building-block approach incorporates the traditional crawl/walk/run
    methodology to create marines, leaders, and units capable of defeating
    an insurgent IED system and mitigating its effects on operations. This
    training progression starts with home station training and culminates
    with a Mission Rehearsal Exercise at the Marine Air Ground Task Force
    Training Command, Twentynine Palms, CA, or at an approved alternate
    training venue.
        The training and education continuum provides the strong foundation
    upon which individual marines and units develop tactics, techniques,
    and procedures to defeat the evolving IED threat. These tasks include
    both common combat and military occupational specialty-specific
    individual and collective skills. We are currently developing the
    standardized master lesson files (MLF) to cover all common IED-D
    individual and collective skills, and will update these with the
    evolving threat.

             MLF 1: recognition of IED indicators, reaction to a suspected
            IED, and reaction to an IED detonation.
             MLF 2: small unit leader training in mounted and dismounted
            movement in an IED threat environment, including actions to
            predict, avoid, and protect against various IED threats.
             MLF 3: operation and employment of the new counter radio-
            controlled IED electronic warfare devices/systems, and an
            introduction to the fundamentals of ground electronic warfare.
             MLF 4: staff actions for planning, preparing, and executing
            counterinsurgency operations where IEDs are the enemy's weapon
            of choice. Staff actions include terrain visualization,
            predictive analysis, site exploitation, ground EW operations,
            integrating joint IED enablers, and enemy network surveillance
            and targeting.

        Lastly, in conjunction with the Joint IED-D Organization, we will
    continue to explore every avenue of defeating IEDs through the paradigm
    of Defeat the System, Defeat the Device, and Train the Force.
        Colonel Orr. IED training is integrated into both our weekend and
    annual training requirements. The requirement is for every soldier to
    complete IED training within an 18-month cycle of weekend and annual
    training events. I have procured a variety of IED simulators that can
    be used by the units to integrate into their training lanes. I have
    created a new assignment in the BCT Headquaters and every battalion
    headquarters for an IED Master Gunner. This person attends a series of
    training courses at Fort Leonard Wood on IEDs and the proper methods of
    identifying and defeating IEDs. They come back to the unit and become
    the IED expert for their units. However, because of how the enemy is
    always changing their tactics, most of the IED training occurs once my
    units are at the post mobilization training site and can receive the
    most current information. Also, once the mobilized unit gets to Kuwait,
    they spend several weeks receiving training on IEDs, using the newest
    tactics, techniques, and procedures.

        3. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, what new technologies would you like to see employed on the
    battlefield?
        Colonel Beech. Our brigade was superbly equipped in Iraq with the
    latest technologies. I am not an expert on the research and development
    process in the Army and don't have visibility on what is already in the
    development pipeline.
        Certainly the proliferation and expansion of persistent
    surveillance intelligence collection capabilities among all echelons
    should continue along with any and all efforts to protect our soldiers
    from and allow us to defeat IEDs.
        As important as new technologies is the full resourcing of unit
    equipment authorizations. I want to thank the committee for your
    continued support of the Army in these efforts.
        Colonel Craparotta. The Marine Corps articulates its technology
    needs in its biennial Science and Technology Strategic Plan. This
    document provides science and technology objectives across all of the
    battlefield functions. Representative of these technology priorities
    are the following:

             Achieve persistent, focused, wide-area surveillance over the
            battlespace
             Be able to find and pre-detonate IEDs
             Halve the weight of the basic fighting load of infantryman
             Incorporate common electrical power without the variety of
            short life batteries
             Make infantrymen essentially bulletproof and climatically
            controlled
             Provide a combat helmet with a pilot-like heads-up display
            containing optics, protection, data display and communications
            that is both lighter than the current helmet and which provides
            more protection
             Develop training simulators that support realistic infantry
            training requirements
             Provide systems that support combat identification of
            friendly forces and display of friendly force position location
            information in near real time
             Develop adaptive camouflage that conforms to any environment
            and light conditions
             Provide devices that will permit near-synchronous voice
            translation

        Colonel Orr. I think new technology is great, but I would like to
    see it and the newest equipment get filtered down to my units, prior to
    mobilization. The Army has done a great job in fielding my units at the
    mobilization stations with the best equipment and technology, but prior
    to mobilization we do have the same capability. As I bring units home
    from deployment, they are either leaving equipment in theater for other
    units or having to turn it in to supply, so that other units can have
    it to mobilize. My challenge is to reset the force and maintain our
    skills from deployment, which is very hard with the lack of equipment
    and technology. I have tried to procure simulation systems that will
    provide some relief to the shortage, but it does not fill the gap
    created by the shortfall in equipment and technology.

        4. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, a suicide bomber exploded a truck near a U.S. military outpost in
    Baqubah, Iraq, yesterday, killing 9 soldiers and wounding 20 others. Do
    you have the tools necessary in your training to better identify and
    defeat these bombers?
        Colonel Beech. I am not familiar with this incident beyond what I
    have read in DOD press releases. I can't say with certainty that my
    brigade could do a better job of identifying this type of threat than
    the soldiers of this unit did in April. A committed and well-equipped
    suicide bomber is a very difficult opponent to stop. We are doing
    everything in our capability to train and equip our soldiers with the
    tools to identify this kind of threat and react appropriately. We will
    train force protection operations during our field exercises at home
    station and at our mission rehearsal exercise using mock scenarios
    similar to the one in Baquba. This fall, I am sending my staff engineer
    officers to a course that will train them on the fundamentals of
    constructing blast walls and security barriers that can withstand these
    kinds of attacks. We also train our soldiers to look for intelligence
    and environmental indicators of pending attacks such as the abnormal
    behavior or absence of local children. Good force protection is
    fundamentally about discipline and vigilance and these are skills that
    our NCOs attempt to instill everyday into the soldiers of this brigade.
        Colonel Craparotta. Yes, in our PTP block approach, all marines
    deploying to the CENTCOM theater, regardless of assignment, are
    required to receive Blocks I and II training which include IED-D and
    Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation training. Blocks
    III and IV contain unit-specific intelligence collection, protect the
    force. and civil-military operations training.
        The training and education continuum begins with entry level
    training and ascends through formal schools, home station, professional
    military education, and culminates with a final exercise such as Mojave
    Viper, Desert Talon, or Mountain Warrior. This ascending-levels-of-
    competency approach allows marines of all ranks to be trained at the
    right level, at the right time, and the right place. This further
    provides a disciplined approach to studying, thinking, and discussing
    the profession of arms. The threading of force protection training
    throughout the continuum ensures that all marines will be well-prepared
    for the types of challenges they may face.
        Finally, a rapid, continuous lessons-learned process ensures the
    latest enemy and friendly tactics, techniques, and procedures are used
    in training. Above all, the Marine Corps takes pride in ensuring much
    of the individual training, and virtually all unit training, is
    conducted with the oversight of combat experienced NCOs and Officers.
    Additional Information:
             Block I: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is
            conducted at home station to establish mastery of basic
            warfighting skills. These skills include:

                     Enhanced Marksmanship Package
                     Common Combat Skills
                     Annual Training Requirements (Physical Fitness Test,
                    Gas Chamber, Swim Qualification and Rifle Range)
                     Military Occupational Specialty Proficiency Skills
                     Incidental Driver Training
                     Vehicle Familiarization and Preventive Maintenance
                     Immediate Action Drills
                     Basic Driver Skills
                     Crew-served Weapons Training
                     Weapons Assembly/Disassembly and Maintenance
                     Weapons Loading, Unloading, and Immediate Action

             Block II: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is
            conducted at home station with a focus on current operating
            environment skills. This training includes:

                     Marksmanship
                     Improvised Explosive Devices-Defeat
                     Motorized Operations
                     Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation
                     Vehicle Control Point/Entry Control Point/Escalation
                    Of Force/Law Of War
                     Pre-combat Actions
                     Aspects of Culture
                     Fixed Site Security
                     First Aid
                     High risk of Capture

             Block III: Focused training for combat support units with the
            following tasks in their Mission Essential Task List (METL)
            (these are collective tasks conducted at service level training
            events):

                     Conduct Defensive Actions
                     Conduct Relief in Place
                     Forward-deploy Units
                     Conduct Intelligence Operations
                     Perform Logistics and Combat Service Support (CSS)
                     Exercise Command and Control
                     Protect the Force
                     Conduct Civil Military Operations (CMO) in the Joint
                    Operating Area (JOA)
                     Train Forces and Personnel

             Block IV: For Ground Combat Elements, Combat Aircrews, and
            those that will be exposed to hostile action on a recurring
            basis. This block is conducted at service level training
            events. These units will typically have the following tasks in
            their METL:

                     Conduct Offensive Action
                     Control or Dominate an Operationally Significant Area
                     Clear Enemy Forces from an Area
                     Conduct Defensive Action
                     Conduct Relief in Place
                     Interdict an Area or Route
                     Forward Deploy Units
                     Conduct Intelligence Operations
                     Provide Fires in Support of Maneuver
                     Perform Logistics and CSS
                     Exercise Command and Control
                     Protect the Force
                     Conduct CMO in JOA
                     Train Forces and Personnel

        Training culminates in a full-scale, intelligence-driven,
    controlled, and evaluated mission rehearsal exercise conducted at
    Twentynine Palms, Bridgeport, Yuma, or a joint venue.
        Colonel Orr. Suicide bomber is the number one problem in
    counterinsurgency operations in OIF. Currently there is no official
    program for defeating the suicide bomber. Defeating a suicide bomber is
    a very difficult task. We developed an entire spectrum of
    countermeasures, identified indicators, and continue to train and raise
    the situational awareness of our soldiers in relation to the threat.
    But threat tactics continue to evolve in the face of our
    countermeasures, and we will never come to a point when we are
    completely protected from suicide bombers. The U.S. Army has a Center
    for Army Lessons Learned that continues to provide great information on
    the suicide bomber and how we can defeat it. They have provided to its
    readers tools to develop a Suicide Bomber Defeat program.

        5. Senator Pryor. Colonel Orr, what readiness challenges do you
    face when balancing your unit's responsibility to the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
        Colonel Orr. I have no real challenges when it comes to balancing
    my DOD and DHS mission. We train every year focused on our war fight
    mission. The tasks that we are expected to execute overseas are the
    same tasks that are expected for us to execute in our DHS mission. The
    only addition to my training program is teaching the civil disturbance
    training. Over the last 2 years, we have deployed most of the BCT,
    while supporting several homeland security missions. We supported the
    Midwest Winter Storms and Operation Jump Start along the border without
    degrading our ability to support the Nation. The greatest challenge for
    me is the lack of equipment issue. The same equipment required for pre-
    mobilization training, post-mobilization training, and the DOD
    deployment is the same equipment required for a DHS mission. My
    soldiers have exceeded in every mission they have received from DOD or
    DHS. I believe if we can perform the warfighter mission, then we will
    be able to support the DHS mission.

        6. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, are your soldiers and marines effectively training for irregular
    warfare (IrW)?
        Colonel Beech. Yes. Our training strategy is focused on full-
    spectrum operations. This strategy breaks down into three major
    components: (1) leader training, (2) individual soldier training, and
    (3) collective or unit training.
        We have an aggressive program to train our junior leaders on a
    variety of subjects that they will need in Iraq or any other
    environment. This summer and fall our leaders will attend classes on
    Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity, Counterinsurgency operations, and
    antiterrorism. Additionally, all of the senior leaders in the brigade
    will travel to Fort Polk for a week to study and practice techniques
    for planning complex operations in an IrW environment.
        Our individual training emphasizes the fact that every soldier is a
    rifleman. We will train marksmanship very heavily this next quarter.
    Other training will include basic cultural awareness, rules of
    engagement, IED detect and defeat techniques, and basic first aid.
        Our collective unit training focuses on building tough realistic
    scenarios that replicate the complexity of the irregular battlefield.
    This summer our focus will be on training at the company level and
    below so that we build those cohesive and capable teams that are so
    critical in this type of warfare. The culmination of our collective
    training will be a deployment to the JRTC at Fort Polk where we will
    fully exercise all the capabilities of the brigade in a full-spectrum
    and realistic environment. I think this training strategy adequately
    prepares us to fight IrW.
        Colonel Craparotta. Yes. The Marine Corps is preparing its
    operating forces to operate, today and in the future, in IrW
    environments. The essence of our Maneuver Warfare doctrine is
    outsmarting a thinking enemy by exploiting key weaknesses to defeat the
    enemy's center of gravity. In many aspects, this philosophy closely
    parallels IrW. From forward-looking IrW-related concepts to present
    day-focused IrW doctrine, emerging lessons learned and training, we
    instill in marines the importance of understanding the irregular threat
    and the nature of today's battlefield. Additionally, we maintain close
    coordination with joint force and external agencies on IrW issues
    within a variety of forums.
        A sampling of some of our ongoing IrW training efforts is provided
    below:

             We recently published Countering Irregular Threats: A
            Comprehensive Approach; the Tentative Manual for Countering
            Irregular Threats: An Updated Approach to Counterinsurgency;
            and the Small Unit Leader's Guide to Counterinsurgency intended
            to stimulate debate and facilitate combat development. Our
            Small Unit Leader's Guide to Counterinsurgency provides a ready
            reference incorporating recent lessons learned. A similar
            project is underway to capture lessons in the urban
            environment. Additionally, the Multi-Service Concept for IrW
            was published in collaboration with SOCOM; and we are
            collaborating with the Army on FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5
            Counterinsurgency providing guidance for battalion level and
            higher commanders and staff.
             Our Small Wars Center of Excellence Web site (www.smallwars.-
            quantico.usmc.mil) provides an unclassified, interactive
            information resource and management tool for the understanding
            of the history, nature, and relevance of small wars in the 21st
            century security environment. It supports the marine who is
            seeking relevant information including cultural intelligence,
            IrW, counterinsurgency, and after action reports.
             Marine Corps University has placed an increased emphasis on
            IrW by hosting subject matter experts as guest speakers,
            incorporating seminar discussion and planning exercises. In
            2005, we established the Kim T. Adamson Chair of Insurgency and
            Terrorism to focus on the theory and nature of terrorism and
            insurgencies. At the senior level, the Marine Corps War College
            devotes approximately 84 hours, half its War Policy and
            Strategy Course, to the study of IrW. The intermediate school,
            Command and Staff College program of instruction called ``Small
            Wars and Operations other than War'' totals 107.5 instruction
            hours. Students explore counterinsurgencies, transnational
            threats, stability operations and reconstruction; while also
            receiving instruction in operational culture, language,
            interagency issues. At the primary level, Expeditionary Warfare
            School devotes 3 weeks to an IrW-specific program.
             All new officers receive entry-level training in the
            operational aspects of foreign cultures and counterinsurgency,
            and our schoolhouses include IrW in their lesson plans. An IrW/
            Distributed Operations mission training plan is under
            development to identify IrW Collective and Individual Training
            Standards to be incorporated into the relevant training and
            readiness manuals.
             The Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning provides
            pre-deployment training focusing on operational culture and
            language learning for operating forces and on schoolhouse
            instruction and curricula support. We are working to establish
            satellite Language Learning Resource Centers to support focused
            pre-deployment language training and to build distance learning
            products for the Career Marine Regional Studies program.
             Our Marine Air Ground Task Force Staff Training Program
            supports the operating forces by preparing a Marine
            Expeditionary Force staff for deployment to any theater of
            operations. MSTP constructs a five-part exercise package across
            two of four quadrants of war while tailoring its program to
            current requirements, notably, IrW.
             The Security Cooperation Education and Training Center is
            leading the development of formalized Marine Corps civil-
            military operations training and education for Civil Affairs
            Groups and Artillery Regiments in their secondary mission of
            Civil Affairs. They also conduct pre-deployment and IrW,
            advisor-specific training for all Marine Corps Transition
            Teams.
             Based on lessons collected from recent operations in Iraq and
            Afghanistan, the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned has
            identified a number of performance gaps in IrW training.
            Solution sets for tactical questioning, detainee handling,
            evidentiary collection, biometrics, civil military operations,
            advisor training, and non-lethal weapons are under development.

        During 2006, we assessed the current state of IrW training and
    education, and identified gaps and areas of potentially greater risk,
    to meet the Secretary of Defense and warfighting commanders'
    requirements for Marine forces more agile and capable of countering
    irregular threats, and conducting counterinsurgency operations. This is
    leading to changes to the curricula at schoolhouses and training venues
    that shift the balance between conventional and IrW, and better
    prepares marines for the modern battlefield.
        Colonel Orr. I train my soldiers to fight in a full-spectrum of
    operations, which includes IrW. I do not specifically focus their
    training on IrW only; I try to ensure that we include elements within
    our training program. Since the beginning of the war, my units have
    only been executing theater security operations, which are focused on
    route and convoy security. However, we try to implement elements of
    training that will help them in the event that their mission changes.
    As part of the post mobilization training, each soldier receives
    training in the country's language, culture, and customs. The soldiers
    I sent to Afghanistan this summer received training for 2 weeks with
    members of the Afghanistan National Army (ANA). They were part of a new
    training process focused to help our soldiers learn how to communicate
    and operate with ANA soldiers, before going into country. This concept
    of training has proven to be very beneficial and should continue as we
    develop our teams for deployment. Also, once my soldiers arrived in
    Afghanistan, they spent one week attending the counterinsurgency
    academy at Kabul. At the academy, everyone received the most updated
    information and training on the counterinsurgency operations in
    Afghanistan. The feedback was very positive from all soldiers.

        7. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, do you have access to adequate facilities that specialize in urban
    warfare?
        Colonel Beech. We have two dedicated urban training facilities at
    Fort Hood, TX, and several smaller `shoot-houses' that allow for live-
    fire exercises. The two large urban sites are adequate for a platoon or
    smaller company operation. They allow for the development and training
    of basic small units tactics and procedures for operations in urban
    terrain. While more and larger facilities would be desirable, our
    current training resources allow us to effectively train our platoons
    and companies.
        Colonel Craparotta. Yes, my subordinate battalions have had access
    to required training sites to conduct necessary urban training. There
    are currently three sites available at Camp Pendleton to train in urban
    warfare. These sites were available for my battalions. In some cases we
    had to share these training sites with other units but we were always
    able to get the necessary training completed.
        Because of the high demand on current urban training sites, the
    Marine Corps is investing to improve existing sites as well as adding
    sites on Camp Pendleton. While I don't have all the details, I know
    there has been construction at the existing site (range 131), and that
    there are plans which will dramatically improve the other two older
    sites aboard Camp Pendleton. So while we have had access to required
    training sites, we have also identified a requirement to improve
    existing facilities and the Marine Corps is investing significant money
    to upgrade urban training centers where my units conduct training.
        I would add that the Marine Corps has invested significant money
    into urban training at our training center in Twentynine Palms for both
    live-fire and non-live-fire training. Both of these facilities are
    operational and have been for some time. Units train at these
    facilities as part of our service-level assessment before deployment to
    Iraq.
        My assessment is that there has been adequate availability of urban
    training sites and that the sites at our training center have improved
    dramatically. We are also investing now to improve facilities so that
    we can maintain the best possible facilities for future urban warfare
    training.
        Colonel Orr. I feel that we have the required facilities and
    simulations to support urban warfare training in a simulated, virtual,
    and live-fire capacity. In the State of Iowa, we have built a
    simulation room that allows my leaders the ability to train room-
    clearing procedures to new soldiers and understand the training
    principles, before moving into a higher level of training. After the
    simulation, the soldiers move to a mobile container facility that can
    be used to teach them the fundamentals of entering and clearing a room
    using blank ammunition and simunitions. We are also updating our urban
    training facility with additional buildings, environmental injects, and
    constructing a live-fire shoot house that can be used to train soldiers
    under a simulated and live-fire environment. At our annual training
    site at Camp Ripley, MN, they also have a live-fire shoot house and an
    urban training facility.

                                     MORALE

        8. Senator Pryor. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel
    Orr, what effect has the recent decision to extend deployments from 12
    months to 15 months had on morale of your soldiers and marines as well
    as their families?
        Colonel Beech. Our brigade's deployment timeline has shifted in
    large part because of this policy. This will allow the soldiers and
    families in this brigade additional dwell time at home station with
    their loved ones and an adequate opportunity to reset and train the
    brigade in preparation for the next rotation. Overall this has had a
    positive impact on my soldiers and their families. I think that, as our
    deployment date draws closer, more families will become concerned about
    the long rotation and the impact it will have on their lives. For this
    reason, I am most concerned about our younger married soldiers.
        Colonel Craparotta. The U.S. Marine Corps has not extended any
    marines from 12 to 15 months. The morale of our marines is extremely
    high. Marines and their families are experiencing stress due to
    deployments, something which we hope to reduce with our goal of a 1:2
    dwell time.
        Colonel Orr. For my unit, we have fallen under the 1-year
    mobilization policy, which includes the post mobilization training and
    deployment. I feel the new policy will greatly enhance the morale of
    soldiers, their families, and employers. In the past, I have had some
    units that spent 6 months at a mobilization station training, prior to
    their 1-year deployment overseas. By the time they return to the States
    and go on leave, they have been deployed for over 19 months, not
    including any extensions. I think the new policy will not only minimize
    the impact for families and employers, but it will allow the State
    leadership the ability to manage their dwell time for future
    deployments.

        [Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]