[Senate Hearing 110-510]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-510
MILITARY BUILD-UP ON GUAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE MILITARY BUILD-UP ON GUAM: IMPACT ON THE
CIVILIAN COMMUNITY, PLANNINING, AND RESPONSE
__________
MAY 1, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-544 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 ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii.................. 2
Bice, General David, Executive Director, Joint Guam Program
Office......................................................... 13
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Bordallo, Madeleine Z., Delegate to Congress, Guam............... 3
Camacho, Hon. Felix P., Governor of Guam, Hagatna, GU............ 6
Lepore, Brian J., Director, Defense Capabilities and Management,
Government Accountability Office............................... 22
Pula, Nikolao I., Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular
Affairs, Department of the Interior............................ 18
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 43
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 51
MILITARY BUILD-UP ON GUAM
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Why don't we go ahead and get started. Thank
you all for coming. The committee will receive testimony on the
military buildup on Guam, and the impact on the civilian
community in planning and response to that buildup.
We have five very distinguished witnesses today. I believe
Governor Camacho is on his way, perhaps caught in traffic or
somewhere. Congresswoman Bordallo, thank you for being here.
General Bice, thank you for being here. Mr. Pula, appreciate
your presence today. Mr. Lepore, thank you very much for being
here.
Guam is one of the most strategic locations in the United
States. It's played an important role in our history for over a
century. The people of Guam have demonstrated great loyalty to
the Nation, particularly during the Japanese occupation, and
today a new generation continues to demonstrate their
commitment through their military service and sacrifice.
The Defense Department's global restructuring of forces
calls for a substantial expansion in Guam. The military and
dependent population is expected to grow from 14,000 to 40,000,
and tens of thousands of additional temporary and permanent
civilians will be needed to provide supporting labor and
services. This growth, which is perhaps as much as a 50-percent
increase in population for Guam, will require the expansion of
housing and roads, utilities, and schools and hospitals.
Construction is to begin in July 2010, and to be largely
completed within 4 years, at a cost of about $15 billion. This
is a very ambitious schedule. One question we're dealing with
today is, What is needed in order to meet these deadlines?
I'm concerned that the Federal civilian agencies may not
have the coordination and leadership needed to manage the
civilian side of the buildup. The Secretary of Interior chairs
the existing Interagency Group on Insular Areas, and this group
has established a Guam Task Force; however, this structure
appears to lack the authority needed to resolve many of the
issues that will arise, particularly the funding needs.
Another question is, Are steps needed to strengthen
interagency coordination and leadership? The Defense Department
has experience in planning and managing large military
projects. It has established the Joint Guam Program Office to
coordinate its efforts, and the Joint Military Master Plan is
expected, in July. I'm concerned, however, that the Government
of Guam lacks the capacity and resources to plan for and meet
civilian needs unless there is additional Federal assistance.
Where will Guam obtain the professional and financial
resources to properly plan and manage and meet the needs of the
civilian community? That's another crucial issue for us today.
I look forward to the testimony this afternoon, to working
together to help assure that this national security initiative
will be planned and managed in a way that benefits the entire
community of Guam, both the military and the civilian.
I know Senator Akaka is here, and has taken a great
interest in this issue, and let me call on him for any
statement he has.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and the ranking member for holding this very, very
important hearing.
I want to welcome the panel that's here today, and very
good friends. I also want to say that I'm glad to see
Congressman Ben Blaz here today. I want to say, Ben, aloha and
welcome. To all of you, hafa adai.
I look forward to receiving your testimony as the committee
explores the impact that the DOD's plans for--have for an
increased military presence, and what it will have on the
population of Guam.
I also look forward to the opportunity to discuss the
planning and resources needs of the civilian community in
preparation and response to that anticipated buildup. It is my
understanding that, while the Department of Defense has
established a broad framework for military buildup on the Guam,
the DOD continues their planning process, including preparation
of a Joint--Guam Joint Military Master Plan, which I understand
is still in the DOD review process.
Similarly, I know that the Government of Guam is still in
the initial stages of addressing the many infrastructure
challenges associated with a military buildup. I want to
congratulate you for the work you have all done thus far. I
know this process poses many inherent challenges and unexpected
difficulties that you are to be commended for your efforts in
doing this.
As we move forward, it is crucial that DOD and other
Federal agencies continue to work in close coordination with
one another and Guam's local government. In particular, it is
vitally important that each entity and contributing partner
share a collective understanding, based on accurate and timely
information, with respect, not only the military's, but also
the community's, needs. Only by working collaboratively will we
truly be able to plan accordingly, including ensuring the
Federal resources are appropriately allocated to this
undertaking.
I also want to take this opportunity to express my support
of H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act,
which passed in the House and is currently pending before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The people of Guam deserve
no less than to be recognized for the loyalty and courage they
displayed during the World War II occupation of Guam by the
Japanese. I know the Representative here from Guam has worked
hard on this bill, and we'll be looking forward to it--to have
it here in the Senate.
Once again, thank you, to the witnesses, for being here
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Let me just recognize each of the witnesses here before
they start their testimony.
First is The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo, who is
Congresswoman from Guam. We appreciate you being here, very
much. Honorable Felix Camacho, who is the Governor of Guam,
thank you very much for being here. General David Bice, who is
the director of the Joint Guam Project Office here in
Washington, thank you for being here. Mr. Pula is the director
of the Office of Insular Affairs in the Department of Interior.
Thank you for being here. Mr. Brian Lepore is director of
Defense Capabilities and Management in the United States
Government Accountability Office here in Washington.
So, thank you all for being here. All of your--your
complete statements will be included in the record. If each of
you could identify the points you think are most important for
us to understand--and we'll proceed in that way.
Ms. Bordallo, why don't you start, and we'll go right
across the table, there.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, DELEGATE TO CONGRESS,
GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Chairman Bingaman. My
dear friend Senator Akaka, thank you for being here with us.
Again, I would like to mention the presence of General Ben
Blaz. He served in the House for four terms, and he has been
very supportive of many of the issues facing Guam. So, I want
to thank him for his attendance here today.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to
testify on the very important topic of the military buildup on
Guam and its impact on our community. Over the next 6 years,
the civilian and military populations on Guam will increase
substantially as a result of the major military realignments in
the Pacific region and alliance transformation with Japan.
Of particular importance to Guam is the planned relocation
of 8,000 marines and 9,000 of their dependents from Okinawa to
Guam. Air force units are also being relocated from South Korea
to Andersen Air Force Base. Additionally, Guam is expected to
host a transit carrier presence, along with increased naval and
United States Army activities. In the total, the realignment is
estimated to cost roughly $13 billion through 2014.
Beginning in fiscal year 2010 through the completion of
these projects, the Department of Defense estimates that it
could spend over $2 billion in military construction funds on
Guam per year. The compressed timeline driving this substantial
annual investment is a result of the Alliance Transformation
and Realignment Agreement reached by the United States and
Japan in October 2005. The compressed timeline in various
infrastructure improvements that are needed on Guam pose
significant challenges to making this buildup a success for our
community. These challenges were identified by the GAO in its
September 2007 report on DOD Overseas Master Planning.
Despite the massive investment of military construction
dollars, there is a critical need to concurrently improve the
civilian infrastructure in Guam, and that is why I have called
for the development of a memorandum of understanding between
the Government of Guam and their Federal counterparts. These
MOUs will be an important step toward identifying source of
funds to pay for critical improvements to the civilian
infrastructure that will be identified by Governor Camacho in
greater detail.
The MOUs will help the Government of Guam plan for the
commitments that they will need from the Federal Government to
make these infrastructure improvements. Moreover, the MOUs will
ensure the continuity of this realignment process.
As the administrations prepare to change, here in
Washington, DC, we need to ensure that there is a roadmap that
we can depend on. Guam cannot meet this timeline without
commitments from the Federal Government. Regardless of who wins
the Presidential race later this year, the massive buildup will
continue to move forward. A lack of future commitments could
very well jeopardize the necessary improvements that are needed
to Guam's infrastructure. So, we welcome the committee's
assistance in ensuring that the Bush administration provides
its guidance for how the Federal Government will assist Guam.
The Interagency Group on Insular Areas, or the IGIA, was
established to make recommendations to the President regarding
policy implementation actions of the Federal Government
affecting the insular areas. I have encouraged Secretary
Kempthorne and Secretary Winter to fully utilize the IGIA and
continue working with other Federal agencies and departments to
facilitate the development of these MOUs. Time is of the
essence, and I hope that these MOUs can be completed before the
end of the year.
The military buildup presents many, many challenges, Mr.
Chairman. Our community has environmental and social concerns,
and we look to congressional oversight to ensure that the
military buildup occurs in an environmentally sensitive and
socially responsible manner. I believe further support is
needed to complete a sound EIS under NEPA.
There is one issue that I also want to raise, and Senator
Akaka alluded to it, and that is the importance for the Senate
to pass H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition
Act, which has previously passed the House by a two-thirds
margin and is now before the Senate. If you want to know how
you can be helpful, the short answer is to pass H.R. 1595. By
bringing closure to this issue, we reaffirm that the United
States values the sacrifices of the people of Guam. As we begin
a new era in our security relationship between the United
States and Japan, Guam seeks closure to a painful chapter in
our history. The people of Guam stand ready to do our part for
our national security, but we do not want to be taken for
granted. So, passing H.R. 1595 in the Senate will be
tremendously helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to address
you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Delegate to
Congress, Guam
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
the very important topic of the military build-up on Guam and its
impact on our community. Over the next six years the civilian and
military populations on Guam will increase substantially as a result of
the major military realignments in the Pacific Region and alliance
transformation with Japan. Of particular importance to Guam is the
planned rebasing of 8,000 Marines and 9,000 of their dependents from
Okinawa to Guam. Plans are also underway to relocate some Air Force
units from South Korea to Andersen Air Force Base. Additionally, Guam
is expected to host a transient carrier presence along with increased
Naval and U.S. Army activities.
In total, and according to the Department of Defense, the
realignment is estimated to cost roughly $13 billion through 2014.
Beginning in fiscal year 2010 through the completion of these projects
the Department of Defense estimates that it could spend over $2 billion
in military construction funds on Guam per year. The compressed
timeline driving this substantial annual investment is a result of the
alliance transformation and realignment agreement reached by the U.S.-
Japan Security Consultative Committee on October 29, 2005, and further
ratified in May 2006. The compressed timeline and various
infrastructure improvements that are needed on Guam pose significant
challenges to making this build-up a success for both the military and
civilian communities. These challenges were identified by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office in its September 2007 report on
overseas master planning by the Department of Defense and the
implementation of the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy.
Despite the massive investment of military construction dollars there
is a critical need to concurrently improve the civilian infrastructure
on Guam.
That is why I have publicly called for the development of
Memorandums of Understanding between the Government of Guam and their
federal counterparts. These MOUs will be an important step towards
identifying sources of funds to pay for critical improvements to the
civilian infrastructure including the need for additional public safety
personnel, schools, teachers, improved water distribution system,
increased wastewater system capacity, an upgraded electrical system and
highways, to name a few of the many improvements that will be needed on
Guam to sustain an increased population. The MOUs will help the
Government of Guam plan for the commitments that they will need from
the federal government to make these infrastructure improvements.
Moreover, the MOUs will ensure the continuity of this realignment
process. As Administrations prepare to change here in Washington, D.C.
in January 2009, we need to ensure that there is a road map that we can
depend on. Guam cannot meet this timeline without commitments from the
federal government. Regardless of who wins the Presidential race later
this year, the massive build-up will continue to move forward. A lack
of future commitments could very well jeopardize the necessary
improvements that are needed to Guam's infrastructure. Guam cannot meet
these obligations without federal assistance, and we welcome the
committee's assistance in ensuring that the Bush Administration
provides its guidance for how the federal government will assist Guam.
The Interagency Group on Insular Areas (IGIA) was established to
``make recommendations to the President, or to the heads of agencies,
regarding policy or policy implementation actions of the Federal
Government affecting the Insular Areas''. I encourage Secretary
Kempthorne and Secretary Winter to continue working with other federal
agencies and departments through the IGIA to facilitate the development
of these MOUs. As with everything regarding this build-up, time is of
the essence and I hope that these MOUs can be completed before the end
of the year.
The military buildup will present challenges to Guam in many areas.
Our community has environmental and social concerns and we look to
aggressive Congressional oversight to ensure that the buildup occurs in
an environmentally sensitive and socially responsible manner.
There is one last issue that I want to raise with the committee. It
is important for the Senate to pass H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II
Loyalty Recognition Act, which has previously passed the House by a
two-thirds margin and is now before the Senate. If you want to know how
you can be helpful, the short answer is to pass H.R. 1595. By bringing
closure to this issue, we reaffirm that the United States values the
sacrifices of the people of Guam. As we begin a new era in our security
relationship between the United States and Japan, Guam seeks closure to
a painful chapter in our history. The people of Guam stand ready to do
our part for our national security, but, we do not want to be taken for
granted. Passing H.R. 1595 in the Senate will be a tremendously helpful
step.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity and I look forward to
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Governor Camacho, thank you for being here. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. FELIX P. CAMACHO, GOVERNOR OF GUAM, HAGATNA,
GU
Mr. Camacho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka.
On behalf of the people of Guam, I thank you for this
opportune to provide testimony on the military buildup on Guam,
its impact on our community and our responses to planning and
response.
In Proverbs 24:3, it says, ``It takes wisdom to build a
house and understanding to set it on a firm foundation.'' Mr.
Chairman, Guam is a viable and relevant stakeholder in this
endeavor. It starts with the understanding that our future
begins with the decisions made today and in the near future. As
we make the most of the present, we build for our future, one
step at a time.
In less than 4 years, the United States Marines will begin
arriving on our shores, starting a migration of United States
military servicemen and -women and their families. Construction
workers, military contract workers and their families, and
others are moving to Guam. What this means is that our island
will absorb a 30-percent increase in population by 2012. This
is the equivalent of adding almost 550,000 people within a 6-
year period to the great State of New Mexico, your home State.
Guam is becoming the tip of the spear for our country's
mission in this part of the world, where emerging threats and
growing American interests rest. Just as the people of Guam and
the nation--and the region have answered the call of duty,
fighting in every war and conflict of the past century, we
stand ready to support our country in this strategic mission to
help improve the security of the nation.
The measure of our commitment is seen in the efforts we've
already taken to prepare our entire island community, both
civilian and military. We've submitted scoping comments for use
in the preparation for the environmental impact statement for
the marine relocation from Okinawa. We've made needs
assessments that quantify off-base improvements. We've
reallocated funding from a pool of limited resources to develop
master plans for the only civilian seaport in our
transportation system. We've taken many other steps, with
limited information and our finite resources, to prepare the
way. If done well and with a true Federal commitment to the
success of the buildup in Guam, our island will be well
equipped--it will be a well-equipped military forward-operating
location in the highly volatile Southeast Asia and Western
Pacific regions.
This future that we envision depends on the Federal
commitment to a Federal responsibility borne by the United
States-Japan Alliance, the Transformation and Realignment for
the Future, as entered into the United States and Japan in
2005, and efforts that Guam already is undertaking. Government
leaders, the private sector, the civilian and military
communities in Guam, have come together since 2006 under the
Civilian-Military Task Force I created to focus on the buildup
efforts.
Even before the news of the marine relocation, our
government has been building roads and schools, improving
utility infrastructure, and preparing for normal growth needs.
While the Government of Guam has made tremendous strides with
limited resources, no American community can shoulder the
challenges of a 30-percent increase in population to which this
bilateral agreement consigns our people.
For military construction on Guam, Japanese and United
States Government contributions are grants that need no direct
repayment. Guam, on the other hand, is expected to obtain debt
financing to fund off-base improvements and to bear this burden
alone.
Mr. Chairman, the brave marines, soldiers, airmen, and
sailors of our nation do not live within a fenceline in any
United States community. We cannot disregard the fact that the
condition of off-base infrastructure and social programs will
affect their quality of life. They will travel on the same
roads, utilize the same resources, and live in the same
community we all share today.
We've already taken great pride in ensuring that among the
greatest memories of our military--of military service is the
warmth and hospitality of the people of Guam. We call it the
``hafa adai spirit.'' But the 30-percent population increase in
a 6-year period places unprecedented, severe impacts on Guam's
infrastructure and social programs. We want to be ready, so
that we can continue providing America's front line with a home
away from home without jeopardizing the basic services the
Government of Guam provides to the local community.
It is unrealistic for any American community to plan for,
fund, and manage unfunded Federal mandates imposed by the
bilateral agreement within the aggressive timelines without
assistance from the United States Government. The delta between
normal growth and military expansion must be covered by
appropriations of the U.S. Congress. I have asked the military
and Federal agencies for funding to implement an aggressive
schedule of improvements. And we've received support from
Federal agencies by way of program funding, including the
United States Department of the Interior, through the
leadership of Secretary Kempthorne, and the Office of Economic
Adjustment of the United States Department of Defense. But, the
scope of changes that needs to occur very quickly, we cannot
``grant'' our way through this transformation. Significant
commitments have yet been made. Only notional or predecisional
information has been provided to assist our planning efforts.
We've been told that the earliest funding cycle for
consideration is fiscal year 2010 budget.
Mr. Chairman, military construction is expected to start in
2010, and Guam already is experiencing its initial effects
within the cost of real-estate soaring, a tenfold increase in
land-use permits, and the number of shipping containers
arriving at the only commercial seaport expected to increase
600 percent in 2 years to support the construction boom. Time
is running out, and we need a true Federal commitment, sir.
With time running out, I have to say that we are working on
submitting our fiscal year 2010 budget request for improvements
to the many infrastructure programs I've mentioned, and I
humbly ask this committee to support the funding of high-
priority projects now, in the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 budget,
so that our island can prepare for the growth occurring and
that is yet to come.
I want to say that I acknowledge that there are many
challenges that Guam is responsible for. However, the people of
Guam do expect the Department of Defense and the Federal
Government to underwrite the cost to Guam's local community
that are directly and indirectly associated with the DOD-driven
requirements for the buildup.
It is in Guam's and the Nation's best interests that this
buildup produces sustainable outcomes for our island. An
integrated approach, one that starts with Federal funding
commitment now and that considers the people of Guam, our
rights, our health and well-being, as well as the military
value to our island, is crucial.
I humbly ask for your support in funding the necessary
infrastructure requirements, and I thank you for this
opportunity, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Camacho follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Felix P. Camacho, Governor of Guam,
Hagatna, GU
INTRODUCTION
Hafa Adai Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:
On behalf of the People of Guam, thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony regarding the U. S. Military Buildup of Guam.
Today, our focus is on the planned military build up of Guam that
will affect our Nation, our region and most especially, our island.
What is known thus far is that 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents
will be relocated from Okinawa to Guam. Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast
Guard mission growth unrelated to the Marine relocation will bring
another 12,130 active duty personnel and their dependents, which is
approximately a 40,000 military population increase. An estimated
20,000 immigrant workers will be needed to construct $15 Billion in
improvements required by our Armed Forces. This investment will
generate a projected 20,000 increase in Guam's civilian population from
military contract employees and families and individuals moving to Guam
to improve their quality of life. Altogether, a 30% increase is
expected in the 170,000 population already resident in Guam. This is
the equivalent of adding almost 550,000 people within a six year period
to the great state of New Mexico, the home state of the honorable
Chairman and the Ranking Member of this auspicious Committee. While
these are staggering numbers for any community, the Bi-Lateral
Agreement between the Government of Japan and the United States
contains an aggressive implementation schedule that requires the
Marines to begin leaving Okinawa within four years, by 2012, and to
complete the relocation two years later, by 2014. It is this aggressive
schedule that, not only demands the full commitment of the Government
of Guam, the Department of Defense and the majority of Federal
Departments and Agencies, but creates an anxiety and uneasiness amongst
the community and those actively involved simply due to the sheer
magnitude of the expected growth in population, but more importantly,
the significant impact on Guam's infrastructure and social programs. It
is unrealistic for any community in the U. S. to plan for, fund and
manage unfunded federal mandates imposed by the Bilateral Agreement
within the timeline without assistance from the U. S. government.
Guam's planned military buildup will impact the lives of everyone who
lives on Guam, both civilian and military communities. But just as the
people of Guam and the region have answered the call of duty to join
the U. S. Armed Forces in every conflict in this century and in numbers
that surpass communities of similar size, so will the people of Guam
carry out our responsibility as proud Americans to support our country
in this strategic mission to help improve the security of the nation.
We all share in this historic opportunity to improve the quality of
life of all loyal American citizens in Guam while positioning Guam to
play a more significant role in the defense of our country as a well-
equipped military forward operating location in the highly volatile
Southeast Asia and Western Pacific regions.
Military buildup on Guam must become a National Priority accompanied by
a federal commitment to fund its direct and indirect
requirements both inside and outside military bases
While the military buildup is expected to have a significant impact
on Guam's economy, the security of our nation remains a federal
responsibility. Guam does not have the sufficient resources necessary
To implement this agreement, fund improvements required by military
buildup outside military bases or absorb the up-front costs of
preparing our island and bracing it for impacts we all know will come.
Guam barely has enough to sustain the current level of operations and,
therefore, will not have the resources to readily respond to the
demands of the build-up. The Bilateral Agreement is a result of
negotiations between two of the richest and most powerful nations in
the world today. As a bilateral agreement between sovereign
governments, its implementation must be a sovereign national priority.
The Japanese Diet has already enacted policy and made appropriations to
implement the Bilateral Agreement, while it appears the U.S.
Government's approach is fragmented, especially with regard to funding.
For U.S. military construction on Guam, Japanese and U. S.
Government contributions are grants that need no direct repayment. Guam
on the other hand, is expected to obtain debt financing to fund off-
base improvements or to enter into public/private partnerships (which
require Guam to invest its resources in these partnerships) to support
the buildup. The potential for overexpenditure similar to the
experiences of other U. S. communities, such as Junction City, Kansas,
is real, particularly since we have no control over the timing and cost
of relocation. Our 1993 experience with the unfulfilled promise of
relocation of U. S. Naval Forces from the Republic of the Philippines
provides a relatively recent basis for exercising caution in committing
significant resources. Guam has been placed in the unenviable position
of having to seek out federal and other forms of financial support for
a program that clearly is a national priority. As Lieutenant Governor
of Guam Michael W. Cruz eloquently states, ``military buildup of Guam
is analogous to a canoe that will capsize if improvements on-base are
not accompanied by improvements off-base. Only through a holistic
approach can balance be achieved and maintained in our journey
forward.''
Even though the military buildup is four years away, Guam is
already experiencing its initial effects. Real estate prices have
doubled. The cost of homes has tripled. There has been a 10 fold
increase in the number of land use permit applications for new housing
and commercial development. Our homeless population is growing, our
hospital is already over-crowded, and in-migration is on the rise. In
less than 2 years, the number of containers arriving at the Port
Authority of Guam (Guam's only seaport) to support the construction
boom is expected to increase by 600% per week.
In 2006, I created a Civilian Military Task Force (CMTF) comprised
of Guam's private sector, government leaders and military
representatives. The CMTF is supported by 11 subcommittees covering the
major areas of concern to our local community, with subcommittees
consisting of members of Guam's general public, nonprofit
organizations, the Guam Legislature, and all the agencies of the
Government of Guam. The CMTF and its 11 subcommittees have submitted
scoping comments for use in the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement for Marine relocation; needs assessments that quantify off-
base improvements in support of military mission growth; and have
engaged in teleconferences and presentations to various federal
agencies represented at meetings of the Interagency Group on Insular
Areas (IGIA) task force created by Presidential Executive Order on May
8, 2003 and the Federal Regional Council (FRC), consisting of all
federal agencies that provide oversight and assistance to Guam. We are
reallocating funding dedicated to priority projects unrelated to the
military buildup, to develop a master plan for the only civilian harbor
in Guam that is expected to bear the brunt of in-coming military cargo
and a critical chokepoint to support the buildup. A transportation plan
for highways used by the military to transport goods from the harbor to
military installations island-wide will soon be completed. Every aspect
of life and living on Guam including health, education, welfare, public
safety, natural resources, housing, labor, infrastructure,
environmental protection, taxation, doing business requirements, and
socio-cultural challenges are being assessed at tremendous local cost,
to improve the quality of life of all Guam residents, including the
military.
And while we confront the growing challenges at home, the majority
of the Federal Departments and Agencies only became aware of the
Department of Defense's initiatives this past August. They have been
scrambling to understand the Defense Department's initiative and how it
translates into unforeseen or non-programmed requirements. As a result,
we have collectively missed the Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 federal
budget cycles and may have difficulty securing funding under the Fiscal
Year 2010 budget.
During a November 2007 Interagency Task Force meeting in Washington
D.C., Government of Guam representatives were informed by the Office of
Management and Budget that Fiscal Year 2008 funding, required by the
Federal Agencies and the Government of Guam to support the DOD move
from Okinawa to Guam was ``virtually impossible.'' We were further
notified that getting into the 2009 Budget would be ``almost
impossible.''
From an Executive Branch perspective, Fiscal Year 2010 is the
earliest opportunity to request funding. As it currently stands, our
FY2010 budget request of approximately $6.1 Billion dollars consists of
the following:
$195 Million for Port Expansion
Present studies estimate $4.4 Billion for Roads
$666 Million for Power infrastructure
$192 Million for Water infrastructure
$593 Million for Education
$47.3 Million for Public Health
Preliminary study is an estimated $7 Million for A/E for
Hospital
The Committee's support of this request is humbly solicited to fund
high priority projects in FY2008 and FY2009 as well as our community's
needs in order to fully support this buildup moving forward, beginning
with a full budget request in FY10. I will make all Government of Guam
resources and entities available to help the Committee better
understand Guam's challenges and rationale for our budget request.
I am encouraged by the greater interaction between the Government
of Guam and federal agencies over the past six months. This interaction
is critical to understanding what is needed to respond to this
tremendous growth and the certain impacts to the Guam community now and
for our future generations. Each federal agency has evaluated its
programs in an effort to identify those that can be marshaled to assist
in satisfying local needs associated with military buildup. However,
existing federal program authorizations do not satisfy all needs as
funding and coverage are limited. Various health care programs have
funding caps imposed on the amount of assistance that can be provided
to Guam while other programs are simply not extended to Guam. While the
Government of Guam continues to work with federal agencies to improve
the accountability of federally funded programs, I assure you that
federal funding received for military buildup will go directly to
identified priority infrastructure projects and that there will be full
accountability and transparency.
The Bilateral Agreement does not constitute a Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) action normally characterized by a commitment of federal
resources for implementation. We recognize that stateside communities
surrounding realigned bases such as Holloman and Cannon Air Force Bases
in New Mexico, Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, Bremerton
Naval Station in Washington, Butte Army Reserve Center in Montana among
others with representation on this Committee, have had to fight hard to
obtain full appropriations to cover base and community needs. While
this fight is not an easy one especially in this time of competing
budgetary needs, the pursuit of funding by Congressional Delegations is
consistent with policies established under BRAC law. The Guam buildup
is not a BRAC action so obtaining required resources is even more
difficult.
To assist the Committee in understanding and hopefully supporting
our needs, I directed the CMTF to develop our budgetary requirements
based upon preliminary assessments of the challenges to be faced. With
the financial assistance from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Guam
has developed an initial master plan which identifies Guam's
challenges. We have utilized in-house expertise via the CMTF and its
subcommittees to complete the remaining tasks to finalize the Master
Plan.
A true partnership between the United States and its territory of Guam
must be established and maintained to ensure program success
Discussions between the United States and Japan with respect to the
details of the Bilateral Agreement have been underway since 2006.
Unfortunately, the Agreement was concluded without any input from
Guam's leadership. Frequent mention by military officials is made of
the inability to accommodate Guam's needs since negotiations on the
subject matter have already been concluded between the U. S. and Japan.
Financial shares identified in the Bilateral Agreement and subsequent
negotiations appear to limit the use of funds to military--related
construction only to support the Marine relocation.
Use of Japanese contributions for infrastructure only on-base as
opposed to using some funds off-base to allow efficiencies are an
example. It will require less U.S. tax dollars to fund the incremental
cost to improve and operate single integrated utility systems rather
than building and maintaining separate ones. The funding needed to
build and maintain a separate DOD power system to serve only 20% of
total island demand would be better spent on upgrading the entire
transmission and distribution system, benefiting both civilian and
military ratepayers. This is consistent with existing federal law. Over
$2 Billion in Japanese contributions are to be used by Special Purpose
Entities that may not have to follow U. S. or Guam requirements
regarding taxation, small business, or other ``doing business''
requirements. Guam must be provided a ``seat at the table'' even if
only during U.S. delegation preparatory meetings in advance of
negotiations with the Japanese.
Of particular concern is the lack of information being provided on
the buildup program as reinforced by reports from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. All information released thus far is either
``notional'' or ``pre-decisional.'' While we understand the
sensitivities of operating under the National Environmental Policy Act,
the people of Guam must be full partners to appreciate the breadth and
depth of buildup plans so that realistic alternatives and plans can be
developed. Most information obtained is provided through the Joint Guam
Program Office (JGPO) and while we enjoy a close working relationship
between JGPO and the Government of Guam, local consensus is that
information released by JGPO reflects decisions already made.
As mentioned earlier, a smaller but somewhat similar effort to
buildup Guam was undertaken by the U. S. Navy in 1993 when its bases in
the Philippines were closed. At that time, the Navy proposed to
relocate approximately 3000 personnel and dependents and invest $300
Million over four years to support relocation. Today, DOD is proposing
to relocate six times more personnel and invest fifty times more money
over a similar period of time and they are spending less on mitigation
planning and economic analysis than the proposed move from Subic to
Guam.. In short, 15 years ago the Navy took greater care of Guam's
needs for a proposed build-up that was 50 times smaller than what we
are facing today. Although 90% of the comments received during the
Navy's EIS scoping meetings dealt with socio-economic concerns, the
analysis of socioeconomic issues is sorely limited. The current effort
appears to be a simple collection of available data and where data does
not readily exist, no effort will be expended to collect such
information. The scope of work, which we have requested but have never
received, is reported to be deficient in the development of multipliers
to show the military's contribution to the Guam economy and the effects
of the buildup on Guam's cost of living, real estate values, and
overall quality of life. Job creation, retention and impacts on
existing industries must be evaluated. Mitigation measures must be
developed based upon objective analysis of data. The data collected and
analyzed should allow us to develop long term plans to ensure that the
few short years of double-digit growth associated with the Guam buildup
can be managed to sustain the Guam economy. In Hawaii, the Honorable
Senator Akaka's home state, a Supplemental EIS for Hawaii to absorb
5,000 to 10,000 more military personnel based upon ``Grow the Army''
requirements to study base capacity to support long term decisions is
being undertaken. We ask that the military buildup EIS thoroughly
analyze the capacity of the local community to support mission growth.
Various statutory and administrative enablers will ensure program
success
For the military buildup of Guam to be truly successful, the
following initiatives must be put in place:
The Military must be a customer of Guam's infrastructure
systems.
The military has indicated that level of construction that
Guam can handle is about $1B since largest level of
construction experienced in the past is $800M. However, if
military informs public about types of business services
needed, private sector will respond.
Military authorized to use alien labor and cap on alien
labor will soon be lifted however, need increased funding to
train local labor force in order to achieve long term benefits
and efficiencies from a life cycle perspective.
Support legislation to appropriate funds for the Guam
Buildup. We cannot grant our way through to meet the demands
needed today.
Involvement of CNMI and other regional jurisdictions for
workforce development and increased tourism opportunities
Military has tendency of stationing active duty personnel on
a 3 month (or less than 180 days) rotating basis which prevents
Guam from collecting income taxes as provided under Section 30
of the Organic Act. Section 30 must apply annually to billet
not length of time of TDY personnel
Military housing payments must be provided in a fashion that
does not create gap in ability to provide affordable civilian
housing or increase Guam's homeless population.
Japanese financial contributions that will be used by US
must be required to follow federal law (small business, social
security taxes, etc.)
Special purpose entities established by Japanese must
provide benefits to Guam
Maximum opportunity to obtain contracts must be provided to
local and small businesses.
Military must be required to enforce local doing business
requirements to the maximum extent practicable.
The USDA Federal Loan Guarantee and Critical Access Hospital
programs to provide additional technical assistance to
Government Guam for funding submission requests for critical
infrastructure projects.
Mid-decade Census conducted to adequately address population
growth as a result of the military buildup.
Given the likely high impact in population on the northern
island, designating Dededo and Yigo villages as rural
development.
Lift Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement caps, as well as
increase formulary cap grants to Guam.
Military ensure that adequate safety officers on ground
beginning from the construction phase.
Fully reimburse Guam for compact impact aide
Conclusion
While Guam's proximity to Asia reduces the tyranny of time and
distance for military operations, our distance from policy makers in
the U. S. creates an ``out of sight--out of mind'' perception in the
minds of the American citizens residing in Guam. Initiatives taken by
Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo to bring Congressional Delegations
to Guam have helped reduce this distance and change local perception.
Congresswoman Bordallo has brought attention to our needs and we invite
members of this Committee to come to Guam to view first hand our
challenges and our hope for a better future.
No doubt, we all have many hurdles to overcome. Given the magnitude
of this endeavor and the short time within which to accomplish it,
success requires that all of us work collaboratively and that we view
each other as partners working toward a common good for the security of
this great nation.
As Governor for the people of Guam, I acknowledge there are many
challenges that are Guam's responsibility--challenges that are results
of our current program levels and the natural growth of our island
community. We are already taking steps to address those issues.
However, I do expect DOD and the federal government to underwrite the
costs to Guam's local community that are directly and indirectly
associated with DOD driven requirements for the move of the 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Force to Guam and the requirements of the other military
services including the National Guard and Reserves.
It is in the best interests of the Nation and the people of Guam
that the military buildup produces sustainable outcomes, both
physically and socially, for our island. An integrated, holistic
approach that considers the people of Guam, our rights, our health and
our well being as well as the military value of our island is crucial.
DOD's unprecedented expansion is being undertaken in our patriotic
American community. Today, the people of Guam are overwhelmingly in
support of a greater military presence on our island. They believe that
bringing the military back is good for our nation's defense and our
people's prosperity. But that goodwill must not be exploited at the
expense of the people of Guam. While the opportunities resulting from
the military build up are promising, the challenges we face in
preparing for it are equally burdening.
Many of the Administration and federal agency officials we have
worked with since 2006 may leave office over the next few months. This
fact poses a whole new set of challenges that could be overcome by the
Congress in setting overall policy that transcends administrations.
Guam is the only player in the build-up that knows what is
necessary to adequately accommodate a U.S. national decision. Guam does
not have the resources to meet the military's needs. Our small island
only has enough to sustain our normal population growth rate of 6% over
10 years. Now we are being told to prepare for a 30% increase in 4
years and it's up to us to find the funding. This unprecendented growth
is beyond our ability no matter how willing we might be to accept the
responsibility being asked of us. If we are to succeed in this
partnership, Guam must become a true partner with our requirements
carrying the same weight and consideration as the military
requirements.
On behalf of the people of Guam, I humbly ask for your support in
funding the necessary infrastructure requirements. We commit our
resources to you to accomplish this task.
Thank You.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
General Bice, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID BICE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JOINT GUAM
PROGRAM OFFICE
General Bice. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka--pleased to
appear before you on behalf of Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for the Installations and Environment, the Honorable B.J. Penn.
The fourth realignment effort in Guam is a dynamic program.
And while there have been tremendous progress, one thing
remains constant: this is an undertaking of substantial
proportions, one that will have far-reaching effects throughout
the region.
The program will require the support from multiple
partners, including the Government of Guam, Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands, the Government of Japan, our combined
services, and applicable Federal agencies. It's important for
all of us to understand that this major force realignment
project is vital to our strategic posture on the Pacific-Asia
theater and the security of our Nation. This multifaceted
relocation effort will ensure United States forces are
positioned to defend United States Pacific territories and the
homeland, maintain regional stability, maintain flexibility to
respond to regional threats, project power throughout the
region, defend Japan and other allies by treaty agreements, and
providing capabilities that enhance global mobility to meet
contingencies around the world.
DOD has expended significant time, manpower, and financial
resources to push this program forward. The Joint Guam Program
Office identified $57.4 million between fiscal years 2007 and
2008 for the relocation of forces to Guam. The services have
expended $35 million to date. We have held two industry forums,
three interagency task force meetings, and three environmental
partnering sessions. We're working closely with the Department
of the Interior to assist the Government of Guam in, No. 1,
identifying its core requirements, and, No. 2, matching up
those requirements with potential Federal agencies that may be
able to provide the necessary resources to address Guam's
critical social services and infrastructure needs.
As the agency responsible for administrating United States
territories, the Department of Interior's Office of Insular
Affairs has become our partner to increase awareness and action
by other Federal departments who can provide assistance to
Guam. Secretary Kempthorne has expressed his support for Guam
and for the program, noting that what is good for Guam is good
for the United States.
The prioritized funding requirements list for Federal
agencies that is being developed is a big step forward in
ensuring that these GovGuam challenges are met. Simply put,
Federal agency support to the Government of Guam translates to
Government of Guam support to the Department of Defense in a
quest to carry out the national defense vision for the Pacific
region. As Congresswoman Bordallo, Governor Camacho and
Representative Tenorio have previously attested in meetings
with us, community support for a force realignment program is
strong. Residents of Guam and the surrounding areas are proud
Americans who serve and defend our--the United States and our
common values. I'm certain that the vast majority, if not all
in this room today, would tell you that the United States
commitment to prosperity, security, and its ability in the
Asia-Pacific region should remain as steadfast.
As a result of our integrated efforts, we're pleased to
report that Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment
has, thus far, provided nearly $1.7 million in grants to the
Government of Guam to support key planning and impact studies.
As part of its ongoing technical and financial assistance, OEA
has also agreed to incorporate a financial impact analysis that
will be tailored to GovGuam's specific needs and phased in a
manner that reflect DOD's environmental and social-economic
estimates. OEA is also working to bring community planning
experts in a process to advise GovGuam on growth management.
Another outcome of our partnership--of our efforts is a
partnership between GovGuam's Port Authority and the Department
of Transportation's Maritime Administration. Both entities are
now working together to achieve GovGuam's goal to support the
military realignment, with the ultimate vision of becoming a
key intermodal transportation hub in the Pacific Rim region.
As a result of interagency meetings with the local
Department of Labor--establishment of a training program
designed to prepare residents with the appropriate skills to
make them marketable for the military buildup. Additionally,
the Department of State is putting forth efforts to build a
data base of available work forces in the Pacific Islands that
could provide a win-win solution to their economic needs and
DOD work force needs.
In closing, I would like to point out that the military
realignment on Guam would bring unprecedented growth and
opportunities to the island, and also unprecedented challenges.
The quality and reliability of infrastructure and social
services on Guam have become increasingly inconsistent over the
years. Through DOD's environmental studies and planning
efforts, longstanding issues with civilian systems on Guam,
ranging from healthcare to education, utilities to roads, have
been uncovered. These issues are not new and will only become
increasingly problematic over time. Overcoming these
widespread, diverse challenges requires the support and
commitment of resources from across the Federal Government. In
order to address both Guam's infrastructure needs that can help
facilitate a successful military program and to assist the
community--civilian community to grow stronger instead of
becoming paralyzed by an unmanageable influx, Federal support
is critical.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Bice follows:]
Prepared Statement of General David Bice, Executive Director, Joint
Guam Program Office
Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today and have this opportunity to provide you an overview
of the Department's effort to relocate Marines and their dependents
from Okinawa to Guam, the effects this effort will have throughout the
region, and what we are doing to carefully plan the realignment effort.
The program will require support from multiple partners including the
Government of Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the
Government of Japan, our combined Services, and the Federal government.
It is important for all of us to understand that this major force
realignment project is vital to our strategic posture in the Pacific
theatre and the security of our nation.
COST-SHARING AGREEMENT
The financial aspect of the Marine move from Okinawa to Guam
involves a cost-sharing arrangement between the U.S. Government (USG)
and the Government of Japan (GOJ). Recognizing that Japan will also
benefit from rapid relocation, which will allow our forces to move to
less densely populated areas of Okinawa, the GOJ has agreed to bear a
substantive amount of the costs for the Marine move from Okinawa to
Guam.
Japan will provide up to $6.09 billion of the total $10.27
billion up-front construction cost for the realignment,
consisting of:
--$2.8 billion in direct payments to the U.S. for operational and
support infrastructures
--$3.29 billion in equity investments and loans to special purpose
entities that will provide housing and utilities
The United States is responsible for the remaining $4.18
billion and any additional costs.
STRATEGIC BENEFITS OF GUAM
Guam's unique location makes it a strategic choice to support the
realignment of Pacific forces. It is able to provide a position for
carrier group maintenance and re-supply. Basing Marine Corps forces on
Guam makes strategic sense for several reasons: it enhances the
survivability of our forces by dispersing them; it spreads our force to
better cover security cooperation and contingency response requirements
for the vast Pacific region; and it positions forces on U.S. territory,
removing the requirement to coordinate operational and training issues
with a host nation.
Increasing U.S. military capabilities on Guam will fully leverage
transformational advancements of the joint force and will create a
central hub for the regional ISR/Strike force capability. As
envisioned, Guam will also have the infrastructure necessary and in
place for agile and responsive employment of assigned or transient
forces; however, adequate strategic lift will be a key requirement for
rapid, effective deployment of forces from or through Guam.
Transformation from the USMC's current Okinawa-heavy posture in the
western Pacific to a more balanced Okinawa-Guam posture better
positions the Marine Corps to conduct regular security cooperation
activities with a broader array of partner nations. It also ensures
that Marine Corps forces are located closer to a larger number of
potential contingency areas than is currently the case. It is near
enough to contingency areas and potential threats to provide peace and
stability to employ rapid response capabilities, promote combined and
joint training exercises with multiple U.S. allies, and to implement
the requirements of treaties.
pre-existing conditions on guam affecting the realignment program
The impacts of relocating approximately 8,000 Marines and 9,000
family members, plus the movement of other forces and capabilities to
Guam, will be significant. The DOD population on Guam is expected to
grow from its current state of approximately 14,000 to nearly 40,000 in
a five year period. With Guam's total population of approximately
171,000, including DOD members and their families, the increase
associated with the rebasing of Marine Corps forces is significant. If
we consider the additional population impact of associated contractors,
base support, and the service industry personnel, Guam's population
growth could well exceed 25 percent in a very short period. Few
mainland communities would be able to absorb that increase to their
population in such a short period of time. For an island community, the
impacts are magnified.
The addition of Marine Corps personnel and their families is
shedding light on the pre-existing infrastructure and social service
challenges on Guam. Utilities and public works, health care, education
and other areas have lacked significant attention over the years and
may now directly affect or be affected by the relocation effort.
Significant issues can be broadly categorized into the categories of
environmental, socio-economic, infrastructure, health and human
services, and labor/workforce.
To meet the planned timelines, improvements for the port and major
roads will be needed to directly support construction. The port and
roads will transport the vast majority of the materials and supplies
utilized during the construction phase. Delays in infrastructure
improvements could impact the ability to complete the program on budget
and on schedule. Upgrades to transportation systems will also support
the long-term need of handling an increased throughput of supplies to
support the island's larger post-construction population.
In addition to infrastructure needs, up to 15,000 workers will be
needed to complete the planned construction by 2014. The qualified,
available workforce on Guam is limited. Training programs are needed to
prepare interested workers for upcoming employment opportunities. The
prevailing wage rate on the island is not expected to attract
significant numbers of workers from the continental U.S. or Hawaii.
Therefore, a sizable number of workers will need to come from
neighboring foreign countries. These workers will require H2B visas,
making the recent Senate-approved legislation to remove the current
annual H2B visa cap for workers coming to Guam and the Mariana Islands
critical to the program's success.
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO SUPPORT GUAM'S REQUIREMENTS
Close coordination with the Government of Guam (GovGuam) is
critical to correctly identify areas requiring federal attention and
support. DOD officials meet regularly with representatives from GovGuam
agencies who comprise the Civilian-Military Task Force. We also
regularly meet with key GovGuam officials to coordinate the development
of the Guam Joint Military Master Plan with Guam's own Master Plan to
facilitate compatible land use. GovGuam representatives directly
participate in DOD planning efforts, and have become a key element in
the planning process. As part of the process required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), public scoping meetings were held last
spring with over 900 comments received from the community. Future
public outreach sessions are being planned to ensure the community is
updated and aware of environmental, socioeconomic and cultural impacts,
and that we are considering these impacts. All of this data is helping
DOD and other federal agencies determine how we can best support the
community and the military force realignment.
The Joint Guam Program Office and the Department of Interior's
Office of Insular Affairs created and now lead a federal Interagency
Task Force (IATF). Throughout, JGPO and DOI/OIA have been raising
awareness across the Federal government of the need to address the
systemic challenges to support both the construction effort and the
long term impact of stationing additional forces in Guam. The IATF
categorized issues into five working groups along the broad categories
mentioned above (environmental, socio-economic, infrastructure, labor,
and health and human services). Representatives from key federal
agencies such as the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
State, Agriculture, Transportation, and Homeland Security; the
Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Management and Budget and
others meet regularly with the intent to identify Guam's requirements
that extend beyond DOD's responsibilities and authorities and to match
these requirements with appropriate Federal resources. GovGuam
representatives, including Governor Felix Camacho and Lieutenant
Governor Mike Cruz regularly participate in each of the five working
groups. The IATF has held three meetings to date and each working group
meets on a regular basis.
The IATF has developed 10 core issues impacting the civilian
population on Guam that need to be addressed:
Strengthen healthcare and education workforce
Strengthen public safety workforce and address equipment
shortages
Address personnel and equipment shortages at key licensing
and permitting agencies
Conduct future housing assessments
Conduct comprehensive labor needs assessment
Perform workforce training
Make capital improvements to healthcare and education
facilities
Make capital improvements to seaport
Make capital improvements to public utilities
Make capital improvements to roadway system
In those areas in which DOD is limited in its ability to
financially support ``outside-the-fence'' issues in Guam, Federal
Agencies may be positioned to support other areas of improvement. The
10 previously mentioned core issues demonstrate how critically
important Federal agency assistance is to both DOD and GovGuam. As
costs and responsibilities for these improvements are decided upon,
prioritized funding requirements from Federal Agencies will be key for
the creation of symbiotic solutions to the military realignment
challenges.
Federal support for ``outside-the-fence'' issues are essential to
both assist DOD as it delivers required USMC capabilities to the PACOM
commander and help Guam adjust to a significant change within their
population.
RESULTS TO DATE OF INTERAGENCY SUPPORT
As a result of these integrated efforts, we are proud to report
that DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has thus far provided
nearly $1.7 million in grants to GovGuam to support key planning and
impact studies. As part of its ongoing technical and financial
assistance, OEA also agreed to incorporate a financial impact analysis
that will be tailored to GovGuam's specific needs and phased in a
manner that will reflect DOD's environmental and socio-economic
estimates. Additionally, OEA is about to commence community planning
support and assistance to GovGuam through a Guam Compatibility
Sustainability Study (CSS). The goal of the CSS is to support and
assist GovGuam's management and planning capabilities, including land
use planning.
Another outcome is the partnership between GovGuam, the Port
Authority of Guam and the Department of Transportation's Maritime
Administration. These entities are now working together to achieve
GovGuam's goal to support the military realignment with the ultimate
vision of becoming a key intermodal transportation hub in the Pacific
region.
Also a result of the interagency meetings, the Departments of
Labor, State and Interior are working to develop training programs
designed to equip residents with the appropriate skills sets that will
make them qualified to support the construction program and post-
construction opportunities.
STATUS OF PLANNING AND STUDIES
We continue the studies necessary for preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the NEPA. The EIS will
address the movement of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam as
well as Navy efforts to construct a transient nuclear aircraft carrier-
capable pier at Apra Harbor and Army intentions to locate a ballistic
missile defense task force on the island. A draft EIS is expected in
spring 2009, the final EIS in December 2009, and a Record of Decision
(ROD) in January 2010.
In parallel with the EIS efforts, we are developing a Guam Joint
Military Master Plan (GJMMP). The GJMMP addresses the realignment of
Marine Corps forces in the context of other DOD actions on Guam, such
as plans to increase intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities and transient forces at Andersen Air Force Base; an
increased Navy submarine presence; and the Army effort noted above. A
working level draft of the GJMMP will be complete this summer.
CONCLUSION
DOD continues to integrate the military, GovGuam, private sector
and Federal agencies so existing systemic issues and upcoming
challenges created by the anticipated population increase are
addressed.
Comprehensive support by all federal agencies and Congress is
needed to turn this massive effort into a mutual win for the military
and the community. We appreciate the leadership from the Department of
Interior and the support and attention from participating federal
agencies. Their continued commitment is critical to completing the
program and supporting the people of Guam.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to testify
before you today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pula, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF NIKOLAO I. PULA, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR INSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Pula. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
military buildup in Guam.
This buildup holds enormous economic and financial promise
for Guam and the region. The economy will benefit from the
buildup in two stages. First, initial facility-building and
improvements will create a large number of high-paying
construction-related jobs for several years. Second, permanent
new defense and non-defense jobs to support the new military
mission.
Generally speaking, evidence from defense spending history
suggests that each dollar of defense spending could generate 75
cents of gross domestic product. The number of both active duty
personnel and dependents in Guam could rise from 14,000 up to
38,000-plus in 2014. Based on today's total population estimate
of 171,000 for Guam, the buildup would increase the island's
population to--more than 23 percent. Guam's economy will need
time to adjust to this new level of defense spending. The mix
of defense and civilian jobs following the buildup will be of
higher paygrade.
Under current rules, Federal income taxes collected on
Federal payrolls on Guam are paid into the Treasury of Guam.
With the near tripling of military and civilian employees at
the end of the buildup, tax revenue for Guam could increase
significantly.
It is too early to estimate all benefits and costs related
to the buildup. While this prospect presents Guam with a
tremendous source of revenue, it also presents major challenges
related to project funding.
The impacts of the military buildup are magnified because
Guam is an island. It has no outlying jurisdictions that can
pick up some of the population increase and that can tap into
larger electric grid.
Appreciating the challenges that the buildup will present,
DOD established the Joint Guam Program Office. It was decided
that the Interagency Group on Insular Areas, IGIA, would
establish a Guam Task Force to coordinate issues that cross
jurisdictional lines of Federal agencies.
The Task Force has established five working groups: labor,
infrastructure, environment, health and human services, and
social-economic.
The infrastructure subgroup has identified significant
project and budgetary challenges. The facilities that will be
built by the military on base will, in large part, be taken
care of by the military. However, certain areas of
infrastructure may overlap between the military base and the
Guam community at large, such as port facilities, a long-haul
road between the military bases, housing and healthcare
facilities for construction workers. Other potential
infrastructure includes schools, hospitals, electric power,
water, sewer, and solid-waste disposal.
Up to this point, Interior funding has been aimed at
expediting the planning process. In March 2008, the Office of
Insular Affairs provided Guam a technical assistance grant of
15,000 to aid the writing of a Guam Regional Labor Plan.
Additionally, we have reprogrammed 2 million of GovGuam capital
improvement funds so that the Guam Port Authority can quickly
acquire design and environmental studies for wharf
modernization.
GovGuam presented draft lists of prospective infrastructure
needs, with costs ranging from $1 billion to up to $4 billion.
A number of plans crucial in determining infrastructure
improvement needs related to the buildup are still currently in
development by GovGuam and DOD. Once there is an agreed plan
for these projects, they may be considered during the
development of the 2010 budget, which is imminent.
Among the available funding options for the construction of
projects will be the expected income on Guam. Private and USDA
financing options show promise and merit more in-depth
investigation.
As chair of the Interagency Group on the Insular Areas, the
Department understands the need to continue to facilitate
discussions among all parties and to assist in the procurement
of necessary resources to address the impending pressures on
Guam's infrastructure.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pula follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nikolao I. Pula, Acting Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the military build-up in Guam and its impact
on the civilian community, planning and response.
THE TRANSFER OF 8,000 MARINES
Guam is to receive a large defense expansion in the next few years.
The proposed build-up is the result of an agreement between the United
States and Japan to relocate about 8,000 United States Marines and
their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. Construction of new defense
facilities is scheduled to start in 2010 with the relocation to be
completed in 2014. The cost of new infrastructure to be installed to
accommodate the Marines and their dependents is currently estimated to
be well over $10 billion.
As a result of the construction, a formidable amount of new capital
will be injected into an island economy that currently produces $3.7
billion in Gross Domestic Product per year. This flow of capital has
the potential to lift Guam's economy to a substantially higher level of
output. There will be corresponding increases in local employment and
taxes for the Government of Guam (GovGuam). There will also be new
businesses to meet new demands for a whole host of goods and services
arising from the build-up.
In addition to the relocation of Marine Corps forces from Okinawa,
which will more than double the current number of active duty personnel
on Guam, the Air Force and the Navy will also see significant increases
in both personnel and capabilities. A new small contingent of active
duty Army personnel will also be posted to Guam.
This expansion holds enormous economic and financial promise for
Guam at a time when conventional income sources for a small and
isolated island economy are extremely limited. The economy will benefit
from the build-up in two stages: (1) initial facility building and
improvements will create a large number of high-paying construction-
related jobs for several years and (2) permanent new defense and non-
defense jobs to support the new military mission.
The build-up will present significant challenges for Guam's small
and isolated island economy. The first big challenge may occur in the
early stages of construction, in which labor of all skill levels will
need to be secured. The local work force may not be sufficiently able
to satisfy all of the labor needs. We are working with our partners to
develop training and apprenticeship programs for United States eligible
labor in the Guam region. After construction is completed and the
Marines move in, the continuing effect on Guam's economy will be large
and widespread.
The build-up also presents a challenge to the ongoing interdiction
efforts intended to prevent the inadvertent transport of brown tree
snakes to other Pacific islands or the mainland United States.
Cooperative efforts are aimed at suppressing the brown tree snake
population in strategic transportation and cargo facilities through the
construction of snake barriers, and other interdiction efforts. The
primary threat is that brown tree snakes are prone to hiding in cargo,
on aircraft, and in vehicles and could potentially be introduced in
other habitats that are snake-free and that support endangered or
threatened bird species. We will continue to work with our interagency
partners to suppress the tree snake populations in strategic areas,
secure military and cargo facilities through the construction of tree
snake barriers, and ramped up interdiction efforts as the military
build-up on Guam progresses.
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF BASE EXPANSION
In a macroeconomic sense, an important question is how much the
proposed base expansion in Guam will contribute to the insular area's
economy. Roughly, evidence from defense spending history in the United
States, including Hawaii, which is relevant to Guam, suggests that each
dollar of defense spending could generate 75 cents of gross domestic
product (GDP), the final value of the economy's total output. The 75
cents contribution to GDP from each defense dollar is what economists
call the multiplier effect on GDP, which is the sum of direct, indirect
and induced effects.
At present, Guam's defense establishment, mostly the Navy, is
relatively small. There are a total of 6,520 active duty personnel and
7,690 dependents on island. Defense spending on Guam was $711.7 million
in fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which final figures are
available.
Federal civilian payroll at the end of 2007 numbered 3,610, of
which 3,040 or 84.2 percent were civilian DOD employees. Non-DOD
Federal employees were 570 or 15.8 percent of the total. There is
roughly one civilian employee for every two active duty persons.
Assuming an addition of about 8,000 Marines and 4,510 active duty
personnel in other military services when the build-up is completed,
the number of active duty personnel would increase from 6,520 today to
19,330 in 2014. The number of dependents could rise from 7,690 today to
19,140 in 2014. The number of both active duty personnel and dependents
in Guam could rise from 14,210 today to 38,470 in 2014. Based on
today's total population estimate of 171,000 for Guam, the build-up
will increase the island's population some 22.3 percent to 218,000.
These population numbers do not include new businesses that will remain
on-island after 2014 which will add owners, employees, and their
families to the population.
Using the current ratios for Guam, defense spending for Guam will
rise from $700-800 million to more than $2 billion in 2014, when
construction is planned to be completed. Applying the defense spending
multiplier for Hawaii, the increase in defense spending could add $900
million to $1 billion annually to Guam's GDP. Assuming a $3.7 billion
GDP and the prospect that the rest of the economy, namely tourism and
local government, will continue to perform at the same rate it does
today, the build-up could boost Guam's GDP by approximately 22.5
percent. Realistically, it would be hard to envision any other
alternative for Guam that would increase its total economic output by
nearly a quarter in such a relatively short time.
Naturally, Guam's economy will need time to adjust to this new
level of defense spending during the build-up. Once it does, it will be
at a much higher level than it has ever been or is conceivable to be
under any other scenario. More important, the mix of defense and
civilian jobs following the build-up will be of a higher pay grade than
would be feasible in the rest of the economy, which is mostly tourism
and other services that employ few advanced skills. Other good news for
Guam is that national defense, as has been the case in both Guam and
Hawaii for many decades, coexists in harmony with the rest of the
economy and population.
Again, using the current ratios for Guam, the 12,810 additional
active-duty personnel resulting from the build-up could create 6,000
new civilian jobs for Guam. Given today's total payroll employment
figure of just over 60,000, this would be a 10 percent increase in
civilian employment.
Guam's other major income source is tourism, which is critical to
jobs and local tax revenue. As important as tourism is, it is subject
to what economists call leaks, that is, more of the money that mostly
foreign tourists spend in Guam leaks out of the system in the form of
payment for imports, air fares for foreign carriers and foreign-owned
hotels. Defense spending, on the contrary, is subject to fewer leaks as
compared to tourism, because more defense establishment payments,
including wages, salaries, payments to local contractors, and other
base expenses, are likely to remain in the system.
One way to look at the difference between defense and tourism is to
look at their average wages and salaries. In Guam, the average of wages
and salaries in defense is much higher than the average in tourism. The
average level of wages and salaries in defense for all active duty and
civilian employees together, based on fiscal year 2005 data, was
$34,037. This figure is 74.8 percent higher than the average for
tourism, which, according to the Guam Visitors Bureau, is $19,468. The
higher pay level, in combination with fewer leaks from the system,
makes the defense payroll more desirable for nearly every community.
Another way to look at what this expansion will do for Guam's
economy is to look at taxes that will be covered over to the Treasury
of Guam. Under current rules, Federal income taxes collected on Federal
payrolls on Guam are paid into the Treasury of Guam. Currently, this
sum is about $40 million a year. With a near tripling of the number of
active duty personnel and about 6,000 new civilian employees at the end
of the build-up, tax revenue for Guam could increase significantly.
PLANNING AND FINANCING
It is too early to estimate fully all benefits and costs related to
the build-up. At this point, many of DOD's plans have not been
finalized, and studies evaluating the expected economic impact of the
relocation are also pending. However, DOD estimates that the
realignment could add as many as 40,000 persons to Guam's current
population of 171,000. While this prospect presents Guam with a
tremendous source of revenue, it also presents major challenges related
to project funding.
The impacts of a military build-up are magnified in Guam because
Guam is an island. It is surrounded by water with no outlying
jurisdictions that can pick up some of the population increase and that
can tap into a larger electric grid. All of the effects are
concentrated on one jurisdiction--Guam.
Appreciating the challenges that the build-up will present, the
Department of Defense (DOD) established the Joint Guam Program Office
(JGPO), headed by Major General David Bice, USMC (Retired), under the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment. It was
decided that the Interagency Group on Insular Areas (IGIA) would
establish a Guam Task Force to coordinate military build-up issues that
cross jurisdictional lines of Federal agencies. Interior and JGPO are
leading the Task Force effort. The Task Force has established five
working groups: Labor, Infrastructure, Environment, Health and Human
Services, and Socio-Economic. The Department of Education forms a sub-
group within the Labor working group.
Notably, the Infrastructure subgroup has identified significant
project and budgetary challenges associated with the build-up. The
facilities that will be built by the military on base will, in large
part, be taken care of by the military. However, certain areas of
infrastructure may overlap between the military base and the Guam
community at large. Funding for many of these items has not yet been
determined. A sample of this infrastructure includes--
Port facilities and capacity
Long-haul road between the Navy and Air Force bases
Housing for the construction workers (to be privately
funded)
Health care facilities for construction workers
Furthermore, other potential infrastructure expenditures related to
the build-up have been identified within the JGPO meetings. These
include:
Schools for children of new civilian workers
Hospital facilities
Electric Power facilities
Water and Sewer facilities
Solid waste disposal facilities
Government Administrative facilities
Up to this point, Interior funding has been aimed at expediting the
planning process. In March 2008, the Office of Insular Affairs provided
Guam a technical assistance grant of $15,000 to aid the writing of a
Guam grant application for U.S. Department of Labor funds to develop a
regional labor plan. Such a plan must be in place before training and
apprenticeship funds can be released for United States eligible labor
in Guam and the surrounding United States-affiliated islands.
Additionally, the Office of Insular Affairs has reprogrammed $2 million
in GovGuam capital improvement funds so that the Guam Port Authority
can quickly acquire design and environmental studies for wharf
modernization. The Department of the Interior believes it is critical
to get the port modernized in order to address future infrastructure
issues.
The November 2007 meeting of the Task Force was intended to outline
military realignment activities and associated costs, both for the
military and GovGuam. At this meeting, GovGuam presented draft lists of
prospective infrastructure needs with costs ranging from $1 billion to
more than $4 billion.
A number of plans crucial in determining infrastructure improvement
needs related to the build-up are still currently in development. These
plans are a prerequisite for budgetary planning and need to be
finalized before construction upgrades can begin. Within this context,
facilities that will be crucial to the build-up but which will also
benefit Guam's economy, such as the port and road facilities, may be
the first priority upgrade projects. Once there is an agreed plan for
GovGuam projects, they may be considered during the development of the
2010 budget.
Projects with Income
Among the available funding options for the construction of
projects with expected income on Guam, private and USDA financing
options show promise and merit more in-depth investigation. Projects
that have revenue streams may be able to borrow in their own right
through public corporations, independent authorities, or other
entities. Port activities, electric power, water, wastewater, solid
waste disposal can all generate income, which allows them to finance
through borrowing. Currently, the Guam Port Authority and Guam Power
Authority are organized as independent entities, run their own affairs,
and negotiate their own financing.
Independent entities can seek to provide a service at the lowest
cost. Thus, they plan for proper capacity and finance only what is
necessary. Full cost recovery is a usual requirement. Such a
structuring of activities refutes a ``gold-plating'' argument.
Additionally if private sector financing seems scarce, the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers a variety of rural
development loans that may be a viable resource for qualified
borrowers. As typical for government loan programs, these require that
the government get an appropriation only for the risk associated with
the loan rather than the entire loan amount. Loans where there is a
reasonable risk of default will have a higher cost than those which
typically do not default. For instance, the renewable energy guaranteed
loan program has a 10 percent subsidy rate compared to the hardship
electric loan program which has a .12 percent subsidy rate. Because
utilities typically have little risk of default, financing of electric
loans is secure and carries a low up-front financing cost on behalf of
the Federal government. There is an additional administrative cost
associated with all loan programs that is not reflected in the subsidy
rate that we would have to consider with this option. For all USDA
loans, the borrower would have to agree to the terms of the loan and
will need to repay the loan in full.
Projects without Income
Construction of schools, roads, and social service facilities such
as buildings to house courts and public safety offices, are another
matter. They do not generate income but are paid for with tax
collections. USDA is a potential source for this type of financing as
well through its community facilities grants and loans programs.
While Federal moneys may need to be appropriated for some aspects
of some construction projects in the civilian areas of Guam, we are
more confident today than earlier that a large portion of construction
can be financed through borrowings or public/private ventures,
including from USDA. However, such an approach is premised on
sufficient Federal funds being available to cover the subsidy and
administrative costs of the loan programs as well as full repayment of
the loans by the borrowers.
As Chair of the Interagency Group on Insular Areas, the Department
understands the need to continue to facilitate discussions between the
military and Guam, and to assist in the procurement of necessary
resources to address the impending pressures on the infrastructure of
Guam.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lepore, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. LEPORE, DIRECTOR DEFENSE CAPABILITIES AND
MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Lepore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to be here today to testify on
our review of DOD's plans for the military buildup on Guam.
DOD is significantly realigning its overseas force
structure, and plans to relocate upwards of 25,000
servicemembers and their dependents from Okinawa and other
locations to Guam, an important part of that overseas
realignment initiative. Here's the bottom line: This is going
to cost a lot, be challenging, and have to be done quickly in
order to meet DOD's timeframes.
As you requested, I will address three topics today, Mr.
Chairman. First, I will address DOD's planning process for the
military buildup on Guam. Second, I will identify likely
challenges. Finally, I will describe the status of planning to
meet the off-base infrastructure challenges. My testimony today
is based largely on our September 2007 report on DOD's overseas
master plans.
In the 1990s, the United States and Japan negotiated a
change to operating rules of United States Forces in Japan and
to close Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and relocate the
base's force to another base on Okinawa. But, Futenma never
closed.
In 2004, the United States and Japan again consulted to
reduce the burden of the United States presence. Based on that,
DOD will try once again to close Futenma. As before, DOD will
try to relocate those forces to another base on Okinawa. What's
different is that DOD would also relocate upwards of 17,000
marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam.
DOD views the Futenma initiative as the key for other
realignments. Also on Guam, the Air Force plans a global
intelligence, reconnaissance, and strike hub. The Navy plans to
enhance waterfront facilities for transiting aircraft carriers.
The Army plans to place a ballistic missile defense site. When
completed, the Active Duty and dependent population on Guam
will have increased from about 14,000 to in excess of 39,000
people by 2014.
Now to my first main point. DOD has a framework for the
military buildup, but many key decisions have not been made
yet, and the final size and makeup of the Guam-based force, and
the required facilities to support them, are not known. Still,
DOD will request funds for fiscal year 2010 before fully
deciding on the requirements. DOD plans to complete the
relocation only 4 years later, in 2014.
Now to my second point. DOD and the Government of Guam face
many challenges. DOD's challenges include obtaining enough
money. DOD estimates the buildup will cost at least $13
billion, but this does not include all costs. For example, DOD
has not included the cost of required training ranges on other
islands. The Government of Japan expects to contribute about $6
billion, but a little more than half may be recouped by Japan
as servicemembers use their basic allowance for housing to rent
their quarters, and certain other fees are paid back to the
Government of Japan by funds appropriated by the Congress.
There's something else. First, the Government of Japan
plans to review and approve the specific infrastructure plans
before providing any funds for the facilities on Guam. Second,
if Marine Corps Air Station Futenma is not closed, and the
force not relocated, the Marine Corps relocation to Guam may be
canceled or may be delayed.
The Government of Guam also faces some significant
challenges. Here's a partial list, based on several reports and
plans:
Construction demands are likely to exceed the capacity of
available workers on Guam; up to 20,000 are needed. In other
words, DOD will need about as many construction workers to
build the new military infrastructure as the number of
servicemembers and their dependents who will use that new
infrastructure.
The buildup requires double the existing port capacity.
Guam's major highways may not have enough capacity to
accommodate the increased traffic.
Guam's electric system may not be adequate to fully support
the buildup.
Guam's water and waste-water systems are near capacity, but
demand may increase by 25 percent.
Guam's solid-waste facilities are nearly full.
My last point: The Government of Guam has just begun to
plan for this off-base infrastructure, a very significant
undertaking. But, continuing uncertainties about the makeup of
the Guam-based force make it difficult for the Guam officials
to effectively plan.
Communities in the continental United States surrounding
growth bases face a similar uncertainty. We recently reported
that most such communities, with far lower requirements, were
likely to incur significant costs for infrastructure and were
seeking Federal assistance. Guam is likely to do likewise.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I
would be happy to take any questions that you may have today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lepore follows:]
Statement of Brian J. Lepore, Director, Defense Capabilities and
Management, Government Accountability Office
Why GAO Did This Study
To reduce the burden of the U.S. military presence on Japanese
communities while maintaining a continuing presence of U.S. forces in
the region, in 2005 and 2006 the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review
Initiative outlined the effort to relocate American military units in
Japan to other areas, including Guam. The Department of Defense (DOD)
plans to move 8,000 Marines and an estimated 9,000 dependents from
Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by the 2014 goal.
GAO was asked to discuss the planning effort for the buildup of
U.S. forces and facilities on Guam. Accordingly, this testimony
addresses (1) DOD's planning process for the military buildup on Guam,
(2) potential challenges for DOD and the government of Guam associated
with the buildup, and (3) the status of planning efforts by the
government of Guam to meet infrastructure challenges caused by the
buildup.
This testimony is based largely on findings of a September 2007 GAO
report on DOD's overseas master plans and prior work on issues related
to the U.S. military presence in Okinawa. It is also based, in part, on
preliminary observations from an ongoing GAO review of DOD's planning
effort to address the challenges associated with the military buildup
on Guam and on other GAO work on the effects of DOD-related growth on
surrounding communities in the continental United States.
GAO is not making recommendations at this time.
Defense Infrastructure
PLANNING EFFORTS FOR THE PROPOSED MILITARY BUILDUP ON GUAM ARE IN THEIR
INITIAL STAGES, WITH MANY CHALLENGES YET TO BE ADDRESSED
What GAO Found
DOD has established a framework for the military buildup on Guam;
however, many key decisions remain, such as the final size of the
military population, which units will be stationed there, and what
military facilities will be constructed. This part of the planning
process is ongoing, along with the development of a required
environmental impact statement, currently expected to be issued in
2010. However, DOD will submit budget requests for fiscal year 2010
prior to that date, and thus may not know the full extent of its
facility requirements before asking Congress to provide the associated
funding. Officials of the Navy's Joint Guam Program Office told us that
immediately after the environmental impact statement is completed, DOD
will commence construction of facilities in efforts to meet the 2014
goal discussed in the Defense Policy Review Initiative. However, other
DOD and government of Guam officials believe that this is an optimistic
schedule considering the possibility that the environmental impact
statement could be delayed, the complexities of moving thousands of
Marines and their dependents to Guam, and the need to obtain sufficient
funding from the governments of United States and Japan to support the
move.
DOD and the government of Guam face several significant challenges
associated with the proposed military buildup on Guam. DOD's challenges
include obtaining adequate funding and meeting operational needs, such
as mobility support and training capabilities. There are also
challenges in addressing the effects of military and civilian growth on
Guam's community and civilian infrastructure. For example, according to
DOD and government of Guam officials, Guam's highways may be unable to
bear the increase in traffic associated with the military buildup, its
electrical system may not be adequate to deliver the additional energy
needed, its water and wastewater treatment systems are already near
capacity, and its solid waste facilities face capacity and
environmental challenges even without the additional burden associated
with the projected increase in U.S. forces and their dependents.
The government of Guam's efforts to plan to meet infrastructure
challenges caused by the buildup of military forces and facilities are
in the initial stages, and existing uncertainties associated with the
military buildup contribute to the difficulties Guam officials face in
developing precise plans. These challenges are somewhat analogous to
challenges communities around continental U.S. growth bases face.
Government of Guam officials recognize that the island's infrastructure
is inadequate to meet the projected demand; however, funding sources
are uncertain. These same officials are uncertain as to whether and to
what extent the government of Guam will be able to obtain financial
assistance for projected infrastructure demands due to the military
buildup. In September 2007, GAO reported that most communities
experiencing civilian and military population growth at Army
installations in the continental United States will likely incur costs
to provide adequate schools, transportation, and other infrastructure
improvements, and many of these communities are also seeking federal
and state assistance.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the
planning effort for the buildup of U.S. forces and facilities in Guam
and to describe the associated challenges for the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the local community in accommodating the expansion of DOD's
military presence on Guam. To reduce the burden of the U.S. military
presence on Japanese communities while maintaining a continuing
presence of U.S. forces in the region, the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy
Review Initiative\1\ established a framework for the future of U.S.
force structure in Japan, including the relocation of American military
units in Japan to other areas, including Guam. As a part of this
initiative, DOD plans to move 8,000 Marines and their estimated 9,000
dependents from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by the 2014 goal. At the same
time, the other military services are also planning to expand their
operations and military presence on Guam. For example, the Navy plans
to enhance its infrastructure, logistic capabilities, and waterfront
facilities; the Air Force plans to develop a global intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance strike hub at Andersen Air Force Base;
and the Army plans to place a ballistic missile defense task force on
Guam. As a result of these plans and the Marine Corps realignment, the
total military buildup on Guam is estimated to cost over $13 billion
and increase Guam's current population of 171,000 by an estimated
25,000 active duty military personnel and dependents (or 14.6 percent)
to 196,000. The government of Japan is expected to contribute about
$6.1 billion toward the costs of the Marine Corps move, although a
portion of these funds could be repaid over time by the U.S.
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOD officials refer to the process through which the United
States and Japan negotiated the initiatives that realign U.S. forces in
Japan as the Defense Policy Review Initiative. The realignment
initiatives were the result of Security Consultative Committee meetings
in 2005 and 2006 between U.S. and Japan officials. The Security
Consultative Committee is made up of the U.S. Secretaries of State and
Defense and Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of State
for Defense. The committee sets overall bilateral policy regarding the
security relationship between the United States and Japan. The results
of these meetings established a framework for the future U.S. force
structure in Japan, including the Marine Corps move from Okinawa,
Japan, to Guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have issued several reports on DOD's integrated global presence
and basing strategy\2\ and its overseas master plans for changing U.S.
military infrastructure overseas as required by the fiscal year 2004
Senate military construction appropriation bill report.\3\ Most
recently, in September 2007, we reported on DOD's overseas master plans
for changing its infrastructure overseas and on the status of DOD's
planning effort and the challenges associated with the buildup of
military forces and facilities on Guam.\4\ In that report, we found
that DOD's planning effort for the military buildup on Guam was in its
initial stages, with many key decisions and challenges yet to be
addressed. Additionally, we found that the potential effects of the
increase in military forces on Guam's infrastructure--in terms of
population and military facilities--had not been fully addressed. Also,
in September 2007, we reported how communities in the continental
United States are planning and funding for infrastructure to support
significant personnel growth in response to implementing base
realignment and closure, overseas force rebasing, and force modularity
actions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual
Reporting Are Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD's Global
Posture Restructuring, GAO-06-852 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2006).
\3\ GAO, DOD's Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans Continue to
Evolve, GAO-06-913R (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 22, 2006); Opportunities
Exist to Improve Comprehensive Master Plans for Changing U.S. Defense
Infrastructure Overseas, GAO-05-680R (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005);
and Defense Infrastructure: Factors Affecting U.S. Infrastructure Costs
Overseas and the Development of Comprehensive Master Plans, GAO-04-609
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004).
\4\ GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are
Improving, but DOD Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information
about the Military Buildup on Guam, GAO-07-1015 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 12, 2007).
\5\ GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for
Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations
Expecting Substantial Growth, GAO-07-1007 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As requested, my testimony today will focus on three principal
objectives. First, I will address DOD's planning process for the
military buildup on Guam. Second, I will point out potential challenges
for DOD and the government of Guam associated with the military
buildup. Third, I will describe the status of planning efforts by the
government of Guam to address infrastructure challenges to the local
community caused by the buildup of military forces and facilities.
My testimony is based largely on findings of our September 2007
report on DOD's overseas master plans and information from a prior
report on issues related to reducing the effects of the U.S. military
presence in Okinawa.\6\ My testimony is also based, in part, on
preliminary observations from our ongoing review of DOD's overseas
master plans and its planning effort to address the challenges
associated with the military buildup on Guam and on two separate
reports of the effects of DOD-related growth on surrounding communities
in the continental United States.\7\ As part of our ongoing work, we
met with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S.
Pacific Command, Marine Forces Pacific, Third Marine Expeditionary
Force, and the Navy's Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO)--the office
established to plan and execute the military buildup on Guam--to
discuss the planning process for DOD's military realignments on Guam
and to identify challenges associated with the buildup of military
forces and infrastructure on Guam. We also met with the Governor of
Guam and his staff, members of the Guam legislature, staff from the
office of the Guam Delegate to the House of Representatives, and
various Guam community groups to discuss their planning efforts and any
challenges they may face related to the military buildup. We expect to
report the results of our ongoing review to congressional defense
committees later this year. We conducted this performance audit and our
prior reports in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GAO, Overseas Presence: Issues Involved in Reducing the Impact
of the U.S. Military Presence on Okinawa, GAO/NSIAD-98-66 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 2, 1998).
\7\ GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and
Road Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations, GAO-08-602R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1, 2008), and GAO-07-1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
DOD has established a framework for the military buildup on Guam;
yet, many key decisions must still be made, such as the final size of
the military population, which units will be stationed there, and what
military facilities will be required. The U.S.-Japan Defense Policy
Review Initiative established a framework for the future of U.S. force
structure in Japan and the Marine Corps realignment to Guam. The U.S.
Pacific Command then developed the Guam Integrated Military Development
Plan\8\ to provide an overview of the projected military population and
infrastructure requirements. However, the exact size and makeup of the
forces to move to Guam and the housing, operational, quality of life,
and service supportinfrastructure required are not yet fully known.
This part of the planning process is ongoing, along with the
development of a required environmental impact statement. Before JGPO
can finalize its master plan for the military buildup on Guam, it needs
to complete the required environmental impact statement, currently
expected to be issued in 2010. Prior to that date, DOD will submit its
fiscal year 2010 budget request to Congress for the first phase of
military construction projects on Guam. Thus, DOD may be asking
Congress to fund the military construction projects without the benefit
of a completed environmental impact statement or a final decision on
the full extent of its facility and funding requirements. DOD officials
said that the department often requests funding during the same period
environmental impact statements are being developed for large projects,
including major base realignments and closures. JGPO officials told us
that immediately after the environmental impact statement is completed,
DOD will commence construction of facilities in efforts to meet the
2014 goal identified in the Defense Policy Review Initiative. However,
other DOD and government of Guam officials believe that this is an
ambitious and optimistic schedule considering the possibility that the
environmental impact statement could be delayed, the complexities of
moving thousands of Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam,
and the need to obtain sufficient funding from the governments of
United States and Japan to support the Marine Corps move.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Pacific Command, Guam Integrated Military Development Plan
(Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii: July 11, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD and the government of Guam face several significant challenges
associated with the proposed military buildup on Guam. DOD's challenges
include obtaining adequate funding and meeting operational needs, such
as mobility support and training capabilities. There are also
challenges in addressing the effects of military and civilian growth on
Guam's community and infrastructure. For example, according to DOD and
government of Guam officials, Guam's highways may be unable to bear the
increase in traffic associated with the military buildup, its
electrical system may not be adequate to deliver the additional energy
needed, its water and wastewater treatment systems are already near
capacity, and its solid waste facilities face capacity and
environmental challenges even without the additional burden associated
with relocation of U.S. forces and their dependents.
The government of Guam's efforts to plan to meet infrastructure
challenges caused by the buildup of military forces and facilities on
Guam are in the initial stages, and existing uncertainties associated
with the military buildup further contribute to the difficulties Guam
officials face in developing precise plans. These challenges are
somewhat analogous to the challenges communities around continental
United States growth bases face. Furthermore, government of Guam
officials stated that Guam will likely require significant funding to
address the island's inadequate infrastructure capacity; however,
funding sources are uncertain. These same officials are uncertain as to
whether and to what extent the government of Guam will be able to
obtain financial assistance for projected infrastructure demands due to
the military buildup. In September 2007, we reported that most U.S.
communities surrounding growing Army bases have unique infrastructure
improvement needs, such as schools, transportation, and other
infrastructure improvements, and many of these communities are also
seeking state and federal assistance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See GAO-07-1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. military has based forces
in Okinawa and other locations in Japan. The U.S. military occupation
of Japan ended in 1952, but the United States administered the Ryukyu
Islands, including Okinawa, until 1972. Efforts to address the Japanese
population's concerns regarding U.S. military presence in Okinawa began
more than a decade ago. One chief complaint is that the Okinawa
prefecture hosts over half of the U.S. forces in Japan and that more
than 70 percent of the land U.S. forces utilize in Japan is on Okinawa.
Many citizens of Okinawa believe the U.S. presence has hampered
economic development. The public outcry in Okinawa following the
September 1995 abduction and rape of an Okinawan schoolgirl by three
U.S. servicemembers brought to the forefront long-standing concerns
among the Okinawan people about the effects of the U.S. military
presence on the island. According to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, at that time, the continued ability of the United States to
remain in Japan was at risk, and it was important to reduce the effects
of the U.S. military presence on the Okinawan people. To address these
concerns, bilateral negotiations between the United States and Japan
began, and the Security Consultative Committee established the Special
Action Committee on Okinawa in November 1995. The committee developed
recommendations on ways to limit the effects of the U.S. military
presence on Okinawa by closing Marine Corps Air Station Futenma and
relocating forces from that base to another base on Okinawa, and
recommended numerous other operational changes. On December 2, 1996,
the U.S. Secretary of Defense, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Japan
Ministers of Foreign Affairs and State, and the Director General of the
Japan Defense Agency issued the committee's final report.
In 1998, we reviewed the Special Action Committee's Final
Report.\10\ At that time, among other things, we reported that the
forward deployment on Okinawa significantly shortens transit times,
thereby promoting early arrival in potential regional trouble spots
such as the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan straits. For example, it
takes 2 hours to fly to the Korean peninsula from Okinawa, as compared
with about 5 hours from Guam, 11 hours from Hawaii, and 16 hours from
the continental United States. Similarly, it takes about 1-1/2 days to
make the trip from Okinawa by ship to South Korea, as compared with
about 5 days from Guam, 12 days from Hawaii, and 17 days from the
continental United States. Also, the cost of this presence is shared by
the government of Japan, which provides land and other infrastructure
on Okinawa rent free and pays part of the annual cost of Okinawa-based
Marine Corps forces, such as a portion of the costs for utilities and
local Japanese labor. Most initiatives of the Special Action Committee
on Okinawa involving training operations, changes to the status of
forces agreement procedures, and noise reduction were successfully
implemented. In contrast, initiatives involving land returns have not
been as successful, with the majority still ongoing. For example, the
closure of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma was never completed and the
air station remains open and operational. According to U.S. Forces
Japan officials, these initiatives may involve multiple construction
projects to satisfy the requirements of the initiatives as well as
detailed coordination between the government of Japan and the local
communities to gain consensus for these projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See GAO/NSIAD-98-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, the United States and Japan began a series of sustained
security consultations aimed at strengthening the U.S.-Japan security
alliance to better address today's rapidly changing global security
environment. DOD's Defense Policy Review Initiative established a
framework for the future of U.S. force structure in Japan designed to
create the conditions to reduce the burden on Japanese communities and
create a continuing presence for U.S. forces in the Pacific theater by
relocating units to other areas, including Guam (app. I shows the
location of Guam).* This initiative also includes a significant
reduction and reorganization of the Marine Corps presence on Okinawa to
include relocating 8,000 Marines and their estimated 9,000 dependents
to Guam. More than 10,000 Marines and their dependents will remain
stationed in Okinawa after this relocation. Another initiative includes
the closure and replacement of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma at a
less densely populated location on Okinawa by the 2014 goal as a result
of local concerns involving safety and noise. DOD officials view the
success of the Futenma replacement facility as a key objective of the
initiative that will need to be completed in order for other
realignment actions to take place. Previously, the United States and
Japan were unsuccessful in closing and replacing the Marine Corps Air
Station Futenma as a part of the Special Action Committee effort on
Okinawa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendixes I-III have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Global Realignments
In recent years, DOD has been undergoing a transformation that has
been described as the most comprehensive restructuring of U.S. military
forces overseas since the end of the Korean War. The initiative is
intended to close bases no longer needed to meet Cold War threats as
well as bring home U.S. forces while stationing more flexible,
deployable capabilities in strategic locations around the world. As
part of its transformation, DOD has been reexamining overseas basing
requirements to allow for greater U.S. military flexibility to combat
conventional and asymmetric threats worldwide.
The Marine Corps realignment from Okinawa to Guam is just one of
several initiatives to move military forces and equipment and construct
supporting military facilities on Guam. In addition to the Marine
Corps' move to Guam, the Navy plans to enhance its infrastructure,
logistic capabilities, and waterfront facilities to support transient
nuclear aircraft carrier berthing, combat logistics force ships,
submarines, surface combatants, and high-speed transport ships at Naval
Base Guam. The Air Force plans to develop a global intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance strike hub at Andersen Air Force Base
by hosting various types of aircraft, such as fighters, bombers, and
tankers, and the Global Hawk system, which is a high-altitude, long-
endurance unmanned aerial reconnaissance system, on both permanent and
rotational bases. The Army also plans to place a ballistic missile
defense task force on Guam with approximately 630 soldiers and 950
dependents. As a result of these plans and the Marine Corps
realignment, the active duty military personnel and dependent
population of more than 14,000 on Guam is expected to increase
approximately 176 percent to more than 39,000 (app. II shows current
U.S. military bases on Guam).
Master Planning Requirements for the Military Buildup on Guam
As initiatives for expanding the U.S. military presence on Guam
began to emerge, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted the
ambitiousness of the military construction program and the need for a
well-developed master plan to efficiently use the available land and
infrastructure. In July 2006, the committee recommended deferral of two
military construction projects at Andersen Air Force Base that were
included in the President's budget request until such time as they can
be incorporated into a master plan for Guam and viewed in that context.
Further, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the appropriation committees a master plan for Guam by December 29,
2006, and a report accounting for the United States' share of this
construction program to project-level detail and the year in which each
project is expected to be funded.\11\ The Senate report also directed
GAO to review DOD's master planning effort for Guam as part of its
annual review of DOD's overseas master plans.\12\ As discussed in our
2007 report, DOD has not issued a Guam master plan for several reasons.
First, the required environmental impact statement, which will take at
least 3 years to complete according to DOD documents and officials, was
initiated on March 7, 2007.\13\ According to DOD officials, the results
of that environmental impact statement will influence many of the key
decisions on the exact location, size, and makeup of the military
infrastructure development on Guam. Second, exact size and makeup of
the forces to be moved to Guam are not yet identified. Third, DOD
officials said that additional time is needed to fully address the
challenges related to funding uncertainties, operational requirements,
and Guam's economic and infrastructure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ S. Rep. No. 109-286, at 15 (2006).
\12\ See GAO-07-1015.
\13\ The primary purpose of an environmental impact statement is to
serve as an action-forcing device to ensure that the policies and goals
defined in the National Environmental Policy Act are infused into the
ongoing programs and actions of the federal government. Further,
regulations for implementing the act established by the Council on
Environmental Quality specify that to the fullest extent possible,
agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements
concurrently with and integrated with other environmental impact
analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and other environmental
review laws and executive orders. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations and Responsibilities
The U.S. Pacific Command was responsible for the initial planning
for the movement of Marine Corps forces to Guam. In August 2006, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to establish JGPO
to facilitate, manage, and execute requirements associated with the
rebasing of Marine Corps assets from Okinawa to Guam, including the
planning for all the other remaining military realignments on Guam.
Specifically, JGPO was tasked to lead the coordinated planning efforts
among all the DOD components and other stakeholders to consolidate,
optimize, and integrate the existing DOD infrastructure on Guam. The
office's responsibilities include integration of operational support
requirements, development, and program and budget synchronization;
oversight of the construction; and coordination of government and
business activities. JGPO is expected to work closely with the local
Guam government, the government of Japan, other federal agencies, and
Congress in order to manage this comprehensive effort and to develop a
master plan.
The Secretary of the Interior has administrative responsibility
over the insular areas for all matters that do not fall within the
program responsibility of other federal departments or agencies. Also,
the Interior Secretary presides over the Interagency Group on Insular
Areas and may make recommendations to the President or heads of
agencies regarding policy or policy implementation actions of the
federal government affecting insular areas. The Secretary, as the
presiding officer of this interagency group, established a Working
Group on Guam Military Expansion to address issues related to the
military buildup. The working group includes representatives of the
Departments of State, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Labor,
Justice, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and
Veterans Affairs as well as the Navy, the Small Business
Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and others. Five
ongoing subgroups were established to discuss policy and resource
requirements relating to (1) labor and workforce issues, (2) Guam
civilian infrastructure needs, (3) health and human services
requirements, (4) the environment, and (5) socioeconomic issues.
DOD HAS ESTABLISHED A FRAMEWORK FOR MILITARY BUILDUP ON GUAM, BUT THE
PLANNING PROCESS IS ONGOING
The U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative has established the
framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan,
including the realignments on Okinawa and Guam. However, no final
decision on the exact size and makeup of the forces to move to Guam,
including their operational, housing, and installation support
facilities, has been made. The environmental impact statement expected
in 2010 may affect many key planning decisions.
Framework for the Military Realignment and Buildup
DOD has established various planning and implementation documents
that serve as a framework to guide the military realignment and buildup
on Guam. Originally, the Marine Corps realignment was discussed in the
U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, which established the
framework for the future of U.S. force structure in Japan designed to
create the conditions to reduce the burden of American military
presence on local Japanese communities and to create a continuing
presence for U.S. forces by relocating units to other areas, including
Guam. In its Defense of Japan 2006 publication, the Japan Ministry of
Defense reported that more than 70 percent of U.S. facilities and areas
are concentrated in Okinawa and regional development has been greatly
affected by the concentration.\14\ That publication recommended that
the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam
should occur as soon as possible. It further noted that based on
bilateral meetings in 2005 and 2006, the government of Japan had
decided to support the United States in its development of necessary
facilities and infrastructure, including headquarters buildings,
barracks, and family housing, to hasten the process of moving Marine
Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Japan Ministry of Defense, Defense of Japan 2006 (Japan:
October 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, in July 2006, the U.S. Pacific Command developed the
Guam Integrated Military Development Plan\15\ to provide an overview of
the projected military population and infrastructure requirements;
however, it provides limited information on the expected effects of the
military buildup on the local community and off base infrastructure.
The plan is based upon a notional force structure that was used to
generate land and facility requirements for basing, operations,
logistics, training, and quality of life involving the Marine Corps,
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Special Operations Forces in Guam. Also,
JGPO has completed its first phase of the Guam master planning process
and developed basic facility requirements with general cost estimates
and mapping concepts. The second phase of the master planning is in
progress and will include more detailed infrastructure requirements,
facility layouts, and cost estimates for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
JGPO is developing a planning-level Guam joint military master plan
that will be submitted to congressional staff by September 15, 2008.
However, that plan is not considered a final master plan since DOD is
awaiting the results of the environmental impact statement and record
of decision, which are due in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Pacific Command, Guam Integrated Military Development
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size and Makeup of Forces and Other Variables Are Not Yet Known
The exact size and makeup of the forces to move to Guam and the
operational, housing, and installation support facilities required are
not yet fully known. While the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review
Initiative identified Marine Corps units for relocation from Okinawa,
assessments are still under way within DOD to determine the optimal mix
of units to move to Guam, which may also include Marines from other
locations, such as Hawaii and the continental United States.
Approximately 8,000 Marines and their estimated 9,000 dependents of
the Third Marine Expeditionary Forces Command Element, Third Marine
Division Headquarters, Third Marine Logistics Group Headquarters, 1st
Marine Air Wing Headquarters, and 12th Marine Regiment Headquarters are
expected to be included in the move to Guam. The Marine Corps forces
remaining on Okinawa will consist of approximately 10,000 Marines plus
their dependents of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. While these broad
estimates provide a baseline, according to DOD officials we spoke with,
the Marine Corps is still determining the specific mix of units and
capabilities needed to meet mission requirements on Guam. In addition,
Marine Corps officials said that the department was reviewing the mix
of units moving to Guam in light of the department's plan to increase
the number of Marines to 202,000 from 180,000.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The planned increase in the Army's and Marine Corps' forces
collectively is commonly referred to as Grow the Force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number and mix of units is significant because, according to
Marine Corps officials, the operational, housing, and installation
support facilities on Guam will depend on the type, size, and number of
units that will make the move. That determination will define the
training and facility requirements, such as the number and size of
family housing units, barracks, and schools and the capacity of the
installation support facilities needed to support the military
population and operations. In response to the ongoing assessment by the
Marine Corps, JGPO officials said that they were initiating a master
plan that will reflect the building of ``flexible'' infrastructure that
could accommodate any mix of military units that may move to Guam.
However, the lack of information on the number and mix of forces makes
it difficult to provide an accurate assessment of specific facility and
funding requirements at this time.
Results of the Required Environmental Impact Statement May Affect
Several
Key Decisions
Before JGPO can finalize its Guam master plan, it will need to
complete the required environmental impact statement. According to DOD
officials, the results of the environmental statement, currently
expected to be issued in 2010, can affect many of the key decisions on
the exact location, size, and makeup of the military infrastructure
development.
On March 7, 2007, the Navy issued a public notice of intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),\17\ as
implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations,\18\
and Executive Order 12114. The notice of intent in the Federal
Register\19\ states that the environmental impact statement will:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321-4347.
\18\ 40 C.F.R. pts. 1500-1508.
\19\ 72 Fed. Reg. 10186-7 (Mar. 7, 2007).
Examine the potential environmental effects associated with
relocating Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics
units (which comprise approximately 8,000 Marines and their
estimated 9,000 dependents) from Okinawa to Guam. The
environmental impact statement will examine potential effects
from activities associated with Marine Corps units' relocation
to include operations, training, and infrastructure changes.
Examine the Navy's plan to enhance the infrastructure,
logistic capabilities, and pier/waterfront facilities to
support transient nuclear aircraft carrier berthing at Naval
Base Guam. The environmental impact statement will examine
potential effects of the waterfront improvements associated
with the proposed transient berthing.
Evaluate placing a ballistic missile defense task force
(approximately 630 solders and their estimated 950 dependents)
in Guam. The environmental impact statement will examine
potential effects from activities associated with the task
force, including operations, training, and infrastructure
changes.
JGPO officials recognize that the results of this environmental
assessment process may affect the development and timing of JGPO's
master plan for Guam. Under NEPA and the regulations established by the
Council on Environmental Quality, an environmental impact statement
must include a purpose and need statement, a description of all
reasonable project alternatives and their environmental effects
(including a ``no action'' alternative), a description of the
environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives
being considered, and an analysis of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and each alternative.\20\ Further, accurate scientific
analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to
implementing NEPA. For example, federal agencies such as DOD are
required to ensure the professional integrity, including scientific
integrity, of the discussions and analyses contained in the
environmental impact statement. Additionally, after preparing a draft
environmental impact statement, federal agencies such as DOD are
required to obtain the comments of any federal agency that has
jurisdiction by law or certain special expertise and request the
comments of appropriate state and local agencies, Native American
tribes, and any agency that has requested that it receive such
statements. Until an agency issues a final environmental impact
statement and record of decision, it generally may not take any action
concerning the proposal that would either have adverse environmental
effects or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 C.F.R. Sec. 1502.13-1502.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD officials stated that performing these alternative site
analyses and cumulative effects analyses may delay the completion of
Guam master plan and thus affect the construction schedule of military
facilities needed to accommodate thousands of Marines and dependents by
the 2014 goal identified in the Defense Policy Review Initiative. DOD
will submit its fiscal year 2010 budget request to Congress for the
first phase of military construction projects prior to the completion
of the environmental impact statement. Thus, DOD may be asking Congress
to fund the military construction projects without the benefit of a
completed environmental impact statement or a final decision on the
full extent of its facility and funding requirements. DOD officials
said that this practice of requesting funding during the development of
environmental impact statements is common within the department for
large projects, such as major base realignments and closures. JGPO
officials told us that immediately after the environmental impact
statement and record of decision are completed, the department will
commence construction of facilities in efforts to meet the 2014 goal.
However, other DOD and government of Guam officials believe that this
is an ambitious and optimistic schedule considering the possibility
that the environmental impact statement could be delayed, the
complexities of moving thousands of Marines and dependents from Okinawa
to Guam, and the need to obtain funding from the United States and
Japan to support military construction projects.
SEVERAL DOD AND GOVERNMENT OF GUAM CHALLENGES HAVE YET TO BE ADDRESSED
DOD and the government of Guam face several significant challenges
associated with the military buildup, including addressing funding and
operational challenges and community and infrastructure impacts, which
could affect the development and implementation of their planning
efforts. First, DOD has not identified all funding requirements and may
encounter difficulties in obtaining funding given competing priorities
within the department. Second, DOD officials need to address the
operational and training limitations on Guam, such as for sea and
airlift capabilities, and training requirements for thousands of
Marines. Third, the increase in military personnel and their dependents
on Guam and the large number of the construction workers needed to
build military facilities will create challenges for Guam's community
and civilian infrastructure.
DOD Faces Funding Challenges
The military services' realignments on Guam are estimated to cost
over $13 billion. Included in this $13 billion cost estimate, the
Marine Corps buildup is estimated to cost $10.3 billion. However, these
estimates do not include the estimated costs of all other defense
organizations that will be needed to support the additional military
personnel and dependents on Guam. For example, the Defense Logistics
Agency, which will help support the services' influx of personnel,
missions, and equipment to Guam, will likely incur additional costs
that are not included in the current estimate. Also, the costs to move
and accommodate Marine Corps units from locations other than Okinawa to
Guam are not included in the estimate. In addition, the costs
associated with the development of training ranges\21\ and facilities
on nearby islands are not included in the current estimate for the
military buildup. According to JGPO officials, the total costs for the
military buildup will eventually be identified and integrated into
JGPO's master plan for Guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Adequate training ranges are critical to maintaining military
readiness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the $10.3 billion estimate for the Marine Corps buildup, the
government of Japan is expected to contribute up to $2.8 billion in
funds without reimbursement for the construction of facilities, such as
barracks and office buildings. The government of Japan is also expected
to provide another $3.3 billion in loans and equity investments for
installation support infrastructure, such as on base power and water
systems, and military family housing. Most of this $3.3 billion is
expected over time to be recouped by Japan in the form of service
charges paid by the U.S. government and in rents paid by American
servicemembers with their overseas housing allowance provided by DOD.
In addition, according to DOD officials, there are several
conditions that must be met before the government of Japan contributes
to the cost of the Marine Corps move. First, the government of Japan
has stipulated that its funds will not be made available until it has
reviewed and agreed to specific infrastructure plans for Guam. Second,
failure or delay of any initiative outlined in the Defense Policy
Review Initiative may affect the other initiatives, because various
planning variables need to fall into place in order for the initiatives
to move forward. For example, DOD officials expect that if the Futenma
replacement facility in Okinawa (estimated to cost from $4 billion to
$5 billion) is not built, the Marine Corps relocation to Guam may be
canceled or delayed. Previously, the United States and Japan were
unsuccessful in closing and replacing Marine Corps Air Station Futenma
as a part of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa process in
1996.\22\ DOD officials view the success of the Futenma replacement
facility as a key objective of the initiative that will need to be
completed in order for other realignment actions to take place,
including the move to Guam. Finally, the government of Japan may
encounter challenges in funding its share of the Marine Corps move
considering Japan's other national priorities and its commitments
associated with funding several other major realignments of U.S. forces
in Japan under the Defense Policy Review Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The United States and Japan are continuing their effort to
close and replace Marine Corps Air Station Futenma as a part of the
Defense Policy Review Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Faces Operational Challenges
Operational challenges, such as providing appropriate mobility
support and training capabilities to meet Marine Corps requirements,
have not been fully addressed. According to Marine Forces Pacific
officials, the Marine Corps in Guam will depend on strategic military
sealift and airlift to reach destinations in Asia that may be farther
away than was the case when the units were based in Okinawa. For
example, in a contingency operation that requires sealift, the ships
may have to deploy from Sasebo, Japan, or other locations to collect
the Marines and their equipment on Guam and then go to the area where
the contingency is taking place, potentially risking a delayed arrival
at certain potential trouble spots. According to Marine Corps
officials, amphibious shipping capability and airlift capacity are
needed in Guam, which may include expanding existing staging facilities
and systems support for both sealift and airlift. The Marine Corps
estimated additional costs for strategic lift operating from Guam to be
nearly $88 million annually.
Existing training ranges and facilities on Guam are not sufficient
to meet the training requirements of the projected Marine Corps force.
A DOD analysis of training opportunities in Guam concluded that no
ranges on Guam are suitable for the needs of the projected Marine Corps
force because of inadequacy in size or lack of availability. U.S.
Pacific Command is also in the process of conducting a training study
that covers both Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands to see what options are available for training in the region.
Marine Forces Pacific officials stated that live-fire artillery
training, amphibious landings, and tracked vehicle operations will be
challenging because of the combination of factors associated with the
limited size of training areas available and the environmental concerns
on the Northern Mariana Islands.
Increase in Military Presence Is Likely to Cause Local Community and
Infrastructure Challenges
The increase in military presence is expected to have significant
effects on Guam's community and infrastructure, and these challenges
have not been fully addressed. This undertaking is estimated to
increase the current Guam population of approximately 171,000 by an
estimated 25,000 active duty military personnel and dependents (or 14.6
percent) to 196,000. The Guam population could also swell further
because DOD's personnel estimates do not include defense civilians and
contractors who are also likely to move to Guam to support DOD
operations.
DOD and government of Guam officials recognize that the military
buildup will have significant effects on the local community. For
example:
As a result of the military buildup on Guam, construction
demands will exceed local capacity and the availability of
workers, though the extent to which the local workers can meet
this increase has yet to be determined. For example, on the
basis of trend data, government of Guam officials estimate the
current construction capacity to be approximately $800 million
per year, as compared with the estimated construction capacity
of more than $3 billion per year needed by DOD to meet the
planned 2014 completion date. In addition, Guam currently faces
a shortage of skilled construction workers. Preliminary
analysis indicates that 15,000 to 20,000 construction workers
will be required to support the projected development on Guam.
One estimate is that Guam may be able to meet only 10 to 15
percent of the labor requirement locally, a concern to federal,
military, and local officials. Nearby countries may have
workers willing to come to Guam to take jobs to construct
needed facilities, but these workers will have to temporarily
enter the United States on temporary nonagricultural workers
visas, currently capped at 66,000 per year. JGPO officials said
that legislation recently passed by both the Senate and the
House of Representatives that will increase the cap in the
short term is a first step toward addressing many of their
concerns with temporary nonagricultural workers visas.
The government of Guam has expressed several concerns about
the potential effects of an influx of foreign workers on Guam's
community. The Civilian Military Task Force recommended that
Guam needs to establish a department that would focus on
processing foreign workers. Further, a government of Guam
report stated that the influx of foreign workers would put a
strain on existing emergency care services, medical facilities,
and public utilities.
In addition, DOD and government of Guam officials recognize that
the island's infrastructure is inadequate to meet the increased demand
due to the military buildup. For example:
Guam's commercial port has capacity constraints with pier
berthing space, crane operations, and container storage
locations. The military buildup requires a port with double the
current capacity, and military cargo is expected to increase
sixfold during construction of facilities required for the
buildup.
Guam's two major highways are in poor condition and, when
ordnance (ammunition and explosives) is unloaded from ships for
Andersen Air Force Base now and for the Marine Corps in the
future, the ordnance must be transported on one of these major
roads that run through highly populated areas. The current
highway system also experiences slippery surfaces, potholes,
and occasional flooding. Traffic between military installations
and commercial, business, and residential areas is anticipated
to increase significantly with the military buildup.
Guam's electrical system--the sole power provider on the
island--is not reliable and has transmission problems resulting
in brownouts and voltage and frequency fluctuations. The system
may not be adequate to deliver the additional energy
requirements associated with the military buildup.
Guam's water and wastewater treatment systems are near
capacity and have a history of failure due to aged and
deteriorated distribution lines. The military buildup may
increase demand by at least 25 percent.
Guam's solid waste facilities face capacity and
environmental challenges as they have reached the end of their
useful life. Currently, the solid waste landfills in Guam have
a number of unresolved issues related to discharge of
pollutants and are near capacity.
GOVERNMENT OF GUAM'S PLANNING EFFORTS ARE IN THEIR INITIAL STAGES
The government of Guam's planning efforts to address infrastructure
challenges associated with the buildup of military forces are in the
initial stages, and several uncertainties further contribute to the
difficulties the government of Guam faces in developing precise plans
to address the effects of the military buildup on the local community
and infrastructure. In addition, funding sources to address
infrastructure challenges are uncertain. As we have found with some
communities experiencing civilian and military population growth
surrounding Army installations in the continental United States, the
government of Guam will likely ask for assistance to provide civilian
infrastructure improvements.
Two recent studies that examine the various effects of the military
buildup on the local infrastructure and community were developed by the
government of Guam and KPMG. First, the Governor of Guam commissioned
the Civilian Military Task Force to develop a plan that would both
accommodate the military personnel expansion and provide opportunities
for the Guam community. The task force issued its report in November
2007, which provided a synopsis of the various funding and resource
needs.\23\ Second, the government of Guam contracted KPMG to examine
the needs and challenges Guam faces in regard to the military buildup.
The October 2007 report made preliminary assessments on the effects of
the military buildup on Guam's infrastructure, economy, and social
services.\24\ One study estimated that more than $3 billion will be
required for civilian infrastructure and government services to address
the military buildup.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Guam Civilian Military Task Force, Planning for Military
Growth: November 2007 Needs Assessment (Hagatna, Guam: Nov. 2007).
\24\ PMG, Conduct Studies Associated with Military Growth and
Integration Initiatives for the Island of Guam (Oct. 31, 2007).
\25\ According to KPMG, the cost estimates and figures presented in
the study are incomplete and were not verified or validated by
government of Guam or KPMG officials. Moreover, KPMG officials
concluded that more work in terms of testing and analysis needed to be
conducted on financial data presented in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The uncertainties associated with exact size, makeup, and timing of
the forces to be moved to Guam make it difficult for the government of
Guam to develop comprehensive plans to address the effects of the
proposed military buildup. Guam officials said that without accurate
information it is difficult to develop an infrastructure program that
identifies civilian construction projects and financing to support the
military buildup and to form an administrative structure to oversee and
coordinate project scheduling and implementation. In our September 2007
report on communities experiencing civilian and military population
growth at continental U.S. Army installations, we found that without
knowing whether Army headquarters-level offices or the local base plans
have accurate information about the expected growth, communities are
not well positioned to plan for and provide adequate schools, housing,
transportation, and other infrastructure.
As discussed previously, government of Guam officials recognize
that the island's infrastructure is inadequate to meet the projected
demand and will likely require significant funding to address this
challenge. However, the extent to which the government of Guam will be
able to obtain financial assistance for projected infrastructure
demands from the federal government is unclear. Government of Guam
officials we met with were uncertain as to whether and to what extent
federal grant programs will be available to address Guam's public
infrastructure to support the military realignments. On the basis of
its initial review, KPMG reported that the data it collected from the
government of Guam suggested that it is likely there will be a
significant funding gap between the availability of funds and
requirements for Guam's infrastructure program.\26\ KPMG further
reported that $282 million in federal funding was provided to Guam in
2006. Without additional federal assistance, government of Guam
officials believe that local infrastructure improvements to accommodate
the military buildup would take decades to complete. In our September
2007 report on U.S. communities experiencing civilian and military
population growth at Army installations, we found that communities will
likely incur costs to provide adequate schools, transportation, and
other infrastructure improvements.\27\ Because of limited local
funding, some of these communities are seeking federal and state
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See footnote 24.
\27\ See GAO-07-1007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or any members of the committee may have at
this time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for your excellent testimony. Let me just ask
a few questions.
Congresswoman Bordallo, let me ask you--first of all, you
spoke about your proposal to have memoranda of understanding
between Guam and the Federal Government concluded. Have you
spoken to the administration about this recommendation? Have
you gotten any reaction from them? What reaction has that been?
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Chairman, I did bring this up at the last
IGIA meeting, which was chaired by Mr. Kempthorne. So, he's
aware of it. The request came from our own local agencies,
because it seems that, when they come to Washington to talk
about this buildup, that--each time, they're faced with another
representative from the Federal Government. In other words--or
from the Federal agency--they're not meeting with the same
people all the time, and they have to go through the whole
explanation of the buildup. So, they wanted some kind of a
commitment, you know, in writing, a memorandum of
understanding.
I think it's important, because, you know, we will have a
change of administration, and there be--may be a chance that
the new Cabinet member may not--you know, he'll say, ``Well, it
wasn't under my watch,'' so--``I don't know anything about
it''--so, we would like to have this. I think it would give it
more of a feeling of permanency. I--everyone is aware of it,
Senator.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me ask Mr. Pula or General Bice if you have thoughts
about whether this makes sense, to try to get memoranda of
understanding, or is that really not practicable, to get
something like that done at this stage, toward the end of an
Administration.
General Bice. Mr. Chairman, let me speak just for the
Department of Defense aspects there.
We see nothing wrong with memorandums of understanding. In
fact, we've been working with the Guam Port Authority, the
Government of Guam, and the Maritime Administration, through
the--through our Office of Economic Adjustment, and forming a
MOU over MARAD's assistance to the port. We see these
partnership agreements as a good model so that we can have a
sense of understanding what each roles will be played there,
and what the potential outcomes can be.
As you know, of course, the--you know, none of the
Departments can commit future funding; only Congress can do
that. So, you know, the limitation, in terms of the funding
aspect, is always there, but it, in fact, as far as a MOU, a
partnership agreement, we think that's the right way--approach
to go.
The Chairman. Mr. Pula, did you have a comment?
Mr. Pula. Yes. I think the Congresswoman did bring it up in
IGIA. I think all--everybody in the meeting heard about it.
Let me just preface it by saying, we don't have any
problems with MOUs. The only concern that I have would be,
every time--and I'm sure everybody appreciates this--in budget
process, you've got to have certain requirements. Before you
lay out a budget--and when the requirements aren't there, it's
difficult to--you know, to go to--at the process in the
Department and go to OMB and say, ``Hey, you know, we need
this,'' when the requirements are not really there. And I think
that's one of the problems the IGIA sister agencies have been
having, looking at DOD, JGPO, as well as GovGuam, about getting
the requirements down so they could have some numbers to work
with. And it would be much easier when we get that. But, until
we get that, it's very difficult to make some sort of
commitment to it. And that's my----
The Chairman. Governor Camacho, did you have a comment?
Mr. Camacho. Yes. I understand the intent of an MOU, as
proposed by the Congresswoman, and it primarily would be to
allow for continuity as you would have a transition from one
administration to the next, an agreement, at least from--and a
commitment from the Federal Government on how to proceed with
the buildup. But, I think we need something more substantial,
and that would be a commitment in the way of an appropriation
measure that would commit funding, at least for the civilian
side.
We do understand that the buildup is reflective of what is
needed for the military buildup within the fenceline and for
military facilities on Guam. But, as mentioned, the impact that
will occur outside the fenceline with the civilian community is
one that cannot be borne by the people of Guam alone.
When you think of the severe impact the magnitude of--which
will occur, and the fact that we have, currently, only 170,000
people on the island, with existing debt and existing
commitments already for projects that have occurred over the
last several decades, to add additional--an additional debt
burden on the people of Guam to fund the infrastructure by way
of partnerships, by way of partnering with the private sector
and bringing other developers in, would still be a cost that
has to be borne by the people. I don't think any community of
that size can have the financial capability of shouldering that
burden, which is why we come and are hoping that there is a
realization that it is a Federal commitment that also must be
matched on the financial end.
As I mentioned, the delta between what we have planned for
on--in the way of normal growth, and now the impact which will
occur in the compressed timeline because of the buildup, is--
it's a wide gap. I tell you, honestly and sincerely, chairman,
that the people of Guam cannot bear that burden. It would break
our backs financially. So, we are asking for a Federal
commitment, above and beyond an MOU.
The Chairman. OK. Let me ask, Governor, one other question.
I believe Mr. Pula has an estimate, in his written testimony,
there will be an increase in the GDP of Guam by 22 percent, and
that tax revenues are expected to double as a result of the
buildup. Does your government have any independent estimate on
those items? Do you have an estimate as to how much of an
increase you will see in gross domestic product or in tax
revenues available to the government?
Mr. Camacho. Certainly one of the grant requests that we're
putting forward to the Office of Economic Adjustment under DOD
is certainly that, would be conduct a financial feasibility
study by economists to clearly point out whatever revenues are
expected. But, the promises of tomorrow, and revenues that will
be generated, such as a 22-percent increase in GDP and the
doubling of revenues, are simply that, they are promises to
come. What we need now are finances and moneys for now, for
today, so that we can adequately prepare for the buildup.
As mentioned, we need a firm, solid foundation upon which
to build, and it must be concurrent and run parallel on the
same timelines with that which we expect in the military
community. If we fall short on that, then there's just no way
that we can couple up and support the military, as necessary.
We want to ensure that this is mutually beneficial. It's a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to get it right.
We've got one shot. But, we certainly need help in this regard.
The Chairman. General Bice, let me ask you--on this
agreement we've got with Japan now, on funding, where they pick
up a portion of the funding, as I understand it, that's limited
to on-base projects. There are a lot of systems, including
power and water and solid waste and all, that are really
communitywide, that would not be eligible to participate in any
of the funding from Japan. Is that right, or not?
General Bice. Mr. Chairman, the way the financial
arrangements from the Government of Japan is that they will
provide $2.8 billion in direct cash for United States military
facilities on base; that's barracks, headquarters buildings,
and the like. They will also provide $2.5 billion for--in forms
of a--financial instruments through a public/private
partnership, they call a ``special-purpose entity,'' for
housing. That is, they will build the housing, and the military
members will rent those homes through the overseas housing
allowance that the Department of Defense provides to the
membership there. That's how those are paid back.
Similarly, for the--for utilities, the Government of Japan
has agreed to upgrade utilities on Guam in support of the
Marine relocation, up to $740 million; again, through a public/
private partnership. With the special-purpose entity--unlike a
strict military construction project, which would be on-base
only, with the public/private partnership, we can, in fact,
extend that capability off-base. Currently, we are in
discussions and in studies with the Government of Japan on
utilities.
I'll just give an example. One of the options for power
generation is to build a power plant on base, and then they
would build transmission lines that would connect to all the
Marine facilities all around the island. That may not
necessarily be the most cost-beneficial, cost-effective way of
doing it. Another option is to build a power plant off base and
plug that power plant into the Guam grid. Then, the Marines and
other Department of Defense would draw--again, draw upon the
Guam grid. We're currently going through a business-case
analysis for all the options, all the ranges there; that
includes off-base analysis there.
My Government of Japan colleagues have encouraged us to put
all options on the table, and we'll use the business-case
analysis to determine which options fits them. We're hopeful
that, through these options, we can, in fact, have a positive
benefit to the people of Guam by improving their
infrastructure, as well.
The Chairman. OK, that's helpful information. I appreciate
that.
Mr. Pula, could you briefly describe the Guam Task Force's
role in the budget process, as you understand it? I mean, to
what extent is it coordinated with requests within the White
House? How do you ensure that the desires and conclusions of
the Guam Task Force are taken into account?
Mr. Pula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me say, the interagency group is chaired by the
Secretary of the Interior. It does not have any binding
authority, in terms of a budget process, with other agencies.
It is a forum where other Federal agencies of the
Administration will come and listen to other concerns that are
brought up by the insular areas.
More specifically to your question of how we've been
doing--working on the Guam buildup lately is, we've had this
task force with the Joint Guam Program Office, JGPO, and OIA.
We've been working together very closely, on a daily/weekly
basis, phone calls, trying to get the other sister agencies to
bring to bear what they feel their requirements are, based on
information coming from GovGuam and DOD.
I would be remiss if I don't mention that there's a lot of
frustration, because, you know, as time is pressing, like
everybody is mentioning up, we need to get some numbers. We're
talking about 2010, and the budget cycle is coming; you know,
we need information today. So, we've been trying to push this
issue.
The Secretary of the Interior, Kempthorne, personally got
on the phone last year and called Secretary Gates when the
Governor of Guam and the Lieutenant Governor asked him for
help. As a result, we have Assistant Secretary B.J. Penn, who
came and went out with the Secretary. So, there's a close
relationship there.
But, like I mentioned earlier, in order for us to get
budget numbers to go through the departments, and, therefore,
get some sort of approval for 2010, we really need the solid
requirement, so that we can base this----
The Chairman. You're talking about the solid requirements
that you're hoping to get from the Department of Defense, or
from the Government of Guam, or both, or what?
Mr. Pula. Both.
The Chairman. OK. I----
General Bice. If I could say, Senator----
The Chairman. General Bice, sure.
General Bice [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, we are working
closely with the Government of Guam and all the chairs of the
working groups, the five working groups established, to
identify the requirements. What we want to do is come up with a
prioritized listing of all of those requirements, and work that
through this Interagency Task Force to identify the funding
requirements for--especially for fiscal year 1910. Hopefully we
can bring together some senior leadership among the Federal
departments and have a meeting, later on this spring, to talk
about the FY-10 funding profiles that are going to be developed
within the various Federal agencies and departments, because we
see that, as the Governor mentioned, you know, the time is
pressing, time is now, and we've got to get started.
The Chairman. I would think, with this 2010 budget cycle
coming on very quickly here, or already started, probably the
most immediate thing would be to be sure that the
Administration is asking the Congress for adequate funds in all
these different areas when that budget is submitted to us early
next year. Of course, that will be prepared by this
Administration before it leaves office, not by the new
Administration, as I understand it.
Governor.
Mr. Camacho. Mr. Chairman, it is true that we have been
working and trying to provide the numbers necessary to make a
good case. What's alarming is that it was only recently, in the
past few months, when we brought the matter to the attention of
Federal agencies, that there was any awareness of this military
buildup on Guam. Recognizing the lack of information provided
to the rest of the agencies necessary, it is reflected in the
fact that fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009 budgets have been
missed. OMB pointedly mentioned to us that we have missed the
opportunity, that the train had left the station, that the only
opportunity we had to submit for any budget request would be
for 2010.
Recognizing that there was a lack of awareness, we had gone
to the--Region 9, and they have a Working Regional Council. The
reason I went there was that they have specific knowledge with
oversight of programs in Guam, and we had to inform them about
the buildup and the fact that there would be an impact, and
that they had to be aware of what would come in a few short
years. Working--and I have to commend the Department of the
Interior and Secretary Kempthorne, because we then took it to
the national level. I figured, if we can get advocates at the
regional level, they can help us make our case in the national
level. So, it is here and now that we are making our case.
When we heard of the buildup that would occur, that's when
we formed this Interagency Task Force, or Civilian-Military
Task Force on Guam, to pull in all sectors to--and we did a
needs assessment. Along those lines, as information was
brought, then the utilities began to plan. When we understood
the full breadth and scope and impact of the buildup, it's then
that we realized, ``My gosh, there's got to be a tremendous
amount of work put into this.''
So, yes, time is running out, and we want to make sure we
catch the train before it leaves the station for fiscal year
2010. But, perhaps there are opportunities we're looking for in
the supplemental budgets, if those occur whatsoever, for fiscal
year 2008 or 2009, where we can get on it.
If I may, the priority is recognizing that goods will have
to come in, construction will begin in a year and a half, by
2010, should all plans fall into place. That means we would
need a sixfold increase in the capacity of our seaport to
handle the goods coming through. Once they come through the
ports, we then need to make sure that our roads would be able
to handle the traffic and the goods that would flow to the
constructionsites. So, transportation is absolutely essential.
Then, when you couple the fact that there are going to be
15,000 additional construction workers on Guam that are coming
in, with the additional families, by 2012, or starting then, on
to 2014, our health care system and the ability for our
hospital to handle that workload, again, is going to be
tremendous.
So, I think you can begin to see the picture of where we're
heading.
So, the sense of urgency and the short timeline that we are
faced with, and the limited capacity of an island community to
fund and comply with the buildup on our side, is going to be
very, very challenging, sir.
The Chairman. Yes, Congresswoman Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I bring up the point of the MOU. That's why it's so
important. The point of the MOU is to identify what will be in
the administration's request for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
How else can Guam plan for projects if we don't have some kind
of an idea? It could be a generic MOU. Of course, the Governor
spoke about the funding being included. Whatever the case. But,
I think there is a very, very crucial need for the MOUs.
Now, when it comes to priorities--we spoke about
priorities, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, the greatest
infrastructure challenge at this time is the improvement of our
port. Both the Department of Defense and the Port Authority of
Guam have identified the port as a potential choke point as the
buildup moves forward. The containers are going through the
port, they're expected to nearly double, maybe triple, during
the bulk of construction activities. So, if we can't get
materials into the island with the buildup, it'll be slowed
down, prices could increase. So, I feel that the top priority
in funding right now--top challenge would be the enhancement,
the expansion of the port.
Also, I support public/private--somebody spoke about the
public/private ventures. I support that. We have one that we're
pursuing right now to bring an additional three cranes to Guam.
Currently, there is only one, Mr. Chairman. Certainly we need
help in that area.
Then, I think, for your information, Mr. Chairman, I have
already seen and gone through the tentative military--the DOD
master plan for this buildup. I just spoke to the Governor, and
the GovGuam Master Plan is still pending--not ready, as yet.
So, we're working on it, but I think this has to be in place,
as well, so we can make plans for the future.
The Chairman. OK. Let me thank everybody, here.
Let me just mention, Mr. Lepore, we'll continue to call on
GAO to monitor this for us and keep us informed as to what the
needs are, and how well they're being met, and the timing.
Mr. Lepore. We look forward to being of assistance to you,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very good.
Let me also indicate, I'm particularly interested in
following up with this general idea of an MOU to identify the
specific funding requirements. I think doing it as a
President's Memo would help to engage the White House and the
Office of Management and Budget in a more direct way in
coordinating and prioritizing the budget requirements for the
2010 budget, and that's obviously of top priority. So, I hope
we can follow up with you and work with you to see that that
happens.
I think this has been useful testimony, and obviously there
are a lot of major challenges, for both the United States
Government and the Government of Guam, coming up very quickly.
So, thank you all for being here.
That'll conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of General David Bice to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. What are the estimated funding requirements for Federal
agencies to complete the EIS for the build-up, and are those funds
available? If not, what steps are being taken to secure them?
Answer. FY08 funding requirements for Federal and local agencies
that are supporting the EIS for the Guam relocation effort total $5.5
million. The Department of the Navy is evaluating options for obtaining
the funds. Because of the scope, complexity, and the short time
suspense, Federal agencies are not in a position to resource the EIS
adequately without additional funding.
PORT OF GUAM CAPACITY
Question 2. I understand that the Port of Guam lacks the capacity
to meet the expected surge in shipping. Please briefly describe the
situation and how you expect it to be resolved?
Answer. The port is vital to Guam's economic health and serves as a
critical link in the supply chain for all of Guam and the Department of
Defense. The goods and material flowing through the port sustain the
quality of life for all residents. Concurrently, the Port Authority of
Guam (PAG) has just completed the PAG's Master Plan Update and Governor
Camacho has approved the Master Plan Update and forwarded it to the
Guam Legislature for their approval.
The Port of Guam requires significant improvement and upgrading.
The port has not been modernized since it was constructed in the
1960's. Typically, most ports are modernized every twenty years. The
port is long overdue for modernization initiative, however, the demand
for greater handling capacity to adequately handle the flow of
construction materials and supplies during the military construction
phase and the expected increase in capacity post the construction phase
serves as a catalyst for the port's modernization.
The principal areas of improvement of the highest priority:
Replacement of cranes
Modernization of the container cargo handling and tracking
system
Expansion of the container yard
Training of workforce to support expanded port and cargo
handling operations
The Department of Navy is pleased to see the partnership being
developed by the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration
(MARAD) and the Guam Port Authority. Recent legislation introduced in
the House would allow MARAD to support a public private partnership
with the Port of Guam. Such partnerships have been successful around
the country, and we are confident MARAD can offer technical and
financial solutions for the Port Authority. Moreover, we are pleased to
see the Port Authority has produced a draft master plan that provides
direction for the port expansion and modernization.
UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE
Question 3. Does the military intend to establish its own water,
power, waste water systems, and landfill, or become a customer of the
local civilian systems?If DOD plans to be a customer of the civilian
systems, does DOD plan to provide assistance, including financial
assistance, to the local government to expand and improve those
systems?
Answer. The US-Japan agreement for relocating Marines from Okinawa
to Guam provides for upgrades to utility systems to support the
strategic realignment. The Government of Japan has agreed to provide up
to $740 million for the utility upgrades. These upgrades are to be
funded by a Japanese public-private-partnership arrangement. This
arrangement allows options to be considered that include improvements
to the utility systems outside military facilities. The Navy has
completed its technical studies as to the requirements in each of the
four areas of utilities to determine the current and projected demand
for usage. Business case studies are ongoing to determine the preferred
options to meet the growth in the demand for utilities services
associated with the Guam military relocation effort. These options
include possible private-public partnerships with local utilities and
the Government of Guam to meet this demand. The business case studies
will identify preferred alternatives which will allow us to better
determine the options including improvements to the civilian
infrastructure.
OEA GRANTS TO GUAM
Question 4. I understand that OEA (DOD's Office of Economic
Adjustment) has given Guam approximately $1.7m for 2 grants.Is there an
estimate of Guam's planning costs and does OEA plan on providing Guam
with the additional planning funds that will be needed? Does OEA
provide other types of assistance such as professional staff?
Answer. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is providing both
technical and financial assistance to the Government of Guam, working
directly through the governor's office. The OEA has awarded two grants
to date.
The Phase I grant focused on the following: 1) establishment of a
responsible organization, under Guam legislation, to oversee the
Military Integration and Growth (MIG) that would transcend changes in
the executive and legislative branches; 2) preliminary baselining of
the challenges or issues; 3) logical follow on course of actions; 4)
logistical support to the governor's office (travel funding); 5)
establishment of video teleconferencing (VTC) capability within the
governor's office; and 6) preliminary community outreach.
The Phase II grant include the following: 1) Port of Guam Financial
Feasibility Study; 2) Port Community Outreach and Consensus Building;
3) funding for additional staff within the governor's office dedicated
to the MIG Initiative; and 4) logistical support to the governor's
office.
In concert with the two grants the OEA has and continues to provide
technical assistance to the governor's office. The OEA proactively
facilitated several instrumental meetings: 1) Federal Regional Council
(FRC) Region IX, a consortium of 18 Federal agencies and Departments
that oversee approximately 30 major programs in Region IX, which
includes the Territory of Guam; (The FRC developed a FRC Action Plan
specifically for Guam that includes quarterly meetings with the
Governor of Guam and assignment of FRC point of contacts to work with
the Government of Guam Departments.) 2) Outer Pacific Committee (OPC)
is a sub-committee to the FRC, with responsibility for the Western
Pacific Islands; (The OPC oversees annual grants totaling approximately
$690 million to the Western Pacific Islands, which includes
approximately $280 million to Territory of Guam) and 3) Maritime
Administration meetings, which led to a partnership agreement and an
MOU.
The OEA is working with the governor's office on several other
initiatives including, but not limited to the following: 1) Port of
Guam Implementation Plan--specific action plan to oversee the Guam Port
Modernization Initiative; 2) Guam Compatibility Sustainability Study
(CSS)--land use planning initiative that fosters sound decision making,
which balances economic development while ensuring military operational
sustainability; and 3) Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA)--the FIA will tier
off the Navy's Socioeconomic Impact Assessment; a component of the Navy
EIS.
PLANS AND POLICIES TO MITIGATE OFF-BASE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Question 5. What are the military's plans and policies for
mitigating environmental impacts off-base? For example, have mitigation
funds been identified?
Answer. Mitigation of environmental impacts off-base will be
identified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and
negotiated as required by applicable resource laws and existing DOD
policies. The ongoing identification process and future mitigation
negotiations are underway with appropriate federal and local
departments and agencies during environmental partnering sessions. We
anticipate that the outcome of these partnering sessions will result in
an environmental impact mitigation strategy and resource plan, signed
by all partners, prior to the late 2009 Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS). DOD's share of the mitigation costs would come from
each Service's MILCON budgets.
DOD PLANS TO ADDRESS BROWN TREE SNAKE ISSUES
Question 6. The brown tree snake is a substantial invasive species
problem in Guam and threatens other Pacific Islands. What measures does
DOD have planned to prevent further movement of this and other invasive
species during the construction phase of the build-up?
Answer. As a member of the Micronesia Regional Invasive Species
Council (RISC), the Joint Guam Program Office, along with the National
Invasive Species Council, is working with the member states such as
Palau, Yap, Guam, and CNMI, to develop early detection and rapid
response procedures for invasive species, such as the Brown Tree Snake,
to be utilized throughout the region. These procedures will be
incorporated into a DOD invasive species management and control plan
that will be followed during the construction phase. Micronesia RISC
has also been included in the participants of DOD / regulatory agency
partnering sessions conducted to ensure environmental considerations
associated with the relocation and construction effort are addressed.
Additionally, engineering controls such as snake proof barriers will be
incorporated into designs on a risk based analysis. Further, this is an
opportunity to enhance inspection and quarantine facilities and
personnel capacity by subject matter experts at all Guam ports of entry
and exit, to including government and commercial facilities.
DOD PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT TO LOCAL COMMUNITY
Question 7. Please describe plans to assist the local community
with public safety/law enforcement during the construction phase,
particularly with respect to foreign workers?
Answer. The public safety/law enforcement issues associated with
population increases are inherently Inter-Agency in nature. Therefore,
the Joint Guam Program Office, in partnership with the Department of
Interior, is involving the appropriate Federal and local law
enforcement agencies to address the impacts associated with a large
foreign workforce. In addition to regular Inter-Agency Task Force
meetings that address a broad range of socio-economic issues, the Joint
Guam Program Office will host a Public Safety Forum in Guam later this
year with key stakeholders from federal and local law enforcement
agencies to further develop plans and policies on the subject.
WORKFORCE HOUSING
Question 8. Please describe plans for workforce housing. For
example, will temporary workers be housed on DOD land, GovGuam land, or
on land leased from private owners? Do you expect there to be plans for
turnover of temporary labor housing for other uses after the
construction period ends?
Answer. In August 2007 and March 2008, Naval Facilities and
Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO)
sponsored Industry Forums on Guam to educate business leaders and
investors on the requirements and opportunities related to the Guam
military construction phase. Temporary worker housing was one of the
key items discussed. The general consensus that has developed through
our interaction with industry and the community is that workforce
housing should be developed by our industry partners and that DOD
(NAVFAC specifically) should develop regulations and enforceable
contract provisions for workforce housing to ensure health care,
adequate living standards, pay, etc. As no construction contracts have
been awarded yet, the location and future use of the worker housing has
yet to be determined. Guidelines for how workforce housing will be
utilized after the construction period is complete will be included in
the development of the regulations and contract provisions governing
the workforce housing.
PLANS AND FUNDING SOURCES FOR TRAINING OF LOCAL RESIDENTS
Question 9. Please describe plans, including funding sources, to
train local permanent residents for jobs that will be created by the
build-up?
Answer. Through the Inter-Agency Task Force meetings, the Joint
Guam Program Office (JGPO), Department of Interior (DOI) and Department
of Labor (DOL) are working towards a $1 million initiative to build
infrastructure for an apprenticeship program on Guam. The Guam
Department of Labor received $15,000 in funding from DOI to hire a
consultant to assist the pursuit of a $250,000 regional innovation (or
``planning'') grant from DOL to address issues of data collection,
needs assessment, and regional workforce leadership outreach. Inter-
agency efforts have also resulted in several initiatives at the Guam
Community College (GCC) where a diesel mechanical class and
construction boot camp have been added to their Construction Trades
Program. In addition, the Government of Guam is preparing a Request for
Proposals on their Allied Health building construction project to
support health care worker training. Other entities, including the Guam
Contractor's Association Trades Academy, in cooperation with the GCC
and University of Guam (UoG), are increasing capacity in a four-year
apprenticeship program. This includes classes in the heavy equipment,
safety, carpentry, heating/ventilation/air conditioning, and electrical
trades. They are also exploring ways to expand their programs into
neighboring islands.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL HEALTH AND EDUCATION
Question 10. Does DOD plan to provide financial assistance to the
local community to expand and improve its health and education capacity
and facilities?
Answer. Transitional programs resulting from population increases
associated with the Guam military relocation effort are inherently
Inter-Agency in nature. The Joint Guam Program Office (JGPO), in
conjunction with the Department of Interior (DOI), is involving the
appropriate Federal agencies to identify requirements and the budget
necessary to meet the anticipated increased demand for social services,
including health and education. These agencies will request from
Congress the funding necessary to assist Guam with the challenges of
expanding its health and education capability and capacity.
Responses of General David Bice to Questions From Senator Akaka
ON INCLUSION OF VA IN DOD PLANS FOR EXPANDED PRESENCE IN GUAM
Question 11. The Joint Guam Program Office is working with a number
of agencies in preparing for an expanded military presence on Guam.
Although veterans on Guam receive in-patient and certain out-patient
services from the Naval Hospital on Guam, the Department of Veterans
Affairs is not included in the planning.Why has the VA not been
involved in the planning deliberations?
Answer. The interagency task force formed under the auspices of the
Department of Interior led Interagency Group on Insular Affairs (IGIA)
developed five working groups. The Health and Human Service working
group, led by the Department of Health and Human Services with the
Department of the Navy's Bureau of Medicine (BUMED) as a working group
participant, has recently identified veterans' care on Guam as a
concern and is reaching out to the VA to address the issues.
SERVICES FOR VETERANS AT GUAM NAVAL HOSPITAL
Question 12. Currently the Naval Hospital serves an estimated 1,500
veterans. Services provided to veterans and the reimbursements paid by
VA to the Naval Hospital are not considered in the hospital's budget or
in the planning for a new hospital. Veterans requiring specialty care
may be denied services by the Naval Hospital due to lack of providers,
such as dermatologists. Private providers do not exist for many
specialties.What actions can be taken to assure that services to
veterans will not be further degraded as additional servicemembers and
their families are added to the treatment population?
Answer. USNH Guam is resourced to provide healthcare for active
duty and TRICARE Prime enrollees. The VA clinic, which manages the
primary care for 1500 beneficiaries, and USNH Guam have an agreement
for USNH Guam to provide available inpatient and outpatient services
for referred veterans on a space available, reimbursable basis.
Prior to implementing any options, a detailed healthcare
requirement analysis for the veterans must be performed. It is
recommended that this include analysis of requirements for federal
employees and contract workers (eligible to receive healthcare at the
MTF) required for support of military build-up and the forecasted
number of active duty Guard and Tricare Reserve Select (TRS) personnel.
Options for consideration include:
1. VA increase necessary healthcare resources locally to
provide needed services for veteran population based on current
and forecasted disease management.
2. VA examines the possibility of agreements with accredited
facilities in the region, Philippines and Thailand, to provide
specialist and sub-specialist healthcare not available at USNH
Guam or in the local community.
3. Modification of USNH Guam's mission to include provision
of services to veterans and other personnel noted in option 1
on a non-space available basis, with allocation of additional
resources devoted to facilities, staffing and equipment.
4. Combining options 1 and 3 in a joint venture.
ON ADDING A PSYCHIATRIST TO GUAM NAVAL HOSPITAL STAFF
Question 13. As of last year, the Naval Hospital had no
psychiatrist on staff and no plans to add a psychiatrist to the staff.
Many servicemembers are reported to have incurred mental health
conditions as the result of their combat service.Have any plans been
developed to add psychiatric and other mental health professionals to
serve the expected increase in servicemembers and families relocating
to Guam.
Answer. Naval Hospital Guam is manned with two psychiatrists (one
of which has been deployed over the last two years) and one clinical
psychologist. Other mental health assets include a contracted social
worker who can provide psychotherapy, four psychiatric technicians who
can assist with intake surveys of mental health patients, and three
substance abuse counselors.
This level of staffing meets the current demand and needs of the
active duty and dependent community. The projected increase in
beneficiaries from all military services will likely result in an
increased demand signal for mental health providers, ancillary staff,
and social services. Health Care Requirements Analysis (HCRA) will
drive resourcing the future mental health care needs.
FUNDING NEEDED TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE TO IMMIGRANT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
AND FAMILIES
Question 14. It is anticipated that a large number of foreign
construction workers, possibly with families will be relocating to Guam
to assist in developing the infrastructure to accommodate the
relocating servicemembers and their families. Some of these may need
health care. The community clinics on Guam are already feeling the
influx of immigrants with no alternative source of health care.What
assistance is needed to provide the resources necessary to address the
health care needs of these workers and their families.
Answer. While it is not anticipated the foreign construction
workers will bring family members to Guam, health care for those
workers supporting the Guam military construction program is a concern.
We are currently working with private industry partners that provide
logistical support for workforces in remote locations around the world
to find solutions for health care and other issues associated with
bringing a large number of foreign construction workers to Guam.
Response of General David Bice to Question From Senator Murkowski
SUITABILITY OF VISA WAIVER IN THE 2008 CONSOLIDATED NATURAL RESOURCES
ACT
Question 15. On April 29, 2008, the House passed the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act, which included, among other things, a waiver of
the H-2B visa caps for temporary workers in Guam and the Mariana
Islands. General, you mentioned in your testimony that large amounts of
temporary workers will be needed for the military and civilian
construction projects between now and 2014 and that the Guam workforce
can not supply sufficient labor. Will the enactment of this visa waiver
provision sufficiently address the military's workforce needs over the
next six years? Is anything further needed in terms of legislation to
ensure that you have the skilled labor that you need for this buildup?
Answer. The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, Pub. L.
110-229, contains provisions changing the immigration laws of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). Among the
changes, the Act provides for a waiver of the cap on H visas, including
the H2B visa used by skilled construction workers, for Guam and CNMI.
This waiver becomes effective with the start of the transition period,
which begins in the first full month one year after the passage of the
act, or May 1, 2009, and extends through December 31, 2014. An
extension of the transition period beyond December 31, 2014 and the
associated H visa waiver cap is possible, but only for CNMI. This
provision will address concerns associated with securing qualified
skilled construction workers through the transition period.
______
Response of Brian J. Lepore to Question From Senator Bingaman
It was a pleasure to appear before the Committee on May 1, 2008, to
discuss civilian impacts from the proposed military buildup on Guam.\1\
This letter responds to your request that I provide answers to
questions for the record for the hearing. The questions and my answers
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Planning Efforts for the Proposed
Military Buildup on Guam Are in Their Initial Stages, With Many
Challenges Yet To Be Addressed, GAO-08-722T (Washington, D.C.: May 1,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1a. Mr. Lepore, on page 19 of your testimony you note that
the initial estimate for the cost of civilian infrastructure and
services to address the buildup was $3 billion, but that these cost
estimates and figures are incomplete, and not verified or validated.
You also stated that GAO will be reporting to Congress on its ongoing
review of the buildup. Will GAO's ongoing review include: validation of
the cost estimates for civilian infrastructure; an assessment of Guam's
planning and management capacity; and an evaluation of Guam's capacity
to finance projects?
Question 1b. Do you believe this information would be useful?
Answer. Our ongoing review of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
overseas infrastructure master plans and master planning efforts for
Guam will not include a validation of the cost estimates for civilian
infrastructure, an assessment of Guam's planning and management
capacity, or an evaluation of Guam's capacity to finance projects
because these areas fall outside of the scope of our current review
mandated by the Senate reports accompanying the military construction
appropriation bills for fiscal years 2004 and 2007.\2\ In response to
the mandate, we are determining (1) the extent DOD's fiscal year 2009
master plans reflect recent changes in U.S. overseas basing strategies
and address the challenges DOD faces in implementing its plans; (2) the
status of DOD's planning effort for the buildup of military forces and
infrastructure on Guam; and (3) the extent DOD has identified and
addressed its infrastructure and funding requirements, training needs,
and other challenges associated with the proposed military buildup on
Guam. We believe that information on the validity of the civilian
infrastructure cost estimates, Guam's planning and management capacity,
and Guam's capacity to finance projects would be useful to the Congress
in carrying out its oversight responsibilities and to DOD, other
federal departments and agencies, and the government of Guam to plan
for and address the civilian infrastructure challenges and associated
financial challenges from the proposed military buildup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ S. Rep. No. 108-82, at 13-14 (2003) and S. Rep. No. 109-286, at
15 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response of Brian J. Lepore to Question From Senator Murkowski
Question 2. On April 29, 2008, the House passed the Consolidated
Natural Resources Act, which included, among other things, a waiver of
the H-2B visa caps for temporary workers in Guam and the Mariana
Islands. You mentioned in your testimony that large amounts of
temporary workers will be needed for the military and civilian
construction projects between now and 2014 and that the Guam workforce
cannot supply sufficient labor. Will the enactment of this visa waiver
provision sufficiently address the military's workforce needs over the
next six years? Is anything further needed in terms of legislation to
ensure that DOD has the skilled labor needed for this buildup?
Answer. Section 1184(g)(1)(B) of Title 8, U.S. Code, provides that
no more than 66,000 H-2B visas may be issued to qualified foreign
workers each fiscal year.\3\ However, under the Consolidated Natural
Resources Act of 2008, during an initial period that begins
approximately 1 year after enactment but which may be delayed 180 days
and that ends December 31, 2014, qualified nonimmigrant workers may be
admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
(CNMI) under the H-2B visa process established pursuant to the
Immigration and Nationality Act\4\without counting against the
numerical limitation referenced above.\5\ After the initial period ends
on December 31, 2014, this temporary exemption from the overall
numerical limitation expires.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The H-2B category applies to residents of foreign countries who
are coming to the United States temporarily to perform nonagricultural
temporary labor or service if unemployed persons capable of performing
such labor or service are unable to be found in the United States (8
U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(B)). For additional regulations
pertinent to the issuance of H-2B visas, see also 8 C.F.R. Sec.
214.2(h).
\4\ 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 et. seq.
\5\ The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 also provides
for a temporary exemption from the overall numerical limitations on
various kinds of H-1B visas under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1184(g)(1)(A).
\6\ See GAO, COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS: Pending
Legislation Would Apply U.S. Immigration Law to the CNMI with a
Transition Period, GAO-08-466 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to officials from DOD's Joint Guam Program Office--the
office established to plan and execute the military buildup on Guam--
this temporary exemption from the overall numerical limitation on H-2B
visas addresses the department's concerns associated with securing
construction workers needed during the next 6 years. According to these
officials, a further statutory change may be needed if construction
extends beyond this period.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Nikolao I. Pula From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. I understand that non-defense federal agencies may not
have the funding needed to participate in the NEPA process and keep
this timeline on schedule. Please briefly describe the efforts of the
Environment Working Group to address this problem, and what the
solution appears to be?
Question 2. On page five of your testimony you identify port
facilities, key roads, and worker barracks as projects of critical
concern--they must be completed before construction can begin. Has
planning reached the point that fund for these critical projects has
been identified?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: I apologize for being unable to attend the
Senate Energy Committee's May 1, 2008 hearing on the military build-up
on Guam, and the impact on the civilian community, planning, and
response. I was fulfilling my duty as required by CNMI law and
informing the CNMI Legislature of my activities in Washington during
the previous year.
Please accept this statement which I have compiled with comments
and suggestions from the members of the Tinian Legislative Delegation,
for the record.
Sincerely,
PEDRO A. TENORIO,
Resident, Representative.
Statement of Pedro A. Tenorio, Resident Representative, Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands
Thank you for allowing me to submit this statement on the military
buildup on Guam, as a result of the upcoming transfer of the 3rd Marine
Expeditionary Forces from Okinawa.
The world is rapidly changing and countries that were once
inconsequential to our national consciousness are now major players in
the global economy. The nations comprising the Asian continent
represent both partners and threats to our economy and to national
security.
The transfer of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Forces from Okinawa to
Guam is a relatively short move of about 1400 miles. However, this
transfer should be seen as an opportunity for our entire nation to
adjust its perceptions and assumptions. Guam and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands have for some time been viewed as
insignificant insular possessions in the backwaters of the Pacific.
This is an opportunity for these islands to be seen as America's face
to Asia.
Right now that face, as far as the CNMI is concerned, is not an
image this great nation wants the world to see, and I look forward to
having many discussions with this committee on how things can be
improved. For today I would like to focus on direct impacts of this
upcoming transfer.
When the Marianas Political Status Commission was negotiating the
Covenant, we agreed to 100 year leases for 17,800 acres of land on
Tinian and the island of Farallon de Medinilla for $983 and $100 per
acre, respectively. We agreed to these bargain basement prices on these
long term leases because of the anticipation of a permanent military
presence that would provide consistent economic activity that would
form the basis of our economy. Unfortunately we were negotiating in a
post-Vietnam era and military expansion turned out not to be a
politically viable option. In other words, the proposed military
project never became a reality and this valuable land on Tinian has
never delivered the economic promise that we expected.
The U.S. still holds the lease, and I urge the Department of
Defense to find a more constructive and permanent use of this land. I
have strongly urged DOD to establish a permanent training facility on
Tinian, and the CNMI would be open to other types of permanent
installations. This request is nothing new. My predecessor, the
Honorable CNMI Resident Representative Juan N. Babauta, made several
requests to Congress and DOD to establish a continuous presence in
Tinian in hopes of spurring economic activity (please see letter to
Secretary Rumsfeld). The Tinian leadership has also made numerous
similar appeals over the years. Yet, at the date of today's hearing,
more than twenty-five years after the land acquisition agreement,
practically nothing has been done leaving a full two-thirds of the
island of Tinian to remain fallow. I believe that if DOD does not
develop concrete plans for the use of their land on Tinian, Congress
should declare these lands as ``surplus property'' and be returned to
the CNMI.
It is encouraging hearing that studies for the entire region are
being conducted and the feasibility of a ``warm base'' in Tinian is
being proposed which would require the construction of temporary
structures and ensuring some sort of military presence. However, the
people of the CNMI deserve more concrete plans rather than mere
concepts in order to properly plan and prepare. Also, while a recurring
temporary presence by the military in Tinian would be helpful, a
permanent presence would ensure sustained economic activity and
validate the long-term lease agreement.
Prior to the actual relocation of Marines to Guam, the CNMI stands
ready and willing to assist as the U.S. military carries out this
immense relocation process. The CNMI has many resources that may be
used to support construction, transportation and lodging during the
relocation infrastructure improvement phase. One possibility could
include using our construction companies to prefabricate concrete
panels to be used for military buildings and houses then having them
shipped to Guam. This practice was applied years ago when concrete
panels were prepared in Guam before being shipped to Saipan to build
the Naval Administration's offices and homes.
Other factors that I urge this committee to consider and assist the
good people of the Commonwealth on are:
1. Increased monitoring of the volcanoes on the northern
islands of the Marianas Archipelago. They present a threat to
commercial and military air traffic, potential military
exercises, and the public health as ash and sulfur dioxide gas
are frequently carried by winds to the populated islands of
Saipan, Tinian, Rota and Guam. The lack of a monitoring system
also inhibits economic development and any prospective
resettlement to these islands. (please see attached letter to
Senator Feinstein)
2. Amending the authorizing legislation for the Office of
Economic Adjustment to include the CNMI so that we can pursue
funding in anticipation of the impact of the buildup. (please
see draft amendment)
3. Funding for the rehabilitation, repair and improvements to
the Tinian harbor, a joint use facility as agreed to in the
Covenant. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates the repairs at
$25.5 million.
4. In addition, the leadership of the island of Tinian has
several concerns regarding the use of the military retention
area. These include the location of solid waste and waste water
treatment facilities on military land, designation of grazing
and agricultural areas nears the retention areas, and
reimbursement of the water studies cost. The Tinian
municipality owes $1.3 million to the U.S. Geological Survey
for exploratory water wells drilled throughout the 1990s, many
of which were drilled within the retention area. Since the
military plans to use the northern half of Tinian for training
purposes, we are requesting payment to the USES be shared
between the Municipality of Tinian and the U.S. military.
I look forward to further dialogue with the U.S. military and this
committee.
Thank you.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariarn Islands,
Office of the Resident Representative to the United States,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2001.
Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld,
1000 Defense, The Pentagon Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: The Northern Mariana Islands, which I represent
here in Washington, have an important role in the US defense posture in
the western Pacific. One of our islands, Farallon de Mendenilla, serves
for air and naval target practice. Another, Tinian, is leased in large
part to the US military and is used for amphibious assault exercises.
Offshore our island of Saipan, US prepositioned ships stand ready for
deployment in the event of emergency in the Asian region.
The Northern Marianas are proud of our role in national defense and
are willing to do more, which is my immediate reason for writing.
Press reports this week indicate that pressures continue to build
within the Japanese government for a reduction of US military presence
on Okinawa.
Governor Keiichi Inamine raised the issue in a public forum for the
first time and additionally suggested that US military activities could
be shifted to Guam.
I would like to bring to your attention the lands controlled by the
US military on the island of Tinian and their availability as another
site to which some activities currently undertaken in Okinawa could
potentially be moved.
While it is the case that there has been discussion of the Tinian
tease being voided in order to make room for economic development on
the island, a substantial US military presence there would equally
address the desire of Tinian's residents for increased economic
activity.
Long term decisions about the place of Okinawa in US defense
strategy are, I'm sure, highly complex. I wanted, however, to be sure
that alternatives in addition to Guam, such as those provided by
locations in the Northern Marianas, are fully considered.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Juan N. Babauta,
Resident Representative.
U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Office of the Resident Representative,
Washington DC, April 4, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Chairwoman, Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Feinstein: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands is an archipelago of 14 islands in the Western Pacific. While
only three islands, Saipan, Rota and Tinian, are permanently inhabited,
two of the others, Anatahan and Pagan are no longer inhabited because
of their active volcanoes which additionally pose various threats to
the region. The Anatahan Volcano is in a state of continuous gas and
ash emission after a dramatic explosive awakening in 2003 and Pagan was
evacuated during a major eruption in 1981 and has not been resettled.
During the winter months northerly winds become laden with sulfur
dioxide gas (S02) and ash particulates from Anatahan causing a public
health concern to people with respiratory problems on Saipan and Guam
to the south. Eruptions dispel volcanic ash into the air which pose a
considerable threat to some 10,000 airline passengers who transit the
region each day (ingestion of volcanic ash has caused in-flight engine
failures over Indonesia and Alaska), and could interfere with planned
military exercises in the region arising from the Department of Defense
military buildup on Guam. Potential volcanic activity prevents the
resettlement and the development of the economic potential for
geothermal energy and ecotourism on Pagan.
After the 2003 eruption, the USGS Volcano Hazards Program (VHP)
installed 3 seismic stations on Anatahan to monitor its activity.
Unfortunately one of these stations has since been buried in ash and
the remaining two provide only enough data to detect the onset of
eruptions but not enough to forecast eruptive activity. Seismic data
from these stations are telemetered to CNMI's Emergency Management
Office (EMO) in Saipan, where the USGS also maintains an SO2 monitoring
system, in partnership with EMO. Pagan is currently not monitored.
Because of heavy commitments to ongoing eruptions in Alaska, Hawaii,
and Washington, the USGS has not been able to expand its monitoring by
installing or replacing equipment in the Marianas.
Nothing can be safely done on the island of Pagan or around the
island of Anatahan and the health and safety of tens of thousands of
others in the regions are at risk until these two volcanoes are
properly monitored to provide data for an early warning system. This
gives urgency to the establishment of a Northern Mariana Islands
Volcano Observatory (NMIVO).
I respectfully request your committee to provide an additional $1M
every year in the USGS budget to fund the installation and maintenance
of adequate seismic monitoring networks on Anatahan and Pagan
volcanoes. These networks, together with the ongoing satellite remote
sensing and geological analyses by USGS scientists, would provide to
the CNMI (as well as FAA, NWS, and DOD): (1) forecasts and warnings of
volcanic eruptions; (2) reports of current activity status; (3) hazard
assessments for use in guiding development of the islands; (4) a web
site that makes much of the data available to the public in real time;
(5) close cooperation with CNMI officials, providing objective
scientific advice on volcano hazard issues; and (6) opportunities for
science education outreach and for science field experiences for local
college students.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
PEDRO A. TENORIO,
Resident Representative.
______
Members of United States Congress
We the citizens for peace and justice on Guam voice our concern
over the scheduled transfer of 8000 U.S. Marines and the increased
military buildup on Guam and the Asia/Pacific region post-September 11,
2001.
We believe that increased militarization will put our families,
friends, and relatives who are living on Guam in harm's way rather than
provide safety and stability. We voice our concern about the recent US
policy and actions that would make our island home more of a target.
These actions include the following: the planned expansion of runways
on Guam, the presence of B-2 bombers, joint military exercises taking
place on aircraft carriers near Guam, and the greater naval presence
including the planned expansion of naval military facilities with more
nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.
We the citizens for peace and justice acknowledge that the US
military policy is related to U.S. economic policy, in which the
valuation of the Chinese currency not being tied to the U.S. dollar,
the huge trade imbalance that the US has with China, and the Chinese
owning a significant portion of the US debt through purchase of US
treasury bonds in order to support the US insatiable appetite for
Chinese products, has put the US economically vulnerable.
We the citizens for peace and justice on Guam know first hand the
impacts of war on our families, and we believe that conflicts should,
first and foremost, be resolved peacefully.
We acknowledge that the US, as the administering power, has both
the moral and legal responsibility to protect the human rights to self-
determination of the Chamorros, the indigenous people of Guam. As
determined by the UN, increased militarization and lack of consent by
the Chamorro people, infringes upon the right to self-determination.
We call upon the support of local, national, and international
communities to urge our leaders to:
stop the export and import of weapons, warfare technology,
and to discontinue military exercises
promote peaceful resolution of differences
ensure informed consent and the human rights of the Chamorro
people
put on hold indefinitely the military buildup on Guam and in
the Asia/Pacific region
Sincerely,
Malia Abulencia, Guam; Charissa Aguon, Guam; Heavan
Aguon, Guam; Julian Aguon, Guam; Roque N.
Aguon, Guam; Bernie Aguon-Hernandez, Guam;
Timothy Jay Alcon, Guam; Maya Alons, Guam;
Angella Alvarez-Forbes, Guam; Frank Arceo,
Guam; Kacy Arceo-Muna, Guam; Antonio Artero
Sablan, Guam; Brandon Babao Cruz, Guam; Leo
Babauta, Guam; Lisa Baza, Guam; Antoinette
F. Blas, Guam; Christie Blas Sellers, Guam;
Carlo J.N. Branch, Guam; Keith L. Camacho,
Guam; Michael Camacho, Guam; Leonard
Casambros Leynes,Guam; Fanai Castro, Guam;
Robert N. Celestial, Guam; Hoi Yin Chan,
Guam; Norita K. Charfauros, Guam; Karen N.
Charfauros, Guam; Anelle Cristobal, Guam;
Erisa Cristobal, Guam; Hope Cristobal,
Guam; Jesse Cruz, Guam; Lawrence J.
Cunningham, Guam; Art De Oro, Guam; Macylyn
S. Duenas, Guam; Devin-Shane Duenas, Guam;
Asherdee Duenas, Guam; Sirena Duenas, Guam;
Flora Duenas, Guam; David Enoch Gee II,
Guam; Alana Fejerang, Guam; Jan Furukawa,
Guam; Barbara Guerrero Cepeda, Guam; Jessie
Gumabon, Guam; Gary Heathcote, Guam;
Marianna Hernandez, Guam; William
Hernandez, Guam; Josphine C. Jackson, Guam;
Victoria M. Leon Guerrero, Guam; Michael
Liberatore, Guam; Lily Llaneta, Guam; Dave
Lotz, Guam; Jeremy Lujan Bevacqua, Guam;
Lillian Manglona, Guam; Mark Manglona,
Guam; Yvonne Manglona, Guam; Marcus Allen
Manglona, Guam; Mason Allan Manglona, Guam;
Anita Manibusan, Guam; Eric Manibusan,
Guam; Tanya Manibusan, Guam; Danielle
Marie, Guam; Frank Martinez, Guam; Shannon
Murphy, Guam; Lisa Linda Natividad, Guam;
Barbara F. Nauta, Guam; James Oelke, Guam;
Peter R. Onedera, Guam; Ebony Paulino,
Guam; Filamore Palomo Alcon, Guam; Jacob M.
Perez, Guam; Madonna Perez, Guam; Robert
Perez, Guam; Dominic Perez, Guam; Anne
Perez Hattori, Guam; Ed Pocaigue, Guam;
Debbie Quinata, Guam; Allan Quinata, Guam;
Frank B. Rabon, Guam; Arlene Rivera Cura,
Guam; Christine Roberto, Guam; Patrick
Sablan, Guam; Patrick J. Sablan, Guam;
Patria Sablan, Guam; Alma Salalila, Guam;
Marilyn C. Salas, Guam; Sean R. Sanchez,
Guam; Jamela A. Santos, Guam; Brian Santos,
Guam; Angela Santos, Guam; Brandon-Scott
Santos, Guam; Tatiana Santos Guam; Kie
Susuico Guam; John Susuico, Guam; Rita S.
Susuico, Guam; Mana Tafuga Tainatongo,
Guam; Barbara Tainatongo, Guam; Michael
Taitague Mesa, Guam; AbuRose Taitingfong,
Guam; Trini Torres, Guam; Anthony A. Vigil,
Jr., Guam; Robyn J. Wells, Guam; Ellen M.T.
Wells, Guam; Robert J. Wells, Guam; Louise
Benally, Arizona; Aaron Naputi Smith,
Arizona; Manuel Pino, Arizona; Anthony M.
Anderson, California; AngelaBau,
California; Harvey A. Baum, California;
Erica Benton, California; Jon Blas,
California; William E. Boatman, Jr.,
California; Vivian Bryan, California;
Charleen Caabay, California; Michael S.
Campos, California; Shauna Castro,
California; Frank Castro, California;
Trinita Cataluna-Saldana, California;
Martha Cavazos, California; Joannie Chang,
California; Mijoung Chang, California;
Marilyn Cornwell, California; Robert
Cortez, California; Hope Antoinette
Cristobal, California; Mike Cruz,
California; Tina Cruz California; Adrian
Cruz, California; Gwen D'Arcangelis,
California; Norma I. Del Rio, California;
Davin Diaz, California; Vicente P. Diaz,
Jr., California; Martha Duenas, California;
Kalikia Dugger, California; Khoan Duong
California; James Eilers, California; Fred
Fermin, California; Roslynn Flores,
California; Ross Frank, California; Jose
Fuste California; Jeanette Gandionco Lazam,
California; Patti Garcia California; Teri
Gonzales, California; Donald S. Havis,
California; Alex Heeger, California; Liza
Ibanez, California; Brian John Ignacio,
California; CJ Jiang, California; Keith
Kamasugi, California; Boyoung Kim,
California; Amie Kim, California; Yvette
Koch, California; Emalyn Lapus, California;
Janet Lau, California; Christina Leano,
California; Sun H. Lee, California;
Christine Lipat, California; Michael Lujan
Bevacqua, California; Jack Lujan Bevacqua,
California; Rita Lujan Butler, California;
Josette Marie Lujan Quinata, California;
Kristan M. Lynch, California; Trisha
Manibusan, California; Martha Matsuoka,
California; Tita Mesa-Smith, California;
Wayne Miller, California; Jesse Mills,
California; June Miyamoto, California;
Nobuko Mizoguchi, California; Roy Molina,
California; Marie Morohoshi, California;
Markley Morris, California; Joi Morton-
Wiley, California; Lesli Mosley,
California; Dason Murakami, California;
Leiana Naholowaa, California; Kerri Ann
Naputi Borja, California; Tiffany-Rose
Naputi Lacsado, California; Michael Novick,
California; Jacqueline Orpilla, California;
Susan Ozawa, California; Alison Paskal,
California; Alfred Peredo Flores, Jr.,
California; Sabina Perez, California; Peter
J. Perez, California; Dr. Michael P. Perez,
California; Thomas Phelan, California; Jo
Ann Quenga Ignacio, California; Ana
Richards, California; Nick Richards,
California; Stefanie Ritoper, California;
Amy Elizabeth Robinson, California; Natasha
Saelua, California; Joevana Santos,
California; Rita Setpaul, California; Alma
Soongi Beck, California; Destiny Tedtaotao,
California; Desiree Thompson, California;
Jesse Torres, California; Thu-ha Tran,
California; Michael Tuncap, California;
Joyce Umamoto, California; Amy Vanderwaker,
California; Karen Villanueva, California;
Tammy Vo, California; Teresa Vo California;
Thomas Vo, California; Sottolin Weng,
California; Sharon Yamanaka, California; J.
Kehualani Kauanui, Ph.D., Connecticut; Yi-
Chun Tricia Lin, Connecticut; September
Hopkins, Georgia; Alexis Kargl, Georgia;
Nancy Aleck, Hawaii; Johanna F. Almiron,
Hawaii; Robert F. Bevacqua, Ph.D., Hawaii;
Norman Brindo-Vas, Hawaii; Kate Bryant-
Greenwood, Hawaii; Laura Edmunds, Hawaii;
Ronald Fujiyoshi, Hawaii; Kari Gerardo,
Hawaii; Virginia Hench, Hawaii; Kawika
Huihui Ka'ai, Hawaii; Kari Kaloi, Hawaii;
Terrilee Keko'olani Ku'e Ho'omau, Hawaii;
Jasmine King, Hawaii; Liula Kotaki Hawaii;
Patricia, Malia Kekoolani-Tully, Hawaii;
Julia Matsui Estrella, Hawaii; Doris
Oshiro, Hawaii; Brandon Segal, Hawaii;
Susan Serran Hawaii; Pete Shimazaki Doktor,
Hawaii; Maria Smith, Hawaii; Tessie Vo,
Hawaii; Melvin Won Pat-Borja, Hawaii; Minda
Yamaga, Hawaii; Nicole Carroccio, Illinois;
K. Chan, Illinois; Maria Cruz, Illinois;
RoseAna Laguana, Illinois; Mary Ellen,
Rosemeyer, Illinois; Gina Warwick,
Illinois; Angela Smith, Indiana; Willard
Warwick, Indiana; Peggy Warwick, Indiana;
Elizabeth Crowe, Kentucky; Daniel Domaguin,
Kentucky; Bruce Gagnon, Maine; Ellen E.
Barfield, Maryland; Jane Sarah MacFarlane,
Massachussetts; Jonathan J.P. Cabrera,
Massachussetts; Roxana Llerana-Quinn,
Massachussetts; David W. Trimble, Ph.D.,
Massachussetts; Adelwisa L. Agas Weiler,
Michigan; Ana Bautista, Michigan; Kealani
Cook, Michigan; Vince Diaz, Michigan; Cara
Flores Mays, Michigan; Monica Kim,
Michigan; Ijun Lai, Michigan; Cynthia
Marasigan ,Michigan; Nadine Naber,
Michigan; Dean Saranillio, Michigan; Sarita
See, Michigan; Christine Taitano DeLisle,
Michigan; Lani Teves, Michigan; Ahimsa
Timoteo Bodhran, Michigan; Floyd Sands,
Nevada; Roderick Ventura, New Mexico; Karen
Balogh, New York; Tressa P. Diaz, New York;
Kelly Dietz, New York; Melissa Francisco,
New York; Adrianna, Garriga Lopez, New
York; Amanda Gima, New York; Donna Hofsess,
New York; Ron Hofsess, New York; Elaine
Kim, New York; Thea Tagle, New York; Daniel
Tam-Claiborne, New York; Amelia Toledo, New
York; Kim Strong, North Carolina; Rebecca,
Weaver-Hightower, North Dakota; Yoshiko
Ikuta, Ohio; Kim Meinert, Ohio; Laurel
Monnig, Ohio; C. Tolentino, Ohio; Jerry
Ledesma, Oregon; Jaye Sablan, Oregon; Tammy
Vo, Oregon; Ismael Guadalupe Ortiz, Puerto
Rico; Robert Rabin Siegal, Puerto Rico;
Catherine Lutz, Rhode Island; Dan Taulapapa
McMullin, Samoa; Lara Cushing, Texas; Bryan
Gumabon, Texas; Jill Johnston, Texas;
Eduardo Longoria, Texas; Helen Dolores S.
Onedera, Texas; Charles P.S. Onedera,
Texas; Genaro Rendon, Texas; Ruben Solis,
Texas; Dr. Jeffrey Geiger,United Kingdom;
Trinisha B. Paxton, Virginia; Ursula
Herrera, Washington; Marie Hyatt,
Washington; Maria Eugenia Leon, Guerrero,
Washington; Marian Macapinlac, Washington;
Vince Bernard Queja Manibusan, Washington;
Juan Quintanilla, Washington; Doreen Grace
San Nicolas, Washington; Annette Brownlie,
Australia; Denis Doherty, Australia; Dr.
Zohl de Ishtar, Australia; Vikki John,
Australia; Andrew Johnson, Australia;
Tracey Makamae, Australia; Diane
Williamson, Australia; Vanessa Ingle
Warheit, Canada; Anna Phillips, Canada; Gus
Kaipat, CNMI; Peter Emberson, Fiji; Marie-
Pierre Hazera, Fiji; Rex Rumakiek, Fiji;
Ema Tagicakibau, Fiji; Luse Tamani, Fiji;
Tupou Vere, Fiji; Axel Bietz, Germany; Dr.
D. Roy Laifungbam, India; Masahiko Aoki,
Japan; Yasukatsu Matsushima, Japan; Tadashi
Okanouchi, Japan; Yoshikazu Makishi
Okinawa, Japan; Rin Shimabukuro, Okinawa
Japan; Sunao Tobaru, OkinawaJapan; Hideki
Yoshikwa, Okinawa Japan; Shoko Oshiro,
Okinawa Japan; Myrla B. Baldonado,
Philippines; Mary Ann Manahan, Philippines;
Bobby Montemayor, Philippines; Corazon
Valdez-Fabros, Philippines; O'lola Ann
Zamora Olib, Philippines; David Cano,
Spain; Mia Eriksson, Sweden; Hillary,
Acfalle; Arianna, Agustin; James Agustin;
Ann Ames; Krystle Arceo; Robert Arizala;
Robert F. Armstrong; Karl Bandemer; Ellen
Bepp; Alejandra Bergemann; Ramon Calhoun;
Sean Casey; Antoinette Charfauros; McDaniel
Jullyn Chargualaf; Brian Chen; Will
Chiapella; C.S. Corona; Jenna Crisostomo;
Maria G. Cruz; JacobCruz; Cathy Dang; Lisa
De Mello; Adam Paul Diego; Michelle Dimeo;
Herbert Docena; Joseph A. Galura;
RicahGuzman; A.M. Hart; Jason Hofsess;
David W. Holtzen; Joanne Hsu; Mark Kelker;
Francis Kintz; Krissi Koch; Emily Leach;
Rashne Limki; Rebekah Logan; Jesse Lokahi
Heiwa; Maria Manglona; Claire Manglona;
Shawn Manglona; Joseph Manglona; Lourdes
Manglona; Marisol Mangual; Karlene
Mantanona; Frank Martinez; Lauren Mazur;
Gwendolyn Mendiola; Nicholas E. Merz; Brad
Millhouse; Kimi Mojica; Angela Morrill;
Sherlina Nageer; Susan Najita; Sr. Chau
Ngheim; Nate Nill; Mo Nishida; Norine
Nishimura; Edward O'Connor; Barbara
O'Malley; Stacey Parsons; J. Podis; Mary
Prophet; Joann Ptaszynski; Hope Punsalan;
Susan Riva Enteen; Elizabeth Rodrigues;
Janet Rosen; Kiri Sailata; Arlene Salas;
Roberta Sharples; Jessica Smith; Mari Rose
Taruc; Laurie Tochiki; Xavier Turner; Ilana
Turoff; Christopher Unchangco; Marlena
Vergara; Thomas R. Wasson; Sally Webber;
Michael Whang; Abbey Wolfe; Huei-Chen Yan;
David Zebker.
______
To: Members of the United States Congress
We, the undersigned, oppose the fact that the people of Guam have
not been included in the deliberations of the U.S. government and its
elite partners regarding the scheduled transfer of 8,000 U.S. Marines
from Okinawa to Guam as part of a major explosion of the U.S. military
personnel population on Guam, now set at 35,000. This buildup will have
enormous environmental, social, cultural, long-term economic and
political consequences in our community. Currently, a host of issues
i.e. radioactive contaminations that cause record-high rates of cancers
and dementia-related illness that have yet to be addressed by the same
military now expanding its presence in Guam. The way in which the
current military buildup is happening calls attention to a harmful
power imbalance between the U.S. federal government and Guam, which
must be addressed.
Sincerely,
Blaine Afaisen, Guam; Josita B. Aguon, Guam; Julian
Aguon, Guam; Annette Aguon, Guam; Paul
Aguon, Guam; Antonio Artero Sablan, Guam;
Lisa Baza, Guam; Carmen Borja, Guam; Mar-
Vic Cagurangan, Guam; Patrick Camacho,
Guam; Julius Cena, Guam; Hoi Yin Jessica
Chan, Guam; Norita K. Charfauros, Guam;
Elle Craigq, Guam; Adrian Cruz, Guam;
Lourdes B. Cruz, Guam; Lawrence J.
Cunningham, Guam; Vivian Dames, Guam; Brida
Davis, Guam; Moneka De Oro, Guam; Macylyn
Duenas, Guam; Sirena Duenas, Guam; Eileen
Escalera, Guam; Timothy Fedenko ,Guam;
Monaeka Flores, Guam; Cathy SN Flores,
Guam; Angel Garces, Guam; Anthony C.
Garces, Guam; Angela Garcia Lorenzo, Guam;
Gary Heathcote, Guam; Christine Hecita,
Guam; William Hernandez, Guam; Lourdes B.
Hongyee, Guam; Omar O. Jarquin, Guam;
Shirley Lee, Guam; Mildred Lujan, Guam;
Joseph V. Lujan, Guam; Jonathan Daniel
McIntyre Toves ,Guam; April Manibusan,
Guam; Charissa Manibusan Aguon, Guam; Lee
Martinez, Guam; Kenneth J. Mesa, Guam;
Jennifer Muna Aguon, Guam; Antonette Muna-
Santos, Guam; Chelsa D. Muna-Brecht, Guam;
Shannon Murphy, Guam; Jessica Nangauta,
Guam; James Nangauta, Guam; LisaLinda
Natividad, Guam; Dominic Perez, Guam;
Celeste Perez Mercado, Guam; James Perez
Viernes, Guam; Debbie Quinata, Guam; Allan
Quinata, Guam; Cheryl Ann Quintanilla,
Guam; Kaitlin Reed, Guam; Leslie Reynolds
Guam; Daniel L. Robertson, Guam; Gene
Rojas, Guam; Angela Sablan, Guam; Peter-
Joseph San Nicolas, Guam; Susanna Schlub,
Guam; Lucas A. Storts, Guam; Salome
Taijeron, Guam; Christina Thai Serencio,
Guam; William Topasna, Guam; Trini Torres,
Guam; Ana Maria Won Pat-Borja, Guam; Melvin
Won Pat-Borja, Guam; Melanie Aguon Chaney,
California; Bernadette Balauro, California;
Erica Benton, California; Deena Benton,
California; Keith L. Camacho, California;
Barbara Cepeda-Adams, California; Annabelle
L. Cruz, California; Amanda D'Ambrosio-
Akau, California; Martha Duenas Baum,
California; Lisa Fu, California; Jordan
Gonzalez, California; Migetu Gumataotao
Tuncap, California; Alex Heeger,
California; Suzanne Joi, California; Miho
Kim, California; Dr. Christopher Knaus,
California; Brandon Lee, California; Sun H.
Lee, California; John Lindsay-Poland,
California; Michael Lujan Bevacqua,
California; Josette Marie Lujan, Quinata
California; Nobuko Mizoguchi, California;
Mo Nishida, California; Marina L. Ortega,
California; David Palaita, California;
Aaron Pedroni, California; Alfred Peredo
Flores, Jr., California; Sabina Perez,
California; Peter J. Perez, California;
Lyle Prijoles, California; Tagi Qolouvaki,
California; Kristen Sajonas, California;
Jamela Santos, California; Masano Seo,
California; Nu'u Tafisi, California;
William Ta'ufo'ou, California; Trangdai
Tranguyen, California; Wesley Ueunten,
California; Robert A. Viernes, California;
Anna Vining, California; Sharon Yamanaka,
California; Monica Spain, Florida; Robert
Akamine, Hawaii; Elsha Bohnert, Hawaii;
Elma Coleman, Hawaii; Donna Davis Hackley,
Hawaii; Stephen Dinion, Hawaii; Dr. Keola
G.A. Downing, Ph.D., Hawaii; Ronald
Fujiyoshi, Hawaii; Yvonne L. Geesey,
Hawaii; Brian Gotanda, Hawaii Kyle
Kajihiro, Hawaii; Rita K. Kanui, Hawaii;
Malina Koani-Guzman, Hawaii; Brenda Kwon,
Hawaii; Viviane Lerner, Hawaii; Patricia
Malia Keko'olani, Hawaii; Julia Matsui
Estrella, Hawaii; Rev. Brian J. McCreanor,
Hawaii; Asami Miyazawa, Hawaii; A. Leimaile
Quiteivis, Hawaii; Ann Otteman, Hawaii;
Andre Perez, Hawaii; Barbara Grace Ripple,
M.Div., Hawaii; Adam K. Robinson, Hawaii;
Darlene Rodrigues, Hawaii; Richard M.
Rodrigues, Jr., Hawaii; Puanani Rogers,
Hawaii; Brandon Segal, Hawaii; Pete
Shimazaki Doktor, Hawaii; Evan Silberstein,
Hawaii; Sean Smith, Hawaii; Kihei Soli
Niheu, Hawaii; Michael E. Smith, Hawaii;
Ka'ano'I Walk, Hawaii; Gabrielle Welford,
Hawaii; John Witeck, Hawaii; Maureen Shank,
Indiana; Willard J. Warwick, Indiana; Ellen
E. Barfield, Maryland; Lily Chan,
Massachussetts; Dr. Joseph Gerson,
Massachussetts; Ahimsa Timoteo Bodhran,
Michigan; Joyce Nangauta, New Mexico;
Annmaria Shimabuku, New York; Billie Anne
Walker, North Carolina; Douglas Wingeier,
North Carolina; Yoshiko Ikuta, Ohio;
Chelsea W. Steed, Oregon; Catherine Lutz,
Rhode Island; Jill Johnston, Texas; Ann
Santos, Texas; Elisabeth Hebert, Vermont;
Tommy Benavente, Washington; Professor Rick
Bonus, Washington; David Gumataotao Tuncap,
Washington; Marie E. Hyatt, Washington; Ann
Kittredge, Washington; Chaz Pangelinan,
Washington; Carmen Ramento, Washington;
Davey Tuncap, Washington; Robert Wilmette,
Washington; Terese Tuncap, Washington; Jim
Winkler, Washington, D.C.; Carol L.
Reuther, West Virginia; Jeff Seager, West
Virginia; Heather Bond, Australia; Barb
Crossing, Australia; Julie Edwards,
Australia; Eveline Goy, Australia; Rosemary
House, Australia; Glenn House, Australia;
Morgan King Australia; Laura Kittel,
Australia; Betty McLellan, Australia; Lynda
Moylan, Australia; Liz Olle, Australia;
Angela Piluris, Australia; Mary Robertson,
Australia; Madge Sceriha, Australia; Helen
Sheehy, Australia; Glenn Manglona, CNMI;
Mosmi Bhim, Fiji; Michele McConnell-Wilson,
Fiji; Thomi Tsolme, Indonesia; Ahmad
Abdollahzadeh, Iran; Jun Chisaka, Japan;
Seiko Echigo, Japan; Filo Hirota, Japan;
Kim Hyemija, Japan; Yoshiko Ikuta, Japan;
Fumie Kakita, Japan; Eunja Lee, Japan;
Takenobu Niioka, Japan; Mari Sasabe, Japan;
Daisy Alik-Momotaro Marshall, Islands; Paul
De Rungs, New Zealand; Bonnie Flaws, New
Zealand; Lalita Heymanns, New Zealand;
Edwina Hughes, New Zealand; Maire
Leadbeater, New Zealand; Claire Lefevre,
New Zealand; Hamish Low, New Zealand;
Jennifer Margaret, New Zealand; Ian
Ritchie, New Zealand; Tanja Schwalm, New
Zealand; Nicola Simmonds, New Zealand;
Elena Young, New Zealand; Valtimore Borjel
Fenis, Philippines; Ching Borres,
Philippines; Mariam H. Camaso, Philippines;
Greg Fabros, Philippines; Aleli Marcelino,
Philippines; Sister Arnold Noel,
Philippines; Jesus B. Tardo, Jr.,
Philippines; Corazon Valdez-Fabros,
Philippines; O'lola Ann Zamora Olib,
Philippines; Cheryl Adam; A. Farouk
Alfakhrany; Carlton Baker; Kate Baltazar
Aguon; Malia Bell; Ann Borja; Monica
Brindle; Dianne Burnham; Nick Calo; Edoardo
Carlo Montemayor; Cheryl Cash; Shannan
Chan; Violeta Clet Mendoza; Moira Coleman;
Sarah Cruz; Ernestina Cruz; Sasha Davis;
Herbert Docena; Katharine Dominguez;
Adrianne Earp; Daniel Enskat; Patricia
Fifita; Vanessa Gesto; Peter Guerrero;
Barbara Guerrero Cepeda-Adams; Anthony
Haile Sellassie; Junazon L. Hautea; Ruth
Heeger; Jennifer Hollingshead; QB Keju;
Jasmine King; Marzban P. Limki; Pheroza
Limki; Betty Loumoli; Bong Maglaqui; Amenta
Matthew; Kate McDermott; Jen Mitchell;
Harvey M. Nakamoto, Jr.; Lucien M. Noe;
Madonna Perez; Janie Poe; Hope Punsalan;
Clara Rabauliman; Amy Elizabeth Robinson;
Sharon Rose Dadang; Christina Sablan;
Christopher Santos; Rebecca Serrano; Tanie
L. Suano; Sam Suen; Misipouena Tagaloa;
Jason Taitano; Sophie Taptiklis; Jasmin
Thana; Kozue Uehara; Filifotu Vaai;
Margaret Warwick; Kevin Wehman; William
Whitman; Ahtoy Won Pat-Borja; JoAnn Yoon
Fukumoto.