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


 
   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senators Johnson, Murray, Reed, Nelson, Hutchison, 
Craig, and Brownback.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                         Department of the Army

STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
            OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT WILSON, U.S. ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF, 
            INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT
        MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND CARPENTER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE 
            DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
        BRIGADIER GENERAL JULIA ANN KRAUS, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

    Senator Johnson. This hearing will come to order. I welcome 
everyone to this morning's hearing to discuss the President's 
2009 budget request for military construction for the Army and 
Air Force. We will hear from two panels of witnesses today, 
beginning with representatives from the Army. Secretary Eastin, 
General Wilson, General Carpenter--who is from South Dakota, by 
the way--and General Kraus, thank you for coming today. We look 
forward to your testimony.
    The military construction budget request for the Army this 
year is larger than ever. After nearly doubling last year from 
$2 billion to $4 billion, the active duty Army's 2009 request 
is a record $4.6 billion, an increase of 17 percent over the 
2008 enacted level. Most of this increase can be attributed to 
the ``grow the Army'' initiative to add 74,000 soldiers by 
2013. This initiative, combined with the severe stresses of two 
wars and the long-term strategic realignment, has required 
unprecedented investments in Army construction.
    In light of this large request, it is all the more 
imperative that we closely examine how well the Army is 
executing its military construction program and whether its 
requests are appropriately prioritized to meet our military 
future. One area of particular concern to the committee is the 
deplorable conditions at some permanent party Army barracks, 
including those housing soldiers returning from the war, which 
have recently come to light. The situations that have been 
uncovered are, quite simply, unacceptable and I look forward to 
hearing from our Army witnesses how they intend to address the 
problem.
    Senator Hutchison, would you care to make some opening 
remarks?

               STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

    Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is nice to have the representatives of the Army and the 
Air Force for the second part of our round of hearings on our 
military construction appropriations for this year. I think the 
chairman has mentioned some of the points that I would make, 
but let me just say that I think the emphasis on the Army is 
certainly essential, given that the Army is going to grow its 
end strength by 65,000 active duty, 8,200 National Guard 
soldiers, and 1,000 reservists over the next 5 years, along 
with the consolidation of troops in the United States from 
overseas.
    I do support this increase in end strength. It is the right 
thing to do. So it means that we do have to have the increases 
in military construction to assure the quality of life, which I 
also think is well covered in this appropriations request. You 
have $1.3 billion, an 85 percent increase over last year, on 
quality of life facilities, which I think is absolutely well 
placed.
    The Overseas Basing Commission, as I have said many times, 
is a product of this committee. After traveling through some of 
our bases overseas and seeing the lack of training space, the 
separation, and the costs in foreign bases, we recommended that 
the foreign bases be looked at. In fact, the Department of 
Defense did jump right in and made good solid recommendations 
about moving many of our scattered facilities in Germany and 
Korea, consolidating the ones that did have the need and the 
capability. It will be much more efficient to have our overseas 
bases run more consolidated, as we are doing in the United 
States.
    So the overseas basing issues, the BRAC recommendations, 
and the new global defense posture that focuses on expanded 
allied roles and new partnerships, will allow us to relocate 
our soldiers back to the United States. When the new emphasis 
on global restationing plan for the Army is completed by the 
end of 2011, we should see 90 percent of our U.S. Army forces 
based in the United States. This is a good plan and one our 
service members are counting on. It will provide more 
operational freedom of action, better training, and better 
family support than would be possible otherwise.
    Along with BRAC, it will produce a stronger, more 
deployable, more efficient Army in which vast, but constantly 
stretched, resources of our Army can be used in the most 
efficient manner.
    I want to mention the Army's new modular force plan, which 
will reorganize units into brigade combat teams. The new plan 
calls for five new brigade combat teams that would be stationed 
at Fort Bliss, Fort Stewart, and Fort Carson. I am told that 
the European commander wants to keep two of those BCTs in 
Europe for up to 2 years longer than the Army had originally 
planned. I would like not to see the delay at all. But I hope 
there is a commitment not to make that into a more permanent 
decision, I think the decision to move as many of our Army 
personnel as possible back to the United States, where there is 
a continuity of service and training capabilities, is the right 
decision. I hope that we're not backing off from that in any 
way, despite any European pressure on that account, 
particularly when we have not yet gotten very much cooperation 
from the Europeans in Afghanistan. I would hope that the 
original decision is not in any way being questioned.
    Another area that I want to focus on is joint basing. We 
have the Air Force taking the lead in 6 of the first 12 joint 
basing pilot projects. I don't mean that it would be temporary, 
but the Air Force will be the lead in many of these bases. I 
think that's a good decision because the Air Force is known for 
taking care of its property well and operating well.
    I do want to make sure that certain Army bases like Fort 
Sam Houston, which have quite a history and quite a cultural 
uniqueness, are maintained as what they are, a very historic 
and important part of the Army throughout the years. I think 
the joint base in San Antonio that will be operated by the Air 
Force, putting together Lackland, Randolph, and Fort Sam, is 
probably a good decision, as I said, because the Air Force does 
so well in operating. I'm sure it will be more efficient. But I 
don't want to lose any of the unique history of Fort Sam 
Houston. If somebody suggests that we modernize the old basic 
Fort Sam Houston structures, they're going to have trouble from 
me if I'm still around. So I hope that that would not be 
anything that would be in the offing.
    So with that having been said, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and look forward to hearing the witnesses.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Johnson. I suggest 7-minute rounds for questions.
    Senator Hutchison. Okay.
    Senator Johnson. To our witnesses, thank you again for 
appearing before our committee. Your full prepared statement 
will be entered in the record. Secretary Eastin, please 
proceed.
    Mr. Eastin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief in my 
opening remarks. I'm sure you'd like to get on with questioning 
of us on some of our matters.
    A couple points I would like to make. We are, of course, 
very heavily involved in the BRAC process and we are committed 
to completing the BRAC process on time in September of 2011. To 
do that, however, we would appeal to you to restore about $560 
million to the BRAC account which was decremented last year. 
Without this, it will be nearly impossible to complete many of 
the actions that would take place.
    We've got--and most of these 59 separate actions involved, 
most of them of a reserve nature, reserve centers, National 
Guard activities, are not going to be able to be completed if 
we don't get some restoration of that sort of thing. So we 
appreciate your help in doing that if you can.
    A topic on many people's minds, of course, is what we're 
doing with our barracks situation. General Wilson will discuss 
this in further detail himself, but let me assure the committee 
we take this very seriously. Our military construction budget 
alone this year, about 25 percent of it will be for the 
replacement of old Korean war era and earlier barracks, which 
are the subject of certain controversy here in the last several 
weeks.
    So we are committed in replacing these barracks and 
otherwise taking care of our soldiers so that their home away 
from their original home is something they can be proud of.
    With that, I'll turn this over, if you don't mind, to 
General Wilson, who can further enlighten us on where we are on 
the barracks matters.
    General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, Senator 
Reed, Senator Nelson: On behalf of the Army's senior leaders 
and more than 1 million soldiers that comprise our Army, thank 
you for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2009 
military construction budget.
    Our MILCON request is crucial to the success of the Army's 
strategic imperatives, to sustain, prepare, and transform our 
Army, and military construction plays a key role in each of 
these imperatives. We must sustain our soldiers and families 
with programs such as the Soldier-Family Action Plan, which 
will standardize soldier and family programs and services, 
increase accessibility and quality of health care, improve 
soldier and family housing, ensure excellence in schools, youth 
services, and child care, and expand education and employment 
opportunities for family members.
    We are establishing superb training facilities with $850 
million in this year's budget for new ranges and training 
facilities to support our training readiness. The Army's 
medical action plan will integrate care and services for 
wounded warriors and their families and provide world-class 
care to our warriors in transition for reintegration into the 
force or transition to civilian life. We thank you for your 
support in this vital program.
    The creation of the Installation Management Command in 
October 2006 continues our progress in centralized installation 
management and fosters more consistent, cost effective and 
predictable delivery of installation funding and services, and 
to improve these efficiencies and effectiveness we are 
achieving and reshaping our installations through BRAC, GDPR, 
Global Defense Posture Realignment, while simultaneously 
converting to the Army modular force, growing the Army, and 
assisting the Army Reserve in becoming an operational force, 
all of this while at war for 6 years.
    Our military construction request supports this integrally 
woven, tightly synchronized stationing plan. In the last few 
years, as a result of our continuing resolutions we have lost 4 
to 6 months of building time, basically delay in awarding 
projects. There is a provision in this year's budget, section 
121, that would give us additional flexibility and I ask for 
your support in that new provision in this military 
construction bill.
    Finally, I want to address the barracks situation at Fort 
Bragg. The recent video images are alarming and are not 
indicative of the standards for how we want our soldiers 
housed. We were not able to get the barracks to the quality of 
life the soldiers expected nor deserved prior to their return. 
This should have been prevented.
    We have fixed all life, health and safety issues in 
Building Charlie 4122 and reprogrammed $2.9 million to Fort 
Bragg to inspect and correct all of the like buildings, which 
are 22, unlike the ones you saw on the video, and improve the 
condition of these barracks.
    Since this incident surfaced, I ordered a sweeping 
inspection of over 3,300 barracks worldwide, 146,500 rooms, to 
ascertain the extent of the problem. All identified barracks 
deficiencies were ordered corrected throughout the Installation 
Management Command and any soldier found living in a 
substandard room has been relocated.
    We have made changes to the way we manage our barracks by 
standing up maintenance teams at each installation to focus on 
barracks quality of life. We are placing sergeants major at 
directorates of public works, beginning with our 16 largest 
installations, to assist in barracks readiness, and we have 
transferred barracks ownership from deploying units to the 
garrison in order to better maintain them at an acceptable 
standard. We are now centrally managing our barracks and our 
training and tracking our barracks quality of life monthly.
    Additionally, we have reprioritized $248 million to address 
our most urgent priorities, representing 48 projects across 8 
installations. Mold is our largest problem, most prevalent in 
the Southeast, but across all of our installations. Each 
installation has the capability to test mold and take immediate 
corrective measures, including soldier reassignment. We are 
applying several initiatives to reduce mold growth.
    I'm confident we can improve the quality of life for our 
soldiers serving our Nation so proudly. The Army has invested 
$13 billion since 1994 to modernize our barracks, get soldiers 
out of the old barracks and build new, modern barracks with 
more space and amenities. We are proud of this effort, but 
still have 9 years and $10 billion to go before our barracks 
will be brought to standard.
    About 79.4 percent of our barracks were built in 1979 or 
earlier. Thirty-five percent are 50 to 60 years old, just like 
the barracks you saw at Fort Bragg. We must continually triage 
these old barracks to keep them livable. To cope with this 
challenge, the Army has invested $975 million since 2005 to 
sustain our barracks awaiting replacement. We will require a 
continual investment and leadership focus to maintain these 
barracks until we complete our buyout plan in 2015.
    In closing, our $11.4 billion request for MILCON, BRAC, and 
family housing plays a critical role in allowing us to put the 
Army back in balance and sustain the current fight and 
restation our force. We thank the Congress for its unwavering 
support of the Army's military construction program over the 
years and we ask for your continued support. Our goal is to 
have premier installations across the globe. Our soldiers and 
families deserve nothing less.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

                          BARRACKS INSPECTIONS

    Senator Johnson. Secretary Eastin or General Wilson, as you 
note in your testimony, the Army is now in its 16 year of a 
campaign to modernize its permanent party barracks. It is 
deeply troubling, after 16 years of this effort, that many of 
our soldiers are still forced to live in conditions like what 
recently came to light at Fort Bragg.
    General Wilson, you noted the barracks inspections you 
recently ordered. How many soldiers were relocated as a result 
and can we see the results of that inspection?
    General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, 13 soldiers were relocated, 8 
in CONUS and 5 overseas. Eleven of these rooms were in regard 
to mold. This is not the black mold, but the mold that I talked 
about earlier. That inspection was done throughout the world, 
overseas and CONUS, as I related to. And yes, sir, we'll make 
that available to you.
    [The information follows:]
                          Barracks Inspections
    When the Fort Bragg video surfaced, the Army conducted a world-wide 
barracks inspection to ensure all rooms met life, health, and safety 
standards, or relocate Soldiers within 72 hours. As a result, 13 
Soldiers were moved out of rooms due to mold or other unacceptable 
conditions. To address the immediate issue, $2.9 million in Sustainment 
funding was diverted so Fort Bragg could correct Building C-4122 
deficiencies and other barracks on post in similar condition. Army-
wide, $248 million was reprioritized, to address ``worst needs'' 
barracks at eight installations.
    To avoid a repetition of the Fort Bragg scenario, the Installation 
Management Command is changing the way barracks are managed by 
transferring responsibility from deploying units to the installation 
garrison staff; providing senior noncommissioned officer facility 
oversight, in conjunction with the emerging First Sergeants Barracks 
Initiative; establishing and maintaining a quality of life standard 
focusing on living space, latrines, lounges, and lobbies; and 
programming funds to eliminate conditions conducive to mold growth.

    Senator Johnson. Which barracks are in the most urgent need 
of repair and have you requested accelerated funding for them? 
How do you plan to accelerate the Army's barracks construction 
program to address these problems?
    General Wilson. Sir, we noted 48 projects in eight of our 
installations in most urgent need. The method we can deal with 
that is to reprogram some of our sustainment dollars from other 
projects to these most urgent ones and that's how we plan on 
dealing with it.
    Senator Johnson. How will the reduction in deployment tours 
from 15 to 12 months affect this situation? You will have more 
soldiers coming home at a faster rate. How are you going to 
ensure that all of them are adequately housed?
    General Wilson. Mr. Chairman, you're precisely correct. As 
we begin to bring soldiers home from the surge, it's going to 
necessitate us to get in front of the problem so we avoid 
anything that happened at Fort Bragg. We think by the actions 
that we've directed, by standing up maintenance teams, placing 
the barracks under the garrison and public works for 
management, and also having monthly assessment reports to 
report through the operations channels and command sergeant 
major channels where they stand at each installation in 
preparation for returning soldiers, that we will be able to 
address these urgent needs in the future redeployments.

                        GUARD/RESERVE COMPONENT

    Senator Johnson. General Carpenter and General Kraus, a 
major concern for this committee has been the chronic 
underfunding of the infrastructure needs of our Guard and 
Reserve components. Last year, for example, U.S. Army Reserve 
and Army Guard MILCON funding saw major decreases. I'm pleased 
that this year's military construction request for the Army 
Guard and Reserve has increased, but the request still only 
meets about 40 percent of the requirements.
    Understanding the need to prioritize in a time of 
tightening budgets, are the Guard and Reserve getting what they 
need?
    General Carpenter. Sir, Mr. Chairman, it's nice to see a 
fellow South Dakotan, by the way.
    From the Guard perspective, we are working diligently with 
the Army to make sure that the Army National Guard projects are 
incorporated into the Army priorities. We have an adjutant 
general military construction GOSC that is engaged in that 
process.
    We see the challenge for us in the Army Guard is to 
incorporate our needs into first of all the validated 
requirements for the Army and then the critical funding 
requirements. We are working with the Army in that process and, 
quite honestly, we are seeing some success.
    Senator Johnson. General Kraus.
    General Kraus. Yes, sir. We have an aggressive program, 
which is 41 percent of the budget to be funded in the next, 
fiscal year 2009, and it takes us out with the prioritized list 
to 2013. What's critical for us at this point in time is that 
that 560 be re-added in, because it was 10 Army Reserve centers 
that had been shelved that we need to bring forward, and we're 
working on it.

                FISCAL YEAR 2009 MILCON BUDGET EXECUTION

    Senator Johnson. Secretary Eastin, your 2009 budget request 
for military construction is the largest ever submitted by the 
Army. Will you be able to execute it?
    Mr. Eastin. You're right, it is very large and it's very 
challenging. At Bliss alone we have $1 billion worth of 
military construction going on in the current year.
    We've had to take a look at how we build things very 
carefully and basically transform that. We're proud at Bliss, 
for example, we are turning out one new building per week and 
we'll be doing that for the next several years. But it's 
required a complete relook of how we do construction, 
standardized designs, centers of excellence across the Corps, 
where not every region will be developing both, say, barracks 
and maintenance facilities and dining facilities, but we have 
centers that do each of those and try to standardize the design 
for each.
    Also, much of the construction is actually manufactured in 
a factory and brought in and set up, so you're not doing sticks 
and bricks out on the posts themselves. But we're bringing them 
in state of the art construction methods now, and things that 
can be brought in from the outside and constructed even in 
other States and brought in and put in place.
    So we have a real organization set up there to do it. We 
are confident this will--in fact be done this year, and we're 
also confident that our BRAC time deadlines are going to be 
met.
    Senator Johnson. With all the initiatives the Army has 
currently undertaken--Grow the Force, Global Realignment, 
etcetera--what is your top construction priority?

                                BARRACKS

    General Wilson. Sir, I think it's clear our top 
construction priority on our installations and what we would 
call our pacing item would be barracks. We've got to address 
those 35 percent of our barracks that are 50 to 60 years old 
and our urgent requirement is to try to replace all of them as 
soon as possible.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
    Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                  BRAC

    Mr. Eastin, we are working in the supplemental for the full 
restoration of the BRAC funding. Right now it's $780 million, 
$787 million, that would go into the BRAC account. If that 
stays all the way through the process, then are you on course 
to finish the BRAC requirements by 2011?
    Mr. Eastin. Senator, I sat up here last year and I said: 
Don't ask me tomorrow, but today we are on track everywhere to 
meet the September 2011 deadline. I'm happy to report that I 
will respond with the same--make the same response this year, 
that: Don't ask me tomorrow, but I know of no BRAC single 
action that is not going to be on track.
    Some of these are going to be real challenges, but I know 
of none that will not be met by the 2011 deadline.

                             OVERSEAS BASES

    Senator Hutchison. General Wilson, I mentioned in my 
opening statement that part of the global restationing 
initiative was spurred by the Overseas Basing Commission that 
this committee on a bipartisan basis put forward. I want to ask 
you, because of this potential delay of two combat brigade 
units, are we going to bring our forces back as originally 
proposed by the Department of Defense, and will you be able to 
complete the permanent facilities that you need for the Grow 
the Army timelines in military construction? And is there going 
to be more than a 2-year delay in those two units that are 
scheduled to come back as part of the five?
    General Wilson. Senator, there is a 2-year delay on those 
last two brigades and that's what we're planning. Even with 
that, that last brigade is coming back to Fort Bliss, the 
permanent construction will not be completed when they return. 
Our current plan will be to use the relocatables that are 
available until the permanent construction is completed.
    Senator Hutchison. Do you see any lessening of the 
commitment to bring those troops home from Germany after the 2 
years?
    General Wilson. The only thing that I'm aware about was the 
Secretary of Defense and the President's decision to do a 2-
year delay and keep them within the FYDP, and that's what we're 
planning for our military construction quality of life efforts 
based on that decision. That would be 2012 and 2013.
    Senator Hutchison. Do you sense that there is a negotiation 
going on with the Europeans using the troops and the Europeans' 
desire to keep them there at the same time that we're trying to 
move them back?
    General Wilson. Ma'am, I don't have any knowledge of that. 
I'm sure that the COCOM commander and the Joint Staff may be 
able to address that, but I'm not aware of it.
    Senator Hutchison. Well, it's my fear that we are going to 
succumb to political pressure from local governments and the 
Government of Germany, and I think that would be a real 
mistake. I think you made the decision based on the needs of 
the United States and our military personnel. The Germans have 
been difficult to deal with in military construction, requiring 
more expensive construction standards, and have not been 
willing to help in paying for those even if they are going to 
be left in Germany.
    So I would just say that from my vantage point, I will be 
looking to the Army to negotiate with the Germans in the best 
interests of America and not allow them to not help pay for 
these added standards that they are requiring and not to leave 
more troops there than are in the best interests of the United 
States and our training and our quality of life for our 
military.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Nelson.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    With the returning soldiers from the surge and with the 
Army growing the force 95,000 troops and facilities already 
behind the funding curve, as you look at this what kind of 
planning can you take within the budget that was presented to 
be able to meet all those needs? I guess Mr. Secretary.

                             EXECUTION PLAN

    Mr. Eastin. Perhaps General Wilson can shed a little more 
detail on this. But we have a very carefully laid out 
integrated, interdependent plan to take care of all of the 
construction, both for the Grow the Army, the BRAC process, the 
global defense repositioning activity. All of that has been 
taken care of, all laid out, and, as I said to Senator 
Hutchison, I believe all currently on time.
    I know it sounds incredible that we can kind of put this 
kind of money in there and have this kind of activity, but 
right now it's all working and it's all going according to the 
plans that basically the Corps of Engineers, our construction 
agent, has put together.
    Senator Nelson. General.
    General Wilson. Senator, I might just add to Secretary 
Eastin it's challenging. It's challenging at best to coordinate 
and synchronize all the things that have just been said: the 
restationing of one-third of our Army in the United States, the 
BRAC, return of soldiers from overseas, Grow the Army, 
converting and modernizing, the Army modular force.
    But we work that through what we call the Army campaign 
plan and we synchronize that very carefully. And we meet weekly 
to synchronize our Army staff elements to ensure that we are 
able to provide support for the war, as well as support our 
soldiers and families. We feel confident that we're on track to 
do that. It's a challenge that we have to face every day.

                                BARRACKS

    Senator Nelson. Well, the daunting challenge of dealing 
with the increased requirements because of Grow the Army, 
returning the military from overseas, including Germany, would 
be sufficient to keep you busy. But is it because of all the 
requirements that you currently have to build and to be 
prepared for the additional capacity, is that the reason why 
maybe the eyes were taken off current facilities that fell into 
disrepair, that have fallen into disrepair?
    General Wilson. Well, I think--it's difficult to answer 
that. I will tell you, we're moving soldiers and families and 
units and redeploying and resetting them as quickly as we can 
so they can get some rest, and then they have to train up for 
the fight. It's just in time equipping, just in time manning, 
and it's very taxing and very difficult for the soldiers to 
tend to their soldiers and to tend to the barracks management.
    It makes it doubly difficult when you have 50- to 60-year-
old barracks, and we just have to pay more attention to it. We 
fumbled on that, that one at Fort Bragg, and we put things in 
place so we won't do that again. It's too important to our 
soldiers and they deserve to come back to better billets and 
better barracks than they left. So we're taking extraordinary 
measures to try to preclude that from happening again.
    Senator Nelson. Well, sir, and I applaud you for doing 
that, because one of the best reasons to do it, in addition to 
quality of life, is if you're looking to recruit and retain you 
certainly don't want to fumble the ball that often or you might 
expect that it would affect at least retention.
    In terms of the barracks issue, is it appropriate for any 
disciplinary action to be taken that would be appropriate based 
on the fact that somebody at some level knew that these 
facilities were in disrepair and either they didn't report it 
or they reported it up and someone didn't act on it, if that 
was the case? So do you know whether any disciplinary action is 
appropriate in this situation?
    General Wilson. Senator, I was at Fort Bragg yesterday 
morning and I walked through the barracks that are at question 
here and I talked to the division commander of the 82nd 
Airborne, I talked to the brigade, the chief of staff, the 
garrison commander and the acting corps commander. And I asked 
that specific question and the senior commander determined that 
there was a breakdown in procedures and to return the barracks 
to standard before the soldiers redeployed. Leaders should have 
prevented this avoidance.
    He determined, however, there was no purposeful neglect on 
anyone's part. And I asked him that specifically. I talked to 
the first sergeant that was back trying his level best to get 
that, and his people, to get that together. There was a 
breakdown. There was not a good handoff of this unit's coming 
back 3 weeks earlier than planned and they didn't reset the 
barracks in time. But it wasn't because they didn't care or it 
wasn't because they failed in their leadership.
    Senator Nelson. Well, even if it's not purposeful, the 
breakdown would appear to be at least negligent in the process. 
It would seem that someone at some level was responsible who 
didn't through as they should have or that that responsibility 
wasn't assigned. Is there a question of whether the 
responsibility was properly assigned to the appropriate 
personnel?
    General Wilson. I think the procedures are in place and 
yes, the rear detachment and the advance party that came back 
to get the billets ready knew that that was their mission 
clearly, to ready those billets for the incoming battalion. 
They were part of that battalion. The problem was they thought 
they had 3 weeks to get that particular billets ready and they 
were focusing on the other billets that had less time, and 
that's what caused the error.
    Once they had 72 hours notice, they found out they are 
coming back, they did everything in their power to get it done. 
They didn't raise it to the right level that we could have 
said, wait, stop----
    Senator Nelson. That's what I'm trying to get to.
    General Wilson. They didn't sound the alarm. But it wasn't 
because that they failed, in the commander's eyes here, in the 
division commander's eyes. It's because they just did not think 
to call in the cavalry.
    Now, what we've done, we've made changes to preclude that.
    Senator Nelson. Now, which is the more important question, 
which was my next one: What is being done, not just in the case 
of Fort Bragg, but in the case of other facilities which might 
involve the same kind of circumstances? So what is being done 
so that that doesn't occur again?
    General Wilson. We made several changes. One, we did a mass 
inspection of all barracks across the Army, in CONUS and 
overseas, and determined there was no--where there was life, 
safety, or health instances, we fixed it right away.
    Then we looked at our priorities, our worst barracks, and 
we then put money against fixing those. We've also increased 
our manning at the installations, where we're standing up 
maintenance teams to work for the DPWs to be able to deal 
directly with barracks, and that's their priority of mission, 
is barracks.
    Senator Nelson. This will be an ongoing----
    General Wilson. Yes, sir.
    Senator Nelson [continuing]. Requirement, an ongoing 
mission? Because this isn't something that you can just have 
one-time full inspection and expect that things will not change 
over the next 5 or 10 years or over the next year. So are you 
going to have this be more like an audit inspection or is it 
going to be across the board continuously over the next several 
years?
    General Wilson. It's going to be continuous, Senator. We're 
funding it as a sustaining requirement at each installation and 
we're adding 16 command sergeant majors at our largest 
installations to work in the DPWs to focus on barracks. And 
we're turning over the barracks management, not put that on the 
rear detachments; we put it on the garrison and DPWs to handle 
in the future.
    Senator Nelson. So you're reasonably hopeful, at least, if 
not certain, that you'll be able to catch these situations 
before somebody with a camera comes by and takes a picture of 
it?
    General Wilson. Well, our effort is to preclude it from 
happening again and to raise the quality of life where we don't 
see that again. We know we have barracks like that and we know 
we have to reset them, and we've got to get--and yes, I'm 
confident we're going to get in front of it so we can reset 
them before the soldiers come back home.
    I'm not confident that I'm going to preclude any more 
pictures. I just hope they give us a chance first and call us 
and say we've got a problem.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Craig.
    Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. To all of you, I 
appreciate your presence. I have no questions of you other than 
to say we're extremely proud of our efforts at Gowan Field in 
Boise with our National Army Guard and our Army Reserve and the 
efforts that go on there. Actually, I'm waiting for the Air 
Force to land and I think they're in the next panel.
    With that, thank you all so very much for your presence 
today and your candidness. We appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Johnson. To Secretary Eastin and the rest of our 
witnesses: Thank you again for your testimony and for appearing 
before this committee. Thank you. You may be excused.
                      Department of the Air Force

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY 
            ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR 
            INSTALLATIONS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
        BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES RUBEOR, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF THE AIR 
            FORCE RESERVE
        BRIGADIER GENERAL STANLEY CLARKE III, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR 
            NATIONAL GUARD
    Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We welcome our second panel of witnesses, the Honorable 
Kathleen I. Ferguson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air 
Force for Installations; Brigadier General James Rubeor, Deputy 
to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve; and Brigadier General 
Stanley Clarke III, Deputy Director of the Air National Guard.
    Ms. Ferguson, I understand that Secretary Anderson was 
unable to join us today, but we look forward to your testimony. 
Thank you for coming today. You may proceed.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON

    Ms. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 
members of the committee. On behalf of America's airmen, it's a 
pleasure to be here and I appreciate the committee accepting me 
as a substitute on such short notice. I'll keep my opening 
remarks brief and begin by thanking the committee for its 
continued support of America's Air Force and the many brave and 
dedicated airmen who serve around the globe to keep this 
country safe.
    As our Nation finds itself in both a time of war and a time 
of transition, the Air Force continues to evolve to ensure we 
stand ready to protect America and our interests. Beginning 
with Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the Air Force 
has been in continuous combat operations for more than 17 
years. We currently have over 22,000 airmen deployed in direct 
support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Our 
team is firmly committed to supporting the Air Force priorities 
of winning today's fight, taking care of our people, and 
preparing for tomorrow's challenges.
    We are changing on a scale not seen since the post-cold war 
drawdown and for us to support these priorities we must be 
transformational in all we do. In order to provide global 
vigilance, global reach, and global power, we need high-quality 
warfighting platforms for our installations.
    I would like to highlight just a few of the significant 
initiatives we are implementing to ensure installation quality 
and superior warfighting support well into the future. Under 
our Corps of Discovery effort, we are benchmarking Fortune 500 
companies such as General Electric, General Motors, IBM, and 
Bank of America. We are learning from industry leaders and are 
capturing best practices in all aspects of infrastructure, from 
adopting an asset management philosophy to transforming our 
informational technology systems.
    With our organizational transformation, we are committed to 
making joint basing a raging success. The Air Force fully 
supports the spirit and intended results of the joint basing 
provisions of BRAC 2005. The Air Force has worked diligently 
with the other services and OSD to ensure that the maximum 
financial, facility, and personnel effectiveness can be 
achieved via joint basing without impacting command and control 
of base or mission commanders.
    The Air Force has expressed concern related to the 
execution strategy of joint basing, which may impact mission. 
However, the Air Force is not advocating any position that 
would inhibit carrying out any BRAC recommendation.
    Let me take a moment to talk about energy. The increasing 
cost of energy and the Nation's commitment to reducing its 
dependence on foreign oil had led to the development of the Air 
Force energy strategy, to reduce demand, increase supply, and 
change the culture within the Air Force so that energy is a 
consideration in everything we do.
    The Air Force is investing in its facility energy future 
with $14 million in 2008 and $229 million across the Future 
Years Defense Program (FYDP). We've been recognized as the 
number one Federal purchaser of renewable energy 4 years in a 
row.
    The Air Force is DOD's leading consumer of jet fuel and 10 
percent of the total U.S. jet fuel market. To meet our jet fuel 
needs of the future, the Air Force is evaluating domestically 
sourced synthetic fuel alternatives. We've certified the B-52 
to fly on a synthetic fuel blend and we're on track to test and 
certify the C-17, B-1, and F-22 in this fiscal year, with the 
entire fleet certified by early 2011.
    At Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, through a public-private 
partnership we installed the largest solar array in the 
Americas, providing over 14.2 megawatts of clean renewable 
power, while delivering a savings of nearly $1 million a year 
for the installation and the American taxpayer.
    On under utilized land at Malmstrom Air Force Base, 
Montana, the Air Force is exploring the potential for a 
privately financed and operated coal-to-liquid fuels plant. We 
are pursuing solar energy enhanced use lease projects at 
Edwards Air Force Base, California, Luke Air Force Base, 
Arizona, and Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. We are also 
looking into the merits of hosting a small package nuclear 
facility on an Air Force installation at the request of some 
members of the Senate.
    At the same time, the Air Force recognizes that energy and 
the environment are tightly linked. Not only have we committed 
to purchase only alternative energy sources with a greener 
footprint than current options, the Air Force has committed to 
be a leader in establishing a global consortium to tackle the 
reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gas emissions.
    Being a driving force is not risk-free. Our installations 
are warfighting platforms which must continually perform to 
support the warfighter. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget 
request for Air Force military construction is more than $2.1 
billion, comprised of traditional MILCON, BRAC, and housing 
investments. Unfortunately, we face demands on our resources 
that require tough choices. Our challenging budgetary 
environment includes the increased operations, maintenance, and 
personnel costs, the cost of the war against terrorism, and 
inflation factors that reduce our overall buying power.
    Those demands have forced us to self-finance the 
centerpiece of future dominance, a massive and critical 
recapitalization and modernization effort over our aging air 
and space force. To accomplish this, we are accepting 
manageable risks in facilities and infrastructure funding. The 
current and future readiness and capability of our Air Force to 
deter enemies and, when necessary, fight and win our Nation's 
wars depends heavily upon the state of our power projection 
platforms--our installations.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    As the Air Force continues to modernize and recapitalize, 
we will wisely invest our precious funding allocated to 
military construction, operations and maintenance, BRAC, the 
environment, military family housing, and energy. This will 
enable us to win today's fight, take care of our people, and 
prepare for tomorrow's challenges.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement follows:]

 Prepared Statement of William C. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the 
          Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics)

    Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, and distinguished members of the 
Committee, as our Nation and Department finds itself in both a time of 
war and a time of transition; the Air Force continues to evolve to 
ensure we stand ready to protect America and its interests. The Air 
Force is the preeminent force for operations beyond the bounds of 
earth, and is vital to the success of ground operations as well, which 
is being proven daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Beginning with 
Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, the Air Force has been at 
continuous combat operations for more than 17 years. We cannot provide 
Global Vigilance, Global Reach, or Global Power without our warfighting 
platforms--our installations--and the airmen that construct, operate 
and maintain those installations. I would like to highlight just a few 
of the significant ways our Total Force Airmen are serving this great 
Nation in this capacity.
    We are firmly committed to supporting the Air Force's number one 
priority, ``winning today's fight.'' Approximately 25,000 airmen are 
currently deployed in direct support of Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and 
IRAQI FREEDOM. More than 2,500 are engineers. Forty percent of the 
engineers are serving side-by-side with our Army comrades-in-arms by 
filling ``Joint Sourced,'' ``in lieu of'' or ``individual augmentee'' 
positions, often sharing the same level of risk while operating 
``outside the wire.'' Our heavy construction RED HORSE engineers and 
our Prime BEEF engineers are well-known in the AOR for their ability to 
build and maintain expeditionary installation weapons platforms, 
whether bedding down Air Force, joint, or multinational forces. Our Air 
Force explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) airmen make up 37 percent of 
Central Command's joint EOD capability in theatre and in calendar year 
2007 they responded to more than 8,400 calls to destroy improvised 
explosive devices, unexploded ordnance, or weapons caches. Sixty-six 
percent of these EOD warriors are operating ``outside the wire'' 
alongside their joint peers. Our ``customers,'' whether joint, other 
Federal agency, or multinational, continually let us know how impressed 
they are by the capabilities our combat support personnel bring to the 
fight. While twenty of our logistics and installation airmen have made 
the ultimate sacrifice in this war, we are proud to be part of the 
joint effort serving our Nation's call to arms.
    The reconstruction effort stands alongside the operational mission 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force Center for Engineering and the 
Environment (AFCEE) is successfully executing a robust program to win 
the hearts and minds of Iraqi and Afghan citizens and help set the 
conditions for more free societies. Thus far, their efforts have 
included the execution of more than 576 projects, worth more than $4.6 
billion, to construct or repair more than 4,000 facilities, to include 
government and military facilities, airports, roads, schools, medical 
clinics, police stations, utilities systems, and more. Much of this 
work is being done by Iraqi and Afghan citizens making up more than 90 
percent of the construction workforce and 70 percent of the project 
engineers. External audits have validated AFCEE's efficiency: low 
overhead costs in manpower and financial resources, minimized in-
country presence, and successful leveraging of the latest in efficient 
and effective business processes.
    Our capabilities are vital to the Global War on Terror and other 
American interests overseas. We are also leading the way in many 
initiatives on the home front. Let me briefly highlight a few. The Air 
Force is a great example of leadership in energy, facilities 
management, and the environment. We have been recognized as the number 
one Federal purchaser of renewable energy 4 years running, and we are 
overall number three in the Nation. We will achieve the DOD's 2014 goal 
for environmental restoration 2 years early. Our housing privatization 
efforts have leveraged more than $350 million taxpayer dollars, 
bringing in $6 billion in private sector investment, speeding the 
delivery of adequate housing to our airmen. The Air Force is solidly on 
track to eliminate inadequate housing overseas, having already received 
support from this Congress through 2007 to completely fund the 
elimination of inadequate stateside family housing. Our emergency 
responders implemented the cross-functional Air Force Incident 
Management System in December 2007, making us the first Federal agency 
to meet the Executive Order and the Department of Homeland Security 
directive for implementing the National Incident Management System, 
assuring seamless and coordinated emergency response among agencies at 
or near our installations. The Air Force wants to ensure that 
appropriate conditions exist to make Joint Basing a raging success. We 
have a long and successful history of working toward common goals in a 
Joint environment, without compromising Air Force principles and the 
well-being of our people. Joint Basing initiatives are no exception. 
Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will provide an 
appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to facilitate 
mission success and provide improved quality of life through consistent 
installation standards, currently being developed. Our Soldiers, 
Sailors, Airmen, Marines, DOD Civilians and their families will benefit 
from efficient, consistent Installation Support Services. These 
standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services continue to 
provide all personnel with the level of Installation Support Services 
they deserve. Our base commanders and their local service providers 
are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to maintain and 
improve services. As we work with the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense and our sister Services, we will ensure all Joint Basing 
initiatives contribute to DOD's ability to perform its mission. Joint 
Basing allows us to build closer relationships and forge stronger ties 
among the Services.
    While we are proud of these successes, we have much work to do. Our 
Air Force's biggest challenge is to modernize our air, space, and 
cyberspace capabilities to ensure we continue to provide our Nation 
with its decisive military advantage. While not optimal, we must take 
manageable risk in our facilities and infrastructure to free up funding 
for weapons modernization. We also, however, have a vision to transform 
and overcome these challenges.
                             transformation
    Our Air Force is transforming around new concepts of operations, 
organizational change, and advanced technologies. Accordingly, we are 
on a difficult but promising journey to transform our installations 
support enterprise. We are changing on a scale not seen since the post-
Cold War draw down. As part of our Air Force strategy to internally 
fund weapon systems recapitalization and modernization, we needed to 
reduce manpower. We took this as an opportunity to restructure our 
Civil Engineer and Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA) organizations 
and improve support to the warfighter. The first major initiatives to 
transform how we effectively manage support for our installations are 
largely complete. We've reorganized Civil Engineering at all levels; 
rebalanced the force to include manpower increases in our high-demand 
RED HORSE and EOD combat engineer capabilities; and centralized the 
execution of all MILCON, housing MILCON, and environmental restoration 
at the AFCEE in San Antonio, Texas. BRAC 2005 directed the relocation 
of AFRPA to San Antonio and we took advantage of this to restructure 
AFRPA at the same time, to attract new skills and ideas to preserve and 
improve our focus on unlocking value in our underutilized real 
property.
    We are also transforming our business processes, infrastructure, 
and technology to enable us to operate our installations within reduced 
funding levels and thereby continue to support our weapons 
modernization and recapitalization initiatives. Our approach includes 
producing efficiencies in enterprise-wide business processes while 
reducing by 20 percent, by the year 2020, the funding required for 
sustaining and maintaining our $243 billion physical plant. Let me 
emphasize installation support funding has already been reduced by 14 
percent in the last 3 years; now we are figuring out ways to live 
within this funding level for the long haul and not impact our 
standards. Not only are we elevating internal best practices to the 
strategic level and using the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st 
Century toolkit of ``LEAN'' and ``Six Sigma'' process improvement 
methods, we are also incorporating best practices from our strategic 
partnership with leading private sector companies, called the ``Corps 
of Discovery.''
    Our installations organization established ``Corps of Discovery'' 
teams to visit companies such as GM, IBM, GE, Bank of America, 
ExxonMobil, CB Richard Ellis, Jones Lang LaSalle, Archibus, and others. 
We found we share many of the same challenges in maintaining our 
operational or primary mission edge while effectively balancing 
investment in infrastructure. Through this mutually-beneficial 
relationship, these patriotic companies are sharing their invaluable 
transformation ``lessons learned.'' We are centering our transformation 
strategy on these key ``lessons learned,'' such as strategic sourcing 
and real estate management from a portfolio perspective. Leading edge 
companies manage their real estate and physical plant with a holistic 
and integrated asset management approach that enables them to better 
articulate and manage risk while supporting their company's mission. We 
recently reorganized our installations organizational structure and 
people around Asset Management. True transformation, takes years, and 
these companies have proven the value of this long-term investment. 
Their knowledge and experience is proving invaluable to us as we 
transition to the asset management approach, which is also playing a 
key role in installations transformation.
    Maintaining our installations within current funding levels 
requires an aggressive approach to efficiently utilize our physical 
assets and target limited funding on the most critical portions of our 
physical plant. An asset management-based operation allows us to attach 
value to our built and natural environment. This business case analysis 
approach will provide better decision making in a resource constrained 
environment. Our asset management initiatives to reach this goal 
include utilities privatization; energy conservation; redesigned 
incentive-based consolidation, demolition, and demolition in situ 
programs; housing privatization; and others. Finally, we have initiated 
a focused effort to identify opportunities where Enhanced Use Lease 
(EUL) authority can help us find ways to leverage our physical plant 
value while providing a mechanism to offset facilities and utilities 
operations and maintenance costs, especially energy costs. As a force 
multiplier, we are leveraging our Air Force Real Property Agency to be 
our center of excellence for identifying and acting upon EUL 
opportunities across the Air Force. Following on the tremendous success 
of the construction of the largest photovoltaic solar installation in 
the Americas at Nellis AFB, NV, we are pursuing five major energy-
related EUL projects: solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; 
and Kirtland AFB, NM; and a prospective nuclear energy project at a 
location yet to be identified.
    Successful implementation of transformed business processes that 
will drive these physical plant utilization initiatives requires an 
enabling information technology (IT) system. We are transforming IT 
systems to support reengineered business processes and maximize the 
efficiency of our work force. Our benchmarking found integrated 
workplace management systems commonly used at these Fortune 500 
companies, and we are examining how these IT systems could enable our 
own transformation. Launched the first part of this year, our IT 
acquisition strategy is leveraging key insights from the ``Corps of 
Discovery'' partnerships, and will also leverage capable commercial-
off-the-shelf systems. While meeting executive, department and Air 
Force requirements for real property accountability systems and data 
transparency, the new Agile Installation Management IT system will 
enable enterprise-wide reengineered business processes centered on the 
complete lifecycle of asset management.
    As you can see, we are transforming enterprise-wide, from core 
business processes to organizational structure and IT systems. We are 
also providing leadership to our government and even the private 
sector, from purchasing and producing alternative energy, to housing 
privatization and asset management. We are making process changes at 
every level, resulting in resource savings and more efficient 
operations. At the heart of all of our efforts are of course our 
customers. Exceeding the expectations of our warfighters, their 
families and the communities that support our installations, in terms 
of cost, quality of service and delivery, stands as the centerpiece of 
our installations business model.
    These efforts are the means by which we are meeting the enormous 
challenges of today and the foreseeable future, and they ultimately 
enable us to sustain and modernize the world's best air, space, and 
cyberspace force. These transformational changes will help us maintain 
our focus on our Air Force's three overarching priorities: winning 
today's fight, taking care of our people, and preparing for tomorrow's 
challenges.
fiscal year 2009 air force milcon, brac, environmental, operations and 
                maintenance and family housing programs
    Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs are 
key components of our support infrastructure. At home, our 
installations provide stable training environments as we equip and 
reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and overseas installations 
provide force projection platforms to support Combatant Commanders 
(COCOMs), from homeland defense sorties over New York, to strike 
missions in Iraq. Our installations are weapons systems and in order to 
support our base-centric concept of operations, the Air Force has 
developed an infrastructure investment strategy that focuses on 
enabling COCOMs to win today's fight, take care of our people, prepare 
for tomorrow's challenges, implement BRAC, protect and restore our 
natural environment, drive energy efficiency and independence, sustain 
our infrastructure, and strive to recapitalize our aging 
infrastructure. We are the DOD's leader in expeditionary combat support 
and continue that role with pride. Our total force military 
construction, family housing, environmental, energy, and sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization programs are paramount to successful 
operations and maintaining the quality of life that our men and women 
in uniform and their families deserve.
    The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget (PB) request for Air Force 
military construction is more than $2.1 billion, comprised of 
traditional MILCON ($988 million), BRAC 2005 ($734 million) and housing 
investments ($396 million). Unfortunately, we face demands on our 
resources that require tough choices. Our challenging budgetary 
environment includes: increased operations, maintenance, and personnel 
costs; the cost of the war against terrorism; and absorbing inflation 
factors that reduce overall buying power. These factors have forced us 
to self-finance the centerpiece of future dominance--a massive and 
critical recapitalization and modernization effort of our aging air and 
space force. To accomplish this, we are accepting manageable risk in 
facilities and infrastructure funding. The Total Force MILCON portion 
($988 million) of the Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB military 
construction request reflects our highest construction priorities. This 
request includes $935 million for active military construction, just 
over $34 million for the Air National Guard, and $19 million for the 
Air Force Reserve. In addition, this budget carefully balances our 
facility operations and maintenance accounts for sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization with military construction programs to 
make the most effective use of available funding in support of the Air 
Force mission, while keeping ``good facilities good.'' The Air Force 
Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2009 is $2 billion, 90 
percent of the amount called for by the Facility Sustainment Model. The 
fiscal year 2009 Total Force restoration and modernization (R&M) 
funding is $514 million--an increase of approximately $168 million over 
last year's request.
    The Air Force fiscal year 2009 PB request of $396 million for the 
Military Family Housing investment program balances new construction, 
improvements, and planning and design work, and completes the funding 
to eliminate inadequate housing overseas. We cannot allow our current 
housing stock to fall into disrepair. Therefore, in addition to the 
$396 million requested for housing investment, we request nearly $599 
million for operations and maintenance, for a total housing investment 
of just under $1 billion.
    To continue our proactive and responsive environmental quality and 
restoration programs, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $1,015 
million for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs. In addition 
to the $435 million we requested for traditional environmental 
restoration activities, the fiscal year 2009 PB request includes $367 
million for environmental compliance activities and projects, $82 
million for pollution prevention initiatives, $53 million for funding 
environmental conservation activities, $61 million for munitions 
response activities, and $17 million in investments in promising 
environmental technologies.
    The Air Force is investing in its facility energy future, with $14 
million in 2008 and $229 million more across the FYDP. These monies are 
lead-turning important initiatives such as establishing Resource 
Efficiency Managers Air Force-wide and enhancing our aggressive utility 
rate and Energy Savings Performance Contract management teams to ensure 
we are getting the best value for every tax-payer dollar. We also are 
investing in the highest payback energy conservation initiatives such 
as upgrading our energy-intensive aircraft paint hangars; 
decentralizing heat plants; recommissioning facility heating, 
ventilating and air conditioning systems; and installing ground-source 
heat pumps. We expect the return on investment on these initiatives to 
be 2.5 to 1 or, a savings of approximately $550 million by 2015.
    To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal 
year 2009 PB request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC-related activities, 
of which $734 million is construction. The Air Force is lead for 64 
BRAC business plans and has equity in 16 additional business plans. 
Full support of this funding request is critical to ensure we remain on 
track to meet the requirement for compliance by 2011.
    Sound investment in our installations postures the Air Force to 
support our priorities of winning today's fight, taking care of our 
people, and preparing for tomorrow's challenges. We believe the fiscal 
year 2009 PB proposal will provide the funds to ensure our 
installations continue to serve as effective power projection platforms 
that enable the continued success of our core Air Force missions.
                         winning today's fight
    The Air Force's first priority is to win today's fight. We plan to 
invest $222 million on 14 projects that support and enhance the Air 
Force's ability to deliver intelligence, maintenance, and operational 
capabilities to our COCOMs. The Air Force is executing five projects 
directly contributing to winning today's war within the CENTCOM area of 
responsibility (AOR). CENTCOM's AOR is the geographic and ideological 
heart of today's fight. A war without borders, it spans 27 countries in 
the Central Asian region of the world. The five projects in CENTCOM's 
AOR provide much-needed in-theater aircraft maintenance as well as 
appropriate parking, fueling, and cargo handling space. An additional 
eight projects in the contiguous United States (CONUS) provide critical 
infrastructure necessary to continue to deliver, grow, and improve the 
high demand for an Unmanned Aircraft System presence in current and 
future operations. The Air Force will also construct a large vehicle 
inspection station to greatly improve the force protection and 
operational capability of the forces at RAF Lakenheath in the United 
Kingdom.
                       taking care of our people
    The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of 
life. The Air Force is committed to creating and maintaining a 
consistent, high quality, and safe environment in locations where 
airmen work, train, reside, and recreate. Our Total Force Airmen are 
the most valuable assets we have in winning today's fight and ensuring 
our air, space and cyberspace dominance. We must continue to recruit, 
train, develop, and retain the best America has to offer. As our Air 
Force becomes more capable, more efficient and more lethal, so will our 
airmen. The quality of life we provide for our airmen and their 
families is a distinct determining factor in how long they remain in 
our service. The sacrifices our airmen and their families make are 
enormous. We are deeply committed to providing every Airman and their 
family with the best possible quality of life as they serve our Nation. 
In this year's budget we strive to promote a wide spectrum of projects 
that take care of our airmen and their families; from quality family 
housing for our families, quality dormitories for unaccompanied airmen, 
functional fitness centers, and safe child development centers, to 
realistic training and operational facilities.
Workplace
    The Air Force is fully committed to the ensuring the safety and 
protection of human health for all of our personnel, both on and off 
duty. The Air Force evaluated its current injury and illness rates for 
airmen and determined implementation of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Adminstration's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) would improve 
upon that commitment. VPP implementation historically results in a 
major reduction in illness/injury compared with non-VPP sites in like 
industries, and reductions on the order of 50 percent are not uncommon. 
The Air Force formalized this commitment to VPP last August through 
signing of a partnership agreement between the Air Force and OSHA. The 
agreement included a commitment to reduce civilian and military 
workforce injuries and illness by at least 3 percent per year and to 
expand participation in VPP and increase awareness of the value of 
effective safety and health management. Currently, 20 Air Force 
installations have begun work toward implementing the elements of VPP, 
and five will be ready to apply for formal OSHA evaluation and 
designation in 2008--Altus AFB, OK; Hanscom AFB, MA; Tinker AFB, OK; 
Robins AFB, GA; and Eielson AFB, AK. Eventually all Air Force 
installations both in the continental United States and overseas will 
use this tool. To make sure the Air Force is gaining from others who 
have improved workplace safety, we are working closely with civilian 
companies who have proven their commitment to the highest level of 
health and safety performance. We have already learned from these 
companies and have used their experiences to improve our safety 
processes, and also have found VPP implementation a common element at 
these high-performing organizations. Our ultimate goal is to make VPP a 
way of thinking both on duty and off duty for our airmen. VPP is one 
way to give our airmen the safest possible environment in which to work 
and live.
Energy
    The Air Force Model Energy Base Initiative is testing the breadth 
of initiatives and best practices in facility management, aviation fuel 
reduction, and ground vehicle management. McGuire AFB, NJ and Barksdale 
AFB, LA are the two bases selected to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
comprehensive efforts by the Air Force to implement its energy 
strategy. McGuire AFB was selected because it represented for the Air 
Force a base with an Air Mobility mission in a region with a large 
heating load in the winter. Barksdale AFB represents an air combat 
mission with a large cooling load in the summer. The Air Force will be 
disseminating lessons learned and best practices throughout the 
organization as they become available, and will share with our sister 
services and other energy partners.
    Under the Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century 
processes, we have established the HQ Air Force Energy Senior Focus 
Group and Provide Infrastructure Working Group which look at four 
strategic pillars to maximize our energy efficiencies: Improve current 
infrastructure, improve future infrastructure, expand renewables, and 
manage cost. We have established metrics to track compliance with 
executive orders and Air Force guidance.
    We are continuing our aggressive stance with five major energy-
related EUL projects: solar energy at Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; 
and Kirtland AFB, NM; and a prospective nuclear energy project at a 
location yet to be identified.
Family Housing
    The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing 
military construction, operations and maintenance, and privatization 
efforts. To implement the plan, our fiscal year 2009 budget request for 
family housing is just under $1 billion. Consistent with Department of 
Defense Strategic Planning Guidance, the Air Force is on track to fund 
projects through 2009 that will eliminate inadequate overseas housing.
    For fiscal year 2009, the requested $396 million for our housing 
investment program will replace and improve more than 2,100 housing 
units at eight overseas bases. An additional $599 million will pay for 
operations, maintenance, utilities and leases to support the family 
housing program.
    We have used the privatization authorities granted by Congress to 
accelerate our family housing improvement program. By fiscal year 2009, 
the Air Force will privatize 41,500 housing units, and with the funding 
of the fiscal year 2009 PB the Air Force plans to privatize an 
additional 4,300 housing units. The Air Force projects it will have 
strategically leveraged more than $350 million in government investment 
to bring almost $6 billion in private sector total housing development. 
That is $16 of private investment for each public tax dollar. The Air 
Force is evaluating the privatization of remaining CONUS installations 
where feasible.
Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
    The fiscal year 2009 total Air Force requirement for dormitory 
rooms is 60,200. We have made great progress using the three-phased 
investment strategy outlined in our Dormitory Master Plan (DMP). Phase 
I, now construction complete, eliminated central latrine dormitories. 
With the fiscal year 2007-2009 MILCON programs we have the necessary 
funding to complete Phase II of our DMP, which is our permanent party 
and pipeline dorm room shortage (deficit), by building new dormitories. 
In Phase III, now underway, we will replace existing dormitories at the 
end of their useful life with a standard Air Force-designed private 
room configuration under the ``Dorms-4-Airmen'' concept. Our ``Dorms-4-
Airmen'' concept capitalizes on our wingman strategy and keeps our dorm 
residents socially and emotionally fit.
    Our fiscal year 2009 Program reflects this strategy. The $104 
million request for dormitory investment will replace or construct more 
than 1,400 rooms for unaccompanied personnel at three CONUS bases. We 
are equally committed to providing adequate housing and improving the 
quality of life for our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel as we 
are to our families.
Fitness and Child Development Centers
    The Air Force maintains its strong commitment to the ``Fit-to-
Fight'' program. Fitness and exercise is a regular part of airmen's 
lives as they prepare to meet the rigors of the expeditionary 
environment. Our goal is to replace at least one fitness center per 
year until we have the resources to do more. This year we will 
construct a new fitness center at Dover AFB, Delaware.
    We also remain committed to our Air Force families and we are 
dedicated to providing them with adequate and nurturing child care 
facilities. The most urgent need in 2009 is at Columbus AFB, 
Mississippi. Its current facility only meets half of the childcare 
requirement and is being supplemented by a leased trailer. Our $8 
million fiscal year 2009 MILCON project will construct a Child 
Development Center to provide supervised care for 128 infants and 
preschool children.
Operations and Training
    Our MILCON program supports our expanded view of quality of life 
for airmen by providing facilities from which to train in and operate. 
New Security Forces Operations and Communications facilities in 
Burlington, Vermont will provide the men and women of the Air National 
Guard in one of our most stressed career fields with functional, up-to-
date facilities to meet necessary training and day-to-day operational 
requirements. This year's program also includes a 56-position Combat 
Arms Training and Marksmanship facility at Maxwell AFB, Alabama to 
supplement the existing, undersized, high-demand range. The range 
enables the continuing improvement of our Air and Space Basic Course by 
providing combat-focused training to our junior officers. Finally, a 
recapitalization project at the Air Force Academy concludes the phased 
upgrade of the Fairchild Hall academic building.
Environmental Management Programs
    Our environmental management programs continue to ensure our most 
basic quality of life needs are being met for our airmen and 
surrounding communities: clean air, clean drinking water, and healthy 
working and living conditions for our workforce and base residents. We 
are also implementing refinements to our environmental management 
approach to incorporate best practices where we find opportunities. All 
Air Force installations have put in place and continue to utilize their 
Environmental Management Systems to identify environmental aspects of 
base operations, assess their impacts, and allow commanders to make 
informed decisions and investments to reduce environmental risks and 
compliance costs. Also, last year, I challenged our installation 
commanders to significantly reduce new environmental enforcement 
actions, and I'm proud to tell you we cut our new enforcement actions 
by 39 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2007--a major 
success story. We intend to cut enforcement actions by another 14 
percent in fiscal year 2008.
                  preparing for tomorrow's challenges
    Our third priority is to prepare for tomorrow's challenges. Our 
2009 MILCON program is a direct reflection of our strong commitment to 
the current and future success of our Air Force and is heavily weighted 
toward preparing for tomorrow's challenges by addressing our most 
critical modernization and recapitalization needs. The $493 million 
fiscal year 2009 Total Force military construction program consists of 
32 projects that are essential to modernization and recapitalization,
    The F-22 Raptor is the Air Force's primary air superiority fighter 
and key enabler, providing operational access, homeland and cruise 
missile defense, and force protection for joint forces. Combat-capable 
Raptors are in full rate production on the world's only 5th generation 
production line. Elmendorf AFB, AK will be the second operational 
Raptor base, and Holloman AFB, NM will be the third. We are 
constructing 13 projects to continue to beddown the world's premier 
fighter at a cost of $197 million. The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike 
Fighter is our 5th generation multi-role strike fighter aircraft 
optimized for air-to-ground attack. The F-35 will recapitalize combat 
capabilities currently provided by the F-16 and A-10, and will 
complement the capabilities of the F-22. A student dormitory project at 
Eglin AFB, FL continues the beddown for joint F-35 training squadrons. 
To provide the best possible training to our aircrews by using a 
professional adversary force of pilots and controllers, the Air Force 
is pressing forward with its vision for a more robust Aggressor 
program. Constructing a squadron operations facility and aircraft 
maintenance unit at Nellis AFB, NV supports the beddown of a full 24-
aircraft F-16 Aggressor squadron.
    Our Tactical Air Controllers are embedded with ground forces, 
directing Air Power in support of ground operations. This year's MILCON 
program provides the 3rd Air Support Operations Group with a Joint Air 
Ground Center at the unit's host Army installation, Fort Hood Texas. 
This facility supports the U.S. Army's brigade transformation and 
provides Air Force Tactical Air Controllers with the training space 
required to support the critical Close Air Support mission.
    We are modernizing and recapitalizing our facilities in support of 
large-frame aircraft as well. The C-17 continues its outstanding 
support for humanitarian operations and the Joint warfighter. The 
addition and alteration of simulator facilities at Charleston, AFB, SC 
and McChord AFB, WA will greatly improve the program's training 
efficiency. A MILCON project at Cheyenne, WY constructs a C-130 
squadron operations facility to support daily 24-hour operations for 
airborne firefighting, aeromedical evacuation, and homeland defense 
missions. Tinker AFB, OK is also receiving a hangar to satisfy 
scheduled maintenance requirements for Air Force Reserve and Air 
National Guard associate KC-135 units.
    Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), 
communications, and space systems play an ever-increasing role in what 
we do. The Total Force Initiative (TFI) Information Operations Squadron 
Facility at New Castle, Delaware will provide real-time information 
operations mission support, analysis, and feedback of reconnaissance 
missions around the world supporting commanders in the field.
    Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation (DMRT) remains 
essential to revitalizing depots using ``LEAN'' principles to increase 
aircraft availability by reducing depot cycle time, defects, and costs. 
This program has played a significant role in transforming our 
industrial base to more effectively support warfighter requirements. 
The 2009 program supports the DMRT initiative with two projects, one at 
Robins AFB, Georgia and one at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, together totaling 
$73 million.
    The 2009 military construction program has five other 
infrastructure modernization projects worth $109 million. These 
projects cover the spectrum from a SOCCENT headquarters facility at 
MacDill AFB, Florida and personnel moves in the National Capitol 
Region, to an infrastructure project on Guam that enables the 
relocation of a Combat Communications unit from Kadena AB, Japan to 
Andersen AFB, Guam. These projects recapitalize our aging 
infrastructure and enable us to support our vision for a modernized 
force.
                      base realignment and closure
    The ongoing implementation of Base Realignment and Closure 
recommendations is among the Air Force's efforts to transform the Total 
Force. In this round of BRAC, 78 percent of our required actions 
involve the Air Reserve Component while in past rounds; fewer than 20 
percent involved the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. This 
transformational effort across the force will ensure the Air Force is 
more lethal, agile, and capable of maintaining total dominance in air, 
space, and cyberspace domains.
Joint Basing
    We have a long and successful history of working toward common 
goals in a Joint environment, without compromising Air Force principles 
and the well-being of our people. Joint Basing initiatives are no 
exception. Therefore, to guarantee success, each Joint Base will 
provide an appropriate setting to all of its assigned personnel to 
facilitate mission success and provide improved quality of life through 
common standards, currently being developed. Our Soldiers, Sailors, 
Airmen, Marines, DOD Civilians and their families will benefit from 
efficient, consistent Installation Support Services standards. These 
standards will ensure the Air Force and our sister Services continue to 
provide all personnel with the level of Installation Support Services 
they deserve. Our base commanders and their local service providers 
are, of course, on the front lines of our efforts to maintain and 
improve services. A Senior Joint Base Working Group, led by the Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), is developing 
policy to implement joint bases by September 15, 2011, in accordance 
with BRAC law. The group is in the process of defining common standards 
for delivery of service of installation support functions before they 
are transferred. Once standards and corresponding performance metrics 
are established, the bases will develop formal support agreements and 
implementation plans in order to proceed with the joint base construct.
San Antonio Medical Merger
    In San Antonio, TX, the Air Force is the lead for implementing one 
of the most complex sets of BRAC recommendations in history. Along with 
our sister Services, and the TRICARE Management Activity, we continue 
to make significant strides to change the way military health care is 
delivered, and to consolidate all Services' enlisted medical education 
and training from across the United States onto a single campus at Fort 
Sam Houston, and to centralize a significant part of military medical 
research.
    Execution of BRAC recommendations in San Antonio is fully funded 
and on-schedule. On January eleventh of this year, the Corps of 
Engineers broke ground on a $92 million Battlefield Health and Trauma 
Research facility which will be integral to developing life saving 
medical care for our war-fighters. Additionally, beginning this year, 
we will begin constructing instructional facilities, dining facilities, 
and dormitories in direct support of world-class training for our Joint 
medics. Just this month, two dormitory contracts have been let in 
support of this effort.
BRAC 2005 Execution Report Card
    Managing and executing the multi-million dollar program, with 
diverse interests, locations, and economic influencers involved, is a 
major endeavor. As a result the Air Force underwent an effort to 
identify, analyze and define its requirements and the assets needed to 
implement its program.
    The Air Force has executed 80 percent of our fiscal year 2007 BRAC 
MILCON projects, with the total contract awards staying within 99 
percent of the original programmed amount. I am content with the 
current working estimates for our unexecuted fiscal year 2007 projects 
and confident we will award the projects and stay within budget. 
Current working estimates for the Air Force's fiscal year 2008 BRAC 
MILCON projects again show we should execute within our overall 
programmed amount.
    The $939 million Omnibus reduction to the Department of Defense 
BRAC 2005 account must be restored. If left unfunded, the reduction 
will result in the Air Force receiving $235 million less than required 
in fiscal year 2008. The Air Force will experience delays and 
disruptions in construction and the movement of our people and assets. 
Delays will impact our ability to meet mandated completion deadlines 
and could ultimately result in a failure to complete mandated actions. 
Prompt action and restoration of full funding will permit us to stay on 
course in executing our obligations for timely completion of the BRAC 
recommendations as approved by the Congress. We solicit your support in 
advocating that action occur.
          air force real property agency brac and real estate
    The Air Force is a Federal leader in the implementation of the real 
property management principles outlined in Presidential Executive Order 
13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management. We aggressively manage 
our property assets to deliver maximum value for the taxpayer, support 
to the Air Force warfighter, and improved quality of life for our 
airmen and their families. The Air Force is achieving these priorities 
through two fundamental efforts: (1) completion of our BRAC property 
disposal mission; and (2) leveraging the value of our non-BRAC property 
assets using a suite of property management and disposal tools.
    The Air Force has successfully deeded 85 percent of the 87,000 
acres of legacy Air Force BRAC property to date. The highly successful 
reuse of Air Force base closure property led to the creation of tens-
of-thousands of jobs in the affected communities. To complete the clean 
up and transfer of remaining property, the Air Force is partnering with 
industry leaders on innovative business practices for its ``way ahead'' 
strategy. These include an emphasis on performance-based environmental 
remediation contracts, using such performance-based contracts on 
regional clusters of BRAC bases, and innovative tools such as early 
property transfer and privatization of environmental cleanup. Our 
objectives remain constant and clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities 
that best meet the needs of the Air Force and local communities, (2) 
move the process along smartly in each situation to get property back 
into commerce as soon as practical, and (3) provide transparency 
throughout the process. Of the 32 legacy BRAC bases slated for closure, 
the Air Force has completed 19 whole-base transfers. The remaining 13 
are targeted for transfer by 2010.
    As the Air Force transfers BRAC property for civic and private 
reuse, it is paramount that we ensure any past environmental 
contamination on the property does not endanger public health or the 
environment. The Air Force will continue to fulfill this most solemn 
responsibility, as reflected in our fiscal year 2009 request of $120 
million for legacy BRAC clean up activities.
    At our non-BRAC Air Force installations, we continue to reshape our 
infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Air Force 
seeks fair market value for disposal or outgrants of property, and uses 
new tools, such as Enhanced Use Leasing, or EUL, authority, to optimize 
our resources and obtain value from our underutilized or excess 
capacity--value we can return to the warfighter.
    EUL constitutes a rapidly growing segment of our efforts to 
leverage the value of our property assets. EUL allows the Air Force to 
lease military property that is currently underutilized, but that is 
still needed for future mission needs, to private industry and public 
entities in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration that will 
provide certain services, facilities, or property repair and 
renovations to the Air Force. EULs are win-win scenarios for all 
involved. Through EUL projects, developers can establish long-term 
relationships with private and government partners who are potential 
tenants with specific real estate needs. Additionally, developers can 
receive market rates of return on design, construction, maintenance, 
tenant leases and property management activities. The Air Force 
Enhanced Use Lease Program is active with 21 projects undergoing 
feasibility studies across the Nation. A 10 USC 2869 exchange is 
another asset management tool, allowing the Air Force to work with 
communities to find effective win-win solutions to the disposal of BRAC 
and non-BRAC property. Communities benefit from receipt of real 
property, in exchange for which, value is returned to the Air Force in 
the form of approved MILCON projects. The Air Force is actively engaged 
in 2869 exchanges at Lynn Haven, FL and Norwalk, CA.
                federal facility agreements for cleanup
    The Air Force is fully committed to the protection of human health 
and the environment, to be good steward of taxpayer dollars and to full 
compliance with applicable law at all of its facilities and for all 
programs, including cleanup The Air Force has committed to protection 
of human health and the environment and the Air Force has established 
an aggressive, internal goal to have cleanup remedies in place at all 
active installations by the end of fiscal year 2012. That is 2 years 
ahead of the current DOD goal.
       maintaining our facilities and operational infrastructure
    The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and 
modernizing our operational infrastructure. Through our ``Corps of 
Discovery'' partnerships, we have been benchmarking the ``best of the 
best'' asset managers that our country has to offer. We are finding and 
implementing ways to manage better, utilize resources more wisely, 
leverage private sector investment potential, and use smart information 
technology. Our aim is to effectively manage assets by optimizing 
resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the warfighter at 
our installations and ranges. In 2009, we have focused sustainment 
funding on keeping our ``good facilities good'' and targeted limited 
Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to fix critical facility 
and infrastructure deficiencies to maintain readiness.
    Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our 
facilities and infrastructure in order to preserve our existing 
investment. Without proper sustainment, our facilities and 
infrastructure rapidly wear out. Additionally, commanders in the field 
are driven to use other operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts to 
address facility requirements that impact their mission capabilities.
    When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a 
balanced program of O&M and military construction funding to make them 
``mission ready.'' Unfortunately, restoration and modernization 
requirements in past years exceeded available O&M funding, causing us 
to defer much-needed work. It is important for us to steadily increase 
the investment in restoration and modernization in order to halt the 
growth of this backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the 
life of our facilities and infrastructure.
    The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding request in fiscal 
year 2009 is $2 billion, 90 percent of the amount called for by the 
Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). The fiscal year 2009 Total Force R&M 
funding request is $514 million, a much needed improvement over our 
fiscal year 2008 PB request. This is an area where the Air Force is 
taking manageable risk given our other budgetary priorities.
               demolition of excess, obsolete facilities
    In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we 
also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are 
focused on facilities we need, not on sustaining those we do not. For 
the past 10 years, the Air Force has aggressively demolished or 
disposed of facilities that were unneeded or no longer economically 
viable to maintain. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2007, we 
demolished 27.3 million square feet of non-housing facilities and 
infrastructure at a cost of $303 million in O&M funding. This is 
equivalent to demolishing more than three average size Air Force 
installations and has allowed us to target our O&M funding on 
facilities we need for the long-term mission. As part of its 
transformation vision, the Air Force will continue to aggressively 
identify opportunities to eliminate excess and obsolete facilities.
           planning and design/unspecified minor construction
    This year's Air Force MILCON request includes $88 million for 
planning and design, of which $8 million is for military family 
housing. The request includes $71 million for active duty, $5 million 
for the Air National Guard and $4 million for the Air Force Reserve. 
These funds will allow us to complete the design work for fiscal year 
2010 construction programs and to start the designs for fiscal year 
2011 projects, allowing us to award contracts in the year of 
authorization and appropriation.
    This year's request also includes $28 million for the Total Force 
unspecified minor construction program, which is our primary means for 
funding smaller projects.
                            energy strategy
    The increasing costs of energy and our commitment to reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil have led to the development of the Air Force 
energy strategy--to reduce demand, increase supply, and change the 
culture within the Air Force so that energy is a consideration in 
everything we do.
    In view of this commitment, the Air Force is implementing 
aggressive demand side fuel optimization and energy efficiency 
initiatives on each of our three energy sectors: aviation operations, 
ground transportation and support equipment, and installations. We are 
also assuring energy supply side availability of fuel for our aircraft, 
ground vehicles and equipment, and our facilities through initiatives 
such as testing and certifying our aircraft to use synthetic fuel and 
exploring public-private partnerships so that renewable sources of 
energy are available. Third, and perhaps the most important element of 
our energy strategy, we are ensuring that our strategy transcends the 
present to create a lasting culture of change in all airmen so that 
energy becomes a consideration in all we do through the strong 
involvement of our senior leadership, changes to our training and 
curricula at all levels throughout the Air Force and communication 
efforts so that every Airman knows the importance of what they are 
doing to conserve energy.
Synthetic Fuel
    Taking the lead to reduce dependence on foreign oil, the Air Force 
is evaluating a broad range of energy alternatives and the Air Force 
Synthetic Fuels Initiative is a key part to our energy strategy. As the 
DOD's leading consumer of jet fuel, we are currently engaged in 
evaluating alternative fuels and engine technologies leading to greater 
fuel efficiency. We've certified the B-52 to fly on a synthetic fuel 
blend, and are on track to test and certify the C-17, B-1 and F-22 in 
the near future, with the entire Air Force fleet certified by early 
2011.
Reduction of Facility Energy Usage
    The Air Force has an aggressive facility energy conservation 
program that achieved an impressive 30 percent reduction in energy use 
over the past 20 years. Your Air Force is the Federal Government's 
largest purchaser of ``green power'' and the third largest in the 
Nation overall. Thirty-seven of our bases purchase green power--at 
Dyess AFB, TX, Fairchild AFB, WA, and Minot AFB, ND, 100 percent of the 
electrical energy purchased came from renewable sources.
Public-Private Partnerships and Energy Enhanced Use Leases
    The Air Force continues to look for opportunities at our 
installations for installing and developing renewable energy projects 
for wind, solar, biomass, waste-to-energy, landfill gas and geothermal 
power as well as commercial-scale ethanol and biodiesel fuel plants.
    At Nellis AFB, NV, through a public-private partnership with 
Powerlight, a subsidiary of Sun Power Corporation, we installed the 
largest solar photovoltaic array in the Americas. It became operational 
in November and produces over 14.2 megawatts of clean, renewable, 
power. Overall, this renewable source of power results in a cost 
savings of nearly $1 million a year for the installation and the 
American taxpayer. Similar solar energy EUL projects we are pursuing at 
Edwards AFB, CA; Luke AFB, AZ; and Kirtland AFB, NM; would utilize a 
private-public partnership where private industry would utilize Air 
Force property in return for in-kind considerations.
Nuclear Energy
    Given the energy requirements of our air bases, as well as the 
unique demands of some of our remote installations, small modular 
nuclear reactors seem to provide a viable option to meet our future 
energy demands. We believe that the market is best suited to identify 
technological and economic winners. We expect the nuclear power project 
to be commercially funded and financially viable with normal commercial 
risk. In all cases, the Air Force would not develop, design, own, 
operate, or be the licensee for the nuclear power plant. We are in the 
process of gathering and assessing responses to a Request for 
Information from industry. The current estimate is that any plant built 
and operated pursuant to this initiative could be operational in latter 
half of next decade. Under ideal circumstances the Air Force intends to 
sign one or more letters of intent with viable consortiums by October 
2008.
Alternative Vehicles and Fuels
    We currently have over 5,200 FlexFuel vehicles in our fleet and 
nearly 8 percent of our diesel fuel is B20, which is a blend of 80 
percent conventional diesel and 20 percent renewable bio-fuels. We 
spent approximately $10 million on alternative fuels alone for ground 
vehicles and equipment in fiscal year 2007 and have budgeted over $100 
million over the next 5 years for alternative fuel and low-speed 
vehicles.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    The Air Force recognizes that energy and environmental management 
decisions are essentially two sides of the same coin; the 
interdependence between the two areas is clear. While our overall 
energy strategy is driven by the imperative to ensure the security and 
sustainability of mission critical energy resources, likewise, our 
environmental management strategy is looking beyond the regulatory 
paradigm to ensure mission needs are supported by sustainable 
environmental practices.
    As an Air Force with global reach and alliances, we are well aware 
of the international concern regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and 
recognize the importance placed on greenhouse gas emissions management 
by our allies, global partners, and here in the homeland. In order to 
make proactive, informed decisions about greenhouse gas emissions 
management with respect to energy use, alternate energy options, as 
well as chemical use, land management and process improvement 
opportunities, the Air Force has initiated a comprehensive greenhouse 
gas inventory to identify overall greenhouse gas emission sources from 
a ``top down'' aggregate energy use perspective, as well as from a 
detailed ``bottom up'' perspective, identifying greenhouse gas 
emissions from material usage and process activities. Further, we are 
identifying and quantifying biological carbon sequestration on our Air 
Force properties so that biological sequestration opportunities are 
understood as we manage over 9.8 million acres of Air Force 
installations and military range lands. We intend to complete our first 
comprehensive inventory by September 1st of this year.
    The Air Force is positioned to be a significant player in solving 
the global carbon dioxide issue. We are reaching out to others to 
partner in establishing a ``man on the moon'' scope project to address 
the reduction, capture, and reuse of greenhouse gases. We need to push 
for a holistic look at emissions from all energy sources. This will 
allow for the examination of all emissions across the lifecycle and 
then we can prioritize opportunities to drive true, measurable 
emissions reductions.
                         utility privatization
    Turning to utilities privatization, similar to our efforts in 
privatizing housing, the Air Force is privatizing utilities where it 
makes economic sense and does not adversely affect readiness, security, 
or mission accomplishment. Because installations are key to our 
operational capabilities, our network of bases provide necessary 
infrastructure for deploying, employing, and sustaining air and space 
operations and re-deploying and reconstituting the force afterwards. 
Reliable utility systems are critical infrastructure components and 
essential to air operations and quality of life at every Air Force 
base. Additionally, these systems must be consistent with modern 
technology to optimize energy conservation. We believe privatization 
offers an important tool in the toolbox for simultaneously meeting both 
these requirements.
    To date, under Office of the Secretary of Defense's utilities 
privatization program, the Air Force has conveyed 14 systems under 10 
U.S.C. 2688 and six additional systems using standard FAR clauses, for 
a total of 20 privatized systems with a plant replacement value in 
excess of $300 million. We are currently evaluating an additional 335 
systems for privatization. Additionally, where market conditions may 
have changed, we plan to re-solicit 145 systems previously determined 
``uneconomic.'' We anticipate possibly privatizing another ten systems 
in fiscal year 2008. By the time the program concludes, we now 
anticipate more than half of about 500 systems could be privatized. 
During the course of this process, we further expect many competitive 
solicitations will end up as sole source procurements from local 
utility companies.
                               conclusion
    The current and future readiness and capability of our Air Force to 
deter our enemies and, when necessary, fight and win our Nation's wars, 
depends heavily upon the state of our power projection platforms--our 
installations. As the Air Force continues to modernize and 
recapitalize, we will continue to wisely invest our precious funding 
allocated to military construction, the environment, operations and 
maintenance, BRAC, military family housing, and energy. This will 
enable us to win today's fight, take care of our people, and prepare 
for tomorrow's challenges. Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished 
members of the Committee for you support of the Air Force.

    Senator Johnson. Secretary Ferguson, the active duty Air 
Force's military construction request for 2009 is 19 percent 
below last year's enacted level. I fear that the Air Force may 
be charging up a bill that is going to come due in future years 
by neglecting infrastructure needs in favor of other things. 
According to your testimony, the Air Force has been self-
financing the effort to modernize its air and space force by 
accepting manageable risk in facilities and infrastructure 
funding. That sounds like to me the Air Force has made a 
decision to cannibalize its military construction funds to buy 
airplanes. Is that the case?
    Ms. Ferguson. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it's the 
case that we are cannibalizing our MILCON. Our fiscal year 2009 
budget request is about the same level as our fiscal year 2008 
budget request. What we have also done is we have funded our 
sustainment to a 90 percent level, which funds our facilities 
to keep good facilities in good condition. We've also increased 
our funding by $168 million over our fiscal year 2008 budget 
request in modernization and restoration, which takes care of 
the major infrastructure upgrades that need to occur on an 
installation such as roofs and pavements.
    Senator Johnson. In 2006 the request for Air Guard MILCON 
was $165 million, almost five times larger than this year's 
Guard request of only $35 million. The Air Guard's budget 
request for military construction has fallen by 80 percent in 
only 3 years. How do you justify that?
    General Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee 
members. The Air National Guard is serving overseas as well as 
at home, accomplishing missions, everything from defense 
support of civil authorities to the overseas missions, and we 
appreciate the support that we've had in the past and the 
Congressional adds we've gotten to ensure that these world-
class airmen in the Air National Guard can continue to do those 
missions at home and abroad.
    The funding levels, obviously we're in the total strategy 
of recapitalizing our force as well. We have aging airplanes in 
the Air National Guard. So when we look at the future--and I 
talk to my fellow guardsmen and we hear loud and clear from the 
State TAGS and in the National Guard Bureau that there is a 
need to accomplish MILCON projects, but also we're very 
concerned about the recapitalization.
    I heard this quote from one of my guardsmen out in the 
field, that said: Would you rather be in a 50-year-old building 
or would you rather fly a 50-year-old airplane? So we 
understand the recapitalization and the need to be a part of 
that. So we've taken the risk in the MILCON area as well. We 
think that's prudent.
    However, we also realize that there are MILCON needs out 
there that we need to have addressed, particularly with regard 
to the new missions under the total force initiative concept, 
that we'd like to see funded in the future, and we look forward 
to your help on that, please.
    Senator Johnson. The Air Force Reserve has seen even more 
drastic cuts. Its entire budget request this year is for three 
projects, for a total of $19 million, a decline of 76 percent 
in the last 3 years. Is your justification similar to that of 
the Air Guard?
    General Rubeor. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. Like the Air 
National Guard, we're very proud of the contributions of our 
Air Force Reserve members, very much committed to the fight 
along with our active duty and Guard partners. I will tell you 
that we have been looking at this issue hard. We've had some 
very constructive negotiations with the active duty. We've made 
some changes on how we're going to allocate Air Force Reserve 
and Air National Guard MILCON projects. That's going to be a 
change not only in the upcoming fiscal year, but also in the 
out years. It's going to provide us more opportunities to take 
a look at additional projects and increase the number of 
projects that are in the FYDP.
    So I think we've recognized the fact that there were some 
problems that led us to this year's very small MILCON, but 
we've taken steps to address that and I'm very satisfied, the 
Air Force Reserve is very satisfied with the changes that we're 
proposing.
    Senator Johnson. Secretary Ferguson, in January the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense issued an initial guidance to the services 
to begin joint basing implementation. Is the Air Force 
committed to the joint basing concept?
    Ms. Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force fully supports 
joint basing and is committed to making it a success. Major 
General Eulberg and myself have participated in all meetings 
that Mr. Arny has chaired since he has come on board. We have 
worked with the other services developing the common operating 
level standards, and we are fully behind joint basing.
    There was a kickoff video telecommunications conference 
that Mr. Arny hosted that we all participated in about 4 weeks 
ago with all 26 installations that make up the 12 joint bases. 
We will also travel out to Washington State in just a few weeks 
at the end of June to have a kickoff meeting, a further kickoff 
meeting, in person with all the services, OSD, senior staff 
from each one of the services here in the Pentagon, the major 
commands, and each one of the 26 installations, to further the 
joint basing implementation efforts.
    Senator Johnson. What is your understanding of how the 
joint basing process will work?
    Ms. Ferguson. OSD has issued the joint basing 
implementation guidance, has issued the templates for the MOAs 
and the supplemental guidance. There's basically two phases of 
implementation for the bases. The first phase, the MOAs, are 
scheduled to be signed later this year, in September of this 
year, with an initial operating capability (IOC) of January 
2009 and full operating capability (FOC) in October 2009.
    The phase two bases will start at the same time, but will 
have MOAs signed in September 2009, with IOC, in January 2009--
I'm sorry, January 2010, and FOC in October 2010.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
    Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to pass for now 
and I will submit my questions for the record. I'm sorry, I 
missed your testimony, so I hate to jump in here if you've 
answered my questions already. Thank you very much.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Nelson.
    Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, as we all know, Cyber Command is critical 
to our Nation's defense and some of the asymmetrical threats 
that we're going to encounter in the future will involve 
countering threats in this virtual domain. General McCaffrey 
recently said: ``There is no such thing as a secure computer 
system. Attacks could negate current U.S. military supremacy in 
the field and cripple the Nation's transportation, water, 
electrical, financial, and trading systems.''
    One of the greatest threats we currently face is an attack 
on our computer systems. General Pace recently said: ``I know 
what we can do to other people, which means that eventually 
they can do it to us.''
    While we support a very thorough process to select the 
location, which is a facilities question, the location of the 
headquarters for Cyber Command, why does it appear that the 
process keeps being pushed to the right as opposed to 
continuing to have pressure to establish that location as soon 
as possible, given the need to protect against cyber space 
attacks that we're most certainly going to have, if we're not 
having them already? There is a general belief that we're 
already experiencing some of this, at least testing us to see 
whether or not we're prepared to deal with it.
    So I guess the question is: Why do we wait for a final 
decision to 2009 as opposed to moving it forward, particularly 
with respect to facilities?
    Ms. Ferguson. Thank you for the question. We are following 
the National Environmental Policy Act for the selection of the 
beddown location for Cyber Command. We're taking a little bit 
different approach also, in that we're incorporating a lot of 
community involvement in the basing decision as we go through 
this.
    My boss, Secretary Anderson, sent initial letters out to 18 
States for 17 locations, to the governors and also information 
letters to each one of the congressional delegations (CODELs,) 
announcing what we would be doing and how we would be doing 
that. The initial letter went out. We're anticipating sending 
another letter out the middle of next week providing additional 
guidance to the local communities on the information that we 
will be considering as the Air Force works through our base 
selection process.
    Later this year, Air Force Cyber Command Provisional, with 
support from major commands, will be going out and doing site 
visits at the locations. It is anticipated that site surveys, 
the NEPA process, the data, and the final basing decision will 
take about 6 to 9 months to complete.
    Senator Nelson. Well, I understand the process and I guess 
I support it. But it seems that the process is delaying as 
opposed to accelerating the determination of a location. It 
would seem that the Air Force could have winnowed down the 
location to fewer than 18 sites. By adding more sites it just 
has extended the whole process because of the complications 
that you get with having more things to review. An egalitarian 
approach makes some sense, but in this situation it seems to me 
that the primary objective is to find a facility, find a 
location, establish a facility, and have the command fully 
operational as soon as possible.
    Ms. Ferguson. What I can do is I can take that back for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
                        Cyber Command Locations
    Initial efforts by the AFCYBER planning and basing team were 
focused on the urgency of standing up the new command. For this reason, 
the initial basing criteria focused on utilizing existing facilities. 
Then, SECAF asked us to consider ``virtual'' and ``distributed'' 
operations based on corps of discovery with industry leaders. So we 
developed an interim location basing strategy--focused on quickly 
activating the command, in a distributed ops fashion (supporting the 
AFCYBER mission in the near-term). This interim solution will provide 
more operational capability in the near-term and enabled the 
development of the non-traditional basing approach to solicit State and 
local feedback on potential permanent location basing alternatives.
    Listed below are the potential candidate bases identified by 18 
States for further information gathering and analysis for the proposed 
permanent basing of Air Force Cyber Command:
  --Barksdale, LA
  --Beale, CA
  --Hanscom, MA
  --Hill, UT
  --Iowa (on behalf of Offutt)
  --Keesler, MS
  --Kirtland, NM
  --Lackland, TX
  --Langley, VA
  --Little Rock, AR
  --NORAD (Colorado Springs), CO
  --Offutt, NE
  --Pennsylvania ANG bases
  --Maxwell, AL
  --McGuire, NJ
  --Michigan ANG bases
  --Whiteman, MO
  --Wright-Patterson, OH

    Senator Nelson. I think I've already extended it to the 
record back there, too. But I thought maybe you might have some 
enlightenment as to why we would expand the process at a time 
when it's critically important to get the location established 
and put in place as soon as possible.
    Ms. Ferguson. I think we're looking at all potential 
opportunities for where we might bed down this and following 
the NEPA and the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process 
to ensure that we do the right thing as we make the selection 
for this key mission.
    Senator Nelson. The facility will be a driving factor, I 
hope, as well as just a location of the command.
    Thank you.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Craig.
    Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Deputy Secretary Ferguson, Generals, thank you for being 
with us. I'm going to be very specific on a very specific 
project today at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and I brought 
along pictures, because pictures in this instance are worth a 
thousand words.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I'll be specific because I'm talking 
about an air base that our Commander in Chief awarded as the 
top air base in the world last year, and we're very proud of 
Mountain Home for a lot of reasons. The men and women that make 
it up are the first reason. But secondarily, we have a 
uniqueness there that is one of the top training ranges in the 
world now, that the world wants to come and play on; and not 
just our Air Force, but other air forces, Singapore and 
Israeli, German, because of its uniqueness.
    But inside that base is a problem and it's a problem I've 
talked about with all of you for a long time and it's now time 
to get it fixed. It's a building, a building that has been 
literally condemned since the 1990s, with risk of roof falling 
in. It's the Logistics Readiness Center.
    Bring on the pictures, please. For the last 5 years, the 
Idaho Congressional delegation has suggested that this become a 
top priority for this facility. You know, Ms. Ferguson, I 
talked about efficiencies of energy. This used to house, at 
least co-locate, at least seven different activities on the 
base. We've had to take them out of there and spread them all 
over the base, and we use lots of energy moving people around. 
The reason is that people who work in this building now have to 
wear hard hats for fear of something falling on them. I've been 
in the building and I was required to wear a hard hat while I 
was there.
    Yet this building is still operable until it gets four 
inches of snow on it, and then we evacuate everybody for risk 
of the roof falling in.
    Now, I know that we send our soldiers on very dangerous 
missions. The greatest danger to some of Mountain Home airmen 
and women is entering this building on base.
    I don't know how to make my point other than to suggest 
this. Last year Congressman Mike Simpson of the Second 
District, working on the other side of the Rotunda in the 
Appropriations Committee, put $1.593 million in to start the 
process. And yet the Air Force said, no, you can only have 35 
percent of the funding because Congress hasn't funded the 
whole. We wanted to start the process, get the logistics, the 
design and all of that ready, and yet we were handicapped in 
doing that.
    I don't know any other way to impress upon the Air Force 
the reality of this problem. It is a significant problem at a 
world class air base and it's a significant problem that now 
we've had to go in and shore up with wood because they need to 
continue to use it. We have an armory in there for firearms and 
all of that kind of thing, and a housing, encasement, if you 
will, for them that we're not going to move anywhere else for 
that matter.
    We're not talking about a huge ticket item. We're talking 
about a reality and a risk in a world-class base that is a 
factor now of human life.
    I finally said to the base folks: Okay, I'm going to drop 
the anchor on this one and I'll do everything I can with this 
committee to get it solved. But I'm pleading with you to adjust 
a very minor amount of priorities here when it comes to dollars 
and cents to replace this facility, because we now have spread 
out all over the base when it needs to be co-located there for 
efficiency, for energy savings, and I applaud you for what 
you've said on energy.
    Secretary Anderson and I visited about small nuclear and 
their future can give our bases anywhere in the world that 
potential in time, and that technology is now moving toward 
development, small modular reactors. That will play in time and 
I'm glad the Air Force is doing what it's doing.
    But efficient as we might want to become, this is the 
most--this is the most egregious example of inefficiency I've 
seen to date. Your reaction?
    Ms. Ferguson. Senator Craig, we have funded the design and 
have begun the design for the replacement facility at Mountain 
Home. It is undergoing right now--it will be 35 percent 
designed in October. The cost for the replacement facility, as 
you pointed out, is right about $20 million and we anticipate 
it will be in our fiscal year 2010 submission to the Congress.
    Senator Craig. You plan to submit it in fiscal year 2010?
    Ms. Ferguson. Right now, we have not got the fiscal year 
2010 program from the major command yet. But what we have heard 
is that it's Air Combat Command's number one priority within 
the command for this year. So given that, we would anticipate 
that would be in our fiscal year 2010 submittal to the 
Congress.
    Senator Craig. How do we nudge you along?
    Ms. Ferguson. I think you just did.
    Senator Craig. Oh, oh, is that what I just did?
    Ms. Ferguson. But we still have a long way to go. I have to 
caveat that it's still a long way to go between now and when 
the President's Budget (PB) comes over here. But what I am 
hearing now that is what Air Combat Command will come in with. 
As the committee well knows, we've continued to take risks in 
infrastructure, but we will be going into budget deliberations 
shortly as we go through the next 6 months or so.
    But what we're hearing from Air Combat Command is they have 
made that their number one priority in the command, and so we 
should see that when it comes up. We should see that at our 
level in the District of Columbia when it comes up from Air 
Combat Command.
    Senator Craig. Well, I've been focused on this for a long 
while. I waited until after BRAC 2005 to see how we survived 
and we survived with obvious flying colors, and immediately 
within a short time after that recognized as one of the top air 
bases in the world and certainly in the country.
    Like I say, it's a lot more about people than it is about 
facility, but at the same time facilities are critical.
    Well, I'll take that as more than a maybe and I'll follow 
you very closely to make sure that happens. And if we can nudge 
it along here, I'll make every effort to do that.
    Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Murray.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here this morning. During the BRAC 
process the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves had 
projects that were joint-funded projects. However, in the 
regular MILCON world it's very difficult to have a joint 
project for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. 
As I understand it, each service would have to include their 
portion of the funding in their own budget at the same time, 
and that just is not easy to do and there's no real process to 
efficiently pay for joint projects.
    What is the possibility of creating a joint 5-year budget 
to manage joint MILCON projects?
    Ms. Ferguson. That's really a question I can't answer. It's 
really a question that the comptroller and Mr. Arny would need 
to answer. That's something that's beyond Air Force control. I 
can take that and bring that back.
    [The information follows:]
              Joint Five-Year Military Construction Budget
    The organization best suited to respond to this question is the 
Office of the Under Secretary Defense Comptroller (OUSD-C). The OUSD-C 
has the visibility into all of the Service Components MILCON project 
requirements and capabilities to determine whether creating a joint 5-
year budget would be possible or in the best interests of the 
Department of Defense.

    Senator Murray. I would very much appreciate it. I think we 
have to look at it. I assume you think it's a problem?
    Ms. Ferguson. It's easier to work within service. It's 
harder to work combined across the services for joint MILCON.
    Senator Murray. Well, I am curious how----
    Ms. Ferguson. It's not impossible.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I'm curious how each of the 
services decides what MILCON requests go forward in a given 
year. Is a percentage of each one of these MILCON requests set 
apart for reserve component requests?
    Ms. Ferguson. What the Air Force does is we look overall at 
the requirements, at the new mission beddown requirements, and 
those are--I don't want to say they're funded off the top, but 
those get a fairly high priority as they go through, those 
projects to bed down the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, C-17. 
Those are needed to bed down the weapons systems at the 
installations.
    The current mission dollars--and General Rubeor mentioned 
this a little while ago. We've changed our process within the 
Air Force to allocate more dollars to the Guard and Reserve, 
particularly in the out-years, so that they compete for 
Congressional adds.
    Senator Murray. Given the utilization of the Guard and 
Reserve at this time, doesn't it make sense to put some 
percentage in place or make sure that they have a higher 
priority?
    General Rubeor. The answer to your question, ma'am, is yes, 
there is a formula. It's based on plant replacement value.
    I want to go back just a second, though. For the Air Force 
Reserve, our most efficient model is what we call the Associate 
model. A lot of folks have heard about TFI, Total Force 
Integration, and that's kind of what I'm talking about. We are 
at our most effective when we are on an active duty base and 
the active duty owns the equipment and the infrastructure and 
we just provide manpower. It is a very cost-effective model for 
the U.S. taxpayer.
    The vast majority of our force is in that model and it is 
growing. We used to have it primarily restricted to the 
mobility assets, C-5s and C-141s. We're growing it now into the 
tanker business. We're growing it into the bomber business, 
growing it into the fighter business. We're doing a lot of 
innovative stuff.
    For instance, we are now associating with the Air National 
Guard. At Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, we own the airplanes 
and the Air National Guard is associating with us. They are 
providing the crews and training on that platform.
    So that particular model, I don't think it receives enough 
attention. Again, it's the big part of our business. Whenever 
the active duty gets infrastructure and gets MILCONs and gets 
all of those things, we benefit because we use those facilities 
as part of this TFI.
    So the very small part of our business is when we own the 
base, and we have about 10 of those. There are five air reserve 
stations and five air reserve bases. When you talk about 
MILCON, that's where we're at and that's where we probably need 
some attention. And we've already addressed that with the 
active duty Air Force.
    That formula, which again to your point is basically a 
thing called plant replacement value. You take a look--and 
there's a lot of ways to do this, but this is the way we've 
chosen to do it. And oh, by the way, we're looking at that, and 
it is the right model.
    But for today, for this budget submission, we have 4 
percent of the active duty plant replacement value. So you take 
your budget and multiply it and that's how we get it.
    Senator Murray. Okay, great. I want to move on because I 
don't have that much time.
    Ms. Ferguson. If I could just add just one comment to what 
General Rubeor said. When you look at what the active component 
has put in as part of Total Force Integration and what it 
benefits to the Guard and Reserve components, it's been about 
$1.3 billion between fiscal year 2006 and 2009, and that is 
kind of buried in what the committee sees. But that number was 
just verified and documented by GAO, about 70 projects totaling 
over a billion dollars that support both.
    Senator Murray. Thank you.
    Let me go to another topic. In Secretary Anderson's written 
testimony that the committee has been provided, he mentioned 
that his third priority is preparing for tomorrow's challenges. 
I wanted to ask you about that because the Air Force has stated 
that MILCON for the KC-X tanker will include modification and 
new construction of buildings, new hangars, new ramps, and 
moving fuel hydrants. What preparation have you done for 
meeting that challenge?
    Ms. Ferguson. It might be better to take that for the 
record, but I can tell you we have not--within the 
installations community, we have not worked that yet.
    [The information follows:]
                     Military Construction for KC-X
    With respect to Military Construction (MILCON), the Air Force 
evaluates MILCON requirements and estimates the funding through an 
iterative process. As the program progresses through System Development 
and Demonstration (SDD) and aircraft basing decisions are finalized, 
the initial MILCON estimates will be updated to reflect specific MILCON 
projects. This refinement is a normal part of the process.
    The Air Force calculated and took into consideration MILCON cost 
estimates for active duty bases, overseas locations, guard, and reserve 
components. Since a basing strategy has not been finalized, the Air 
Force conducted site surveys of several existing tanker bases. These 
surveys were used as a basis for estimating MILCON costs for 10 bases, 
which included four Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve bases and two 
overseas locations. The Air Force is confident in this initial MILCON 
estimate and will continue to refine it based on specific requirements 
as basing decisions are made. It's important to note that MILCON cost 
estimates were not considered in isolation by the source selection 
team, but were included as a component of the Most Probable Life Cycle 
Cost, accounting for approximately 2 percent of the total costs.

    Senator Murray. So there's been no preparation for that?
    Ms. Ferguson. For individual bases, that is correct.
    Senator Murray. Did you or your office or anybody have a 
role in setting the requirements or the scope of the MILCON 
need for the KC-X?
    Ms. Ferguson. No.
    Senator Murray. So you were not involved in that at all. So 
we've got really tight budgets here. We've got to plan for 
costs on the horizon. We need to know what the costs are for 
that, and it's surprising to me that no one asked any of you 
ever what the costs for the MILCON would be.
    Ms. Ferguson. The source selection team that made the 
selection for the KC-X, did consider that as a factor. I do not 
have that, but we can get that from the acquisition community.
    Senator Murray. Well, let me ask, did the active duty and 
Reserve component provide any cost estimates for their side of 
this?
    Ms. Ferguson. I don't know the answer to that.
    Senator Murray. You don't know. Well, Secretary Wynne 
responded to some written questions and said that one member of 
the National Guard Bureau participated in the development of 
the requirements and supported the KC-X source selection as a 
subject matter expert. Do you know what expertise that member 
of the National Guard Bureau has regarding military 
construction? Do any of you know who that was or what their 
expertise was?
    General Rubeor. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Ferguson. We'll have to go back and find that out.
    Senator Murray. No idea? Well, okay. Well, there's going to 
be costs associated either with the 767 or the Airbus plane, 
and I want to how the difference in size and weight of the two 
tankers was considered when this was evaluated. There's 
construction costs for hangars, for ramps, for taxiways. How 
was that input given? Does anybody know?
    Ms. Ferguson. We'll have to take that for the record. None 
of the members on this panel are aware of that.
    Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do find that very 
troubling. This is a major MILCON request. It has major MILCON 
impacts. We were told that the costs of all of this were taken 
into account and it's troubling to me that this is going to 
have a huge impact on this committee and our future 
responsibilities, and certainly we need to know that.
    So I will submit some other questions for all of you 
regarding that, that I think this committee needs to understand 
in our future obligations. Construction as I understand it 
would need to begin in 2009 or 2010 in order to be ready for 
the first delivery of this tanker if it goes forward. That's 
going to have a huge impact on this committee, Mr. Chairman.
    I realize my time's out. I have some questions I will 
submit for the record on this and I hope we can get timely 
responses.
    Senator Johnson. Senator Brownback.
    Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    My questions are along the same line, that I would like to 
know about as well, the bid on this. The Air Force said they 
took the bigger Airbus plane because, one of the primary 
factors being, okay, it carries a bigger payload. That was the 
Air Force's--in the Air Force's announcement as I understand 
it. But that bigger plane requires bigger hangar space that's 
going to have to be adjusted. If it's going to carry the bigger 
load, it may well require strengthening of runways and aprons 
to hold it up. Is that correct?
    Ms. Ferguson. Since I did not participate in this, I would 
be guessing to answer the question. But what I will do is I 
will go back and get the folks that were on the acquisition 
selection team to go forward and provide the responses to that.
    [The information follows:]
                     Military Construction for KC-X
    The KC-30 and KC-767 aircraft are larger than the KC-135 and will 
require a similar degree of MILCON. The estimated MILCON costs are 
source selection sensitive and cannot be disclosed here but the costs 
are higher for the KC-30 when compared to the KC-767. MILCON costs were 
similar for fuel hydrant relocations, training devices, and simulators. 
The majority of cost differences were in hangar modifications and ramp 
upgrades. It's important to note that MILCON cost estimates were not 
considered in isolation by the source selection team, but were included 
as a component of the Most Probable Life Cycle Cost, accounting for 
approximately 2 percent of the total costs.

    Senator Brownback. Isn't this something you prepare for all 
the time? I mean, it seems like if you're going to buy a new 
weapon system--you were talking about bedding down other 
weapons systems--that you would be preparing for that now.
    Ms. Ferguson. Quite honestly, our installations offices 
don't get involved until after the selection of the aircraft. 
We don't normally get involved at the beginning. Not to say 
that there was engineers that were involved in the acquisition. 
It's just not those of us that are sitting here at the table 
today.
    So I apologize. We'll have to get back to you on the 
questions specifically to the KC-X and the selection process 
and the engineering criteria, analysis, and assumptions that 
were used going into the selection process.
    Senator Brownback. Let me ask General Clarke because it's 
active duty, it's Guard and Reserve that fly a lot of these 
tankers. Have you done, has your group done, an assessment of 
what you're going to have to change spacewise, either landing 
or hangars for the new aircraft?
    General Clarke. No, sir, not at the National Guard Bureau 
level. But the States themselves obviously once they heard 
about the selection started looking at their facilities and 
started determining where they might fit in the source 
selection after the announcement. To my knowledge, the National 
Guard Bureau itself has not done any type of analysis like 
that.
    Senator Brownback. What have you heard back from the 
States, though? If they are doing this assessment, then they 
must have something that they've assessed.
    General Clarke. I would say that most of them would tell 
you that either tanker probably would not fit in their existing 
facility. They're all built for KC-135 size or smaller type 
aircraft. So I don't think that they would tell you that the 
existing facilities would accommodate either tanker.
    Senator Brownback. Have they said anything about the 
bigger, the Airbus plane, since it is a bigger plane that it 
will require more space or reinforcing of runways?
    General Clarke. Yes, sir, in some locations that may be 
true. I don't have any analysis, though, to back that up.
    Senator Brownback. Have they told you that?
    General Clarke. Only anecdotally. They have not come 
forward with any metrics per se to say this is what we've 
measured and looked at as far as weight on the ramp, taxiways 
and things that you brought up, sir.
    Senator Brownback. They have done no official assessment?
    General Clarke. To my knowledge, no, sir.
    Senator Brownback. General, this seems kind of odd to me. 
This is a $40 billion contract and it's not been hidden from 
the public. So it's kind of known. And it's a bigger plane, and 
your guys know how to handle planes.
    General Clarke. Yes, sir.
    Senator Brownback. I've got a group of them in my State who 
do a fabulous job. So I've got to think they've been all over 
this thing about now, where are we going to put this thing? And 
you've got no assessment?
    General Clarke. To my knowledge, no, sir, we don't. No, 
sir.
    Senator Brownback. Now, that seems to be intentional, that 
you have no assessment.
    General Clarke. Intentional on the part of the National 
Guard Bureau, sir?
    Senator Brownback. Yes.
    General Clarke. Oh, no, sir, not at all.
    Senator Brownback. Does that make sense to you, that you're 
going to have a big new plane and you haven't assessed where 
you're going to put it?
    General Clarke. To my knowledge, sir, we were never given 
any direction to go look at this. We don't have any funding to 
go out and send teams to analyze it. We don't have any way to 
do this at the base level other than maybe just to do an 
overprint of the size of the aircraft against existing 
facilities.
    Senator Brownback. Have you made a request for that 
assessment to be done?
    General Clarke. No, sir. No, sir.
    Senator Brownback. Why not?
    General Clarke. Sir, we're going to work with the Air Force 
and the Air Mobility Command when they finally make the 
selection of where we're going to put these aircraft in their 
road map. But at this time it would be speculative to say where 
these airplanes are actually going to go at this time. We have 
no idea where they might be bedded down.
    Senator Brownback. Well, I guess I would--I'm sitting here 
on a MILCON committee thinking there's going to be a big price 
tag on this and you guys are going to submit it. And it seems 
like we ought to have it as part of the overall estimate, 
because either plane is going to be different than your current 
one. So that you would think you would do an assessment, here's 
what it would be for the Boeing, the 767, and here's what it's 
going to be for the Airbus A-330; and that you would have that 
so you would know, because these are going to be in a lot of 
bases in this country and a lot of bases around the world. My 
guys, they're going all the time.
    So I'd kind of think you would do that now.
    Ms. Ferguson. My understanding is that was done as part of 
the source selection evaluation. It just was done by a 
different group than the three of us up here, and MILCON cost 
were considered as one of the factors in their evaluation. But 
we will have to get the level that that was provided and the 
information, whatever the acquisition selection team can 
provide, and get that back to you.
    Senator Brownback. But none of you were involved in this?
    Ms. Ferguson. None of the three of us were involved.
    Senator Brownback. Why weren't you involved? I mean, you 
would be the ones to be in charge of doing it, right?
    Ms. Ferguson. We work the execution piece. We typically 
don't get involved in the selection of the new weapons systems. 
We work the beddown piece, but we don't get involved in the up-
front end.
    Senator Brownback. When you come back for all the upgrades 
on this, I may have some real questions for you then, too, of 
why we weren't preparing for the billions on this.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Johnson. I would like to thank all our witnesses 
for their appearances before the subcommittee today. We look 
forward to working with you this year as the 2009 budget 
process continues.
    For the information of subcommittee members, if you have 
questions for the record that you would like to submit please 
do so by the close of business on May 15, 2008.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

                             fydp cutbacks
    Question. As I noted at the hearing, I am deeply concerned over the 
declining level of military construction funding requested for the Air 
Guard and Air Force Reserve. The Future Years Defense Plans (FYDPs), 
for the Guard and Reserve have been severely cut; over the next 5 
years, the Air Guard has proposed only 40 projects, or an average of 8 
per year. The Air Force Reserve has proposed only 13 projects, an 
average of less than 3 per year. By the Senate's rules, we cannot 
appropriate money for projects that are not in the Services' FYDPs. 
Thus, even if Congress wants to increase funding for the Guard and 
Reserve above the request, there are very few eligible projects to put 
money toward.
    Why have the FYDPs for the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve been cut 
back so drastically? Whose decision was that?
    Answer. Air Force leadership corporately decided to take risk in 
infrastructure in order to fund higher priority requirements, such as 
modernizing and recapitalizing our aging aircraft fleet. This decision 
reduced the total Air Force Military Construction program greatly over 
the fiscal year 2009-2013 FYDP. Corporately we are taking steps to 
change how Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Military 
Construction projects are allocated which will increase the number of 
Guard and Reserve Military Construction projects in the FYDP.
              guard and reserve construction requirements
    Question. Please provide the Committee with a list of Guard and 
Reserve military construction (MILCON) requirements that have been left 
out of the FYDP.
    Answer. In order to recapitalize and modernize the fleet, the Air 
Force started ``taking risk in infrastructure'' in the fiscal year 2008 
President's Budget (PB), which resulted in a reduced MILCON FYDP. With 
a larger FYDP, all components would have been able to list more MILCON 
projects. Using the fiscal year 2006 PB as a representative size FYDP, 
the additional Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve projects may 
have included the projects below in the current FYDP.
    The Air National Guard MILCON projects highlighted below represent 
those projects that may have been included in a larger FYDP ($350.6 
million). The other projects listed below are additional Air National 
Guard MILCON requirements (part of the overall MILCON backlog).

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                            Location                  Project Title             Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL......................................  MONTGOMERY................  TFI-Replace Squadron Ops               8.9
                                                                       Facility.
AL......................................  MONTGOMERY................  Replace Fuel Cell/                     7.8
                                                                       Corrosion Control.
AR......................................  FORT SMITH................  Repl Civil Engineer                    9.0
                                                                       Complex.
AZ......................................  DAVIS MONTHAN.............  TFI-Predator Beddown--FOC.             6.7
AZ......................................  FORT HUACHUCA.............  TFI-Predator LRE Beddown..            11.0
CA......................................  SCLA......................  TFI-Predator FTU LRE                   8.4
                                                                       Beddown.
CO......................................  BUCKLEY...................  ADALWpn Rel Shp, Bldg 805.             3.3
CT......................................  BRADLEY...................  TFI-cNAF Beddown..........             9.2
DE......................................  NEW CASTLE................  Replace Fuel Cell Hangar..            11.2
DE......................................  NEW CASTLE................  Replace Acft Maintenance              11.6
                                                                       Shops.
DE......................................  NEW CASTLE................  Joint Forces Ops--ANG                  1.5
                                                                       Share.
DE......................................  NEW CASTLE................  Replace Maintenance Shops.            11.2
FL......................................  MACDILL...................  Construct Vehicle                      2.6
                                                                       Maintenance Facility.
GA......................................  SAVANNAH..................  Relocate ASOS.............             7.7
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI-F-22 Hangar, Squad Ops            48.0
                                                                       and AMU.
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI09F0922 Weapons Load                7.0
                                                                       Crew.
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI09F0922 Upgrade                    18.0
                                                                       Munitions.
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI09F0922 Infrastructure              6.7
                                                                       Support.
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI09F0922 Flight Sim                 19.0
                                                                       Facility.
HI......................................  HICKAM....................  TFI09F22-Aircraft Parking             12.0
                                                                       Apron.
IA......................................  DES MOINES................  Replace Comm Facility.....             5.9
IA......................................  DES MOINES................  ADAL Security Forces......             4.6
IL......................................  CAPITAL...................  Relocate Base Entrance....             6.1
IL......................................  CAPITAL...................  TFI09cNAF Beddown.........            12.4
IN......................................  FORT WAYNE................  ASE and GP Shop Addn......             4.2
IN......................................  FORT WAYNE................  Add To Fire/Crash/Rescue..             2.0
IN......................................  HULMAN....................  TFI09ASOS beddown.........             4.4
KS......................................  FORBES....................  Replace Squad Ops Facility             9.5
KS......................................  MCCONNELL.................  TFI-Expand DCGS Facilities             8.9
KY......................................  LOUISVILLE................  TFI09CRG Facility.........             7.1
LA......................................  HAMMOND...................  Upgrade Comm and Supp Fac.             5.0
LA......................................  NEW ORLEANS...............  Replace Security Forces                5.2
                                                                       Fac.
MA......................................  BARNES....................  ADAL Aircraft Maintenance             10.6
                                                                       Hangar.
MA......................................  OTIS......................  TFI09cNAF Beddown.........             4.7
MA......................................  MILFORD...................  Joint Forces Headquarters--            1.5
                                                                       ANG Share.
MD......................................  MARTIN STATE..............  Composite Trng Facility...             6.5
MD......................................  ANDREWS...................  Replace Munitions Storage             14.0
                                                                       complex.
ME......................................  BANGOR....................  Add/Alter Fire Crash/                  5.1
                                                                       Rescue.
ME......................................  BANGOR....................  Replace KC09135 Hangar and            28.0
                                                                       Shops.
MI......................................  SELFRIDGE.................  ADAL Squad Ops............             9.3
MI......................................  W K KELLOGG...............  TFI09cNAF Beddown.........             9.2
MN......................................  DULUTH....................  Load Crew Trng/Weapons                 8.0
                                                                       Release.
MN......................................  MINN ST PAUL..............  Aircraft De-icing Apron...             1.5
MO......................................  WHITEMAN..................  TFI09B092 Ops and Trng....             6.4
MO......................................  LAMBERT...................  TFI09cNAF Beddown.........             8.4
MS......................................  JACKSON...................  Security Forces/med                    7.7
                                                                       training.
MS......................................  KEY FIELD.................  TFI09cNAF Beddown and                 17.0
                                                                       AFFOR.
NC......................................  STANLY....................  Upgrade ASOS Complex......             2.4
NE......................................  LINCOLN...................  Joint Forces Headquarters--            1.5
                                                                       ANG Share.
NH......................................  PEASE.....................  Replace Squadron                       9.8
                                                                       Operations.
NJ......................................  MCGUIRE...................  Replace Base Civil                     9.5
                                                                       Engineer.
NJ......................................  MCGUIRE...................  TFI--Upgrade CRG Facility.             4.2
NJ......................................  ATLANTIC CITY.............  Dining Hall and Services               8.4
                                                                       Facility.
NM......................................  KIRTLAND..................  ADAL Security Forces Bldg              1.7
                                                                       1062.
NV......................................  CREECH....................  TFI09UAS Squad Ops........             2.2
NY......................................  GABRESKI..................  Communications Facility...             5.8
NY......................................  STEWART...................  Security Forces/Mobility               9.5
                                                                       Fac.
NY......................................  FT DRUM...................  TFI-Reaper LRE Beddown....             2.0
OH......................................  TOLEDO....................  Small Arms Range..........             4.0
OH......................................  TOLEDO....................  Construct Band Facility...             2.0
OH......................................  TOLEDO....................  Repl Sec Forces Complex...             8.5
OH......................................  TOLEDO....................  Replace Fire/Crash/Rescue              5.4
                                                                       Station.
OH......................................  TOLEDO....................  Munitions Storage Complex.            11.6
OR......................................  KLAMATH...................  Security Forces Facility..             5.0
OR......................................  KLAMATH...................  Add to Fire/Crash/Rescue               1.5
                                                                       Station.
PA......................................  WILLOW....................  TFI09cNAF Beddown.........             9.2
RI......................................  QUONSET...................  Medical Training/Dining                9.9
                                                                       Hall.
SC......................................  MCENTIRE..................  Joint Forces HQ-ANG Share.             1.3
SC......................................  MCENTIRE..................  Wastewater Treatment                   1.5
                                                                       Facility.
SC......................................  MCENTIRE..................  Expand Arm/Dearm Pad......             3.0
SC......................................  MCENTIRE..................  Construct CATS and CATM...             1.3
TN......................................  MEMPHIS...................  BCE Maintenance/Training               7.4
                                                                       Complex.
TN......................................  NASHVILLE.................  TFI-Intel Squadron                     6.0
                                                                       Facility.
TN......................................  NASHVILLE.................  TFI-Establish C-130 FTU...             6.3
TX......................................  ELLINGTON.................  Security Forces Facility..             5.5
TX......................................  ELLINGTON.................  TFI09ASOS Beddown.........             6.8
TX......................................  TBD.......................  TFI-Predator LRE beddown..             7.0
TX......................................  FORT WORTH NAS JRB........  ECM Shop Addition, B1675..             1.1
UT......................................  SALT LAKE.................  Upgrade ESC Complex.......             8.8
UT......................................  SALT LAKE.................  Replace Composite Fire                12.0
                                                                       Station.
VA......................................  LANGLEY...................  TFI09F0922 Ops and Trng                6.5
                                                                       Fac.
VT......................................  BURLINGTON................  ADAL Fire Crash/Rescue                 5.8
                                                                       Station.
WI......................................  GEN MITCHELL..............  Upgrade Corrosion Control              4.7
                                                                       Hangar.
WI......................................  VOLK FLD..................  Replace Troop Trng                     9.8
                                                                       Quarters.
WV......................................  SHEPHERD FLD..............  C095 Aircraft Upgrade                 10.0
                                                                       Taxiways.
WV......................................  SHEPHERD FLD..............  C095 Avionics Shop........             4.3
WV......................................  YEAGER....................  AGE and Security Complex..            11.0
WV......................................  YEAGER....................  Replace Communications                 5.4
                                                                       Training Facility.
WY......................................  CHEYENNE..................  Vehicle Maint & Deploy                 7.5
                                                                       Process.
                                                                                                 ---------------
      TOTAL.............................  ..........................  ..........................           681.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Air Force Reserve MILCON projects highlighted below represent 
those projects that may have been included in a larger FYDP ($153.6 
million). The other projects listed below are additional Air Force 
Reserve MILCON requirements (part of the overall MILCON backlog).

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                            Location                  Project Title             Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL......................................  Maxwell...................  AERIAL PORT SQUADRON                   4.9
                                                                       FACILITY.
AL......................................  Maxwell...................  AIRCRAFT PARKING RAMP.....            15.7
AL......................................  Maxwell...................  LOGISTICS/AGE/AVIONICS                 4.3
                                                                       FACILITY.
AL......................................  Maxwell...................  SHORTFIELD RUNWAY.........            12.9
AL......................................  Maxwell...................  SQUADRON OPERATIONS/OG/OSF             7.0
                                                                       FACILITY.
AZ......................................  Luke......................  AEROMEDICAL STAGING                    4.7
                                                                       SQUADRON FACILITY.
CA......................................  Travis....................  C17 & C5 ALTER FOR RESERVE             5.0
                                                                       TRAINING FACILITY.
CA......................................  March.....................  INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING               5.9
                                                                       RANGE.
CA......................................  March.....................  JOINT REGIONAL DEPLOYMENT              7.0
                                                                       CARGO CENTER.
CA......................................  Beale.....................  940 ARW CONSOLIDATED                   4.2
                                                                       TRAINING FACILITY.
CA......................................  Travis....................  COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING                2.3
                                                                       FACILITY.
CA......................................  Travis....................  AIRLIFT CONTROL FLIGHT                 2.4
                                                                       TRAINING FACILITY.
CA......................................  March.....................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            10.9
CA......................................  Travis....................  RESERVE RECRUITING                     2.2
                                                                       SQUADRON.
CA......................................  March.....................  WIDEN TAXIWAY A...........             9.1
CA......................................  March.....................  CONTROL TOWER.............            10.3
CA......................................  March.....................  C-17 ASSAULT STRIP........             7.9
CA......................................  March.....................  CLEAR ZONE DRAINAGE.......            10.1
CA......................................  March.....................  UNDERWING HIGH EXPANSION               3.1
                                                                       FOAM (HEF)  SYSTEM.
CO......................................  Peterson..................  SECURITY FORCES FACILITY..             5.0
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  DINING FACILITY...........             6.0
FL......................................  Patrick...................  MAINTENANCE WORKSHOP                  10.0
                                                                       COMPLEX.
FL......................................  Patrick...................  WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY            10.5
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  ENTRY CONTROL COMPLEX.....             9.5
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  ADD/ALTER COMMAND POST                 2.1
                                                                       BUILDING 360.
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE                     3.2
                                                                       DISPOSAL FACILITY.
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  AERIAL PORT SQUADRON                   6.7
                                                                       FACILITY.
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  ADD VISITING QUARTERS                  3.9
                                                                       BUILDING 410.
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  STORAGE FACILITY OPS/MX...             2.3
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            11.0
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            11.0
FL......................................  Homestead ARB.............  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            11.0
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  FIRE STATION AND SECURITY             10.2
                                                                       COMPLEX.
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY             4.3
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  FITNESS CENTER............             4.0
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--            16.5
                                                                       PHASE 1.
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--            16.5
                                                                       PHASE 2.
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--            15.5
                                                                       PHASE 3.
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  PURCHASE AICUZ CLEAR ZONES            34.0
GA......................................  Dobbins...................  EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE                     3.1
                                                                       DISPOSAL FACILITY.
GA......................................  Robins....................  HQ AFRC COMPLEX PHASE 1...           100.0
GA......................................  Robins....................  HQ AFRC COMPLEX PHASE 2...            50.0
HI......................................  Hickam....................  624 RSG HQ FACILITY.......            12.2
IN......................................  Grissom...................  ADD/ALTER AIRCRAFT                     9.8
                                                                       MAINTENANCE HANGAR.
IN......................................  Grissom...................  SECURITY FORCES SQUADRON               7.4
                                                                       FACILITY.
KS......................................  McConnell.................  RESERVE TRAINING FACILITY              1.6
                                                                       931 ARG.
LA......................................  Barksdale.................  B-52 FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE            12.8
                                                                       DOCK.
LA......................................  Barksdale.................  WING TRAINING FACILITY....             2.8
MA......................................  Westover..................  SQUADRON OPERATIONS                   10.0
                                                                       FACILITY.
MA......................................  Westover..................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            10.5
MA......................................  Westover..................  WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY             8.4
MA......................................  Westover..................  INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING               6.7
                                                                       RANGE.
MA......................................  Westover..................  DINING FACILITY...........             7.7
MA......................................  Westover..................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            10.8
MA......................................  Westover..................  AEROMEDICAL STAGING                    5.2
                                                                       SQUADRON FACILITY.
MA......................................  Westover..................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..             7.7
MA......................................  Westover..................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY..            10.0
MA......................................  Westover..................  PAVEMENTS AND GROUNDS                  3.7
                                                                       FACILITY.
MA......................................  Westover..................  OVERRUNS AND SHOULDERS                 4.7
                                                                       RUNWAY 15/33.
MA......................................  Westover..................  VEHICLE MAINTENANCE                    6.3
                                                                       FACILITY.
MA......................................  Westover..................  LAND ACQUISITION BASE                  4.0
                                                                       PERIMETER.
MN......................................  Minn-St Paul..............  AERIAL PORT SQUADRON                   7.5
                                                                       FACILITY.
MN......................................  Minn-St Paul..............  PARKING RAMP--VEHICLE.....            11.0
MO......................................  Whiteman..................  MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE                  2.2
                                                                       FACILITY.
NC......................................  Seymour Johnson...........  OPERATIONS GROUP FACILITY.             6.3
NC......................................  Seymour Johnson...........  COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRON                5.6
                                                                       FACILITY.
NJ......................................  McGuire...................  AIRLIFT CONTROL FLIGHT                 3.9
                                                                       FACILITY.
NJ......................................  McGuire...................  ADD/ALTER WING                         5.7
                                                                       HEADQUARTERS BLDG 2217.
NJ......................................  McGuire...................  CIVIL ENGINEER TRAINING                6.4
                                                                       FACILITY.
NY......................................  Niagara Falls.............  RESERVE APRON.............            13.3
NY......................................  Niagara Falls.............  AFRC/ANG BASE OPERATIONS               3.3
                                                                       FACILITY.
OH......................................  Youngstown................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--             9.4
                                                                       PHASE 3.
OH......................................  Youngstown................  INDOOR SMALL ARMS FIRING               9.4
                                                                       RANGE.
OH......................................  Youngstown................  MISSION SUPPORT COMPLEX...             4.4
OH......................................  Youngstown................  SECURITY FORCES SQUADRON               4.0
                                                                       FACILITY.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--             9.2
                                                                       PHASE 1.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  WING HEADQUARTERS FACILITY             9.8
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--             8.6
                                                                       PHASE 2.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  MODIFIED SMALL FITNESS                 6.1
                                                                       CENTER.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  ADD/ALTER WEST APRON                   9.1
                                                                       REPLACEMENT.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  DINING FACILITY,                      17.5
                                                                       RECREATION CENTER AND
                                                                       RESERVE LODGING--PHASE 3.
PA......................................  Pittsburgh................  RESERVE LODGING FACILITY--            13.0
                                                                       PHASE 4.
SC......................................  Charleston................  ADD/ALTER AEROMEDICAL                  2.5
                                                                       FACILITY.
SC......................................  Charleston................  RED HORSE HQ AND                       3.5
                                                                       ENGINEERING FACILITY.
SC......................................  Charleston................  ADD/ALTER 315TH SQUADRON               4.3
                                                                       OPERATIONS FACILITY.
SC......................................  Charleston................  RED HORSE AIR FIELDS AND               8.6
                                                                       VEHICLE MAINT.
TX......................................  Lackland..................  433 AW HQ FACILITY........             5.8
TX......................................  Lackland..................  CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE              15.2
                                                                       FACILITY.
UT......................................  Hill......................  RESERVE TRAINING COMPLEX..             5.5
UT......................................  Hill......................  AERIAL PORT SQUADRON                   3.0
                                                                       FACILITY.
WA......................................  McChord...................  AEROMEDICAL STAGING                    2.8
                                                                       SQUADRON FACILITY.
                                                                                                 ---------------
      TOTAL.............................  ..........................  ..........................           834.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 ______
                                 

               Question Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

         transition from cheyenne mountain to peterson afb, co
    Question. Mr. Anderson, as you continue to transition from Cheyenne 
Mountain to Building 2 at Peterson AFB, I'm concerned about force 
protection. In the FYDP for fiscal year 2010, the Air Force has 
included a plan to acquire 23 acres surrounding Building 2 specifically 
for force protection. I have requested that the funding be made 
available in fiscal year 2009, as I believe it to be a vital project 
for Peterson. If this funding is not included for fiscal year 2009, 
what are your plans to move forward with protecting the area 
surrounding Building 2?
    Answer. We are aware of the security concerns around building 
number two at Peterson Air Force Base, CO. The 23-acre land acquisition 
military construction (MILCON) project is part of the solution to 
provide force protection. We are currently in the process of building 
our fiscal year 2010-2015 Program Objective Memorandum. The Air Force 
Corporate Structure will make every attempt to place its most urgent 
MILCON requirements in the fiscal year 2010 MILCON program as part of 
fiscal year 2010-2015 Program Objective Memorandum build and will 
consider this project during its deliberations of the Air Force fiscal 
year 2010-2015 MILCON program build.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

    Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
    [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, May 8, the hearings 
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.]
