[Senate Hearing 111-124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-124
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 3082/S. 1407
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Defense
Department of Veterans Affairs
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-311 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
PATTY MURRAY, Washington SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BEN NELSON, Nebraska THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Christina Evans
Chad Schulken
Andrew Vanlandingham
Dennis Balkham (Minority)
Ben Hammond (Minority)
Administrative Support
Renan Snowden
Katie Batte (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Page
Department of Defense:
Department of the Army....................................... 1
Department of the Air Force.................................. 25
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Department of Defense............................................ 47
Department of the Navy....................................... 85
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Department of Veterans Affairs................................... 107
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Pryor, Hutchison, and Murkowski.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF LOUIS JEROME HANSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT,
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (STRATEGIC
INFRASTRUCTURE) AND SENIOR OFFICIAL
PERFORMING DUTIES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JOSEPH F. CALCARA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
(INSTALLATIONS AND HOUSING)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES C. BOOZER, SR., DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATION
MANAGEMENT
MAJOR GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
BRIGADIER GENERAL JULIA A. KRAUS, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. ARMY
RESERVE, DEPUTY COMMANDER FOR MANAGEMENT, RESOURCES, AND
SUPPORT
opening statement of senator tim johnson
Senator Johnson. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
order.
I welcome everyone to today's hearing. We are here to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for
military construction and family housing.
We will hear from two panels of witnesses representing the
Army and the Air Force and the Reserve components. The first
panel will be the Army.
Our procedure is to have opening statements by the chairman
and ranking member, followed by an opening statement from our
witnesses. In addition to the oral statements, all prepared
statements from our witnesses will be entered into the record.
I request that our members limit their questions to 6-
minute rounds.
Secretary Hansen, Secretary Calcara, General Boozer,
General Carpenter, and General Kraus, thank you for coming
today. We look forward to your testimony.
The Army's fiscal year 2010 budget request for active and
Reserve military construction and family housing is $5.25
billion, which is a 41 percent decrease from the fiscal year
2009 enacted level. The active component is down 24 percent
from the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and the Army Guard is
down 54 percent. Only the Army Reserve is showing an increase.
I hope that you will address this trend and the reasons for it
in your opening statement.
I am also interested in what impact the decision to reduce
the Army's brigade combat team structure from 48 to 45 BCTs
will have on the military construction, in particular on the
stationing of Army forces in Europe and the global posture
structure overall.
The Army continues to face a number of budget pressures due
to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the execution of the BRAC
program, and the ``grow the force'' initiative. It is very
important that adequate resources are available for the
military construction projects needed to support these efforts,
and I look forward to your assessment of the fiscal year 2010
budget request.
I now turn to my ranking member, Senator Hutchison, for her
opening remarks.
statement of senator kay bailey hutchison
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate your holding the hearing, and I thank all of
the witnesses for coming and sharing the priorities that you
have with us.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request contains $7.5 billion
for implementing BRAC construction. That is a 15 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2009 level. I understand that
there is a request for $1.4 billion for overseas contingency
operations that will be handled separately. So while we don't
have all of your justifications yet for that, we will have to
decide how that goes into this bill.
But I hope today's discussions with the Army and the Air
Force address how the Department intends to complete all of the
BRAC-recommended actions before the statutory deadline of
September 30, 2011. Since the largest portion of the BRAC
request goes to the Army, I hope Mr. Calcara will be prepared
to speak to that.
Concerning the fiscal year 2010 budget request, I am
concerned about the Army's investment in infrastructure in the
United States. The active duty construction request is down 24
percent from last year's enacted level, and the Guard request
is down 46 percent. I am pleased to see that the Reserve
component has requested an increase of 33 percent, but overall,
the Army's $4 billion request is a 23 percent decrease. So I
will look forward to Mr. Calcara discussing that.
When we were considering the stimulus bill several months
ago, I thought that we should be increasing our military
construction and moving it up because, of course, we know that
there is a FYDP, and if we push that up, it is money that we
were going to spend anyway. We would just be creating jobs more
quickly for Americans. That amendment did not see the light of
day.
Our U.S. installations at places like Fort Hood, Fort
Bliss, and Fort Bragg offer large maneuver areas, automated
ranges, modern simulator training, and few restrictions on
nighttime flying and training. As a result, soldiers trained in
the United States and deployed overseas are better prepared to
fight on day one of a conflict than those stationed overseas,
where our forces must contend with onerous training
restrictions.
Today, with our modern strategic deployment capabilities
and the use of airlift and roll-on/roll-off ships, we can often
project power from the United States faster than an overseas-
based unit. The Overseas Basing Commission recommendations that
our committee drafted and were enacted, in those, the BRAC
recommendations and the global defense posture that focuses on
expanded allied roles and partnerships dictate that it is in
our national interest to relocate more of our soldiers back to
the United States and fulfill overseas training and contingency
missions by deploying U.S.-based troops where needed.
Stationing our troops in the United States provides more
operational freedom of action, better training, and better
family support than would be possible otherwise.
I must also point out that our current military has more
citizen soldiers than we have seen in a great many years. I am
very concerned about the overall trend in military construction
for our Guard and Reserve components.
I would like to mention again this year the Army's new
modular force plan, which will reorganize units into brigade
combat teams. I understand this is about 80 percent complete
now. The new plan calls for five new BCTs to be stationed at
Fort Bliss, Fort Stewart, and Fort Carson.
Now we are told that a European commander wants to keep two
BCTs in Europe for up to 2 years longer than the Army
originally planned. I have discussed this with General Casey
and Secretary Gates, and I hope that Assistant Secretary
Calcara will tell us how the plans for moving the infantry
divisions from Europe to the United States are going.
On the Air Force side, I look forward to the discussion
with Assistant Secretary Ferguson concerning the construction
program there as well. The Air Force's active duty construction
request is 10 percent below last year's enacted level. The
Guard component is requesting 56 percent less than last year,
and the Reserve component 26 percent less.
I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that our airmen must
have facilities and family support infrastructure from which to
work and live that is commensurate with their dedication.
The Secretary of Defense outlined the four pillars of the
Air Force's budget strategy--people, readiness, infrastructure,
and modernization. I look forward to Secretary Ferguson
discussing these priorities and how the Air Force can achieve
them while taking such a risk in infrastructure.
I understand the Air Force intends to downsize its total
infrastructure budget and physical plant by 20 percent, the 20/
20 by 2020 plan, and I look forward to hearing more about this
in an era of increased operational tempo.
Joint basing is another subject I am interested in. As
everyone knows, the BRAC provides--the former BRAC provided 12
test joint bases. I hope the Air Force will speak today on how
it proposes to operate a joint base and handle the real
property issues on it since, in the present BRAC, the Air Force
will be the lead in 6 of the 12 joint bases.
prepared statement
I am particularly interested in how the Air Force will
operate Joint Base San Antonio as it assumes the responsibility
for Lackland, Randolph, and the Army base Fort Sam Houston.
So thank you all for coming, and we look forward to your
testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing
today and am pleased to welcome representatives of the Army and the Air
Force before the Subcommittee as we examine the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for military construction, family housing, and Base
Realignment and Closure actions for the Department of the Army and the
Department of the Air Force.
The panel representing the Department of Defense will appear at our
next hearing, and we'll discuss Department-Wide MILCON issues at that
time. But for now I would just like to point out that the overall
Department of Defense's military construction program, including
military family housing and BRAC, is only $22.9 billion, an 18 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The fiscal year 2010
budget request only contains $7.5 billion for implementing BRAC
construction actions, a 15 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2009
enacted level. Plus, I understand there is a request for $1.4 billion
for overseas contingency operations that will be handled separately. We
have not received all of the justification material yet and so the
Committee will decide exactly how we will include this in our bill. I
hope today's discussions with the Army and Air Force addresses how the
Department intends to complete all of the BRAC recommended actions
before the statutory deadline of September 30, 2011. Since the largest
portion of the BRAC request will go to the Army, I hope Mr. Calcara
will speak to it today.
Concerning the fiscal year 2010 budget request before us today, for
the base budget, I am concerned about the Army's investment in
infrastructure in the United States. The active duty construction
request is down 24 percent from last year's enacted level and the Guard
request is down 46 percent. I am pleased to see that the Reserve
component has requested an increase of 33 percent. But overall, the
Army's $4 billion request is a 23 percent decrease. I look forward to
Mr. Calcara's comments.
As I said when we were considering the stimulus bill several months
ago, we should be increasing our construction in the United States, not
decreasing it. More military construction in the United States will
enhance the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors and airmen, and
it will provide much needed jobs for Americans. Our U.S. installations
at places like Fort Hood, Fort Bliss and Fort Bragg offer large
maneuver areas, automated ranges, modern simulator training and few
restrictions on night time flying and training. As a result, soldiers
trained in the United States and deployed overseas are better prepared
to fight on Day One of a conflict than those stationed overseas where
our forces must contend with onerous training restrictions. Today, with
our modern strategic deployment capabilities and with the use of
airlift and roll-on, roll-off ships, we can often project power from
the United States faster than from overseas based units.
For these reasons, and in order to provide military families with
greater stability, the Pentagon made the decision several years ago
that it is better to bring our troops home and station them in the
United States whenever possible. In order to do that we must be
committed to providing them with the quality infrastructure these brave
men and women deserve.
The Overseas Basing Commission recommendations, the BRAC
recommendations and a Global Defense Posture that focuses on expanded
Allied roles and partnerships dictate that it is in our national
interest to relocate more of our soldiers back to the United States and
fulfill overseas training and contingency missions by deploying U.S.
based troops where needed. This is an admirable plan--one our service
members, their families and our citizens are counting on. Stationing
our troops in the United States will provide more operational freedom
of action, better training, and better family support than would be
possible otherwise. It will produce a stronger, more deployable, and
more efficient Department of Defense.
I must also point out that our current military has more citizen-
soldiers than we have seen in a great many years. I am very concerned
about the overall trend in military construction for our Guard and
Reserve components. These brave citizen-soldiers are making huge
contributions to the Global War on Terror and I am keenly interested in
seeing Guard and Reserve MILCON funding improve. Congress has always
provided excellent support to the Guard and Reserve, but that should
not provide an excuse for DOD to shortchange them in the budget
process.
I would like to mention again this year the Army's new Modular
Force Plan which will reorganize units into Brigade Combat Teams
(BCTs). I understand this transformation is nearly 80 percent complete
now. The new plan calls for 5 new BCTs to be stationed at Fort Bliss,
Texas; Fort Stewart, Georgia; and Fort Carson, Colorado. Now I
understand that the European Commander (EUCOM) wants to keep 2 BCTs in
Europe for up to 2 years longer than the Army originally planned. I
have discussed this issue with General Casey and Secretary Gates and I
hope Assistant Secretary Calcara will tell us how the plans for moving
the infantry divisions from Europe to the United States are going.
My State of Texas is the home for a large part of the Army. I am
very pleased with the operational and infrastructure improvements to
Fort Bliss, Fort Hood, and Fort Sam Houston, three very important
installations in our national military preparedness. I am encouraged by
the Army's emphasis on family support facilities at these and other
bases around the country. I have said before, we have to take care of
the soldiers and their families in order to retain these highly trained
men and women.
I look forward to the discussion with Assistant Secretary Ferguson
concerning the Department of the Air Force's construction program as
well. The Air Force's active duty construction request is 10 percent
below last year's enacted level. The Guard component is requesting 56
percent less than last year and the Reserve component is requesting 26
percent less. I know the Air Force has historically been willing to
risk infrastructure in order to fund modernization, but I hope we don't
lose sight of the fact that our airmen must have the facilities and
family support infrastructure from which to work and live that is
commensurate with their dedication to our country.
The Secretary of Defense outlined the four pillars of the Air
Force's budget strategy as People, Readiness, Infrastructure and
Modernization, in that order. I look forward to Assistant Secretary
Ferguson discussing these priorities and how the Air Force can achieve
them while taking such a risk in infrastructure. I understand the Air
Force intends to downsize its total infrastructure budget and physical
plant size by 20 percent, the ``20/20 by 2020'' plan, and I look
forward to hearing more about how this will work in an era of increased
operational tempo.
Again, I am proud to say my home state of Texas has always been
home to more Air Force personnel than any other State, just as we have
always been the largest Army state. Starting with Air Force basic
training at Lackland AFB, technical and NATO pilot training at Sheppard
AFB, NATO undergraduate pilot training at Laughlin AFB, and instructor
pilot training at Randolph AFB; and continuing with operational bases
at Dyess and Goodfellow AFBs; there is quite a lot of infrastructure
needs in just those bases alone. In addition we are currently prepared
in San Antonio with the initial secure infrastructure equipment should
the Air Force announce the home of the new 24th Air Force cyber mission
will be there.
Joint Basing is another subject I am very interested in. As
everyone knows I have been a very strong advocate of fully funding the
BRAC process, and I know that the 12 test joint bases are a result of
BRAC recommendations. I hope the Air Force will speak today on how it
proposes to operate a joint base and handle the real property issues on
it, since the Air Force will be the lead at 6 of the 12 joint bases. I
am particularly interested in how the Air Force will operate Joint Base
San Antonio as it assumes the responsibility for Lackland, Randolph and
Fort Sam Houston.
Mr. Chairman, again I want to express my appreciation to you for
holding this hearing. We have a full slate of issues today and I look
forward to discussing them as we begin this new appropriations cycle.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
General Boozer, proceed.
General Boozer. Sir, I am more than prepared to go ahead
and start with my opening comments.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hansen, please proceed.
General Boozer. Okay. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS JEROME HANSEN
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, I am Jerry Hansen, the designated senior
official currently performing the duties of the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment. And it
is my pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the
Secretary and the Army to discuss the Army's military
construction, family housing, base realignment and closure
budget request for fiscal year 2010.
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND THE ARMY BUDGET
First, we thank you all for your continued support to our
soldiers and families serving our Nation around the world. As
you know, the Army's strength is its soldiers and the families
and Army civilians who support them.
We try, with your support, to ensure the quality of life we
provide our soldiers and their families is on par with the
quality of their service. Our budget requests represent minimum
required levels which, if approved, will enable soldiers and
their families to receive the facilities, care, and support
they need to accomplish the monumental tasks we expect of them
while preserving the all-volunteer force.
Our Army continues its largest organizational change since
World War II as we transform to brigade-centric modular force,
grow our end strength, and restation one-third of the force
through base realignment and closure and global defense posture
realignment.
The Army's fiscal year 2010 military construction and
overseas contingency operations budget requests include $10.4
billion for military construction, Army family housing, and
BRAC, a combined amount.
As stewards of our Nation's resources, the Army requires
each military construction project to attain a LEED silver
rating--LEED being leadership in energy and environment design
rating of at least silver to reduce total lifecycle cost and
improve the environment. The Army plans to spend a significant
sum over the next 5 years to invest in green buildings, to use
less water, and to achieve 30 percent more energy efficiency in
the process.
Fiscal year 2010 is our final year of BRAC construction.
Full implementation of the BRAC 2005 recommendations will
enable the Army to become a more capable expeditionary force as
a member of the joint team, while enhancing the well being of
our soldiers, civilians, and family members living and working
and training in our installations.
The Army's remaining BRAC 2005 construction projects are
scheduled for award by no later than the first quarter of
fiscal year 2010. This will enable the major movement of units
and personnel planned for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, with
expected completion by the mandated BRAC 2005 deadline.
The Army remains committed to achieving BRAC 2005 law and
is on track to do so. With full and timely funding, we
anticipate no impacts to movement schedules, training, or
readiness.
However, we have moved into a period where our construction
timeline flexibility is extremely limited. Cuts and delays in
BRAC funding have caused significant difficulties as we have
implemented BRAC projects in the past, and any significant
delay in fiscal year 2010 MILCON funding would significantly
challenge our ability to meet the September 2011 deadline.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, on April 6, 2009, the Secretary of
Defense issued guidance to stop the growth of Army BCTs,
brigade combat teams, at 45 versus 48, as you have mentioned.
We understand this decision has caused significant concern, and
we recognize the impact to communities that have made proactive
investments to accept new units and families.
At this point, no decisions have been made as to which BCTs
will be affected. But this decision and its associated impacts
are being worked with urgency through an expedited Quadrennial
Defense Review process, and we will work the details very
closely with Congress as soon as the impacts to the military
construction projects are known.
I am accompanied today by Mr. Joe Calcara, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Housing;
Brigadier General Jim Boozer, Director of Operations,
representing the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management and the Installation Management Command; Major
General Ray Carpenter, the Deputy Director of the Army National
Guard; and Brigadier General Julia Kraus, Deputy Commander and
Deputy Chief of the Army Reserve for Management, Resources, and
Support.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today and for your continued support for America's Army, and we
look forward to hearing your questions following brief remarks
by the other panel members.
I will be followed by General Boozer, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis Jerome Hansen
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Army's Military Construction, Family
Housing, and Base Realignment and Closure budget requests for fiscal
year 2010. Our requests are crucial to the success of the Army's
strategic imperatives to Sustain, Prepare, Reset, and Transform the
force. We appreciate the opportunity to report on them and respond to
your questions. We would like to start by thanking you for your support
to our Soldiers and their Families serving our Nation around the world.
They are and will continue to be the centerpiece of our Army, and their
ability to perform their missions successfully depends upon the staunch
support of the Congress.
The Army's strength is its Soldiers--and the Families and Army
Civilians who support them. With your continuing support, we will
assure that the quality of life we afford our Soldiers and Families is
commensurate with the quality of their service. Our budget requests
have been vetted to ensure they reflect the minimum requirement to
maintain the All-Volunteer Force and ensure Soldiers and their Families
receive the facilities, care, and support they need to accomplish their
missions.
overview
rebalancing the force in an era of persistent conflict
Installations are the home of combat power and a critical component
of the Nation's force generating and force projecting capability. Your
Army is working hard to deliver cost-effective, safe, and
environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the
national defense mission.
Our Nation has been at war for over 7 years. Our Army continues to
lead the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in defense of
the homeland and in support of civil authorities in responding to
domestic emergencies. Over time, these operations have expanded in
scope and duration, stressing our All-Volunteer Force and straining our
ability to maintain strategic depth. During this period, the Congress
has responded to the Army's requests for resources, and that commitment
to our Soldiers, their Families, and Civilians is deeply appreciated.
Continued timely and predictable funding is critical as the Army
continues to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, meet other
operational demands, sustain our All-Volunteer Force, and prepare for
future threats to the Nation.
Our Army continues its largest organizational change since World
War II, as it transforms to a Brigade centric modular force and grows
the force to achieve an the Active Component of 547,400, a National
Guard of 358,200, and an Army Reserve of 206,000 men and women. At the
same time, we are restationing about one-third of the force through a
combination of Base Closure and Realignment and Global Defense Posture
Realignment actions. All of these initiatives have corresponding
military construction requirements.
The details of the Army's fiscal year 2010 request follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of
Military Construction Appropriation Authorization Appropriations Appropriation
Request Request Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction Army (MCA)....................... $3,116,350,000 $3,660,779,000 $3,660,779,000
Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG)....... ( \1\ ) 426,491,000 426,491,000
Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR).............. ( \1\ ) 374,862,000 374,862,000
Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)................ 241,236,000 273,236,000 273,236,000
Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO).................. 523,418,000 523,418,000 523,418,000
BRAC 95 (BCA).......................................... 98,723,000 98,723,000 98,723,000
BRAC 2005 (BCA)........................................ 4,081,037,000 4,081,037,000 4,081,037,000
Overseas Contingency Operations........................ 923,900,000 923,900,000 923,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................ 8,984,664,000 10,362,446,000 10,362,446,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not available.
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Overseas
Contingency Operations budget requests include $10.4 billion for
Military Construction, Army Family Housing, and BRAC appropriations and
associated new authorizations.
army modular force (amf)
The Army continues to reorganize the Active and Reserve components
into standardized modular organizations, increasing the number of
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and support Brigades to meet operational
requirements and create a more deployable, versatile and tailorable
force. The Army strategy is to use existing facility assets where
feasible and program projects when not. The fiscal year 2010 request of
$589 million will provide permanent facilities construction to support
conversion of existing BCTs to new modern BCTs at Forts Wainwright,
Carson, Lewis, and Bragg.
grow the army (gta)
On April 6, 2009, the Secretary of Defense issued guidance to stop
growth of Army BCTs at 45 versus 48. We understand this decision has
caused some understandable concern in places that expected to receive
the three additional BCTs, and we recognize the impact this decision
could have on communities that have made significant investments to
accept new units. We are working the details with urgency, but at this
point, no final decisions have been made as to which BCTs will be
affected. The Army is conducting a thorough analysis with the goal of
balancing our force mix for the current fight while setting conditions
to meet the future strategic environment. We are leveraging the ongoing
Quadrennial Defense Review process and our force mix analysis to
determine the proper balance. We will keep the Congress advised of our
progress.
In the meantime, it is crucial that the Army maintain currently
planned fiscal year 2009 construction projects and fiscal year 2010
construction, pending the analysis and decision by Army Senior Leaders,
and recognizing that the vast majority of the facilities at Army
installations are legacy systems still requiring modernization or
replacement. Construction projects play an essential role in supporting
our end strength growth to 547,400 as well as transforming our
installations to support organizational changes. The fiscal year 2010
requirement for BCTs is $404 million. Other Grow the Army facility
support requirements, such as projects to support the combat support/
combat service support units, training base, quality of life, and
support to the Army National Guard and Army Reserve growth, in fiscal
year 2010 total $1.07 billion.
global defense posture realignment (gdpr)
The Global Defense Posture Realignment initiative ensures Army
forces are properly positioned worldwide to support out National
Military Strategy and to support the mission in Afghanistan. GDPR will
relocate over 41,000 Soldiers and their Families from Europe and Korea
to the United States by 2013. Over time, it will build a BCT Complex
and support facilities at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, and
operational, training, and support facilities at Fort Benning, Fort
Bliss, Fort Riley, Schofield Barracks, and Camp Humphreys. As part of
the fiscal year 2010 program, the Army requires $252 million to
construct facilities in Bagram, Afghanistan and a warehouse in Kuwait.
The total GDPR request is $524 million.
base realignment and closure (brac)
The Army is requesting $4,081,037,000 for BRAC 2005, which is
critical to the success of the Army's BRAC 2005 initiatives, and
$98,723,000 for legacy BRAC to sustain vital, ongoing programs. BRAC
2005 is carefully integrated with the Defense and Army programs of Grow
the Army, GDPR, and Army Modular Force. Collectively, these initiatives
allow the Army to focus its resources on installations that provide the
best military value, supporting improved responsiveness and readiness
of units. The elimination of Cold War-era infrastructure and the
implementation of modern technology to consolidate activities allow the
Army to better focus on its core warfighting mission. These initiatives
are a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization of base
closures, realignments, military construction and renovation, unit
activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from
current global commitments. Results will yield substantial savings over
time, while positioning forces, logistics activities, and power
projection platforms to respond efficiently and effectively to the
needs of the Nation.
Under BRAC 2005, the Army will close 12 Active Component
installations, 1 Army Reserve installation, 387 National Guard
Readiness and Army Reserve Centers, and 8 leased facilities. BRAC 2005
realigns 53 installations and/or functions and establishes Training
Centers of Excellence, Joint Bases, a Human Resources Center of
Excellence, and Joint Technical and Research facilities. To accommodate
the units relocating from the closing National Guard Readiness and Army
Reserve Centers, BRAC 2005 creates 125 multi-component Armed Forces
Reserve Centers and realigns U.S. Army Reserve command and control
structure.
The over 1,100 discrete actions required for the Army to
successfully implement BRAC 2005 are far more extensive than all four
previous BRAC rounds combined and are expected to create significant
recurring annual savings. BRAC 2005 will enable the Army to become a
more capable expeditionary force as a member of the Joint team while
enhancing the well-being of our Soldiers, Civilians, and Family members
living, working, and training on our installations.
brac 2005 implementation strategy
All of our BRAC 2005 construction projects are planned to be
awarded by the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. This will enable the
major movement of units and personnel in fiscal years 2010 and 2011,
with expected completion by the mandated BRAC 2005 deadline. The Army
remains committed to achieving BRAC 2005 Law and is on track do so.
With full and timely funding, there will be no impacts to movement
schedules, training, or readiness. Fiscal year 2010 is our fifth and
final year of BRAC construction. We have moved into a period where our
construction timeline flexibility is exhausted. We cannot overstate the
difficulties that cuts or delays in BRAC funding pose to the Army as we
implement BRAC construction projects. If the Army program is not fully
funded by October 2009, we will be significantly challenged to execute
BRAC as intended.
brac 2005 fiscal year 2010 budget
The Army's fiscal year 2010 budget request will continue to fund
both BRAC and GDPR actions necessary to comply with BRAC 2005 Law. The
Army plans to award and begin construction of 80 military construction
projects, plus planning and design for fiscal year 2010 projects. This
is estimated to cost $2.5 billion and includes five additional GDPR
projects, 37 Army National Guard and Army Reserve projects, and an
additional 38 Active Component projects.
The BRAC budget request will also fund furnishings for BRAC
projects awarded in fiscal year 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 as the
buildings reach completion and occupancy. The request also funds
movement of personnel, ammunition, and equipment associated with BRAC
Commission Recommendations.
In fiscal year 2010, the Army will continue environmental closure
and cleanup actions at BRAC properties. These activities will continue
efforts previously ongoing under the Army Installation restoration
program and will ultimately support future property transfer actions.
The budget request for environmental programs is $147.7 million, which
includes munitions and explosives of concern and hazardous and toxic
waste restoration activities.
prior brac
Since Congress established the first Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission in 1988 and then authorized the subsequent
rounds in 1990, DOD has successfully executed four rounds of base
closures to reduce and align the military's infrastructure to the
current security environment and force structure. As a result, the Army
estimates approximately $12.6 billion in savings through 2008--nearly
$1 billion in recurring, annual savings from prior BRAC rounds.
The Army is requesting $98.7 million in fiscal year 2010 for prior
BRAC rounds ($5.3 million to fund caretaking operations and program
management of remaining properties and $93.4 million for environmental
restoration) to address environmental restoration efforts at 147 sites
at 14 prior BRAC installations. To date, the Army has spent $2.95
billion on the BRAC environmental program for installations impacted by
the previous four BRAC rounds. We disposed of 181,345 acres (86 percent
of the total acreage disposal requirement of 209,834 acres), with
28,489 acres remaining.
fiscal year 2010 overseas contingency operations (oco)
This request supports the National Strategy for OCO. The request
funds projects critical to the support of deployed war fighters,
operational requirements for airfields, operational facilities,
supplies, troop housing and infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient
military operations in Afghanistan. A total of 74 projects that will
fulfill the Department's immediate mission needs and urgent
infrastructure requirements in theater are planned for a total of $828
million.
army initiatives
To improve the Army's facilities posture, we have undertaken
specific initiatives or budget strategies to focus our resources on the
most important areas--Range and Training Lands, Barracks, Family
Housing, and Warrior in Transition Complexes.
Range and Training Lands.--Ranges and training lands enable our
Army to train and develop its full capabilities to ensure our Soldiers
are fully prepared for the challenges they will face. Our Army Range
and Training Land Strategy supports Army transformation and the Army's
Sustainable Range Program. The Strategy identifies priorities for
installations requiring resources to modernize ranges, mitigate
encroachment, and acquire training land. The fiscal year 2010 request
supports 25 projects, $178 million for Active Component training
ranges.
Barracks.--Providing safe, quality housing is a crucial commitment
the Army has made to all of our Soldiers. We owe single Soldiers the
same quality of housing that we provide married Soldiers. Modern
barracks are shown to significantly increase morale, which positively
impacts readiness and quality of life. The importance of providing
quality housing for single Soldiers is paramount to success on the
battlefield. The Army is in the 17th year of modernizing barracks to
provide about 148,000 single enlisted permanent party Soldiers with
quality living environments. Because of increased authorized strength,
the requirements for barracks have increased in several locations, and
for fiscal year 2010, a total of $711.5 million will be invested in
3,592 new permanent party barracks spaces that will meet DOD's ``1+1''
or equivalent standard. These units provide two-Soldier suites,
increased personal privacy, larger rooms with walk-in closets, new
furnishings, adequate parking, landscaping, and unit administrative
offices separated from the barracks. We are on track to fully fund this
program by fiscal year 2013. The last inadequate permanent party spaces
will be removed after the new barracks are occupied in fiscal year
2015. For trainee barracks, the Army is requesting $535.9 million to
build or upgrade 2,278 new spaces to standard. We are requesting funds
to keep this program on schedule so we can eliminate all inadequate
trainee barracks spaces, finishing funding with fiscal year 2015 and
occupying the barracks in fiscal year 2017.
Family Housing.--This year's budget continues our significant
investment in our Soldiers and their Families by supporting our goal to
continue funding to eliminate remaining inadequate housing and sustain
housing at enduring overseas installations. The U.S. inadequate
inventory has been funded to be eliminated by the end of fiscal year
2007 through privatization, conventional military construction,
demolition, divestiture of uneconomical or excess units, and reliance
on off-post housing. For Families living off post, the budget for
military personnel maintains the Basic Allowance for Housing that
eliminates out-of-pocket expenses.
Warrior In Transition.--The Army $1 billion budget for its Warrior
in Transition (WT) Program funds military construction to facilitate
command and control, primary care, and case management to establish a
healing environment that promotes the timely return to the force or
transition to civilian life. The fiscal year 2009 Overseas Contingency
Operations requests $425 million in funding. The fiscal year 2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided $100 million for
two complexes and the fiscal year 2010 budget request will provide 13
complexes for $503.5 million.
Overseas Construction.--Included in this budget request is $437
million in support of high-priority overseas projects. In Germany, we
are requesting funds for barracks at Ansbach and Kleber Kaserne. In
Korea, we are requesting funds to further our relocation of forces on
the peninsula. This action is consistent with the Land Partnership Plan
agreements entered into by the United States and Republic of Korea
Ministry of Defense. Two vehicle maintenance shops and a Fire Station
are included. Our request for funds in Italy continues construction for
a BCT. We are also including Training Aids Facilities in Japan at Camp
Zama and Okinawa. Additionally, approximately $678 million of our
fiscal year 2009 Overseas Contingency Operations request will support
military construction projects in Afghanistan for troop housing,
airfield and operational facilities, infrastructure and utility
systems, fuel handling and storage, and roads.
Other Support Programs.--The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $153
million for planning and design. As executive agent, the Army also
provides oversight of design and construction for projects funded by
host nations. The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $25 million for
oversight of host nation funded construction for all Services in Japan,
Korea, and Europe.
Incremental Funding.--We are requesting the third increment of
funding, $55.4 million, for the previously approved, incrementally
funded, SOUTHCOM Headquarters at Miami-Doral, Florida. In addition, we
are requesting the fourth and final increment of funding, $102 million,
for the Brigade Complex at Fort Lewis, Washington. The budget also
includes $23.5 million for a Brigade Complex-Operations support
facility and $22.5 million for a Brigade Complex-Barracks/Community,
both projects at Dal Molin, Italy. Finally, we are requesting the
second increments for the Brigade Complexes at Fort Carson $60 million
and Fort Stewart $80 million.
The budget request also contains $23 million for unspecified minor
construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
military construction, army national guard
The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2010 Military Construction
request for $426,491,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) is focused on Transformation/Army Modular Force,
Mission and Training, Grow the Army, planning and design, and
unspecified minor military construction
Transformation.--In fiscal year 2010, the Army National Guard is
requesting $158.2 million for six projects in support of our modern
missions. There are three aviation projects to provide facilities for
modernized aircraft and changed unit structure. Also in support of the
Modular Force initiative, we are asking for two Readiness Centers and
one maintenance facility.
Mission and Training.--Our budget request also includes $154
million for 10 projects, which will support the preparation of our
forces. These funds will provide the facilities our Soldiers require as
they train, mobilize, and deploy. Included are two training facilities,
six Range projects, and two Readiness/Armed Forces Reserve Centers.
Grow the Army.--Under the category of Grow the Army, we are
requesting $80 million for five Readiness Centers to improve the Army
National Guard's ability to deal with the continued high levels of
deployment.
Other Support Programs.--The fiscal year 2010 Army National Guard
budget also contains $24 million for planning and design of future
projects and $10.3 million for unspecified minor military construction
to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements
that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
military construction, army reserve
The Army Reserve fiscal year 2010 Military Construction request for
$374,862,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is
for Preparation, Transformation, other support, and unspecified
programs.
Mission and Training Projects. In fiscal year 2010, the Army
Reserve will invest $45 million to prepare our Soldiers for success in
current operations. Included in the mission and training projects is an
Armed Forces Reserve Center and a Combined Arms Collective Training
facility, which will be available for joint use by all Army components
and military services.
Grow The Army Projects.--The Army Reserve transformation from a
strategic reserve to an operational force includes converting 16,000
authorizations from generating force structure to operational force
structure from fiscal years 2009 through 2013. In fiscal year 2010, the
Army Reserve will construct 19 Reserve Operations Complexes in eleven
states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with an investment of $304
million to support the transformation. These projects will provide
operations, maintenance, and storage facilities for over 6,000 Soldiers
in 56 newly activating combat support and combat service support units
and detachments.
Other Unspecified Programs.--The fiscal year 2010 Army Reserve
budget request includes $22.3 million for planning and design for
future year projects and $3.6 million for unspecified minor military
construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
army family housing construction (afhc)
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Family housing construction request is
$273,236,000 for authorization, authorization of appropriation, and
appropriation.
The fiscal year 2010 new construction program uses traditional
military construction to provide 38 new houses for Families with an $18
million replacement project at Baumholder, Germany. The Army also
requests $32 million to fund the final increment for three projects at
Wiesbaden, Germany, to finish replacement housing that was fully
authorized in fiscal year 2009. These projects will result in
completing 250 homes for Army Families.
The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our
Family housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal
year 2010, we are requesting $161.4 million to increase scope of these
existing privatization projects: 334 homes at Fort Knox, Kentucky; 176
homes at Fort Wainwright, Alaska; 144 homes at Fort Polk, Louisiana; 90
homes at Fort Irwin, California; and, 78 homes at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
The Improvements program also provides $11.9 million for equity
contributions for 11 homes at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and 8 homes
at Fort Eustis, Virginia, that were required due to Base Realignment
and Closure. Also, the fiscal year 2010 request supports $46 million
for direct equity investment in support of the privatization of 1,242
homes at Fort Richardson, Alaska, as part of the Joint Basing effort
with Elmendorf Air Force Base.
In fiscal year 2010, we are also requesting $3.9 million for
planning and design for final design of fiscal year 2010 and 2011
Family housing construction projects, as well as for housing studies
and updating standards and criteria.
Privatization.--Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), the
Army's housing privatization program, continues to provide quality
housing that Soldiers and their Families can proudly call home. The
Army is leveraging appropriated funds and existing housing by engaging
in 50-year partnerships with nationally recognized private real estate
development, property management, and home builder firms to construct,
renovate, repair, maintain, and operate housing communities.
The RCI program will include 45 locations, with a projected end
state of almost 88,000 homes--98 percent of the on-post Family housing
inventory in the United States. At the end of fiscal year 2009, the
Army will have privatized 44 locations, with an end state of over
85,000 homes. Initial construction and renovation at these 44
installations is estimated at $12 billion over a three to ten year
development period, of which the Army will contribute about $2.0
billion. Although most projects are in the early phases of their
initial development, since 1999 through March 2009, our partners have
constructed 18,769 new homes, and renovated 13,697 homes.
army family housing operations (afho)
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Family Housing Operations request is
$523,418,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations).
This account provides for annual operations, municipal-type services,
furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, leased Family housing,
demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds supporting
management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. This
request will support almost 17,000 Army-owned homes, both at home and
in foreign areas. More than 9,000 residences will be leased and more
than 80,000 privatized homes will be managed.
Operations ($88.4 million).--The operations account includes four
sub-accounts: management, services, furnishings, and a small
miscellaneous account. All operations sub-accounts are considered
``must pay accounts'' based on actual bills that must be paid to manage
and operate Family housing.
Utilities ($81.6 million).--The utilities account includes the
costs of delivering heat, air conditioning, electricity, water, and
wastewater support for Family housing units. The overall size of the
utilities account is decreasing with the reduction in supported
inventory.
Maintenance and Repair ($115.9 million). The maintenance and repair
account supports annual recurring projects to maintain and revitalize
Family housing real property assets. Since most Family housing
operational expenses are fixed, maintenance and repair is the account
most affected by budget changes. Funding reductions result in slippage
of maintenance projects that adversely impact Soldier and Family
quality of life.
Leasing ($205.7 million).--The leasing program provides another way
of adequately housing our military Families. The fiscal year 2010
budget includes funding for 9,036 housing units, including project
requirements for 1,080 existing Section 2835 (``build-to-lease''--
formerly known as 801 leases), 1,828 temporary domestic leases in the
U.S., and 6,128 leased Family housing units in foreign areas.
Privatization ($31.8 million).--The privatization account provides
operating funds for implementation and oversight of privatized military
Family housing in the RCI program. RCI costs include selection of
private sector partners, preparation of environmental studies and real
estate surveys, and contracting of consultants. These funds support the
preparation and execution of partnership agreements and development
plans, and oversight to monitor compliance and performance of the
privatized housing portfolio.
homeowners assistance program
The Army is the DOD Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance
Program (HAP); that is, the Army requests in its budget the funds
needed by the DOD-wide program supporting all of the Services. In
normal times, this program assists eligible military and civilian
employee homeowners by providing some financial relief when they are
not able to sell their homes under reasonable terms and conditions
because of DOD announced closures, realignments, or reduction in
operations when this action adversely affects the real estate market.
The 2009 ARRA expanded HAP to provide benefits to: (1) seriously
wounded Warriors in Transition (to include Coast Guard and DOD civilian
employees) who relocate for medical treatment or medical retirement,
from September 11, 2001 (No expiration date); (2) surviving spouses of
fallen warriors and DOD and Coast Guard civilians killed while deployed
in support of the Armed Forces, from September 11, 2001 (No expiration
date); (3) BRAC 2005 impacted personnel assigned to relocating or
closing organizations or installations, without proof that the DOD
announcement caused markets to decline (Expires 2012, or an earlier
date designated by the Secretary); (4) Service members with permanent
change of station orders required to relocate during the home mortgage
crisis (Expires 2012, or an earlier date designated by the Secretary).
The ARRA expanded HAP is funded at $555 million.
Excluding the ARRA expanded HAP, the fiscal year 2010 budget
requests authorization of appropriations in the amount of $28.71
million. Total program estimate for fiscal year 2010, excluding ARRA
expansion, is $41.98M and will be funded with requested budget
authority, revenue from sales of acquired properties, and prior year
unobligated balances.
operation and maintenance
The Army's fiscal year 2010 Operation and Maintenance budget
includes $2.85 billion in funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and
Modernization (S/RM) and $8.61 billion in funding for Base Operations
Support (BOS). The S/RM and BOS accounts are inextricably linked with
our military construction programs to successfully support our
installations. The Army has centralized the management of its
installations assets under the Installation Management Command to best
utilize this funding. Centralized barracks management, also known as
the First Sergeant's Barracks Initiative (FSBI), will standardize
barracks management Army-wide, enhance single Soldier quality of life,
reduce overall un-programmed single Soldier Basic Allowance for
Housing, maximize barracks utilization, and reallocate Soldier time
away from non-war fighting tasks. The FSBI provides top-quality
oversight and management of daily barracks operations. The FSBI review
committee completed review and validation of funding requirements for
12 Installations. Implementing FSBI at these installations brings in
about 55 percent of the Army barracks inventory.
summary
Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and BRAC
budget requests are balanced programs that support our Soldiers and
their Families, Overseas Contingency Operations, Army transformation,
readiness, and DOD installation strategy goals. We are proud to present
this budget for your consideration because of what this budget will
provide for our Army:
Military Construction:
--26 new Training Ranges/Facilities
--$11 billion invested in Soldier/Family Readiness
--$1.8 billion to Grow the Army
--$524 million support the mission in Afghanistan
--$828 million funds projects for Overseas Contingency Operations
mission in Afghanistan
--Over 3,300 Soldiers training in 16 new or improved Readiness
Centers and Armed Forces Reserve Centers
--20 New Army Reserve Operations Complexes
--6,054 Soldiers get new Reserve Operations Complexes
--Over 7,800 Soldiers training in nine new or improved Readiness
Centers and Armed Forces Reserve Centers
--Six Ranges serving 166,000 men and women in our Armed Forces
Base Realignment and Closure:
--Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC
--80 Military Construction projects
--Planning & Design for fiscal year 2010--2010 Projects
--Remaining NEPA for BRAC 2005 actions
--Continued Environmental Restoration of 31,844 acres
Base Operations Support:
--Goal is to meet essential needs for all BOS programs: Base
Operations, Family, Environmental Quality, Force Protection,
Base Communications, and Audio/Visual.
Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization:
--Funds Sustainment at 90 percent of the OSD Facility Sustainment
model requirement.
Our long-term strategies for installations will be accomplished
through sustained and balanced funding, and with your support, we will
continue to improve Soldier and Family quality of life, while remaining
focused on Army and Defense transformation goals.
In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
appear before you today and for your continued support for America's
Army.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JAMES C. BOOZER
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
General Boozer.
General Boozer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
On behalf of the Army's senior leaders and the more than 1
million soldiers that comprise our Army, I want to thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the Army's fiscal year 2010
military construction budget request. It is truly an honor to
be here with you today to do that.
I would like to extend our gratitude for this committee's
support for our soldiers and programs over the years. Our brave
men and women are performing their mission superbly, thanks to
your continued support.
Our $10.4 billion military construction request is crucial
to the success of the Army's strategic imperatives to sustain,
prepare, reset, and transform the force. Military construction
plays a key role in each of these imperatives and is a key
enabler in restoring balance and strategic flexibility in your
Army.
We are on track to achieve balance but need your continued
support so we can sustain soldiers and their families, prepare
soldiers for success in the current conflict, reset them when
they return from combat, and transform them for an uncertain
future.
To do this, we must first sustain our soldiers and families
by investing in quality housing and support programs, such as
the Soldier-Family Action Plan. We have programs in place that
will improve soldier and family programs and services, quality
of healthcare, excellence in schools, youth services, and
childcare, and expand education and employment opportunities
for family members.
We are committed to continuing to improve soldier and
family quality of life to a level commensurate with their level
of service and sacrifice to the Nation.
We must also prepare our soldiers for success in the
current contingency conflicts. To help achieve this goal, our
fiscal year 2010 request includes $178 million for 25 new range
projects, as well as $539 million for training barracks and
$1.5 billion for Grow the Army military construction projects.
The third imperative, reset, is about returning soldiers
and equipment to conditions where they can unwind to prepare
for future missions. The Army Medical Action Plan is one such
program that incorporates care and services for wounded
warriors and their families and provides world-class care to
our warriors in transition for reintegration into the force or
back to civilian life. We thank you for your support for this
vital program as well.
As part of the fourth imperative, transform, the creation
of the Installation Management Command in October 2006
continues our progress in centralized installation management
and fosters more consistent, cost-effective, and accountable
delivery of installation funding and services. We are well on
our way to completing the largest transformation of the Army
since World War II, and it is all being accomplished while in a
conflict and with your committed support.
To improve efficiency and effectiveness, we are reshaping
installations through BRAC and global defense posture
realignment while simultaneously converting to a modular force,
growing the Army, and converting the Army Reserve components to
an operational force. Our military construction request
supports this intricately woven, tightly synchronized
stationing plan.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
I would like to reiterate Mr. Hansen's comments that we
must receive full and timely BRAC funding in order to achieve
the mandates of BRAC 2005 law. A delay in funding our $4
billion BRAC request beyond October 2009 could place making the
BRAC mandated September 15, 2011 deadline in jeopardy. Our
flexibility over the years executing this program are all but
gone.
Finally, as Mr. Hansen has already stated, the Secretary of
Defense's guidance to stop growth of Army BCTs at 45 versus 48
is being thoroughly, deliberately, and expeditiously analyzed
by the senior Army leadership. We will work this closely with
this committee and your staffs. In fact, we meet with your
staffs next week.
The fiscal year 2009 and 2010 construction projects play an
essential role in supporting our end strength of 547,000, as
well as transforming our installations and facilities to
support our modular design units. These ongoing investments
will ensure soldiers and families have the modern facilities
they deserve.
In closing, our request for military construction, BRAC,
family housing, and overseas contingency operations plays a
critical role in allowing us to put the Army back in balance to
sustain the current fight and confront the future.
We thank Congress for its unwavering support of the Army's
military construction programs over the years and ask for your
continued support. Our goal is to have premier installations
across the globe. Our soldiers and families deserve nothing
less.
Thank you. It is an absolute honor to be here with you
today, and I look forward to your questions.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL RAYMOND W. CARPENTER
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Next is General Carpenter, a fellow South Dakotan. Please
proceed.
General Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to
see a fellow South Dakotan.
And again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the Army National Guard military
construction budget request for fiscal year 2010.
First, I must say thanks to this committee for its strong
support of the National Guard in the past. Last year, the
budget request for fiscal year 2009 asked for $539 million in
Army National Guard military construction, which appropriated
for 29 projects. The Congress provided that and more, actually
appropriating for us an additional $197 million for 25 more
projects. And we are profoundly grateful to this committee for
that added support last year.
Today, you have before you a budget request for fiscal year
2010, which asks for $426 million to fund 21 projects in 18
States. Those projects consist of readiness centers, ranges,
Army aviation, fort facilities, training institutes, and
maintenance shops. And we ask you to provide full funding for
that request.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
The average age of Army National Guard Readiness Centers
across our Nation is 41 years old, and 24 percent of those are
over 70 years old. So the need for your continuing strong
support is vital to the continued success of our Army National
Guard.
Moreover, in this time of economic trouble for our Nation,
I would point out that the National Guard military construction
funding is a uniquely effective means of stimulating local
economies. Army National Guard facilities are not concentrated
on large installations but are widely dispersed across America
in more than 3,000 locations and communities.
Finally, I would note that the Army National Guard
Readiness Centers are very important parts of the community in
which they are located and provide a day-to-day connection
between the United States military and hometown America.
Mr. Chairman, the Army National Guard is proud of its
history, accomplishments, and service to our Nation. For the
past 2 years, we have averaged in excess of 50,000 soldiers
mobilized at any given time. And today, we are at 60,000
soldiers mobilized, and those great citizen soldiers are a part
of our Army National Guard and are on point for our Nation as
we speak.
The 21 projects that we have submitted are about people and
readiness--training our soldiers, providing for their well
being, and maintaining and sustaining our facilities and
equipment to be ready for our Nation's call for State and local
emergencies.
I am grateful to be here today to represent those 366,000
citizen soldiers, and I welcome your questions.
I will be followed by General Kraus.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL JULIA A. KRAUS
Senator Johnson. General Kraus.
Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchinson, distinguished members
of the subcommittee; thank you for the invitation to appear
before you today to discuss Army Reserve military construction.
It is an honor to testify before you on behalf of Army Reserve
soldiers, family members and civilians.
In the midst of two ongoing wars and transformation efforts
to grow, restation and modernize the Army, the Army Reserve is
building new capability. In fiscal year 2010, we are requesting
twenty one MCAR projects and will be involved in thirty five
base realignment and closure (BRAC) projects.
The Army Reserve fiscal year 2010 military construction
request of $374,862,000 (for appropriation and authorization of
appropriations) is for mission and training, grow the Army,
other support, and unspecified programs.
MISSION AND TRAINING PROJECTS
In fiscal year 2010, the Army Reserve will invest $45
million to prepare our soldiers for success in current
operations. Included in the mission and training projects is an
Armed Forces Reserve Center and a Combined Arms Collective
Training facility, which will be available for joint use by all
Army components and military services.
GROW THE ARMY PROJECTS
The fiscal year 2010 Army Reserve military construction
request represents the second year of a 3 year plan to
implement the transformation from a strategic reserve to an
operational force. Nineteen Reserve operations complexes in 11
States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be constructed,
with an investment of $304 million, to support the
transformation. This $304 million is 81 percent of the MILCON
budget request. These projects will provide operations,
maintenance, and storage facilities for over 6,000 Soldiers in
56 newly activating combat service and combat service Support
units and detachments.
While the pace of construction is hectic and the resources
committed are remarkable the Army Reserve has significant
facility and infrastructure needs. We are working aggressively
to address all our facilities and infrastructure requirements
to ensure soldiers receive the best training and support
possible and that we adequately support and maintain on-hand
and inbound modular force equipment to ensure unit readiness.
Thank you for your continued support for the men and women
who serve in your Army Reserve and for the opportunity to brief
the subcommittee on the state of Army Reserve military
construction projects.
This concludes my statement and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
HOMEOWNERS' ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HAP) FOR MILITARY FAMILIES
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen, I am very interested in the Homeowners
Assistance Program, or HAP. As you know, I added $555 million
to the stimulus bill to extend homeowners' assistance to
military families caught up in the mortgage crisis.
Can you tell me about the status of implementing the
expanded program, and what does the Army estimate that the
total requirement will be to ensure that this assistance will
be available to all qualified Army families?
Mr. Calcara. Mr. Chairman, I will take that question. And I
would like to thank you first for your leadership on that
important program. I know you worked very hard, your staff,
along with Ms. Evans, to help us get that in the ARRA program,
and it is going to make a big difference for a lot of all
members of the armed forces--not just the Army, but the Navy,
the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and members of the Coast Guard
as well.
The Army is the executive agent for it, as you know. When
we came in with plans to expand that authority, which goes back
40 years, we had to scale the program to work within available
resources. Over the last several weeks, we have had a cross-
functional team comprised of representatives of all the
services shaping the program's entitlement structure. And we
have finished that process and have drafted the final policy.
Where we are now is because some of the benefits will be
paid to nonmilitary members, such as surviving spouses and
people who have retired, we need to get into the OMB rulemaking
process. We are implementing that as we speak. We have had a
meeting on it, I think, this week. We expect to get through
rulemaking and start paying benefits in the latter part of
June.
We anticipate a tremendous response to this program and a
lot of success, with at least 10,000 to 12,000 claims
forecasted in the immediate future.
Again, I thank you for your leadership on helping us get
that program in place.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
Senator Johnson. General Carpenter, the South Dakota Guard
is in the process of constructing a joint forces headquarters
in Rapid City. The Guard leadership in South Dakota has
indicated a need for an additional $7.9 million to complete the
project in this fiscal year.
Could you give me an update on this project and the
required funding? And did you need additional funding for
fiscal year 2010?
General Carpenter. Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, the
project was validated and initially funded in the military
construction budget for the Army National Guard. We do have an
additional request for $7 million based upon some additional
requirements to that joint force headquarters project, which
includes some additional units and some additional requirements
that were not in the original 1390/91.
We have reviewed that requirement and that request, and we
found them to be valid and a requirement in terms of making
that a complete project. So we expect that there would be some
sort of funding to accommodate that.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Hansen, over the past several years,
Congress has provided funding to support the Army's Grow the
Force initiative, including 48 brigade combat teams, or BCTs.
Last month, the Secretary of Defense announced that the number
of BCTs were to be stopped at 45.
What impact will this have on the Army's military
construction program, and will it have any impact in fiscal
year 2010? What is the status of the Army's stationing plan in
Europe, and when do you expect the Secretary to make a final
decision on how many brigades will remain in Europe?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir. With your permission, sir, General
Boozer is geared to answer that one.
General Boozer. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, as you indicated, we all are aware of the Secretary of
Defense's guidance on April 6 to stop growth of Army BCTs at 45
versus 48, and we will reach the 45th brigade combat team in
fiscal year 2010 when we stand up, activate 2d Brigade 1st
Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas. That will get us to the
45th brigade combat team.
The Army's position concerning the Secretary's guidance is
we currently want to maintain our construction projects for
2009 and 2010 because it is both projects in 2009 and 2010 that
construct facilities for those six Grow the Army brigades at
Fort Carson, Fort Stewart, and Fort Bliss.
As Mr. Hansen indicated in his opening comments, we are
currently going through a very, very detailed analysis, a very
deliberate analysis of the impacts and courses of action to how
we would stop at 45 versus 48.
We also know that in fiscal years 2012 and fiscal years
2013, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, we are to bring those two
brigades back from Germany--one in fiscal year 2012 to Fort
Bliss, Texas, and one in fiscal year 2013 to White Sands
Missile Range. Those two brigades, we are going to get informed
by this accelerated Quadrennial Defense Review that is
currently ongoing.
The construction projects that we have planned in 2009 and
fiscal year 2010 are critical, essential in supporting us in
getting to our--and we have reached our end strength of 547,400
soldiers that we are slightly above and have to bring that down
to get back to our TAA.
So these construction projects are critical in, one,
providing facilities for our end strength. And so, our intent
is to continue with those programs, maintain those programs,
get informed by the QDR, get informed by the courses of action
that we are working through now, and work this through.
So we would ask for your patience and hope to be able to do
this as quickly as possible. I wish I could give you a time. I
know the Chief of Staff of the Army was engaged with Mr.
Edwards in the HAC hearings, MILCON hearings last week.
Certainly, we would have to have something done before the
budget goes to the September conferences at the latest.
ARMY BCI GROWTH
Senator Johnson. Thank you, General.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I am not sure that I totally understood
your answer, and I wanted to follow up on Senator Johnson's
question. What effect will the stopping at 45 have on the
statement of the commander at EUCOM--he is recommending that
two of the brigades stay in Germany for 2 years longer.
Are you saying that will not impact, that decision hasn't
been made or that the stopping at 45 does not necessarily mean
that the decision has been made that some would stay, that two
would stay in Europe? If you could clarify for me?
General Boozer. Yes, ma'am. And I am sorry for the
confusion.
The Army's position, one, is those two brigades will
return, as I indicated, fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013.
Senator Hutchison. So the two----
General Boozer. They are almost two separate issues.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
General Boozer. The decision for the 45 is completely
independent of the two brigades coming back from Germany. That
issue, it will be reviewed during the QDR.
Senator Hutchison. I understand. That is exactly the
clarification I was looking for.
So you are moving on schedule, as long as the MILCON stays
on schedule, to move those troops as originally determined
earlier in BRAC?
General Boozer. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. And let me ask you also in the
general BRAC arena if the budget that you have this year, plus
last year, if you feel that you are on schedule for having all
of the BRAC construction done within the September 2011
timeframe?
General Boozer. Yes, ma'am. I believe we are on schedule.
We are on track. We are essentially halfway through the
program. Over 180 projects of 326 are either complete or being
constructed. That leaves us 146 projects remaining to execute.
And our intent, with timely funding, is to advertise for
projects during the fourth quarter of this year so that we can
award them right at the start of first quarter 2010. But BRAC
timeline we are on track now.
Senator Hutchison. And do you feel like more money would
help move anything further toward that deadline, or are you
comfortable that we are on time and on budget?
General Boozer. No, ma'am. I don't think additional funds
would help at this point. It all has to do with capacity, and
so I think we have maxed out capacity and maxed out funding for
BRAC.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
EXPANSION OF RANGERS IN PINON CANYON, COLORADO
Pinon Canyon, Mr. Hansen, as you know the Army has been
trying to expand the ranges at Pinon Canyon, Colorado, for at
least 2, maybe 3 years now but has been held up by
environmental issues. And last year, this committee prohibited
the Army from even advancing the environmental impact study to
expand the ranges there. Actually, it was the full Senate that
enacted that.
So what is the option that the Army is looking at? Are you
still going to push Pinon Canyon, or are you looking to expand
ranges at other installations, seeing that the likelihood of
expanding at Pinon Canyon is probably pretty slim?
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, ma'am.
The Army does not have the luxury of excess or surplus
maneuver training land capacity at any of its installations, as
you know. And we have legitimate needs for expanded training
land to support the concentration of units in the United
States, modular conversion to BCTs, training for operating
environment, and continued environmental challenges to the
Army's ability to fully access the land that it does currently
own.
And we do hope to continue to work in a cooperative fashion
with the State of Colorado and local landowners, and it is
hopeful we can arrive on a way ahead that meets the Army's need
and also works for the landowners. We are seeking a win-win
there, and we are certainly looking at other installations,
too, and the decision on which three BCTs would be eliminated
certainly is a big factor in all of these decisions.
Senator Hutchison. When will you pull the plug on Pinon
Canyon if you don't see a possibility? I mean, it seems pretty
clear from the outside that is very remote right now. And I
have tried to help on this, but it is not going anywhere. So
when do you say, ``Here is plan B?''
Mr. Hansen. We do not have a date on that yet, ma'am. But
we certainly are----
Senator Hutchison. Are you pursuing other options? Are you
beginning to look for other places where you can expand other
than Pinon Canyon?
Mr. Hansen. Within Colorado, there are insufficient Federal
lands within about a 200-mile radius of Fort Carson that are
capable of supporting the required maneuver training, and
Federal lands outside this area would entail additional
transportation costs, increase convoy travel time, and increase
the possibility of safety issues and unnecessary hazard to the
force.
So, and it would also have significant environmental
restrictions. So we certainly are looking at expansion at all
our facilities since we have----
Senator Hutchison. Other places besides Colorado?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am, as part of the decision on the
three BCTs that we previously discussed, as well as the needs
at Fort Carson.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
time on this.
Let me start with you, if I can, Mr. Calcara, and that is
we have some legislation here that we are working. It is S.
590, Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009. And let me
start with a success story in a post BRAC environment. It is
actually not in my State. It is in the ranking member's State
of Texas.
The Red River Commerce Park is 765 acres that was once part
of the Red River Army Depot, and it was transferred via a no-
cost EDC 10 years ago. We have that same legislation this time
to do no-cost EDCs. It now boasts nearly a million square feet
of industrial commercial space, including a biodiesel
production facility, 25 private housing units, a golf course,
and over a dozen tenant companies employing nearly 1,000
people.
And from my standpoint, it is probably a lot cheaper in the
long run on everybody to do a no-cost EDC than it is to try to
convey the property some other way. I would like to hear your
thoughts on the Army's position on trying to do some of the
property that has been BRAC'd, so to speak, through no-cost
EDCs.
Mr. Calcara. Yes, sir. Our BRAC disposal strategy is
contingent upon a number of factors, not to mention the reuse
plan and the environmental issues on the site. We would prefer
to keep all the tools available in the BRAC toolbox, including
no-cost EDCs, cost EDCs, public benefit conveyances, and look
at the entire suite of options before we unilaterally decide
that all EDCs would be no cost.
The Army believes the imperative here is to get the
property back in productive reuse as quickly as possible. And
in many cases, that requires investment of dollars for
environmental cleanup that are otherwise not programmed.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP OF LONE STAR ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
One of the strategies that we believe works best for that
is to go to public market, bring private dollars to the table,
and have cleanup done incidental to redevelopment. This reduces
the cost of the cleanup in terms of funding it up front, gets
the property redeveloped quicker, and also brings in private
capital to supplement precious dollars that we would have to
program for cleanup.
So, in the end, the speed is one aspect of it. But it
really becomes speed and productive reuse as quickly as
possible--not just speed and transfer, but speed in getting the
cleanup done.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask this as a follow-up to that. The
Lone Star Army ammunition plant, which is basically more or
less adjacent property, as Senator Hutchison knows, was, again,
BRAC'd in 2005. Do you know--do you have a sense of how much it
has cost the Army to maintain that property since 2005?
Mr. Calcara. I don't have the numbers available. The issue,
of course, with Lone Star for us would not necessarily be a
cost avoidance for caretaker. It is more where are we going to
get the environmental dollars to clean it up and program it?
What we would like to do with Lone Star is leverage the
timber to reinvest back in the property for cleanup, to help
not only expedite transfer, but clean up at a cost-effective
basis.
Senator Pryor. Do you remember, I thought we appropriated
some money to do the cleanup?
Mr. Calcara. We do have some dollars appropriated, but we
do not believe those will be sufficient to get the property
cleaned and back into reuse as quickly as if we did go to a
public sale process to tap private markets.
Senator Pryor. Do you know what your current timeline is on
making the decisions around Lone Star?
Mr. Calcara. We just received the reuse plan in here about
30 days ago. We are studying it. We are looking to make some
broad-based decisions later this summer.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Hansen, do you have any comments on Lone
Star and the approach that Army is taking with regard to the
no-cost economic development conveyance?
Mr. Hansen. Not beyond what Mr. Calcara said, sir.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask, if I may, General Carpenter,
about some training facilities available to National Guards
around the country. I know that one of the things that we see
that has obviously become more and more important in the last
few years is the so-called ``live fire experience,'' where it
may be urban warfare, and they need to simulate that as part of
their training. For example, the Arkansas National Guard has to
travel to Camp Shelby, Alabama, to do that.
Have you looked at whether it is more cost effective to do
the travel and to keep all the folks moving and take them
offsite and out of State, in many cases hundreds and hundreds
of miles away, and do that training versus just building
training facilities in the home State? Have you all looked at
that?
General Carpenter. Sir, as an overall project in that
arena, what we have seen in the last several years because of
the increased number of brigade combat teams in the active
Army, we have seen places where the Army National Guard has
traditionally gone to train not being available because of the
mobilization process and also because of the other tenants on
the installation. For instance, the 256 Brigade out of
Louisiana----
Senator Pryor. Right.
General Carpenter [continuing]. Struggles to get on Fort
Polk now because of the training in the OPTEMPO in that
particular arena. We have worked with 1st Army and are
currently doing a study on those kinds of things that you have
just outlined, sir. And the issue is where do we train the Army
National Guard, and what is the proximity to that unit's home
station?
And so, between simulation and the live fire piece, we have
that under study right now, and we would expect to have that
study completed some time in the next year.
Senator Pryor. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST FOR ARMY GUARD
Senator Johnson. I will use my discretion to ask one more
question. Mr. Calcara, the committee is concerned about the
level of funding requested for the Army Guard and Reserve
forces. The Guard and Reserves have been a critical component
in our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recently, Secretary Gates indicated that more Reserve
components may be tapped for service in Afghanistan, and yet we
see a 54 percent reduction in the fiscal year 2010 budget
request for the Army Guard. Can you explain this reduction in
funding, and what impact is it having on the backlog of needed
Guard and Reserve construction projects?
Mr. Calcara. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I think you need to look at the two sets of numbers in the
request for each year, as opposed to the difference between
what was enacted last year and this year's request. I don't
believe the difference is that great. And as it tiers into the
greater Army program of Grow the Army and global positioning,
along with the increases in the Reserves, I think we are
meeting all the current requirements that the Guard has for
fiscal year 2010.
We do have additional requirements that we are looking to
rack and stack from 2011 through the FYDP, and we are working
on that now. But I think if you compare the fiscal year 2009
request to the 2010 request, there is about a 10 or 15 percent
difference between the two numbers.
Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. I am through. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. You may be excused.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you all very much.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INSTALLATIONS
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GENERAL JOSEPH LENGYEL, COMMANDER, AIR NATIONAL GUARD READINESS
CENTER
GENERAL HOWARD THOMPSON, DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AIR
FORCE RESERVE
Senator Johnson. I am pleased now to welcome our second
panel of witnesses, Ms. Kathleen Ferguson, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations; General Joseph
Lengyel, Commander, Air National Guard Readiness Center; and
General Howard Thompson, Deputy to the Chief of Staff for the
Air Force Reserve.
Thank you all for coming. We look forward to your
testimony. And again, your full statements will be entered into
the record.
Ms. Ferguson, please proceed.
Ms. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of
America's airmen----
Senator Hutchison. Is your microphone on?
Ms. Ferguson. That would be better, I guess.
It is my pleasure to be here today, along with Generals
Lengyel and Thompson from the Air National Guard and the Air
Force Reserve.
We would like to begin today by thanking the committee for
its continued support of your Air Force and the many dedicated
and brave airmen and their families serving around the globe.
Today, more than 27,000 airmen are currently deployed in
support of ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of
Africa, and many others, daily demonstrating their importance
in support of joint combat operations. Within the Secretariat
for Installations, Environment, and Logistics, we fully
appreciate the impacts our efforts have in support of these
airmen and how it affects their ability to positively influence
our Air Force's warfighting capabilities and capacity to
counter hostile threats.
But before we begin, I want to tell you that we heard your
concerns last year that the Air Force did not have enough funds
in the future years defense plan (FYDP) and the Air Reserve
components were not receiving enough of a share. The Air Force
has increased funding across the FYDP by nearly $2 billion, and
we have changed the way we allocate between the active Air
Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve to give the
Reserve components a larger share.
MILCON, family housing, and BRAC programs form the
foundation of our installation structure. Our installations
serve as key platforms for the delivery of global vigilance,
reach and power for our Nation, and our fiscal year 2010
investments reflect a direct connection to this vital work.
As we continue to focus on modernizing our aging weapon
systems, we recognize we cannot lose focus on Air Force
infrastructure programs. Our fiscal year 2010 President's
budget request of $4.9 billion for MILCON, military family
housing, BRAC, and facility maintenance is a reduction from our
2009 request of $5.2 billion.
This reflects an increase in MILCON and fact-of-life
reductions due to the anticipated completion of the
privatization of military family housing and BRAC 2005 round
implementation.
Using an enterprise portfolio perspective, we intend to
focus our limited resources on the most critical physical plant
components by applying demolition and space utilization
strategies to reduce our footprint, aggressively pursue energy
initiatives, continue to prioritize family housing, and
modernizing dormitories to improve quality of life for our
airmen.
In regards to military family housing, our master plan
details our housing MILCON operations, maintenance, and
privatization efforts. Since last spring, we have completed new
construction or major improvements on more than 2,000 units in
the United States and overseas, with another 2,286 units under
construction in the United States and 2,783 units under
construction overseas.
Our 2010 budget request for military family housing is just
over $567 million. The request for housing investment is $67
million to ensure the continual improvement of our overseas
homes. Our request also includes an additional $500 million to
pay for operations, maintenance, utilities, and leases for the
family housing program.
Now I would like to address our efforts in support of base
realignment and closure. BRAC 2005 impacts more than 120 Air
Force installations. Unlike the last round of BRAC, where 82
percent of the implementation actions affected the active Air
Force, in BRAC 2005, 78 percent of implementation actions
affect the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve.
In fact, the Air Force will spend more than $478 million on
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve BRAC MILCON projects.
The Air Force's total BRAC budget is approximately $3.8
billion, which the Air Force has fully funded. Our fiscal year
2010 BRAC 2005 budget request is approximately $418 million, of
which less than 20 percent is for BRAC MILCON projects. I would
like to emphasize the BRAC program is on track to meet the
September 2011 deadline.
Air Force MILCON, military family housing, and BRAC
initiatives will continue to directly support Air Force
priorities. It is imperative we continue to manage our
installations by leveraging industry best practices and state-
of-the-art technology.
Our civil engineering transformation efforts, now entering
the third year, continue to produce efficiencies and cost
savings that enhance support for the warfighter, reduce the
cost of installation ownership, and free resources for the
recapitalization of our aging Air Force weapon systems.
More importantly, these investments reflect effective
stewardship of funding designed to serve our airmen in the
field, their families, and the taxpayer at home.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and Senator Hutchison, this concludes my
remarks. Thank you and the committee again for your continued
support of our airmen and their families, and we look forward
to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathleen I. Ferguson
introduction
More than 27,000 Airmen are currently deployed in support of
ongoing operations, daily demonstrating their importance in support of
Joint combat operations. Within the Secretariat for Installations,
Environment and Logistics (SAF/IE), we fully appreciate the impact our
efforts have in support of these Airman and how it affects their
ability to positively influence our Air Force's warfighting abilities
and capacity to counter hostile threats.
To that end, the men and women of SAF/IE are committed to ensuring
our Air Force installations are right sized to support our forces, our
combat systems have a robust logistics infrastructure for sustainment,
and our forces have the necessary accessibility to the full spectrum of
our environment to ensure combat readiness. In addition to our Airmen's
combat readiness, we also appreciate how these same efforts support our
Airmen and their families and ensure a Quality of Service commensurate
with the contribution they provide to the defense of our Nation.
Air Force Military Construction (MILCON), Military Family Housing
(MFH), and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) programs form the
foundation of our installation structure. Our Air Force installations
serve as key platforms for the delivery of Global Vigilance, Reach and
Power for our Nation, and our fiscal year 2010 investments reflect a
direct connection to this vital work.
As the Air Force continues to focus on modernizing our aging weapon
systems, we recognize that we cannot lose focus on critical Air Force
infrastructure programs. In order to maintain effective stewardship of
the resources given to us, our fiscal year 2010 President's Budget of
$4.9 billion for MILCON, BRAC, MFH, and facility maintenance is a
reduction from our fiscal year 2009 request of $5.2 billion. We intend
to mitigate potential shortfalls in MILCON and facility maintenance
funding by bolstering our restoration and modernization programs as
much as possible. Using an enterprise portfolio perspective, we intend
to focus our limited resources only on the most critical physical plant
components, by applying demolition and space utilization strategies to
reduce our footprint, aggressively pursuing energy initiatives,
continuing to privatize family housing and modernizing dormitories to
improve quality of life for our Airmen.
Our efforts are in direct support of and consistent with the Air
Forces' five priorities, (1) Reinvigorate the Air Force Nuclear
Enterprise, (2) Partner with the Joint and Coalition Team to Win
Today's Fight, (3) Develop and Care for Airmen and Their Families, (4)
Modernize our Air and Space Inventories, Organizations and Training,
and (5) Recapture Acquisition Excellence. It is with these priorities
in mind that I will outline our MILCON, Military Family Housing and
BRAC efforts and the individual priorities they support.
reinvigorate the air force nuclear enterprise
The Air Force has a solemn responsibility and obligation to operate
and maintain its portion of America's nuclear deterrent posture, which
consists of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-
capable bombers and dual capable fighters. Over the past several months
the Air Force senior leadership team, along with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Interagency partners, have closely
examined the Air Force nuclear enterprise and identified several areas
for improvement.
The results of these internal assessments reinforced the need to
continually focus on nuclear sustainment and operations as well as the
management of the weapons and their delivery platforms. A critical
aspect of this effort includes the infrastructure and facilities
providing the necessary life-cycle installation support of this vital
mission. Air Force Civil Engineers and field experts are currently
conducting Facility Condition Assessments of all nuclear-related
facilities, which will provide detailed information on our
infrastructure deficiencies directly supporting the nuclear mission.
Projects will be developed, programmed, and prioritized appropriately
to obtain the necessary funding required to correct any deficiencies.
Additionally, the fiscal year 2010 President's Budget request
includes an investment of $45 million in four infrastructure projects
at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, FE Warren Air Force Base,
Wyoming and Clear Air Station, Alaska. These projects include missile
procedures, training operations and missile service complex facilities.
develop and care for airmen and their families
Airmen are the Air Force's most valuable resource and we remain
committed to recruiting and retaining the world's highest quality
force. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
monies allotted to the Air Force support that effort. Over $260 million
in MILCON will improve the lives of our Airmen and their families
through MFH improvements, dormitory construction, and providing Child
Development Center facilities and services.
Developing Airmen
The Air Force must continue to ensure we are preparing Airmen for
the challenges of today and tomorrow by providing quality facilities in
which to train and operate. Our fiscal year 2010 budget request
includes $39 million for three projects. We will construct a new
recruit dormitory and basic military training facility giving incoming
Airmen quality training facilities to start a career of service.
Another highlight includes a C-5 Ground Training Schoolhouse addition
for the Air Force Reserve Command.
Military Family Housing Program
The MFH Master Plan details our Housing MILCON, operations and
maintenance, and privatization efforts. Since last spring, the Air
Force completed new construction or major improvements on over 2,000
units in the United States and overseas, with another 2,286 units under
construction in the United States and 2,783 units under construction
overseas.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request for MFH is just over $567
million. The Air Force request for housing investment is $67 million to
ensure the continual improvement of our overseas homes. Investments
will provide whole-house renovations for 365 units at two overseas
bases and extend their useful life. Our request also includes an
additional $500 million to pay for operations, maintenance, utilities
and leases for the family housing program.
Housing Privatization
Housing privatization continues to improve quality of life for our
Airmen and their families. To date we have privatized approximately
38,900 housing units at 44 bases. We have seen the delivery of over
10,000 new or renovated homes and are currently bringing more than 200
homes a month online. We will have leveraged more than $402 million in
government investment to garner almost $6.3 billion in private sector
total housing development, or $16 of private investment for each public
tax dollar. With the support of Congress, we will continue to work
toward our goal to privatize 100 percent of Military Family Housing in
the Continental United States, Hawaii, Alaska and Guam by the end of
fiscal year 2010.
Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories)
The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan is the cornerstone for
developing requirements for unaccompanied housing. The budget request
includes five dormitories worth $138 million. We will continue to
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. Simultaneously, our implementation of a
``bridging strategy'' ensures we are investing Facility Sustainment and
Restoration and Modernization funds into aging facilities to extend
their useful life until MILCON replacements can be executed and to
ensure we keep ``good dormitories good.''
Fitness and Child Development Centers
Elevated operations tempo and increased home-station demands makes
physical fitness an imperative for Airmen. Our fiscal year 2010 request
includes two Fitness Centers worth $41 million. We also remain focused
on providing our families with appropriate and nurturing child care
facilities. We will continue to invest in these facilities which we
believe are key to caring for Airmen and their families. This year's
budget request includes two child development centers worth $20
million.
Environmental Quality and Management Systems
Our environmental management programs continue to ensure the most
basic quality of life needs are 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 have
implemented a new environmental management approach at Air Force
installations. Installations are now utilizing the Environmental
Management System to identify environmental aspects of base operations,
assess their impacts, and help commanders make informed decisions and
investments to reduce environmental risks and compliance costs. Our
installation commanders significantly reduced new environmental
enforcement actions by 44 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year
2008.
We are also continuing our existing environmental quality and
restoration programs. The fiscal year 2010 request includes just under
$1 billion for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs such as:
traditional environmental restoration activities, environmental
compliance activities and projects, pollution prevention initiatives,
environmental conservation activities, munitions response activities,
and investment in promising environmental technologies. Our
environmental restoration program is proceeding aggressively to clean-
up sites contaminated by past practices. The Air Force closed or has
remedies in place at 89 percent of the contaminated sites and expects
to have remedies in place at all sites by fiscal year 2012, 2 years
ahead of the Department of Defense fiscal year 2014 environmental
restoration goal.
modernize our air and space inventories, organizations and training
Modernizing our aging air and space inventories, organizations and
training to prepare for tomorrow's challenges requires significant
investment of $353 million for 34 projects. We will complete the
planned F-22 beddown, including the two Air National Guard projects at
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. The beddown of the F-35 also continues
to be a priority, with eight projects supporting actions at Nellis Air
Force Base, Nevada and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
We also continue to modernize our facilities in support of our
larger aircraft by constructing seven new facilities supporting C-130
operations and training. Other projects in this program include a
consolidated communication facility at Cannon Air Force Base, New
Mexico, two research facilities at Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio and upgrading electrical infrastructure at Hurlburt Field,
Florida. As part of our work to achieve balance across our portfolios,
we continue to transform the enterprise by developing new concepts of
operations, implementing organizational change, and integrating
advanced technologies in installation support.
Energy Stewardship
The Air Force has launched an aggressive program to invest in
facility energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives.
Recently, the Secretary of the Air Force signed a Mission Directive
institutionalizing energy policy within the Air Force and driving more
efficient energy management practices. Together, these policies will
direct specific actions in the areas of operational processes,
training, and installation management geared toward reducing our
``energy footprint,'' and increasing our use of cleaner energy
alternatives.
Over the past year, we've stood up the Air Force Facility Energy
Center (FEC) at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency at Tyndall
Air Force Base, Florida. The new FEC consolidates energy technical
expertise and project management capabilities in order to leverage best
practices across the force. The goal of this office is to develop and
implement innovative energy solutions reducing our energy ``footprint''
at Air Force installations. In 2008, the Air Force Infrastructure
Energy Strategic Plan was issued to guide the strategic and tactical
direction of our energy program, a plan designed to balance supply-side
energy assurance and demand-side energy efficiency. It incorporates the
energy strategy of the 21st Century designed to meet the energy
mandates outlined in the Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPAct 05), Executive
Order (EO) 13423 and Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007). The strategy maps the way ahead for meeting energy mandates
through fiscal year 2015 and covers facilities infrastructure as well
as fuel efficiency in our ground transportation fleet.
The new infrastructure energy strategy is founded on Four Pillars
that are designed to (1) Improve Current Infrastructure, (2) Improve
future infrastructure, (3) Expand renewables, and (4) manage cost. We
intend to achieve the Four Pillars by incorporating best business
practices into our education and training programs, pursuing cultural
change in our organizations, and improving our asset management. We see
potential indicators that our efficiency strategy is providing return-
on-investment. In 2008, the Air Force energy intensity decreased by
17.8 percent from the fiscal year 2003 baseline. The Air Force also
developed a life-cycle cost-effective metering strategy to meet EPAct
05, which mandates the installation of electric meters on required
facilities by 2012. We recognize the value of metering and are already
74 percent complete toward the goal. The Air Force is also making great
strides in our water conservation program. In fiscal year 2008, we
consumed 1.3 billion gallons less water than our fiscal year 2007 water
usage.
In the area of renewable energy, our strategy expands public and
private partnerships by leveraging private sector capital to bring
renewable power production to our bases at competitive prices. For
example, in a partnership with state and local government and private
industry, the photovoltaic (PV) solar array at Nellis Air Force Base,
Nevada, the largest PV array in North America, generated 57,139
megawatt-hours in fiscal year 2008. Through a Congressional
appropriation, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, installed a 2,000
kilowatt wind turbine in January 2009, adding to the two turbines
already operational. Together the three wind turbines are capable of
generating 6.7 million kilowatt-hours per year, enough to power 836
homes. These and other renewable energy and conservation initiatives
provide examples of how the Air Force is committed to not only meeting,
but exceeding the goals of the new Executive Order with initiatives
that provide long-term return-on-investment.
Sustainability
With an eye toward improving future infrastructure, our traditional
project goals of delivering high quality facility projects on schedule
and within budget is expanding to include creation of functional,
maintainable, and high performance facilities. Under EO 13423 and EISA
2007, the Air Force employs the Federal Leadership in High Performance
and Sustainable Building Guiding Principles to reduce total cost of
ownership and improve energy efficiency and water conservation to
provide safe, healthy, and productivity-enhancing facility
environments. We also employ the U.S. Green Building Council's
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) criteria in our
designs. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally
accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high
performance green buildings. In 2008, the Air Force certified its first
LEED gold building at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. This year, 100
percent of Air Force-eligible MILCON projects will be capable of
certification in LEED.
The Air Force understands that it is not just new construction that
needs this focus and attention. We have already begun the task of
greening our existing building inventory and installation support
platforms. Sustainability cannot just be about facilities, it has to be
a holistic approach to include how we develop and sustain our
installations. The vision is to build and shape sustainable communities
using innovative solutions to lower the cost of installation support
and provide more eco-friendly installations.
BRAC 2005 Execution Report Card
BRAC 2005 impacts more than 120 Air Force installations. Whether
establishing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training Site at
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, closing Kulis Air Guard Station in
Alaska, or transferring Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina to the
Army, the Air Force community as a whole--active, Guard, Reserve--will
benefit from changes BRAC achieves.
Unlike the last round of BRAC where 82 percent of the
implementation actions affected the active Air Force, in BRAC 2005, 78
percent of implementation actions affect the Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserve. In fact, the Air Force will spend more than $486 million
on Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve BRAC MILCON projects. In
addition, many of the BRAC MILCON projects on active Air Force
installations, like the C-130 facilities built or renovated at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, or KC-135 facilities built or renovated at
Seymour-Johnson and MacDill Air Force Bases, will benefit Air Reserve
Component forces stationed there.
The Air Force's total BRAC budget is approximately $3.8 billion,
which the Air Force has fully funded.
The Air Force's largest BRAC costs are for military construction
projects; approximately $2.6 billion. Operations and Maintenance
expenditures closely follow at $926 million. This includes expenditures
for civilian pay and moving expenses, supplies, equipment, travel, etc.
There are other BRAC expenses, as well. Other requirements include
expenses for information technology, equipment procurement, and Air
Force Reserve and Air National Guard training, to name a few, at $142
million.
Other BRAC programmed amounts include $132 million for military
personnel expenses and environmental planning and cleanup.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2010 BRAC 2005 Budget Request is
approximately $418 million, of which less than 20 percent is for BRAC
MILCON projects.
The Air Force's primary focus in the fiscal year 2010 program is in
budget areas other than BRAC MILCON because we are now more focused on
personnel-related issues, relocating assets and functions, outfitting
new and renovated facilities, procuring end-state necessities, and
continuing environmental actions to realign and integrate the total
force.
Joint Basing
The Air Force has a long and successful history of working toward
common goals in the Joint environment. The Air Force remains committed
to ensuring all bases, Joint or otherwise, maintain their capability as
weapon system platforms and meet our quality of life standards. To
accomplish this we worked with our sister Services and OSD to establish
common quality of life standards that ensure our personnel receive
efficient installation support services.
The Services are addressing many complex issues such as information
technology integration, human resources planning, manpower and fiscal
resources, and new organizational structures. A Senior Joint Base
Working Group, led by the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
(Installations and the Environment) developed implementation policy to
guide the transition of installation management functions and meet the
BRAC timeline. The group is in the process of reviewing and
coordinating the numerous details in the formal support agreements and
implementation plans to establish each Joint Base. The five Joint Bases
aligned in the first phase of implementation have developed
comprehensive Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) establishing the
relationships between the Services, and are now shifting their focus to
the orderly transition of installation management functions by October
2009. The seven Phase II installations are developing their MOAs now
and will begin the transition of functions next year, and will complete
the process by October 2010.
Legacy BRAC--Real Property Transformation
The Air Force remains a Federal leader in the implementation of the
management principles outlined in Presidential Executive Order 13327,
Federal Real Property Asset Management. We continue to aggressively
manage our real property assets to deliver maximum value for the
taxpayer, improve the quality of life for our Airmen and their
families, and ensure the protection and sustainment of the environment
to provide the highest level of support to Air Force missions. The Air
Force is achieving these goals through an enterprise-wide Asset
Management transformation that seeks to optimize asset value and to
balance performance, risk, and cost over the full asset life cycle. Our
approach is fundamentally about enhancing our built and natural asset
inventories and linking these inventories to our decision-making
processes and the appropriate property acquisition, management and
disposal tools.
Even though the BRAC 2005 round did not reduce the Air Force's real
property footprint, our current transformation efforts seek to ``shrink
from within'' and to leverage the value of real property assets in
order to meet our ``20/20 by 2020'' goal of offsetting a 20 percent
reduction in funds available for installation support activities by
achieving efficiencies and reducing by 20 percent the Air Force
physical plant that requires funds by the year 2020.
Base Realignment and Closure Property Management
To date, the Air Force has successfully conveyed by deed nearly 90
percent of the 87,000 acres of Air Force BRAC 88, 91, 93 and 95, which
we refer to as legacy BRAC, with the remainder under lease for
redevelopment and reuse. 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 by deed
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 so that
the cleanup efforts complement, rather than impede, the property
redevelopment plans and schedules. 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 completed 20 whole-base
transfers. Ten of the remaining 12 bases are targeted for transfer by
the end of fiscal year 2010, while the last two (former George and
McClellan Air Force Bases) will be transferred no later than the end of
fiscal year 2012.
As the Air Force transfers BRAC property for civic and private
reuse, it is paramount 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 2010 request of $116 million for legacy
BRAC cleanup activities and another $20 million for BRAC 2005 cleanup
activities. Recent progress at the former McClellan Air Force Base in
Sacramento, once the most environmentally contaminated closure base
within DOD, is a sterling example of the effective approach taken by
the Air Force and the local community in fostering redevelopment of
closure base property. As a result of previously unprecedented
collaboration between the local community, the Environmental Protection
Agency, State environmental regulators, the primary developer, and the
Air Force on the privatization of cleanup of the base, the former base
is quickly becoming the ``greenest'' business park in California. It is
home to what will be the most energy-efficient computer data center in
the Nation. The former base is also now home to North America's largest
photo-voltaic solar panel manufacturing plant, a 1-million square foot
joint venture facility called Opti-Solar. The plant will create 1,000
green jobs producing 2,000 solar panels per day beginning in 2009.
In summary, the Air Force's real property asset management
framework involves an understanding and balancing of our mission needs
and risks with market dynamics, the Federal budget, the condition and
performance of our assets and the need to protect the environment.
partner with the joint and coalition team to win today's fight
America's Airmen are ``All In'' supporting the Joint and Coalition
team to win today's fight with precision and reliability. Our fiscal
year 2010 program includes $544 million for 28 projects directly
connected to today's fight. Four projects valued at $198 million
directly support U.S. Central Command by providing much needed in-
theater airlift ramp and fuel facilities, a war-reserve material
compound, and a passenger terminal. Other projects include an aerospace
ground equipment maintenance complex at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, a
Global Hawk maintenance and operations complex at Naval Air Station
Sigonella in Italy, and beddown facilities for Air Force air support
and operations personnel with Army units. These investments provide
direct returns by reducing backlog and waste in our logistics trail,
and increase the capacity and efficiency of our fighting forces at
downrange locations.
Approximately 30,000 Airmen are currently deployed as part of
Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM. More than 3,000 of these
Airmen are civil engineers, with over 40 percent of our deployed
engineers filling Joint Expeditionary Tasking billets, serving side-by-
side with our sister Services. Our heavy construction Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operational and Repair Squadron Engineers (RED HORSE)
and our Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force (BEEF) engineers are well-
known in-theater for their ability to build and maintain expeditionary
installations. Airmen continue to assist both Iraq and Afghanistan in
building the capacity to provide self-governance. Since 2004, the Air
Force has completed over $5.6 billion in major renovation or
construction projects, giving the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan
the capacity to provide basic services for its people. Whether it is
serving on Provincial Reconstruction Teams, mitigating the threat of
improvised explosive devices, standing up host nation Field Engineering
Teams, or teaching aspiring engineers at the Afghan Service Academies,
Airmen continue to demonstrate courage, commitment, and dedication in
contingency operations. We are honored to serve with our Joint and
Coalition team partners and will continue to support the Nation's call-
to-arms by providing unique engineering capabilities and the most
talented installation support personnel available.
recapture acquisition excellence
The Air Force remains committed to recapturing acquisition
excellence and developing innovative solutions that enable smart
business decisions. Through the Air Force Civil Engineer Strategic
Sourcing Program Management Office at the Air Force Civil Engineer
Support Agency at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, we are working to
select and prioritize sourcing opportunities and oversee the efforts of
other Major Command-initiated CE strategic sourcing efforts. The
Program Management Office will capitalize on industry-best practices to
reduce the cost of building systems and commodities while improving the
delivery of support to our customers. Five strategic sourcing
opportunities and a commodity cost review are currently in progress to
identify sourcing strategies leading to regional or enterprise-level
acquisitions. We organized a staff comprised of civil engineers,
contracting officers and financial specialists to ensure we implement a
well-integrated, cross functional approach aimed at determining the
right investments for our enterprise.
conclusion
Air Force MILCON, MFH and BRAC initiatives will continue to connect
directly to Air Force priorities. It is imperative we continue to
manage our installations by leveraging industry-best practices and
state-of the-art technology. Our CE transformation effort, now entering
its third year, continues to produce efficiencies and cost savings that
enhance support for the warfighter, reduce the cost of installation
ownership, and free resources for the recapitalization of our aging Air
Force weapon systems. More importantly, these investments reflect
effective stewardship of funding designed to serve our Airmen in the
field, their families, and the taxpayer at home.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Ferguson.
The fiscal 2010 Air Force budget request for military
construction is about 10 percent lower than the 2009 request.
Last year, the Air Force acknowledged that it was assuming a
greater risk in construction funding to steer more funds into
air and space assets.
Is this year's budget request a continuation of that
policy? Could you outline that risk that the Air Force is
leveraging with the drop-off in funding for military
construction?
AIR FORCE RESERVE AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD MILCON FUNDING
Ms. Ferguson. Yes, thank you.
Overall, the Air Force has reduced our fiscal year 2010
President's budget request from our fiscal year 2009 President
budget request. In fiscal year 2009, our request for
infrastructure programs was $5.2 billion. And this year, when
you add MILCON, family housing, BRAC, and facility maintenance,
we are right about $4.9 billion.
We have increased in some areas and have decreased in
others. In military construction, from one President's budget
to the other President's budget, we have increased about $300
million. We have increased our family housing maintenance count
by about $200 million, predominantly in the energy area and to
improve dormitories.
And we have reduced funding in both family housing and
BRAC, directly related to reduced requirements in both of those
accounts. And that is good news because that reflects success
in the program, and we do not need any additional funding
beyond what we have asked for in this budget for either BRAC or
family housing.
Overall, if you look to see how we allocated the funds
between the active and Air National Guard--and each the active,
Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve have seen increases
from last year--our active request went up about 22 percent,
the Air Force Reserve about 45 percent, and the Air National
Guard went up about 273 percent. But as you do point out, it is
lower than the appropriated amount, but the Air Force did
increase--continues to take risk in infrastructure, but did
increase our President's budget request above what we did have
last year.
Senator Johnson. Could you give me an update on the housing
privatization efforts at Ellsworth Air Force Base?
Ms. Ferguson. The Ellsworth Air Force Base project is part
of a grouped project. It is in the concept development stage
right now, and we anticipate coming over to the Hill to give a
briefing within the next few months. But I will be happy to
come over and give you more details on that.
[The information follows:]
Ellsworth AFB Housing Privatization
The Air Force will provide the Military Construction-Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Committee a briefing on the
housing privatization efforts at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota
in July 2009.
Senator Johnson. As a result of an OSD decision, the Air
Force budget request does not include an updated FYDP. Last
year, the Air Force Guard and Reserve FYDPs were very thin.
What impact will the new FYDP policy have on the ability of
Congress to provide additional funds for key Air Guard and
Reserve priorities?
FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM AND AIR RESERVE COMPONENT FUNDING
Ms. Ferguson. At this time, OMB has asked the Department
not to present any funding beyond fiscal year 2010 in our
budget. Pending the additional guidance from the President and
OMB beyond what is in our justification books, we are
continuing to work with OSD on the development and release of
anything beyond what we have provided in fiscal year 2010.
Senator Johnson. General Lengyel and General Thompson,
would you please give the subcommittee your assessment of this
situation?
General Lengyel. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
question and the opportunity to comment.
It is a concern to the National Guard bureau that
potentially there are projects in the FYDP to accelerate. As
you are well aware, the Air National Guard has been able to
gain an average of $150 million or more in accelerations
yearly. So the inability to do that could, in fact, hinder our
ability to recapitalize our $14 billion plant.
We hope perhaps that there is some way that we find a way
to fund those projects into the FYDP so that they can be
accelerated. But currently, we are playing as partners with the
Air Force with the funds available in the program.
Senator Johnson. General Thompson.
General Thompson. Sir, we are just a microcosm of the
overall Air Force, the same as the Air National Guard. Much
smaller program, but we have the same concerns.
We have a backlog that we would like to be able to
accelerate. As with the Army that spoke earlier, our request
last year of $19 million ended up an appropriation of $37
million. Our request this year is $27 million. So we are--like
the regular Air Force, our appropriation did exceed our
request. So we thank you very much for that.
So just as Joe mentioned, we will be in the same boat, all
three components of the Air Force, if we cannot work some
accelerations with you.
Senator Johnson. General Lengyel and General Thompson, I am
deeply concerned over the level of funding in the fiscal year
2010 request for the Air Guard and Reserve. The Air Guard
request is 60 percent below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level,
and the Air Force Reserve request is nearly 26 percent below
fiscal year 2009 enacted.
This is not the first decrease we have seen in funding
requests from the Air Guard and Reserve. What impact is this
trend having on the Air Guard and Reserve MILCON program?
General Lengyel. Well, sir, Mr. Chairman, once again I
would comment that I see this budget as actually an improvement
over the previous 2 year budgets for sure. Last year, I believe
we had somewhere just over $34 million in current mission
projects in the budget. This year, we are in excess of $120
million.
We are pleased and working again in concert with the other
components in the Air Force to play by the same rules. I can
tell you that like every other part in the Air Force, the Air
National Guard received its top three priorities in MILCON
projects, no different than anyone else.
Competition for funding in the budget process is a
challenge, but we are happy to say that with the Air Force, we
are playing pretty much as one team. And we are treated no
different, I would say, than any other part of the Air Force.
Senator Johnson. General Thompson.
General Thompson. Sir, I concur with General Lengyel. And
the thing that I think is the difference this year than perhaps
last year is we, as the Air Force, changed the business rules
whereby the Reserve components received their percentages of
the overall MILCON budget, which resulted in a more fair
application of those percentages across our portfolio. So it is
better than last year.
Now, frankly, it is the difference between last year and
this year was the wisdom of the Congress in accelerating some
additions to the budget. But our requests are in line. We feel
fairly treated. We are equal partners with the Air Force, and
especially with the change in business rules, we are very
satisfied with the way that we are treated as part of the Air
Force team.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I want to thank the chairman for
asking about the Reserve issue because that has been a concern
of mine as well.
24TH AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS MILCON REQUIREMENTS
We are all waiting for the decision on the Cyber Command,
as you can imagine, and I wondered what the MILCON requirements
might be for the new 24th Air Force headquarters that will come
with that Cyber Command?
Ms. Ferguson. Ma'am, it would be premature for me to
speculate at this time because the Air Force has not yet made
an announcement on the basing location. But certainly, as soon
as that is made, we can provide you and your staff an update on
that.
Senator Hutchison. Regardless of where it goes, have you
done planning or is there nothing contingent in your budget
request for any added building for that?
Ms. Ferguson. There is nothing in our building request for
Cyber Command right now. What I can describe is the process
that we have gone through so far. As you know, the Air Force
announced in January six locations that were going to be
visited for possible beddown locations for Air Force Cyber
Command.
Space Command took the lead. They performed the site
surveys at each of those six locations. And as they performed
those six site surveys, they looked at what it would take to
reach initial operating capability at that installation, and
they looked at what it would take to get to final operating
capability at that location.
They also evaluated the installation based on six criteria
that had been provided by the Secretary of the Air Force, and
they included things like mission synergy, communications,
bandwidth, availability of facilities, transportation,
security, and off the top of my head, I can't remember the last
one.
But that has been ongoing, and right now, we are just
waiting to make the announcement for the preferred location and
the other reasonable alternatives. And at that time, the Air
Force will begin to accomplish the environmental assessment for
the beddown of Cyber Command.
Senator Hutchison. So what then would be the timetable? If
there is nothing in this year's budget request for generic
military construction for that headquarters, what would then be
the timetable for putting it into the FYDP or into a future
budget?
It just seems like you would want to stand it up as early
as possible. And I would have thought you might have something
set aside for that for whenever the announcement was made so it
could be started immediately.
Ms. Ferguson. Our anticipation is that it will be in the
fiscal year 2011 budget request. If any MILCON is required to
stand up Cyber Command or Cyber Numbered Air Force (NAF), that
will be done in the fiscal year 2011 budget. And we will work
an interim operations and maintenance (O&M) fix, O&M solution
if required for the interim stand-up.
JOINT BASING AND BRAC 2005 ROUND IMPLEMENTATION
Senator Hutchison. Okay. Let me ask you the other issue
that I had mentioned earlier, and that is the Air Force will be
the lead on 6 of the 12 joint bases in BRAC. What are your
preparations for that, and what is your thought of the way you
will be putting those operations headquarters together for all
the different services?
Ms. Ferguson. Sure. And as you point out, they are through
BRAC 2005, joint basing was directed at 12 installations, 12
joint basing installations. The Air Force has lead at six of
those installations, and we are follow at four. And we have
been working very closely with OSD and our partners in the Army
and the Navy to execute joint basing as directed by BRAC 2005.
And OSD and the other services have basically broken down
joint basing implementation into two phases, and Phase ones are
underway right now. The memorandums of agreement have all been
signed for the first five joint bases. In the first five, it is
Naval Air Base Little Creek/Fort Story, Fort Myer/Henderson
Hall, Andrews/Naval Air Station Washington, McGuire/Fort Dix/
Lakehurst, and then installations at Guam, both Andersen Air
Force Base and Navy Region Guam.
All the rest of the joint bases are in Phase II, and that
does include Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Sam Houston, and
Randolph Air Force Base. And I can tell you briefly, all of the
Phase I bases have reached their initial operational capability
today, and they will reach full operational capability, will be
fully stood up on 1 October of this year.
The Phase II MOAs--and I can talk to you specifically about
Lackland/Fort Sam in just a second. All the Phase II MOAs are
under development right now with an initial operational
capability (IOC) for the follow-on for the Phase II bases in
January 2010 with full operating capability in October 2010.
Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Sam Houston, and Randolph Air
Force Base are one of the last seven bases to go through this
process I will describe for you. But there is a combination of
folks here in Washington, DC helping to make this work, along
with each of the major commands helping to make this work.
And the next major milestone for Lackland Air Force Base/
Fort Sam Houston on May 22, the command structure at the major
commands for both the Army and the Air Force will submit a
draft memorandum of agreement to the Department of Defense for
us to start looking at. And there will be a workshop that is
held in San Antonio from the 9th to 12th of June.
The anticipation for an MOA signature for Fort Sam Houston,
Lackland Air Force Base, and Randolph Air Force Base will be
the 22nd of September.
Senator Hutchison. Could I just follow up with a quick
question, and that is who will make the MILCON requests where
there are joint bases? Will it be the lead, or will it be the
service?
Ms. Ferguson. It will be the lead for installation support
functions. If there is a mission change, then it will be the
requiring. So if there is an Army mission change on Fort Sam
Houston, the Army would make that request. If it was for a
regular mission support facility, like a gym or an
administrative facility to replace something existing, the Air
Force would do that as the lead for that joint base.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
AMERICAN EAGLE HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Ms. Ferguson, let me ask, as you are very well aware
because you have dealt with this for a long time, the Little
Rock Air Force Base, along with bases in Georgia,
Massachusetts, and Florida, was able recently to resolve a very
complicated housing privatization issue. And the first question
is could you give us just--give the subcommittee here a status
report on all the bases, if you could, just kind of where that
stands now and particularly where we started in terms of what
our original goals were versus how many houses and how many
refurbished houses we end up with now?
Ms. Ferguson. Sure. And first, I want to thank you and your
staff for all the work you helped us with as we did the work
out of the American Eagle project. As you know, the American
Eagle projects, the four projects were very difficult for us,
and we appreciate the support of yourself and the other members
as we worked through that.
Specifically for Little Rock Air Force Base, the scope was
reduced from 1,200 to 1,000 as we worked the restructured deal.
And there was less new construction than what was in the
original American Eagle project.
The feedback we have got so far is the Hunt-Pinnacle team,
the new project owner that is in there, has done a great job of
bringing in new branding to the installation. They have done a
tremendous job of taking care of some of the backlogs of
maintenance, roof repair, storm damage repairs that were both
at Little Rock and Moody Air Force Bases.
And we have got great feedback from the installations on
the work that they have done since they have gone in there in
November. The Air Force has issued notice to proceed for
demolition and construction, and Hunt-Pinnacle has begun work
on the 10 partially completed houses that American Eagle
started. And those houses should be complete in June. We should
be able to start moving families into those 10 houses in June.
The other things they are doing is they are demolishing
some of that partial work that American Eagle had done that
wasn't recoverable, and that should be done also. And starting
in June, they should begin working on 131 new houses at Little
Rock Air Force Base with work to be done in March 2011.
Senator Pryor. If I recall, Little Rock has their set of
issues, and Georgia, Massachusetts, and Florida, they are all a
little different. But are they generally following on that same
track that, in effect, the taxpayer is getting a little less
than what we had originally bargained for? But the work is back
on track and things are moving to, under the circumstances, a
conclusion that is relatively satisfactory?
Ms. Ferguson. Absolutely. Each one of them is similar. Each
project is different in some respects. Some--at Patrick Air
Force Base, we added some additional homes to the deal.
Originally, it was all the houses were off base. We did roll in
some houses that were on base to the deal.
Part of the difficulty with the work out of American Eagle
is there was some collapsed bonds. There wasn't enough money
available to do what was done originally. And because of the
financial crisis and the economy, we were unable to go out and
get additional financing. So we had to live within the dollars
that were available at the time.
Work is progressing at all four bases. At Patrick Air Force
Base, they are demolishing 111 houses right now, and those
should be complete shortly. They have begun renovation of 435
homes that were brought into the deal in the north and central
housing.
At Moody Air Force Base, they are completing 50 of the
homes that American Eagle had started. And at Hanscom Air Force
Base, I actually just came back from a trip to Hanscom Air
Force Base and visited up there, and they are completing 26
houses that American Eagle started. And they have done a great
job.
On the 1st and 2nd of June, I am traveling to Little Rock,
Patrick, and Moody Air Force Bases to do another touch with the
other three bases----
Senator Pryor. Great.
Ms. Ferguson [continuing]. To get hands on in how they are
doing.
Senator Pryor. Great. Thank you for doing that.
Now let me ask, from this point moving forward, have you
prepared a set of lessons learned, things that if you could go
back, you would do them differently and a better game plan as
we move forward? Do you have that?
AMERICAN EAGLE--LESSONS LEARNED
Ms. Ferguson. Absolutely. We have learned a lot of lessons
from American Eagle and not just the Air Force, but the Navy
and the Army also did as well. And I will go through just a
couple of things the Air Force has done and how we have changed
our processes as we have taken lessons learned from American
Eagle.
The first thing we did is we centralized source selection
authority, and actually, that authority resides with me and my
office. Before, when we awarded the four American Eagle
projects, there were different source selection authorities for
each one of the four. They were all awarded within a 1-year
time period. And so, we weren't able to see those things that
were occurring across the Air Force.
We have centralized construction management reporting to
the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment down
in San Antonio, and they have got standard construction
reporting, and they have got financial and construction
reviews. We monitor almost on a daily basis some key
performance indicators. We monitor the construction schedules,
the budgets, the financial indicators, the debt covenants, and
the operating expenses.
We do, along with our partners, do customer service and
satisfaction surveys. We do a monthly in-depth review at my
level of the execution of these projects. We have initiated
also pretty robust development review visits where we send a
team out from Air Force Center for Engineering and the
Environment to go out and actually touch on the ground on a
pretty frequent basis the issues that are happening there.
Senator Pryor. I think all of that is good because I think
actually privatization for housing does make a lot of sense,
but we just have to make sure that we manage it properly.
One last question on that specific deal, again, I think
there were four bases involved in four different States. Is
there anything right now that the Air Force is doing with
regard to American Eagle? Any recourse, any lawsuit, trying to
recover some of the lost money, or have we blacklisted them for
future projects? What, if any, actions has the Air Force taken
with regard to American Eagle?
Ms. Ferguson. I will have to get you an update on that.
They were working through--our general counsel is working
through their review of the potential debarment, and we will
get you an update on that. I just don't have a current status.
[The information follows:]
American Eagle
An ongoing investigation into American Eagle's conduct continues.
As information is developed and made available through the
investigation, the Air Force Suspension and Debarment Official will
continue to monitor whether there exists a sufficient basis to require
a suspension or debarment action to protect the Government's interests
in accordance with 48 C.P.R. Subpart 9.4. In the meantime, as it
relates to American Eagle's responsibility to be a contractor to the
U.S. Government, before awarding a contract to American Eagle or any of
the major corporate entities making up American Eagle, in accordance
with 48 C.P.R. Subpart 9.1, contracting officers throughout the Federal
Government will be required to make an affirmative determination of
responsibility. The affirmative responsibility determination requires
contracting officers to verify that prospective awardees (a) have
adequate financial resources to perform a given contract; (b) be able
to comply with the contract requirements; (c) have a satisfactory
performance record; (d) have a satisfactory record of integrity and
business ethics; (e) have the necessary capabilities to perform the
contract; (f) have the necessary facilities to perform the contract;
and (g) otherwise be qualified and eligible to receive an award. Apart
from removing American Eagle from the housing privatization projects,
at this time the Air Force has not initiated any other action against
American Eagle.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, just so you will know, my thought is, if you
have a company like American Eagle that just doesn't honor its
obligations, its contracts it has made, my sense is they ought
to be--there ought to be some sort of so-called ``death
penalty'' for them or some sort of blacklist where for a period
of years they just can't bid on these contracts.
But anyway, we can talk about that in another context.
Thank you.
Senator Johnson. I will take that under advisement.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COAL TO LIQUID FACILITY NEAR EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA
Ms. Ferguson, I want to ask about a situation up north as
it relates to Eielson and Fairbanks, the community that is the
largest community in relation to that base there.
Recognizing that the Air Force has embarked on this
strategy to promote the development of synthetic fuels, one
that I heartily endorse, last year in the fiscal year 2009
Defense Appropriations Act, there were $5 million in O&M funds
that was set aside, another $5 million in research and
development funds that was set aside to study the feasibility
of a coal-to-liquids facility near Eielson.
And the Fairbanks North Star Borough, which is the local
government there, has been working on this project for quite
some time. They have defined several issues that they believe
are very important to resolve in order to decide how to move
this forward and whether to go forward with the project.
The Air Force is now in the process of commissioning two
studies now, and it is my understanding that the Fairbanks
North Star Borough believes that these studies will not answer
the questions about this project, which really do need to be
answered now. And apparently, it wasn't up until just about a
week ago that the Air Force actually met with the community
leaders about the problem.
The community leaders don't feel that the Air Force has
been listening to their concerns, and the concern is that they
will go forward, spend $10 million on studies that may have
very little value.
So the question that I have of you this afternoon is
whether the Air Force is prepared to work with the leadership
of the Fairbanks North Star Borough to address the concerns
about how this $10 million is going to be spent?
Ms. Ferguson. That is a great question. Absolutely, the Air
Force is committed to work with the community of Fairbanks and
the Fairbanks Economic Development Council (FEDC) up there as
we work through how we spend this $10 million and how do we
best support the community as we move forward.
As you point out, there was a meeting just recently with
the community that was on the 3rd of May, and the feedback I
got out of the meeting is there was a lot of issues that were
raised. And I think it helped to alleviate some of the concerns
of the community at that time.
And the purpose of the meeting was really to provide them
an update as to where the Air Force was, and to be quite
honest, it was hard for the Air Force to get started on this.
It was an unusual earmark. We weren't quite sure how to work
it, how to work it with the community. So I think that is why
there was some delay in beginning to talk to the community.
The folks at the local level were concerned, as you point
out, on how the Air Force was going to go forward, what were
the studies that we are going to do, how we were going to
integrate the community in that. And I can tell you just a
couple of things.
The Air Force is really doing three studies. One is the
research on the feasibility of a coal-to-liquid plant. Can it
work up there? How will it work? What are the things that need
to be done to make that work?
And then the second thing is an environmental baseline
study, which you have to do for any project. And then the third
thing, and this may be one of the things the community is
concerned about, is the mission compatibility study. How would
a coal-to-liquid plant work alongside the existing missions or
potential future missions at Eielson Air Force Base?
So there are kind of three parallel studies all going on.
Those will all come together mid to late summer, July-August
timeframe. There is actually another meeting up there today
with General Chandler, the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)
commander. And he is meeting with Mayor Whitaker and the FEDC
folks today.
And then there will be another follow-on meeting in late
July, early August that talks about, the results of the
preliminary studies and helps to map out a way forward.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am pleased to see that there is
a greater level of communication. I think the community's
concerns about how these dollars are going to be spent are good
and fair and legitimate. And in order for this to work, there
has got to be a full understanding as to how the project truly
does play forward.
And I appreciate--I have had an opportunity myself to sit
in on the initial meeting, and you had all the stakeholders in
the same room. And there was a great deal of energy and a great
attitude about the feasibility of how we can really make this
work. Since then, everything has kind of fallen by the wayside,
and the level of communication has not been what it needs to
be.
So I would just encourage that there be that level of
coordination and collaboration between the leadership within
the Fairbanks community and the Air Force. So I appreciate
that.
BRAC 2005 CLOSURE OF KULIS AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, ALASKA
And then one final question, and this relates to the 2005
BRAC and Kulis Air National Guard Base there in Anchorage. We
think, within the community, that this has been a win in terms
of closures--a win for the Air Force and a win for the
community. Because once Kulis moves then over to Elmendorf, the
land that Kulis currently occupies can be put to economic
development.
So the question quickly to you is whether or not Kulis is
on track and whether or not there is adequate funding to
complete that BRAC process there at Kulis?
Ms. Ferguson. Absolutely. Kulis Air National Guard Base is
on track for September 15, 2011. And we do not need any
additional funding. The Air Force has fully funded BRAC not
just at Kulis, but across the Air Force.
And we monitor the execution of that very closely. We do
quarterly program management reviews. The last one was just
under a month ago, and so far everything is on track and on
budget.
Senator Murkowski. Good. I always like good news like that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
before the subcommittee today. We look forward to working with
you this year on what is likely to be a very compressed
schedule.
For the information of members, questions for the record
should be submitted by the close of business on May 15.
[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 Daniel K. Inouye
f-22 for hawaii ang
Question. Hawaii's Air National Guard will receive its allocation
of twenty F-22 fighters in February 2011.
Do you believe that the two projects requested in fiscal year 2010
will be completed, or near completion, when the planes arrive?
Answer. Given the above information that F-22 fighters will begin
arriving at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii in February 2011, it is
likely that the two projects requested in fiscal year 2010 will be
underway, assuming the current President's Budget request is passed to
provide funding at/near the start of the fiscal year in October 2010.
However, it is unlikely that the two projects will be nearing
completion when the fighters arrive.
Question. Hawaii's Air National Guard will receive its allocation
of twenty F-22 fighters in February 2011.
Could you please explain the process by which priority was given to
the F-22 military construction projects required at Hickam AFB?
Answer. The Air Force prioritized basing locations through an
integrated process that considered mission requirements, available
space/facilities, timing of aircraft arrivals, and available military
construction funding. Within this prioritization methodology, the
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii projects were aligned against fiscal
years 2010-2013. The Air National Guard conducted site surveys and Site
Activation Task Forces at Hickam Air Force Base which were attended by
representatives from the Headquarters Pacific Air Forces staff and the
F-22 Systems Program Office as well as the host unit scheduled to
operate the aircraft. Based on operational requirements, sequencing of
construction, constructability of the available sites, and funds
available through the military construction program, the first two
projects were aligned against fiscal year 2010. These projects provide
critical aircraft parking apron/taxiway pavements ($7 million) and the
dedicated Low Observable/Composite Repair Facility ($26 million) needed
to begin operating the aircraft from Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.
Question. The Department of Defense recently announced its
intention to halt production of the F-22 in fiscal year 2010. Plans to
construct additional infrastructure at Hickam AFB for the F-22s, bed
down and other support facilities, is scheduled to occur in the next 4
years.
What, if any, impact does the plan to discontinue production of the
F-22, and changes to the F-22 allocations or scheduled delivery, factor
into the prioritization of future F-22 projects at Hickam?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President's Budget request shows
aircraft arriving at the 154th Wing, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii
beginning in the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. The total delivery
is programmed to be completed with 18 primary aircraft authorized by
the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. Currently, there is
no programmed impact to the prioritization of future F-22 projects at
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii based on the Department of Defense's
intent to halt production of further F-22 aircraft.
short auxiliary fields (saaf) in hawaii
Question. Hawaii's location in the Asia-Pacific region provides
many opportunities and challenges to our military. Strategically
located in the Pacific, Hawaii presents many unique challenges that
include the ability to respond to threats in a vast geographic area,
and when called upon, provide humanitarian assistance during times of
disasters. Our military is engaged in Overseas Contingency Operations
in Afghanistan and Iraq, which increased the pace of deployments for
our men and women in uniform. These deployments require our service
members to maintain a high level of training and readiness. One of the
training requirements is proficiency to land on Short Auxiliary
Airfields (SAAF). Hawaii does not have a SAAF runway for C-17 crews to
complete their qualifications requirements, and must fly to the
continental United States. This increases costs for the Air Force,
results in a loss of valuable man-hours are lost, and increases the
strain on the C-17s.
Does the Air Force plan to budget for the construction of an SAAF
in the State of Hawaii in the near future, and what annual costs are
incurred by the Air Force in its current arrangement to maintain C-17
crews' qualification requirements versus the cost of construction an
SAAF?
Answer. The Air Force is addressing the C-17 Short Auxiliary
Airfield (SAAF) training requirements through our standard military
construction program. The project proposed in support of this
requirement competes against other existing requirements on an annual
basis.
The Air Force is minimizing costs associated with annual SAAF
training requirements for Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii C-17 aircrews
by using simulated SAAFs on Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Air Station or
Kalealoa (John Rogers/Barbers Point Airfield). The use of these
simulated SAAFs, such as a painted SAAF on the runway at Kaneohe Bay
Marine Corps Air Station, requires a temporary 15th Operations Group
Commander waiver to the Air Force C-17 SAAF training standard. Any
initial or requalification C-17 aircrew training must be completed on
an actual SAAF runway.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
weapons load training facility at barksdale afb, la
Question. With the delivery of the full President's Budget on
Friday, my staff has completed an initial review of the military
construction projects for the State of Louisiana. Our quick review has
indicated just one Department of Defense project: A new ``Warrior in
Transition Complex'', at Fort Polk, for our Wounded Warriors. My first
question is for the Air Force. ``Reinvigorate the Nuclear Enterprise''
is currently, your number one service priority. The stand-up of Global
Strike Command is a clear message of that stated priority. However,
adequate training facilities are critical to sustaining this mission
area. The 2nd Bomb Wing, located at Barksdale Air Force Base, has an
urgent need for a new Weapons Load Training Facility. This facility
will directly support training of our crews in the proper processes and
procedures for nuclear and conventional munitions loading of the B-52.
This facility, which directly supports the Air Force's number one
priority, is currently not funded for fiscal year 2010.
Can you explain why?
Answer. Projects identified by the New Discovery review were
prioritized and the most critical projects were funded first (two Minot
Air Force Base, North Dakota facility projects in fiscal year 2010).
The Weapons Load Training Facility is a solid Air Force military
construction requirement. Currently, there are existing workarounds
that temporarily allow mission accomplishment. This requirement will
continue to be evaluated during the upcoming budget cycle and the
Quadrennial Defense Review.
milcon in the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009
Question. Just a few short months ago, The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided the Department of Defense nearly $2.2
billion in military construction funding. I'm disappointed that the
State of Louisiana received none of this funding.
For the Air Force.can you explain the process you followed to
prioritize and submit military construction projects for this funding,
to include your Guard and Reserve components?
Answer. The Air Force received $310.1 million in military
construction funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009. The Military Construction funds were provided in the following
categories: Air National Guard ($50 million), Child Development Centers
($80 million), Troop Housing ($100 million), and Military Family
Housing ($80.1 million). There were no funds provided for Air Force
Reserve military construction activities.
Air National Guard projects were selected from projects previously
validated by the States and Air National Guard leadership. Several
considerations were taken into account in project selection including:
ability to award quickly, design complete projects ready for
solicitation, State workload (including Wing Deployment status), and
maximizing available funding at multiple locations.
The Child Development Center (CDC) projects represent the top seven
priorities in the Air Force's CDC construction program. Projects were
previously prioritized by the major commands and Air Force Services
during the fiscal year 2009 budget process.
In selection of the troop housing, or dormitory projects, the Air
Force followed the Air Force Dormitory Master Plan in selecting
military construction projects. Additional consideration was applied
with regard to the ability to execute projects quickly and maximizing
the available ARRA funds.
Lastly, two Military Family Housing military construction projects
were selected based on the ability to execute the projects quickly. In
the case of Malmstrom AFB, MT the project corrected structural safety
deficiencies posing a threat to our Airmen and their families.
global strike command
Question. Ms Ferguson, you played a lead role in the site selection
process for Global Strike Command. In April 2009, the Air Force
announced that Barksdale Air Force Base was the chosen location to bed
down this new command. I understand that the Environmental Impact Study
is still in progress. We're anxiously awaiting the final results. As
we've previously discussed with both Secretary Donley and General
Schwartz, the cyber innovation center, located just outside Barksdale
Air Force Base, is a world-class facility, designed to house and
support cyber technology development. Yet, it was constructed to
support the Air Force. I'd encourage the Air Force and this committee,
to consider this facility in both the short and long-term plans, as a
realistic, cost-effective method of standing up Global Strike Command
at Barksdale Air Force Base.
What fiscal year 2010 funding has been requested to prepare for
this transition, and to achieve the initial operating capability of
Global Strike Command at Barksdale AFB, pending the EIS results? What
is the Air Force's latest estimate for completing and announcing the
Environmental Impact Study results?
Answer. $20 million has been requested in the fiscal year 2010
President's Budget to fund the provisional command's operations and
transition of Global Strike Command to its final location. Currently,
we estimate that the environmental assessment will be complete the
final week of June with an announcement shortly thereafter.
military command locations off military reservations
Question. Military commands are traditionally located on a military
base or post, with force protection being one of the driving
requirements and benefits of doing so. However, one exception that
comes to mind is the United States Southern Command, located in Doral,
Florida. In fact, the new consolidated headquarters, authorized by the
2008 National Defense Authorization Act, has paved the way for
construction of their new headquarters on 55 acres of Florida-owned
land immediately adjacent to the command's current facility. Both the
current and the future headquarter buildings are located outside the
confines of a military facility.
What would prohibit a major command from being located off-base,
even in an interim fashion?
Answer. There are no regulatory requirements which would prohibit a
military command (e.g., headquarters) from being located off-base;
however, the exacting force protection requirements mandated by the
Department of Defense would make an off-base location very costly.
Department of Defense guidance, contained in various DOD instructions
and Unified Facility Criteria, requiring stand-off distances from roads
and other buildings, controlled perimeters, positive identification of
persons accessing the facility and other stringent anti-terrorism and
security measures are expensive to attain. When the U.S. Southern
Command Headquarters relocated to Miami, Florida in 1997, the extensive
array of anti-terrorism protective requirements were not yet
established. We note that, due to the current anti-terrorism guidance
and BRAC decisions, efforts are currently underway to re-locate
significant Washington, DC-area headquarters staff elements from off-
base facilities to various military installations within the National
Capitol Region for similar reasons.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., Tuesday, May 12, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 19, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:38 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Pryor, and Hutchison.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
order.
I welcome everyone to today's hearing to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for military
construction and family housing. Today, we will hear from the
Defense Department comptroller and from the Navy.
Welcome to the students and faculty of my alma mater, the
University of South Dakota.
Our procedure is to have opening statements by the chairman
and ranking member, followed by an opening statement from our
witnesses. In addition to the oral statement, all prepared
statements from our witnesses will be entered into the record.
I request that our members limit their questions to 6-
minute rounds.
Our first panel today will be the DOD comptroller, Mr.
Robert Hale, and Mr. Wayne Arny, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment. Mr. Hale, Mr. Arny,
thank you for coming. We look forward to your testimony.
The President's military construction budget request for
2010 totals $22.9 billion, $2.1 billion below last year's
request. I understand that the primary reasons for this
decrease are decreasing requirements for base realignment and
closure (BRAC) 2005 construction funding and for military
family housing funding due to the progress made on
privatization.
However, this committee carefully watches funding for the
Guard and the Reserves, and I notice that funding for the
Guard, Army Guard is 26 percent below last year's request and
54 percent below last year's enacted level.
I am pleased to see funding increases for the other Reserve
components, but I believe we can and should do more for our
Guard and Reserve forces.
Today, I would like to focus on several issues in the
budget request, including the status of the services' Future
Years Defense Plans, incremental funding, global basing, and
the Homeowners Assistance Program. When we get to Navy issues
with the second panel, I am very interested in the status of
the marine buildup on Guam.
We have a lot of ground to cover today. So I will limit my
opening remarks.
Senator Hutchison, would you care to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
I appreciate having this hearing, of course, and I look
forward to discussing the overall construction needs that will
be presented here today.
It was just a year ago, Mr. Arny, that you and Mr. Penn and
General Payne were here to discuss the fiscal year 2009
request. As we begin the budget process for fiscal year 2010,
there are several significant issues with the military
construction budget.
As the chairman mentioned, the overall request of $23
billion is an 18 percent decrease from the 2009 level. This
includes $7.5 billion to implement BRAC actions as that program
continues to race to meet the 2011 statutory deadline.
I understand we are coming to the end of the BRAC process,
but this amount is nearly 15 percent below the 2009 enacted
level and does not give the services much leeway in completing
the immense program on time. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Arny
on this program and how we are going to meet the 2011 deadline.
Full funding of BRAC has been a priority of mine because it
is the easiest target that we have had through the years. And
people have borrowed from it, but we have assured that it was
always paid back. So we want it to be used for making that 2011
deadline.
I also understand that the administration has a policy
prohibiting the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
services from sharing the current FYDP with Congress. To go a
step further, I know that the Guard and Reserve is required by
law to present a FYDP to Congress but have been directed not
to.
In essence, you are asking Congress and this subcommittee
to invest in a MILCON program without the knowledge of how
these programs will fit into the larger defense posture. I know
you have a Quadrennial Defense Review taking place that will
not be completed until the fall, but I think it is the
responsibility of the department to work with Congress on these
plans.
I don't see the wisdom of this policy, and especially since
the subcommittee has a history of not allowing congressional
inserts unless the project is a validated DOD requirement in a
FYDP. We have been very disciplined about that.
So I will ask both of you to speak to that, and I also want
to talk about the brigade combat teams being lowered to 45,
which we learned--well, we have learned in the news, but also
we discussed at our last hearing with the Army. But I want to
know how it is going to affect the overall DOD defense posture
and the MILCON master plan.
Last week, when we talked about the Army budget request, I
brought up the subject of the lowering of the number of brigade
combat teams. I received assurances at that time that the Army
MILCON plan for the brigade combat teams at Fort Bliss has not
changed and is proceeding accordingly. I was pleased to receive
this assurance.
I have discussed this issue with the Secretary of Defense
and the Chief of Staff of the Army because I am concerned that
we have the construction already in progress at Fort Bliss for
the teams, as has been provided by the Department of Defense
and BRAC. The Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff of
the Army--and if either of you can discuss these decisions, I
hope that you will.
Also, the Army's desire to expand Pinon Canyon range at
Fort Carson has been held up for over 3 years. Yet the Army
told this subcommittee that they have not begun working on a
plan B. In addition, I have to ask would it make sense to put
another brigade combat team at Fort Carson if they don't have
this training capacity?
Also, relocating marines to Guam. We are moving 8,000
marines from Okinawa to Guam and establishing a Joint Base
Guam, combining the Navy base and Andersen Air Force Base, with
the Navy as the lead. This will bring an additional 17,000
people to the island. The Government of Japan is contributing
$6 billion to the move and the United States $4 billion.
After 3 years, we have yet to see a master plan to spend
the $10 billion and have been told that the cost could be much
higher. So I think it is time for us to see if there is a
master plan and that this committee be able to know what it is
so that we can appropriately plan for that.
Also, it is against this backdrop that we begin to examine
the budget request for military construction in the Department
of the Navy. $3.8 billion is in the Navy request and the Marine
Corps, and the Marine Corps, of course, has now--it
successfully completed its increase to its end strength, and we
need to talk about that with the second panel.
I am anxious to hear from Secretary Penn, General Payne,
and Admiral Handley about their needs and priorities for 2010.
I support the Navy's emphasis on quality of life facilities,
and I am sure that they remember that we talked about this last
year and encouraged the Navy to do exactly that.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The Marine Corps' growth to 202,000, as a result of the
Grow the Force initiative, certainly is well planned, and I am
pleased to see that the MILCON and housing request to train and
house these additional personnel and their families is going
forward in an expeditious manner.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the hearing. I think that
we have several items to discuss, and I look forward to hearing
from the witnesses.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to welcome our
witnesses and guests. Thank you for holding this hearing today as we
examine the President's budget request for military construction and
family housing for the Department of Defense, Base Realignment and
Closure actions, and the Department of the Navy, including the United
States Marine Corps. I look forward to discussing the overall
construction needs of our soldiers, sailors and airmen with Mr. Hale
and Mr. Arny, and the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps with Assistant
Secretary Penn and General Payne. It was just a year ago when Mr. Arny,
Mr. Penn and General Payne were here to discuss the fiscal year 2009
request. Welcome back gentlemen, it is good to see you again.
As we begin the budget process for fiscal year 2010, there are
several significant issues with the military construction budget.
First, the overall request of $23 billion is nearly an 18 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. This includes $7.5
billion to implement BRAC actions, as that program continues its race
to meet the 2011 statutory deadline. I understand we are coming to the
end of the BRAC process, but this requested amount is nearly 15 percent
below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and does not give the Services
much leeway in completing this immense program on time. I am anxious to
hear from Mr. Arny as to how this program is doing. We have to provide
the right infrastructure for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines
and their families. This is why fully funding and effectively
implementing BRAC is so important. The sooner we can get our servicemen
and women home and into new, state-of-the-art facilities, the sooner we
will live up to our commitment to provide for them in a way that is
commensurate with their service to our Nation.
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)
I understand that the Secretary of Defense has a policy that
prohibits OSD and the Services from sharing the current FYDP with
Congress. To go a step further, I know the Guard and Reserve is
required by law to present the FYDP to Congress and the Secretary has
directed them not to. In essence, you are asking Congress and this
subcommittee to invest in a MILCON program without the knowledge of how
these proposed projects will fit into the larger defense posture. I
know you have a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) taking place that will
not be completed until the fall, but I think it is the responsibility
of the Department to work with Congress on these plans. I really don't
see the wisdom of this policy, and frankly I am surprised at it,
especially since this subcommittee has a history of NOT allowing
Congressional inserts unless the project is a validated DOD requirement
in the FYDP. I will ask you both to speak to this policy later in the
hearing. When combined with new policy assertions, such as Secretary
Gates' decision to cap the number of Brigade Combat Teams at 45,
Congress needs to know how this will affect the DOD defense posture and
the MILCON master plan.
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs)
Last week at the hearing on the Army budget request, I brought up
the subject of the Army's Brigade Combat Team stationing plan, and I
received assurances at that time that the Army MILCON plan for the
Brigade Combat Teams at Fort Bliss has not changed and is proceeding
accordingly. I was very pleased to receive that assurance. I have
discussed this issue with the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of
Staff of the Army because I am concerned that we do not disrupt the
extensive construction already in progress at Fort Bliss.
Relocating Marines to Guam
We are moving 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam and establishing a
Joint Base Guam, combining the Navy base and Anderson AFB, with the
Navy as the lead. This will bring an additional 17,000 people to the
island. The government of Japan is contributing $6 billion to make the
move and the U.S. government has promised $4 billion.
After 3 years of asking, we have yet to see a master plan to spend
the $10 billion, and in fact, we understand the cost will be much
higher. Before we commit the U.S. taxpayer to such a large move we
would like to see a comprehensive master plan in order that Congress
can provide the Department with the proper oversight. We were told by
the Navy and the Marine Corps that they cannot speak to the out years
or show us yearly project plans because of the FYDP restriction.
A major issue holding up this planned move is the condition of the
infrastructure on the island. Assistant Secretary Penn will speak to
this in more detail, I'm sure, but since Mr. Arny is very familiar with
the Island of Guam I look forward to his perspective.
The electrical grid, water distribution system, and solid waste
disposal capability are in serious need of repair and will not support
the additional troops and their families. As such, will DOD pay the
bill for upgrading the infrastructure for these utilities as part of
the move? I think this question needs to be addressed, and without a
master plan I think it will be difficult for all of us.
Navy and Marine Corps
It is against this backdrop that we begin to examine the budget
request for military construction. The Department of the Navy's $3.8
billion budget request and the Marine Corps' successful efforts to
increase its end strength is quite significant and I look forward to
the discussion with the second panel.
I am anxious to hear from Secretary Penn, Major General Payne and
Rear Admiral Handley about their needs and priorities for fiscal year
2010. I fully support the Department of the Navy's emphasis on quality
of life facilities, which I'm sure they remember this subcommittee
requested they keep in their plans. The Marine Corps' growth to 202,000
as a result of the Grow the Force initiative certainly is well planned,
and I am pleased to see the MILCON and housing request to train and
house these additional personnel and their families.
Every member of this subcommittee has worked on a bipartisan basis
to support our troops and their families by providing the best
facilities possible so they can work and live in the quality
environment they deserve. I commend the Department for making quality
of life a top priority.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and I thank
your staff for their assistance as well. I look forward to discussing
these and other issues with our witnesses.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Secretary Hale, Mr. Arny, thank you again for appearing
before our committee. Your prepared statement will be placed in
the record. So I encourage you to summarize your remarks to
allow for more time for questions.
Secretary Hale.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. HALE
Mr. Hale. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Hutchison, and thank the committee for all the support to our
armed forces. We depend on the Congress for the resources we
need to meet national security needs, and we appreciate your
help.
I will provide a brief overview of the budget with a focus
on military construction and then ask Mr. Arny to provide the
details.
As you know, the President's base budget asks for $533.8
billion of discretionary budget authority, up $20.5 billion, or
about a 4 percent increase which amounts to a 2.1 percent
increase after adjustment for inflation.
This is a reform budget. I have worked in and around the
defense budget for several decades now. We use that term
loosely sometimes, but I do believe this is one of a handful of
budgets that qualifies as a reform budget. If it is approved, I
think it will change the way the department does business.
The base budget lays out and the Secretary has described it
in terms of some themes, and let me just mention them briefly
because I think they are a good context for the discussion of
MILCON.
First, this budget affirms our commitment to take care of
our people. For example, it fully funds all the personnel in
the budget in the base portion rather than the more volatile
wartime budget.
Second, the budget tries to reshape the Department of
Defense to focus more on the wars we are fighting today, while
maintaining a balance of conventional capability. So, for
example, we have added special operations personnel, to
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and we have to
pay for these. We have completed the program of record for the
F-22 and C-17 aircraft and do not propose additional
procurement.
And third, the budget reforms what we buy and how we buy
it. There is a people side to this--for example, beefing up,
reinvigorating our acquisition corps--but also a hardware side,
as we looked at troubled programs in terms of cost, schedule,
performance. As a result of our review, we recommended
terminating or restructuring a number of programs, including
the Future Combat System and missile defense.
Turning to military construction, we have asked for $23
billion for military construction and family housing. I think
it meets all three of these themes or at least supports them,
specifically taking care of our people and reshaping and
modernization of the force.
Overall, it is an 8.4 percent decline, as was mentioned in
your opening statements. That sounds ominous, but it reflects
our successful achievements, actually, in base realignment and
closure and family housing privatization.
BRAC is down 14.8 percent, but we have fully funded BRAC,
and we expect to meet the September 2011 deadline. Family
housing is down 38 percent, but that is because, as again you
know, we have moved aggressively to privatize our family
housing therefore, we don't need as much family housing
inventory; construction funds in our own budget.
We factor out these two categories, BRAC and family housing
prioritization, MILCON is up by about 3 percent between fiscal
2009 and fiscal 2010.
The Department's base budget meets our key goals for
military construction. We continue to invest in facilities that
support Grow the Force, such as barracks, and brigade
complexes. The base budget also provides facilities that keep
pace with the fielding of new systems and capabilities as well
as necessary training.
The request includes a significant investment in
recapitalizing aging medical facilities and schools, such as
Warrior in Transition complexes. It also contains a substantial
investment in the global defense posture, including 8,000
marines moving from Okinawa to Guam.
Before I leave the base budget, let me talk about the issue
of the out-year plan. We are currently conducting the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the program budget review. We
will develop a 5-year plan as part of the fall budget review
and submit it next year. For the moment, we don't have a plan
beyond fiscal 2010 consistent with administration policy.
It is not our desire to tell anyone they can't submit it.
We don't have one to submit. So, for the moment, the only thing
we can do is answer your fiscal 2010 questions in detail, and
we can talk later about how we will work with you in regard to
other issues. Because I understand that there are issues for
this committee and others.
Let me just mention briefly our wartime portion of the
budget, which we now call the overseas contingency operations,
or OCO. I like to call it Washington's newest acronym. We are
asking for $130 billion for overseas contingency operations.
This represents our best estimate of the full cost of funding
our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2010.
I hope we do not have to submit a supplemental. But if the
wartime situation changes or the President were to change his
deployment plans, then we need to retain the right to request
supplemental funding if necessary.
The $130 billion for OCO includes $1.4 billion for military
construction, all in Afghanistan. Given the limited pre-
existing infrastructure there, we need to build roads, runways,
and parking aprons. There are a lot of things we need to build
in support of our wartime effort.
I also want to express my gratitude to the Congress for the
$7.4 billion in defense-related funding that we received in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA, or it is easier
to call it the stimulus bill. It is $4.3 billion for facility
sustainment, restoration, and modernization, another $2.2
billion for military construction, as well as the Homeowners
Assistance Program and some energy investments and RDT&E.
This additional funding will allow us to improve
facilities, to reduce our backlog in a way we couldn't have
otherwise done, and to help our people. For example, we are
able to replace two hospitals and to construct child
development centers, Wounded Warrior complexes and troop
housing facilities.
I am happy to report that there are more than 4,200
projects funded by the stimulus bill in all 50 States, 2
territories, and the District of Columbia. All the projects
have been identified, and we are working as hard as we can to
implement them. These projects will not only stimulate the
economy, they will help improve the quality of life for our
service members and their families.
And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the
committee that we recently submitted a supplemental request.
The SAC has acted on it, and we very much appreciate the timely
action. It includes $0.9 billion for military construction in
Afghanistan, as well as another $1.4 billion for military
construction in other critical areas, including Warrior in
Transition complexes.
We stand by to assist you, both of you or any other
members, on both the fiscal 2009 supplemental request and the
fiscal year 2010 request. To help our troops, we ask that you
enact this remaining supplemental. We would like it by Memorial
Day or as soon thereafter as possible. We really appreciate the
speed with which both the Senate and the House are moving on
the supplemental request.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, on behalf of the men and women of the Department of
Defense who are faithfully serving our Nation, thank you for
your strong support.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And after Mr.
Arny completes his statement, I would be glad to try to answer
your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Robert F. Hale
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Military Construction component of the
fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Department of Defense.
On behalf of the men and women of the Department, I would like to
begin by thanking the Committee for your continued support of America's
Armed Forces. We depend on you and other Members of the Congress for
the resources we need to meet our Nation's national security
requirements.
To start, I would like to provide a brief overview of our budget
request and the amount we are asking for Military Construction. I will
then ask Mr. Arny to speak in detail about the MilCon portion of the
proposed budget.
Base Budget
Mr. Chairman, the President's base budget requests $533.8 billion
in discretionary authority for fiscal year 2010. That is an increase of
$20.5 billion or 4 percent over the enacted level in fiscal year 2009.
Taking inflation into account, the real growth in this request is 2.1
percent.
The base budget puts into action the overriding priorities laid
down by Secretary Gates for the Department:
--First, it reaffirms our commitment to take care of the all-
volunteer force.
--Second, it rebalances the Department's programs in order to
institutionalize and enhance our capabilities to fight the wars
we are in today and to defend against the scenarios we are most
likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time
providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies.
--And third, it reforms how and what we buy, by promoting a
fundamental overhaul of our approach to procurement,
acquisition, and contracting.
The $23.0 billion Military Construction and Family Housing portion
of our request supports those strategic objectives. This request
represents a decline of 8.4 percent compared with the enacted level for
fiscal year 2009.
This decline can be attributed to our achievements on Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and housing privatization. Funding for
BRAC 2005 declines by 14.8 percent, to $7.5 billion, as we move toward
completing requirements. Family housing construction declines by 38
percent, to $2.0 billion, reflecting the transition toward housing
privatization.
If we factor out those two categories--BRAC and housing
privatization--we find a pattern of growth in Military Construction.
The fiscal year 2010 request for this portion of Military Construction
grows by 3.1 percent compared to fiscal year 2009 funding, to a level
of $13.5 billion.
The Department's base budget request meets our key goals for
Military Construction. We continue to invest in facilities that support
Grow the Force, such as barracks, brigade complexes, and quality of
life projects. The base budget will provide facilities that keep pace
with fielding of new systems and capabilities, as well as necessary
training.
The request includes a significant investment in recapitalizing
aging medical facilities and schools and constructing Warrior in
Transition complexes. It also contains a substantial investment in our
Global Defense Posture, including the relocation of 8,000 Marines from
Okinawa to Guam and investments at enduring locations in the CENTCOM
and AFRICOM areas of responsibility.
Fiscal Year 2010 Overseas Contingency Operations
As you are undoubtedly aware, the Department's fiscal year 2010
request also includes a separate request for $130 billion to fund
overseas contingency operations (OCO). This represents our best current
estimate of war funding requirements, including funding for all forces
currently approved by President Obama both for Iraq and Afghanistan. We
do not plan on submitting a supplemental request. However, should
policies or the wartime situation change significantly, the Department
may need to seek supplemental funding.
The $130 billion for the OCO budget includes $1.4 billion for
Military Construction, all of which is to be spent in Afghanistan.
Given the limited pre-existing infrastructure for our troops to occupy
in that country, it is necessary to construct facilities to sustain,
protect, and house them. Accordingly, this request includes operational
facilities, such as runways and parking aprons, as well as associated
support facilities, such as utilities, roads, housing, environmental
projects, and dining facilities.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
I want to express my gratitude for the $7.4 billion in Defense-
related funding that was included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The ARRA includes nearly $4.3 billion for
Facility Infrastructure Investments, $2.2 billion for military
construction, $0.1 billion for the Energy Conservation Investment
Program (ECIP), $0.3 billion for Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation (RDT&E), and nearly $0.6 billion for the Homeowners
Assistance Program.
This additional funding will allow us to improve the facilities
where our military and civilian personnel work and live, to enhance
energy efficiency in the recapitalization and construction of
facilities, and to generate needed jobs to help stimulate the Nation's
economy. For example, the construction funds will enable the Department
to replace two hospitals and to construct child development centers,
Wounded Warrior complexes, and troop housing facilities. I am happy to
report that over 4,200 projects will be executed throughout all 50
States, two territories, and the District of Columbia. Many of those
projects are expected to be awarded in the near future.
These projects will not only stimulate the economy; they will also
improve the quality of life of our Service members and their families.
And, as Secretary Gates has said, the all-volunteer force is America's
greatest strategic asset. Caring for them must be our first priority.
Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the committee that we recently
submitted a supplemental request to cover the remaining expenses of the
war effort in fiscal year 2009, which includes $0.9 billion for
Military Construction in Afghanistan. This request also includes $1.4
billion for other critical construction improvements, such as Warrior
in Transition complexes.
We stand by to assist Members however we can on that request and on
the entire fiscal year 2010 budget request, and we ask that you enact
this remaining supplemental by the Memorial Day recess, or as soon
thereafter as possible.
Again, on behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense
who are faithfully serving our Nation, thank you for your strong
support. And thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. After
Mr. Arny completes his statement, I would welcome your questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Hale.
Mr. Arny.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Mr. Arny. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchison.
Thank you for your introduction. I am honored to appear
before you today.
In the last 10 to 20 years, the Department has come a long
way in improving the facilities and infrastructure in which our
military and civilian workforce and families work and live. We
could not have progressed so far as we have without the
continuing support of Congress and, in particular, the
subcommittee.
Today, we manage over 500,000 facilities, worth over $700
billion, located on approximately 29 million acres. In
comparison, about 10 years ago, we had 115,000 more facilities
in our inventory, which is, in part, a testimony to our
continuing efforts to right-size the Department's
infrastructure to match our operational needs.
A principal program that has helped us balance the
infrastructure is the BRAC authority, and using that, we have
been able to close over 121 major installations and realign 79
major bases after 5 rounds. The 2005 decisions alone affect
over 800 locations and include 24 major closures, 24 major
realignments, and 765 lesser actions.
As of the fiscal year 2010 President's budget, BRAC
represents a $35.2 billion investment over 2006 to 2011 and $4
billion in annual savings after full implementation.
However, it is not enough to have closed bases and moved
functions. At the same time, we have tried to focus on how we
conduct our business so as to become more efficient caretakers
of the taxpayers' resource.
An excellent example of that is joint basing. As part of
the BRAC 2005, we are required to form 12 new joint bases from
26 separate existing bases so that installation management
functions will be provided by one component and not two or
three as it is currently.
The joint basing implementation process is complicated.
Almost 50 different areas of responsibility on these bases have
been identified for consolidation, including food services,
environmental management, child and youth programs, facility
maintenance, and many others. But I can report that it is well
on the way to achieving success.
In January 2008, we began issuing a series of joint base
implementation guidance documents and, for the first time,
established a set of common definitions and standards for the
installation support to be provided by each joint base. We
established a schedule that divided the 12 planned joint bases
into 2 implementation phases. Each joint base will develop a
detailed implementation plan, including the personnel and
financial arrangements for the combined base.
Five joint bases involving 11 installations were placed
into Phase I. They had an October 2008 milestone for initial
operational capability (IOC), and this includes--I am sorry, an
October 2009 date for full operating capability, or fall
operational capability (FOC). This includes the transfer of
personnel and funds.
The remaining 7 bases involving 15 installations were
placed into Phase II with an October 2010 FOC. The services
have signed all the right agreements for the first five
installations, and we have reached IOC on them. And we expect
FOC for the second phase in October 2010, which is well ahead
of our BRAC statutory deadline.
And this is just the beginning of where I see the
Department going in the application of full funding of common
levels of service across all our bases.
As for housing, a decade ago, we were maintaining over
300,000 family housing units, two-thirds of which were deemed
inadequate by the military departments. With this year's
request, over 98 percent of DOD's housing inventory in the
United States will be funded for privatization.
With regard to barracks, it was about 17 years ago that we
began an ambitious modernization program to increase the
privacy and amenities in permanent party bachelor housing.
Using military construction funding and a Government-owned
business model, we have made a lot of progress, but there is
still $15 billion to go. So we are looking at other ways to do
it.
We have begun--we are looking at ways to take off on our
privatization of housing to do privatization of barracks. We
have seen innovative concepts where the Army has added bachelor
housing quarters and senior enlisted bachelor quarters to its
existing family housing units at Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, Fort
Drum, Fort Irwin, and a fifth project is planned for Fort
Bliss.
In contrast, the Navy is mainly focused on unaccompanied
housing privatization to bring shipboard junior enlisted
sailors ashore using a special pilot project. Their first
project was begun in December 2006 in San Diego, with a second
in Hampton Roads in 2007, and a third project underway for
Jacksonville/Mayport.
Both of the first two have demonstrated that with the
authority to pay junior enlisted members less than full
housing, we can privatize single junior enlisted on a less
costly basis--I would say less costly on a lifecycle basis than
traditional Government-owned model. I view this as just a
starting point and ask for the subcommittee's support in the
department's continued progress to shift the mindset in which
the Federal Government has to build and maintain to one where
we only need to build and maintain what we can't privatize.
This year's--in answer to one of the questions, this year's
budget does signal a banner year for MILCON with about $23
billion in military construction, $8 billion in facilities
sustainment, restoration, and modernization. That level of
military construction is very robust, especially compared to
the $8 billion to $9 billion we were receiving only 10 years
ago.
Similarly, our sustainment budget this year is also more
robust. Ten years ago, we used a percentage of unsubstantiated
maintenance and repair backlog to come up with our budget
request, and it didn't work. Although much remains to be done,
we have made steady headway over the last decade to improve the
overall conditions of our facilities by using a programmatic
model.
The development and use of the facilities sustainment model
has given us a sound target to measure our sustainment budgets,
and more importantly, we have been able to defend those budgets
and defend those requirements in the budget process.
Recap has been another problem. We tried to use 67 years on
a recap model that didn't work. When I was with the Navy
Secretariat, we saw that when we put a large amount of money
into one place, as we did after Hurricane Ivan hit Pensacola,
all of a sudden, with the sudden infusion of funds, our recap
rate went way below the 67 years that we all knew we had only
invested money in one base. It didn't take account for the
other priorities we had.
As I was dissatisfied with that model, I asked my staff to
work with the services, go back to the basics, and we have
reopened a dialogue using what are called ``quality ratings.''
We are required to report these under the Federal Real Property
Advisory Group, which has mandated that all Federal agencies
report these in our property records. We are going to--it gives
you a Q rating for every building we own.
We are looking at a method to go in, and we will start
tracking those Q ratings and planning our budgets to keep those
Q rating--will plan our budgets to make the Q ratings to the
point where we believe they are satisfactory for all our
services.
In the summer, my staff will work closely with military
departments to set up the program guidelines for determining
which facilities require priority funding, assessing how those
Q ratings are conducted and their frequency, and, most
importantly, reestablishing how the Department views and uses
master planning at the installation level.
Also, in cooperation with our policy secretariat, the joint
staff, the combatant commands, and the services, we hope to
initiate joint installation master plans in each overseas
combatant commander's region.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, I would like to thank you sincerely for the
opportunity to testify on our installations. We believe we are
working on the right issues now. And while we cannot fix them
overnight, we appreciate your continued support and look
forward to working with you and the subcommittee to provide the
quality installations that our forces and their families need
and deserve.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Arny
Introduction.--Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchinson, distinguished
members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to address the President's Budget request for fiscal
year 2010 and to present an update on the status of our Nation's
military installations.
Overview.--Our installations are the platforms from which America's
military capability is generated, deployed, and sustained. They play an
essential part in addressing two principal objectives of the
Department. First, they take care of our military forces, our most
important asset. Secondly, they support and enhance our capability to
meet the military challenges that we face today, and those that we may
face in the coming years. Our installations provide training facilities
for new recruits and career service members, maintenance shops and
depots to repair and refit their equipment, and quality work and living
spaces that warfighters and their families deserve. Our primary focus
is to ensure that our military installations are capable of supporting
the missions of our forces, today and in the future. To successfully
provide this support, we focus our resources on programs and
initiatives that will provide the necessary infrastructure in the most
effective and efficient manner.
America's military installations, including both their built and
natural environments, must be managed in a comprehensive and integrated
manner to optimize our investment in the assets needed to accomplish
the mission. In the United States and overseas, the Department
currently manages over 539,000 facilities, with a plant replacement
value exceeding $700 billion, located on approximately 29 million acres
of land. These assets must provide modern and safe work and training
areas for our military forces, as well as quality housing.
Before updating you on our fiscal year 2010 Installations and
Environment programs, I'd like to talk briefly about the impact on our
military infrastructure of two extremely important challenges facing
our Nation. The first of these is Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO).
Overseas Contingency Operations.--Military construction is a key
enabler of OCO, directly supporting wartime operations by providing
operational and support facilities at key locations. In April, the
Department submitted its fiscal year 2009 OCO funding request for $2.3
billion. This investment will help the Department execute realignment
of forces into and within Afghanistan, by enabling strategic and
operational flexibility and increasing Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The fiscal year 2009 request will
also facilitate access to child care and improve support facilities for
wounded warriors and their families.
The fiscal year 2010 OCO request of $1.4 billion continues the
important objective to increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan,
specifically the Regional Commands South and East. The facilities
required to sustain, protect, and house these personnel include
utilities, roads, housing, and dining facilities as well as
environmental projects. The fiscal year 2010 OCO request will increase
the capacity of air lines of communication, broaden logistics and
intelligence capabilities, and provide the ability to reposition forces
as the situation dictates.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.--The other
challenge is the downturn in the economy, and in response, the ARRA of
February 2009. This effort will have a significant impact on DOD's
facilities. The Department is applying the funding to enhance our
ability to provide high quality installations and facilities and to
improve our energy efficiency.
The ARRA includes approximately $7.4 billion in Defense-related
appropriations. The Military Construction (MilCon) and Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) funds provided by the Act are available for
obligation through the end of fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2010,
respectively. The Department has identified over 4,200 projects in the
following categories:
--$4.2 billion in O&M accounts to improve, repair, and modernize DOD
facilities, including energy-related improvements
--$1.3 billion in MilCon for hospitals
--$240 million in MilCon for child development centers
--$100 million in MilCon for warrior transition complexes
--$535 million for other MilCon projects, such as housing for Service
members and their families, energy conservation, and National
Guard facilities
--$300 million to develop energy-efficient technologies
--$120 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP)
--$555 million for a temporary expansion of the Homeowner's
Assistance Program (HAP) benefits for private home sale losses
of DOD military and civilian personnel
--$15 million for DOD Inspector General oversight and audit of ARRA
execution
In addition to providing much needed facility improvements and
funding for important energy research programs in support of the
national effort to achieve greater energy independence, the ARRA will
also contribute to our ongoing efforts to ``green'' DOD's built
infrastructure. In their baseline MilCon programs, the Military
Services have taken the lead in ensuring a sustainable future for the
Department by directing that new construction meets both the U.S. Green
Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
Silver Certification standard and the Federal Leadership in High
Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum of Understanding. In
executing ARRA projects, this type of forward thinking directly
translates to 115 projects and $2.3 billion in the MilCon and military
family housing construction programs designed and built to LEED Silver
Certification standards.
DOD is committed to ensuring that ARRA funds are expended
responsibly and in a transparent manner that will further job creation,
economic recovery, and the overall improvement of our military
infrastructure. Over the coming months, we'll be keeping the Congress
and the public apprised of our progress in executing these funds.
Facilities Investment.--Now I would like present an overview of our
Installations and Environment programs beginning with MilCon and
related facilities investments. The fiscal year 2010 MilCon and Family
Housing Appropriation request totals $23 billion, which is a decrease
of $1.9 billion from the fiscal year 2009 budget request, but still
compares very favorably with historic trends. The decreased funding is
primarily in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Family Housing
programs, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. The budget
request will enable the Department to respond rapidly to warfighter
requirements, enhance mission readiness, and provide essential services
for its personnel and their families. In addition to new construction,
this funding will restore and modernize enduring facilities, while
eliminating those that are excess or obsolete. A large part of the
funding is targeted for initiatives to support the realignment and
increase in endstrength of forces, projects to improve and update
facilities, and projects needed to take care of our people and their
families, such as family and bachelor housing, Warrior in Transition
housing, and child development centers.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2009 request 2010 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................... 11,283 12,835
NATO Security Investment Program........ 241 276
Base Realignment and Closure IV......... 393 397
Base Realignment and Closure 2005....... 9,065 7,480
Family Housing Construction/Improvements 1,457 489
Family Housing Operations & Maintenance. 1,741 1,444
Chemical Demilitarization............... 134 147
Family Housing Improvement Fund......... 1 3
Energy Conservation Investment Program.. 80 90
Homeowners Assistance Program........... 5 23
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 24,400 22,515
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are continuing ongoing initiatives to reshape and resize our
infrastructure, and at the same time, we recognize that there will be
localized growth in the facilities footprint to accommodate changes in
force structure, end strength, and weapons systems. These efforts
include facilities to support Army Modularity, Army and Marine Corps
Grow-The-Force initiatives, and bed-down of new weapons systems such as
the Joint Strike Fighter.
While our basing initiatives continue the process of reconfiguring
our overall physical plant, and acquiring facilities for future
requirements, we cannot lose sight of the importance of maintaining and
modernizing our existing facilities. It is imperative that we continue
to invest in our existing infrastructure, and plan for the appropriate
level of investment in all our facilities going forward.
Facilities sustainment has been and continues to be the most
important program to support the overall health of our inventory of
facilities. Sustainment funds regularly scheduled maintenance and major
repair or replacement of facility components expected periodically
throughout the life cycle of a facility. Investing in sustainment
prevents deterioration, maintains safety, and preserves performance. As
you know, we use the Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM) to estimate the
funding requirements for our facilities. The model uses benchmark costs
from public and private sources which are updated on a regular basis.
Our goal continues to be full sustainment of our facilities to optimize
our investment and ensure readiness. The fiscal year 2010 President's
Budget provides $7.8 billion for sustaining the Department's
significant inventory, representing 91 percent of the FSM requirement.
The second key element of our facilities investment program is
recapitalization, which includes restoration and modernization, and is
funded primarily with O&M and MilCon appropriations. Restoration
includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities damaged by
inadequate sustainment, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other
causes. Modernization includes alteration of facilities to implement
new or higher standards, accommodate new functions, or replace building
components that typically last more than 50 years. The Department
remains committed to maintaining a rate of investment in facilities
recapitalization that will improve, modernize, and restore existing
facilities, and replace them when it is more economical to do so. To
that end, we're refining the way we calculate the required investment
for recapitalization, and more closely aligning it with the actual
condition of each facility. We will keep you apprised of our progress
as we develop the new methodology.
SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2009 Request 2010Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustainment (O&M-like) \1\.............. 7,482 7,799
Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like 1,780 2,035
plus) \1\..............................
Restoration and Modernization (MilCon).. 8,102 6,527
-------------------------------
TOTAL SRM......................... 17,364 16,361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Operation and Maintenance (O&M) as well as related military
personnel, host nation, and working capital funds and other
appropriations such as Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E)
Separate and distinct from the BRAC process, we continue to right-
size our inventory through the elimination of excess and obsolete
facilities. The Military Departments continue to maintain and execute
robust disposal and demolition programs to improve the safety and
aesthetics of our installations, to ensure that only essential
facilities are retained, and to reduce overall operating costs. In
fiscal year 2008, the Department eliminated 6 million square feet of
unneeded facilities. Another 5.5 million square feet is projected for
demolition in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year 2010 request includes
almost $200 million to eliminate approximately 8 million additional
square feet of unneeded infrastructure.
Global Defense Posture.--Now I'd like to tell you more about our
initiatives to provide the right military facilities in the right
location with the right capabilities, beginning with the status of our
global restationing efforts. As we continue with planned posture
changes to meet our world-wide missions, the Department is improving
its ability to contend with post 9/11 security challenges and
developing more relevant relationships and forward capabilities for
21st century expeditionary operations. The fiscal year 2010 MilCon
request supports the Department's efforts to strengthen our forward
military presence, including facilities and infrastructure, and to
transform overseas legacy forces, Cold War basing structures, and host-
nation relationships into a flexible network of access and capabilities
with allies and partners. These efforts include:
--Continued force posture realignments within and from Central Europe
which enable advanced training and flexible ground force
capabilities to support NATO's own transformation goals. The
European Command's transformation and recapitalization efforts
will require investments in fixed facilities, mobility,
prepositioning of equipment, and interoperability. Future
infrastructure requests will enable the elimination of
substandard housing and will include projects that support
continued transformation efforts.
--Shifting our European posture south and east by transforming the
173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, and establishing
infrastructure support for rotational presence in Romania and
Bulgaria. Permanent Forward Operating Sites and other training
facilities in Romania and Bulgaria have projected completion
dates of 2009 and 2011, respectively. In addition to supporting
a full-time training effort, Joint Task Force-East provides the
logistical base for United States Air Forces in Europe and
Special Operations Command Europe exercises in Eastern Europe
and Eurasia.
--Continued progress toward future realignments in the Pacific as
part of U.S.-Japan force posture changes that will have far-
reaching, beneficial impacts for the U.S.-Japan alliance, and
will shape our strategic posture throughout the Asia-Pacific
region. While Japan is shouldering most of the costs associated
with the planned posture changes per the Defense Policy Review
Initiative (DPRI), U.S. MilCon funds are necessary to complete
remaining facility construction and other infrastructure needs
on Guam. MilCon funding will provide projects such as utilities
and airfield pavement to bed-down Marine aviation at Andersen
Air Force Base, wharf improvements, and the relocation of a
military working dog facility at Naval Base Guam. Investments
are also needed to improve off-base infrastructure, including
selected roads and bridges required for throughput of necessary
construction materials.
--Continued consolidation and restructuring of forces on the Korean
peninsula to strengthen our overall military effectiveness and
to prepare for transitioning wartime operational control of
Republic of Korea (ROK) forces to the ROK military forces by
2012. This includes relocating U.S. troops out of Seoul,
returning most of Yongsan Army Garrison to the ROK, and
consolidating remaining troops into two hubs south of Seoul.
This effort positions U.S. forces to better conduct combat
operations should deterrence fail on the Korean peninsula, and
makes the U.S. presence less intrusive on the Korean people. We
anticipate the ROK to continue funding much of the facilities
and infrastructure construction for this transition in
accordance with the amended Land Partnership Plan and Yongsan
Relocation Plan. However, MilCon funding is needed at Camp
Humphreys to support U.S. Army forces relocating from camps
north of the Han River.
--Developing basic infrastructure and capabilities for current and
future operations in the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility and other overseas contingency operation areas.
--Enhancing contingency access through an array of sites in Africa
that serve as focal points for combined training, capacity
building, and broadened relationships with host nations and
other partners. MilCon funding is needed at Camp Lemonier, the
Department's enduring Forward Operating Site in Djibouti, to
support such requirements and improve infrastructure needs
within the U.S. Africa Command.
The Department continues to maintain and strengthen host-nation
partnerships supporting these posture changes. The fiscal year 2010
global defense posture projects ensure strengthening of forward
capabilities for OCO and other expeditionary non-traditional missions,
commitment to alliance goals and collective defense capabilities, and
enhanced deterrent capabilities for addressing future security
challenges.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005.--In addition to our
global posture realignments, we continue to execute BRAC 2005, the
largest round undertaken by the Department. After an exhaustive
examination of over 1,200 alternatives, the Secretary of Defense
forwarded 222 recommendations to the BRAC Commission for its review.
The Commission accepted about 65 percent without change and its
resulting recommendations were approved by the President and forwarded
to the Congress. The Congress expressed its support of these
recommendations by not enacting a joint resolution of disapproval by
November 9, 2005, therefore, the Department became legally obligated to
close and realign all installations so recommended by the Commission in
its report. These decisions affect over 800 locations across the Nation
and include 24 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765 lesser
actions. The BRAC Act required that the Department begin implementation
of each recommendation within two years of the date the President
transmitted the Commission's report to the Congress and complete
implementation of all recommendations within 6 years of that date. The
Department continues to monitor BRAC implementation to ensure we are
meeting our legal obligation.
Beyond the comparative size, it is important to note that BRAC 2005
is the most complex round ever. This complexity is not merely a
function of its magnitude, but is, to the largest extent, a function of
the original goal established for this round: that BRAC 2005 would
focus on the reconfiguration of operational capacity to maximize war
fighting capability and efficiency. Focusing on operational capacity
required that we appropriately assess the increased military
capabilities we are achieving through these recommendations.
We accomplished that requirement and, through BRAC, are
significantly enhancing each capability. Two locations, Fort Bliss,
Texas, and Naval Air Station (NAS) Brunswick, Maine, highlight what we
are achieving. Fort Bliss is the largest operational Army BRAC
movement. Approximately 15,000 Soldiers and their family members will
move to Fort Bliss and the surrounding communities, and construction of
BRAC operational facilities is moving ahead as planned in preparation
for the arrival of the 1st Armor Division at Fort Bliss. In September
2008, Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division took occupancy
of the first Brigade Combat Team (BCT) Complex. Soldiers of the 4th
Brigade, 1st Armored Division are now in temporary facilities and
eagerly await completion of the second BCT complex scheduled for
September 2009. The Army has programmed the construction of several
quality of life facilities to support this growth including dental/
health clinics, a hospital, a child development center, a commissary, a
physical fitness center, and youth centers.
The closure of NAS Brunswick will reduce operating costs while
allowing the single-siting of the East Coast Maritime Patrol (VP)
community at NAS Jacksonville, Florida. NAS Jacksonville and NAS
Brunswick are collaborating to ensure seamless relocation of five
aircraft squadrons along with the realignment of the maintenance
functions and various mission support groups. In preparation for the
arrival of the first Brunswick aircraft, a new type II hangar
construction project is on track for completion this month. It will be
the home for the first returning Brunswick VP squadron which is
currently deployed. The hangar, the Navy's largest, will provide
maintenance spaces for all five Brunswick squadrons and will also be
able to support the future transition to the P-8 Poseidon multimission
maritime aircraft.
A key component of this BRAC round was rationalizing medical
infrastructure. This rationalization was needed to address the
transformation in healthcare that has occurred since these facilities
were constructed, and to adapt our facilities to the continuing changes
in warrior care. At one end of the scale, BRAC enabled the Department
to close seven small and inefficient inpatient operations, converting
them to ambulatory surgery centers. BRAC also enabled DOD to realign
medical operations from McChord Air Force Base, Washington, to Fort
Lewis, Washington, and to transform the Medical Center at Keesler Air
Force Base, Mississippi, into a community hospital. On the larger end
of the scale, BRAC enabled DOD to realign two of its major military
medical markets: San Antonio, Texas, and the National Capital Region
(NCR). The strategic realignments in San Antonio of Brooke Army Medical
Center and Wilford Hall medical center, and in the NCR of Walter Reed
Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda,
Maryland, address critical needs to realign and consolidate key
clinical and clinical research capabilities, undertake serious facility
modernization requirements, as well as better matching facility
locations and capabilities, achieving medical advances, and adapting to
changing needs of wounded warriors.
For the NCR, the fiscal year 2010 costs (including the $263 million
included in the fiscal year 2009 supplemental request) are $2.4
billion. As is the case with San Antonio, costs rose due to
construction inflation, wounded warrior lessons learned, and unforeseen
costs as the construction process has unfolded.
Unique to the NCR is the effort to enhance and accelerate
construction at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as a result of
lessons learned and the Department's commitment to implement the
recommendations of the Independent Review Group (IRG) on Rehabilitative
Care and Administrative Processes at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
and National Naval Medical Center Bethesda. The IRG's April 2007 report
recommended a variety of measures to improve medical care and that DOD
accelerate BRAC projects in the NCR. In order to implement the report's
recommendations and incorporate other war-related lessons learned, the
Department committed to create Warrior Transition Unit facilities at
the Bethesda Campus to enhance wounded warrior care, especially the
outpatient convalescent phase. The Department also committed to
enhancing inpatient facilities at both Fort Belvoir and Bethesda. These
enhancements, together with a commitment to accelerate construction to
ensure that the new facilities will be operational as soon as possible,
required the investment of an additional $679 million. The fiscal year
2008 supplemental appropriated $416 million.
The BRAC 2005 Commission Report also calls for the transfer of
installation management functions from 14 designated installations to
12 other installations to create 12 Joint Bases. Joint basing calls for
installations that share a common boundary or are in close proximity to
consolidate installation management functions and the delivery of
installation support functions while considering best business
practices and ensuring warfighting capabilities are preserved or
enhanced. The 12 Joint Bases will be established in two phases, with
Full Operational Capability (FOC) for Phase I bases in October 2009 and
Phase II bases in October 2010. At FOC, total obligation authority and
real property will transfer from supported Component(s) to the
supporting Component.
The Department is using this opportunity to create the conditions
for more consistent and effective delivery of installation support
through Common Output Level Standards (COLS), which establish joint
definitions, standards, and performance metrics for each identified
installation support function that will be consolidated at each Joint
Base.
In its entirety, the BRAC program is substantial. As of the fiscal
year 2010 President's Budget it represents a $35.4 billion requirement
over 2006-2011 and $4 billion in annual savings after full
implementation (after fiscal year 2011). The Department originally
estimated BRAC 2005 investment using the Cost of Base Realignment
Actions (COBRA) model at $21.1 billion (in constant fiscal year 2005
dollars) with annual recurring savings of $4.4 billion. The COBRA model
used in the analysis estimated costs based on standard factors to array
the relative merit of options--it was never intended to be budget
quality nor used for implementation planning. When compared to our
current requirement, there is a $14.3 billion or 68 percent increase in
COBRA-estimated costs. The increase was fully funded in the President's
fiscal year 2010 budget request, and results primarily from inflation,
changes in MilCon, environmental restoration and program management
costs not included in COBRA, additional O&M to support fact-of-life
cost increases, and construction for additional facilities to enhance
capabilities and/or address deficiencies. The savings decrease is
primarily a result of revised personnel eliminations.
Almost 70 percent of the BRAC 2005 program supports MilCon
requirements compared to 33 percent experienced in the previous rounds.
In the BRAC 2005 round, DOD has now made decisions to:
--Use new construction vs. renovated space (existing space diverted
to other needs)
--Accommodate changes in unit sizes, functions or responsibilities by
increasing facilities, changing configurations, or building
additional facilities
--Accept inflation factors exceeding previous planning factors
(delayed implementation compounds the inflation increase).
Assisting Communities.--As we execute BRAC 2005, we continue to
abide by the DOD policy that when implementing DOD actions that
seriously affect the economy of a community, every practical
consideration shall be given to minimizing the local impact. To that
end, DOD provides economic adjustment assistance through its Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA) to help communities help themselves, using
the combined resources of Federal, State, and local governments and
private sector to support local initiatives.
OEA, through the Defense Economic Adjustment Program (DEAP),
continues to work with States, territories, and more than 147
communities across the country impacted by the Department's continuing
closure, downsizing, and mission-growth actions.
Over two dozen locations are looking at unprecedented increases in
military, civilian, and contractor personnel as a result of BRAC 2005,
Global Defense Posture Realignment, Army Modularity, and Grow-the-Force
activity. For most locations, OEA is providing overall planning support
for personnel, procurement, and construction activity to prepare local
adjustment strategies, including growth management plans, to support
local mission growth. The challenge for many of these locations is to
respond to myriad hard (road, schools, houses, water and sewer) and
soft (public services, health care, child care, spousal employment)
infrastructure issues that directly bear on the quality of life for our
warfighters, their families, and the homeowners, businesses, and
workers in the surrounding communities.
A primary concern, particularly at this time of economic
uncertainty, is how to apply scarce Federal, State, and local public
resources with those of the private sector to carry out adjustments in
local facilities and public services, workforce training programs, and
local economic development activities. Needs for public investment,
such as road improvements, water and sewer infrastructure, and school
construction have emerged and OEA is working with each affected State
and region to document these needs and bring them to the attention of
other Federal Agencies for their consideration and assistance. To date,
OEA has found over 50 critical projects that are ready to move forward,
but need a total of $1.7 billion in Federal or other support.
Communities also identified over 300 other mission-growth-related
projects in various planning phases, at a total cost of $7 billion that
had incomplete funding strategies. While OEA is presently bringing
these needs to the attention of the U.S. Departments of Transportation,
Commerce, Education, and Agriculture as the cognizant agencies where
assistance might be made available, they are also seeking to update the
information to account for current economic strains and those other
growth efforts that may have information available.
OEA, on behalf of DOD, has recognized Local Redevelopment
Authorities (LRAs) for 116 locations to: provide leadership and speak
on behalf of the impacted area with one voice; identify the impacts of
closure across local businesses, workers, and communities; plan
redevelopment and other economic development activities to lessen these
impacts; and direct implementation of the redevelopment plan to respond
to these actions. Approximately 96 redevelopment plans have been
completed to date. When completed, redevelopment plans are submitted as
part of a statutorily-mandated homeless assistance application to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who, in turn,
must review each application for compliance with statute prior to
Military Department property disposal and the redevelopment effort
going forward.
The redevelopment plan is also significant at the Federal level
because: (1) the Military Departments dispose of buildings and property
in accordance with a record of decision or other decision document and,
in preparing this decision document, give substantial deference to the
LRA's redevelopment plan; and (2) other Federal agencies are to afford
priority consideration to requests for Federal assistance that are part
of the plan under Executive Order 12788, as amended, ``Defense Economic
Adjustment Programs.''
As with the growth-impacted communities, OEA is presently working
with affected closure and downsizing communities to identify specific
needs for ``public'' investment and expects to have a working estimate
of those needs by this summer. In the past, these needs have included
demolition, road alignments, infrastructure development, etc. With
disposal for these locations yet to occur, communities will need some
additional support from the U.S. Departments of Commerce (Economic
Development Administration (EDA)), Labor ((Employment Training
Administration (ETA)), and Agriculture (Rural Development
Administration) through fiscal year 2014.
The ability to support State and local economic adjustment
activities, including road construction, infrastructure development,
demolition and site preparation, workforce development, and general
economic development is beyond the Department's capacities.
Accordingly, the Department relies upon the Economic Adjustment
Committee (EAC), through DEAP, as directed by Executive Order 12788.
The EAC is comprised of 22 Federal Departments and Executive agencies,
and among its functions is to: coordinate interagency and
intergovernmental adjustment assistance; serve as a clearinghouse for
the exchange of information between Federal, State, and local officials
involved in the resolution of economic adjustment concerns resulting
from DOD actions; and, afford priority consideration to requests from
Defense-affected communities for Federal assistance that are part of a
comprehensive base redevelopment or growth management plan.
In response to previous BRAC activity, approximately $1.9 billion
in Federal assistance was provided to assist affected States,
communities, workers, and businesses. EDA, ETA, the Federal Aviation
Administration, and OEA were the source of this funding. The response
to date for BRAC 2005 has consisted of approximately $212 million,
primarily from OEA and the Department of Labor. The BRAC support has
concentrated on worker assistance, community economic adjustment
planning for growth and downsizing, and coordinating public benefit
property conveyances for downsizing communities.
The EAC is chaired by the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries
of Commerce and Labor are co Vice-Chairs. If affected States and
communities are to benefit from these Federal resources, it will be
important for the cognizant Federal programs to adequately source their
staff and program budgets to respond. To date, we have not had much
response to assist either growth- or downsizing-impacted areas.
Moreover, the current Federal response to the national economic crisis
has placed even greater stress on the cognizant agencies, with the
effect of further subordinating needed attention for Defense-impacted
communities. Accordingly, the intergovernmental coordination of
adjustment assistance under the EAC will continue to be reviewed to
further improve overall responsiveness to the needs of these States and
communities.
The Department has used the full range of transfer and conveyance
authorities to dispose of real property made available in prior BRAC
rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). Property disposal is complete at
205 of 250 prior BRAC locations where property became available for
disposal, and local redevelopment efforts in turn have resulted in the
creation of over 143,700 jobs, more than offsetting the 129,600
civilian jobs that were lost across 73 prior BRAC locations where OEA
is monitoring redevelopment activity.
Improving The Quality of Housing. Just as the Department works to
maintain the fabric of communities affected by BRAC, we also work to
maintain the communities of our military installations. At the same
time that our military installations must support the operational needs
of warfighters, they must also provide for the quality of life of our
Service members and their families. Access to quality, affordable
housing is a key factor affecting service member recruitment,
retention, morale, and readiness. Through privatization and increases
in housing allowances, DOD has made great strides in increasing service
members' housing choices. Privatization allows for rapid demolition,
replacement, or renovation of inadequate units and the sale of units no
longer needed. Privatization also enables DOD to make use of a variety
of private sector approaches to build and renovate military housing
faster and at a lower cost to American taxpayers.
To date, the Military Services have leveraged DOD housing dollars
by 10 to 1, with $2.5 billion in Federal investments generating $25
billion in housing development at privatized installations. The fiscal
year 2010 President's Budget request includes $2.0 billion for Family
Housing, a decrease of $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 2009 enacted
amount, for continued efforts toward reduction of inadequate units,
operation and maintenance of government-owned housing, and the
privatization of over 2,400 family housing units. Over 600 of these
units support the Grow-the-Force initiative.
The housing privatization program was created to address the
oftentimes poor condition of DOD-owned housing and the shortage of
affordable private housing of adequate quality for military service
members and their families. Privatization allows the military services
to partner with the private sector to generate housing built to market
standards for less money and frequently better quality than through the
MilCon process. Additionally, and almost of greater importance, the
projects include 50 years of maintenance and replacement where
necessary. Although nearly all projects have been awarded, we are still
in the early stages of the program since the housing will be privately
owned for fifty years. With privatization deal structures and an income
stream in place, full revitalization will be completed within a five to
ten-year initial development period.
Military family housing requirements are changing at multiple
installations due to BRAC, Global Posture, Joint Basing, and Grow-the-
Force. While some installations may find they have a surplus of
housing, others may experience a deficit. No matter where military
family housing is needed, our Service members and their families need
access to safe, desirable, and affordable housing. The Military
Services continue to evaluate installation housing requirements, and
the opportunities to meet additional housing needs through
privatization continue to expand.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request also includes funding to
eliminate inadequate family housing outside the United States. The
budget request reflects a MilCon cost of $52 million for the Army to
construct 138 family housing units in Baumholder, Germany.
As it has increased the quality of family housing, privatization is
also helping the Military Services provide quality housing for our
unaccompanied Service members. To date, the Army has added bachelor
officer quarters and senior enlisted bachelor quarters to its existing
family housing privatization projects at Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Drum, New York; and Fort Irwin, California.
A fifth project is planned soon at Fort Bliss, Texas. In contrast to
the Army, the Navy is mainly focusing its unaccompanied housing
privatization efforts to bring shipboard junior enlisted sailors ashore
using a special pilot authority (10 USC 2881a). The first unaccompanied
housing privatization pilot project was awarded in December 2006 at San
Diego, the second was executed in December 2007 at Hampton Roads,
Virginia, and a third project is under consideration at Jacksonville-
Mayport, Florida. Both of the awarded Navy pilot projects have
demonstrated that, with partial Basic Allowance for Housing authority,
privatization of single, junior enlisted personnel housing is less
costly on a lifecycle basis than the traditional Government-owned
model. The pilot projects have also demonstrated that through
privatization, single members can enjoy a quality living environment
more equitable with housing for their married counterparts and
commensurate with the sacrifices they are asked to make.
Energy Management. Just as we take responsibility for caring for
our human resources, the Department also takes responsibility to wisely
manage its energy resources. By aggressively implementing energy
conservation measures, we are avoiding costs while improving utility
system reliability and safety. The Department developed comprehensive
policy guidance incorporating the provisions of the Energy Security and
Independence Act of 2007. This guidance will continue to optimize
utility management by conserving energy and water usage, and improving
energy flexibility by taking advantage of restructured energy commodity
markets when opportunities arise.
The Department's efforts to conserve energy are paying off. DOD is
the largest single energy consumer in the Nation and consumed $3.95
billion in facility energy in fiscal year 2008. DOD facility energy
consumption intensity has decreased nearly 11 percent since 2003. Our
program includes energy efficient construction designs, aggregating
bargaining power among regions and the Services to achieve more
effective buying power, and investments in cost-effective renewable
energy sources.
DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable
energy and developing resources on military installations. In 2005, DOD
set a goal to reach 25 percent renewable energy procured or produced by
fiscal year 2025 and Congress placed this goal in the National Defense
Authorization Act 2007. Even though the increasing cost of Renewable
Energy Certificates drove down the percentage of renewable energy
consumption in fiscal year 2008, I am pleased to report that the
Department remains ahead of the curve, achieving 9.8 percent renewable
energy procured and produced for fiscal year 2008.
Renewable energy projects are consistently more expensive than
similar conventional energy sources, resulting in limited opportunities
that are lifecycle cost effective. Still, the Department has increased
the use of Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funds for
renewable energy projects from $5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $86
million out of the $120 million provided for ECIP in the ARRA funding
for 2009. Plans call for ECIP funding to increase $10 million per year,
from $90 million in fiscal year 2010 up to $120 million in fiscal year
2013, and renewable energy projects will continue to be a high
priority.
The Department began tracking water consumption in fiscal year
2002. While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did not articulate a specific
water reduction goal, Executive Order 13423 includes a requirement of 2
percent water reduction per year. By fiscal year 2007, DOD reduced
total water consumption by 27 percent or 43.8 million gallons per year.
While we continue to strive to exceed requirements, our prior
achievements have set the baseline low, so continuing the trend will be
a challenge. Even with the reduced baseline, DOD achieved a 2.9 percent
reduction in water intensity in fiscal year 2008.
Environmental Management.--In addition to our commitment to
managing our energy requirements, we also recognize our natural
infrastructure as a priority. The Department sustains the environment
on our installations, not only to preserve these lands for our future
generations, but also to maintain current and future readiness. The
Department practices integrated planning to preserve the land, water,
and airspace needed for military readiness while maximizing critical
environmental protection. We maintain a high level of environmental
quality in defense activities by integrating sustainable practices into
our operations, acquisition of materials, and weapon systems. We
protect and conserve natural and cultural resources and restore sites
to productive reuse on more than 29 million acres. We strive to protect
and to sustain the environment while strengthening our operational
capacity, reducing our operational costs, and enhancing the well being
of our soldiers, civilians, families and communities.
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS REQUESTS
[President's Budget in Millions of Dollars--Budget Authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2009 request 2010 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Restoration............... 1,506 1,475
Environmental Compliance................ 1,660 1,618
Environmental Conservation.............. 330 323
Pollution Prevention.................... 163 103
Environmental Technology................ 212 225
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)..... 455 554
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 4,327 4,298
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 10 years, the Department has invested nearly $42
billion in our environmental programs. In fiscal year 2008, we
obligated $4.3 billion and in fiscal year 2009 we are executing another
$4.5 billion for natural and cultural resource conservation, pollution
prevention, cleanup, compliance, and environmental technology. The
fiscal year 2010 budget request of $4.3 billion will enable us to
continue to demonstrate leadership in protecting and preserving the
environment on our installations.
In fiscal year 2008, the Military Services invested $353 million in
conservation programs to protect natural and cultural resources located
on and near our installations. Our cultural resources include
archeological sites, historic buildings, relics of prior civilizations,
artifacts, and other national historic treasures.
In 2008, the Department inventoried 480,706 acres and found 6,118
new archaeological sites. The Department has surveyed a total of
8,082,925 acres and has found 112,774 archaeological sites. The
Department treated 2,602 of the sites to include stabilization,
rehabilitation, monitoring, and protection in 2008. In 2009, the DOD
will continue to sustain and manage its archeological and historic
cultural resources. Some of the current activities include preserving
the fabric, systems, historic character, and function of the DOD-built
environment; maintaining readiness while protecting our heritage by
incorporating cultural resources into installation planning; and
consulting in good faith with internal and external stakeholders.
The Department is also protecting its older properties, not only
for historical interest, but for continued active use to support
today's operational requirements. Over 32 percent of DOD's 344,000
buildings are over 50 years old, and by 2025, more than 67 percent of
the Department's buildings will exceed 50 years of age. Buildings that
have passed the 50 year benchmark present a challenge to the
Department, but also offer the potential for cost-savings and resource
conservation. By using historic buildings and properties, instead of
building new structures, the Department reduces its environmental
footprint while retaining the properties' historic features. DOD's
Cultural Resources Program ensures balance between responsible
stewardship of this significant legacy with meeting the demands of
defending our Nation.
Our installations also steward some of the finest examples of rare
native vegetative communities, such as old-growth forests, tall grass
prairies, and vernal pool wetlands. As of April 28, 2008, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed 1,317 species as either threatened
or endangered within the United States, nearly 350 of which inhabit DOD
lands. DOD has a greater density of listed species than any other
Federal agency: some 40 threatened or endangered species are found only
on DOD installations. The Department prepares and implements Integrated
Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) for each installation with
significant natural resources, that include land management and other
actions to protect these endangered species. These plans, developed in
coordination with the USFWS and State fish and wildlife agencies, have
helped the Department avoid critical habitat designations at 35
installations because the plans provide protection equal to or greater
than what would be obtained if critical habitat had been designated for
these endangered species. When coupled with our conservation efforts to
protect species at risk and common species and their habitats before
they become rare, INRMPs have provided increased flexibility in how DOD
conducts its mission activities.
The Department is executing $344 million in fiscal year 2009
conservation efforts, of which $215 million is planned for recurring
continuous conservation management activities, such as preserving
habitat for at risk species and habitat vulnerable to global climate
change. Additionally, $129 million is planned for non-recurring one-
time projects such as installation of exclusion devices to protect
endangered of at-risk species habitats, development of automated
acoustic technologies for monitoring migratory birds, and shoreline
protection projects. Fiscal year 2009 Cultural Resource projects
include identifying design efficiencies and LEED equivalence standards
for historic buildings, and producing historic context studies for Cold
War sites in the Pacific and rural industrial sites on DOD lands in the
Southeast.
The Department is requesting $323 million for fiscal year 2010
conservation efforts, which includes $209 million in recurring funds
for continuous conservation management activities and $114 million in
non-recurring funds for one-time conservation projects associated with
threatened and endangered species, wetland protection, or other
natural, cultural, or historical resources.
Since 1984, the Department has obligated $40 billion in the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), including an fiscal year 2009
appropriation of $1.5 billion. Through DERP, the Department has
restored 74 percent of those areas on installations or Formerly Used
Defense Site (FUDS) that have been impacted by past defense activities,
in cooperation with State agencies and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. DERP consists of two categories of sites; (1)
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites which contain hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants, and (2) Military Munitions
Response Program (MMRP) sites which contain unexploded ordnance and
discarded military munitions. The Department applies a risk-based
prioritization process to determine the order of cleanup for both IRP
and MMRP sites. By the end of 2008, the Department had completed
cleanup on 82 percent of IRP sites on active installations, 69 percent
of IRP sites on FUDS, and 74 percent of IRP sites on installations
closed or realigned in the first four rounds of BRAC and BRAC 2005. In
fiscal year 2009, we are executing approximately $1.5 billion at active
and FUDS locations and another $525 million at BRAC bases for
environmental restoration efforts. These expenditures should enable us
to complete cleanup at an additional 619 sites at active and FUDS
locations and 154 sites at BRAC bases.
For the MMRP, DOD has completed cleanup of military munitions at 33
percent of sites at active installations, over 58 percent of BRAC
installation sites, and 34 percent of FUDS. By cleaning up our sites on
a ``worst first'' basis, we have significantly reduced the potential
risk associated with many of the sites in our inventory. As we continue
to make cleanup progress, we are emphasizing optimization of
performance. Optimization efforts include considering green remediation
technologies, reducing the number of cleanups involving long-term
management, and achieving site close out in a timely manner. These
efforts will reduce our long-term liability and ensure the expeditious
return of these properties to productive reuse. Our fiscal year 2010
budget request of $1.5 billion will help implement these improvements
while continuing to make progress to complete our cleanups and close
out the properties.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request of $103 million for pollution
prevention will enable DOD to continue to meet our solid waste
diversion and recycling goals while reducing our operating costs.
Striking a balance between mission requirements and environmental
quality, the Department employs long-term solutions to eliminate
hazardous material use in operations and weapon systems acquisition,
promote the use of alternative fuels, and implement innovative
pollution prevention technologies to reduce pollution to our air,
water, and land. In 2008, the Department invested $162 million in
pollution prevention programs, including recurring requirements such as
solid waste diversion and recycling, hazardous material reduction, and
green procurement. In fiscal year 2008 the Department diverted 3.9
million tons or 63 percent of our solid waste from landfills, avoiding
approximately $260 million in landfill costs. Additionally, the
Department has reduced hazardous waste disposal by 37 percent from
calendar year 1996 to 2007. The Department is also effectively managing
air quality, reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions at our
installations by 24 tons from 2006 to 2007. To further reduce waste and
resource consumption, in 2008 the Department updated its Green
Procurement Program (GPP) strategy, which encourages Military Services
to purchase environmentally preferable products and services. Through
the GPP, the DOD has become a leader in green procurement, and we
continue to make further improvements to GPP, most recently issuing
policy direction requiring DOD contracting officers to use a contract
provision giving preference to bio-based products. In fiscal year 2009,
we are executing $165 million for pollution prevention, with another
$103 million planned for fiscal year 2010. These levels of investment
will enable DOD to continue to meet our diversion and recycling goals
while reducing our operating costs.
In fiscal year 2008, the Department obligated $1.54 billion for
environmental compliance activities, including an $83 million MilCon
investment in new construction projects to build drinking water
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and above ground fuel
storage tanks that comply with Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Act
requirements. Clean water and clean air are essential to the health and
well being of our communities and ecosystems. DOD management practices
reduce discharged pollutants, leverage water conservation
opportunities, and protect watersheds. Our drinking water program has
consistently provided over 3,550,000 men, women, and children living
and working on our installations with safe drinking water. The
Department also manages over 1,600 water pollution control permits for
our wastewater and storm water treatment systems, which achieved an
overall 95 percent rate of compliance in 2008. Our fiscal year 2009
appropriation included another $1.67 billion to upgrade treatment
facilities and meet new and expanding permit requirements. Our fiscal
year 2010 budget request of $1.6 billion will enable the Department to
continue to sustain our air, water, and land resources to maintain
operational readiness and enhance the health and welfare of surrounding
communities, and the natural environment.
Emerging Contaminants.--Our experiences with mission and
environmental consequences associated with perchlorate, ozone-depleting
substances, and other chemicals with evolving regulatory standards
indicate a need to establish a program to make earlier, better-
informed, risk management decisions regarding these emerging
contaminants (ECs). This new program is already helping us better
protect human health and the environment, and enhance military
readiness. Simply put, the EC program identifies risks early in the
process, before regulatory actions take place or materials become
unavailable, thus protecting our people, assets, and the mission.
We have established a three-tiered process to (1) look ``over-the-
horizon'' and identify chemicals and materials with evolving science
and regulatory interest; (2) assess the risks to human health, the
environment, and DOD's mission; and (3) develop appropriate risk
management options for DOD program managers. Twenty-one EC impact
assessments have been completed for chemicals that include explosives,
fuel constituents, corrosion preventatives, fire-fighting foams, and
industrial degreasers. Examples of risk management options resulting
from these assessments include conducting research to fill basic
science gaps, improving material handling and personal protection
practices, developing new or improved remediation technologies, and
developing less toxic substitute materials or processes. One of the
major thrusts of the program is to work closely with the DOD industrial
base to conduct lifecycle analyses regarding less toxic alternative
chemicals for use in weapons platforms, systems and equipment. A
significant recent example of a risk management action is a new DOD
policy to minimize the use of hexavalent chromium, a known carcinogen,
throughout DOD.
Because of the many national policy issues related to ECs, we
continue to work with a number of Federal and State regulatory
agencies, industry, academia, and professional organizations. In
particular, we formed an EC working group with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
to address and discuss EC issues. Four important work products,
including procedures for dealing with new ECs, have been completed and
endorsed by all parties and are publically available on the ECOS, EPA,
and DOD websites.
We are also working in partnership with a new Industry-University
Cooperative Research Center, initiated by the National Science
Foundation, to focus on emerging contaminant research. Some of this
effort will be geared to helping Federal agencies and industry use
safer chemicals and materials for improved long-term sustainability.
Sustaining the Warfighter.--All of our efforts with regard to both
our built and natural infrastructure are because, simply put, our
Nation's warfighters need the best training and equipment available.
This means sustaining our vital training and test range and
installation infrastructure. Incompatible land use in the vicinity of
DOD installations and ranges continues to challenge training and
testing sustainability. Particular challenges from incompatible land
use include noise complaints from new neighbors, concerns about smoke
and dust, diminished usable airspace due to new structures or growing
civil aviation, a loss of habitat for endangered species, and a
compromised ability to test and train with the frequency needed in time
of war.
History has demonstrated that effective training of U.S. troops has
a direct impact on their success on the battlefield. Reliable access to
operational ranges and supporting installations is needed to sustain
that training. In 2002, Congress provided statutory authority to use
O&M funds to create buffers around our ranges and installations. Using
this authority, DOD established the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative (REPI), and has worked with willing partners to
cost-share compatible land use solutions that benefit military
readiness and preserve natural habitat. In fiscal year 2005, REPI
leveraged $12.5 million of O&M Congressional funding to secure $55
million worth of buffer land and easements, encompassing 13,939 acres
at seven installations. In fiscal year 2006, with $37 million of O&M
funding, REPI secured over $93 million worth of buffer land and
easements, encompassing 33,521 acres.
Overall in fiscal year 2007, REPI initiated 27 projects in 17
States; in fiscal year 2008, REPI funded 36 projects in 19 States.
Already, $23.2 million from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008
funding has secured $74 million of buffer land, encompassing 28,378
acres. For fiscal year 2009 REPI identified an additional 39 projects
in 21 States for funding. Congress appropriated $56 million for REPI in
fiscal year 2009. Such REPI and partner funding has resulted in
projects providing clear benefit to the military mission, such as
protecting the Navy's one-of-a-kind La Posta Mountain Warfare Training
Facility in California; keeping training areas open at Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; and buffering live-fire training
ranges at Fort Carson, Colorado.
After several years of implementing REPI projects, DOD asked the
RAND Corporation to assess the program's effectiveness. In 2007, RAND
issued its report, titled The Thin Green Line: An Assessment of DOD's
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative to Buffer
Installation Encroachment. The report found that REPI projects, as in
the case of the installations noted above, have proven effective in
relieving military training and testing activities from encroachment
pressures and in strengthening joint readiness.
According to RAND, REPI also helped improve the natural environment
and the quality of life in communities where the projects were located.
The environmental benefits of REPI projects have included helping to
preserve habitat, biodiversity and threatened and endangered species;
protecting wildlife corridors; and safeguarding water quality and
supply. REPI also was shown to improve local economies and the
reputation of installations with surrounding communities; for example,
the project near NAS Fallon in Nevada has helped preserve productive
local agricultural land and the continued viability of local farms.
Many of the challenges facing DOD are also of mutual concern to
other Federal agencies and State governments. These issues can and do
cross administrative boundaries, demanding cooperative action at the
regional level. The Department is partnering regionally with State
governments and Federal agencies to identify and address such shared
concerns. These partnerships are proving essential to sustaining our
ranges and installations, as well as to furthering our partners' goals
and missions. For example, DOD continues to work with State governments
and other Federal agencies in the Southeast Regional Partnership for
Planning and Sustainability--or SERPPAS. The States of Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are engaged with
the military and other Federal agencies in this important regional
initiative. Through the SERPPAS process, the partners are promoting
better planning related to growth, the preservation of open space, and
the protection of the region's military installations. A similar effort
is now getting underway in the southwestern United States, a region of
critical military training and testing importance that is facing myriad
growth and environmental challenges.
DOD continues to work closely with other Federal agencies to
sustain military readiness. One major thrust is to ensure that wind
farm projects and energy transmission corridors are compatible with
military readiness activities. The Department also coordinates with the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our military readiness
activities and infrastructure in border regions are compatible with new
security measures. The Department's sustainability program continues to
reach out to non-Federal partners, working regularly with State,
county, and local governments, Tribal, and non-governmental
organizations on issues of mutual concern to seek win-win solutions.
Meanwhile, overseas, DOD continues to develop mission sustainment
procedures with host nations. The Department looks forward to further
building upon all of these efforts to ensure that warfighters' current
and future training and testing opportunities remain unrivaled.
Additionally, DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has managed
the Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) program since 1985. JLUS is a
cooperative land use planning effort between affected local governments
and military installations that seeks to anticipate, identify, and
prevent growth conflicts by helping State and local governments better
understand and incorporate technical data developed under Service Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone, Range Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone, Operational Noise Management Program, Encroachment Action Plan,
and Encroachment Control Plan studies into local planning programs.
When a Service believes an installation may be experiencing
incompatible development problems, or that there is likelihood for
incompatible development that could adversely affect the military
mission, the Service may nominate the installations for a JLUS to OEA.
All the Services takes advantage of the JLUS program, finding it an
effective tool for bringing communities and the military together to
mutually address development issues and needs.
Safety and Health Risk Management.--A significant responsibility
associated with Installations and Environment is the management of the
Department's safety and health programs. Over the last year, the
Department experienced some improvement in its safety and health
performance, but we have a way to go.
In 2005, the Department published policy (DOD Directive 4715.1E)
that required implementation of management systems for safety and
health (similar to environmental management systems described by the
International Standards Organization (ISO) 14000 series of standards)
emphasizing the integration of safety and health into day-to-day
operations. By ``operationalizing'' safety and health, we make safety a
part of every process and operation.
We are encouraging commanders to meet and exceed tough performance-
based criteria for a managed safety and health system and proving it by
achieving ``Star'' recognition in the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Installations
holding VPP Star Status undergo an independent review of their programs
and must be among the best, having injury and illness rates at or below
the national average. So far, the Department has 22 Star Sites to date;
we anticipate more than 36 Star Sites by the end of fiscal year 2009
and we further expect that number to increase every year. Recently, the
Pentagon began its journey toward Star recognition.
Operationalizing safety applies to every aspect of the Department's
missions. In preparing for basing changes on Guam, we, through the
Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, developed a
comprehensive Military Munitions Annex to the Guam Joint Military
Master Plan. This effort sought to fully harmonize the receipt,
storage, maintenance, transportation, and use of military munitions by
the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security
organizations on Guam. Explosives safety risks on Guam have been
identified and strategic recommendations will result in risks from
military munitions being eliminated or mitigated. Furthermore,
operationalizing safety improves the entire operation, by improving
munitions support to execution of war plans and contingencies and
optimizing munitions processes. We are continuing this effort by
integrating explosives safety into all facets of operational planning.
In the area of Strategic Human Capital Management, my organization,
along with the entire Department, is focused on human capital planning
emphasizing improved competency-based workforce planning. In
establishing ``Functional Community Managers'' for: Safety and Health,
Explosives Safety, Fire and Emergency Services, and Expeditionary
Environment Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH), we will implement a
comprehensive strategy to ensure a strong safety and health workforce
that is able to meet the challenges of today and the future. Our
Functional Community Managers, bringing first hand knowledge of
competencies needed, work in partnership with the Department's Human
Resource experts to ensure the Department is positioned to acquire and
retain the talent it needs to meet current and future mission
requirements.
The ability to send our people home from work healthy and safe is
of paramount concern. The number of civilian injuries is one measure of
our success in managing safety and health. For our civilian employees,
we reduced the lost time injury rate over the last five years by 13
percent. We continue to seek improvements to prevent all mishaps and
the resulting injuries and losses. Operating motor vehicles continues
to be the most significant mishap threat to our military members. We
have reduced the number of military fatalities for all privately-owned
motor vehicles on public highways from 308 in fiscal year 2002 to 260
in fiscal year 2008--a 16 percent reduction. However, for motorcycles,
we are part of a national trend in increasing motorcycle fatalities.
Nationally, motorcycle fatalities increased by 58 percent from 2002 to
2007. DOD fatalities increased from 71 to 124 for fiscal year 2002 to
fiscal year 2008--a 75 percent increase. We are continuing to develop
programs and initiatives to address this negative trend.
Operating military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan is also a
significant risk, with 24 motor vehicle fatalities in fiscal year
2008--a reduction from a peak of 59 motor vehicle fatalities in fiscal
year 2005. Our military members have met the combined threats from
Improvised Explosive Devices and poor roadways with increased training
and experience in operating tactical vehicles, and by improved
survivability of crashes from increased seat belt use, gunner's
harnesses, and rollover training.
In early 2009, Installations and Environment published policy that
defines ``all-hazards'' emergency management for DOD installations
worldwide. DOD installations now have consistent guidance to improve
their compatibility with their civilian counterparts and a management
structure focused on preparing for and responding to emergencies
regardless of the hazard. Our ability to seamlessly interact with
civilian responders will make us much more effective in times of
disaster. We are continuing to work with other offices in DOD to
eliminate unnecessary redundancy and confusion at the time of an
emergency and provide holistic emergency response on and around our
installations.
Integrating Business Management.--Accomplishing the diverse
missions of the Installations and Environment community requires
integration across organizational boundaries. We have made great
progress with our initiatives to improve the efficiency of the
Department's business processes. We are working to develop and
implement common data standards across the Military Departments and
Defense Agencies, modernize business systems, and enable audit-ready
processes. In the Installations and Environment community, we have
three key business transformation efforts: real property
accountability, environmental liabilities, and hazardous materials
information management.
The Department manages almost 60 percent of the Federal
Government's buildings and structures--over 539,000 assets worldwide.
Each Military Department has a separate system to manage their share of
this property. Several years ago we conducted research and hired a top
ranked information technology firm to help us develop our business
system modernization strategy. We determined, based upon the firm's
recommendation and the Military Service leadership's concurrence, that
building a single system would not be the optimal solution. Instead, we
decided to develop DOD-wide standards and upgrade or replace the
existing systems so that they can be interoperable across DOD. To
achieve this goal, we developed common data standards and reengineered
business processes. As of September 30, 2009, all of DOD's primary real
property systems will be interoperable, ensuring that accurate, timely,
and reliable real property information is available for more
transparent management decision making.
In addition to the data and business process standards initiatives,
we are also working to modernize our systems. Many of the existing,
government-built legacy systems use outdated technology and do not
apply current industry best practices. Led by my organization, the
Military Services are in the process of acquiring new commercial off-
the-shelf systems or upgrading their current systems to comply with the
standards. To further integrate real property information for
Department-level analysis, my office is building the real property data
hub that will provide real-time accessibility to data.
Uniquely identifying each of our real property assets is
fundamental to real property accountability. Our Real Property Unique
Identifier Registry is at full operational capability. These unique
identifiers allow us to establish linkages within our systems between
facilities, equipment and people. The registry includes address
information on all DOD installations and sites and we are working with
other DOD functional communities to ensure that physical location
information used across DOD comes from one authoritative source--the
Registry.
The ability to share data with the communities that surround our
installations is a key component in our ongoing efforts to sustain
military readiness. My organization is working with stakeholders across
the Federal Government on aligning geospatial data standards so that
data sharing can take place between the local and Federal communities.
We have recently integrated geospatial data requirements into the
Department's Business Enterprise Architecture, which will further
expand interoperability opportunities in DOD.
On the environmental management side, my office has been leading
efforts to standardize and streamline the complex processes required to
accurately value and report environmental liabilities. We are
developing a blueprint for implementation of the reengineered business
processes in the Department's enterprise resource planning systems.
To minimize future needs for environmental cleanup and to ensure
safety of our personnel, ready access to complete and accurate
hazardous material information is critical. We are working to improve
availability of timely, accurate, consistent, and complete product
hazard data for use across the Department.
In summary, our business transformation efforts are helping the
Department efficiently share information and best practices across
organizational boundaries. As the Services modernize their systems and
achieve interoperability, the Department will gain access to secure,
reliable information crucial for effective management of assets, and
ultimately reducing costs and improving performance across all of DOD.
Conclusion.--In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for
this opportunity to update you on our work in Installations and
Environment on behalf of the Department of Defense. To meet the ever
changing warfighting landscape, our military must be flexible and
responsive and our installations must adapt, reconfigure, and be
managed to maximize that flexibility and responsiveness. I appreciate
your continued support and I look forward to working with you to
provide the quality installations that our military forces need and
deserve.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Secretary Hale, as you know the Secretary of Defense has
put a hold on providing Congress with updated FYDPs for 2010.
This committee works very closely with the authorizers to
ensure that the projects we fund are mission critical and are
in the MILCON pipeline.
Public Law 104-196 requires the National Guard bureau to
prepare and to submit to Congress an annual FYDP. Doesn't the
current guidance fly in the face of that law? And can you
suggest another way for this committee to do its due diligence
and vet military construction projects if we cannot determine
whether the projects are in the FYDP?
FYDP
Mr. Hale. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said, we don't have an
out-year plan, and it is not without precedent. It was the same
situation in 2001 and 1993 at the beginning of the Bush and
Clinton administrations.
We need to go through the Quadrennial Defense Review and
the fall program and budget review in order to have a plan that
fully fits with the administration's priorities. So it is not
that we are not trying to give it to you. We don't have one.
I understand that it creates problems. We have a year-old
FYDP, which you have. It is not consistent with administration
policy, but it is at least a start. And we would be glad, if
there are specific projects, to try to work with you to provide
what information that we can.
I know it is a difficult situation, and we need to help you
all we can, but there is no out-year plan and this not by
design. Frankly, it takes 6 to 9 months to create a FYDP. We
had about 3, and we made major changes in the Fiscal 2010
budget, and it just didn't all add up. I mean, there is no way
we could have gotten it done.
Senator Johnson. Would you please take a message back to
the Secretary and urge him to reconsider what I believe is a
very unhelpful policy for both Congress and the services?
FULL FUNDING
Secretary Hale, have you sought authority to increment
projects from the OMB, and what is your position, as the one
who writes the checks, on incremental funding?
Mr. Hale. I believe in full funding, Mr. Chairman, with
limited exceptions. I think it is the right way on both sides
of the river. It requires that we face up to the full cost of
the projects, whether it is military construction or aircraft
or ships.
Now there are limited exceptions, certainly with advanced
procurement on the weapons side, and I know that we have
sometimes incrementally funded military construction. But I
think they ought to be rare exceptions, and it does violate
OMB's policy. And so, we are not doing it in this budget, and I
believe that is the right way to go. Again, I think it is
consistent with transparency and accountability to face the
full cost of projects.
Senator Johnson. Even, for example, the fiscal year 2010
budget request includes $800 million for a National Security
Agency project in Utah and $226.9 million for a pier
replacement project in Virginia. There is no way the Department
could execute that amount of money for a single project in 1
year.
Mr. Hale. Well, MILCON is 5-year money so we have plenty of
time to obligate it. I think that that is not the issue in my
mind. There may be some projects that are so large that they
just create unacceptable budget spikes. In those cases, we may
need to look at some kind of incremental funding.
But I will repeat my statement. I believe full funding is
the right way on both sides of the river, and I would want to
see incremental funding it, I have my way, as a fairly rare
exception.
Senator Johnson. Yes. Mr. Arny, what is the status of the
two brigade combat teams in Germany? And how can the Department
go forward with MILCON projects, including some that were
funded last year, when we don't know how this issue will be
resolved?
Mr. Arny. Mr. Chairman, I defer to my Army colleagues when
you talk to them. But as I understand the BCT issue, we are not
changing the force structure in terms of troops, but we are
changing the organization. We are looking as part of the global
posture review exactly how we will change the structure. But we
believe for 2010, our military construction is needed, no
matter what the end result is in terms of the number of BCTs.
INFLATION POLICY
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hale, the OMB's construction
pricing guide is generally not as responsive to changing
economic conditions as the private sector. Is the Department
working with OMB to develop a pricing system that is more
timely and agile than the current system?
Mr. Hale. Are you thinking mainly of inflation adjustments,
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Johnson. With the current economic environment, are
you seeing any significant trends with regard to bids versus
cost estimate?
Mr. Hale. Well, unfortunately, I think that we probably
have solved temporarily the problem of high inflation in the
construction industry with the recession. But let us hope that
ends quickly.
You know, we do accept generally OMB inflation indices, and
I think we will continue to do that. I understand there may be
certain areas in the construction industry when the economy is
recovered that have extraordinarily high rates of inflation for
special reasons.
I mean, my personal reaction to that is that we ought to
look at the projects in that area and cost them in a way that
takes into account special circumstances rather than trying to
build in some new deflator, which will be a challenge with
regard to OMB and to derive an inflator. So that would be my
suggested way to go.
But it is not a problem at the moment, unfortunately. Yes,
I think we are seeing bids that are lower than we expected, and
let us just hope it doesn't last too long.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to follow up on one of the questions that the
chairman asked, and that is the FYDP for the Guard and Reserve.
Are you taking the same position, even though it is in the law
that they have to provide a FYDP, that it can't be done? Or are
you making an exception there?
Mr. Hale. Well, they don't have one either in the sense
that we have not gone through the process that would determine
a level of military construction for the actives or the Guard
that is consistent with overall administration policy.
Again, I understand the problem. We can go back to the last
FYDP. It is at least some guide, although I think you have to
understand it is not consistent with current administration
policy. And on specific projects, we can try to work with the
committee to provide what information we can.
I know it is not an ideal solution, but I think it is a
common one at the beginning of administrations. You have 2
months to do something that normally takes 9, and we need the
output of the Quadrennial Review and the fall budget and
program review before we have a worked-out Future Years Defense
Plan.
Senator Hutchison. Are you prepared to say what is not part
of the current administration's plans that was a policy of the
previous administration?
Mr. Hale. No, not beyond fiscal 2010. I mean, in fiscal
2010, we can, of course. But that is the problem. We don't have
that information. We really haven't gone through the review
process.
I think, inevitably, a number of the projects that are in
the 2010 or the 2011 and out-year columns of the fiscal 2009
FYDP will stay. I mean, we don't redo everything. But some
won't. There will be new ones, and some will come off. So I
don't know a better solution than to try to work with you if
there are individual projects.
It isn't a gag order. It is not that we are trying to stop
people from supplying information. It is that we don't have the
information.
Senator Hutchison. Would you be prepared to say that the
BRAC that Congress enacted is going to continue as Congress has
directed?
Mr. Hale. Yes. I mean, I think we are close enough. I am
going to ask Wayne Arny to correct me if I am wrong, but we are
pretty close on that. I mean, after all, we have a detailed
plan in fiscal 2010, and September 2011 is the goal. So I don't
know what 2011 will look like, but it has got to be coming down
sharply at that point.
We are going to do BRAC as it was stated by the Congress,
that is to fully fund it.
Senator Hutchison. And the military construction that would
prepare for it?
Mr. Arny. Yes. The Secretary----
Mr. Hale. Yes. Do you want to add to that?
Mr. Arny. The Secretary did commit to that in even this new
administration we would fully fund BRAC.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Arny or Mr. Hale, either of you can
answer this, but it is back to my question on Fort Carson and
Pinon Canyon. Are you looking in your QDR about the
difficulties that clearly we are facing with Pinon Canyon? And
as you know, when I asked last week, the Army said they really
didn't have a plan B for not having that training capability
that they certainly expected to have when a new brigade combat
team was scheduled to move to Fort Carson.
My question is, is there going to be a plan B pretty soon?
Because no one seems to be fighting all of the environmental
concerns about Pinon Canyon, and should we begin to start
looking at a different priority than for that brigade combat
team, especially with the lowering of the number and perhaps
that that one might be directed somewhere else?
Mr. Hale. Do you want to take it?
Mr. Arny. Ma'am, I think we can safely say that all the
factors involved in those basings are being taken into
consideration.
Senator Hutchison. It would be part of the expectation of
this committee and Congress that you would have a plan B that
would be part of the Quadrennial Review. If Pinon Canyon is
going to be off limits, and I think this administration is
pretty strong on the environmental concerns with Pinon Canyon--
and at least Secretary Salazar has been very plain about it--so
are you looking at a near term for making decisions on that?
Mr. Arny. I cannot say specifically, but I know that the
Army in their plans are going to look at all the factors that
affect their training when they make their decision. I am sorry
I can't be more specific than that.
Senator Hutchison. But timetable for the decision?
Mr. Arny. I would say within the next few months as part of
the QDR.
Senator Hutchison. That is what I was trying to find out.
The buildup on Guam, where do we stand on a plan for that?
And there have been a lot of reports of infrastructure needs--
--
Mr. Arny. Difficulties.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, difficulties. Where do we stand on
addressing those and coming forward with a plan that we know is
going to be able to be executed within the $10 billion that has
been allocated?
Mr. Arny. We are working very hard in the services
especially, especially the Navy, to put together the
environmental impact statement, which is more than just the
environmental impact statement. It has less to do with the
environment than it does with the lay-down and the mitigation
of that.
Included in that will be the planning for how to put the
buildings in, the raw things that you expect, but also the
mitigation on how we will do, how we will mitigate in the
private sector, how we will bring in the workforce because the
island does not have a workforce large enough to support that
level of construction, how to work with the port, with the
power, with housing, with all the aspects.
And like I said, a major part of that will be included in
the environmental impact statement. This is the--since the
advent--we have built bases, obviously, in the past. But we
have never built one this big since the advent of the
environmental impact statement.
So it is a very complex operation. We have to take into
account far more different laws and effects than we did before.
And I would say that I would defer my answer to the Navy as to
the specifics, but it would be within a matter of months to
have that plan.
GUAM
Mr. Hale. I would like to add to that and just underscore
the administration remains fully committed to moving the
marines off Okinawa and into Guam. We have signed an agreement
with the Japanese, and we remain fully committed. We know there
are significant challenges, and we will work through them.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor, do you have any questions
or comments?
Senator Pryor. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing and your attention to this.
Secretary Arny, let me ask you, if I may, about the Office
of Economic Adjustment, which obviously helps when a base or a
facility is being downsized. Can you, if you know about
specifically the Pine Bluff Arsenal, which is in Arkansas, but
the other facilities around the country who are going through
the process of destroying their chemical weapons, I think we
are going to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,100 jobs
at Pine Bluff.
Do you have any progress report on that and any plans that
you are making for not just Pine Bluff, but the other
facilities?
Mr. Arny. I have a paper that I am going to look at here
and refresh myself. But I can say that OEA does have a
responsibility and is funded to provide communities that are
growing or decreasing, whenever there is a change that we in
the Department cause, they are required by law to go in and
assist with grants for funding and also advice.
I don't know that Pine Bluff specifically, but I could
almost guarantee you that they will be--because OEA works for
me, and we have got people scattered all over the country. We
will be working with the community to help them recover and
take into effect that downsizing.
Senator Pryor. That would be great. And if you could just
keep us posted on that, that would be great.
I know the community is very supportive of the arsenal and
all the things that the arsenal does, even though they handle
some very dangerous material there. But nonetheless, they are
very, very supportive, and I just want to make sure they have a
good transition and, hopefully, come through this thing in good
shape.
Let me ask also, if I may, about really the advent of
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which didn't exist just a few
years ago. And now I think we have thousands of them in our
inventory.
A lot of those are in theater right now, but there will be
a day when I think we will need a pretty sizable UAV training
system here in this country. And of course, you all have to
work through those issues with the FAA about having rated
pilots versus just other folks flying these, and it gets into a
big airspace issue.
Is the DOD in the process right now of lining up more
airspace and looking for new areas where they can meet the
needs of this rapidly growing technology?
Mr. Arny. Senator, as a rated pilot myself, this sounds
like a union issue. I want to make sure that there is nothing
but rated pilots working these.
I will look into that for you. It had popped on my scope,
and I don't have an answer. I will work with the services. I
would be amazed if the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy who
are working with UAVs are not--I know it is a rated pilot
because in the magazines that I get monthly, I see discussions
on both sides of it.
So I will get an answer back for you, but I would be
dumbfounded if they are not trying to consider that now.
[The information follows:]
The Military Services are faced with expanding UAV inventories at
bed-down locations throughout the CONUS. These UAV forces require use
of the Federal Aviation Administration National Airspace System (NAS)
for training purposes to meet mission readiness. Like the Air Force,
all the services are focused on integration of these expanding UAV
training requirements into the NAS. The Army, perhaps more than the
other services, is taking on a growing UAV mission without benefit of a
significant pre-existing inventory of airspace over or around its
ranges. The Navy and the USMC also must identify and secure access to
appropriate training space as their UAV missions and inventories
expand. In the case of the Navy, such access is required both over land
and at sea.
The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness
(DUSD(R)) is leading a UAV Tiger Team to address specifically the
challenges of UAV training within the NAS and to develop a multi-
Service UAV Training Airspace Plan that will accommodate increasing UAV
training requirements in the CONUS. The UAV Tiger Team is represented
by all Military Services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),
the Joint Staffs, and the military testing community. UAV training and
airspace experts will convene to assess and develop strategies that
seek to include UAV training within the NAS in ways similar to the
training activities of military aircraft within the NAS to the extent
possible. These strategies will inform the UAV Training Airspace Plan.
The UAV Tiger Team will convene in the summer of 2009 and will continue
until the UAV Training Airspace Plan is complete in 2010. The UAV
airspace effort is being coordinated with other ongoing UAV planning
activities within DOD, and is part of the broader sustainable ranges
initiative within OSD.
Senator Pryor. Yes. That would be great. And another
question is just the money involved. And is this one that takes
money, or is it more just working out agreements with FAA, et
cetera? And we just need to be prepared for the future because
I think UAVs will have a big presence in the future for our
military needs.
And one other thing, and this is also sort of a space
issue, and I know there are a lot of bases, et cetera, that are
constrained by various geographical considerations around their
areas of operation. But your air and land ranges, as I
understand it, you are getting to a point, at least in some
areas, where those ranges are used--I don't want to say
overused, but they are kind of hitting the max. They are
bumping up against the ceiling in terms of the amount of
training that can be done at those, especially, as I understand
it, at Eglin and at Fort Bragg.
But do you know anything about that, or have you been
working on that issue to make sure that there is sufficient air
and land ranges?
Mr. Arny. Not about those specifically, but in my time in
the Navy and here, we have been working very hard over the last
10 to 15 years on finding ways to fight encroachment. Our
Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI)
program has been very active, with help from the Congress,
where we go out and buy easements on land around our bases and
around our ranges to make sure that we have buffer zones.
And frankly, where--as we tried to do with Pinon Canyon,
where we think we need more ranges, we will go out and try to
acquire land. I know in the Navy, we acquired land down in
Mississippi in a range down there. I know the Marine Corps is
looking to expand 29 twentynine Palms.
So where we can and where it is required, we will use
military construction funding and other land acquisition to
expand it. Where we feel we have enough ranges, but we need
buffer zones, then we are using REPI and other programs,
cooperative programs with the private sector.
In the Pensacola area, the local community is very active.
The local community will actually buy up land around the bases
to ensure that they are okay.
Senator Pryor. Right. I think that Eglin may have an issue
with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter going there----
Mr. Arny. Yes, sir. I believe that is more of a perceived
noise issue than it is actually a training range issue, and we
will have to work through it. And if you look at--I was down in
San Antonio, at an Air Force base down there, and in the 1930s,
the ideal was you put all the housing and admin facilities
between the two runways. Well, nowadays, you wouldn't think
about doing that.
So it is a matter of things have changed. Oceana on the
east coast has a lot of housing around it. In the 1950s, we
bought 18,000 acres in the San Joaquin Valley and easements on
another 12,000 acres to build the Naval Air Station Lemoore,
where both of my sons have been.
So it is a different mentality, and we have to accommodate
it as things move.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hale and Mr. Arny, thank you so
much, and you may be excused.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Robert F. Hale
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. In fiscal year 2009, Fort Knox received funding from the
Department of Defense to widen portions of Wilson Road, an on-base
road, which leads to the Human Resources Center of Excellence on the
installation. The amount only funded half of the project, however. Why
was this project only partially funded? When will it appear on the
Future Years Defense Plan?
Answer. The East Access Road Improvements fiscal year 2008 military
construction project (project number 66549 for $6.7 million) was
authorized and appropriated at the scope requested. The project scope
included widening the main access corridor from Wilson Gate to
Eisenhower Avenue to four traffic lanes, improving road drainage,
upgrading traffic signals, relocating overhead utility lines
underground, installing curbs and gutters, and adding reflectorized
pavement markings.
This project was an emergency requirement included in the fiscal
year 2008 President's Budget. It supports a Grow the Army Brigade
Combat Team and the Base Realignment and Closure relocation of the
Human Resources Command to Fort Knox. As a result, insufficient design
was performed, which led to a poor estimate of construction material
quantities for milling and paving, as well as inadequate drainage and
safety features. The lack of proper design, coupled with increased
labor, construction material, and fuel costs caused the project to lose
scope in order to stay within funding limits. An Above Threshold
Reprogramming (Congressional authorization for projects greater than $2
million or 125 percent of the programmed amount) was considered to
achieve full scope, but funding was not available.
East Access Corridor Improvements (project number 70261 for $6.4
million) has been developed to capture the lost scope and will compete
in future budget cycles.
Question. Ireland Army Community Hospital at Fort Knox is one of
the oldest hospitals in the Army. A study was to be undertaken to
examine whether the facility needed to be replaced. What is the status
of that report? When will it be submitted to Congress?
Answer. The U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) recognizes the need
to ensure medical treatment capabilities at Fort Knox match the needs
of the supported beneficiary population. In the first quarter of fiscal
year 2009, MEDCOM funded a planning effort to determine the scope,
capabilities, siting, and cost for an Ireland replacement facility.
Analysis of population, workload, services, and network are now
complete. Facility requirements associated with this analysis are in
development and will be complete in July with final deliverables to
follow. The outcome of the planning effort will be used to program the
project for a future budget submission. The MEDCOM Commanding General
would be happy to meet with you later this summer to share the results
of the planning process and the proposed facility solution.
Question. By law, DOD must complete disposal of the chemical
weapons stockpile at Blue Grass Army Depot by 2017. What is the Army's
long-term plan to take advantage of the Blue Grass Army Depot's
capabilities following completion of the chemical weapons disposal
efforts?
Answer. Blue Grass Army Depot is a very valuable component of the
Army's Industrial Base. Its mission is and will continue to be to
support the Joint Warfighter by safely providing a wide range of high
quality Defense products and services at the right price, place, and
time.
Currently, Blue Grass Army Depot conducts Standard Depot Operations
(store, issue, receipt, inspect, maintain, and demilitarize) for
conventional and non-standard (Special Forces unique) ammunition and
missiles, as well as Chemical Defense Equipment (CDE). On a daily
basis, Blue Grass ships critical munitions and CDE to Joint SOF and
conventional units worldwide for both training and combat use.
Routinely, on a quarterly basis, Blue Grass Army Depot supplies
munitions for the CENTCOM ammunition resupply vessel with critical
munitions in support of OIF/OEF.
In addition to Standard Depot Operations, Blue Grass also produces
kits and ships weapons system, combat vehicle and ammunition components
to fill critical Warfighter requirements. Recent examples of this
industrial capability include MRAP add-on armor, overhead wire
mitigation kits, and Gunner Restraint Kits. Ammunition specific
component production examples include 81mm mortar piston plates and
mortar tail fin sections. Blue Grass Army Depot also conducts container
(MILVAN and Ammunition unique) refurbishment and repair, as well as
fabrication and heat treatment of MIL SPEC ammunition pallets. Blue
Grass Army Depot commercial tenants also provide additional, non-
ammunition SOF support.
Blue Grass Army Depot plans to fully utilize critical capability
remaining on the Depot at the completion of the Chemical weapons
demilitarization mission. This would include those ammunition storage
structures currently storing chemical munitions and administrative
facilities constructed in support of the Chemical Demilitarization
mission.
Question. What is the planned arrival date for Fort Knox's brigade
combat team?
Answer. The 3d Brigade, 1st Infantry Division is programmed to
relocate from Fort Hood, Texas, to Fort Knox, Kentucky, on October 16,
2009.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Mr. Hale, We need more emphasis on military construction
to properly modernize and maintain the industrial infrastructure to
support our military in the 21st century. For example, Portsmouth naval
Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, has had to depend on Congressional plus-up
funding in order to get many of the new facilities they need. While
these projects have been reviewed, approved and included in the out
year Program Objective Memorandums (POMs), the Navy continues to not
include them in their budget requests.
What more can be done to ensure that all of the Navy's repair and
support facilities have all of the needed equipment and military
construction required to perform their missions?
Answer. The Department of the Navy applies a prioritized
methodology in determining which projects are included in its Military
Construction request. The infrastructure investment development
incorporates the following factors: (1) a top down programmatic
approach, which incorporates strategic investment guidance from the
Chief of Naval Operations; (2) Global Shore Infrastructure Plans (GSIP)
identify capability gaps; and (3) an analytical decision process. There
are three weighted criteria which determine priorities. These include
strategic guiding principles (e.g. mission alignment, condition based
maintenance/recap), shore capability areas (e.g. operations, training),
and components of the shore investment model (e.g. capacity,
condition). The described process provides for a prioritized executable
global Navy construction program.
______
Questions Submitted to Wayne Arny
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
Question. On February 26th 2009, I wrote you a letter requesting
data in regard to property disposal. My intent was to better understand
the performance of conveyances and how they relate to the creation of
jobs, particularly with respect to the Economic Development Conveyance
(EDC). It is my understanding that the purpose of EDCs, that proceed
from land disposition, is to advance the economic development and job
creation objectives of communities. Last week in front of this
Committee, I asked your Army colleague, Mr. Calcara, his thoughts on
those tools available by DOD to convey surplus land.
I am very interested in your thoughts on this matter. While it is
DOD policy to fully utilize all appropriate means to transfer property
at installations closed or realigned under the base closure law, to
include public benefit transfers, EDCs at cost and no-cost, and
negotiated or public sales, can you explain to this Committee how DOD
makes decisions as to which conveyance is best suited for a particular
community?
Answer. In consultation with the Local Redevelopment Authority
(LRA), DOD considers many local community factors as well as the
characteristics of the property itself when making property disposal
decisions. These factors include the redevelopment plan for the
property prepared by the LRA, potential environmental impacts pursuant
to analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, environmental
condition of the property, zoning, and applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements associated with each property conveyance
authority, property value, and other relevant factors. As indicated in
my response to your letter dated April 30, 2009, DOD has used the full
range of conveyance authorities to address the wide variety of
circumstances encountered at communities which have hosted closing
installations. It is also common to convey the property at larger
closing installations in multiple parcels using different conveyance
authorities for different future uses based upon consideration of the
factors described above.
Question. In regard to no-cost EDC requests, how much consideration
does the DOD give today's economic climate when negotiating with Local
Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) for communities who have been BRAC'd?
Answer. The Secretary concerned has discretion and flexibility to
structure an EDC that can be tailored to local needs to assist local
job creation/recovery activities and base redevelopment. This is done
in close collaboration with the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) and
local economic conditions are an important factor considered.
Specifically, as set forth in the governing regulation (32 CFR Part
174), the Secretary concerned will consider the following factors, as
appropriate, in evaluating the application and the terms and conditions
of the proposed transfer:
--Adverse economic impact of closure or realignment on the region and
potential for economic recovery through an EDC.
--Extent of short- and long-term job generation.
--Consistency with the entire redevelopment plan.
--Financial feasibility of the development, including market analysis
and need and extent of proposed infrastructure and other
investments.
--Extent of State and local investment, level of risk incurred, and
the LRA's ability to implement the plan.
--Current local and regional real estate market conditions.
--Incorporation of other Federal agency interests and concerns, and
applicability of, and conflicts with, other Federal surplus
property disposal authorities.
--Relationship to the overall Military Department disposal plan for
the installation.
--Economic benefit to the Federal Government, including protection
and maintenance cost savings and anticipated consideration from
the transfer.
--Compliance with applicable Federal, State, interstate, and local
laws and regulations.
Under the applicable statutory authority, a no-cost EDC may only be
made if:
--the LRA agrees that the proceeds from any sale or lease of the
property (or any portion thereof) received by the LRA during at
least the first seven years after the date of the initial
transfer of property shall be used to support economic
redevelopment of, or related to, the installation; and
--the LRA executes the agreement for transfer of the property and
accepts control of the property within a reasonable time after
the date of the property disposal record of decision.
Question. In particular to no-cost EDCs, would you happen to
roughly know how long it takes for an acre of BRAC property to be
conveyed (by disposal type) or how long it typically take for an acre
of BRAC property to be productively reused?
Answer. There is really no ``typical'' BRAC property conveyance
situation. Every closing base, and surrounding community, has unique
features that affect the length of time to convey property, the
disposal methods, and reuse implementation period. In some cases, where
there is strong market demand, immediate public use needs, little
investment required to achieve reuse, and minimal environmental cleanup
concerns, property has been conveyed and reused relatively quickly
after the base closes. At other locations where market demand is
limited, substantial investment is required to enable the desired
reuses, and/or environmental conditions require significant effort and
regulatory involvement to resolve, conveyance and reuse occurs more
slowly.
As Chairman of the Senate Special Operations Forces Caucus, I am
concerned with the realignment of the 7th Special Forces Group (SF0)
from Fort Bragg, NC to Eglin Air Force Base, FL. While gunnery and
artillery ranges are critical for the 7th SF0 to continue to maintain a
high level of combat readiness, the available shooting ranges at Eglin
are currently being used by Air Force Special Operations AC-130
Gunships.
Question. With both entities in extraordinarily high demand in
support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, how is the DOD planning
to redesign air and land ranges to ensure a seamless transition for
training and preparedness?
Answer. Air Force and Army Special Operations officials have worked
closely to ensure the Army's 7 SFG Airborne (A) move to Eglin AFB is
seamless and preserves optimum training capabilities for all Eglin
range complex users.
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and 7 SFG (A)
estimate approximately 10-20 percent of their local missions will be
bi-lateral in nature, which will evolve as the SFG (A) moves to Florida
and begins operations. Joint training opportunities should increase as
AFSOC and 7 SFG (A) further develop training scenarios. Eglin ranges
are centrally scheduled. Schedules are de-conflicted to maximize
training opportunities for all users. 7 SFG (A) requires 14 live-fire
training ranges that currently do not exist at Eglin AFB. The Army has
funded 11 of the 14 ranges through DOD's Military Construction program,
and worked with Eglin range managers to optimally site them. The Army
and the Air Force have also agreed on the locations for the remaining
three ranges that are competing for funds within DOD's priorities.
Eglin range managers have also established ground maneuver areas to
support 7 SFG (A) non-live-fire training activities. Activities in
these areas will have little to no impact on other Eglin range users.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Although I am encouraged by this good news, I continue to
be concerned about the lack of alignment between the branches' funding
timelines, which could increase the overall cost to the taxpayer and
threaten the viability of the project itself.
Can you assure us that you will work with the Maine Congressional
Delegation to ensure that these facilities are constructed making the
most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and fulfill the requirements of
both the Army National Guard and the Marine Corps?
Answer. My office will continue to monitor the efforts of the Maine
Army National Guard (MEARNG) and the Naval BRAC Office both of which
have achieved mutual goals to allow their projects to stay on track for
successful execution. Two Joint Forces site development projects
programmed under two separate appropriations, in two separate years are
planned for the Brunswick Naval Air Station (NAS). The MEARNG will
control a 51-acre parcel of land on the Brunswick NAS under a Federal
license upon transfer from the Navy. The Department of Navy maintains a
requirement to provide a project for the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves
(USMCR) at Brunswick as well. There are a number of constraints, which
render only 10 acres of the site as tenable for development. The site
is currently envisaged to accommodate both the MEARNG requirements as
well as the USMCR requirements. The Adjutant General--Maine (TAG-ME)
has reviewed the Navy's Site Proposal and concurs with placement; staff
is drafting a request to issue an execution directive for the
appropriate real estate instruments to move forward.
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Senator Johnson. I am pleased now to welcome our second
panel of witnesses--the Honorable B.J. Penn, Assistant
Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment); Major
General Eugene G. Payne, Jr., Assistant Deputy Commandant for
Installations and Logistics, Facilities Division; Rear Admiral
Mark A. Handley, Deputy Commander, Navy Installations Command
Director Ashore Readiness Group.
Thank you all for coming. We look forward to your
testimony, and again, your full statements will be entered into
the record.
Secretary Penn, please proceed.
Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchison, members of the
subcommittee, it is a privilege to come before you today to
discuss----
Senator Johnson. The microphone.
Mr. Penn. How is this?
Senator Johnson. Okay.
STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN
Mr. Penn. Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchison, members of
the subcommittee, it is a privilege to come before you today to
discuss the Department of the Navy's installation efforts. I am
joined this afternoon by Major General Payne, the Marine Corps
Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics,
and Rear Admiral Handley, Director of the Navy's Shore
Readiness Division.
I would like to touch on a few highlights in the
Department's overall facilities budget request, a healthy $14.4
billion, or 9.2 percent of the Department's TOA. In MILCON,
fiscal year 2010 continues the Marine Corps Grow the Force
initiative with a $1.9 billion investment, targeted primarily
at infrastructure and unit-specific construction required to
move marines from interim facilities and provide adequate
facilities for new units.
The fiscal year 2010 MILCON budget also provides funds for
the first five construction projects to support the relocation
of marines from Okinawa to Guam in the amount of $378 million.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request complies with the
Office of Management and Budget policy and the DOD Financial
Management Regulation that establishes criteria for the use of
incremental funding. The use of incremental funding in this
budget has been restricted to the continuation of projects that
have been incremented in prior years. Otherwise, all new
projects are fully funded or are complete and usable phases.
In family housing, our budget request of $515 million
reflects the continuation of investment funding for locations
where we still own and operate military family housing and
where additional privatization is planned. Prior requests
reflected an accelerated program to address additional housing
requirements associated with the Marine Corps Grow the Force
structure initiatives.
The Navy and Marine Corps have privatized virtually all
family housing located in the United States. Where we continue
to own housing at overseas and foreign locations, we are
investing in a steady-state recapitalization effort to replace
or renovate housing where needed. Our request also includes
funds necessary to operate, maintain, and lease housing to
support Navy and Marine Corps families located around the
world.
Regarding legacy BRAC, we continue our request for
appropriated funds in the amount of $168 million, as we
exhausted all land sale revenue. We have disposed of 93 percent
of the prior BRAC properties, so there is little left to sell,
and the real estate market is not as lucrative as it was
several years ago. We expect only limited revenue from the sale
of Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and other small parcels.
With respect to the BRAC 2005 program, our budget request
of $592 million represents a shifting emphasis from
construction to outfitting and other operations and maintenance
costs. One success story I would like to highlight comes from
New Orleans, which still struggles to recover from the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
We entered into a 75-year leasing agreement with the
Algiers Development District in September 2008. In exchange for
leasing 149 acres from Naval Support Activity New Orleans, the
headquarters, marine forces Reserves, will receive
approximately $150 million in new facilities.
Demolition began recently, and we have established
temporary quarters for the commissary so that military
personnel, retirees, and their families still have access to
this quality of life service during construction. We continue
to work with Algiers Development District to ensure this
partnership's successful outcome.
We have been able to hold down our own cost increases to a
modest 2 percent for the implementation period of 2006 through
2011.
We have made significant progress in the past year in
planning for the relocation of the marines from Okinawa to
Guam. The environmental impact statement (EIS) for Guam is
underway, with a targeted Record of Decision in time for
construction in fiscal year 2010.
The Government of Japan ratified the international
agreement on May 13, 2009 and appropriated $336 million in
fiscal year 2008 equivalent dollars to complement our own
fiscal year 2010 investment. We expect to see Japan's
contribution deposited in our Treasury by July.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, it has been an honor and privilege to serve this
great Nation and the men and women of our Navy and Marine Corps
team--the military and civilian leadership, personnel, and
their families. I thank each of you for your continued support
and the opportunity to testify before you today.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. B.J. Penn
Chairman Johnson, Senator Hutchison, and members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to provide an
overview of the Department of Navy's investment in its shore
infrastructure.
the navy's investment in facilities
Our Nation's Sea Services continue to operate in an increasingly
dispersed environment to support the Maritime Strategy and ensure the
freedom of the seas. This requires an ever strong foundation of
installations from which to re-supply, re-equip, train, and shelter our
forces. We must continue to make smart infrastructure investments to
prepare for the future and secure the peace abroad. Our fiscal year
2010 shore infrastructure baseline budget totals $14.3 billion,
representing 9.2 percent of the DON's fiscal year 2010 baseline request
of $156 billion.
The fiscal year 2010 military construction (active+reserve) request
of $3.8 billion is $674 million more than the fiscal year 2009 request.
This growth in Department's military construction program is primarily
due to the continuation of the Marine Corps' ``Grow the Force''
``initiative and the inclusion of the first capital investments to
support their realignment of forces from Okinawa to Guam.
The fiscal year 2010 Family Housing request of $515 million
represents a 32 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2009 request. It
is helpful to examine the table at left to put this decrease in
perspective. Prior year family housing construction requests reflected
an accelerated program to address additional housing requirements
associated with Marine Corps force structure initiatives. The Navy and
Marine Corps have continued to invest in housing, including both the
recapitalization of overseas housing as well as additional
privatization to address housing requirements. The fact that the
investment in family housing construction has decreased should be seen
as an indication that we have ridden the ``crest of the wave.''
Our BRAC program consists of environmental cleanup and caretaker
costs at prior BRAC locations, and implementation of BRAC 2005
recommendations.
As in fiscal year 2009, we must seek appropriated funds in fiscal
year 2010 in the amount of $168 million for Legacy BRAC activities as
we have exhausted land sales revenues. We anticipate some limited
future revenue as we move to dispose of the former Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico and some other smaller property sales.
We will use revenue from these future sales to accelerate cleanup at
the remaining prior BRAC locations.
The fiscal year 2010 BRAC 2005 budget request of $592 million
represents a significant shift from construction to Operation &
Maintenance funds as our focus turns to outfitting facilities with
equipment and materiel and supporting the physical relocation of
personnel, rather than constructing new or renovating existing
structures, as one might expect as the statutory deadline approaches.
Although we are on track to meet the September 15, 2011 deadline, we do
face some significant challenges ahead.
Here are some of the highlights of these programs.
military construction
The DON's fiscal year 2010 Military Construction program requests
appropriations of $3.8 billion, including $169 million for planning and
design and $12.5 million for Unspecified Minor Construction.
The active Navy program totals $1.1 billion and includes:
--$302 million to support three intermediate and depot level
maintenance projects: the second increment of the CVN
replacement pier at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,
Washington; modifications to the P-8/MMA facility at Naval Air
Station Jacksonville, Florida; and the largest of the three
projects at $227 million--Pier 5 Replacement at Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia;
--$84 million to fund 11 airfield projects. Included among these
projects are seven supporting the Joint Strike Fighter: 6 at
Eglin AFB, Florida and 1 at Edwards AFB, California;
--$42 million to fund four expeditionary operations projects at Camp
Lemonnier, Djibouti, which include an ammunition supply point,
security fencing; road improvements, and a fire station;
--$86 million to fund five training projects: a submarine learning
center in Guam; the Asia-Pacific Center in Honolulu, Hawaii; a
SERE school for SOCOM in Spokane, Washington; and E-2D Trainer
Facility at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia; and a flight
simulator at NAS Pensacola, Florida;
--$193 million to fund four ordnance related projects: the 6th of 7
increments of the Limited Area Production and Storage Complex
and the 2nd of two increments of the waterfront security
enclave fencing, both projects at Naval Submarine Base, Bangor,
Washington; constructs missile magazines at Naval Station Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii; and a torpedo exercise support building in
Guam;
--$95 million to construct three enlisted training barracks, one each
in Newport, Rhode Island; Eglin AFB and NAS Pensacola, Florida;
--$126 million to fund four waterfront operations projects, which
include dredging the entrance to the turning basin at Naval
Station, Mayport, Florida to enable nuclear carriers to transit
the channel without risk to the propulsion system, and Charlie
One Wharf replacement (unrelated CVN homeporting) also at
Mayport. The remaining two projects are the second phase of the
waterfront development project at Naval Support Activity,
Bahrain, and the final increment of the magnetic silencing
facility at Naval Station, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii;
--$22 million to build base support facilities: Naval Construction
Division Operations Facility and a centralized public works
facility at Naval Base, Point Loma, California; and
--$83 million for planning and design efforts.
The active Marine Corps program totals $2.7 billion (of which $1.9
billion is for ``Grow the Force''), a $705 million increase over the
fiscal year 2009 Military Construction request. This cost increase is
due to the initial construction investment in Guam and a continued
emphasis on Grow the Force.
--$323 million for the construction of unaccompanied housing at Camp
Pendleton, Twentynine Palms, California, and Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina in a continuation of the Commandant of the
Marine Corps' initiative to improve the quality of life for
single Marines;
--$200 million to provide quality of life facilities such as dining
facilities, physical fitness centers, and fire houses at
Twentynine Palms, San Diego, and Camp Pendleton, California,
the Basic School at Quantico, Virginia, and Camp Lejeune,
Cherry Point and New River in North Carolina;
--$109 million to construct new recruit barracks and student
billeting supporting the School of Infantry and the recruit
training at Camp Pendleton and for the Basic School in
Quantico, Virginia;
--$977 million to build infrastructure to support new construction.
These projects include communications upgrades, electrical
upgrades, natural gas systems, drinking and wastewater systems,
and roads. These projects will have a direct effect on the
quality of life of our Marines. Without these projects, basic
services generally taken for granted in our day-to-day lives,
will fail as our Marines work and live on our bases;
--$744 million to fund operational support projects such as those
needed for the stand-up of V-22 aircraft in North Carolina and
California; and operational units in Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina and Camp Pendleton, California. Logistics operations
will be enhanced with a new Port Operations facility at Marine
Corps Support Facility, Blount Island, Florida;
--$140 million to provide training improvements for aviation units
and Marine Corps Security Force training at Quantico, VA, and
Marines training at the School of Infantry at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina, and Camp Pendleton, California. A new range
will be provided in Hawaii.
--$122 million to construct maintenance facilities at Twentynine
Palms, California, Yuma, Arizona, Beaufort, South Carolina, and
New River and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
--$41 million for the construction of storage facilities at
Twentynine Palms and Camp Pendleton, California and Cherry
Point, North Carolina; and
--$84 million for planning and design efforts.
With these new facilities, Marines will be ready to deploy and
their quality of life will be enhanced. Without them, quality of work,
quality of life, and readiness for many Marines will have the potential
to be seriously degraded.
The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve Military Construction
appropriation request is $64 million, including $2 million for planning
and design efforts, to construct three reserve centers--one each at
Luke AFB, Arizona; Alameda, California; and Joliet, Illinois. These
funds will also be used to construct a C-40 Hangar at Naval Air Station
Oceana, Virginia Beach, Virginia; a parachute and survival equipment
center in San Antonio, Texas, and vehicle maintenance facility in
Charleston, South Carolina.
Fully-funded and Incrementally-funded MILCON Projects
Our fiscal year 2010 budget request complies with Office of
Management and Budget Policy and the DOD Financial Management
Regulation that establishes criteria for the use of incremental
funding. The use of incremental funding in this budget has been
restricted to the continuation of projects that have been incremented
in prior years. Otherwise, all new projects are fully funded or are
complete and usable phases. However, as the cost of complex piers and
utilities systems rise above the $100 million and even $200 million
threshold, compliance with the full-funding policy drives both Services
to make hard choices regarding which other equally critical projects
must be deferred into the next year.
Meeting the Energy Challenge
In August 2006, I directed that all new Department of Navy
facilities and major renovations be built to U.S. Green Building
Council ``LEED Silver'' standards starting in fiscal year 2010. For
military construction projects, we met the requirement a year earlier,
in fiscal year 2009. This year we began including sufficient funds for
major renovations where the work exceeds 50 per cent of the facility's
plant replacement value.
With funds provided through the American Recovery and Reinvest Act
(ARRA) we are able to leverage current technological advances to reduce
energy demand and increase our ability to use alternative and renewable
forms of energy for shore facilities as well as in our logistics
processes. This technology improves energy options for our Navy today
and in the future. Of the $1.2 billion in ARRA funds that have been
provided to Navy, $577 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy;
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, and Military Construction has
been applied to projects that will reduce our fossil fuel energy
consumption. Major investments include $169 million to install
photovoltaic systems, $71 million for advance metering installation,
$30M for the energy conservation improvement program (ECIP), $9 million
for geothermal energy development, and $31 million for energy
improvements in various facilities, (such as critical repairs to major
utilities systems, HVAC replacement, etc.).
Encroachment Partnering
The Department of the Navy has an aggressive program to manage and
control encroachment, with a particular focus on preventing
incompatible land use and protecting important natural habitats around
installations and ranges. A key element of the program is Encroachment
Partnering (EP), which involves cost-sharing partnerships with States,
local governments, and conservation organizations to acquire interests
in real property adjacent and proximate to our installations and
ranges. The Department prevents development that is incompatible with
the readiness mission, and our host communities preserve critical
natural habitat and recreational space for the enjoyment of residents.
Navy and Marine Corps have ongoing EP agreements at 14 installations
and ranges nationwide, with additional agreements and projects planned
in fiscal year 2009. EP has been a highly effective tool for addressing
encroachment threats from urban development and is a win-win for the
Department and our host communities.
In fiscal year 2008, Navy and Marine Corps completed partnership
acquisitions on 16,662 acres. Funding for those purchases of land and
easements included a combined contribution from DOD and DON of $11.72
million, which was matched by similar investments from partner
organizations. In fiscal year 2009, Navy and Marine Corps received an
additional $19.78 million from the DOD Readiness and Environmental
Protection Initiative program, which will be combined with funding from
the Department and our partner organization.
housing
The following tenets continue to guide the Department's approach to
housing for Sailors, Marines, and their families:
--All service members, married or single, are entitled to quality
housing; and
--The housing that we provide to our personnel must be fully
sustained over its life.
With the support of Congress, and particularly this Committee, we
have made great strides in improving the quality of life for our
members and their families over the past years. These include:
--Funds programmed and contracts in place to eliminate inadequate
family housing in the Navy and Marine Corps.
--A robust military construction program to meet the Marine Corps'
unaccompanied housing needs.
--Successful execution of the first two unaccompanied housing
privatization projects within the Department of Defense.
Despite these achievements, there remain challenges that we face as
a Department. A detailed discussion of the Department's family and
unaccompanied housing programs, and identification of those challenges,
follows:
family housing
As in past years, our family housing strategy consists of a
prioritized triad:
--Reliance on the Private Sector.--In accordance with longstanding
DOD and DON policy, we rely first on the local community to
provide housing for our Sailors, Marines, and their families.
Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine Corps families
receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and own or rent
homes in the community. We determine the ability of the private
sector to meet our needs through the conduct of housing market
analyses that evaluate supply and demand conditions in the
areas surrounding our military installations.
--Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).--With the strong support from this
Committee and others, we have successfully used PPV authorities
enacted in 1996 to partner with the private sector to help meet
our housing needs through the use of private sector capital.
These authorities allow us to leverage our own resources and
provide better housing faster to our families. Maintaining the
purchasing power of BAH is critical to the success of both
privatized and private sector housing.
--Military Construction.--That Military construction (MILCON) will
continue to be used where PPV authorities don't apply (such as
overseas), or where a business case analysis shows that a PPV
project is not feasible.
Our fiscal year 2010 budget includes $146 million in funding for
family housing construction and improvements. This amount includes $79
million for the Government investment in continued family housing
privatization at Camp Lejeune and includes funding for an addition to a
Department of Defense school. It also includes the replacement or
revitalization of Navy housing in Japan, Korea, and Spain where the
military housing privatization authorities do not apply. Further, there
are proposed projects in Guam, unrelated to the Realignment of Marine
Forces that would replace or revitalize existing homes there. Finally,
the budget request includes $369 million for the operation,
maintenance, and leasing of remaining Government-owned or controlled
inventory.
As of the end of fiscal year 2008, we have awarded 30 privatization
projects involving over 61,000 homes. As a result of these projects,
nearly 20,000 homes will be renovated and over 21,000 new or
replacement homes will be built. (The remaining homes were privatized
in good condition and did not require any work.) Through the use of
these authorities we have secured approximately $8 billion in private
sector investment from approximately $800 million of our funds, which
represents a ratio of almost ten private sector dollars for each
taxpayer dollar.
While the military housing privatization initiative has been
overwhelmingly successful, there are challenges in this program area as
well. They include:
--The Current Economic Climate.--In the current economic climate, we
have seen a dramatic curtailment in the amount of private
financing available for our future military housing
privatization projects/phases. This, in turn, affects plans for
future construction and renovations. We are working with the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the other Services, and the
lending community on ways in which we might mitigate such
impacts and preserve our ability to leverage private capital on
future projects/phases.
--Program Oversight.--There has been a great deal of attention
focused by Congress on the Service's oversight of housing
privatization projects in the wake of difficulties experienced
by some partners. We take seriously our responsibility to
monitor the privatization agreements to ensure that the
Government's long term interests are adequately protected. We
have instituted a portfolio management approach that collects
and analyzes financial, occupancy, construction, and resident
satisfaction data to ensure that the projects remain sound and
that the partners are performing as expected. We conduct
meetings with senior representatives of our partners and, where
necessary, resolve issues of mutual interest. Where our
projects have encountered difficulties, appropriate corrective
actions have been taken. For example, we had concerns regarding
performance of the private partner in our Pacific Northwest
project. We worked with that partner to sell its interest to
another company which has a record of good performance with
military housing privatization projects.
Perhaps the most important measure of success of our privatization
program has been the level of satisfaction on the part of the housing
residents. To gauge their satisfaction, we used customer survey tools
that are well established in the marketplace. As shown at right, the
customer surveys indicate a steady improvement in member satisfaction
after housing is privatized.
Unaccompanied Housing
Our budget request includes $527 million for 14 unaccompanied
housing projects (included 6 training barracks) at seven Navy and
Marine Corps locations. The budget continues the emphasis on improving
living conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines.
Our current inventory consists of over 157,000 unaccompanied
housing spaces for permanent party Sailors and Marines. These represent
a wide mix of unit configurations including rooms occupied by one, two,
or more members. There are challenges, however, which the Department is
committed to address.
--Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.--The Homeport
Ashore initiative seeks to provide a barracks room ashore
whenever a single sea duty sailor is in his or her homeport, so
they need not live on the ship. The Navy has made considerable
progress towards achieving this goal through military
construction; privatization and intensified use of existing
barracks capacity. In his May 6, 2009 testimony before the
House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military
Construction, the Chief of Naval Operations committed to
providing housing ashore for all junior sea duty Sailors by
2016 at the Interim Assignment Policy standard (55 square feet
of space per person). The inclusion of $88 million in funding,
in the ARRA, for a new barracks in San Diego is helping us meet
this goal. The Navy's long term goal is to achieve the OSD
private sleeping room standard (90 square feet per person).
Commandant's BEQ Initiative.--It is the Commandant of the Marine
Corps' priority to ensure single Marines are adequately housed. Thanks
to your previous support, in fiscal year 2009 the Marine Corps will
make significant progress toward fulfilling this priority. Your 2009
appropriation of $1.2 billion in MILCON funding for Marine Corps
barracks will result in the construction of approximately 12,300
permanent party spaces at eight Marine Corps installations. Your
continued support of this initiative in our fiscal year 2010 proposal
will allow us to construct an additional 3,000 new permanent party
barracks spaces. With this funding we will stay on track to meet our
2014 goal. The fiscal year 2010 request for bachelor housing will
provide eight barracks projects at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and
Twenty-Nine Palms, and Camp Pendleton, California. We are also
committed to funding the replacement of barracks' furnishings on a 7-
year cycle as well as the repair and maintenance of existing barracks
to improve the quality of life of our Marines. These barracks will be
built to the 2+0 room configuration, as have all Marine Corps barracks
since 1998. This is consistent with the core Marine Corps tenets for
unit cohesion and teambuilding.
Unaccompanied Housing Privatization
The Navy has also executed two unaccompanied housing privatization
projects using the pilot authority contained in section 2881a of Title
10, United States Code. In March we cut the ribbon on the Pacific
Beacon project in San Diego. Pacific Beacon includes 258 conveyed units
targeted for unaccompanied E1-E4 sea duty Sailors and 941 newly
constructed dual master suite units targeted for E4-E6 Sailors.
The second unaccompanied housing privatization project is in
Hampton Roads (executed in December 2007) and included the conveyance
of 723 units in seven buildings on Naval Station and Naval support
Activity Norfolk and the construction of 1,190 dual master suite units.
The first of three construction sites opened in November 2008 and the
remaining units are scheduled for completion in 2010.
The Navy is continuing to evaluate candidate locations for the
third pilot project, including the Mayport/Jacksonville, Florida area
and additional phases at San Diego and Hampton Roads using the public/
private entities previously established.
relocating the marines to guam
The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $378 million to
construct facilities in support of the relocation. The Government of
Japan, in its JFY-2009 budget (which runs April 1, 2009 through March
31, 2010) has provided a comparable amount and we expect to receive
their contribution in June. The graph at right identifies the projects
each funding stream constructs.
The Department of Defense recognizes that the condition of Guam's
existing infrastructure could affect our ability to execute the
aggressive program execution and construction schedule. Construction
capacity studies, assessments of socioeconomic impacts, and the
development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have
demonstrated that, in particular, Guam's road network, commercial port,
and utilities systems are in need of upgrades.
Roadway, intersection, and bridge upgrades are required to handle
the flow of materials from the port to work sites. Through the Defense
Access Road (DAR) program, DOD is working to identify, certify as
eligible for funding, and consider in future DOD budgets the need for
improvements to roadways, intersections, and bridges that are critical
to executing the construction program. Five road improvement projects
have been certified by Transportation Command's Surface Deployment and
Distribution Command under the DAR program and more are under
consideration. Existing deficiencies in the island's road system and
long-term traffic impacts due to the projected population increase are
being considered in partnership between Guam Department of Public Works
and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. These efforts are
occurring in parallel in order to ensure compatibility and mutual
benefit to DOD and the Guam community.
The Port of Guam requires near and long-term improvements. The Port
Authority of Guam and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) signed a
memorandum of understanding to improve the port by developing an
adequate master plan and implementation of a Capital Improvement Plan.
These plans will develop the port into a regional shipping hub that
will serve both military and civilian needs in the region in the long
term. Near-term improvements to the port are underway, including the
recent delivery of three refurbished cranes that will become fully
operational soon. With these upgrades and improvements to materials-
handling processes, the Port of Guam should be able to accommodate
throughput to sustain the expected $1.5-2.0 billion per year in
construction volume.
Of the total $6.09 billion Japanese commitment included in the
Realignment Roadmap, $740 million is for developing electric, fresh
water, sewer, and solid waste infrastructure in support of the
relocating Marine Corps forces. Analysis of utilities options indicates
that developing new, stand-alone systems may not be cost-effective. DOD
is collaborating with the Government of Guam to understand its needs
and to determine the feasibility of water, wastewater, solid waste and
power solutions that are mutually beneficial and acceptable to DOD, the
civilian community and the regulatory agencies. Japan's contribution to
the utilities special purpose entity is but one example of how bringing
private investment through public-private partnerships may be part of
the solution to Guam's infrastructure problems.
Relocation to Guam represents a strategic opportunity for the
United States that we must get right. Our strategy is to identify
options that will support DOD missions, provide the widest possible
benefit to the people of Guam, be technically and financially
supportable by current and future utilities providers, and be
acceptable to Government of Guam and environmental regulators. A
business model is being developed to support these requirements while
ensuring the interests of the U.S. Government and the GOJ are met. The
EIS is addressing both interim and long-term solutions as they relate
to infrastructure on Guam.
DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) has provided the
Government of Guam with grants totaling more than $4.5 million to
support environmental, financial and planning studies; staffing; and
community outreach programs. Additionally, the Department of Defense is
working with other Federal agencies to determine what appropriate roles
DOD and other Federal agencies can play in helping Guam to address
necessary infrastructure and services improvements on Guam, as noted by
recent Government Accounting Office reviews. Additionally, the
Department will ensure that Guam's local economic adjustment
requirements, as they are known at the time, are provided to the
Economic Adjustment Committee, chaired by the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretaries of Commerce and Labor as co-Vice Chairs.
We recognize the potential for significant socioeconomic effects on
Guam with the introduction of off-island workers who will support the
construction program. In order to minimize negative effects, we are
collaborating with the Government of Guam to develop a program for the
equitable and safe treatment of all workers, including Guam residents,
workers from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI),
Hawaii and the U.S. mainland, and any necessary H2-B laborers. We are
evaluating methods to have contractors manage safety, medical, housing,
transportation, and security for their workers, taking into account
potential long-term positive side benefits that different solutions may
have on the Guam community.
Environmental Impact Statement
As it is designed to do, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process and associated studies are helping us identify and
address environmental issues and constraints. A key milestone to
executing the realignment in the established timeframe is achieving a
Record of Decision on a schedule that allows for construction to begin
in fiscal year 2010. The target for a Record of Decision is January
2010. We realize there are significant and complicated issues that need
to be addressed in this study, and the interests of the public need to
be protected. This is a complex EIS, as it considers not only the
relocation of the 8,000 Marines and their dependents, but also a Navy
proposal for a transient nuclear-powered carrier capability at Apra
Harbor, and an Army proposal to station a ballistic missile defense
capability on Guam. However, we remain on an aggressive schedule to
finish the final EIS by the end of 2009, with a Record of Decision
following. To that end, we are holding informal discussions with
regulatory agencies early and often to uncover and address issues of
concern well in advance of the formal review process; we are
streamlining existing internal and external review and approval
processes with regulatory agencies and other external partners; and we
are conducting concurrent internal DOD reviews to expedite approval of
the EIS for distribution and publication. We will share with the
Congress significant issues that emerge during the EIS process.
prior brac cleanup & property disposal
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in
reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The
Department has achieved a steady State savings of approximately $2.7
billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All that remains is to
complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions of
16 of the original 91 bases and to complete environmental cleanup on 15
installations that have been disposed.
Property Disposal
By the end of fiscal year 2008, we have disposed of 93 percent of
the real property slated for closure in the first four rounds of BRAC.
Throughout that time, we have used a variety of the conveyance
mechanisms available for Federal Property disposal, including the
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) that was created for BRAC
properties. Ninety-one percent of the Department of the Navy real
property was conveyed at no cost. From the remaining 9 percent, the
Department of Navy has received over $1.1 billion in revenues via a
variety of conveyance mechanisms. Nearly all of this revenue has been
generated since fiscal year 2003. Since then, we have used these funds
to accelerate environmental cleanup, and to finance the entire
Department of the Navy prior BRAC effort including caretaker costs from
fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2008.
These funds have enabled us to continue our environmental clean-up
efforts at 31 installations. We have used these funds to accelerate
cleanup at Naval Shipyard Hunters Point, CA, as well as Naval Air
Station Alameda, CA, enabling us to be closer to issuing Findings of
Suitability to Transfer or conveyance of the property for integration
of environmental cleanup with redevelopment.
Land Sale Revenue
Despite our success in using property sales to augment funding for
environmental cleanup and property disposal, as well as recover value
for taxpayers from the disposal of Federal property, future revenues
are very limited. In fiscal year 2009, we resumed our budget requests
for appropriated funding.
Prior BRAC Environmental Cleanup
The Department has spent about $4.0 billion on environmental
cleanup, environmental compliance, and program management costs at
prior BRAC locations through fiscal year 2008. We project an increase
in the cost-to-complete of about $172 million since last year. Nearly
all of this cost increase is due to additional munitions cleanup at
Naval Air Facility Adak, AK, Naval Shipyard Mare Island, CA, and Marine
Corps Air Station El Toro, CA. The increase is also associated with
additional radioactive contaminations at Naval Station Treasure Island,
CA, Naval Air Station Alameda, CA, and Naval Shipyard Mare Island, CA.
brac 2005 implementation
The Department has moved expeditiously from planning to the
execution of the BRAC 2005 Program. The Office of the Secretary of
Defense has approved all 59 Navy-led business plans. Additionally, 24
other service-led business plans with some form of Navy equity have
been approved. The Department's BRAC 2005 Program is on track for full
compliance with statutory requirements by the September 15, 2011
deadline. However, some significant challenges lie ahead.
Accomplishments
In total, the Department awarded 85 of 118 BRAC construction
projects with a combined value of $1.4 billion.\1\ Eighteen fiscal year
2009 projects worth $256 million are on track to award this year. Some
noteworthy projects include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Three fiscal year 2008 projects valued at $14 million remain to
be awarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In July 2008, the Department awarded a $325 million project to co-
locate Military Department Investigative Agencies at Marine
Corps Base, Quantico, VA. When complete it will combine almost
3,000 personnel from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
Services' Investigative Agencies. It also includes the
construction of a collocated ``School House'' for the Joint
Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA) as well as nearby
roadway improvements. Combined together, these actions will
significantly enhance counterintelligence synchronization and
collaboration across DOD.
--In less than 12 months since business plan approval, nine projects
for a combined $222 million were awarded at Naval Air Weapons
Station, China Lake, CA, Naval Weapons Station, Indian Head,
MD, and Dahlgren, VA, in support of the Department's effort to
consolidate and create a Naval Integrated Weapons & Armaments
Research, Development, Acquisition, Test, and Evaluation
Center. Two projects worth $39 million are projected to award
next month.
Helping Communities
Fifteen impacted communities have established a Local Redevelopment
Authority (LRA) to guide local planning and redevelopment efforts. The
DOD Office of Economic Adjustment has been providing financial support
through grants and technical assistance to support LRA efforts. Of
these 15 communities, six reuse plans have been approved by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Three communities
are still preparing their plans with submissions planned for later this
year. At the installations where the reuse plans have been completed,
the Department has initiated the National Environmental Policy Act
documentation for disposal of those properties.
Land Conveyances and Lease Terminations
By the end of fiscal year 2008, the Department disposed of 43
percent of the property that was slated for closure in BRAC 2005. These
disposal actions were completed via lease termination, reversions, and
Federal and DOD agency transfers. Of interest is the reversion of
Singing Island at Naval Station Pascagoula and the Dredge Spoil
Material Area at Naval Station Ingleside, transfer of the tidal area of
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord to the Department
of the Army, and disposal of 78 percent of the reserve centers slated
for closure.
The Department has also closed or realigned 38 of 49 Naval Reserve
Centers, Navy Marine Corps Reserve Centers, Navy Recruiting Districts,
Navy Regions, and Navy Reserve Readiness Commands. Seven of these were
disposed in 2008. The 2009 Plan includes transfer of 144 acres at Naval
Air Station Atlanta, Reserve Centers at Orange, TX, and Mobile, AL, and
75 acres from Naval Station Pascagoula to the Air Force.
NSA New Orleans, LA
In September 2008, the Department and the Algiers Development
District (ADD) Board entered into a 75-year leasing agreement. We
leased 149 acres of Naval Support Activity New Orleans West Bank to the
ADD in exchange for up to $150 million in new facilities to support
Headquarters, Marine Forces Reserve.
Simultaneously, the Department finished construction, relocated
from New Orleans, and formally opened the new Commander, Navy Reserve
Force Command Headquarters in Norfolk, VA. In their new $33 million,
90,000-square foot facility, the 450-man command is in very close
proximity to the Department's U.S. Fleet Forces Command as well as the
Joint Forces Command. This proximity means better communication between
active and reserve forces, including more face-to-face meetings with
local commands.
Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME
The Department's largest BRAC 2005 operational action will close
Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine, and consolidate the East Coast
maritime patrol operations in Jacksonville, Florida. The cornerstone of
this relocation is a $132 million aircraft hangar scheduled for
completion and occupation in May 2009. This project represents the
Department's largest patrol squadron hangar, and it will serve to
maintain all five P-3 squadrons. It is also designed for the future
transition to the P-8 Poseidon aircraft. The first relocating P-3
Squadron deployed from Naval Air Station Brunswick occurred in November
2008 and will return directly to their new home in Jacksonville.
Naval Station Ingleside/NAS Corpus Christi, TX
Significant progress was also made to prepare facilities to
relocate eight Mine Counter Measure (MCM) ships from Naval Station
Ingleside, TX to Naval Base San Diego, CA. The Department re-evaluated
its infrastructure footprint in the greater San Diego area and elected
to change from new construction to renovation of existing facilities,
thereby saving more than $25 million in construction costs. These ships
will start shifting homeport this spring, with completion later in the
calendar year.
Joint Basing
Two of four Joint Base Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) where the
Department is the lead component have been approved. The MOA for each
joint base defines the relationships between the components, and
commits the lead component to deliver installation support functions at
approved common standards. Resources--including personnel, budget, and
real estate--transfer from the Supported component(s) to the lead.
Joint Basing has two implementation phases, with Phase I installations
scheduled to reach full operational capability in October 2009, and
Phase II installations in October 2010. The four Department-led joint
bases are Little Creek-Fort Story (Phase I), Joint Region Marianas
(Phase I), Anacostia-Bolling (Phase II), and Pearl Harbor-Hickam (Phase
II).
Environmental Cost to Complete
Given the relatively few number of closures, the absence of major
industrial facilities, and the extensive site characterization,
analysis, and cleanup that has occurred over the last several decades,
the Department's remaining environmental liabilities for BRAC 2005 are
substantially less than in previous rounds of BRAC. We have spent $148
million in cleanup at BRAC 2005 locations through fiscal year 2008. The
majority of this has been spent at Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME and
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment Concord, CA. Our remaining
environmental cost to complete for fiscal year 2009 and beyond is $99
million. This estimate is $8 million higher than last year's estimate
due to additional munitions, groundwater, and landfill cleanup and
monitoring at Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME, Naval Weapons Station
Seal Beach Detachment Concord, CA, and Naval Air Station Joint Reserve
Base Willow Grove, PA.
Financial Execution
The execution of our fiscal year 2006-2008 funds is now at nearly
90 percent. This is a significant improvement over the same period last
year and further demonstrates our shift from planning to execution and
accelerated implementation. We are also on track to obligate over 90
percent of our fiscal year 2009 funds by the end of the fiscal year. We
appreciate the efforts of Congress to provide these funds early in the
fiscal year, which directly contributed to our success.
Challenges
Although we are on track to meet the September 15, 2011 deadline,
we do face some significant challenges ahead. Seven major construction
projects at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA and Naval Weapons
Station Indian Head, MD require complex site approvals and
certifications for operation from the Department of Defense Explosive
Safety Board. Additionally, Correctional Facilities require
certification before occupancy. The Department plans to closely manage
construction so that it completes in time to conduct the necessary
certifications.
Several complex move actions require close coordination with other
services and agencies. While they remain on track for timely
completion, we must maintain effective and continuous coordination to
succeed.
meeting the construction execution challenge
We have outlined how our facilities investment continues at a
record setting pace, and the Department's execution agent, the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), is ready to meet the demand.
While market conditions exacerbated by world-wide natural disasters
led to lagging execution rate during fiscal year 2006, NAVFAC has
drastically reduced carryover despite a 60 percent increase in contract
awards, as the graph depicts. Smart acquisition strategies and vigorous
management in the field continue to reduce the carryover.
Special consideration is being given to executing the construction
program in Guam. To the maximum extent possible NAVFAC will apply
criteria and standards that enable offsite construction methodologies.
This will not only reduce the importation of raw construction materials
to the island but it also helps to minimize the socio-economic impact
by reducing the off-island labor required. NAVFAC continues to make
concerted efforts to reach out to Small Business enterprises, and will
also utilize a variety of contracting vehicles, such as the, 8(A)
Multiple Award, HUBZONE Multiple award, and the new Small Business
Global Multiple Award that is pre-award status.
conclusion
Our Nation's maritime forces operate closely with other joint
forces allies, and coalition partners, delivering the main tenets of
our Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower: protecting the
homeland, preventing conflicts, and when necessary, winning our
Nation's conflicts. To fulfill this challenge we must ensure our
Sailors and Marines have the training, education, and tools necessary
to prevail in conflict and promote peace abroad. The Department of
Navy's (DON) investment in our shore infrastructure represents our
deepening commitment to this goal. Our installations are where we
homeport the Fleet and her Marine forces, train and equip the world's
finest Sailors and Marines. Our fiscal year 2010 budget supports a
forward posture and readiness for agile, global response.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to testify
before you today.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Penn.
Major General Payne.
General Payne. Sir, I have no statement this afternoon.
Senator Johnson. Rear Admiral Handley.
Admiral Handley. Sir, it is a privilege to be here again in
front of this committee, yourself, Senator Hutchison. And
again, no formal statement, but will defer to your questions.
GUAM
Senator Johnson. General Payne, the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, General Conway, recently testified on DOD's plan
to move 8,000 marines and 9,000 dependents from Japan to Guam.
He suggested that the $4 billion cost estimate for the move is
way short of what the move will really cost.
Could you comment on the projected cost of the Guam buildup
and what the military is doing to ensure the adequacy of
essential services on the island?
And I believe there is some concern over the availability
of training ranges on Guam. If the marines could not acquire an
adequate training range co-located with its forces, will the
move to Guam still make any sense?
General Payne. Yes, sir. I would be glad to comment on
that.
I think the Commandant's comments pertained to several
things in particular. When the initial budget for Guam, the $10
billion budget, was developed, it did not include
considerations for infrastructure improvements on the island of
Guam because at that time, quite frankly, I don't think we knew
the extent of what improvements might be required.
Since then, it has become apparent that the island of Guam
does need some assistance on those infrastructure improvements.
So that would be additive to the $10 billion.
And in regards to the other comment you made, which is
absolutely correct, sir, and that is with respect to the
ranges. Our analysis to date indicates that we can put some
small arms ranges on Guam, but there are larger weapon systems
and combined arms training, in particular, that will have to be
at other ranges. And it is our intent at this point to analyze
the viability of putting those ranges in the Northern Mariana
Islands, principally the islands of Tinian and Pagan.
And the reason that it is difficult to pinpoint the
specific additive cost today is that the analysis is still
underway on Guam relative to the infrastructure, and we have
not had an opportunity to analyze, from an EIS standpoint, and
understand what mitigation may be required concerning the range
possibilities in the Northern Mariana Islands.
Senator Johnson. General, so many strategic issues are
going to be dependent on the outcome of the upcoming QDR,
including the Guam buildup. What impact might the QDR have on
the plan to build up our forces in Guam?
General Payne. Sir, that is an excellent question, and I am
not one to second-guess the QDR. But I could speculate to the
extent that I think it is going to give us guidance relative to
potential force capabilities required on Guam in order to
support the Combatant Commander.
I don't think it is going to be terribly detailed. I think
it is going to address, however, the Combatant Commander's
requirements and will give the Marine Corps some guidance in
that regard. We do not, in any way, anticipate that it is going
to negate the current plan to move to Guam and move marines and
marine families to Guam.
NNMC AND WRAMC
Senator Johnson. Admiral Handley, the BRAC plan for the
relocation of Walter Reed to the Bethesda Naval Medical Center
campus includes two traffic mitigation projects to be funded in
fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Could you outline the cost and
nature of these projects?
Admiral Handley. Mr. Chairman, I will have to get back to
you on the specific ones within the BRAC program. That doesn't
necessarily fall under my direct purview. But I do recognize
that there were mitigation projects involved with the Bethesda
project, and we will get those specific details to you, sir.
[The information follows:]
The Army is the BRAC Business Plan lead and funding agent
for the issue outlined in this question. JTF CAPMED is the lead
in administering the budget and realignment functions. The Navy
is the construction agent for the Bethesda receiver site and
from this perspective provides the following answer.
Traffic mitigation measures at the National Naval Medical
Center will be on both the Medical Center Campus and outside
the Campus gates. Improvements on Campus, including access
roads, gate houses, and anti-terrorism/force protection
measures as well as construction of a truck inspection station
and small visitor's center, will result in enhanced access to
the Campus and superior security measures. Funding for the
Campus improvements is currently budgeted at $26 million ($18.4
million in fiscal year 2010 and $7.6 million in fiscal year
2011). Outside the Campus gates, the Navy has worked closely
with Montgomery County and the Maryland State Highway
Administration to design improvements which facilitate greater
access to the Campus from public transportation and major
thoroughfares. DOD has committed $1 million of the budgeted $26
million to improve a turn lane at the Campus North Gate to
provide safer access to the Campus for cross traffic on
Rockville Pike/Hwy 355. Consistent with the results of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the DOD has submitted a
needs report to the Defense Access Road (DAR) Program
requesting certification of improvements to the Medical Center
Metro Station as eligible for DOD funding. If the proposal is
certified, an additional $20 million of DOD BRAC funds would be
available in fiscal year 2011 to enhance access to the station
from the east side of Rockville Pike/Hwy 355.
Senator Johnson. How far along in planning is the proposal
to connect the Metro to the hospital? If the elevator and
tunnel turn out to be too difficult or expensive, is there a
plan B?
[The information follows:]
The Washington Area Metro Authority (WMATA) is currently exploring
a number of options to enhance access to the Medical Center Metro
Station. These options include:
--No build with improvements at grade
--Elevator entrance on the east side of Rockville Pike, including
improvements at grade and three high-speed elevators on the
east side of Rockville Pike
--Shallow pedestrian tunnel underneath Rockville Pike approximately
30 feet in length
--Shallow pedestrian tunnel plus an elevator entrance on the east
side of Rockville Pike (a combination of Options 2 and 3,
without the upgraded crosswalk)
--Pedestrian Bridge crossing over Rockville Pike
WMATA is currently evaluating the business case for each of these
options and vetting them with the general public. We rely on WMATA to
define the way ahead while remaining convinced improvements need to be
made if we expect more Medical Center staff to take advantage of the
Metro option for commuting.
Admiral Handley. Sir, again, my apologies for not having
that one on hand today. But again, that is, as you have
outlined, the current plan. I am not personally familiar with a
backup plan for that but will look specifically into that and
get specific details back to you and your staff.
Senator Johnson. With the additional funding for Walter
Reed and Fort Belvoir in the supplemental, what is the target
date for completion?
[The information follows:]
The Supplemental funding directed for the National Naval Medical
Center (NNMC) Bethesda will support completion of the Defense Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission related construction in time
to meet the BRAC mandated deadline of September 2011. At present, the
major additions to NNMC Bethesda are scheduled to be complete by
October 2010 thus providing adequate time to outfit and occupy these
buildings prior to the BRAC deadline. Specifically, the supplemental
funding for NNMC Bethesda will support the construction of the new
wounded warrior enlisted quarters, a new fitness center, an additional
administrative facility, and a new parking garage. These facilities,
which are scheduled for completion in July and August of 2011, are
needed to support the patient and staff increases that are anticipated
as we move toward creation of the Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center.
The construction at Fort Belvoir is the responsibility of the U.S.
Army.
Admiral Handley. Again, my apologies on that. I know there
is a 2011 deadline, and that, I believe, as Secretary Arny
previously testified, that we are on track for the BRAC
requirements for 2011 as well.
GUAM
Senator Johnson. General Payne, the budget request includes
over $700 million for military construction in Guam. How can
Congress determine the validity of those projects without a
FYDP to see how they fit into the long-range plan for Guam?
General Payne. Well, we certainly are understanding of the
desire for a longer-range plan. But in answer to the fiscal
year 2010 projects in particular, these are all projects that
essentially address infrastructure needs. They are projects
that include the haul road, upgrade to the wharfs, and other
infrastructure projects that, quite frankly, we think would set
the stage for any growth on Guam whatsoever.
Senator Johnson. Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, I think--I don't really
have questions.
The Guam issue, I think you have covered well, and I just
believe that, in general, the Navy has done well in focusing on
quality of life issues. And the Marine Corps I think is doing
well in preparing for its end strength increase. And so, we
want to continue to monitor that and also help in every way
possible.
I think the Guam issue is one that we really need to work
together to plan for and assure that we are doing everything to
make that transition as seamless as it can be, but I think you
realize that. So we will work with you and try to accommodate
that need.
Thank you very much.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. I would like to thank all of our witnesses
for appearing before the subcommittee today. We look forward to
working with you in what is likely to be a very compressed
schedule.
For the information of members, questions for the record
should be submitted by the close of business on May 22.
[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 Daniel K. Inouye
Question. The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard's motto is, ``We Keep
Them Fit to Fight.'' It has a proud and storied legacy which includes
the tireless work by the Shipyard's workers in the days and years
following December 7, 1941. Hawaii will be in receipt of the new
Virginia-class submarines. The decision by the Navy to position its
latest class of submarines is attributable to the importance of
stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Though our focus is trained on
the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region is home to serious concerns
such as the potential of North Korean long-range ballistic missiles. To
this end, the Virginia-class submarines will silently keep watch on
this vast area of ocean.
Would it be fair to characterize our force's broad-spectrum
capabilities as being dependant on the ability of those charged with
the maintenance and upkeep? Furthermore, would it be fair to
characterize the infrastructure to ensure the long-term viability of
these state-of-the-art-submarines as a complementary component to the
maintenance and readiness of our forces, keeping them, ``Fit to
Fight,'' and support our national security
Answer. The force's broad-spectrum capabilities, including those of
our state-of-the-art-submarines, are strongly linked to our ability to
maintain those ships. The ship depot maintenance program provides the
maintenance necessary to sustain the Navy's global presence and to
support the Navy's force structure goals by ensuring that ships receive
the required life cycle maintenance to reach their Expected Service
Life (ESL). Ship depot maintenance provides funding for ship and
submarine scheduled and unscheduled maintenance conducted by both
public shipyards and private sector contractors. This program directly
supports the Surface Warfare Enterprise, Naval Aviation Enterprise and
the Undersea Enterprise by providing units ready for operational
tasking. We value the long tradition of excellence and dedication
embodied by the Naval Shipyard workforce.
Question. I appreciate the difficult budgetary decisions that must
be made with regard to military construction. The basic infrastructure
that supports our war fighters and their equipment, while bereft of
eye-catching appeal, provides a strong foundation for our military.
Each Shipyard faces its own set of challenges, and Pearl is no
different. The Shipyard's modernization plan seeks to address the
challenges the industrious employees have managed to work-around.
Regrettably, this is a less than ideal situation, and I am concerned
that Pearl's infrastructure needs are being continually pushed down the
road. Neglecting the smaller projects places strain on existing
infrastructure and the workforce, that may lead to larger more serious
problems, and potentially places people at risk of injury.
The current business model seems to be short-sighted, only
addressing the most immediate infrastructure problems at the Shipyard.
This is not the most cost-effective way in which to ensure its
longevity and viability. Could you please clarify how projects are
given priority? Is the current approach more, or less, cost-effective
for the Navy given the finite amount of annual resources provided for
Shipyard construction?
Answer. In PB10 the Navy changed its MILCON process from a bottom-
up, advocacy-based process to a top-down capabilities-based process
designed to holistically integrate warfare/provider enterprise
requirements. The Navy's strategic MILCON guidance is based on the
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Shore Investment Strategic Guidance.
This guidance focuses on Mission and Quality of Life/Workplace, with a
goal to achieve the lowest life cycle facility costs.
Specific projects are developed at the installation level and
validated regionally in accordance with the top-down guidance. The Navy
assesses each prospective MILCON project through a structural model
aligned to Navy priorities. This objective structural model assessment
leads to a prioritized ranking of all MILCON requirements and forms the
basis of the Navy MILCON program.
Shipyard projects are evaluated and prioritized in the same manner
as, and with, all Navy MILCON requirements. Each fiscal year shipyard
projects meet or exceed the minimum capital investment requirements of
U.S.C. Title 10 Section 2476 (Minimum capital investment for certain
depots). The fiscal year 2010 Budget Submission included two MILCON
projects valued at $296 million in support of Norfolk Naval Shipyard
and Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility,
comprising 27 percent of the total Navy MILCON program.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., Tuesday, May 19, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Murray, Reed, Nelson, Pryor,
Hutchison, and Murkowski.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
GERALD M. CROSS, MD, FAAFP, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH
PATRICK W. DUNNE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS
STEVE L. MURO, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
RITA A. REED, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT
ROGER W. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND
TECHNOLOGY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. The meeting will come to order. I welcome
Secretary Shinseki and those accompanying him to the
subcommittee. The leadership has announced that there will be a
conference meeting regarding the supplemental at 3 o'clock, so
we had to start this hearing early. I want to thank the
secretary for accommodating this change. We are going to have
to compress the hearing today, so I would like to waive all
opening statements from members and go straight to the
secretary's testimony. This will allow more time for senators
to ask questions. The secretary's statement will be made part
of the record as any member wishing to submit theirs. I request
that our members limit their questions to 6 minutes. Again,
thank you Secretary Shinseki for appearing before the committee
today.
Senator Hutchison, do you have any comments you would like
to make?
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Chairman, let's go forward. I think
you're right to try to compress the hearing.
Senator Johnson. Secretary, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ERIC K. SHINSEKI
Secretary Shinseki. Thank you Chairman Johnson, Ranking
Member Hutchison, other distinguished members of the committee.
Thank you as always for this opportunity to discuss the
President's budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I'm pleased to be joined today by VA's senior leadership,
and I'd like to take a few seconds just to introduce them.
Beginning on my far left Under Secretary Pat Dunne, who takes
care of our benefits administration. Next to me is Acting
Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Gerald Cross. To my right
Acting Assistant Secretary for Management, Rita Reed. To her
right Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Steve Muro,
and then to the far right Assistant Secretary for Information
and Technology, Roger Baker.
Let me also acknowledge the presence of leaders of our
veterans service organizations in the audience today. We, in
fact, are partners as advocates for our Nation's veterans.
In my short tenure as Secretary, every Member of Congress
who has welcomed me back to Government has almost in the same
breath asked me to do more, better, faster for our veterans
longstanding needs that they face and need help on. I guess I
would tell you that your individual and your collective
devotion to our veterans is clear to me from my visits with
you. Clear, comprehensive, and unwavering. And so, Mr.
Chairman, to you and the members of this committee I want to
express upfront my thanks for your support of VA, first to care
for those veterans, and most especially for the generous
appropriations in some years past when budgets were lean. You
ensured that we were able to meet mission for those veterans.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Veterans are our sole reason for existence. In today's
challenging economic environment we must be diligent stewards
of every dollar if we are to deliver timely, high quality
benefits and services to the men and women we serve. The growth
in funding for fiscal year 2010 is significant, I will say that
upfront. We accept the responsibility for being accountable and
showing measurable returns on this investment that we've been
entrusted with. I will do everything possible to ensure the
funds Congress appropriates will be used to improve the quality
of life for veterans and the efficiency of our operations. So
with those comments, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this
opportunity, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric K. Shinseki
Mr. Chairman, Senator Hutchison, distinguished members of the
Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to present the President's
2010 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The
President's vision for the Department is to transform VA into a 21st
Century organization that is Veteran-centric, results-driven, and
forward-looking. This transformation is demanded by new times, new
technologies, new demographic realities, and new commitments to today's
Veterans. It requires a comprehensive review of the fundamentals in
every line of operation the Department performs.
VA's budget request for 2010 provides the resources for this
transformation that will take more than one year to complete. It
provides the resources to move the Department closer to achieving the
President's vision for VA, and will help ensure that Veterans--our
clients--receive timely access to the highest quality benefits and
services we can provide and which they earned through their sacrifice
and service to our Nation.
Some have complained that, in the past, VA has been seen as
difficult and bureaucratic in providing for our Nation's Veterans.
Change requires strong leadership amidst finite resources to improve
access, quality, safety, timeliness, and advocacy for the care and
services we provide to our Veterans. This is not about nibbling around
the edges of change.
The President's budget request for 2010 provides the Department
with resources needed to become a 21st Century organization as the
Department's leadership develops further the individual investments
currently in the Budget to better align with evolving Departmental
priorities.
The President has requested that I do two things--first, transform
VA into a 21st Century organization, and second, to ensure that we
approach Veterans care as a lifetime initiative, from the day the oath
is taken until they are laid to rest. With this budget, the
transformation begins.
At present, the budget request contains four major categories of
transformational activity collectively designed to initiate the process
of creating a 21st Century VA. These transformational initiatives
include creating a reliable management infrastructure, delivering
ongoing services, making progress on Departmental priorities, and
instituting important new initiatives to meet the needs of Veterans
today and tomorrow.
VA's request for 2010 is nearly $113 billion--an increase of over
$15 billion, or 15.5 percent, from the 2009 enacted budget. This is the
largest 1-year percent increase for VA requested by a President in over
30 years.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight how this budget
will help VA begin the transformation in these four areas.
First, Management Infrastructure. In order to transform VA, we must
begin with ourselves. Transformation must start within our own doors.
VA will create a reliable management infrastructure that expands or
enhances corporate transparency at VA, centralizes leadership and
decentralizes execution, invests in leader training, and focuses on
research and development on 21st Century requirements. This
infrastructure also is a key to dramatically improved client services
and enhanced responsiveness to the needs of Veterans and all VA
stakeholders. Examples include increasing investment in training and
career development for the VA career civil service; improving capacity
to manage IT services and major programs; employing a suitable
financial management system to track expenditures; and achieving
significant realignment of VA's acquisition processes for improved
transparency of and accountability for spending across the VA.
Second, delivering and maintaining ongoing services. Transformation
does not mean throwing out the baby with the bath water. What it does
mean is that we must identify the things that work best and improve
upon them. Some of the services that we can improve upon, and must
improve upon, are our ongoing services provided to Veterans on a daily
basis, such as care for polytrauma, substance abuse, mental health, and
preventive health care. Such activities include access to the highest
quality care, delivered at best-in-class facilities, and powered by
excellence in medical research. These also encompass fair, consistent,
and rapid processing of benefits claims, memorial services that honor
service to the Nation, and evolving needs, such as rural care and
outreach, care for homeless Veterans, Veterans' families, and women's
health care.
Third, the 2010 budget will provide VA with sufficient resources to
continue to make progress on Departmental priorities. VA will assess
and revitalize core programs that have already been recognized by the
VA and Congress as important to improving quality and access to
services for Veterans. These programs provide access for additional
Priority 8 Veterans; improve interoperability and coordination between
the Department of Defense (DOD) and VA; increase investment in mental
health and telemedicine; and continue the development and
implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Progress on these initiatives,
begun in 2009, will be sustained in 2010 to ensure that VA follows
through on its existing commitments.
Lastly, transformation is about making bold moves to introduce
entirely new concepts of best business practices that lead the
organization into the 21st Century. The fiscal year 2010 budget request
will enable new approaches to meet emerging needs that change the way
VA serves Veterans. The on-going work of the VA's Transformation Task
Force will further inform the development of these elements. And while
these four areas of transformation represent the opportunities
presented by the 2010 budget, below are specific examples to
demonstrate how these funds will help our Veterans thorough their
entire service lifetime, beginning at the day they take their oath.
the transformation from within--increasing investment in training,
career development and other organizational reforms
In order to transform VA, we must begin with a commitment to
critically assess ourselves. Transformation must start within our own
doors. The transformation of VA will require many organizational
reforms to better unify the Department's efforts on behalf of Veterans.
These will take time and may even result in up-front costs within our
overall budget, but all are designed to save taxpayer dollars over time
while ensuring VA successfully accomplishes its mission. Lastly, where
we can save costs to our Veterans, without impacting quality of care,
or diminishing our core mission, we will be sound stewards of the
taxpayer dollar. Some of these key reforms are presented below.
Increasing Investment in Training and Career Development
The 2010 budget will help ensure that VA's workforce will remain
leaders and standard-setters in their fields. The Department will
continue to grow and retain a skilled, motivated, and client-oriented
workforce. Training and development (including a leader development
program), communications and team building, and continuous learning
will all be components of reaching this objective.
Establishing an Office of Analysis and Evaluation
The Department will establish an office with robust program
analysis and evaluation capability. This office will conduct in-depth
reviews of VA programs and operations, and will assess their return on
investment. These independent evaluations will help inform program and
budget decision-making.
Enabling Improved Communications
The Department will invest in a virtual forum and related services
to enable better communications with Veterans, Veterans Service
Organizations, Congress, and other government agencies.
Implementing Management Control Systems for Acquisitions
This initiative will allow VA to gather and use information to
assist senior leadership in steering the Department toward its
strategic objectives. This will involve allocating resources,
motivating employee behavior, and evaluating performance.
Improving Medical Collections
The Department expects to receive nearly $2.9 billion from medical
collections in 2010. About $8 of every $10 in extra collections will
come from increased third-party insurance payments, with the vast bulk
of the remaining collections growth resulting from rising pharmacy
workload. The 2010 budget supports the establishment of additional
consolidated patient account centers (CPACs) that help maximize the
efficiency and effectiveness of VA's medical collections program
through standardized processes, accountability for results, improved
decision support capabilities, and more stringent internal controls.
The implementation of six more centers from 2009 to 2011 will generate
approximately $1.7 billion in additional revenue during the next
decade.
In addition to investing in VA to provide the best quality of care
to our Veterans, we are rededicating ourselves to improving our VA
infrastructure, construction and logistics, to provide Veterans with
the comfort in knowing that they will always have a place to go to seek
their care that they can call their own.
new construction and funding the new office of the assistant secretary
for acquisition, construction, and logistics
Establishment of a New Office of Acquisition, Construction, and
Logistics
The President's 2010 budget request is so firmly committed to this
goal, that it includes funding for the establishment of a new Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Construction, and Logistics.
The necessity of this new office is highlighted by the $1.921 billion
in capital funding for VA in the 2010 budget. Our request for
appropriated funds includes $1.194 billion for major construction
projects, $600 million for minor construction, $85 million in grants
for the construction of State extended care facilities, and $42 million
in grants for the construction of State Veterans cemeteries.
The 2010 request for construction funding for our health care
programs is $1.584 billion--$1.077 billion for major construction and
$507 million for minor construction. All of these resources will be
used to further renovate and modernize VA's health care infrastructure,
provide greater access to high-quality care for more Veterans, closer
to where they live, and help resolve patient safety issues.
--Major Construction Initiatives. Within our request for major
construction are resources to continue five medical facility
projects already underway:
--Orlando, Florida ($371.3 million)--complete a new medical center
consisting of a hospital, medical clinic, community living
center, domiciliary, and full support services;
--Denver, Colorado ($119.0 million)--replacement medical center on
the same campus as the University of Colorado Hospital
complex in Aurora, consisting of an inpatient medical
center, spinal cord injury and community living center, and
research building;
--Bay Pines, Florida ($96.8 million)--inpatient and outpatient
facility improvements;
--San Juan, Puerto Rico ($42.0 million)--seismic corrections to the
main hospital building; and
--St. Louis, Missouri ($19.7 million)--medical facility
improvements and cemetery expansion at Jefferson Barracks.
--New Facilities. Major construction funding is also provided to
begin seven new medical facility projects:
--Livermore, California ($55.4 million)--design and land purchase
for new community-based outpatient clinic in East Bay,
expanded community-based outpatient clinic and new
community living center in the Central Valley, and
minimally invasive procedure center at the Palo Alto VA
Medical Center;
--St. Louis, Missouri ($43.3 million)--design new inpatient bed
tower, emergent response unit, spinal cord injury beds,
intensive care unit beds, and clinical expansion at the
John Cochran Division;
--Canandaigua, New York ($36.6 million)--design new community
living center and new domiciliary/residential
rehabilitation facility;
--Long Beach, California ($24.2 million)--design new mental health
center and community living center;
--Brockton, Massachusetts ($24.0 million)--design new long-term
care spinal cord injury unit;
--San Diego, California ($18.3 million)--design new spinal cord
injury building and renovations to provide a community
living center and hospice unit; and
--Perry Point, Maryland ($9.0 million)--design new community living
center.
--Minor construction.
Minor Construction is an integral component of our overall capital
program. In support of the medical care and medical research programs,
minor construction funds permit VA to realign critical services; make
seismic corrections; improve patient safety; enhance access to health
care; increase capacity for dental care; enhance patient privacy;
improve treatment of special emphasis programs; and expand research
capability. Further, minor construction resources will be used to
comply with energy efficiency and sustainability design requirements.
We are requesting $162.9 million in construction funding to support
the Department's burial program--$112.2 million for major construction
and $50.7 million for minor construction. Within the funding we are
requesting for major construction are resources for gravesite expansion
and cemetery improvement projects at two national cemeteries--Abraham
Lincoln ($38.3 million) and Houston ($35.0 million).
VA is requesting $25.5 million for land acquisition in the major
construction account. These funds will be used to purchase land as it
becomes available in order to quickly take advantage of opportunities
to ensure the continuation of a national cemetery presence in areas
currently being served. All land purchased from this account will be
contiguous to an existing national cemetery, within an existing service
area, or in a location that will serve the same Veteran population
center.
VA's commitment to our clients does not end at building a world-
class, 21st Century Veterans healthcare and benefits organization. We
also have an obligation to ensure that America never forgets their
sacrifices. The 2010 Budget assures that the legacy of honoring our
Veterans continues.
Although the foundation of transformation is laid first internally,
by focusing on our own transformation within the walls of VA, at the
end of day, we are judged by our performance, not our promises. The
President has charged VA with providing for our Veterans for their
entire lifetime. The President's 2010 Budget allows VA to focus on this
continuity of care earlier than ever before.
one life continuity of care
One of VA's highest priorities is to ensure that active and Reserve
component Veterans returning from service in Operation Enduring Freedom
and Operation Iraqi Freedom receive everything they need to
effortlessly make their transition from active military service to
civilian life. The Department will take all measures necessary to
provide them with timely benefits and services, to give them complete
information about the benefits they have earned through their military
service, and to implement streamlined processes that simplify their
interactions with VA.
Early Transition Initiatives
The most effective way to ensure servicemembers receive continuous
care from military service to civilian life is to begin the transition
process at the time they are sworn in for active duty. VA will continue
to collaborate with DOD to facilitate the transition of military
personnel into civilian status through a uniform approach of both
registering into VA and accessing electronic records data. This will
involve the development and implementation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime
Electronic Record that will contain both administrative and medical
information, resulting in improved delivery of benefits and assuring
the availability of medical data to support the care of patients shared
by VA and DOD. This will be achieved while maintaining the privacy and
security of servicemembers' and Veterans' personal information.
Developing and New Partnerships with DOD
The Department will continue to partner with DOD to establish and
administer programs to support this continuity of care, including
participation in demobilization events, the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration
Program, the Center of Excellence in Psychological Health and Traumatic
Brain Injury, and others. Our facility-to-facility collaborations
foster improved care coordination and delivery at the local level and I
will continue to work with Secretary Gates to ensure this continuum of
care is supported and addressed at the highest levels. To this end, I
am establishing a new VA/DOD Collaboration Office with dedicated
staffing to support our efforts at the Departmental level.
As our Veterans move from DOD to VA as their principal care
provider, we must ensure that we are poised to address their specific
needs. This requires that VA look at the most effective ways to meet
the needs of this latest generation of Veterans. We will strive not to
repeat the mistakes of the past, and ensure that once Veterans are
fully under our care, we are poised to deliver the specialty health
care and services that they need and that this budget will provide.
Meeting Emerging Needs of All Veterans Across All Generations
In addition to this newest generation of veterans, we must ensure
that the budget addresses the needs of all Veterans, across all
emerging demographics. This includes funding initiatives for women
Veterans, the growing elderly population of Veterans, and Veterans
living in rural areas. VA's request for 2010 provides the resources
required to treat nearly 6.1 million patients as they enter our system
of care. This is 474,000 (or 9 percent) above the patient total in 2008
and is 122,000 (or 2 percent) higher than the projected number in 2009.
Advance Appropriations for VA Medical Care
The President and I share the concern that the care our Veterans
receive should never be hindered by budget delays. The Administration
plans to work with the Congress to develop a specific advance
appropriations proposal for the VA Medical Care program.
funding care for a new and changing veteran demographic
Meeting the Medical Needs of Women Veterans
The 2010 budget provides $183 million to meet the gender-specific
health care needs of women Veterans, an increase of $15 million (or 9
percent) over the 2009 resource level. The delivery of enhanced primary
care for women Veterans is one of VA's top priorities. The number of
women Veterans is growing rapidly and these women are increasingly
reliant upon VA for their health care. More than 450,000 women Veterans
have enrolled for care and this number is expected to grow by 30
percent in the next five years. We will soon have 144 full-time Women
Veterans Program Managers serving at VA medical facilities. They will
function as advisors to and advocates for women Veterans to help ensure
their care is provided with the appropriate level of privacy and
sensitivity.
Expanding Care for Veterans in Rural Areas
The Department appreciates the additional resources provided by
Congress for rural health care initiatives. Using some of these 2009
funds as well as additional resources we are requesting in 2010, VA's
budget includes $440 million to implement the President's initiative to
continue improving access to medical care for Veterans in rural and
highly rural areas, including use of rural health resource centers,
mobile clinics, rural health consultants, and outreach. VA will also
continue to expand its telehealth program which is the largest of its
kind in the world. Where appropriate, the Department will provide fee-
basis access to mental health professionals when VA services are not
reasonably close to Veterans' homes.
Emerging Elder and Long-term Care
VA's budget for 2010 contains more than $5.9 billion for long-term
care, a rise of $663 million (or 13 percent) over the 2009 resource
level. About 60 percent of the additional resources will support
institutional care while 40 percent will be devoted to expanding non-
institutional long-term care services. We anticipate increased demand
for long-term care services resulting from severe injuries, such as TBI
and polytrauma.
The Department's 2010 request includes $1.2 billion for non-
institutional long-term care, an increase of $265 million (or 28
percent) over 2009. By enhancing Veterans' access to non-institutional
long-term care, VA can provide extended care services to Veterans in a
more clinically appropriate setting, closer to where they live and in
the comfort and familiar settings of their homes. These services
include adult day health care, home-based primary care, purchased
skilled home health care, homemaker and home health aide services, home
respite and hospice care, and community residential care. During 2010
we will increase the number of patients receiving non-institutional
long-term care, as measured by the average daily census, to nearly
91,000. This represents a 25 percent rise above the level we expect to
reach in 2009.
Funding Care for Newly Qualified Veterans (Priority 8)
Building on the resources provided by Congress in 2009 for VA to
begin a gradual expansion of health care eligibility for non-service-
disabled Veterans earning modest incomes (Priority 8 Veterans), the
President's Budget includes funds to expand eligibility to this group
for the first time since 2003. This year, VA will open enrollment to
Priority 8 Veterans whose incomes exceed last year's geographic and VA
means-test thresholds by no more than 10 percent. We estimate that
266,000 more Veterans will enroll for care by the end of 2010 due to
this policy change. Furthermore, the budget includes a gradual
expansion of health care eligibility which will enable over 500,000
Veterans who were previously not eligible for VA medical care to enroll
by 2013. This expansion of health care eligibility will be accomplished
while improving the timeliness of care and maintaining the quality of
VA health care that already sets the national standard of excellence.
Funding Care for OEF/OIF Veterans
The number of patients who served in Operations Enduring Freedom
and Iraqi Freedom will rise to over 419,000 in 2010. This is 61 percent
higher than in 2008 and 15 percent above the projected total this year.
In 2010 we are requesting $2.1 billion to meet the health care needs of
Veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an increase of
$463 million (or 29 percent) over our medical resource requirements to
care for these Veterans in 2009. The treatment of this newest
generation of Veterans has allowed us to focus on and improve treatment
for PTSD as well as TBI, including new programs to reach our Veterans
at the very earliest stages of these conditions.
enhancing outreach and services for mental health care and tbi
VA's 2010 budget includes nearly $4.6 billion for mental health
care, an increase of $288 million, or 7 percent, above the 2009
resource level. These resources will allow the Department to expand
inpatient, residential, and outpatient mental health programs. A key
element of VA's program expansion is integrating mental health services
with primary and specialty care. Veterans receive better health care
when their mental and physical needs are addressed in a coordinated and
holistic manner.
PTSD and TBI Commitments
This budget allows us to continue our effort to improve access to
mental health services across the country. We will continue to place
particular emphasis on providing care to those suffering from post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of their service in
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Department will
increase outreach to these Veterans as well as provide enhanced
readjustment and PTSD services. Our strategy for improving access
includes expanding our tele-mental health program, which allows us to
reach thousands of additional mental health patients annually,
particularly those living in rural areas.
To better meet the health care needs of recently discharged
Veterans, the 2010 budget enables VA to expand its screening program
for depression, PTSD, TBI, and substance use disorders. The Department
will also enhance its suicide prevention advertising campaign to raise
awareness among Veterans and their families of the services available
to them.
VA's 2010 budget contains $298 million for the care of Veterans
with TBI, an increase of $41 million (or 16 percent) over the 2009
resource level. TBI and polytrauma are serious conditions that Veterans
injured as a result of their service in Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom experience, and we must find even more ways to address
their needs. While VA's Polytrauma System of Care is unique in its
expertise and capabilities, we are learning more every day about
effective treatments. The additional resources in 2010 will help ensure
these Veterans receive the specialized care they require.
Investments in New Vet Centers to Address Unique Mental Health
Challenges of Combat
In 2010, VA will open 28 new Vet Centers providing readjustment
counseling services to Veterans, including those suffering from PTSD.
The Department will also improve access to mental health services
through our community-based outpatient clinics. Where appropriate, we
will provide fee-basis access to mental health providers when VA
services are not reasonably close to Veterans' homes. We will also
expand use of Internet-based mental health services through
``MyHealtheVet,'' which provides an extensive degree of health
information to Veterans electronically. These steps are critical to
providing care to Veterans living in rural areas.
In addition to identifying and funding care for the evolving
Veteran demographic, VA must commit adequate resources to addressing
the needs of today's Veteran, and that can only be accomplished with
adequate funding for research. The President's 2010 budget allows us to
commit dramatically increased resources to research.
increasing investments in research and other health care initiatives
The 2010 budget provides $580 million for medical and prosthetic
research, an increase of $70 million (or 14 percent) over the 2009
resource level. Our request will fund nearly 2,400 high-priority
research projects to expand knowledge in areas critical to Veterans'
health care needs, most notably in the areas of mental illness ($74
million), aging ($51 million), acute and traumatic injury ($46
million), military occupations and environmental exposures ($43
million), and cancer ($41 million).
Groundbreaking Research Initiatives
Some of this research will focus on TBI and polytrauma, including
studies on blast force-related brain injuries, enhancing diagnostic
techniques, and improving prosthetics. We will strengthen our burn
injury research to improve the rehabilitation and daily lives of
Veterans who have suffered burns. VA will also enhance research on
chronic pain, which afflicts approximately two of every five recently
discharged and enrolled Veterans. And the Department will also advance
research on access to care, particularly for Veterans in rural areas,
by studying new tele-medicine efforts focused on mental health and
PTSD.
One of our highest priorities in 2010 will be to continue our
aggressive research program aimed at improving the lives of Veterans
returning from service in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom. The President's budget request for VA contains $299 million
devoted to research projects focused specifically on Veterans returning
from service in Afghanistan and Iraq, an increase of $20 million (or 7
percent) over the 2009 resource level. The new research initiatives
will focus on post-deployment mental health, spinal cord injury,
sensory loss, TBI and other neurotrauma, and pain.
The President's request for research funding will help VA sustain
its long track record of success in conducting research projects that
lead to clinically useful interventions that improve the health and
quality of life for Veterans and the general population. Recent
examples of VA research results that have direct application to
improved clinical care include the successful use of tele-medicine to
improve Veterans' mental health status, quality of life, and
satisfaction with care; better understanding the specific factors
leading to the development of osteoporosis; delineating the critical
brain structures involved in components of learning and memory that are
important for improving care for Veterans with brain injury and memory
disorders; improving treatment for Veterans suffering from the combined
effects of hepatitis C and depression; and utilizing deep-brain
stimulation to improve the quality of life for patients suffering from
advanced Parkinson's disease.
The 2010 budget for medical care provides funds for VA to
strengthen its focus on critical ongoing programs and new initiatives
that will improve care and clinical outcomes for Veterans. Certain new
initiatives that support overall transformation include:
Patient Centered Care
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) will deploy a patient-
centric care model called Veteran Centered Care, based on best
practices in private sector health care, which will result in a fully
engaged prevention partnership between Veteran, family, and health care
team, established through healing relationships and provided in optimal
healing environments in order to improve health outcomes and the
Veteran's experience of care.
Medical Home and Care Coordination
The patient centered medical home is a team based model of care
that provides continuous, first contact, comprehensive care to maximize
health and functionality. The model focuses on preventive health care
and emphasizes a holistic approach that addresses the medical,
psychological, and social needs of the patient. These teams consist of
medical professionals, mental health providers including behaviorists,
nurses, nutritionists, and care coordinators. These models can be
adapted to meet the specific needs of unique patient populations such
as those with advanced heart disease.
Leveraging Technology in Health Care Services
As part of our continued operation and improvement of the
Department's electronic health record system, VA is seeking $360
million for development and implementation of the Veterans Health
Information Systems and Technology Architecture (HealtheVet) program.
Facets of the program have already received national accolades as a
model for improving online accessibility of health records. This is $47
million (or 15 percent) above the estimated resource commitment for
this key project in 2009. HealtheVet will equip our health care
providers with the modern technology and tools they need to improve the
safety and quality of care for Veterans.
Until HealtheVet is operational, we need to maintain the VistA
legacy system. This system will remain operational as new applications
are developed and implemented. This approach will mitigate transition
and migration risks associated with the move to the new architecture.
Our budget provides $116 million in 2010 for the VistA legacy system.
Health Care Spending Summary
In total, the President's 2010 request includes total budgetary
resources of $47.4 billion for VA medical care, an increase of $4.6
billion (or 11 percent) over the 2009 resource level (which excludes $1
billion for non-recurring maintenance projects, including renewable
energy and efficiency projects, supported through resources from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Our total medical care request
is comprised of funding for medical services ($34.7 billion), medical
support and compliance ($5.1 billion), medical facilities ($4.7
billion), and resources from medical care collections ($2.9 billion).
As we focus on the new medical care services and delivery
mechanisms needed to transform VA care, we must ensure that we do not
repeat the mistakes of the past, and disassociate the injuries from the
full social and economic impacts of those left untreated, or whom we
simply cannot reach. This budget allows us to address some of the
social and economic impacts that we cannot address with health care
alone, such as addressing homelessness and providing other economic
benefits.
combating homelessness
The President has committed to expanding proven programs and
launching innovative services to prevent Veterans from falling into
homelessness. The 2010 budget provides more than $3.2 billion for
homeless Veterans programs. This includes $2.7 billion to furnish
health care to homeless Veterans and $500 million for other programs
providing supportive services, which help to break the cycle of
homelessness among the estimated 131,000 Veterans who are homeless on
any single night.
Joint Initiatives
The budget provides $26 million for VA to work with the Departments
of Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, and the Small Business Administration, in partnership with
non-profit organizations, to reduce homelessness. This pilot project
coordinates VA's efforts with programs of partner agencies and non-
profits to target Veterans who are most at risk of becoming homeless.
It aims to maintain stable housing for Veterans while continuing to
provide them with support services and ongoing medical care.
In addition, this historic budget allows us to set our Veterans up
for success well into the future by investing now in their education
and in the future financial stability of America by educating the next
greatest generation of Veterans.
automating the application for and delivery of education benefits
The Department is on target to implement the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act starting August 1, 2009, and began signing
up Veterans online for this program on May 1, 2009. VA is pursuing two
parallel strategies to successfully implement this new education
program, both of which are fully supported by the resources presented
in the 2010 budget.
Short Term Strategy
The short-term strategy relies upon a combination of traditional
claims processing and modifications to existing IT systems. Until a
modern eligibility and payment system can be developed, VA will
adjudicate claims manually and use the existing Benefits Delivery
Network to generate benefit payments to schools and program
participants. This budget includes funds to hire and maintain the
additional staff required.
Long Term Strategy
The long-term strategy is the development and implementation of an
automated system for claims processing. The Department has teamed with
the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command to address the necessary IT
components of this strategy. They are the premier systems engineering
command for the Department of the Navy. The automated solution will be
available by the end of calendar year 2010, by which time full
operational control of the automated system will be in VA's hands.
Dramatic Increase in the Number of Educational Beneficiaries
As a result of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act,
we expect the number of education claims to rise dramatically. We
anticipate in excess of 2 million education claims in 2010, a total 8
percent higher than the number we projected for 2009 and 25 percent
above the 2008 total. Despite this significant growth in workload, the
resources provided in the President's 2010 budget will allow us to
maintain our program performance for two key measures. The timeliness
of processing original education claims will be at least as good as the
level (24 days) we estimated for 2009, while the average time it takes
to process supplemental claims will be no higher than the estimated
level (10 days) for 2009.
Of import, this program will invest in knowledge and education for
our latest generation of Veterans.
providing additional economic stability to veterans
Providing Greater Benefits to Veterans Who Are Medically Retired from
Service
In addition, the President's 2010 budget provides for the first
time concurrent receipt of disability benefits from VA in addition to
DOD retirement benefits for disabled Veterans who are medically retired
from service. Presently, only Veterans with at least 20 years of
service, who have service-connected disabilities rated 50 percent or
higher by VA, are eligible for concurrent receipt. Receipt of both VA
and DOD benefits, for all who were medically retired from service, will
be phased in starting in 2010. The estimated VA costs in 2010 are $47
million.
Improving Compensation and Pensions
A major challenge in improving the delivery of compensation and
pension benefits is the steady and sizeable increase in workload. The
volume of claims receipts is projected to reach 972,000 in 2010--a 5
percent rise from the 2009 level and a 23 percent increase since 2005.
The number of Active Duty service members as well as Reservists and
National Guard members who have been called to active duty to support
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom is one of the key drivers
of new claims activity. This has contributed to an increase in the
number of new claims, and we expect this pattern to persist, at least
for the near term. An additional reason that the number of compensation
and pension claims is climbing is the Department's commitment to
increased outreach. We have an obligation to extend our reach as far as
possible and to spread the word to Veterans about the benefits and
services VA stands ready to provide.
Disability compensation claims from Veterans who have previously
filed a claim comprise about 55 percent of the disability claims
received by the Department last year. Many Veterans now receiving
compensation suffer from chronic and progressive conditions, such as
diabetes, mental illness, cardiovascular disease, orthopedic problems,
and hearing loss. As these Veterans age and their conditions worsen, VA
experiences additional claims for increased benefits.
Increasing Number of Beneficiaries Receiving Compensation
The growing complexity of the claims being filed also contributes
to our workload challenges. For example, the number of original
compensation cases with eight or more disabilities claimed increased
from 43,700 in 2005 to 61,600 in 2008. Nearly 27 percent of all
original compensation claims received last year contained eight or more
disability issues. In addition, we expect to continue to receive a
growing number of complex disability claims resulting from PTSD, TBI,
environmental and infectious risks, complex combat-related injuries,
and complications resulting from diabetes. Claims now take more time
and more resources to adjudicate. Additionally, as VA receives and
adjudicates more claims, a larger number of appeals are filed from
Veterans and survivors, which also increases workload in other parts of
the Department, including the Board of Veterans' Appeals and the Office
of the General Counsel.
Addressing Innovative Ways to Decrease Waiting Time for Benefits
VA will address its ever-growing workload challenges in several
ways. For example, we will enhance our use of IT tools to improve
claims processing. In particular, our claims processors will have
greater online access to DOD medical information as more categories of
DOD's electronic records are made available through the Compensation
and Pension Records Interchange project. We will also strengthen our
investment in a paperless claims processing infrastructure, to reduce
our reliance upon paper-based claims folders and enable accessing and
transferring electronic images and data through a Web-based
application. This infrastructure will also dramatically increase the
security and privacy of Veteran data. The existing Virtual VA
repository will be sustained until the more robust enterprise paperless
infrastructure is developed and deployed. The Department will continue
to move work among regional offices in order to maximize our resources
and enhance our performance. Also, the Department will demonstrate
improved timeliness and quality of service resulting from the recent
expansion of the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program at all regional
offices, demobilization sites, military installations, and VA health
care facilities.
As a result of staffing increases, more efficient claims processes,
and enhanced use of IT tools, we expect to lower the average number of
days to complete rating-related compensation and pension claims to 150
days in 2010. This represents a 29-day improvement (or 16 percent) in
processing timeliness from 2008 and an 18-day (or 11 percent) reduction
in the estimated amount of time required to process claims this year.
In addition, we anticipate that our pending inventory of disability
claims will fall to about 302,000 by the end of 2010, a reduction of
more than 78,000 (or 21 percent) from the pending count at the close of
2008. At the same time we are improving timeliness, we will also
increase the accuracy of the compensation rating decisions we make,
from 86 percent in 2008 to 90 percent in 2010.
As we press to build momentum on our forward leaning initiatives,
it is with the sense that, every day we stand still, we face
irrelevancy. The future moves at the pace of the micro-chip processor,
and we must invest in technology to remain relevant. This budget
provides a serious down-payment on leveraging technology to transform
VA into a 21st Century Organization.
processing benefits claims in a paperless environment and other
critical it investments
Leveraging information technology (IT) is crucial to achieving the
President's vision for transforming VA into a 21st Century organization
that meets Veterans' needs. Key concepts of the transformation include
creating an electronically based benefits system to speed processing
and address the backlog; integrating service member information from
DOD with all VA information about a Veteran to create a seamless
transition from warrior to Veteran; using Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) techniques to work proactively with Veterans and
provide them with a view of all of their VA benefits; ensuring
continued innovation of the award winning Computerized Patient Record
System and VISTA medical records systems; and creating ``anywhere,
anytime'' access to VA by developing multiple access channels for
information and transactions.
IT is an integral component of VA's health care and benefits
delivery systems.
VA depends on a reliable and accessible IT infrastructure, a high-
performing IT workforce, and modernized information systems that are
flexible enough to meet both existing and emerging service delivery
requirements. Only in this way can we ensure system-wide information
security and the privacy of our clients.
Meeting Vital IT Needs
The President's 2010 budget for VA provides more than $3.3 billion
to meet these vital IT requirements. This is $559 million (or 20
percent) above the 2009 resource level (which excludes $50 million made
available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Almost
all of the Recovery Act funds will be used to develop IT solutions
associated with the implementation of the Post-9/11 Veterans
Educational Assistance Act.
The 2010 budget provides $144 million to continue moving toward the
President's goal of reforming the benefits claims process to make VA's
claims decisions timely, accurate, and consistent through use of
automated systems. VA's paperless processing initiative expands on
current paperless claims processing already in place for some of our
benefits programs. It will strengthen service to Veterans by providing
them the capability to apply for and manage their benefits on-line. It
will also reduce the movement of paper files and further secure
Veterans' personal information. The initial features of the paperless
processing initiative will be tested in 2010, and by 2012, we expect to
implement an electronically based benefits delivery system.
Funding for New Technology
The Department is requesting $86 million for the Financial and
Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise (FLITE) system. This is an
increase of $38 million (or 78 percent) from the 2009 resource level.
FLITE is being developed to address a long-standing internal control
material weakness and will replace an outdated, non-compliant core
accounting system that is no longer supported by industry.
We recently completed an in-depth analysis of our patient
scheduling program. I have directed a similar review of all our major
IT programs to evaluate program performance against cost and schedule
milestones. Changes in how we manage IT projects include use of
standard templates to ensure completeness and consistency of
development and testing processes, initiation of an IT competency
assessment, and formation of integrated project teams, such as the
Post-9/11 GI Bill team to ensure close collaboration between IT and
education program experts.
In total, within VA's total IT request for 2010, nearly $2.4
billion (or 72 percent) will be for IT investment (non-payroll) costs,
while the remaining $939 million (or 28 percent) will provide for
payroll and administrative requirements.
Benefits Spending Summary
In summary, the Department's 2010 resource request for General
Operating Expenses (GOE) is just over $2.2 billion. Within this total
GOE funding request, more than $1.8 billion is for the management of
the following non-medical benefits administered by the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA)--disability compensation; pensions;
education; vocational rehabilitation and employment; home loan
guaranty; and insurance. Our request for GOE funding also includes $394
million to support General Administration activities.
Funding for VBA in 2010 will be $364 million (or 25 percent) higher
than the 2009 resource level (which excludes $157 million from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Almost all of the resources
provided to VBA through the Recovery Act will be used to hire 1,500
additional staff to support the processing of compensation and pension
claims; 500 of these will be permanent employees who will replace staff
losses through attrition while the other 1,000 will be temporary
employees hired under term appointments. The temporary employees will
conduct follow-up actions to expedite claims development and perform
other administrative activities to free up claims decision-makers to
handle more complex claims processing tasks.
service to the last breath and beyond--funding the memorials to our
heroes
The President has charged me with caring for our Veterans until
they take their last breath. The VA's commitment, however extends
beyond the last solemn ceremony and last note of Taps. We are committed
to continuing the memories of our heroes with the dignity and respect
they deserve. The Recovery Act funds available to the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA) will be used for national shrine projects, energy
projects, monument/memorial repairs and other non-recurring maintenance
activities, and equipment purchases.
Increasing Memorial Services
The resources requested for 2010 will allow us to meet the growing
workload at existing cemeteries by increasing funding for contract
maintenance, supplies, and equipment, continuing the activation of new
national cemeteries, and maintaining our cemeteries as national
shrines. VA expects to perform 111,500 interments in 2010, or 4 percent
above the estimate for this year. The number of developed acres (8,015)
that must be maintained in 2010 is 3 percent greater than the 2009
estimate.
Improving Memorial Services
Our budget request includes an additional $1.6 million to continue
daily operations and to begin interment activities at the last three of
the six new national cemeteries established by the National Cemetery
Expansion Act of 2003. Burial operations at Bakersfield National
Cemetery in California, Alabama National Cemetery in the Birmingham
area, and Washington Crossing National Cemetery in southeastern
Pennsylvania are expected to begin by the end of calendar year 2009.
Expanding Memorial Services and Access for Veterans
The President's resource request for VA provides $38 million in
cemetery operations and maintenance funding to address gravesite
renovations as well as headstone and marker realignment. When combined
with another $26 million in minor construction, $2 million in non-
recurring maintenance, and $1 million for monument and memorial
preservation, VA is requesting a total of $67 million in 2010 to
improve the appearance of our national cemeteries which will help us
maintain cemeteries as shrines dedicated to preserving our nation's
history and honoring Veterans' service and sacrifice.
With the resources requested to support NCA activities, we will
expand access to our burial program by increasing the share of Veterans
served by a burial option within 75 miles of their residence to 90
percent in 2010. This is 3.1 percentage points above our expected
performance level for 2009.
In addition, we will maintain the level of service to our clients
that resulted in VA's national cemetery system receiving the highest
rating in customer satisfaction for any Federal agency or private
sector corporation ever surveyed as part of the American Customer
Satisfaction Index (95 out of a possible 100 points). We expect that 98
percent of our survey respondents in 2010 will rate the quality of
service provided by national cemeteries as excellent and 99 percent of
survey respondents will rate the appearance of national cemeteries as
excellent. These performance levels will reinforce that the
Department's cemetery system is a model of excellence in providing
timely, accessible, and high-quality service to Veterans and their
families.
Memorial Spending Summary
The President's 2010 budget request for VA includes $242 million in
operations and maintenance funding for the NCA. This is $12 million (or
5 percent) above the 2009 resource level (which excludes $50 million
provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).
summary
At the end of the day, none of these reforms can be implemented by
money alone without investments in our own internal growth and
development. As a people-centric organization, investments in training
recruiting, and educating the best workforce for our Veterans will take
a priority in my tenure as the Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. If we make those investments, and commit to true
organizational change, we will succeed, if we do not, we will fall
short of major transform.
closing
Veterans are VA's sole reason for existence and my number one
priority. In today's challenging fiscal and economic environment, we
must be diligent stewards of every dollar and apply them wisely to
deliver timely, high-quality benefits and services to Veterans whom we
serve. While we recognize the growth in funding that we are requesting
in 2010 is significant, we also acknowledge the responsibility,
accountability, and importance of showing measurable returns on that
investment. You have my pledge that I will do everything possible to
ensure that the funds Congress appropriates to VA will be used to
improve both the quality of life for Veterans and the efficiency of our
operations.
Organizational transformation is a challenging task that requires
changes in culture, systems, and training. This will require resources,
but it will also demand commitment and teamwork. The entire Department
is dedicated to serving the needs of Veterans in the 21st Century and
every VA employee has a stake in transformation to meet those needs.
Leadership will continually assess and re-assess the necessary
funding resources for transformation. It should be expected that these
bold new initiatives will result in adjustments to the budget request
within the 2010 topline during the next several months. The results of
this ongoing management decision-making process--in partnership with
the Congress--will be a budget that starts the VA down a path toward
becoming a model for 21st Century governance.
I am confident that Congress and VA can work together to achieve a
common goal on Veterans.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Secretary, as you know, we are likely
to provide advance appropriations for fiscal year 2011 medical
care. We will need to know very quickly what the VA's estimates
for 2011 are if we are to include them in this year's bill.
When do you expect to be able to give this committee an fiscal
year 2011 estimate for the medical care accounts?
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, I am, in fact, in
meetings with OMB as I was preparing to come over here to do
just that. I hope to have some numbers this week that I would
like to share with you as soon as those negotiations are
complete.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see that
the VA has requested $250 million in the fiscal year 2010
budget to continue the Rural Health Initiative that was started
in 2009. How do you plan to use the funding requested in the
fiscal year 2010 budget?
Secretary Shinseki. Well, Mr. Chairman, actually as it
turns out, the $250 million that was provided to us in 2009
about $90 million of that will actually be executed, and so
there will be a carryover of about $190 million. So in 2010 we
are looking at a $440 million set of funds to disperse. We will
be looking at mobile rural health clinics, and four pilot
sites, outreach clinics, three regional rural health resource
centers, and a host of other initiatives pilot as well as
programs put into place that I'd be very happy to provide you
some more detail on for the record.
Senator Johnson. What process do you have to evaluate the
success of projects funded under this initiative?
Dr. Cross. Sir, for our projects we have built in an
evaluation component to make sure that from the very beginning
we collect data to ensure that over time we can tell if the
project is successful.
We're doing some very innovative work in this rural health
initiative. Some of them may not turn out to be successful. We
want to know that, and we want to discontinue those and focus
on the ones that are. So we decided to build that into the
program from the very beginning, capture the data, monitor it
closely, and then make some decisions over time as to what
really works best.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Shinseki, the VA has requested
an increase of more than a half billion dollars for IT. How
much of this increase is for staffing and administrative
expenses, and how much is for system development?
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let Mr.
Baker pick up on that initially, and I'll play clean up to him.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, sir.
There are substantial staffing increases in that increase,
primarily in the field working in the hospitals and the
regional offices providing customer support to the
administrations and their efforts to work with the veterans.
There's $182 million according to my sheet here for staffing
increases. Again, primarily in the field as well as increases
for key items like interoperability with the Department of
Defense from an information standpoint, the FLITE Financial
System so that we have good strong financial management, and
increases in medical IT and benefits IT, both to support staff
increases in those areas, and to support improvements in the
process of speed of response, network speed, those sort of
things. Again, most of the increases aimed at supporting the
folks in the field doing the real work, working with the
veterans.
Senator Johnson. This past year the VA has had to put the
replacement of the scheduling system on hold due to failures in
the development process. This is very disappointing to say the
least. What are your plans to improve the way IT systems are
developed to ensure that we don't repeat this failure, and how
do you plan to improve oversight of development projects?
Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's
anybody more disappointed in the fact that we had to put in
place a strategic pause with the scheduling replacement project
than I was. We have put in place a set of procedures that are
going to govern us going forward, everything from oversight
boards to how we set projects up for success. I'll let Mr.
Baker, Assistant Secretary Baker talk about the details of
that, but what I've asked that we do is to go through and look
at every program that we have in our IT projects, and subject
them all to the same level of scrutiny that we've just gone
through with scheduling, and out of which we have gotten
significant learning on how to do this better.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, sir.
We are looking at a substantial change in the way that we
manage information technology programs at Veterans Affairs, and
plan on briefing your staff on the details of this in the
coming week.
We've reviewed approximately 282 ongoing development
programs at the department, and that initial review was on
analyzing certain aspects such as were they on schedule, were
they on budget, did they have sufficient staff to complete the
project successfully. Although it's preliminary, the results of
that review is fairly clear that we need a substantial change.
And as I said, we will bring that forward next week, but we
have to make certain that we implement for our programs clear
decision criteria, better control of the programs, decreased
infusion of new requirements in the middle of the program,
clear participation of the internal customer that will be
receiving the new system, and the success of the program, clear
attention from the vendor that's working on this and their
participation and success, and most fundamentally important we
need to increase the probability of success for these programs.
We do not have a good track record now as Secretary Shinseki
said. It is one of the first things that I felt I needed to
focus on, and it will be one of the first things that we bring
forward to tell you about how we're going to fix that problem.
Senator Johnson. Time is running out but I want to raise
the issues of problems in the coordination between the VA and
the Indian Health Service. Mr. Secretary as you get settled in
at the VA, I want to work with you to see how coordination can
be improved.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would just say to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary
that I too am very concerned about the IT situation, so I would
like to ask that we have a report back to the committee on what
you are doing, both in the management governance structure,
which was mentioned in the Inspector General's report, and also
the project management plan for the implementation of the
subprojects, just the whole thing obviously needs to be pretty
much turned upside down I think. So I'm hoping that you would
report back to us specifically on that. I know you're aware of
it, so that's something we would look at.
And then I want to say I'm very pleased that we are doing
so much in the areas of research and mental health. I do
believe that the Veterans Administration is giving the proper
emphasis on mental health now, and also medical research, and I
hope, General Shinseki that we will be able to work the
problems out with the gulf war syndrome research so, that can
go forward. It's mid-process, and I think it is very important
that we continue that research.
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I just want to assure you we
are in dialogue. It's my interest that this goes forward, and
we have some technical contract details here to work out, and I
think with cooperation on both sides we can get there.
I just want to reinforce for you that we have
significantly, we've invested in mental illness, mental health
issues with dollars this year and 2010, and I'm comfortable
we're doing more and better in terms of TBI and the
relationship with poly-trauma, other aspects of the mental
health portfolio.
Senator Hutchison. I'm very pleased about the investment
that you're going to make in the fifth poly-trauma center in
our country that will be in the veteran's facility that's
already a great one, but I think this will add so much in San
Antonio.
I wanted to ask you about another issue, and that is the
transfers from the medical services account. Since fiscal year
2005, Congress has provided more than $12 billion above the
Department's request, much of which has gone into our medical
services accounts. However, during the last 3 fiscal years the
Department has requested significant transfers out of that
account into other accounts that the VA has chosen. In fiscal
year 2008 it was $1 billion out of medical services. In fiscal
year 2009, the Department submitted $260 million request less
than 2 months into the fiscal year. And I guess my concern is
that this sort of undermines the appropriations process where
we want to know that the money we're putting in is being used,
and this year the Department is requesting $3.7 billion more in
medical services. So my question would be are you satisfied
that $3.7 billion increase is needed for medical services and
will be used for medical services, and can you tell the
committee that we will not be seeing transfers out of that
account into other accounts outside of our process?
Secretary Shinseki. The amount of money going into medical
services is needed, Senator. I would like to assure the
committee that I will do everything possible not to have to
come up with another request for funds transfer. I think in 5
months I've been able to get to the bottom of most of the
issues that I needed to be educated on. This one regarding
funds transfers out of medical services into the IT account has
a history that goes back probably a couple of years ago when we
centralized IT and we took all these assets from various
places. We didn't clean up the accounts and ensure that funding
was aligned with it. I'm comfortable that we have done a better
job this year, and I do not intend to request funds transfer
again this year, but I still have some things to discover.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. One more
question, and that is I had written you this year after meeting
a veteran in a wheelchair in Houston, Texas and he had been
able to acquire a service dog through private donations, and I
wrote you a letter and said that this is an authorization that
you have for veterans, especially veterans in spinal cord
injuries, not blindness related but spinal cord injury related.
And the service dogs apparently are very helpful in maneuvering
these people and helping them. My question--you had written me
back, and you had said that you would look into it, and I just
wondered if there was any report about the capability of
providing service dogs for this particular type of injury.
Dr. Cross. Yes, ma'am. At the direction of the Secretary we
have looked at this closely. We're moving forward. The key
thing that we're doing at this time is developing a directive
that describes what the requirements would be, what the scope
of the program would be. We're even putting information in when
we do this, and when we put the directive out we'll put out
information on our website relative to this as well as to guide
dogs, which, of course, we've been using for decades very
successfully. And so there is work underway on this. It's
moving forward through the staffing and evaluation process
right now, but progress is being made in that regard.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I owe you a response that
describes the program, and I will do that.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Secretary Shinseki. We've just begun the preliminaries to
see what a requirement is, what it takes to train a dog to that
standard, and how do we ensure that the patient to whom we've
assigned the dog is capable of caring for the dog as well as
being cared for by the dog, so we have some details to work
out. I think there's good experience here. We ought to be able
to put a program together.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. I understand that would be
certainly something that would have to be flushed out because
it's a new type of help, but I appreciate your looking into it,
and we'll look forward to hearing more from you. Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr.
Secretary for being here today, and for the courtesy of our
visit earlier this year. Congratulations. Thanks to all of your
colleagues who are here as well.
As we've discussed, I've worked with past Secretaries to
highlight the deterioration and infrastructure deficiencies
that the current Omaha VA Medical Center, and while you and
your staff have been very helpful to us year after year in the
past, VA personnel have told me that Omaha didn't meet a
certain priority in one area, and then told me the next year
that it didn't meet criteria in another area, and so I was
frustrated to see this year that 11 facilities freshly appeared
as higher priorities than Omaha in the President's budget. And
one reason is that Midwest facilities do not have access to 32
out of the 100 possible points used for scoring VA construction
projects because they don't have special emphasis or seismic
risk. We do have earthquakes in Nebraska. Just recently we had
one in the northern part, but here we are in a race to the goal
line, but we seem stopped at the 32 yard line. And so Secretary
Peek last year commissioned a study of the Omaha VA's
deficiencies, and apparently the review was completed but the
report as you mentioned is not available to you as of right
now. Can you tell me what consideration will be given to that
report, and how the findings might be used to correct any
problems?
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I understand that the report
has just arrived in the VA. I haven't had a chance to look at
it. I've got people vetting it.
Senator Nelson. Uh-huh.
Secretary Shinseki. I understand that there is a series of
criteria for scoring and that results in a standing of various
projects. I have an appreciation for why those criteria. I
mentioned that the seismic criteria is there because in our
case several years ago a catastrophic failure of one of our
hospitals left a number of people killed and injured, so it has
been introduced since 2000 or shortly thereafter. What I can't
explain today is why it carries the weighting it does in
relation to others. I'd like to do that. I'd like to get in
there and study it for myself, understand it and I'd like get
your insights and share with you what I've learned as we look
at the project list.
Senator Nelson. I appreciate that, and I'll be looking
forward to getting together.
Maybe you can help me with this. Have the Department
personnel decided that last year's rankings were inaccurate, or
should we see the budgets, the President's budget and
understand that the VA facility needs have changed dramatically
from last year? You may not be able to answer that either until
you've had the report, but to see 10 or more facilities jump
ahead on the basis of last year's report is cause for some
concern. It seems like either the playing field is not quite
level with the criteria, or that it's certainly tilted a
different way. So I'm anxious to get your response on that.
Secretary Shinseki. I'll be happy to respond.
Senator Nelson. And I really am frustrated in that
prioritization model that seismic risks rank higher than the
entirety of the facility's actual condition, and whether it's a
specialized center of excellence, which is again located in
population centers, is worth nearly double the condition of the
facility. So I hope that as you review the report you will also
perhaps deal with the question of who really should develop the
criteria, and with the question of whether Congress needs to
have some responsibility here for approving at least reviewing
and/or approving the criteria because it does seem to raise
serious questions of fairness and consistency. If you can't
know what the criteria are going to be next year because it
changed since last year, I don't know how you can plan ahead
with your facility. So I look forward to working with you. I
know that you will do an excellent job of reviewing the report
and we'll have that chance to sit down and go through that.
Secretary Shinseki. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for the time that you
spent with me in my office several weeks ago. I appreciated the
conversation, and just the very good discussion that we had. I
also am pleased to report, I don't know if you are aware but
the vacant decision review officer position that we had talked
about has now been filed, so we greatly appreciate that, and
we're looking forward to moving with that.
During the visit that we had in late May, we spent a fair
amount of time talking about the challenges that Alaska
veterans who live off the road system, who live in the bush in
the very rural areas, the challenges that they have in
accessing their VA healthcare benefits, and we talked about
those who are diagnosed with PTSD really having to dip into
their own pockets $1,000 for an airplane ticket to get into
town to visit a counselor and the concerns. At that time we
discussed the scope of the problem, and I'm sure that within
this short time period you have not, you haven't figured out
the solutions to it, and I can appreciate that but I guess I
just want the assurance that you recognize that we have a
problem and a situation that is more than a bit unique up
there, and that you and your staff are working to help us as we
try to help those veterans.
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, as I said earlier in my
opening comments, and as I indicated to you in your office,
caring for veterans is our primary mission, that's veterans
wherever they live. I also mentioned that geography in the
United States by definitions used in the VA have three
categories. There are urban, rural, highly rural, and then I'm
not sure what category we use for those areas where there are
no roads and you can't get into them. I know that's a part of
the geography you're dealing with.
I've asked our VHA to start thinking about how we take care
of veterans in those areas, and let me just ask Dr. Cross to
provide just some insight, some of which will seek out
partnerships with the tribal healthcare program.
Dr. Cross. Senator, I think it's fair to say that we need
to adapt our services to meet the environment that they're
provided in, and to meet the needs of those veterans. I think
certainly the Alaska environment provides unique challenges for
us, so we have to be especially innovative. I notice that some
of the things that we're doing in our rural health initiatives,
and some of the things that we were doing anyway I think will
be of some benefit in this direction. Specifically in regard to
the kind of things what we now call outreach clinics, very
small clinics that we can adapt to small, more rural
environments as I believe that we're putting in Juneau, and I
think we're working on one for Homer as well. Also, the new C
Block in--correct me on my pronunciation, Mat-Su?
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Dr. Cross. Mostly we have to look at other things, and that
means where the individual can receive the service, perhaps
without traveling at all. And that's where I think the total
health initiatives come in to play very much because without
regard to weather, without regard to location, we can make
those work in more environments even where there are no roads
perhaps. Also, just getting the kind of service so the
individual does not have to come see us, so our mechanism to
provide medication by mail or through other delivery mechanisms
so they don't have to actually come and visit the pharmacy I
think is uniquely beneficial in that environment. I think we
have much to learn and much to be innovative, much innovation
to bring forward in regard to our veterans in Alaska, and I
look toward to working on that.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that, not only your
comments but, Mr. Secretary, your acknowledgment that perhaps
we need to look at Alaska as a unique and different situation,
a different set of facts, and we need to be a little more
creative, a little more nimble in how we approach, how we
deliver these benefits because our veterans should not be
denied benefits just because of where they chose to live. We
want to work with you on that. I would extend the offer again
to come up to Alaska and see for yourselves. We have been doing
some great things within the IHS system, and we'd like to see
how we can integrate that within the VA.
You mention some of the opportunities for pilots. When we
spoke, Mr. Secretary, we talked about the rural healthcare
pilot, which was supposed to roll out on the first of June, it
hasn't rolled out yet. I understand it's going to be coming out
on the 11th, but I had written to you expressed some concerns
about some of the things that we didn't see in that. There was
a lack of involvement with the provider community, exclusion of
southeast Alaska, and exclusion of behavioral health from the
pilot. I know that is something that you are looking at to
address those concerns. I don't know if you have any update at
this point in time, but when we look to the pilots I think it
is important that we're making sure that this is not just
something that somebody has thought of back in their office,
whether it's in Anchorage or Seattle, or back here in
Washington, but they're actually working within those local
communities, within those regions to make them work. If you
care to comment on that I'd appreciate it, but again I extend
that offer to come north and work with us up there as well.
Secretary Shinseki. I'm happy to visit in the summertime,
Senator.
Senator Murkowski. He has already said he has no interest
to come up in the winter, I don't understand.
Secretary Shinseki. But before then we'll be sure to get to
these issues.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Mr. Secretary and ladies and gentlemen, and thank you Mr.
Secretary for your visit to the Providence VA. It was a
wonderful trip, and it shows your commitment to our veterans,
and your constant effort to get out and walk the front lines,
so I thank you for that. That's something that you've done for
a long, long time, sir.
Let me focus just a moment on veterans homelessness. I'll
say parenthetically I had the occasion to have supper along
with colleagues, along with Admiral Mullen the chairman, and we
spent a long, long time talking about this because as someone
who is responsible for these young men and women in uniform, he
feels a continuing responsibility to the veterans who have
fought and served, and too many are on the streets. In the
fiscal year 2009 funding bill, there was an inclusion of $10
million for a demonstration program under HUD to prevent
homelessness among veterans, and HUD was directed to be the
leader on the project, but to coordinate with the Veterans
Administration and Labor Department. I simply want to hear from
you or your colleagues whether this coordination is ongoing,
what might be the status of the project.
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, it's ongoing. In fact, the
number of vouchers have been doubled with Secretary Donovan's
assistance out of HUD, so that program continues. He and I have
sat on a committee, coalition that deals with homelessness.
This is something that he and I are both working in conjunction
with other department heads. We've described homelessness as
sort of the last step in opportunities to solve some problems,
and so we do have this one and we are linking it to other
actions that have to do with healthcare, substance abuse,
mental health, jobs, education, all the things that could
interrupt the cycle.
Senator Reed. As always, sir, you've anticipated my next
question which is in the fiscal year 2010 budget the President
has requested $26 million for the VA to work in partnership
with HUD, Labor, Education, HHS, Small Business and nonprofits
to reduce homelessness. You will be in charge of that for the
Veterans Administration, is that the way the concept is?
Secretary Shinseki. That's my contribution to the work
effort, and I know that other departments have money set aside
to work.
Senator Reed. In terms of the structure, you know, the
chairman of the board if you will, will that be you, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Shinseki. It's about to change. I am the current
chair, and it's about to turn over to Secretary Donovan, and so
between the two of us we will continue working on the
committee.
Senator Reed. You will be, I presume given the nature of
the agency, trying to leverage both VA programs, and HUD
programs, and other programs--that's the whole essence of it.
Secretary Shinseki. Right.
Senator Reed. Let me do this, let me invite you to, and
your colleagues to give us any ideas you believe that are
necessary to further reduce the problem of veterans
homelessness. Again, we could stand here and make long
speeches, we all could, about what a remarkable shame it is to
have men and women who serve with distinction now not finding a
place. In fact, Admiral Mullen was talking about young veterans
of Iraq and Afghanistan in their 20's in California who are
essentially homeless.
Secretary Shinseki. Right.
Senator Reed. So this is something we've got to do, and I
want to work with you and I'm sure all my colleagues do and the
chairman to address this issue.
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I would tell you that about 6
years ago the number of homeless veterans on the streets was
about 195,000; 200,000. Today it's 131,000 and a year after,
they've been taken off the street, put through our program of
18 months to two years, and then a year after they graduate
with pretty good results on being employed, and living
independently. 131,000--I just spoke to a gathering of the
coalition here a couple weeks ago, and I said five years at
zero, we're moving to zero now. I'm not naive, I know there are
no absolutes here, and I know that there will be, you know,
more homeless veterans generated in the meantime, but my sense
is if I didn't put zero as a target, we'd be somehow far off,
further off the mark rather than giving it our best efforts.
That hasn't been cleared by the folks who look at budgets yet,
so I'm a little out ahead of them, but that's the intent.
Senator Reed. I thought that was Chairman Hutchison and
Johnson. I thought those were the ones.
Secretary Shinseki. I just had to qualify my statement.
Senator Reed. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, and thank you for making yourself available to me
recently. Thank you for changing your schedule.
Let me ask something that is interesting to me, and
something you talk about as transforming the VA and changing
the mindset there, and I think what you're talking about is
really changing the culture in the VA. Would you give us your
thoughts on how you plan to go about doing that?
Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I think changing any large
organization is pretty challenging, and I think any
organization that has a long and proud history of contributions
to the country like the VA has is also challenged to hear
someone like me come in and talk about change, but I do think
that looking at where we are, where we need to go that's an
appropriate time that we talk about transforming ourselves.
The President has asked us to do this for the 21st century,
and so we are looking at new approaches and new outcomes for
the VA, engraining new ways of thinking and acting, practicing
new ways of working with each other, delivering services better
than we ever have before.
This is a work in progress. We're putting together a plan,
but it talks about changing the climate at the VA, instilling
in our folks the sense of advocacy for veterans. It's a slight
change in our approach to our duties, but when you advocate for
something, you tend to respond differently and you clearly send
signals that are vastly different to the people, your clients
that you're serving. So that requires a training program that
touches all of our civil servants, talks about electronic
health records that we've committed to upgrading, and along
with DOD agreed that we're going to create a virtual electronic
record that will govern youngsters from the time they serve in
uniform until the time they arrive in our ranks as veterans, to
the time that we lay them to final rest. A lot of good movement
in that particular category. The President had both Secretary
Gates and I stand up with him and announce we were going to do
it, so we're moving in that direction.
Centralization oversight of contracting, $13 billion to
contract in the VA, and it's divided up in a number of
different areas, and what lacks is synergy, discipline, and
oversight, and so we're moving to bring that into order.
Senator Pryor. Can I interrupt here, because I did want to
ask that specifically.
Secretary Shinseki. Okay.
Senator Pryor. You envision that as being a separate office
within VA where all the purchasing and acquisitions office, how
is that going to be?
Secretary Shinseki. Well, I'm looking for authorization, in
fact, in this budget to establish a new office with an
Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Construction. We created an office less than a year ago,
bringing together disparate contracting authorities. What I
need to do is elevate this to Assistant Secretary level to
provide the oversight that is needed to get us the efficiencies
that we need.
Senator Pryor. One of the concerns there, I think you're on
the right track, and I like everything you've said, but one of
the concerns there would be by creating a new office are you
creating another layer of bureaucracy or another little section
of the maze there, or are you really cutting through some of
that and streamlining your operations?
Secretary Shinseki. The intent is for it to be smaller than
larger, and it's to bring together assets that are already
significantly disbursed, and get some efficiency out of it so
we have discipline and oversight.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask you about an area that we get
some complaints on sometimes in our office. As you can imagine
like a lot of other senators, we have a person in our Little
Rock office that that's pretty much all they do is work on VA
cases, and try to help veterans through the system. One of the
complaints we hear is this kind of a, I guess I'd call it a
proof of service requirement where often times when a person
goes in it's up to the veteran to prove that they served, but
these records could be decades old.
Secretary Shinseki. Sure.
Senator Pryor. That can get very, very difficult if not
impossible. I'm seems to me that between the VA and the DOD we
would have all, you the Government, we would have all the
records that we could somehow produce and verify the records if
we needed to do that. We have those resources and not the
veterans. Can we talk about that?
Secretary Shinseki. It's a little bit of--I'm going to turn
it over to Admiral Dunne here in a bit because he over watches
our benefits administration, but it's a little bit of what I
mentioned earlier here about advocacy. If we're advocating for
veterans, our approach is going to be just different. Another
aspect of this is the virtual electronic record that both DOD
and VA have agreed on, and what that means is a youngster puts
on a uniform, automatically is enrolled in the VA, and
therefore this search for records at some time later is
precluded because all those records are, in fact, in place,
electronically shared, and available when the disability claim
is initiated. This is a little harder than just talking about
it, and so we are hard at work with DOD to come to those common
protocols and let me turn to Admiral Dunne here.
Admiral Dunne. Senator, in the meantime until we can get
electronic records, we are first exercising what's considered
our duty to assist, and so whenever we do get a claim from a
veteran, we will take on the responsibility to work with DOD
and track down those records.
One of the things which we've accomplished recently as a
result of our collaboration with DOD is to establish points of
contact at each of the services so that when a regional office
is trying to find a specific record, and often times the Guard
and Reserve records are the most difficult ones to find, then
we can go straight to the relevant service and identify this
specific record that we need for a veteran, and get their
assistance in providing it, but we will if there is any record
or piece of evidence which a veteran needs for their claim, we
will take on the responsibility of doing the search to find
their records.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much Chairman Johnson and
Senator Hutchison for having this hearing today. General
Shinseki welcome, it's good to see you as well, and to all of
your folks who are working so hard.
I recently came across a VA report that was called
``Provision of Primary Care to Women Veterans,'' which
highlighted a number of problems preventing the highest quality
of primary care being provided to women veterans in the VA.
This report found that women veterans are underserved at the
VA, that primary care delivery for women veterans at the VA is
fragmented, that women receive lower quality care than their
male counterparts, that there are an insufficient number of
clinicians in the VHA with specific training and experience in
women's health issues, and that the VA's policy for women's
health is inconsistent.
While the challenges that are outlined in that report are
concerning, I do want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, and the
members of the work group that prepared that report including
Dr. Patricia Hayes, for really putting together a very thorough
report on the VA's commitment to providing quality
comprehensive healthcare for our women veterans. I wanted to
ask you today can you tell this committee what concrete steps
the VA is taking now that they have this report to eliminate
those disparities?
Secretary Shinseki. I'm going to let Dr. Cross fill in some
of the details that go to the technical issues, but as we've
discussed before and as I've indicated, there is a major change
coming in our population in veterans. In the next 10 years, 15
percent will be women, and so I am looking for the opportunity
to put in place programs, to begin putting in place programs
today that are going to be in place 10 years from now. We just
need to do that.
Senator Murray. It is the fastest growing population in the
VA, so I appreciate that.
Secretary Shinseki. It is, and a larger percentage of our
women veterans coming out of OIF/OEF are, in fact, coming to us
for care, 44 percent of that population. Whatever the
population overall, the population today of veterans in this
country is something around 23 million, that will adjust over
time, but whatever that number is, whether it's 20 million or
18 million, 15 percent is going to be a huge percentage, and we
need to do things that, that report is outlining for us as
corrections that need to be made, and that's part of the reason
we asked for that report.
Senator Murray. I'd just like to know what you're doing now
to address those concerns.
Dr. Cross. Senator Murray, with your permission I'll
mention a couple of the things that we're doing, and then I'll
be frank about a couple of the challenges that I'm concerned
about. There's a lot going on in regard to advancing the cause
for women's health within the VA. You certainly know about the
women's health coordinators, the program managers that we put
in 143 sites already, and I think I have one site to go, and
then several more sites where we're going to put points of
contact as well. You know that we're interested in outreach,
and so we are concerned that some women have not yet used our
services or come to see us, so we are making arrangements to--
we did this with the OEF/OIF we set up a contract with someone
to call OEF/OIF veterans and say how are you doing, can we be
of any help to you, have you tried the VA, are you aware of our
services. We're going to do this specifically now for women,
specifically targeted with information, specifically targeted
with the type of questions that we ask to engage them. We're
supporting legislation, or we have testified on this for
newborn care, the training, the environment of care. Patti and
I have talked about a program to move that forward, to make
sure that our environment of care in our primary care clinics
especially is as well-adapted for privacy and all the needs of
women veterans.
Senator Murray. Are you doing one stop primary care visits
for women veterans at all of our VA facilities?
Dr. Cross. At each of our primary care sites we want to
have the capability to provide most of their needs in that
regard. I think what you're referring to is GYN exams and those
kinds of things.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Dr. Cross. That's where we're going.
Senator Murray. We're going there. Okay.
Dr. Cross. I really dislike the idea of you get this
service at this place, and that service at this place, even if
it's within the same hospital, particularly if you have to come
back for another appointment. That's not the design that I'm
interested in. We looked at quality in regard to women's
healthcare, and we monitor this very closely. We also compared
with our civilian sector. There's still a gap, and even in our
system where cost may not be an issue and we provided even such
things as flu shots where women don't get them quite as
frequently as we think they should.
Senator Murray. Right.
Dr. Cross. Having said that, we're doing better than our
civilian colleagues on those same measures. That doesn't give
me much comfort. I need to do better within our own system, so
those are the kinds of things that we are pushing forward to
make a difference in regard to women's healthcare.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I want to continue to work on
this issue. Senator Hutchison and I and other women senators
are pushing hard on a women's health bill that we hope to get
out----
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Senator Murray [continuing]. At some point. And we will
continue to push you on this, just so you know, and we expect
to hear progress on a lot of the work, but I'm glad we're
finally together and focused on it. That is a major step
forward.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, State veterans homes are an
integral part of our VA's long-term care system, and according
to the GAO they provide more than 50 percent of the VA's
patient workload in nursing homes. Under current law the VA can
provide up to 65 percent of the cost of constructing or
renovating one of these State veterans homes through the
account which includes grants for State extended care
facilities. We included $150 million in the economic recovery
package for the construction of additional State veterans homes
through this program. And as you know, a number of States now
have either withdrawn or deferred their applications for this
Federal funding because of their large budget deficits. That
lack of State matching funds is especially problematic in areas
where the VA is closing down longterm care facilities, and I am
now working on legislation to give the VA authority to provide
grants that cover a larger proportion of these construction
costs in certain emergency situations. For example, if a State
is facing a massive budget shortfall, and the proposed State
veterans home is intended to replace a closed VA operated
facility. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Secretary Shinseki. Not at the moment, Senator. Let me get
into the details of what you're describing here,----
Senator Murray. Yes.
Secretary Shinseki [continuing]. And provide you a better
answer for the record.
Senator Murray. Okay. I'm very concerned about this, and I
know it's impacting my State and a number of other States, and
as a result we're working on this legislation. And I'd like to
work with you and whoever you tell us so we can move that
forward.
Secretary Shinseki. Absolutely. I'm dealing with a
situation like this in at least one other State and trying to
figure out what options we have.
Senator Murray. Okay. Good.
Secretary Shinseki. I'll work with you on that.
Senator Murray. Great. And I am also interested in the
issue of veterans unemployment. I know you talked about working
with the Department of Defense and Department of Labor to
address that problem, so I look forward--my time is up at this
point, but I look forward to having more conversations with you
about that.
Secretary Shinseki. Absolutely.
Senator Murray. I'm very concerned about these men and
women who are coming home and don't have a job, and where we've
left them. So I appreciate dialogue with you about that in the
future. And finally, Mr. Chairman, before I turn the mike back
over, I know you're coming up to Spokane, in my home State in a
little over a month for the VA wheelchair games that are
occurring there. You should know that every one from the
veterans to the community members, all the Spokane VA
employees, to their medical center director, Sharon Hellman:
they've all been working very, very hard to make those games a
success, so we look forward to seeing you out in our State for
that very important event.
Secretary Shinseki. Thank you, Senator.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor, do you have any additional
questions?
Secretary Shinseki, I want to thank you and your colleagues
for appearing before this subcommittee today. I look forward to
working with you this year.
For the information of members, questions for the record
should be submitted by the close of business on June 16.
[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
Question. Secretary Shinseki, could you please provide me with some
information regarding Project Hero? I am concerned about the size and
scope of the pilot program. The program is supposed to augment care by
the VA, not replace it. My understanding is that one of these pilots is
currently operating in South Dakota. Can you provide me with the annual
cost of that specific program?
Answer. Project Healthcare Effectiveness through Resource
Optimization (HERO) is a pilot program that augments VA care and helps
Veterans access the local health care they need when the medical
expertise or technology is not readily available within the Department
of Veterans Affairs. The ultimate goal of Project HERO is to ensure
that all health care delivered by VA, either through VA providers or
community partners, is of comparable quality and consistency for
Veterans. All care is still managed by VA.
Project HERO contracts do exist in South Dakota as part of VISN
23's involvement in the demonstration effort. The two VAMCs in South
Dakota that are part of Project HERO are the Sioux Falls VA Medical
Center and the VA Black Hills Health Care System in Fort Meade and Hot
Springs. Thus far in fiscal year 2009, Sioux Falls expended $222,209
and Black Hills expended $104,427 for the health care and associated
services involved in the provision of that care. This represents only
7.9 percent of the total purchased care expenditures in Sioux Falls and
1.4 percent in Black Hills.
Question. How much is the VA spending annually on this program?
Answer. Project Hero contract expenditures for the four VISNs where
the contracts are operational (VISNs 8, 16, 20, and 23).
DISBURSED DOLLAR AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISN Budgets
Timeframe Project HERO (8, 16, 20 & Project HERO
Disbursements 23) percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 \1\......................................... $7,797,071 $8,973,617,617 0.09
Fiscal year 2009 \2\......................................... 26,370,526 9,470,719,115 0.28
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project HERO Disbursements Jan-Sep 2008, VISN Budgets are obligations as of Sep 30, 2008.
\2\ Project HERO Disbursements through May 2009, VISN Budgets (VERA allocation, reimbursements and collections)
are as of May 31, 2009.
Question. How does the VA, both at the local level and at
headquarters, oversee the quality of care provided through Project
HERO?
Answer. The Project HERO Program Management Office (PMO) ensures
Veterans receive VA-comparable care through a clinical quality
management program. The Project HERO Governing Board, comprised of
leaders from VA, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and participating
VISNs, oversees quality, reports on Project HERO activities, and
approves changes in terms, quantities, or conditions of the Project
HERO contracts.
--The PMO tracks patient safety events, accreditation/credentialing
status, clinical information returned to VA for continuity of
care, and timely access to care.
--Humana Veterans Healthcare Services (HVHS) and Delta Dental track
and trend quality and safety events, as well as complaints and
grievances, and provide peer review oversight.
--The PMO surveys Project HERO patients and compares the results with
the VA Survey of Healthcare Experiences of Patients (SHEP).
Overall satisfaction with HVHS providers is 73 percent and
overall satisfaction with Delta Dental services is 91 percent.
Question. What procedures are in place to ensure that contract
providers make proper referrals to the VA or outside the VA when
veterans need specialty care or other referrals?
Answer. VA providers determine when referrals are needed and
whether or not non-VA care is appropriate. When care is referred
outside VA, whether through Project HERO, another contract vehicle or
through Fee care, VA remains responsible for reviewing recommendations
for further care and determining the appropriate venue.
Question. Where else are pilots operating--both by VISN and by
health care system?
Answer. Project HERO operates within four Veterans Integrated
Service Networks (VISNs): 8, 16, 20 and 23.
VISN 8: VA Sunshine Health Care Network.--Includes southern Georgia
and most of Florida. It does not include Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands. The stations included in this VISN are: Bay Pines, Miami, West
Palm Beach, Gainesville/N.FL/S.GA, and Tampa/Orlando.
VISN 16: South Central VA Health Care Network.--Includes Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and portions of the States of Texas,
Missouri, Alabama, and Florida. The stations included in this VISN are:
Alexandria, Gulf Coast (Biloxi), Fayetteville, Houston, GV Montgomery
(Jackson), Central AR HCS (Little Rock), Muskogee, New Orleans,
Oklahoma City, and Overton Brooks (Shreveport).
VISN 20: Northwest Network.--Includes Washington State, Oregon,
most of the State of Idaho, and one county each in Montana and
California. It does not include Alaska. The stations included in this
VISN are: Boise, Portland, Roseburg, Puget Sound, Spokane, Walla Walla,
and South Oregon Rehab Center (White City).
VISN 23: VA Midwest Health Care Network.--Includes Iowa, Minnesota,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and portions of northern Kansas,
Missouri, western Illinois, western Wisconsin, and eastern Wyoming. The
stations included in this VISN in addition to Sioux Falls and Black
Hills are: Fargo, Fort Meade, Minneapolis, Nebraska-Western Iowa
(Omaha/Grand Island/Lincoln), Central Iowa, Iowa City, and St. Cloud.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Has the Department finalized the design and cost estimate
for the New Orleans VA Hospital? If so, could you please provide me
that cost and what it includes? Did you eliminate aspects of the design
to reduce cost? If so, is the design scalable to allow for later
additions with additional funds?
Answer. Schematic design has been completed for the New Orleans
project, and design development is underway. The Department's Five Year
Capital Plan submitted along with the fiscal year 2010 budget
identifies the cost as $925 million. The total cost of the project will
be dependent upon whether LSU can commit to a joint energy and utility
plant feeding both hospitals. As the design progresses, VA is
considering changes to aspects of the design to reduce cost, but
maintain the capacity to meet the health care needs of Veterans that
will be served by the new facility. The project is being designed to
accommodate future expansion, and construction will be phased to allow
it to start as soon as design is complete. Additional funding will be
requested in a future budget to complete later phases of the project.
Question. Will the delay with the LSU facility have an impact on
the timeline for the VA Hospital?
Answer. VA's design and construction timeline can proceed
independent of the LSU facility. The cost of VA's facility, however,
depends upon LSU committing to a joint energy and utility plant feeding
both hospitals. If a decision on a combined plant cannot be reached by
the time VA concludes the design development phase in December 2009, VA
will have to move forward with building its own utility plant.
Question. The notion of using electronic medical records and
enhanced IT tools to serve the veterans is a good step in the right
direction. My office has received many letters detailing how difficult
it has been for certain veterans to file claims and receive benefits
simply because the process is disorganized and inefficient. How long do
you believe it will take to implement these electronic processes? And
once implemented, how long until we see a positive turnaround on
processing claims?
Answer. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is currently
working to transform its benefits delivery model to a paperless
environment. A key benefit of this transformation is a common method
for Veterans' self-service, which will greatly enhance access to both
general and claim-specific information and allow Veterans to directly
submit evidence in support of their claims.
VBA will enhance its technical capabilities through a phased
deployment strategy to facilitate continuous improvements in benefits
delivery and claims processing. Coupled with technology, VBA is
implementing a comprehensive business transformation strategy supported
by an industry leader in business transformation and organizational
change management. The business transformation contractor assists VBA
in maximizing the capabilities of planned technology. VBA's goal is to
be processing in a substantially paperless environment by the end of
2012.
Question. Coming from a State that is consistently under threat
from with hurricanes and flooding, one of my primary concerns is care
of our elderly citizens' and disabled veterans' during these natural
disasters. When veterans are displaced due to these natural disasters,
does the VA have solid emergency plans for their VA facilities treating
veterans at the time of the disaster? If a veteran cannot return to his
or her home immediately, how do you provide them instructions for how
to receive medical care in displaced locations?
Answer. Yes, VHA does have solid emergency plans for VA facilities
treating Veterans at time of disasters. The Veterans Health
Administration plans, organizes, equips, trains and exercises for
disasters and emergencies common to their environment and in accordance
with both The Joint Commission standards for Emergency Management and
the National Incident Management System. VHA has developed a
Comprehensive Emergency Management Program (CEMP) that ensures all VA
medical centers develop, update, test and evaluate their emergency
operations plans and programs on a continuous basis. VHA facility plans
encompass extension facilities, such as outpatient clinics, community
living centers, domiciliary units and home-based primary care programs.
During a disaster, VHA medical center executives determine whether
to shelter in place or evacuate their facility, based primarily on the
safety of Veterans and employees. Utilizing a decision support system
that weighs the disaster risk to the facility against the need to
safely move Veteran patients, the VHA medical center director's
decision is coordinated with the Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) Director and the VA Corporate Operations Center in consultation
with the Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and
Management (DUSHOM).
Question. As you know, there is a huge crisis in our country
concerning homeless veterans. What sort of ideas or programs do you
have concerning States, such as Louisiana, for when natural disasters
strike and the homeless veterans are left behind or displaced?
Answer. There has been a long term effort to provide services for
Veterans and families in need of homeless services. Our latest effort,
the Housing and Urban Development--Veterans Affairs Supported Housing
(HUD-VASH) Program, has already shown great results in serving Veterans
families including women Veterans and Veterans with children. A total
of 315 Housing Choice Vouchers (section 8) HUD-VASH vouchers have been
allocated to provide permanent housing resources for Veterans and
families in Louisiana over the last 2 years. We know based upon our
transitional housing program that these programs address the conditions
you describe regarding displaced homeless Veterans. The VA's Homeless
Providers Grant and Per Diem Program has a total of 348 (223 post
Katrina) authorized beds at 14 locations with community non-profit
providers in Louisiana.
Question. Speaking about creating an environment of advocacy and
change within the Department of Veterans Affairs is a positive idea.
Perhaps there could be more jobs created within the Department for
veterans to act as advisers during this process of change? Going
further, perhaps homeless veterans could be identified and trained to
give support to the new program and use their knowledge of veterans
needs to teach those who are creating policy? Have you considered such
an approach?
Answer. The Department of Veterans Affairs is very committed to
achieving a high ratio of Veterans among its workforce. Your suggestion
to identify new ways of reaching out to Veterans--including homeless
Veterans--is a welcome one that can help further the effort to employ
Veterans. I also agree that the VA will be successful only if it
listens to our Veterans to better understand their needs and to better
serve them in the future.
There are some ways in which the VA currently works with homeless
Veterans to help them gain employment. These include the Compensated
Work Therapy Program and Recovery Model programs. As we undergo
development of new efforts to meet new Veteran needs in the 21st
Century, we will explore how to enhance our effort to train Veterans to
work at the VA. I welcome your suggestions in this ongoing effort.
Further expanding on the idea of the importance of Veteran
experience, I would note VA's Office of Mental Health Services has
developed Recovery Model programs focusing on peer to peer support for
Veterans helping Veterans. Homeless Veterans Programs and Psychosocial
Programs have embraced the recovery model. VA has hired Veterans as
peer support positions in recovery programs. VA has hired Veterans
discharged from the Compensated Work Therapy Program. VA will explore
the feasibility of having homeless and formerly homeless Veterans from
the CWT program assist with the development of services and program
policy.
Question. Last year VA was directed to establish an office for
survivors, a desk that would have staff focused on survivor issues.
When will that office be operational?
Answer. The Office was created on December 22, 2008 and set up
under the Office of the Secretary. Four employees were immediately
detailed to the Office to start working on the mission as defined by
Congress. A Director and one permanent employee have been selected and
the remaining personnel will be chosen soon. The Office has been
gathering baseline data to see what VA offers for survivors and
dependents. We've been evaluating various programs, such as comparing
CHAMPVA to TRICARE. The law States CHAMPVA needs to offer the same or
similar benefits as TRICARE. We've finished with our analysis and are
evaluating recommendations for improvement in CHAMPVA.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
Question. The DOD and VA have taken crucial steps toward creating a
Joint Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER), as announced by President
Obama on April 9, 2009. (The vision for this initiative is for all
current and future service members, Veterans, and eligible family
members to have a VLER that will encapsulate all data necessary to
uniquely identify them and ensure the delivery of care and benefits for
which they are eligible).
What do you think about VLER and where are we in the funding
process to begin to implement its collaboration with in the Services?
Answer. The Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record is extremely
important to Veterans, VA and our service providers. We have moved
quickly to assign staff to aggressively develop VA's vision, plan and
approach for delivering a VLER capability. VLER is a critically
important endeavor that will incorporate not only collaboration between
VA and DOD but also include other Federal agencies and private
industry. Current activities include development, review and acceptance
of VA's VLER Strategic Vision by the JEC, redrafting of the Interagency
Program Office's operating charter to mitigate issues regarding its
functions and authority, extensive outreach to HHS, assessment of
integration opportunities within the existing IT investment portfolio
to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of resourcing for VLER
initiatives, and drafting and development of the master plan for VLER
demonstrations that would leverage existing IT investments and
initiatives. With respect to the specific question of funding, initial
start-up funding will be provided to support a program office for VLER.
Because the 2010 budget request had already been prepared prior to VLER
start-up, 2010 funds will need to be identified within existing
resources to proceed with VLER. Assessment of the IT investment
portfolio is also required in order to evaluate whether or not current
investments might be leveraged directly to support VLER.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Question. Mr. Secretary, it is everyone's goal to leverage
information technology to have veterans seamlessly transition from the
DOD to the VA. However, an Inspector General's audit of VA IT projects
revealed that 40 are on OMB's Management Watch List, and 37 are on
OMB's High Risk IT Project List. The Inspector General cited those
projects as being poorly planned and poorly performing and singles out
the HealtheVet Project as ``not having a comprehensive project
management plan to guide the development and integration of sub-
projects.'' One of these sub-projects, a scheduling application,
recently failed during its deployment at the cost of 8 years and $167
million. The report also States that the HealtheVet program ``lacks a
fully implemented governance structure.'' As a result, the project
completion date has slipped from 2012 to 2018. Mr. Secretary, the VA
plans to invest $360 million in 2010 and $11 billion overall into a
project that is said to be poorly planned and poorly performing. This
project is of great importance to our veterans, and I do not want it to
fail.
Given the recent failure of the scheduling application and last
month's Inspector General reports, how do you justify a 30 percent
increase in Information Technology spending to $3.3 billion when so
many of your projects and programs seem to lack basic IT project
management oversight? How will you fix this management capability?
Answer. The actual increase in information technology spending
requested for 2010 is 20 percent and supports a number of high priority
development projects such as Chapter 33, FLITE, and the Paperless
Delivery of Benefits Initiative. A large part of the requested increase
is to hire more IT staff, directly addressing cited weaknesses in IT
project management oversight. Another significant increase is to
maintain and strengthen our IT infrastructure.
The VA has taken strong steps and a proactive approach towards
addressing IT project management weaknesses. The Department has
directed that IT projects be managed using incremental development
methodologies. This approach requires close collaboration between
developers and business owners to produce substantive deliverables on a
6-month schedule to achieve near-term, incremental successes. This
approach provides more transparency to management, ensuring potential
risks and failures are identified and effectively addressed earlier in
the development life cycle. All new VA IT projects must utilize
incremental development methodology and be compliant with the VA's
newly implemented Program Management Accountability System (PMAS),
while existing IT projects must adopt both incremental development and
PMAS compliance within one calendar year.
Question. To improve the oversight role of this subcommittee, can
you please provide us with additional details relating to all IT
projects and programs, including HealtheVet, that will receive proposed
funding in fiscal year 2010? Specifically, will the Department produce
a list of defined requirements, a detailed cost schedule, and a
timeline on a project-by-project basis.
Answer. The Office of Information and Technology is in the process
of collecting information relative to your questions and will provide a
response to the Committee not later than July 31, 2009.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA is in the process of
reworking its existing Guide and Service Dog program. As part of this
effort, VA has already drafted new regulations that are currently
undergoing review prior to their submission to the Federal Register.
After an opportunity for public response to these regulations, VA will
then review the public comments, edit the regulations as may be
necessary, and then submit the regulations for final publishing.
During this process, Guide and Service Dogs will continue to be
provided to eligible Veterans whose attending physicians have
documented an individual Veteran's identified need. Pending
implementation of our new program and publication of the new
regulations, VA will continue to work with accredited organizations to
provide dogs to Veterans at no charge. VA will also continue to support
the payment of the dogs' veterinary care and supportive hardware as
required assistive devices.
Subject to the number of public comments resulting from the public
comment period, VA anticipates that the final version of the Guide and
Service Dogs regulations will be published in the Federal Register
prior to December 30th, 2009.
background
--VA IT Consolidation initiate in 2007
--Primary purpose is to improve the results of VA IT investments
--Replacement Scheduling Application Failure
--VA commitment to review all ongoing development programs
--New Secretary/Deputy Secretary/CIO confirmed
--Significant Senate questioning on how to address program issues
analysis of ongoing programs
--280+ programs reviewed to date
--8 program attributes analyzed
--Many programs exhibit signs of trouble
--Greater than 13 months behind schedule
--Greater than 50 percent over initial cost estimate
--Decrease in software quality between releases
--Inadequate skills to complete program
--Substantial change is required
incremental development
--All new VA IT projects/programs must use an incremental development
approach
--Frequent customer delivery milestones
--At most every 6 months
--Customer must test and accept functionality
--To be approved for investment, a program or project must have:
--An identified customer sponsor
--Program plan that documents frequent delivery milestones
--Documented, agreed to requirements for initial milestones
--Clear plan for necessary program disciplines
--Clear access to necessary program resources
--Customer, program, and vendor acceptance of PMAS
--Jointly established success criteria
program management accountability system (pmas)
--All incremental development programs will be managed rigorously to
schedule
--A program/project will be halted on its third missed customer
delivery milestone
--Once halted, substantial changes must be made before the program
can restart
--Need for program/project will be re-assessed
--Program approach will be re-assessed
--Make/buy and program design decisions will be re-assessed
--New Program Manager will be assigned (rotational/training
assignment)
--A portion of the government program staff will be reassigned
(rotational/training)
--All service contracts will be re-visited
--New program plan must be approved
--Flexibility can be earned
--Multiple successful milestones between strikes
--Clear improvement in management between first and second strike
--Significant advance warning of missed milestone provided to CIO
program manager benefits
--Clear decision criteria
--Impact on schedule will drive program choices
--Better program control
--Success factors must be in place before program start
--Decreased requirements creep
--Impact on schedule will force hard decisions
--New requirements factored into later release schedules
--Clear customer participation
--Must test and approve each release
--Clearly impacted by program halt
--Clear vendor attention and participation
--Motivated to help program meet milestones
--Increased probability of successful program
va benefits
--Eliminate ``big bang'' program/project failures
--Near-term visibility into troubled programs
--Able to provide help if possible
--Avoid long-term failures
--Better insight into scarce resources
--Frequent deliveries to customer ensures program/project
functionality, quality, response, etc.
--Increased probability of successful programs
implementation
--Incremental development is required for all new IT programs/
projects starting as of 6/15/2009
--All incremental development programs will be managed by PMAS
effective 6/15/2009
--VA will pause a number of Programs/projects identified as in
jeopardy
--Program plan re-cast for incremental development
--New plan must be PMAS compliant
--New program plan must be approved by CIO before program resumes
--Within one year, all VA IT programs and projects will be
incremental development/PMAS compliant
--Programs that remain within 10 percent of original program plan
(schedule, cost, function) may be excepted
Question. Mr. Secretary, you have mentioned your plans to
``transform the VA into a 21st Century organization.'' We would like to
work with you as you embark on such a large undertaking.
Can you please clarify what these new initiatives are and from what
appropriations account you intend to fund them?
Answer. Transformation of the VA into a 21st century organization
will take more than one year, but the fiscal year 2010 budget is the
first real opportunity for VA and the Congress to move out on this
important mission. Our review of the VA fundamentals is still in
process. We have heard from stakeholders, and will continue to partner
with them at every opportunity to improve our service to Veterans. Much
of our review is informed by Congressional input and I greatly value
those contributions.
VA is focusing its transformation efforts to more efficiently and
effectively deliver care and benefits, enhance the Veteran experience
in all interactions with the VA, and improve awareness and access to VA
services. Our work to date has already identified a number of
opportunities to change VA in fundamental ways that will benefit our
client--the Veteran--while doing things smarter and more effectively.
As part of an ongoing review of all VA programs and spending, the
VA leadership is developing new initiatives to be implemented in fiscal
year 2010 that improve quality, increase access, and enhance
performance while controlling costs. These build upon the efforts
already in the fiscal year 2010 request and augment several major new
initiatives already underway, including the implementation of the Post
9/11 GI Bill, the most extensive educational assistance program
authorized since the original GI Bill, and the extension of care to
265,000 Priority 8 Veterans. In addition, VA and The Department of
Defense have partnered to create a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record
to ensure that soldiers leaving the Armed Services are quickly and
easily transitioned into the VA.
We are in the process of identifying additional opportunities to
adjust our investment portfolio for the benefit of Veterans. These new
initiatives will not change the fiscal year 2010 budget top line.
Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress's 2010 Budget Resolution includes
a provision that would allow for advance appropriations for the VA's
medical care accounts, meaning fiscal year 2011 funding could be
provided during the 2010 appropriations cycle. I know you have publicly
supported the idea of advance appropriations, but it was not included
in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request. If Congress decides
to provide an advance appropriation, I want to be sure the Department
can provide us with an accurate estimate so we can properly budget for
the health care network that supports our Nation's veterans.
Does the Department have the ability to provide the Congress with
an accurate estimate of its fiscal year 2011 requirements during this
year's appropriations cycle, or do you need more time to work on it?
Answer. Yes, VA provided the request for advance appropriations for
fiscal year 2011 to Chairman Johnson in a letter from Secretary
Shinseki on June 12, 2009, as a result of Chairman Johnson's request
for this information during the June 11, 2009, Appropriations Hearing.
Advance appropriations will help support a reliable and timely
resource stream to support the delivery of accessible and high-quality
medical services to our Veterans. It also builds on the solid
foundation set in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget as we take
the early first steps to transform VA into a 21st century organization.
VA is seeking support for a request for advance appropriations for
fiscal year 2011 of $48.183 billion for the three medical care
appropriations to support estimated growth to 6.1 million patients.
This would represent an increase of 8.3 percent over the President's
fiscal year 2010 appropriation request of $44.498 billion. The fiscal
year 2011 total is comprised of $37.136 billion for Medical Services,
$5.307 billion for Medical Support and Compliance, and $5.740 billion
for Medical Facilities. In addition to the appropriated resource level
we anticipate collections in the amount of $3.355 billion, for a total
advance appropriations resource level of $51.538 billion.
This estimate is based in part on the VA Enrollee Health Care
Projection Model (VA model) using fiscal year 2008 as the base year,
which is the most recent actual data available. The model continues to
support the initiative of providing additional enrollment access for
over 500,000 previously ineligible Priority Group 8 Veterans by 2013.
Our estimate also includes resources for programs that are not
projected by the VA model. These programs include long-term care, the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, Vet Centers, and the State home per diem program.
The advance appropriations estimate will ensure timely funding at
the beginning of fiscal year 2011 for VA's three medical care
appropriations. We have made significant improvements over the past
years in calculating and monitoring our resource needs. The Department
and the Office of Management and Budget are in agreement on this
request. We will continue to jointly monitor medical care cost and
performance indicators on a monthly basis and will make any needed
adjustments to the requested fiscal year 2011 advance appropriation
level during the regular process of formulating the President's fiscal
year 2011 Budget this fall. In addition, funding for new medical care
program initiatives will be considered in the formulation of the
President's Budget later this year. It is during this process that we
will also identify the resources needed to support medical information
technology and capital construction program budgets.
Question. Do you intend to include more than ``Health Care'' in
your estimate of the financial need for 2011.
If yes, why not just include the ``Health Care'' needs in your
estimate and submit the new initiatives and other accounts for the
normal appropriations review process?
Answer. VA included only the three medical care appropriations in
the request we sent to Congress on June 12, 2009, for fiscal year 2011
advance appropriations.
Question. Does OMB plan to submit an estimate for 2011?
Answer. VA submitted a request for fiscal year 2011 advance
appropriations to Congress on June 12, 2009, for the three medical care
appropriations. VA and OMB are in agreement on this request.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department has a significant unfunded
liability on its major construction projects. Currently in 2009, the
Department has 14 ongoing projects that are partially funded, with a
cumulative remaining need on those projects of more than $2.8 billion.
Despite this need, the Department is proposing to start 7 new projects
in its fiscal year 2010 request. This would increase the Department's
unfunded liability to nearly $4.5 billion for ongoing projects.
Does the Department have a Five-Year Capital Plan to guide its
major construction projects that often span several fiscal years? If
so, will the Department please provide that Five-Year Capital Plan to
the subcommittee?
Answer. While the Department does submit a Five Year Capital Plan
with its Congressional Justifications each year, it is important to
note that this plan will most likely change in the out-years based upon
various factors including: the actual annual major construction funding
appropriation provided; schedule changes for any current partially-
funded projects, and the incorporation of additional new projects added
and scored during the capital investment process in future budget
cycles. That said, it is the Department's policy to prioritize
partially funded projects from previous years, provided those projects
are ready to execute within the budget year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. The proposed VA hospital in Louisville is currently
stalled.
In addition to the project in Louisville, what other VA hospital
construction projects have a pending site selection process?
Answer. Other than Louisville, VA is not in the site selection
phase related to the construction of new or replacement hospitals at
any other location.
Question. How long have these other projects been awaiting site
selection? When can we expect the VA to select a site in Louisville?
Answer. The Department has contracted with the architectural firm
selected to design the new facilities to conduct a feasibility study to
further explore the potential for locating the facilities at the site
of the existing VA medical center on Zorn Avenue. The study will also
evaluate the location near the University of Louisville in downtown
Louisville and consider the potential of an unidentified green field
site elsewhere in the metropolitan area. This study is scheduled to be
completed in October of this year. It is expected that before the end
of the calendar year, the Department will select the preferred location
of the facilities. At that time, environmental due diligence in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act will be conducted
which will then permit the final decision on the site to be made.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
Question. The Alaska Legislature recently authorized Governor Palin
to seek VA funding to establish Alaska's first State Veterans Cemetery
which will be sited in Interior Alaska. However, I understand that VA
funding for projects like this may not be immediately available due to
a shortfall in Veterans Cemetery funding which places new projects on a
waiting list. How much funding would the VA require to eliminate this
shortfall? Based upon expected funding levels for the State Veterans
Cemetery program how long would you have to expect that the State of
Alaska would have to wait between the date upon which it submits its
application for the cemetery and the date it would actually receive VA
grant funding?
Answer. The State of Alaska submitted a preapplication for the
Fairbanks Veterans Cemetery on March 23, 2009, and was assigned Federal
Application Identifier (FAI) AK-09-01. On March 27, 2009, State
Cemetery Grants Service notified Mr. Jerry Beale, Director, Alaska
Veterans Office that the project was viable and would be ranked with
all other pending preapplications in the fiscal year 2010 Priority
List. The priority list is annually developed, is approved by the
Secretary, and is the basis for providing grant opportunities during
the fiscal year. To be ranked in the highest group, States and tribal
governments must submit legislation authorizing the project and the
certification that funds for architectural and engineering fees are
available to begin the project by the August 15 deadline. These fees
are reimbursable to grant recipients. We have been in recent contact
with Mr. Verdie Bowen, Administrator, Office of Veterans Affairs,
requesting the signed legislation and funds certification. It is
expected to be submitted by the State prior to the deadline. The
project would be developed to serve the 10,800 veterans in the
Fairbanks/North Star area.
Until the August 15, 2009, deadline is reached and the fiscal year
2010 Priority List is approved, it is not possible to estimate the
funds needed to offer the State of Alaska a grant opportunity.
Projects are ranked in accordance with Title 38 CFR 39.7. The
Alaska project would be ranked in Priority Group 2 with 10,800 unserved
Veterans. The priority groups are defined as follows:
--Priority Group 1.--Projects needed to avoid disruption in burial
service that would otherwise occur at existing Veterans'
cemeteries within 4 years of the date of the preapplication.
Such projects would include expansion projects as well as
improvement projects (such as construction of additional or
replacement facilities) when such improvements are required to
continue interment operations.
--Priority Group 2.--Projects for the establishment of new Veterans'
cemeteries.
--Priority Group 3.--Expansion projects at existing Veterans'
cemeteries when a disruption in burial service due to the
exhaustion of existing gravesites is not expected to occur
within 4 years of the date of the preapplication.
--Priority Group 4.--Other improvement projects to cemetery
infrastructure such as building expansion and upgrades to roads
and irrigation systems that are not directly related to the
development of new gravesites.
It is anticipated that 32 projects in priority groups 1 and 2 will
be on the fiscal year 2010 Priority List. The value of those projects
is $170 million. It is anticipated that not all projects in priority
groups 1 and 2 will submit the documentation and will not rank high
enough to receive a fiscal year 2010 grant opportunity. In fiscal year
2009, there were 11 such projects with a value of $44 million.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs are
moving forward with jointly operated hospitals and clinics in several
areas where existing facilities are co-located. One such facility is in
my State of Mississippi.
After Hurricane Katrina, Keesler Medical Center and the Biloxi VAMC
used a ``centers of excellence'' approach to identify the best services
at each of the two facilities and consolidate those services when
possible and practical. Some activities are completely consolidated,
with staffs working side-by side with one another, and other services
have a partnership where they have the capability to ``trade'' doctors
and nurses when required. In 2007, Keesler Medical Center and the Gulf
Coast Veterans Health Care System in Biloxi were granted official
joint-venture status.
Currently, DOD and VA are working towards complete consolidation
between the North Chicago VAMC and the Naval Great Lakes Health System
in Chicago. They are finding many obstacles along the way regarding
funding mechanisms, facilities ownership, personnel transfer, and
information technology. For example, one of the biggest issues
impacting all future joint venture sites is the lack of a common
medical record between the Department of Defense and the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Consequently, staff must learn both systems when
working at a joint venture facility, which is neither time- nor cost-
efficient.
Joint cooperation has provided great benefit to veterans and
service members in the Gulf Coast region. However, the Air Force
Surgeon General expressed concerns that complete consolidation between
Keesler and Biloxi VAMC could be a detriment to the Air Force mission.
Question. Secretary Shinseki, can you comment on the current
relationship between Keesler and Biloxi VAMC, and give me your thoughts
on the impacts of complete consolidation there?
Answer. The Keesler Air Force Medical Center (81st Medical Group)
and the Biloxi VA Medical Center (VA Gulf Coast Veterans Health Care
System) have maintained a supportive and collaborative relationship for
decades. Hurricane Katrina inflicted heavy damage on both medical
centers. Following Katrina, TRICARE Management Activity and VA
developed a strategy to maximize sharing/joint services. In 2007,
developing Centers of Excellence (COE) became the preferred strategy.
Although sharing between the facilities has a long history, complete
consolidation of Keesler/Biloxi is not the goal. The two medical
centers are in close proximity. This offers each the flexibility to
meet their core mission requirements while sharing services where and
when appropriate. The COE model is clinically focused. It emphasizes
joint communication and planning. Meetings are conducted at all levels
to maintain the day-to-day management structure of each medical center.
Question. Is the VA moving forward with complete consolidation at
Keesler or any other joint venture sites?
Answer. The current focus is consolidation where it makes sense
rather than consolidation of all services. Both medical centers will
retain independent management and operations. They will share oversight
of all joint activities. Because of challenges based on differences in
medical records, business rules and regulations, each COE will, by
necessity, be carefully evaluated prior to the implementation of new
sharing agreements. In June 2008, Keesler/Biloxi developed a COE
Concept of Operations to evaluate progress towards consolidation based
on a domain-based level of interface matrix that tracks nine domains
that includes: clinical services, facilities, staffing, business
processes, management/governance, information management and
information technology, logistics, education and training, and
research.
Each domain is evaluated based on movement along a five-element
continuum--(1) separated, (2) coordinated, (3) connected, (4)
integrated and, (5) consolidated. Not all nine domains will end at the
consolidated state depending on the circumstances and the feasibility
of doing so. The process is measured and deliberate. Joint Incentive
Funds (JIF) were used to develop and refine the COE concept. JIF funds
in fiscal year 2007 provided resources for a Joint Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI) Center and a Joint Cardiovascular Care Center at Keesler.
In fiscal year 2008 the JIF provided funding to administratively
support the COE implementation. Pending JIFs would fund the renovations
of space for joint use at Keesler, and establish infrastructure for
Joint Business Operations. Joint initiatives currently include a Sleep
Lab on the Biloxi Campus and a Joint Women's Health Clinic. Other
sharing initiatives are in various stages of planning and development.
Question. Has the VA considered duplicating the model at Keesler/
Biloxi VAMC at other joint venture sites?
Answer. An Executive Management Team at Keesler/Biloxi meets bi-
monthly to set priorities and provide oversight on the sharing or
realignment of services. This group quickly realized there are
overlapping areas of responsibilities along the Gulf Coast. The team
expanded and now includes: the Commander, 81st Medical Group, Keesler
AFB; the Director, VA Gulf Coast Veterans Health Care System; the
Commanding Officer, Naval Hospital Pensacola, Florida; and the
Commander, 96th Medical Group, Eglin AFB, Florida. The Under Secretary
of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) met with the Deputy Secretary of
Veterans Affairs in March 2008 to discuss developing model programs for
Joint Ventures that included the domain-based levels of interface. Four
locations were selected: Biloxi, Mississippi; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Denver, Colorado; and Honolulu, Hawaii. A Joint Market Opportunities
Work Group provides assistance and assesses progress at each site using
the domain-based levels of interface tool. They report to the VA/DOD
Joint Executive Council.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 2:23 p.m., Thursday, June 11, the hearing
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Arny, Wayne, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment), Department of Defense:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 58
Questions Submitted to....................................... 81
Statement of................................................. 55
Baker, Roger W., Assistant Secretary for Information and
Technology, Department of Veterans Affairs..................... 107
Boozer, Brigadier General James C., Sr., Director, Operations,
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, Department of the Army, Department of Defense...... 1
Calcara, Joseph F., Deputy Assistant, Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Housing), Department of the Army, Department
of Defense..................................................... 1
Carpenter, Major General Raymond W., Acting Deputy Director, Army
National Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense.. 1
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 141
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
Submitted by...................................................80, 82
Cross, Gerald M., MD, FAAFP, Acting Under Secretary for Health,
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 107
Dunne, Patrick W., Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of
Veterans Affairs............................................... 107
Ferguson, Kathleen I., Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Installations, Department of the Air Force, Department of the
Defense:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 27
Statement of................................................. 25
Hale, Hon. Robert F., Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
Department of Defense:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 54
Questions Submitted to....................................... 79
Statements of................................................47, 51
Hansen, Louis Jerome, Deputy Assistant, Secretary of the Army
(Strategic Infrastructure) and Senior Official Performing
Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and
Environment), Department of the Army, Department of Defense:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of................................................. 6
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
Prepared Statements of....................................... 4, 50
Questions Submitted by....................................... 136
Statements of................................................ 2, 48
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by..................................................42, 104
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 47, 107
Questions Submitted by....................................... 133
Kraus, Brigadier General Julia A., Deputy Chief, U.S. Army
Reserve, Deputy Commander for Managemen, Resources, and
Support, Department of the Army, Department of Defense......... 1
Statement of................................................. 17
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 134
Lengyel, General Joseph, Commander, Air National Guard Readiness
Center, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense..... 25
McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
Submitted by..................................................79, 140
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 140
Muro, Steve L., Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs,
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 107
Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations
and Environment), Department of the Navy, Department of Defense 85
Prepared Statement of........................................ 87
Statement of................................................. 85
Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
Submitted by..................................................81, 136
Reed, Rita A., Acting Assistant Secretary for Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 107
Shinseki, Hon. Eric K., Secretary, Department of Veterans
Affairs:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 108
Statements of..............................................107, 108
Thompson, General Howard, Deputy to the Chief of Staff, Air Force
Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.... 25
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 79
Full Funding..................................................... 73
FYDP............................................................. 73
Guam............................................................. 77
Inflation Policy................................................. 74
Department of the Air Force
Additional Committee Questions................................... 42
Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard Milcon Funding.......... 33
American Eagle................................................... 39
Housing Privatization........................................ 37
Lessons Learned.............................................. 39
BRAC 2005 Closure of Kulis Air National Guard Base, Alaska....... 41
Coal to Liquid Facility Near Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska...... 40
Develop and Care for Airmen and Their Families................... 28
Ellsworth AFB Housing Privatization.............................. 34
Future Years Defense Program and Air Reserve Component Funding... 34
F-22 for Hawaii ANG.............................................. 42
Global Strike Command............................................ 44
Joint Basing and BRAC 2005 Round Implementation.................. 36
Milcon in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009..... 44
Military Command Locations off Military Reservations............. 44
Modernize our Air and Space Inventories, Organizations and
Training....................................................... 29
Partner With the Joint and Coalition Team to Win Today's Fight... 32
Recapture Acquisition Excellence................................. 32
Reinvigorate the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise.................... 27
Short Auxiliary Fields (SAAF) in Hawaii.......................... 43
24th Air Force Headquarters Milcon Requirements.................. 35
Weapons Load Training Facility at Barksdale AFB, LA.............. 43
Department of the Army
Army:
BCI Growth................................................... 20
Family Housing:
Construction (AFHC)...................................... 12
Operations (AFHO)........................................ 13
Initiatives.................................................. 10
Modular Force (AMF).......................................... 8
National Guard Military Construction......................... 16
Budget................................................... 19
BRAC 2005:
Budget....................................................... 10
Implementation Strategy...................................... 9
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).............................. 9
Environmental Cleanup of Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant......... 22
Expansion of Rangers in Pinon Canyon, Colorado................... 21
Fiscal Year 2010:
Budget Request for Army Guard................................ 24
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)........................ 10
Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR)........................ 9
Grow the Army (GTA).............................................. 8
Projects..................................................... 17
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 13
For Military Families........................................ 18
Military Construction:
Army:
National Guard........................................... 11
Reserve.................................................. 12
Projects..................................................... 15
Mission and Training Projects.................................... 17
Operation and Maintenance........................................ 13
Prior BRAC....................................................... 10
Quality of Life for Soldiers and Their Families and the Army
Budget......................................................... 6
Rebalancing the Force in an Era of Persistent Conflict........... 8
Department of the Navy
Additional Committee Questions................................... 104
BRAC 2005 Implementation......................................... 96
Family Housing................................................... 91
Guam...........................................................101, 103
Housing.......................................................... 90
Meeting the Construction Execution Challenge..................... 99
Military Construction............................................ 88
NNMC and WRAMC................................................... 102
Prior BRAC Cleanup & Property Disposal........................... 95
Relocating the Marines to Guam................................... 93
The Navy's Investment in Facilities.............................. 87
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Additional Committee Questions................................... 133
Analysis of Ongoing Programs..................................... 137
Automating the Application for and Delivery of Education Benefits 116
Combating Homelessness........................................... 115
Enhancing Outreach and Services for Mental Health Care and TBI... 113
Funding Care for a New and Changing Veteran Demographic.......... 112
Implementation................................................... 138
Increasing Investments in Research and Other Health Care
Initiatives.................................................... 114
Incremental Development.......................................... 137
New Construction and Funding the New Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Acquisition, Construction, and Logistics......... 110
One Life Continuity of Care...................................... 111
Processing Benefits Claims in a Paperless Environment and Other
Critical IT Investments........................................ 117
Program:
Management Accountability System (PMAS)...................... 138
Manager Benefits............................................. 138
Providing Additional Economic Stability to Veterans.............. 116
Service to the Last Breath and Beyond--Funding the Memorials to
our Heroes..................................................... 118
The Transformation From Within--Increasing Investment in
Training, Career Development and Other Organizational Reforms.. 110
VA Benefits...................................................... 138
-