[Senate Hearing 111-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Pryor, Collins, and Murkowski.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIS JEROME (JERRY) 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 JIM BOOZER, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF (INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT)
MAJOR GENERAL RAY CARPENTER, ACTING DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL
GUARD
JAMES SNYDER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
I welcome everyone to today's hearing to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request.
Today we will hear from two panels of witnesses
representing the Army and the Air Force and their Reserve
components.
The first panel will be the Army. Secretary Hansen,
Secretary Calcara, General Boozer, General Carpenter, Mr.
Snyder, thank you for coming today. General Carpenter, I am
always happy to see a fellow a South Dakotan. We will look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Hutchison has asked me to let you know she has a
conflict this morning and will not be able to attend this
hearing, but I will submit her statement and questions for the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 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 the Army and the
Department of the Air Force. I would also like to welcome our witnesses
and guests: Mr. Hansen, Mr. Calcara, Major General Carpenter, General
Boozer and Mr. Snyder. I look forward to discussing military
construction and family housing needs with you.
I am very pleased that we are nearing completion of the Base
Realignment and Closure program. The Department is entering its final
year of Milcon before the September 2011 statutory deadline for all
BRAC projects. For the last several years, I have emphasized the
importance of fully funding and effectively implementing the BRAC
program, which has evolved into a $32 billion Milcon program for the
Department.
Mr. Hansen and General Boozer, as we begin the budget process for
fiscal year 2011, the Department of the Army is facing several
challenges within its military construction budget, such as changes to
our Global Defense Posture, which we will discuss shortly, and changes
to the Army's recapitalization strategy. As you have heard me say many
times, I believe we should all strive to station as many of our troops
as realistically possible within the United States, and in modern
facilities we can all be proud of.
Overall, the Department of the Army budget proposes a 9.7 percent
increase, and the Department of the Air Force budget proposes a 7.2
percent decrease. There are big differences in these accounts, and
considering the big disparities in the Guard and Reserve accounts, I am
anxious to discuss the rationale for these budget decisions. I want to
be sure we are providing our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
with the infrastructure they and their families deserve.
GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE
Another issue I hope to discuss today is our Global Defense Posture
as it relates to our Milcon requirements. First, I hope our witnesses
will explain the DOD policy of Building Partnership Capacity in Europe.
I hope by partnership you mean that our allies will share in the
financial burden as we build military infrastructure in Europe. Our
specified overseas Milcon request is $2 billion for projects not
directly related to the war in Afghanistan. When you add in projects
for Afghanistan, overseas Milcon totals $4 billion. That is huge.
As I have said many times, I believe we should be restationing our
troops in the United States, but the proposed 2011 budget contains a
Milcon request for $513 million for Germany, which includes $186
million for Wiesbaden Army Base and $75 million for four new barracks
at Grafenwoehr--a training facility--just as examples. As the services
consolidate our forces in fewer facilities to save on operational
costs, I know we have to build some new consolidated facilities, but I
would like our witnesses today to give us the rationale behind these
proposals and a sense that there is a strategy driving our Milcon
requirements and not the other way around.
In Korea, the Department is looking at ``tour normalization,''
which would greatly increase the number of U.S. citizens on the
peninsula and require expanding our support infrastructure in Korea. I
understand that you are currently executing phase 1 of a 3-phase
consolidation operation and that phases 2 and 3 will require more
substantial U.S. funding. I look forward to your remarks concerning the
costs of future infrastructure requirements and the Korean Government's
financial contributions associated with this consolidation effort.
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW (QDR)
The Quadrennial Defense Review recommends retaining four brigade
combat teams in Europe, rather than the current stationing plan to
reduce the number to two. I have raised this issue before with the
Secretary of Defense and the Army Chief of Staff because I am concerned
that this decision will disrupt our commitment to return our forces to
the United States, where we can provide better training and a better
quality of life for them and their families. I am concerned it will
also disrupt the extensive military construction already in progress at
Fort Bliss. The sooner we can get our service-men 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. Our troops can deploy to any region of the
world from the United States just as easily as they can from Europe,
and in some cases more so. We need to return our troops to the United
States, but just as importantly, we need to be fiscally responsible
when we decide on a strategy to do this.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AND ARMY RESERVE
The services have always maintained that the Reserve components
play a vital role in meeting our defense mission and in enabling us to
manage the stress on the Active Force. The QDR calls them ``equal
partners''. The fiscal year 2011 budget request reduces funding for the
Army Reserve by 26 percent, the Air National Guard by 52 percent, and
the Air Force Reserve by 93 percent. I do not recall the Air Force
Reserve only receiving one project in the entire budget request. Every
year Congress has to add programs to these accounts because the
Department, in my opinion, does not fund them as robustly as it should.
This is a challenge. I look forward to the Army's remarks concerning
the impacts of these budgetary reductions.
CLOSING
The budget before us poses some challenges, but I do commend the
Department of the Army for making quality of life a top priority. Even
if we discuss different ways to best support our troops, we all have
the same goal in mind and that is keeping our soldiers first.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I look
forward to discussing these and other issues with our witnesses.
Senator Johnson. The Army's 2011 budget request for Active
and Reserve Military Construction and Family Housing, Base
Realignment and Closing, and Overseas Contingency Operations is
$7.9 billion. Included in this budget is a historically high
funding request for the Army Guard, $873.7 million. I commend
the Army for investing so heavily in the Guard and I hope you
will bring the same commitment to the Army Reserve in future
budget requests.
This is also the final year to execute the 2005 BRAC
program. I understand that the Army has several projects that
could be at risk of missing the statutory deadline. I hope we
will receive an update on the status of these projects.
Last year, the subcommittee provided additional funding to
expand the homeowners assistance program which I have a keen
interest in. I hope that you will be able to update us on the
progress of the program and let us know how well the funding is
being executed.
Secretary Hansen, I look forward to your opening statement,
but before you begin, Senator Collins, would you care to make
an opening statement?
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have
explained that the ranking member, due to an unscheduled event,
is unable to join you today. So I am very happy to act in her
capacity as we review the fiscal year 2011 Milcon request for
the Army and the Air Force. So I look forward to working with
you. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Secretary Hansen, again I welcome you and your colleagues
to this subcommittee. I understand that yours will be the only
opening statement. Your prepared statement will be placed in
the record, so I ask you to summarize your remarks to allow
adequate time for questions. Secretary Hansen, please proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY HANSEN
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be brief.
Chairman Johnson, Senator Collins, 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. It is
my pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of the
Secretary of the Army to discuss the Army's fiscal year 2011
military construction, base realignment and closure, and family
housing budget requests.
I would like to first thank you for your continued
consistent support to our soldiers, families, and Army
civilians serving the Nation across the globe. The Army's
strength lies in the people who serve. We work with your ever-
important support to ensure that we provide a quality of life
commensurate with the quality of their service.
I would also like to thank you for the legislative
expansion of the housing assistance program. As the DOD
executive agent for the program, I am pleased to report that in
the first 6 months since the expanded HAP authority was
implemented, we have paid benefits of over $125 million to more
than 1,000 military families. The program has and will continue
to save many families from financial ruin. Currently we believe
we have enough funding on hand, but we do continue to see
growth in eligible applicants.
Our Milcon budget request for fiscal year 2011 represents
the minimum level of funding required to provide the Army with
the facilities needed to support the mission accomplishment
while preserving an All-Volunteer Force. We remain an Army at
war that continues its largest transformation since World War
II. As we withdraw forces from Iraq, build up forces in
Afghanistan, and then begin that drawdown as well, we are
simultaneously completing transformation to a modular brigade-
centric force, growing the Army and completing both global
defense posture realignments and Base Realignment and Closure
2005.
In addition, we remain committed to our previously stated
timelines of funding adequate barracks for all permanent party
soldiers by fiscal year 2013 and trainees by fiscal year 2015
with occupancy completed 2 years later.
Our fiscal year 2011 budget request supporting these
initiatives totals $7.9 billion across all components. This
reflects an expected decrease in BRAC 2005 appropriation
requirements of about $3 billion from that of last year, as we
anticipated that fiscal year 2010 would be the final year of
BRAC construction. The Army remains fully committed to meeting
the BRAC timeline, intensely managing those remaining actions
with tight construction schedules. Funds requested in fiscal
year 2011 will be used units and personnel and to outfit our
new facilities as they come on line. With full funding, we
expect all actions to be completed on time without degradation
of training or readiness, although we recognize that fourth
quarter fiscal year 2011 will be extremely busy.
Last year, you appropriated $30 million in additional
military construction funding for both the Army Reserve and
National Guard. We thank you for that initiative. The funds are
being used to address critical requirements. Included in the
overall fiscal year 2011 request is $874 million of military
construction for the Army National Guard and $318 million for
the Army Reserve. Collectively, this represents 149 percent
increase from the fiscal year 2010 request for our reserve
components, a very significant increase for the Guard, but a
slight decrease, as you indicated, for the Army Reserve. This
is balanced, however, by an increase in our sustainment,
restoration, and modernization funding for the Reserves. This
funding will ensure that the Guard and Reserve are able to
continue transformation to operationalized forces. I cannot
overstate how important the readiness and availability of our
reserve components remains to our national defense.
Another high priority for fiscal year 2011 is energy
security and implementing energy efficiencies in facility
construction. As stewards of a significant portion of our
national resources, the Army requires that new military
construction projects attain a minimum of leadership in energy
and environmental design, Lead Silver standards, that we
achieve compliance with energy efficiency mandates and we
incorporate smart building technologies where cost effective.
In addition, water conservation is being pursued through a
comprehensive program which includes water management plans,
adoption of best management practices, establishment of
waterless urinals as a standard in new Army construction,
increased metering, and improved asset management of water
distribution systems. We take energy conservation very
seriously and continue to look for ways to implement innovative
energy initiatives.
Finally, I would like to address the concerns of the
subcommittee regarding the return of two brigade combat teams
from Europe to the United States. Currently, the Army cannot
provide specific plans for the BCTs as we await guidance from
the Secretary of Defense on the strategic posture in Europe.
This guidance will allow the Army to review current plans for
returning these brigades to the United States and make any
adjustments that might be required. None of these projects in
our fiscal year 2011 request are planned to support keeping
brigades in Europe. There will be minimal impact to State-side
projects should the decision be made to keep one or both
brigades in Europe. Once the decision is made, our out-year
military construction programs will be adjusted accordingly.
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 from the
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management; Major General Ray Carpenter, Acting Director, Army
National Guard; and Mr. James Snyder, Assistant Chief of the
Army Reserve.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
this morning and for your continued support to the Army, and we
look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry Hansen; Joseph F. Calcara; General
James C. Boozer; General Raymond W. Carpenter; and James Snyder
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the more
than 1 million Active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers, their families, and
the civilians of the United States Army, I welcome the opportunity to
discuss the Army's Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base
Realignment and Closure budget requests for fiscal year 2011.
The Army's strength is its soldiers--and the families and Army
civilians who support them. I 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.
Our Nation has been at war for nearly 9 years. The 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 two wars, meet other operational demands, sustain an
All-Volunteer Force, and prepare to protect against future threats to
the Nation.
OVERVIEW
FACILITIES STRATEGIC CONTEXT
The 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 Active component end strength of 547,400, a
National Guard end strength of 358,200, and an Army Reserve end
strength of 206,000 soldiers. At the same time, we are restationing
about one-third of the force through a combination of Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) and Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR)
actions.
The Army is executing a tightly woven, operationally synchronized
plan integrating BRAC, GDPR, and Grow the Army (GTA); facilitated by
Military Construction. The strategy includes aligning facilities to
support a CONUS based Army Modular Force (AMF) structured expeditionary
Army; completing facilities to implement and comply with BRAG 2005 law
by 2011; completing GDPR by 2013; completing GTA by 2013; and
completing AMF new unit facilities builds. Facilities modernization for
AMF units converted from the legacy force structure extends beyond
2015.
ARMY IMPERATIVES AND FACILITY INITIATIVES
The fiscal year 2011 Milcon request is crucial to the success of
the Army's strategic imperatives to sustain, prepare, and transform the
force. The Army has developed military construction facility
initiatives that support the Army imperatives.
Sustain
To sustain the force, the following initiatives provide for the
recruitment and retraining of soldiers; care of soldiers, families, and
civilians; care of wounded warriors; and the support of families of
fallen comrades:
Family Housing.--Provides housing services, preserves the balance
of military owned housing and the distinction of privatized on-post
housing commensurate with U.S. civilian community standards.
Barracks.--Provide quality barracks for Army soldiers including:
permanent party, training, and warriors transition complexes. 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 across all
components. The Army intends to buyout the original inadequate
permanent party barracks by 2013 with full occupancy by 2015, and will
continue to budget to maintain all permanent party barracks as
adequate.
Army Medical Action Plan.--Provide command and control, primary
care and case management for Warriors in Transition (WT) to establish a
healing environment that promotes the timely return to the force or
transition to civilian life.
Soldier Family Action Plan.--Provides soldiers and families a
quality of life commensurate with their service; provides families a
strong, supportive environment where they can thrive; and provide
quality, standardized facilities.
Prepare
To Prepare our Army to meet the challenges of the current
operations and the full spectrum of combat operations, the Army has
funded projects in the Grow the Army, Mission and Training, and Trainee
Barracks initiatives.
Grow the Army.--Provide facilities to support the increase of the
Army end strength to 1,111.6K (74.2K increase) across all components to
fill key force capability shortfalls and increase Active component
dwell time. GTA facilities include operations, maintenance, and
training facilities; barracks, and facilities to improve the quality of
life for soldiers, families, and civilians in the Active Army, Army
Reserve and Army National Guard. The Army's strategy is to complete all
facilities requirement to support this initiative by fiscal year 2013.
Mission and Training.--Provides facilities to support unit
operations, maintenance, and training. Ranges and training land to
support individual, and unit collective training in support of the Army
Force Generation (ARFORGEN) training cycle are included in Mission and
Training facilities.
Training Barracks.--Provides initial entry and advance individual
training quality barracks and eliminates all inadequate trainee
barracks spaces. The goal is to fund all trainee barracks requirements
by fiscal year 2015 and full occupancy of the barracks in fiscal year
2017.
Operational Readiness Training Complex.--Fiscal year 2011 is the
start of the Army's investment in unit facilities in support of the
ARFORGEN training cycles of the Active and Reserve components. ORTCs
are complexes with operations, maintenance and storage facilities,
barracks, dining facility, and equipment parking.
Transform
To meet the demands of the 21st century, the Army is transforming
via the AMF, GDPR, and BRAC initiatives. Collectively, these
initiatives allow the Army to shape and station forces to provide
maximum flexibility.
Army Modular Force.--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.
Global Defense Posture Realignment.--The GDPR initiative ensures
Army Forces are properly positioned worldwide to support our National
Military Strategy and to support the mission in Afghanistan. GDPR will
relocate over 48,000 soldiers and their families from Europe and Korea
to the United States by 2013. As part of the fiscal year 2011 program,
the Army is requesting $188.7 million to construct facilities in
Bagram, Afghanistan, and Forts Benning, Bliss, and Riley.
Base Realignment and Closure.--BRAC 2005 enables the Army to
reshape the infrastructure supporting the operating force, the
generating force, the Reserve component and enhance the repositioning
of those forces making them more relevant and combat ready for the
Combatant Commander.
FISCAL YEAR 2011 MILCON OVERVIEW
The Army's fiscal year 2011 Military Construction and Overseas
Contingency Operations budget requests include $7.9 billion for
Military Construction, Army Family Housing, and BRAC appropriations and
associated new authorizations.
The details of the Army's fiscal year 2011 request follow:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization of
Military construction authorization Authorization appropriations Appropriation
request request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction Army (MCA).................... $3,665,662,000 $4,078,798,000 $4,078,798,000
Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG).... 836,601,000 873,664,000 873,664,000
Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR)........... 289,275,000 318,175,000 318,175,000
Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC)............. 55,329,000 92,369,000 92,369,000
Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO)............... .................. 518,140,000 518,140,000
BRAC 95 (BCA)....................................... 73,600,000 73,600,000 73,600,000
BRAC 2005 (BCA)..................................... 1,012,420,000 1,012,420,000 1,012,420,000
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)............... 761,950,000 929,996,000 929,996,000
Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP)................. 16,515,000 16,515,000 16,515,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 6,711,352,000 7,913,677,000 7,913,677,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
The Active Army fiscal year 2011 Military Construction request for
$4,078,798,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations)
supports the Army Imperatives of Sustain, Prepare and Transform.
Mission and Training ($866 million).--Operations, maintenance, and
training facilities and ranges are the cornerstones to ``Prepare'' the
Army for current operations. The fiscal year 2011 request includes $269
million for operations facilities, $65 million for maintenance
facilities, $212 million for ranges and $213 million for training
facilities. Utilities and other support facilities complete the mission
and training request at $107 million.
Army Modular Force (1,268 million).--The fiscal year 2011 request
of $1.584 billion will provide permanent operations and maintenance
facilities and barracks to support the conversion of existing forces
into new modular force units in the Active Army (1.268 billion) and
Army National Guard (0.316 billion). The Army strategy is to use
existing facility assets where feasible and program new construction
projects when existing facilities are inadequate.
Grow the Army ($698 million).--The Grow the Army request in fiscal
year 2011 is for 34 projects. The total includes $148.7 million for
maintenance facilities, $215.4 million for operations facilities, $259
million for Barracks, and $74.6 million for training ranges and
training support facilities. The Army's gap analysis for Grow the Army,
following the fiscal year 2009 Secretary of Defense decision on the
number of Brigades, confirmed that these facilities were essential to
support growth in the Army's combat support and combat service support
force structure and establish the appropriate training support
infrastructure.
Barracks Modernization ($891 million).--The Army is in the 18th
year of modernizing permanent party barracks to provide about 148,000
single enlisted soldiers with quality living environments. Because of
increased authorized strength, the requirements for barracks
modernization have increased in several locations. The fiscal year 2011
request will provide for 5,115 new permanent party barracks spaces that
will meet DOD's ``1+1'' or equivalent standard and eliminate common
area latrines. 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. The $891 million in barracks projects
includes projects requested in the GTA, GDPR, and AMF initiatives. 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 fully occupied in fiscal year 2015.
Trainee Barracks Modernization ($191 million).--The $350 million
provided by the Congress in the 2010 appropriations for trainee
barracks is greatly appreciated. The additional funding will accelerate
the Army's ability to provide necessary quality barracks. The request
in fiscal year 2011 will provide 1980 new training barracks spaces for
our soldiers. Six trainee barracks are going to be constructed at four
installations (Forts Benning, Bragg, Jackson, and Leonard Wood).
Warrior in Transition ($18 million).--The WT complex at Fort Eustis
completes the Army's plan for WT complexes in the United States.
Overseas Construction.--Included in this budget request are high-
priority overseas projects at enduring locations. In Germany, we are
requesting funds for barracks at Grafenwoehr and Rhine Ordnance, a
vehicle maintenance shop and a physical fitness center in Ansbach, an
information processing center, sensitive compartmented information
facility, command and battle center and an access control point in
Wiesbaden. 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. Our request for funds in Italy
continues construction for a BCT.
Other Support Programs ($273 million).--The fiscal year 2011 budget
includes $222 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 2011 budget requests $28
million for oversight of host nation funded construction for all
Services in Japan, Korea, and Europe. The budget request also contains
$23 million for unspecified minor construction to address unforeseen
critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for
the normal programming cycle.
Incremental Funding ($140 million).--We are requesting the second
increment of funding, $59.5 million, for the Command and Battle Center
at Wiesbaden, Germany. In addition, we are requesting the first phase,
and second increment of funding, $30 million, for the Aviation Task
Force Complex at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. The budget also includes $25
million for a Brigade Complex-Operations support facility and $26
million for a Brigade Complex-Barracks/Community, both projects at
Vicenza, Italy.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NATIONAL GUARD
The fiscal year 2011 request for $873,664,000 (for appropriation
and authorization of appropriations) is focused on Army Modular Force,
Mission and Training, Grow the Army, planning and design and
unspecified minor military construction represents the largest Milcon
budget ever requested by the Army National Guard.
Mission and Training.--In fiscal year 2011, the Army National Guard
is requesting $440.5 million for 24 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 four
Training/Barracks Facilities, nine Range projects, four Maintenance
Facilities, one United States Property and Fiscal Facility, and six
Readiness/Armed Forces Reserve Centers.
Army Modular Force.--Our budget request also includes $316.5
million for 16 projects in support of our modern missions. There are
five Readiness Centers, one Armed Forces Reserve Center, five
Maintenance Facilities, four Unmanned Aircraft System Facilities and
one Aircraft Parking project to provide for modernized facilities.
Grow the Army.--To support the Army National Guard end strength
increase, $79.6 million is requested to construct eight Readiness
Centers. The new Readiness Centers will house newly activating units to
address the continued high levels of force deployment.
Other Support Programs.--The fiscal year 2011 Army National Guard
budget also contains $25.6 million for planning and design of future
projects and $11.4 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 2011 Military Construction request for
$318,175,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is
for Preparation, Transformation, other support, and unspecified
programs.
Mission and Training Projects.--In fiscal year 2011, the Army
Reserve will invest $76.5 million to prepare our soldiers for success
in current operations. Included in the mission and training projects
are, four ranges, a tactical vehicle wash rack, a maintenance and
equipment storage facility and an Annual Training/Mobilization Barracks
Grow The Army. 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 2011, the Army Reserve will
construct 17 Reserve operations complexes in 11 States, with an
investment of $212.8 million to support the transformation. These
projects will provide operations, maintenance, and storage facilities
for over 3,300 soldiers in 66 newly activating combat support and
combat service support units and detachments.
Other Unspecified Programs.--The fiscal year 2011 Army Reserve
budget request includes $25.9 million for planning and design for
future year projects and $3.0 million for unspecified minor military
construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission
requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The Army's fiscal year 2011 family housing construction request is
$92.4 million for authorization of appropriation, and appropriation.
This year's budget continues our significant investment in our soldiers
and their families by supporting our goal to continue funding to
sustain military-owned housing and eliminate remaining inadequate
military-owned at enduring overseas installations.
The fiscal year 2011 new construction program uses traditional
military construction to provide 64 new homes for families with a $34.3
million replacement project at Baumholder, Germany. The Army also
requests $21 million for the completion of the supporting
infrastructure for two projects authorized and appropriated in fiscal
year 2004 at Fort Wainwright, Alaska.
The fiscal year 2011 construction program also provides $35 million
to make adjustments to two existing Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI) family housing privatization projects at Fort Eustis, Virginia
and Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
In fiscal year 2011, we are also requesting $2.0 million for final
design of fiscal year 2011 family housing projects and to initiate
design of 2012 family housing construction projects, as well as for
housing studies and updating standards and criteria.
Privatization.--The Residential Communities Initiative (RCI), the
Army's housing privatization program, continues to provide quality
housing which 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 44 locations, with a projected end
state of over 85,000 homes--98 percent of the on-post family housing
inventory in the United States. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the
Army will have privatized all 44 locations. Initial construction and
renovation at these 44 installations is estimated at $12.6 billion over
a 3- to 14-year initial development period, of which the Army will
contribute close to $2.0 billion. Although most projects are in their
initial development periods, since 1999 through November 2009, our
partners have constructed over 21,000 new homes, and renovated another
16,000 homes.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS
The Army's fiscal year 2011 Family Housing Operations request is
$518,140,000 (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, at home and in
foreign countries areas, as well as leasing more than 9,000 residences
and providing government oversight of more than 80,000 privatized
homes.
Operations ($97.3 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 Lily housing.
Utilities ($69.6 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 ($120.9 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 ($203.2 million).--The leasing program provides another way
of adequately housing our military Families. The fiscal year 2011
budget includes funding for 9,036 housing units, including project
requirements for 1,080 existing section 2835 (``build-tolease''--
formerly known as 801 leases), 1,828 temporary domestic leases in the
United States, and 6,128 leased family housing units in foreign areas.
Privatization ($27.1 million).--The privatization account provides
operating funds for management and oversight of privatized military
family housing in the RCI program. RCI costs include civilian pay,
travel, and contracts for environmental and real estate functions,
training, real estate and financial consultant services and oversight
to monitor compliance and performance of the overall privatized housing
portfolio and individual projects.
BRAC 95
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 $13.5 billion in savings through 2009--and
nearly $1 billion in recurring, annual savings from prior BRAG rounds.
The Army is requesting $73.6 million in fiscal year 2011 for prior
BRAG rounds ($5.2 million to fund caretaking operations and program
management of remaining properties and $68.4 million for environmental
restoration) to address environmental restoration efforts at 147 sites
at 14 prior BRAG installations. To date, the Army has spent $3.1
billion on the BRAC environmental program for installations impacted by
the previous four BRAC rounds. The Army has disposed of 183,637 acres
(88 percent of the total acreage disposal requirement of 209,292
acres), with 25,654 acres remaining.
BRAC 2005
Under BRAG 2005, the Army will close 12 Active component
installations, one Army Reserve installation, 387 National Guard
Readiness and Army Reserve Centers, and eight leased facilities. BRAG
2005 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, BRAG 2005 creates
125 multi-component Armed Forces Reserve Centers and realigns U.S. Army
Reserve Command and control structure.
With over 1,100 discrete actions required for the Army to
successfully implement BRAC 2005, they must be 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.
The Army fiscal year 2011 budget request for BRAC 2005 is $1,012.4
million. The Army remains committed to achieving BRAG 2005 Law and is
on track to do so. Our request is critical to the success of the Army's
BRAC 2005 initiative and does not contain funding for new construction
projects. The funding request includes $887.2 million in Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) to support Civilian Permanent Change of Station
(PCS), furnishings and equipment for completed BRAC projects, as well
as support for facility caretaker requirements. An additional $51.7
million is requested for information technology and capital equipment
procurement to comply with the BRAG 2005 requirements.
In fiscal year 2011, the Army will continue environmental closure
and cleanup actions at BRAG 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 $73.5 million, which
includes munitions and explosives of concern and hazardous and toxic
waste restoration activities.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
The fiscal year 2011 request includes $930 million to support
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). The request funds non enduring
mission projects critical to the support of deployed war fighters for
example: troop housing, dining facilities, rotary wing airfield
facilities, logistical and environmental facilities, command and
control facilities, and force protection to ensure safe and efficient
military operations in Afghanistan. A total of 48 projects fulfill the
Department's immediate mission needs and urgent infrastructure
requirements in theater for a total of $762 million. The OCO request
provides $78.3 million for unspecified minor construction and $89.7
million for planning and design.
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 fiscal year 2011 budget requests authorization of
appropriations in the amount of $16.5 million. Total program estimate
for fiscal year 2011 is $49.9 million and will be funded with requested
budget authority, revenue from sales of acquired properties, and prior
year unobligated balances.
SUMMARY
Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2011 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 the Army.
Military Construction:
--$7.9 billion invested in soldier/family readiness;
--$930 million to support projects for overseas contingency
operations;
--$4,079 million to Active Army;
--$318 million to Army Reserve;
--$874 million to Army National Guard;
--$610 million to family housing;
--39 new training ranges/facilities;
--37 new Reserve and National Guard operations and readiness centers;
--245 families get new or improved housing;
--8,857 soldiers get new barracks.
Base Realignment and Closure:
--$1,012 million to support BRAC 2005;
--Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC 2005;
--Continued environmental restoration and disposal of excess acres.
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.
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HAP)
Senator Johnson. Mr. Calcara, I will start with you.
Department of Transportation has proposed legislative changes
to the HAP language. Can you explain the reasons for the
change?
Mr. Calcara. Sir, are you referring to the start date for
the program of July 2006? Is that the legislative change you
are referring to? I am not aware of the exact DOT request.
Senator Johnson. That is DOT and its short sales.
Mr. Calcara. Short sales. Sir, I am unaware of the request.
Could you provide me some clarity on the request, and I could
perhaps----
Senator Johnson. Yes, I can.
Has the Secretary made a decision to terminate the
temporary expansion of HAP on September 30, 2010, and if so,
why?
Mr. Calcara. Oh, okay. Yes. Sir, as you know, when we
started the program, we had a specific amount of resources that
we were given to work across three elements of the program, one
being BRAC, one being Wounded Warriors, one being permanent
change of station (PCS). Initially, to ensure that we had
enough resources available for the BRAC migration which would
occur down the line, we set aside some funding for that. The
remaining dollars allowed us to implement the program for the
PCS, for the permanent change of station, portion on a 1-year
basis.
As we have now got into the program and we are looking at
affordability, it does appear that we will be able to extend
it. So currently we have extended it through the calendar year,
and depending on how much funding is available after we pay
through those quarters, we would again continue it another
year. That would be our approach.
So I do not know as we would need legislation to do that.
We have the flexibility in the program to do it without the
legislation. We certainly would support it. It has always been
our intent to cover as many PCS applications as we can. It is
just we are trying to make sure we have enough money left for
the BRAC portion which is coming down the line in the next 18
months.
ENERGY SECURITY
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hansen, energy security on bases
is a major. What is the Army doing to protect critical mission
assets from the threat of extended disruptions to the
commercial power grid?
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Army has $98.7
million programmed in fiscal year 2011 for installation,
facility, energy security initiatives, for example, utilities
modernization, advanced metering, renewable energy project
development, comprehensive energy and water management, and
energy security planning. That planning includes working very
closely with the critical infrastructure protection people to
ensure that we are putting a high priority on securing those
facilities and those portions of the facilities.
In the Milcon area for new construction, approximately 2
percent of the cost is devoted to energy efficiency additions
which address EPAct 2005 goals, plus the standard to design the
Lead Silver. With restoration and modernization funding, we are
incorporating metering for large projects and attempt, where
impossible, to include other energy security initiatives,
features such as motion sensor lights, solar street lights, LED
lighting, and additional insulation. With future years defense
program (FYDP) 2012 to 2017, this will be the first POM cycle
in which we have been able to address comprehensively energy
security initiatives identified in our newly approved Army
energy security implementation strategies. We will have much
more to come with fiscal year 2012, sir.
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hansen, could you provide the
subcommittee with a list of potential unfunded Energy
Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) projects that could be
executed in fiscal year 2011?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, sir, we will.
[The information follows:]
The following is a list of unfunded ECIP project that could be
executed in fiscal year 2011:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region Installation DD 1391 Title Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERO..................................... Letterkenny AD......................... 75934 Solar Walls............................ $1,100,000
PARO..................................... Ft Wainwright.......................... 76006 Improve Motors......................... 3,200,000
SERO..................................... Ft Bragg............................... 78034 Retrocommissioning Barracks, HQs, 7,200,000
others.
SERO..................................... Redstone Arsenal....................... 76139 Solar Walls............................ 1,582,000
ARNG..................................... Sea Girt, NJ........................... 77795 PV Solar System........................ 5,600,000
SERO..................................... Ft Knox................................ 67393 Photovoltaic, Phase 1.................. 6,100,000
NERO..................................... Ft Drum................................ 75514 Retrocommissioning 27 buildings........ 3,650,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 77029 Install Microgrid...................... 5,600,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76085 Solar Daylighting...................... 2,250,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76083 Solar Power Facility................... 4,750,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76082 Solar Power Facility................... 2,450,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76048 Solar Facility......................... 1,200,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76034 Power Facility......................... 2,400,000
WEST..................................... Ft Bliss............................... 76031 Solar Power Facility................... 4,050,000
---------------
TOTAL.............................. ....................................... ........... ....................................... 51,132,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Johnson. Secretary Hansen, the Army like all of the
services, has experienced large bid savings over the past 2
years due to a competitive bid climate. What is the average
percent of bid savings on the fiscal year 2010 projects that
have been awarded to date, and what has been the projected
level of bid savings for the fiscal year 2011 program if the
bidding climate continues to be favorable?
Mr. Hansen. I know we have had significant savings in some
areas, but it has been somewhat erratic, sir. If I may defer to
Mr. Calcara, I believe he has more detailed information on
that.
Mr. Calcara. Sir, we have currently executed about 40
percent of the program and we are averaging anywhere between 10
and 25 percent depending on the location. Savings, of course,
are very centric to the market and the type of construction and
where we are doing the work.
I would tell you this that I think if the current bid
climate holds the way it has through the first 6 months of the
year--we have two taxes that we are paying. One is a tax that
came out of the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. It is about
$230 million, I believe, for the Army that we have to source
out of that savings. The other one was dollars that were
assessed to us from a GAAP analysis process that was done from
the fiscal year 2009 program. We owe about $160 million on
that.
So what we are trying to do is harvest the savings we have
against the dollars we have captured so far to pay those two
taxes, and then there would be some dollars left over. I know
you are looking for a number from me. I think there will be
some savings, but it will not be 10 or 15 percent of the total
program amount because of those taxes.
Senator Johnson. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BRAC PROPERTY CONVEYANCE
Secretary Hansen, last year I was among those members who
worked very hard to put new authority in the defense
authorization bill for the military to look at no or low-cost
conveyances for economic development purposes of BRAC-related
property. Has the Army used that new authority yet?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, ma'am. We began reviewing all of our
conveyances immediately upon receipt of that new authority. I
am happy to say that it has given us a lot of flexibility to
move more quickly and to create more win-win situations. A case
in point is the Kansas Army ammunition plant that we are trying
to finalize this year, and we are doing a revenue sharing plan
with them for fiscal years 2006 through 2010 with the potential
of $3.5 million coming back to the Army if they are successful
and achieve their desired outcomes. Everyone is very enthused
about this additional flexibility now, and I think it will
allows us to dispose of properties more quickly with much more
favorable results.
Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I am delighted to hear that.
General Carpenter, let me start by thanking you for coming
to Maine last week. I have heard from the employees at the
Maine Military Authority, as well as the Maine troop greeters,
how pleased they were that you came firsthand to thank the
troop greeters who have welcomed back or sent off more than a
million members of our Armed Forces over the past few years.
Also, I was delighted that you came to see the capabilities
of the Maine Military Authority in Limestone in northern Maine.
Could you share with the subcommittee your professional
opinion of the capabilities of the Maine Military Authority?
General Carpenter. First of all, Senator, let me tell you
what an honor and a privilege it was to accompany you up to
Maine the other day. The pride that you have in the State of
Maine and specifically the Maine Military Authority and the
troop greeters for what they do up there was very obvious, and
I appreciate your support for the National Guard across the
board. So thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
General Carpenter. We are looking at our visit the other
day, and it was a great opportunity for me to see what the
Maine Military Authority is all about because I had not visited
that particular facility before. As they very eloquently
outlined, they have more capability than what is being used up
there, and we are really taking a long look at how we parcel
out work to that particular effort up there, and I think there
are some opportunities to expand what is going on up there in
the Maine Military Authority.
As I mentioned when I was up there, our effort here is to
be a good steward of the taxpayers' dollar, and what we get
from the Maine Military Authority is absolutely a top product
for a very good price. So it only makes sense for us, to the
extent that we can, to utilize that particular effort up there
and to maximize the capacity.
I would also like to say it was a very humbling experience
to get a chance to see the troop greeters the other day. There
were almost 75 people there and they ranged in age from high
school kids to World War II veterans. It was very impressive.
They have met every airplane since Desert Storm that has come
back from theater, and you can also see how proud they are of
that.
So, again, I think we have got some opportunities in the
Maine Military Authority, and again, it was a great privilege
to accompany you the other day.
Senator Collins. Thank you, General. We were very honored
to have you in our State.
General Boozer, I understand that you are also taking a
look at the Maine Military Authority. Are you working to
identify possible opportunities where the Maine Military
Authority might be able to assist the Army in its needs?
General Boozer. Yes, Senator Collins, thanks for the
question.
Based on some of the feedback that I have received, I think
I need to make a trip up there to take a look at that facility
that General Carpenter just described.
Senator Collins. We would welcome you anytime.
General Boozer. I believe you know that Army Materiel
Command CCOM already has a recapitalization program for some of
our HMMWV's, our shelter-carrying HMMWV's, and that is about a
$7 million a year program. But Army Materiel Command is also in
discussions with MMA about a potential for them to compete in
their expanding wheel assembly program. So that has got great
promise, and I know AMC has asked MMA for their capabilities
and capacities in that regard, and those discussions are
ongoing.
There were some folks there too, Senator, from the
installation management team, and it looks like there may be a
possibility of funneling some of our nontactical fleet to the
MMA, specifically our fire fighting equipment that is in dire
need of refurbishment that we supply to our installations. So
all of that is ongoing.
Senator Collins. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses.
PINE BLUFF ARSENAL
Senator Johnson. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today. I would like to ask, if
I can, maybe General Boozer and also Mr. Hansen a little bit
about the Pine Bluff arsenal, which is a facility in my State
that has a huge chemical stockpile that has been destroyed on
schedule and I think even under budget or at least on schedule
and ahead of budget. As that thing closes down and that goes
away and we lose all of that, it is going to have about a $100
million impact to the community annually.
The Workforce Transition Office, I think, was established
in 2009 between the Army and the Southeast Arkansas Economic
Development Authority to address things like retirement
counseling, outplacement assistance, training assistance, et
cetera. And I will be meeting with them soon. I think it is
next week or the week after. I am not sure.
I guess the first question is for both of you all. Are you
aware of the circumstances surrounding the Pine Bluff arsenal
and the Pine Bluff community? Are you all aware of that?
General Boozer. Senator Pryor, I am not simply aware of
that issue.
I know kind of where we are with the Pine Bluff disposal
facility. They have started that campaign that started in about
December of 2008, and they are doing great work out there
destroying just tons of mustard gas and mustard stuff.
We had not even as an Army begun the closure process
because I think we have to go through and figure out what there
really needs to be decontaminated and/or demolished and then
what are some potential uses as well. So the closure process,
at least to my knowledge, has not even begun at Pine Bluff.
Mr. Hansen. I am somewhat familiar, although you have
alluded to some things that I probably need to find out some
more about. As you are aware, the chem demil program,
established by Public Law 99-145, called for eliminating all
chemical warfare-related materials, and a key feature of that
program is the requirement for those chem demil facilities
themselves to be destroyed upon completion of the mission. At
that time, we are looking at each of the buildings and
structures there right now to determine which ones might be
retained and which ones would be contaminated and have to be
destroyed or decontaminated.
We do not know an exact closure date. We have not finished
that process at this time, but we do expect to work very
closely with your authority to make sure that people are taken
care of to the extent possible.
Senator Pryor. Great. I do not know if you all have plans
for all the equipment and weapons that will be coming back from
Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of reset and all that, but I
would suggest the Pine Bluff arsenal may be a good place that a
lot of that could be done. If you are familiar with the
facility, you will know why I say that because they just have a
great workforce, a lot of infrastructure there, and a lot of
resources there that I think could really be helpful on that.
Let me also ask about the Army National Guard itself. I
know that if you look at the Army National Guard installations,
I think the average age is maybe 41 years old. I think 24
percent are over 70 years old, and I think we have 37
facilities that are over 100 years old. I know that last year
when we did the stimulus and the Recovery Act, we discussed the
needs for the Guard Bureau to be able to have resources to
upgrade or improve their situation. I think that they gave us a
list of over 100 priorities that were shovel-ready projects. I
think they totaled about $1.2 billion, if my memory is correct.
But anyway, unfortunately I think that most of this--not
all of it, but most of it--was just ignored by the Army. So I
guess my first question is do we know why a lot of these
shovel-ready projects were not funded. Let me just start with
that question. Do we know why they were not funded, why the
shovel-ready projects were not funded?
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
General Carpenter. Senator, as we worked through the
process when the stimulus package was being formulated, a call
went out to all components of the Army to provide potential
projects that would be shovel-ready, and from the Army Guard's
perspective, we had a number of those. You have identified the
list that we submitted, sir. And we forwarded them to the Army
for competition.
Senator Pryor. Did they lose out on that competition, or
are they still being considered?
General Carpenter. Sir, we ended up having, I believe, $50
million worth of projects funded through the construction piece
of the stimulus package, and that amounted to, I believe, about
8 or 10 projects. I would have to provide that information to
you for the record.
[The information follows:]
Fiscal year 2009 MCNG Economic Stimulus Package Program (ARRA)--Six
projects funded:
--CA, Mather AFB, Airfield Resurface
--NE, Camp Ashland, Dining Facility Add/Alt
--NY, Fort Hamilton, Ready Building
--NC, Raleigh, Armed Forces Reserve Center
--OR, Camp Withycombe, Readiness Center
--WV, Gassaway, Readiness Center
Note: Due to bid savings in the fiscal year 2009 ARRA program, the
ARNG is planning to fund four more projects:
--CA, Camp Roberts, Dining Facility
--GA, Marietta Dinning Facility Add/Alt
--OR, Camp Rilea, Sanitary Sewer Rehab
--RI, Camp Fogarty, Rigger Facility
Senator Pryor. So are you saying the Guard Bureau got $50
million out of that?
General Carpenter. I believe that is the correct number.
Senator Pryor. And do you remember what the total was that
the military got for the shovel-ready projects?
General Carpenter. Mr. Senator, I believe total Milcon from
the stimulus bill was $230 million, of which $50 million went
to the National Guard.
Senator Pryor. I do not know about that ratio. That sounds
like that may be close to 20 percent, if I am doing that math
right, and that may be about the right ratio, but at the same
time, the Guard and the reserve component is really the key to
our readiness today. I mean, we are asking them to do more and
more. A lot of them--not all, but a lot of them--are working in
antiquated buildings and outdated infrastructure. So I guess I
would encourage you all just to continue to try to find ways to
get the Guard the resources they need so that you can fund some
of these projects. Like I said, it sounds like you maybe funded
8 and you have 100 on the list. Maybe you got eight done.
Mr. Snyder. I would like to add also, Senator, that the
Army Reserve received $98 million that funded 22 projects in
the ARRA.
Senator Pryor. The Reserve did.
Mr. Snyder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calcara. Sir, if I could, it is important to note that
the ARRA program was a DOD-wide look in how the projects
competed. Other than a worst first or a fair share type look,
there were other aspects that were brought to that: geographic
balance, job creation. There were other aspects in the funding
of ARRA that are not present in our normal discourse when we
decide how to make investments. So I think we did fairly well.
If you look across the Army as a portfolio, we got the lion's
share of the funding in DOD. So there is some goodness in what
happened there, albeit we could always use more.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. Senator Murkowski.
ALASKA MILCON
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, good morning. Mr. Hansen, I will start with you.
I think we recognize well the opportunities that Alaska
presents with its joint training ranges. Some have described
them as superlative, and if I could think of a better word, I
would go higher than that. But I think we recognize that the
opportunity for the Air Force, the Army, now the Navy to
conduct synchronized training free from encroachments is a real
asset.
Can you comment on the Army's future plans for continued
infrastructure development on these training grounds, and how
do you plan to maximize utilization of this national asset?
Mr. Hansen. We had a discussion on that just before the
hearing this morning, ma'am. If it is okay with you, I would
like to defer to Mr. Calcara on that. I think he has more
detailed information.
Mr. Calcara. I did not have the discussion this morning,
Jerry.
Senator Murkowski. They discussed that you were going to
speak to it.
Mr. Calcara. I am going to defer to General Boozer.
Senator Murkowski. All right. Pass it on down.
General Boozer. That is what I get, Senator, for sitting at
the end of the table.
Ma'am, I know in the 2011 request there is some substantial
Milcon in Alaska which I think goes to show that we believe
that when you just stated is that there are great training
opportunities up there in Alaska. A little over $300 million in
the 2011 request. A lot of that goes toward some multiple
purpose machine gun range, a simulation center which gets right
at the heart of training, and I think an urban assault course
as well. And I believe the Army will continue to invest in both
Forts Greeley and Wainwright or Fort Richardson as well in
Alaska for a long time to come.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we continue at the State level to
try to do what we can to further open up training ranges. Our
legislature just met and are working to provide for some
transportation corridors that I think will be helpful to you.
Let me ask a question, and again, I do not know whether
this is to you, Mr. Hansen, or to others, but this is regarding
improper classification of construction workers. The Department
of Labor has initiated a pretty major effort to ensure that
businesses do not improperly classify construction workers as
independent contractors rather than employees. I was just
visited yesterday in my office by some in the Alaska
construction trades that are concerned that some of the
contractors that utilize construction workers on Alaska Army
bases may be engaging in this process of misclassification.
Does the Army have a process for investigating these
complaints and enforcing compliance with wage and hour laws,
and if they do not, should they?
Mr. Calcara. I guess I will take that one, ma'am. It is
hard to make a general statement whether we are talking about
military construction projects or repair projects done through
an RCI. But the Department of Labor does routinely conduct wage
rate interviews, and that is the process. Essentially when DOL
comes in and does a wage rate labor classification interview
and they have a finding, then the Army would address it. So I
believe there is a process in place. I have not heard about the
issue you just mentioned, but I will certainly take it back and
follow up with your staff and see what I can do about it.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate that, and if we
can give you more specifics to which to respond, we will do so.
Mr. Calcara, we will just keep going with you here. You are
certainly aware of the concerns that have been expressed
previously by many in the Fairbanks community about the use of
out-of-State contractors and construction workers by the Actus
Lend Lease there at Wainwright. I had a chance to discuss this
issue with Dorothy Rabin a few weeks ago and she suggested at
that time that the issues that I raised were concerns that were
uncommon in privatized housing projects, and she basically
suggested that I ask the various services.
I know that you do have small business utilization goals,
but that does not necessarily ensure that the local workers get
the construction jobs. So the question is, do you think it is
good policy to encourage housing privatization partners to use
the local contractors and local construction workers for the
privatization work, or is the Department indifferent on this as
an issue?
Mr. Calcara. We absolutely think it is good policy. Just to
follow up, as you know, I have been personally engaged in this.
Senator Murkowski. Which we appreciate.
Mr. Calcara. And I have done a deep dive on the metrics
across the programs. So I want to throw a couple numbers out
there for the record. Of the $5.7 billion in the portfolio in
construction through December 31st of last year, $3.6 billion,
or over 60 percent of it, has gone to small and local
businesses. In Alaska, we are beating that by about 15 percent.
We are in the 75 to 80 percent range.
So where is the issue? Because you are obviously getting
feedback. My understanding is that while we have State-licensed
contractors, they may, in fact, have corporate headquarters in
other parts of the country. They may, in fact, be augmenting
staff with folks that are coming in from other areas of the
country.
I am not sure there is much that we could do through policy
or incentivization to that. The developers and the service
providers are incented to hit small business and local goals.
They are also incented to be efficient and effective in the
pricing and the delivery of the construction. And to the extent
that someone who is locally licensed wants to hire someone from
Washington State to work in Alaska on a project, there is
really not much we can do about that. So that is kind of how I
look at it, ma'am.
MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Senator Murkowski. So you do not think it is necessary or
perhaps appropriate to change the laws governing the military
privatization to require that some level of local contracting
be utilized.
Mr. Calcara. Well, I guess if you define local as people
who are born or living, I would say no. If you define local as
someone who has a State license there, again, we are hitting
two-thirds of the portfolio, three-quarters in Alaska local and
small business. So it is how you define ``local'' I guess.
Senator Murkowski. Well, as you know--and again, I
appreciate your engagement in this--it has been an issue that
has generated some controversy and a great deal of discussion.
At least there has been more full-on debate and discussion
about it of late, and I think that we are making some gains and
that is good.
Another issue that is in the same category--and Mr.
Chairman, if I just can have another 30 seconds to finish up
here, I will conclude with my questions.
But I had a chance to bring this up again a couple weeks
ago as it related to those who are not lawfully eligible to
work here in the United States. We had a situation last year
where on one of our Alaska bases there was an investigation of
some of the individuals that were working on construction of
building hangars, and it was determined that 4 out of the 30
individuals were not lawfully eligible to work in the United
States. One was determined to have a criminal history in the
State of California, and of course, the big brouhaha was this
is on a military base. It is supposed to have secure areas, and
we had a situation, an example, where not only were the people
not eligible to work here in the United States getting through
the gate, but with criminal backgrounds.
So the question that I had asked and I will ask of you is,
is the Army doing anything to ensure that those working in its
facilities are lawfully here working in the United States and
whether or not, for security reasons, we need to be doing more
to ensure a level of compliance?
Mr. Calcara. Well, as you know, ma'am, all our bases are
generally in controlled access areas. So all contractors have
to have badges and, at some point, have to provide a copy of a
contract that they have with the Federal Government, as well as
the necessary identification to get a badge issued.
Are there anecdotal instances where folks get through that
net? It does not surprise me that you have uncovered some. I
guess from here on out, we will reissue policy to ensure that
we are diligent in checking those credentials. Obviously,
contractors have to have an active contract to get on a post.
Ultimately, that is the compliance measure that we use. We just
have to get a little tighter, I guess, and catch those 4 out of
30 that appeared to get through the net.
Senator Murkowski. And I think part of this issue was,
again, it was a contractor who brought up folks from outside.
It goes back to the local hire issue, and that is why they come
to my attention.
Mr. Calcara. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. And I in turn bring them to yours. So I
look forward to working with you on some of these details.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Johnson. To this panel, thanks for your service to
our Nation. 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. Jerry Hansen
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT
Question. What is the Army doing to improve energy efficiency on
its bases and increase the use of green building practices, in
particular green or cool roof projects?
Answer. In order to provide energy efficient and sustainable new
facilities, the Army continues to require all military construction
(Milcon) achieve the SILVER criteria of the U.S. Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating
tool. Projects are evaluated in 6 LEED major credit areas: Sustainable
Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere, Material & Resources,
Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation & Design Process. Army
also requires new facilities to be 30 percent more energy efficient
than the industry standard defined by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2004. As
such, new buildings will incorporate appropriate engineering solutions
(insulation and windows), design features (cool roofs and daylighting),
technologies (LED lights and ground source heat pumps), and energy
efficient mechanical systems (Energy Star rated motors) where life-
cycle cost effective.
All Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) funded
projects for repair, maintenance, and new work are also required to
comply with and, where applicable, contribute toward the goals
specified in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and incorporate sustainable
design features where life-cycle cost effective. For instance, all new
roofing or planned re-roofing SRM projects in climate zones 1 to 5 are
required to install reflective ``cool'' roofs over air conditioned
spaces in buildings.
ENERGY SECURITY
Question. Energy security on bases is a major concern. What is the
Army doing to protect critical mission assets from the threat of
extended disruptions to the commercial power grid?
Answer. The Army Energy Security Implementation Strategy
communicates the Army's energy security vision, mission, goals, and
sets forth the framework to address the five key components of
security--surety, survivability, supply, sufficiency, and
sustainability. The Army is developing a template to ensure
installation energy security plans have a standard to identify critical
loads, methods and plans to supply backup utilities in the event of an
emergency, and identify actions needed to harden utility systems to
improve their energy security posture. Using American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding, the Army is developing an Energy
Security Audit Model which will provide a consistent methodology to
identify potential energy security vulnerabilities and prioritize
energy security risks and mitigation projects. The Army is also
expanding the use of renewable energy through the Energy Conservation
and Investment Program and alternative financing programs to reduce our
reliance on the grid. Alternative financing programs for partnering
with the private sector include Enhanced Use Leases, Power Purchasing
Agreements, Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy
Services Contracts.
ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Question. The Army's share of the fiscal year 2011 Energy
Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) is $43.4 million. Could you
execute additional funding?
Answer. Yes, the Army could execute as much as an additional
$51,132,000 if received early in the fiscal year.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Question. Will the current Army Milcon and SRM investment funding
plans provide single enlisted soldiers the same quality of housing we
provide married soldiers by a date certain?
Answer. Yes, we are providing safe, convenient, high-quality
housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The Army is currently in year 17 of its 20-year Permanent
Party Barracks Modernization Program. By fiscal year 2013, all funding
will be in place for this barracks program with occupancy estimated for
fiscal year 2015, every single soldier will be provided with a quality
living space. The Permanent Party Barracks Modernization Program is the
foundation for providing our warriors with the best facilities
possible. Following the completion of the modernization program, the
Army will program the replacement of older legacy facilities to ensure
all soldiers remain adequately housed.
Question. Does budgeting to attempt to maintain permanent party
barracks as ``adequate'' under current Army standards meet the
obligation to provide single soldiers the same quality of housing as
their married counterparts?
Answer. Yes, we are budgeting to maintain safe, convenient, high-
quality housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The sustainment requirements for Permanent Party barracks are
generated through the Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment
Model (FSM). The FSM calculates the funding requirement in order to
sustain facilities at an adequate level or condition. The Office of
Secretary Defense mandates that all facilities are funded to at least
90 percent of the Army requirement generated by the FSM. The buyout of
inadequate barracks remains the top priority among facility programs in
the Army.
______
Questions Submitted to Joseph F. Calcara
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Question. This subcommittee has provided a total of $855 million in
funding to expand the Homeowner's Assistance Program, or HAP, to help
military families who face massive losses on the sale of their homes
when they are required to relocate during the current mortgage crisis.
Could you outline the status of the expanded HAP program and the
expenditures to date?
Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began receiving
applications in February 2009. Payments to beneficiaries began in
October 2009. Eligible applications submitted to date total 5,918.
Benefits totaling $183.2 million have been paid to 1,445 eligible
applicants.
Question. DOD has proposed legislative changes to the HAP language.
Can you explain the reasons for these changes?
Answer. Presently, the law requires the Government to purchase an
applicant's home when the applicant's home value is less than their
mortgage payoff. This proposal would allow the Government to pay only
the difference between the price for which an applicant sells his/her
home and the mortgage payoffs rather than purchasing the home and then
immediately selling the home to the applicant's buyer. This legislation
will simplify and speed claim payment and improve HAP fund management.
Question. DOD claims this proposal will have no budgetary impact.
Would you please provide the subcommittee the detailed budgetary
analysis on which that conclusion is based?
Answer. The proposal will substantially reduce claim processing
time, slightly reduce transaction costs, and improve funds management
by eliminating the current requirement for the Government to acquire
the applicant's home and immediately re-sell the home to the
applicant's buyer. Under the current law, this dual, sequential
transaction forces the Government to fully fund the acquisition of the
home and deposit the full Government ``re-sale'' proceeds in the HAP
account, where they must be re-apportioned by OMB before they can be
used by the program. That process of deposit and re-apportionment takes
approximately 90 days and reduces available funds accordingly. The
proposed legislation will have little budgetary impact, but will
greatly simplify and improve the transaction by allowing the Government
to merely pay the claim payment at the applicant's closing.
Question. The expanded HAP authority gives the Secretary the
discretion to compensate homeowners through September 30, 2012, with
the discretion to terminate the program earlier. However, the HAP Web
site has been updated to say that the permanent reassignment orders
must be received by September 30, 2010, to be eligible for
compensation.
Given the continuing turmoil in the real estate market--especially
in States like Florida, Arizona and Nevada which host large military
installations--it seems very possible that military families will be
struggling to sell their homes for some time to come.
Has the Secretary made a decision to terminate the temporary
expansion of HAP on September 30, 2010, and if so, why?
Answer. DOD is currently assessing the availability of HAP funds to
pay benefits for claims from members who move under Permanent Change of
Station (PCS) orders. HAP claim payments for PCS applicants are
averaging $126,000, which is 60 percent greater than $77,000 per claim
cost originally forecast. However, DOD will assess what date PCS
applications should be terminated after evaluating the number and rate
of claim growth through the summer fiscal year 2010 PCS move cycle.
Additionally, there is flexibility in the HAP budget plan that would
allow payment of more PCS claims from HAP funds currently targeted for
BRAC 2005 claim payments, if those BRAC claims lag forecasted volume.
Question. Do you foresee a requirement for any additional funding
to compensate military families under this program if the expanded
benefits extend beyond 2010?
Answer. The mortgage crisis has been extensive and costly. However,
it is too early to accurately forecast whether current funding will be
sufficient to fund the program as originally envisioned. While, claims
are more expensive than forecast, it's not clear yet whether the volume
of forecasted claims will vary substantially. DOD hopes to have a
better analysis of the available funding at the conclusion of the
fiscal year 2010 summer PCS cycle.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Question. Will the current Army Milcon and SRM investment funding
plans provide single enlisted soldiers the same quality of housing we
provide married soldiers by a date certain?
Answer. Yes, we are providing safe, convenient, high-quality
housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The Army is currently in year 17 of its 20-year Permanent
Party Barracks Modernization Program. By fiscal year 2013, all funding
will be in place for this barracks program with occupancy estimated for
fiscal year 2015, every single soldier will be provided with a quality
living space. The Permanent Party Barracks Modernization Program is the
foundation for providing our warriors with the best facilities
possible. Following the completion of the modernization program, the
Army will program the replacement of older legacy facilities to ensure
all soldiers remain adequately housed.
Question. Does budgeting to attempt to maintain permanent party
barracks as ``adequate'' under current Army standards meet the
obligation to provide single soldiers the same quality of housing as
their married counterparts?
Answer. Yes, we are budgeting to maintain safe, convenient, high-
quality housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The sustainment requirements for Permanent Party barracks are
generated through the Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment
Model (FSM). The FSM calculates the funding requirement in order to
sustain facilities at an adequate level or condition. The Office of
Secretary Defense mandates that all facilities are funded to at least
90 percent of the Army requirement generated by the FSM. The buyout of
inadequate barracks remains the top priority among facility programs in
the Army.
Question. What is the Army plan to move forward with pilot junior
barracks privatization projects to resolve these remaining questions
once and for all?
Answer. The Army will continue to survey mission commanders and
sergeants major regarding unit integrity and warrior ethos in an effort
to identify locations where barracks privatization might be a viable
option in the future.
______
Questions Submitted to General Jim Boozer
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
BARRACKS PRIVATIZATION
Question. Will the current Army Milcon and SRM investment funding
plans provide single enlisted soldiers the same quality of housing we
provide married soldiers by a date certain?
Answer. Yes, we are providing safe, convenient, high-quality
housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The Army is currently in year 17 of its 20-year Permanent
Party Barracks Modernization Program. By fiscal year 2013, all funding
will be in place for this barracks program with occupancy estimated for
fiscal year 2015, every single soldier will be provided with a quality
living space. The Permanent Party Barracks Modernization Program is the
foundation for providing our warriors with the best facilities
possible. Following the completion of the modernization program, the
Army will program the replacement of older legacy facilities to ensure
all soldiers remain adequately housed.
Question. Does budgeting to attempt to maintain permanent party
barracks as ``adequate'' under current Army standards meet the
obligation to provide single soldiers the same quality of housing as
their married counterparts?
Answer. Yes, we are budgeting to maintain safe, convenient, high-
quality housing for our single soldiers just as we are with the married
soldiers. The sustainment requirements for Permanent Party barracks are
generated through the Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment
Model (FSM). The FSM calculates the funding requirement in order to
sustain facilities at an adequate level or condition. The Office of
Secretary Defense mandates that all facilities are funded to at least
90 percent of the Army requirement generated by the FSM. The buyout of
inadequate barracks remains the top priority among facility programs in
the Army.
Question. What is the Army's plan to move forward with pilot junior
barracks privatization projects to resolve these remaining questions
once and for all?
Answer. The Army continues to look at all of its options to
supplement our barracks modernization program throughout the United
States to fix and sustain quality housing for single soldiers over the
long term. The Army's Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Privatization
Study did show that barracks privatization projects can be financially
feasible. But, the Army has concerns that discontinuing Army culture
and practices due to introduction of a privatized barracks project
would adversely affect soldier training and discipline that currently
occurs in this living space. Additionally, there is a challenge of how
to fund the Basic Allowance for Housing bill that will be generated by
privatization over the next 50 years.
Question. Assuming OMB full upfront scoring is avoided, is the cost
of the three pilots in the study of $22 million in the first year that
significant for the Army given the ability to sustain the housing for
the long term?
Answer. No. The first year cost of barracks privatization for the
three pilots is not significant. However, the 50-year cost of barracks
privatization for the three pilots (i.e., the difference between the
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and traditional funds available for
barracks construction, renovation, sustainment, operations and
management) is significant. In the study, we estimated the differential
to be a total close to $1.7 billion more than traditional funds
available for the three projects over 50 years.
Question. Are there not additional offsets to those costs, such as
the current BAH costs from issuances of certificates of non-
availability that are not reflected in the financial analysis in the
Army study?
Answer. Yes. There may be some additional, minor costs on ``both
sides of the equation'' that were not considered in the study. However,
we believe we have captured all of the major costs, and we are
confident that the estimates in the study are reflective of the cost of
barracks privatization.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY A. YONKERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS,
ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS)
ACCOMPANIED BY:
KATHLEEN I. FERGUSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR
FORCE (INSTALLATIONS)
MAJOR GENERAL PATRICK J. MOISIO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR NATIONAL
GUARD
MAJOR GENERAL DAVID L. COMMONS, MOBILIZATION ASSISTANT TO THE
CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Senator Johnson. I am pleased now to welcome our second
panel of witnesses: the Hon. Terry A. Yonkers, Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and
Logistics; Ms. Kathleen I. Ferguson, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force for Installations; Major General Patrick J.
Moisio, Deputy Director, Air National Guard; and Major General
David L. Commons, Mobilization Assistant to the Chief of 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.
Secretary Yonkers, please proceed.
Mr. Yonkers. Good morning, Chairman Johnson and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. And thank you for
inviting me here today to address the Air Force's military
construction, family housing, and BRAC implementation programs.
I would like to begin by thanking the subcommittee for its
continued support of the Air Force and the thousands of
dedicated and brave airmen, their families serving this great
Nation.
Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and throughout
our Nation, businesses, schools, and our military services are
working to protect our planet; preserve our air, water, and
land; and develop clean alternative sources of energy. And the
Air Force is doing its part to realize a more secure and
sustainable future.
A clean and safe environment and secure sources of energy
are essential for meeting our mission requirements and
improving the quality of life for our airmen. The Air Force is
proud to be a member of America's ongoing quest to restore and
preserve our natural resources and use our energy more
efficiently and effectively.
I will now briefly talk a little bit about the Air Force's
military construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure programs which form the foundation of our installation
structure and provide the direct support responsible for
meeting the needs of our airmen and their families.
Our fiscal year 2011 President's budget request contains
$5.5 billion for facility maintenance, military construction,
military family housing, and base realignment and closure,
which is a 3.8 percent increase above our fiscal year 2010
request. Our facility sustainment and recapitalization programs
represent the largest portion of that request with $3.1 billion
to maintain and modernize our Air Force installations. The $1.5
billion military construction request prioritizes our
requirements and ensures new construction is aligned with
weapon system deliveries and strategic basing initiatives,
while we continue to accept some risk in our aging
infrastructure recapitalization.
Additionally, we continue our efforts to provide quality
housing for airmen and their families by dedicating $600
million to sustain and modernize overseas housing and support
housing privatization in the continental United States.
We also request a total of $252 million to continue
completing our BRAC 2005 program requirements, as well as our
legacy BRAC programs and especially environmental cleanup.
In regards to our total force military construction
program, I do want to mention the difficult decisions we made
last year or made this year with regard to the funding of the
component and major command priorities. Each component and each
Active Duty major command received their top priority project.
The apparent disparity among the Active Duty, the Guard, and
the Reserve military construction reflects funding in the
component's number one project and not the dollar value of
these projects.
This year the Active Duty, which is about 87 percent of
plant replacement value, received 80 percent of the investment
stream. The Air National Guard is about 9 percent of plant-to-
replacement value and received 17 percent of the investment
stream. The Air Force Reserve is about 4 percent of plant
replacement value. This year the Air Force Reserve received
their top priority project, a maintenance facility at Patrick
Air Force Base, but that only equated to about 2 percent of
plant replacement value.
The funding to components and the major commands shifts
from year to year and it is important that we take care of the
entire total Air Force. We greatly appreciate Congress'
continued support of all the Air Force components, particularly
in fiscal year 2010 in which the Congress provided a
substantial amount of additional funding for the Air Force
Reserve.
I would like to close by briefly mentioning the Air Force's
efforts in executing the base realignment and closure
recommendations. To implement assigned recommendations, the Air
Force's plan calls for the execution of nearly 400 separate
actions, utilizing a budget that has been and remains fully
funded at $3.8 billion. Two-thirds of this budget is military
construction. Our BRAC military construction program will make
its last contract award before the close of this fiscal year.
In total, we will execute 231 BRAC military construction
projects at 56 installations in 36 States. I am confident in
telling you that the Air Force will complete that
implementation of BRAC 2005 on time and within the budget.
Today I am really pleased to have accompanying me Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Installations, Ms. Kathleen Ferguson;
Major General Commons, who is the Mobilization Assistant to the
Chief of the Air Force Reserve; and also Major General Moisio,
who is the Deputy Director of the Air National Guard.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Sir, that concludes my remarks. I thank the subcommittee
again for all that you have done for us and your continued
support of our airmen and their families, and I look forward to
any questions that you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Terry A. Yonkers
INTRODUCTION
The ability of our Airmen to perform their missions world-wide is
directly affected by the quality of resources, access to facilities, a
robust logistics infrastructure for sustainment, and a confidence that
while they are deployed their families are well taken care of and their
needs are being met.
Air Force Military Construction (Milcon), Military Family Housing
(MFH), and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) programs form the
foundation of our installation structure and provide the direct support
responsible for meeting the needs of our Airmen and their families.
We recognize we cannot lose focus on critical Air Force
infrastructure programs, and we are working hard to ensure we have the
proper infrastructure to enable our Airmen to perform their duties
while ensuring responsible stewardship of fiscal resources.
Our efforts are in direct support of the Air Forces' five
priorities, which serve as a framework for this statement: (1) continue
to strengthen the nuclear enterprise; (2) partner with the Joint and
Coalition team to win today's fight; (3) develop and care for our
Airmen and their families; (4) modernize our air and space inventories,
organizations, and training; and (5) recapture acquisition excellence.
OVERVIEW
Our fiscal year 2011 President's Budget Request contains $5.5
billion for facility maintenance, military construction, military
family housing, and Base Realignment and Closure, which is a 3.8
percent increase above our fiscal year 2010 request. Our facility
maintenance and repair account represents the largest portion of the
request, with $3.1 billion to maintain Air Force installations. The
$1.5 billion military construction request prioritizes our requirements
and ensures new construction is aligned with weapon system deliveries
and strategic basing initiatives, while we continue to accept some risk
in aging infrastructure recapitalization. Approximately one-third of
the military construction request is dedicated to new mission
requirements, and in this year's budget all new mission projects are
programmed in the Air National Guard and Active Duty components.
Additionally, we continue our efforts to provide quality housing for
Airmen and their families by dedicating nearly $600 million to
sustaining and modernizing overseas housing, and supporting housing
privatization in the Continental United States. We also request a total
of $252 million to continue completing our BRAC 2005 program
requirements as well as our legacy BRAC programs and environmental
clean-up.
In the course of building the fiscal year 2011 budget request, we
made a number of difficult choices among competing priorities. One of
these was a necessary but difficult decision to continue taking risk in
our military construction as well as our restoration and modernization
accounts. We continue to mitigate risk by funding facility sustainment
to the 90 percent level in order to ensure that we keep our good
facilities good.
We also made difficult decisions regarding the funding of component
and major command priorities. Each component and major command received
their top priority project. The apparent disparity among the Active
Duty and Guard and Reserve MILCON reflects funding of the component's
No. 1 project and not the dollar value of those projects. This year,
the Active Duty, which is about 87 percent of Plant Replacement Value
(PRV), received 80 percent of the investment stream. The Air National
Guard is about 9 percent of PRV and received 17 percent of the
investment stream. The Air Force Reserve is about 4 percent of PRV.
This year the Air Force Reserve received their top priority project, a
maintenance facility at Patrick Air Force Base, but that only equated
to about 2 percent of PRV. The funding to components and MAJCOMs shifts
from year to year and it is important that we take care of the entire
Air Force family. We greatly appreciate Congress' continued strong
support of all of the Air Force components, particularly in fiscal year
2010, in which the Congress provided a substantial amount of additional
funding for the Air Force Reserve.
The Air Force is also very appreciative of the support provided
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
Recovery Act contributed significantly to our infrastructure. From this
legislation, we received a total of $1.7 billion to support Air Force
projects, including $1.3 billion for operations and maintenance for
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM); $327
million in military construction and military family housing for
dormitories and child development centers; and $75 million in research,
development, testing and evaluation for projects to improve energy
efficiency. In accordance with Congressional intent to allocate the
funds quickly, we moved expeditiously to award contracts. By the end of
calendar year 2009, we awarded nearly 90 percent of the funding
allocated for our FSRM and military construction projects.
Additionally, with the funding we saved from competitively bid
projects, we funded two additional military construction requirements--
a dormitory and a child development center collectively valued at $33.2
million.
CONTINUE TO STRENGTHEN THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE
Since its inception, the Air Force has served as a proud and
disciplined steward of a large portion of the Nation's nuclear arsenal.
We steadfastly operate, maintain, and secure nuclear weapons to deter
potential adversaries, and to assure our partners we are a reliable
force providing global stability. The first Air Force priority during
the last 2 years has been to reinvigorate the stewardship,
accountability, compliance, and precision within the nuclear
enterprise. We have made progress in this area and will continue our
pursuit of the highest standards of performance.
In addition to ensuring our organizations and human resource plans
support this mission, we are also concentrating on the infrastructure
and facilities crucial to our success. To support this work, during the
past 18 months, Air Force civil engineers have conducted enterprise-
wide facility assessments to refine our investment plans, and we are
now beginning to execute our long-term investment strategy. Our fiscal
year 2011 budget request includes $22.8 million in military
construction for the nuclear enterprise, including a weapons load crew
training facility at Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), Louisiana, and a
nuclear security tactics training center at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming.
These and similar projects in the years to come will further our goal
of a self-sustaining culture of critical self-assessment, continuous
improvement, and unwavering excellence.
PARTNER WITH THE JOINT AND COALITION TEAM TO WIN TODAY'S FIGHT
Our Air Force continues to bring air, space, and cyber power to
great effect in our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our men and
women make incredible contributions daily. We currently have almost
40,000 Airmen deployed, including nearly 3,500 Air Force civil
engineers. Approximately 20 percent of these Air Force civil engineers
are filling Joint Expeditionary Taskings, serving shoulder-to-shoulder
with our Joint teammates. Due to their wide array of skills, our Air
Force Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational and Repair Squadron
Engineers (RED HORSE) and our Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force
(Prime BEEF) personnel are in high demand in several theaters of
operation. Additionally, we have more than 150 civil engineers who are
supporting relief and recovery operations in Haiti.
In addition to our Airmen's contributions, our fiscal year 2011
budget request invests $449 million in 40 projects that directly
contribute to today's fight. Examples include the following:
--Projects supporting our combatant commanders, particularly in the
U.S. Central Command area of operations, that will greatly
enhance ongoing operations. These include a medical evacuation
ramp expansion, fire station, fighter hangar, and consolidated
rigging facility in support of enduring airdrop operations at
Bagram Air Base (AB), Afghanistan; and an apron expansion,
providing vital Afghan theater of operations with refueling
capability out of Isa AB, Bahrain. The Air Force goes through a
structured process to ensure that funds are not expended on
enduring construction when expeditionary or temporary
construction will suffice.
--New operations, maintenance, and training facilities for our Air
Support Operations squadrons. Airmen from these units,
including Joint Terminal Attack Control specialists, partner
with ground forces to integrate airpower in Iraq and
Afghanistan. These Active and Air National Guard facilities,
located in close proximity to the Army units that they support
in both Continental United States and overseas, will further
increase our capacity to operate and integrate closely with our
Joint partners.
--Improvements at Andersen AFB, Guam. Five projects continue to build
our Pacific Air Force Regional Training Center and support the
Air Force's ``Guam Strike'' initiative, consolidating
operational capability for fighter and bomber operations at the
base.
--Remotely piloted aircraft beddown, operations, and maintenance
support infrastructure. Nine projects at various Active Duty
and Air National Guard locations that support this rapidly
growing field include an operations facility at Cannon AFB, New
Mexico; a fire/crash/rescue squadron at Creech AFB, Nevada; a
new launch and recovery element facility at Fort Huachuca,
Arizona; and MQ-9 infrastructure support at Fort Drum, New
York; and others.
--Facility recapitalization efforts. These--our component and major
command commanders' ``current mission'' priorities--will, among
other things, provide a modern operations facility for the
National Capital Region's Joint Air Defense mission; give our
special operations Airmen at Hurlburt Field, Florida, a new
logistics facility and school; and provide Kunsan AB, Korea,
with a facility to house their new F-16 simulator, due to
arrive in 2012.
DEVELOP AND CARE FOR AIRMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES
The All-Volunteer Force provides the required foundation for our
flexible and agile force. Our fiscal year 2011 budget request reflects
a commitment to preserving and enhancing our force through education
and training, while also improving the overall quality of life of
Airmen and their families where they work, live, and play.
Developing our Airmen
Our Airmen are the best in the world, and as such they deserve
first-class facilities in which they can train and advance their
personal and professional development. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
request contains five projects totaling $163 million for this effort.
These projects include a flagship Center for Character and Leadership
Development at the Air Force Academy, which will provide our future
officers with a facility invested with the stature that our Service
Core Values demand. Also, renovation and expansion of Air University's
Fairchild Research Information Center--the largest military library in
the world--will preserve the historical perspective and current
research that form the basis for future airpower and Air Force theory,
doctrine, and strategy. Additionally, we are continuing to improve
facilities that support our newest Airmen at Lackland AFB, Texas, by
building a new recruit dormitory, classroom, and in-processing center.
These projects continue to improve our Air Force basic military
training and provide incoming Airmen with facilities that are
commensurate with the commitment that they make to our Nation.
Caring for Our Airmen and Their Families
Because our families are crucial to the success of our Air Force,
the Secretary of the Air Force designated July 2009-July 2010 as the
``Year of the Air Force Family,'' to focus on the contributions of the
entire Air Force family--military, civilian, spouses, children,
extended family, and retirees--and investigate ways to make their lives
better. A large part of this is ensuring that our military have first-
class homes and dormitories. We also must make certain our base and
community environments are safe and secure, and they foster a sense of
community. Simply put, our goal is to provide an even safer and more
supportive environment for our men and women and their families,
especially during deployments and other extended absences.
Billeting
This project, totaling $62 million, will provide billeting for
Airmen in our fiscal year 2011 military construction program. Of
particular note is a third phase of billeting construction at Al Udeid
AB, Qatar, which will continue our effort to provide Airmen supporting
operations in the U.S. Central Command theater with a quality place to
live while deployed far from their families. This project will build
two billeting facilities.
Dormitories
We remain committed to providing excellent housing for our
unaccompanied Airmen, and we continue to reference our 2008 Dormitory
Master Plan to make this vision a reality. Our fiscal year 2011 budget
request includes four dormitory projects totaling $71 million. These
include dorms at Cannon AFB, New Mexico; Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst, New Jersey; Kapaun Annex, Germany; and Aviano AB, Italy. At
Aviano, this single new dormitory will not only provide improved
quality of life for Airmen, but also enable the Air Force to close an
entire community support annex, which will yield savings in facility
maintenance, energy, services, and security costs. Our 2010 Dormitory
Master Plan, to be released later this year, will also address
dormitories that we gain from Joint Basing.
Military Family Housing
Our fiscal year 2011 budget for military family housing is nearly
$600 million. The Air Force request for housing construction investment
is $78 million to ensure the continuous improvement of over 400 of our
more than 16,100 overseas homes. Our request also includes an
additional $514 million to fund operations, maintenance, utilities, and
leases, and to manage privatized units for the family housing program.
Housing privatization is central to the success of our stateside--
including Alaska and Hawaii--military family housing initiatives. At
the start of fiscal year 2011, we will have 38,800 privatized units, to
be increased to 52,900 by the end of fiscal year 2011. As of the end of
fiscal year 2009, privatization has leveraged a $423 million investment
to $6.54 billion in development. We plan to privatize 100 percent of
our family housing, in the Continental United States, by fiscal year
2011.
Child Development Centers
Due to the elevated operations tempo in the past 8 years of
conflict, child care for our families that remain stateside has become
an increasingly significant focus area. As part of the American
Recovery and Restoration Act, we have been able to allocate $80 million
for eight new child development centers, to help ensure that our force
has adequate child care capacity. We have aggressively pursued
solutions to eliminate an earlier capacity issue, and we are on course
to reduce our child care deficit to zero by 2012.
modernize our air and space inventories, organizations, and training
Modernizing our force to prepare for a wide range of future
contingencies requires a significant investment. For fiscal year 2011,
we are requesting $460 million for a variety of military construction
projects, including:
--Eight projects to prepare to beddown our newest fighter, the F-35.
This includes four projects at Nellis AFB, Nevada, where we
will accomplish a large part of the operational test and
evaluation for this aircraft. As we continue to assess F-35
program restructuring, we are closely analyzing the impacts
that any delivery delays will have on associated military
construction requirements.
--Seven projects supporting our H/MC-130 fleet. These projects will
emphasize the newer ``J'' models.
--Six projects supporting F-22 operations. This effort will continue
to modernize our air superiority fleet, including three
projects at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, for the beddown of the Air
National Guard squadron there.
--Other projects. These will support diverse mission areas, including
space control, C-5/C-17 maintenance, and base and airfield
operations.
OTHER PROGRAMS OF NOTE
Overseas Contingency Operations
Our fiscal year 2011 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request
for military construction supports $280 million in projects for
Afghanistan. This complements our fiscal year 2010 OCO request of $474
million and our fiscal year 2010 OCO supplemental request of $279
million to support the recently announced troop strength increase. The
fiscal year 2011 OCO projects build upon and expand the operational
capacity that was initially provided by the fiscal years 2009/2010
requests. These first military construction requirements provided
access to operational areas in the rugged, undeveloped regions of
Afghanistan. Our subsequent requests will expand that initial
capability by providing primary theater hubs in Afghanistan. As such,
they will reduce safety risks, increase throughput capacity of cargo
and personnel, and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of air
operations. In addition to supporting current operations, logistical
facilities are required to sustain operations through the transition to
Afghan control and will facilitate the eventual redeployment of our
forces. Each project will be of great value to the Joint team, and we
are committed to executing them as effectively and efficiently as
possible.
BRAC 2005 Implementation
The Office of the Secretary of Defense codified BRAC 2005
implementation requirements and responsibilities through the use of
business plans, a process that allows synchronization across the entire
Department of Defense. The Air Force leads 64 business plans and is an
equity partner in an additional 16.
To implement the assigned recommendations, the Air Force's plan
calls for the execution of nearly 400 separate actions utilizing a
total budget that has been, and remains, fully funded at approximately
$3.8 billion; two-thirds of this budget is military construction. Our
BRAC military construction program will make its last contract award
before the close of this fiscal year. In total, we will execute 231
BRAC military construction (BRAC MILCON) projects, on 54 installations,
in 36 States. The remaining segment of the BRAC budget funds
environmental efforts, military personnel costs, training, and
operations and maintenance-funded elements.
BRAC 2005: The Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve
Seventy-eight percent of BRAC 2005 implementation actions affect
the Air Reserve components. This stands in contrast to BRAC 1995 where
just eighteen percent of actions affected either the Air National Guard
(ANG) or Air Force Reserve (AFR). Many of the BRAC 2005 actions
realigned similar missions or aircraft models to increase the efficient
use of manpower, resources, and maintenance budgets. Single mission
tasks were combined into Centralized Intermediate Repair Facilities
where ANG, AFR, and Active Duty personnel work side-by-side. The Air
Force Reserve has effectively managed manpower resources and minimized
adverse impacts on personnel at locations such as General Mitchell Air
Reserve Station, Wisconsin. The relocated reserve unit from General
Mitchell is now fully operational at Pope AFB, North Carolina. The Air
National Guard has better positioned units to accept future missions in
such vital tasks as Homeland Defense, is more effectively integrated
with the Active Force in current front-line fighters, and will share
opportunities to accept new weapons platforms.
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 AFB, Florida, closing Kulis Air Guard Station in Alaska, or
transferring Pope AFB, North Carolina, to the Army, the Air Force
community as a whole--Active, Guard, and Reserve--benefits from changes
BRAC achieves. Among the seven closure installations, two are already
considered closed while the others are proceeding according to plan.
The Air Force is fully engaged in executing our requirements, nearly a
third of assigned business plans are now considered complete and the
rest are on schedule to complete by September 2011, completing
implementation of BRAC 2005 on time and within budget.
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 substantially 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 land directed by BRAC 88, 91,
93, and 95 with the remainder under lease for redevelopment and reuse.
With the successful redevelopment of Air Force BRAC property, local
communities have been able to increase the number of area jobs by over
31,000.
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. Of the 32
legacy BRAC bases slated for closure, the Air Force completed 20 whole-
base transfers. Eight of the remaining 12 bases are targeted for
transfer by the end of fiscal year 2010, while the last 4 (Chanute,
George, McClellan, Griffiss) will transfer no later than the end of
fiscal year 2013.
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 $13 million for BRAC 2005 cleanup
activities.
Joint Basing
The Air Force remains committed to joint basing initiatives to
maximize installation efficiency, warfighting capability, and
jointness, all the while saving taxpayer resources. Of the 12 joint
bases mandated by BRAC 2005, 10 have Air Force equity, and we are the
lead Service on six. All told, our current efforts with joint basing
are proceeding smoothly, with no major issues. Three of the phase I
joint bases with Air Force equity have already reached full operating
capability status, and seven more phase II bases with Air Force equity
have reached initial operating capability status, with full operating
capability expected by October 1, 2010.
Energy
The Air Force understands the criticality of furthering energy
security for the Nation, and we remain committed to realizing our
energy goals of reducing demand, increasing supply, and changing our
culture to make energy a consideration in everything we do. Energy
conservation investment is a significant component of our newly
released 2010 Air Force Infrastructure Energy Plan. In fiscal year
2011, we will continue our energy conservation efforts, which have
already reduced facility energy use 14.6 percent from our 2003
baseline. The Defense military construction budget request of $120
million contains $35 million for our Energy Conservation Investment
Program, which will save--$124 million. In fiscal year 2009, we
exceeded our goals and produced or procured 5.4 percent of our total
facility energy through renewable sources, and we have led the Federal
Government as the number one purchaser of renewable energy for the
fifth year in a row. The 19 projects in the fiscal year 2011 Defense-
wide military construction budget, including six solar projects, will
continue this trend.
CONCLUSION
The Air Force is committed to the infrastructure projects that
support our missions; we are also committed to ensuring we continue to
care for our Airmen and their families, to include first-class
dormitories and housing, and Airman and family support.
We also remain committed to optimizing the utility of our resources
through effective joint basing, completing BRAC actions, and continuing
energy conservation efforts.
Finally, the Air Force is committed to being good stewards of
funding intended to ensure Air Force mission success.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Ferguson, what is the status of the Northern Group
Housing Privatization Project especially with reference to
Ellsworth Air Force Base?
NORTHERN GROUP HOUSING
Ms. Ferguson. Senator Johnson, we are very close to being
able to begin the process to put this on the street. We have
one more meeting that has to occur. Once that occurs, our
intent is to issue the required notice of intent for
solicitation to the Hill. That needs to be over here for 30
days, and then after that, we would anticipate issuing the
request for qualifications. We are hopeful that we clear this
last hurdle and be able to begin that within the next few
weeks, and that will allow us to select an offeror as early as
September, with a closure in June of next year.
Senator Johnson. What are the options and what is the
timeline if the Northern Group Privatization Project does not
go forward?
Ms. Ferguson. Sir, we would have to step back and look to
see what other options were available. We have worked with your
staff. We have six bases linked in the Northern Group, and what
we have done is we have blended a mixture of healthy bases that
have a significant investment in military construction, as well
as other bases that still require investment. Overall, the Air
Force invested about $600 million in those bases so far, but
there is another $400 million that needs to be invested and we
are hoping to leverage the private sector to do that. With an
additional $5 million of investment from the Department of the
Air Force, we are able to leverage $400 million from the
private sector to get that work done. So we are very hopeful we
will be able to move this project forward soon.
AIR FORCE RESERVE MILCON
Senator Johnson. To Secretary Yonkers and General Commons:
This year's budget request includes only one military
construction project for the Air Force Reserve and the future
years defense program does not look much better. This should be
an embarrassment to the Air Force. While I acknowledge that
there continue to be many demands and tight budgets, it would
seem to me that this does not support the Air Force's
commitment to the total Force.
Secretary Yonkers, are you comfortable that this level of
funding, $3.8 million for one project, is adequate for the Air
Force Reserve?
Mr. Yonkers. Thanks for your comments, Senator.
I think the short answer is we are not comfortable, but we
had to make some really difficult decisions in fiscal year 2011
to try to balance amongst all the competing interests and
programs in the Air Force.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, each one of the major
commands, the Air Guard and the Air Force Reserve, got their
number one priority project this year. Had we looked back and
circled back in the deliberations this last year, we would have
found, I think, a more equitable distribution of our military
construction dollars to particularly the Air Force Reserve. We
will look at that much more closely in this upcoming budget
review to make sure that occurs and they get a more equitable
distribution of those dollars.
I would also say that even though the military construction
program is small and it is not as robust as we would like to
see it, we are augmenting it through the facilities sustainment
modernization program. Those dollars are fairly hefty, and so
our idea here as we go forward is to utilize those dollars to
sustain those particularly aging infrastructure until such time
as we can get robust in our military construction program.
Senator Johnson. General Commons, would you like to comment
on the Air Force Reserve request?
General Commons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the budget formulation for fiscal year 2011, as
Secretary Yonkers mentioned, the Air Force decided to take
increased risk in current mission, and as a result of that,
they made a determination that every major command would be
awarded their top priority in current mission, which for the
Air Force Reserve was the Patrick Air Force Base project.
Also, we had no new mission requirements, which was funded.
They did not take as much risk in new mission. I think that led
to some of the disparity, but funding just one of our projects
per year will not address the $1.2 billion backlog we now have
in the Air Force Reserve on current mission requirements, which
directly impacts our readiness and our quality of life in the
Reserve Command.
I would also like to add, though, and thank this
subcommittee from last year for the plus-up in the $120 million
that was given to the Air Force Reserve in military
construction which made fiscal year 2010 one of our most
successful years in military construction. And I would like to
thank the subcommittee for that.
ENERGY EFFICIENCIES WITHIN AIR FORCE
Senator Johnson. Secretary Yonkers, I understand that the
Air Force has a net zero energy effort underway at the Air
Force Academy. Could you explain that effort and whether the
Air Force has any plans to employ that model at other bases?
Mr. Yonkers. I will try to answer that question, sir. I was
not really prepared to.
Across the Air Force, Net Zero is one of the objectives
that we have with regard to achieving these kinds of energy-
related, as well as greenhouse gas-related, potential impacts,
depending upon what energy source you use. So the Air Force
Academy is out in front with regard to that effort, and
certainly those lessons learned will be applied to other air
bases in the future. My intent is to meet exactly what the
President has asked us to meet, both President Bush, during his
administration, and President Obama during this administration,
with regard to hitting those kinds of carbon sequestration and
carbon balance topics or objectives, while at the same time,
aggressively pursue renewable energy at our installations.
Senator Johnson. I will ask you the same question I asked
the Army. Could you provide the subcommittee with a list of
potential ECIP projects that could be executed in fiscal year
2011?
Mr. Yonkers. Yes, sir, we would be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
The following are the potential unfunded ECIP projects for the Air
Force:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation/ Programmed
MAJCOM activity State Project description amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAFE............................ Ramstein........... GE................. Install $765
Photovoltaic
System.
USAFE............................ Ramstein........... GE................. Install 719
Photovoltaic
System.
USAFE............................ Ramstein........... GE................. Install 520
Photovoltaic
System.
USAFE............................ Ramstein........... GE................. Install 494
Photovoltaic
System.
ANG.............................. Atlantic City...... NJ................. Photovoltaic 3,700
Generation System.
AMC.............................. McGuire............ NJ................. (MEBI) Install 1,519
Solar Panels at
Fitness Center.
USAFE............................ Lajes Field........ PO................. Replace & Upgrade 1,110
Water SCADA & EMCS.
USAFE............................ Lajes Field........ PO................. Repair Water 600
Service Lines,
Multi.
USAFE............................ Moron.............. SP................. Install Non Potable 1,200
Water System.
ACC.............................. Eglin.............. FL................. Leak Detection & 750
Repair.
AETC............................. Tyndall............ FL................. Reclaimed Water 3,255
Irrigation.
AFSC............................. Thule.............. GR................. EMCS............... 4,500
PACAF............................ Elmendorf.......... AK................. HVAC Retro 2,830
commission Ph-1.
ACC.............................. Eglin.............. FL................. DDC Energy Mgnt 6,724
System Upgrade.
AFMC............................. Hanscom............ MA................. Repair Chiller 1,950
Controls B1201.
ACC.............................. Grand Forks........ ND................. Replace Interior 1,316
Lighting.
AETC............................. Randolph........... TX................. Cns Chiller/TES 1,200
Plant.
AFMC............................. Arnold............. TN................. Test Area Energy 821
Improvements.
ACC.............................. Mountain Home...... ID................. Repair Infrared 1,180
Heaters, Multi
facilities.
AETC............................. Randolph........... TX................. B395 Thermal Energy 1,527
Storage (TES).
AETC............................. Lackland........... TX................. Construct a Chiller/ 2,800
TES Plant.
AETC............................. Lackland........... TX................. Install Thermal 1,110
Storage Energy
Tank B7429.
AFMC............................. Kirtland........... NM................. ECIP Solar-LED 1,850
Retrofits for
Street, Parking &
Runway Lights.
AMC.............................. McGuire............ NJ................. (MEBI) Install 1,519
Solar Panels @
Fitness Center.
AMC.............................. McGuire............ NJ................. Install Solar Wall 1,150
Bldgs 3210/3211/
3101.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. ECIP--Photo Voltaic 1,082
System, B/286,
Fitness Center
Roof.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. Solar Roof System, 1,050
B/271, LAAFB.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. Solar Roof System, 1,050
B/270, LAAFB.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. Solar Roof System, 1,442
B/272, LAAFB.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. ECIP--Photo Voltaic 1,347
Parking Canopy,
South, LAAFB.
AFSPC............................ Los Angeles........ CA................. ECIP--Photo Voltaic 2,191
Parking Canopy,
West, LAAFB.
AFSPC............................ F.E. Warren........ WY................. Decentralize Base 14,008
Central Heat Plant.
AFMC............................. Hill Air Force UT................. ECIP--Conv & RPR 2,365
Base. 1700 Area Bldgs &
Dist Sys To
Natural Gas.
AFSPC............................ Cape Cod Air Force MA................. Install Two Wind 13,000
Station. Turbines/Support
System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Johnson. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAINE MILCON
General Moisio, as I was preparing for this hearing, I
noted that the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal contains
requests from the Air National Guard for funding for two
military construction projects that include two new SCIFs, the
secure facilities, at a cost of $9.6 million to the taxpayers.
Ms. Ferguson, I also noted that the Air Force has proposed
spending more than $221 million on six military construction
projects that include six new SCIFs.
At the Air National Guard base in Bangor, Maine, there is a
28,000 square foot facility that meets all the requirements to
be a SCIF, but the Air Force will not certify the facility as a
SCIF until a mission is identified for that building.
My question, however, is did the Air National Guard review
current assets, including this facility in Maine, before
proposing the funding to build brand new additional secure
facilities?
General Moisio. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Yes. We, of course, keep track of all of our $14 billion
worth of plant value across the Nation and consider it all in
new mission lay-down. The important thing to understand about
the new mission lay-down that we are in right now--much of it
is a result of BRAC. Much of it as a result of other changing
missions, drawdown in Force structure, and so on, which has not
affected the 101st, as you know, up in Bangor. They have a
good, stable tanker mission and will continue to have that
mission for a long time.
As time goes on, ma'am, when we continue to have to lay
down across the Air Force missions that require classified
facilities--also communication infrastructure is becoming a
very important aspect--we do consider the existing facilities
and the existing communication infrastructure when we go
through our basing actions, as Ms. Ferguson, who runs that
program, can attest. So it is a factor, ma'am.
Senator Collins. Secretary Ferguson, was that facility
considered as the Air Force was putting together its request
for six additional secure areas?
Ms. Ferguson. I will have to go back and look at those
particular six projects, but as General Moisio points out,
under the new Air Force strategic basing process, that is one
of the things we consider as we beddown new missions across the
Air Force.
Senator Collins. I would encourage both of you to take a
look at that facility because if it does meet your needs, we
should use current assets and save some money in this very
tight budget environment. And I know that you share that
concern as well.
[The information follows:]
After significant reductions in requirements due to the end of the
cold war, the Air National Guard has reused the majority of the SCIF
facility. Of the 34,000 square feet, only 6,100 square feet remain
vacant. Each of the military construction projects with SCIF
requirements is associated with an existing mission and are already
established at their current installations. For these current mission
military construction projects, the benefit of reutilizing an existing
SCIF at Bangor, Maine is out-weighed by the high cost associated with
moving the missions to another installation. However, as we previously
discussed, under the new Air Force strategic basing process, Bangor,
Maine will be considered as we beddown new missions across the Air
Force in the future.
Senator Collins. General, it sounds like you are very aware
of the role that the air refueling wing of the Air National
Guard in Maine has been playing in maintaining our air bridge
to support our warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last
time I visited the base, I was told that they actually offload
more fuel than any other unit on the entire east coast,
including Active Duty units with the exception of MacDill Air
Force Base in Florida. So they are playing an absolutely
essential role. Indeed, if you look just at Guard units, they
offload more fuel to military aircraft than any other Guard
unit in the country.
As you begin the process of deciding where to place the KC-
X aircraft, the tanker that we desperately need to proceed
with, will one of the primary considerations for basing include
which aircraft in the inventory are most frequently relied upon
to support wartime efforts? General?
General Moisio. Senator Collins, your support of the 101st
is admirable, as is the case across the Nation with our Guard
units. It is one thing that makes the job that I have so great,
is to hear the pride of Senators and Congressmen regarding
their Guard units.
It is a true statement that the 101st is tops on the east
coast in offload. It makes sense, closest to the air bridge
across the Atlantic. So a very, very strategic point for us to
have a tanker unit in the Air National Guard, and there is, I
would hope, little doubt in my mind that that would continue
for a long, long time.
In terms of competing for KC-X, I believe that the
Northeast Tanker Task Force will undoubtedly be involved in
some way in the initial beddown of KC-X. We will go through the
normal basing process, and in my mind, the most important
attribute of the 101st that will show up in the basing process
is its location and the fact of the Northeast Tanker Task
Force. So the competition will be fair. It will be transparent,
and I know that the 101st in Bangor will compete.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you all.
Senator Johnson. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AT ALASKA INSTALLATIONS
Secretary Yonkers, I understand that you are in the process
now of preparing a paper for me at my request on the future of
the Polar Star Housing. This is the privatized housing in
Eielson. I will look forward to receiving that paper and the
opportunity for future dialogue on that. We would like to see,
of course, positive resolution of this, but I understand that
that is something that you are working to produce for me. So I
will look forward to that. And I do not know. It looks like
you, Secretary Ferguson, will be the one that will be working
on it.
Mr. Yonkers. Actually she is the one that works these types
of military family housing privatization issues, and I would be
completely lost without her, as you probably know.
I mean, there is much more to come, and we will be more
than happy to not only provide the paper but respond to any
questions, concerns, Madam, that you have.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
Let me ask you. You have mentioned the impact of energy
usage and what we do to deal with our high energy costs.
Congress had appropriated some substantial funding for the Air
Force to consider locating a coal-to-liquids plant on or near
Eielson to take advantage of the coal reserves that we have in
interior Alaska and offer the Air Force an alternative source
of jet fuel.
We have, of course, heard that the concept of coal-to-
liquids, which was really quite popular in the last
administration, has now kind of gone out of vogue within this
administration, even if we can address the carbon capture
issues.
The question to you this morning is whether the Air Force
intends to pursue a coal-to-liquids plant at Eielson and what
is the timeline then for any decision-making in this order.
Mr. Yonkers. Ma'am, thank you for your question, and I know
you are personally very interested in this and your
observations are right on target with regard to coal-to-liquid.
You know very well, I am sure, that the earmarks that we
received are being utilized for the purposes under which they
were intended to look at the feasibility and financial
viability of a coal-to-liquids facility at or near Eielson. We
are already in the process, as you probably know as well, of
looking at the business case analysis particularly to see if an
enhanced use lease would be appropriate for such activities and
be financially viable for such activities.
In conjunction with that, the civil engineering squadron
there is looking at the mission impacts and the environmental
impact analysis to pull that information together.
And then the Air Force research labs down at Wright
Patterson are considering things such as carbon sequestration
and how that will play amongst the energy alternatives as we
look at the broad scope of whether or not coal-to-liquid is
really a viable option there at Eielson.
Once we get the information from those reports back and we
can massage that a bit, and if we do, in fact, find that it is
a viable alternative, our intent is to get with the Department
of Defense, along with, we hope, prospective developers,
companies that would be interested in implementing this, and
see where we go from there.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we would like to work with you on
this. Obviously, the cost of energy is a key issue up there,
but even more so, the opportunity to provide the Air Force with
a fuel source that could be ready and affordable is something
that we all want to focus on.
Mr. Yonkers. Yes, ma'am.
NEW TANKERS IN ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. General, let me ask you. You spoke about
the possibility of the KC-X for the 101st there in Maine. Does
the same possibly apply to the 168th Wing at Eielson which has
the significant responsibility for fueling in the Pacific?
General Moisio. Absolutely, ma'am. I really should let Ms.
Ferguson address the overall process, but hopefully you all are
aware of the process that the Air Force has adopted over the
last year to base new systems. But the process is open,
transparent, repeatable, and when we are bedding down a system
such as F-35s, such as KC-X soon, we look enterprise-wide at
Air Force bases and grade them on a set of criteria that are
developed by the gaining major command. And I am convinced that
it is a very fair process.
Senator Murkowski. One final question, and this is your
soft ball for the morning and gives you a chance to do a little
bit of bragging. In just a few weeks here, the Elmendorf Air
Force Base is slated to receive the Commander-in-Chief Award
from the Secretary of Defense. This is a pretty big deal. We
certainly feel so. As one who represented Elmendorf in our
State legislature, it is even more a particular point of pride.
But it really means that Elmendorf is truly the best of the
best in the Air Force.
So the question to you this morning, Secretary, is what did
Elmendorf do to achieve this distinction, and how will the Air
Force celebrate Elmendorf's accomplishments?
Mr. Yonkers. Well, you know, I will go back to some of the
previous conversations with the pride and enthusiasm that you
all bring to the table with regard to those air bases that are
in your State. It is really gratifying to me as sort of a
retread coming back into the Air Force just recently to see
this. I mean, this was one of the things that I really missed
when I left 8 years ago.
It is a big deal. It is truly a big deal for Elmendorf to
be able to go through a rigorous competition amongst every air
base that we have in the 50 States and all those major
commands. There are 166 air bases that Elmendorf was in the mix
with. And as you say, Senator, Elmendorf came out on top.
There is going to be at least one, if not several award
assemblies that are going to recognize that accomplishment.
When those folks from Elmendorf stand up in front of the
Secretary and the Chief and receive that award, I think it is
going to be a great day and there is going to be just a lot of
fun and enthusiasm and pride from the people down at the
installation level that made that happen.
Senator Murkowski. We look forward to recognizing their
accomplishments because they are significant. They are
receiving the Commander in Chief Award, but this has been a
pretty good year for them. They have received a whole handful
of national recognitions, and we are really quite proud, as we
are of all our men and women in uniform, but there are
significant accomplishments that we want to celebrate. So thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yonkers. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
before the subcommittee today. We 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 April 29.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Johnson. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:06 a.m., Thursday, April 22, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]