[Senate Hearing 114-609]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Kirk (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kirk, Murkowski, Collins, Boozman,
Cassidy, Tester, Udall, Schatz, and Murphy.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID D. HALVERSON,
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATION
MANAGEMENT, AND COMMANDER, U.S. ARMY
INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
HEADQUARTERS
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK KIRK
Senator Kirk. We will be talking about the military
construction (MILCON) needs of our Armed Forces.
Let me turn it over to my ranking member, Mr. Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Kirk.
I want to welcome all the witnesses here today. Thank you
all for appearing in front of the subcommittee.
At $8.4 billion, the fiscal year 2016 MILCON budget request
marks a significant and welcome increase over last year's
request, a 67-percent increase for Air Force MILCON projects, a
59-percent increase for Navy, a 37-percent increase for Army.
And I think this is a remarkable turnaround from last year's
budget.
I am particularly pleased that the request includes funding
for our current mission and quality-of-life projects. Over the
last 3 years, tight budget constraints have forced the services
to take risks in their MILCON programs and focus almost
exclusively on new mission requirements. As a result, aging and
inefficient facilities continue to be patched together instead
of being replaced. And quality-of-life projects, such as
barracks, physical fitness centers, and child care centers,
went on the backline for funding.
So the fiscal year 2016 request is a good news story, and I
want to thank you for your support of the MILCON program. I
hope the level of MILCON funding in the President's request
will be sustained as the appropriations bills works their way
through Congress.
I do recognize that we face a serious challenge with the
Budget Control Act (BCA) caps. This is something Congress is
going to have to address over the coming weeks.
But I look forward to the testimony here today, and I hope
the subcommittee will get some assurances that, absent a
catastrophic reduction in defense funding, MILCON will continue
to receive adequate funding in the years to come.
Look, you guys have an important job to do. It is our job
to give you the tools to do it. I think this budget does it. If
you are able to justify it, hopefully, we can get over these
spending caps with the BCA.
With that, I will turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kirk. Thank you. Let's recognize our witnesses. We
will go with General Halverson. I think we will start out with
you.
General Halverson. I thank you, Chairman Kirk, Ranking
Member Tester, and distinguished members of the committee for
the opportunity to discuss the Army's fiscal year 2016 military
construction budget. Also, thank you for your support of the
past military construction programs that invest in the
readiness of our Army.
The President's fiscal year 2016 military construction
budget request supports a regionally engaged Army that is in a
fiscally constrained environment. Anything less puts our Army
at an unacceptable level of risk.
The Army is at a critical point in installation readiness.
Sequestration brought on by the Budget Control Act is affecting
the Army's ability to provide facilities that our all-volunteer
soldiers and their families rely and depend upon to sustain
readiness and maintain their quality of life.
The Army's fiscal year 2016 MILCON budget targets the
minimum essential requirements. Our request focuses MILCON
investments on supporting readiness initiatives and
revitalizing failed facilities. Although we are asking for that
26-percent increase in the fiscal year 2015 military
construction, family housing, and base closure activities, it
is important to note that the $1.6 billion request is a 33-
percent reduction from fiscal year 2014 and a 55-percent
reduction from fiscal year 2013.
The Army applies resources to the most critical
requirements. We reduce risk to the soldier and family
readiness by managing the limited military construction funds
necessary for sustaining the readiness, the training, and the
quality of life, and repairing mission essential facilities
that are in the worst conditions.
As the force structure declines, we must right-size the
supporting infrastructure without compromising Army readiness.
We need a new round of BRAC realignment and closure in 2017 to
reduce the cost and consolidate our infrastructure.
The alternative is to make up for shortages in funding by
increasing the risk to our readiness. Our parametric analysis
shows that the Army facility capacity is 18 percent greater
than required for the 490,000 mission Active Duty force. As end
strength declines further, more capacity is created.
The Army welcomes a discussion on how to structure a future
BRAC process. The fiscal year 2016 military construction budget
request maintains a trained and ready Army capable of unified
operations, but at an elevated risk. Our MILCON request is only
1.3 percent of the total Army budget. We are focusing our
limited MILCON resources on training, maintenance, mission
command and readiness of facilities.
Any further reductions will put us at the brink of breaking
our soldiers' trust that we will provide them the right
resources to prepare for any contingency.
On behalf of the soldiers, families, and civilians in the
best Army in the world, we thank you for the opportunity to
present our most critical military construction requirements
and thank you for your vital support of our Army. I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lieutenant General David D. Halverson
introduction
Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester, and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the soldiers, families, and civilians of the
United States Army, thank you for the opportunity to present the Army's
fiscal year 2016 military construction (MILCON) and installations
programs budget request.
The Army installation management community is committed to
providing the facilities necessary to enable a ready and capable Army.
The President's fiscal year 2016 MILCON budget request supports a
regionally-engaged Army in a fiscally-constricted environment.
We ask for the subcommittee's continued commitment to our soldiers,
families, and civilians and support for the Army's MILCON and
installations programs.
overview
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget requests $1.6 billion for
Army MILCON, Army Family Housing (AFH), and Base Closure Accounts
(BCA). This request represents 1.3 percent of the total Army budget
request. Of this $1.6 billion request, $743 million is for Military
Construction, Army; $197 million is for Military Construction, Army
National Guard; $114 million is for Military Construction, Army
Reserve; $493 million is for AFH; and $30 million is for BCA.
The Army's facility investments are focused on supporting necessary
training, maintenance, and operations facilities. These investments
take into consideration the fiscal landscape we are facing as a Nation,
which is influenced by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Bipartisan
Budget Agreement of 2013, and the strategic shift to realign forces
toward the Asia/Pacific theater.
army force structure
Fiscal reductions required by current law, and outlined in the 2014
Quadrennial Defense Review, have put the Army on a path to shrink our
Active component end strength and corresponding force structure a
second time from a peak of 570,000 in fiscal year 2010, to 450,000 by
fiscal year 2018. This is a total reduction of 120,000 Active component
soldiers, approximately 22 percent. If sequestration level cuts are
imposed in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, the Army may have to reduce our
end strength and corresponding force structure to 420,000 soldiers by
fiscal year 2019. This is a cumulative reduction of 150,000 soldiers,
approximately 26 percent.
These reductions will affect every installation in the Army. The
Army must retain our adaptability and flexibility so we can continue to
provide regionally-aligned and mission-tailored forces in support of
national defense requirements. Failing to maintain the proper balance
between end-strength, readiness, and modernization will result in a
``hollow'' Army. The Army is already reducing our Active component from
45 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to 32 by the end of fiscal year 2015.
When we evaluated our initial force structure reductions from
570,000 to 490,000 soldiers, we conducted a Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA) in 2013, which was prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PEA analyzed potential
environmental impacts that could result from the force reductions,
including socioeconomic impacts at specified population loss
thresholds. Since the Army's Active component end-strength and
corresponding force structure will decline further than 490,000 to
450,000 by fiscal year 2018, the Army initiated a supplemental PEA
(SPEA) in February 2014 to analyze additional potential population loss
scenarios that accounted for the impacts of full sequestration and
Budget Control Act funding levels in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
Following publication of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI),
the Army is in the process of conducting approximately 30 community
listening sessions at all Army installations with military and civilian
populations of 5,000 or more. The community listening sessions, which
are a separate action from the SPEA process, give communities an
opportunity to contribute feedback that will be taken into
consideration by Army leaders before decisions are made on force
structure reductions for specific installations.
facility capacity analysis
As the Army reorganizes to address these reductions, we must gauge
the facility capacity and facility mix that we require to support a
ready and resilient Army. We have begun conducting a facility capacity
analysis to determine how much excess capacity will be created at the
aggregate or enterprise level by the decrease in our end strength and
corresponding force structure.
We have conducted programmatic analyses of real property needed to
support an end-strength and corresponding force structure of 490,000
Active component soldiers. Results show that with 490,000 Active
component soldiers, we will have nearly 18 percent excess capacity
across our worldwide installations, totaling over 160 million square
feet of facilities that could be repurposed to serve a wide variety of
other uses (including satisfying other Army facility requirements).
Inside the United States, excess capacity ranges between 12 and 28
percent, depending on facility category group, with an average of
approximately 18 percent.
The Army estimates it costs $3 per square foot each year to
maintain underutilized facilities. Accordingly, it costs the Army over
$480 million a year to operate and sustain worldwide excess capacity.
Additional excess capacity will be created when the Active component
shrinks further, necessitating incremental facility capacity analyses.
In January 2013, the Secretary of Defense directed a thorough
review of European infrastructure requirements. This effort is
consistent with the congressional direction communicated in the fiscal
year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. In May 2014, the first
set of decisions resulting from the European Infrastructure
Consolidation (EIC) analysis was released. The Secretary of Defense
approved 22 actions, 13 of which were Army actions. Many of these
actions had been underway prior to EIC, yet they were formally
reevaluated and found to be wholly consistent with the intent of EIC:
to reduce excess infrastructure and associated operating costs, without
sacrificing operational capabilities.
In January 2015, the Department of Defense announced 26 additional
decisions, 20 of which were Army actions, which resulted from a
rigorous analytic method that adapted elements of the Base Closure and
Realignment (BRAC) process to an overseas environment. This analysis
included a Capacity Analysis, a Military Value Analysis, and a
structured Scenario Development and Evaluation process. The Army is now
nearing completion of fully developed and coordinated business plans to
ensure these decisions are implemented between 2016 and 2020, in a
manner that conforms to the Secretary of Defense's guidance and
achieves both the projected savings and infrastructure reductions.
The 33 Army EIC actions will significantly reduce our
infrastructure in Europe at a considerably faster pace than previously
envisioned. They are projected to yield Annual Recurring Savings of
$163 million by fiscal year 2021 after implementation costs of $358
million are incurred between fiscal year 2014 and 2020.
The use of BRAC methods and tools to evaluate our European
infrastructure was helpful in building expertise and proficiency that
will help prepare the Army for a future BRAC Round. Moreover, the rigor
of the analysis helped to demonstrate that DOD has reduced, or
identified for reduction, all that it can overseas, and must now look
to seek reductions within the United States, for which new BRAC
authority is essential. This authority is needed to eliminate excess,
balance infrastructure and force structure, and operate within
projected fiscal constraints. The DOD and the Army have the tools and
authorities needed to identify and reduce our excess capacity overseas.
Inside the United States, however, the best and proven method to
address excess infrastructure, in a cost-effective, transparent, and
equitable manner, is through the BRAC process.
Our evaluation of European infrastructure followed the BRAC
analytic methods and laid the foundation for the next round of BRAC.
BRAC is a proven, fair, and cost effective process; the savings have
been validated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Similar
to our EIC effort, the Army is committed to a future BRAC round that is
focused on efficiency and consolidation rather than transformation.
The Army needs BRAC to achieve savings of a sufficient magnitude to
prevent the deterioration of our critical infrastructure. As the Army's
end-strength and force structure decline alongside available funding,
hundreds of millions of scarce dollars will be wasted in maintaining
underutilized buildings and infrastructure. Trying to spread a smaller
budget over the same number of installations and facilities will
inevitably result in rapid declining conditions of Army facilities.
The Army has used existing authorities to vacate leased space and
move from temporary buildings into permanent buildings. For example, at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, when the Fourth BCT of the 101st Airborne
Division was inactivated, it resulted in 228 facility reallocation
moves affecting 5 different Brigades. At the end of the process, Fort
Campbell vacated and removed 91 relocatable buildings consisting of
over 200,000 Square Feet.
As laudable as the Fort Campbell efficiency measures have been,
however, the stark budgetary reality is that modest savings from these
prudent efficiency measures cannot substitute for the significant
savings of a new BRAC round. The cost of running a garrison is
relatively fixed, regardless of whether the supported population is
reduced by 10, 20, or 40 percent. The Army must continue to evaluate,
balance, and right-size the diverse and extensive supporting
infrastructure that enables our effective fighting forces. BRAC is the
only proven authority that allows the Army to achieve this balance,
reduce costs, and achieve the necessary savings.
For many communities near our installations, BRAC is better than
proceeding with the reduction of force structure and excess capacity
under current law. It provides the impacted communities a chance to
conduct comprehensive redevelopment planning with Federal resources to
assist them. It also can provide the community additional property
conveyance options. Neither the Army nor the supporting communities
benefit from retaining underutilized installations that are
unaffordable for the Army with diminished economic benefit to the
community.
facility investment strategy (fis)
As the Army shapes the Force of 2025 and Beyond through a series of
strategic initiatives, the Installation Management Community continues
to focus on providing quality, energy-efficient facilities in support
of the Army Leadership priorities.
The FIS provides a strategic framework that is synchronized with
the Army Campaign Plan (ACP); Total Army Analysis; and the Planning,
Programming, Budgeting & Execution (PPBE) to determine capital
investment needed to sustain Army facilities at installations and Joint
Service bases across the country. The FIS is a cost-effective and
efficient approach to facility investments that reduces unneeded
footprint, saves energy by preserving efficient facilities,
consolidates functions for effective space utilization, demolishes
failing buildings, and uses appropriate excess facilities to eliminate
off-post leases.
FIS uses MILCON funding to replace failing facilities and build out
critical facility shortages; Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funding to
address the repair and maintenance of existing facilities; O&M
Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to improve existing
facility quality; O&M Sustainment funding to maintain existing
facilities; and Demolition and Disposal funding to eliminate failing
excess facilities. Focused investments from MILCON and O&M funding
support facilities grouped in the following categories: Redeployment/
Force Structure, Barracks, Revitalization, Ranges, and Training
Facilities. The fiscal year 2016 budget request implements the FIS by
building out shortfalls for unmanned aerial vehicle units, Army Cyber,
initial entry training barracks, selected maintenance facilities, and
Reserve component facilities. Additional departmental focus areas
include Organic Industrial Base and Energy/Utilities.
fiscal year 2016 budget request
military construction, army
The fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Army (MCA) budget
requests an authorization of $609 million and appropriations for $743.2
million. The appropriations request includes $134.2 million for
planning and design, minor military construction, and host nation
support. The MCA program is focused on the MILCON categories of Army
Cyber, Barracks, Revitalization, Ranges and Training Facilities, and
Other Support Programs.
Of the $743.2 million, $90 million will be spent on Army Cyber. The
fiscal year 2016 MCA budget requests a Command and Control Facility for
the recently-established Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) and Joint Forces
Headquarters Cyber at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Of the $743.2 million, $56 million will be spent on Barracks. As
part of the Army's continued investment in barracks, the fiscal year
2016 MCA budget provides for one project to complete a Reception
Barracks Complex at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which includes 254 barracks
spaces and company operations facilities for Initial Entry Training
(IET) soldiers during their in-processing.
Of the $743.2 million, $397.6 million will be spent on
Revitalization. As part of the Army's Facility Investment Strategy, the
Army is requesting eight projects to address failing facilities and/or
critical facility shortfalls to meet the unit mission requirements.
Projects include the $43 million Homeland Defense Operation Center at
Joint Base San Antonio, Texas; a $70 million Waste Water Treatment
Plant at West Point, New York; a $37 million Instruction Building at
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Virginia; a $85 million Powertrain
Facility (Infrastructure/Metal) at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas; a
$98 million replacement of Pier #2 at the Military Ocean Terminal
Concord, California; a $7.8 million Physical Readiness Training
Facility at Fort Greely, Alaska; a $5.8 million Rotary Wing Taxiway at
Fort Carson, Colorado; and a $51 million Vehicle Maintenance Shop at
Grafenwoehr Training Area, Germany.
Of the $743.2 million, $65.4 million will be spent on Ranges and
Training Facilities. These funds will be invested to construct a Non-
Commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy at Fort Drum, New York ($19 million)
as well as two new Training Support Facilities. These facilities are
located at Fort Sill, Oklahoma ($13.4 million) and Fort Lee, Virginia
($33 million) to meet Program of Instruction (POI) training
requirements for soldiers, non-commissioned officers and junior
officers undergoing Military Occupational Specialty training.
Of the $743.2 million, $134.2 million will be spent on Other
Support Programs. This includes $73.2 million for planning and design
of MCA projects, $36 million for the oversight of design and
construction of projects funded by host nations, and $25 million for
unspecified minor construction.
military construction, army national guard
The fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, National Guard (MCNG)
budget requests an authorization of $132.1 million and appropriations
for $197.2 million. The appropriations request includes $35.3 million
for planning and design and minor military construction and $29.8
million for previously-authorized projects at Dagsboro, Delaware ($10.8
million) and Yakima, Washington ($19 million). The MCNG program is
focused on the readiness centers, maintenance facilities, training
facilities, ranges and barracks.
Of the $197.2 million, $88.3 million will be spent on Readiness
Centers. The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes five readiness
centers: Palm Coast, Florida ($18 million); Easton, Maryland ($13.8
million); Salem, Oregon ($16.5 million); Richmond, Virginia ($29
million); and Camp Hartell, Connecticut ($11 million). The readiness
centers include new facilities as well as expansions/alterations to
existing facilities. The projects primarily address space shortfalls
and replacement of obsolete facilities. In one case, the project will
eliminate the need to continue leasing a facility. The new readiness
centers will enhance the Army National Guard's readiness to perform
state and Federal missions.
Of the $197.2 million, $26.7 million will be spent on Maintenance
Facilities. Three National Guard maintenance shops are included in the
request. The Dagsboro, Delaware facility ($10.8 million) addresses
shortfalls in interior space, privately-owned vehicle parking, and
military vehicle parking. A project in North Hyde Park, Vermont ($7.9
million) adds space to an existing facility that only has 22 percent of
the required space. One final addition/alteration project is located in
Reno, Nevada ($8 million) and will address space shortfalls and
modernize the existing facility.
Of the $197.2 million, $16 million will be spent on Training
Facilities. At Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, a new training aids
center ($16 million) replaces a deteriorated World War Two-era facility
and other temporary storage.
Of the $197.2 million, $11.9 million will be spent on Ranges. The
Army National Guard's request contains four range projects. Two range
projects are located in Salina, Kansas and consist of an automated
combat pistol/military police firearms qualification course ($2.4
million) and a modified record fire range ($4.3 million). Both of these
ranges are necessary in order to meet current training range criteria
and achieve the required throughput. The range project at Camp Ravenna,
Ohio, a modified record fire range ($3.3 million), will provide needed
capacity for unit training. In Sparta, Illinois a basic firing range
($1.9 million) will address the lack of this type of facility in south
central Illinois.
Of the $197.2 million, $19 million will be spent on Barracks
facilities. At Yakima, Washington, a new transient training barracks
($19 million) addresses a shortfall in space and quality.
Of the $197.2 million, $35.3 million will be spent on Other Support
Programs. The fiscal year 2016 Army National Guard budget request
includes $20.3 million for planning and design of future year projects
and $15 million for unspecified minor military construction.
military construction, army reserve
The fiscal year 2016 Military Construction, Army Reserve (MCAR)
budget requests an authorization of $88.2 million and appropriations
for $113.6 million. The appropriations request includes $16.1 million
for planning and design and minor military construction and $9.3
million for a previously-authorized project at Starkville, Mississippi.
Of the $113.6 million, $97.5 million will be spent on
Revitalization. The fiscal year 2016 Army Reserve budget request
includes five projects that build out critical facility shortages and
replace and modernize failing infrastructure and inefficient facilities
with new operations and energy efficient facilities. The Army Reserve
will construct three new reserve centers in Riverside, California;
MacDill AFB, Florida; and Starkville, Mississippi that will provide
modern training classrooms, simulations capabilities, and maintenance
platforms that support the Army force generation cycle and the ability
of the Army Reserve to provide trained and ready soldiers for Army
missions when called. The Starkville, Mississippi project was
authorized in the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act,
but no funds were appropriated. In Conneaut Lake, Pennsylvania the Army
Reserve, through the Defense Access Roadway program, will improve an
access road leading to an Army Reserve Local Training Area and
maintenance facilities. The request also includes a new vehicle
maintenance facility at Orangeburg, New York.
Of the $113.6 million, $16.1 million will be spent on Other Support
Programs. The fiscal year 2016 Army Reserve budget request includes
$9.3 million for planning and design of future year projects and $6.8
million for unspecified minor military construction to address
unforeseen critical needs.
army family housing
The Army's fiscal year 2016 AFH budget requests $493.2 million for
construction and housing operations worldwide. The AFH inventory
includes 10,614 Government-owned homes, 4,984 Government-leased homes,
and 86,077 privatized-homes. The Army has privatized over 98 percent of
on-post housing assets inside the United States. All Army overseas
family housing quarters are either Government-owned or Government-
leased units.
Of the $493.2 million, $85.8 million will be spent on Operations.
The Operations account includes four sub-accounts: management,
services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. Within the
management sub-account, Installation Housing Services Offices provide
post housing, non-discriminatory listings of rental and for-sale
housing, rental negotiations and lease review, property inspections,
home buying counseling, landlord-tenant dispute resolution, in-and-out
processing housing assistance, and assistance with housing
discrimination complaints and act as a liaison between the installation
and local and State agencies. In addition, this account supports remote
access to housing information from anywhere in the world with direct
information or links to garrison information such as schools,
relocation information, installation maps, housing floor plans, photo
and housing tours, programs and services, housing wait list
information, and housing entitlements.
Of the $493.2 million, $65.6 million will be spent on Utilities.
The Utilities account includes the cost of delivering heat, air
conditioning, electricity, water, and wastewater support for owned or
leased (not privatized) family housing units.
Of the $493.2 million, $75.2 million will be spent on Maintenance
and Repair. The Maintenance and Repair account supports annual
recurring projects to maintain and revitalize AFH real property assets
and is the account most affected by budget changes. This funding
ensures that we appropriately maintain the 10,614 housing units so that
we do not adversely impact soldier and family quality of life.
Of the $493.2 million, $144.9 million will be spent on Leasing. The
Army Leasing program is another way to provide soldiers and their
families with adequate housing. The fiscal year 2016 budget request
includes funding for 575 temporary domestic leases in the United
States, and 4,409 leased units overseas.
Of the $493.2 million, $22 million will be spent on Privatization.
The Privatization account provides operating funds for the Army's
Residential Communities Initiatives (RCI) program portfolio and asset
management and Government oversight of privatized military family
housing. The need to provide oversight of the privatization program and
projects is reinforced in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act, which requires more oversight to monitor compliance,
review, and report performance of the overall privatized housing
portfolio and individual projects.
In 1999, the Army began privatizing family housing assets under the
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI). All scheduled installations
have been privatized through RCI. RCI family housing is established at
44 locations--98 percent of the on-post family housing inventory inside
the United States. Initial construction and renovation investment at
these 44 installations is estimated at $13.2 billion over a 3-14-year
initial development period (IDP), which includes an Army contribution
of approximately $2 billion. All IDPs are scheduled to be completed by
2019. From 1999 through 2013, our RCI partners have constructed 31,935
new homes and renovated another 25,834 homes.
Of the $493.2 million, $99.7 million will be spent on Construction.
The Army's fiscal year 2016 Family Housing Construction request is for
$89 million for new construction, $3.5 million for construction
improvements and $7.2 million for planning and design. The Army will
construct 38 single family homes at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois to
support senior officer and senior non-commissioned officer and
families. These new homes enable the Army to fully address the housing
deficit and to eliminate dependency on leased housing. The Army will
construct 90 apartment quarters on Camp Walker in Daegu, Korea to
replace aged and worn out leased units to consolidate families on post.
base closure account (bca)
BRAC property disposal remains an Army priority. Putting excess
property back into productive re-use, which can facilitate job
creation, is important to the communities in which they are located.
The Army's portion of the fiscal year 2016 BCA budget request
totals $29.7 million. The request includes $14.6 million for caretaker
operations and program management of remaining properties and $15.1
million for environmental restoration efforts. In fiscal year 2016, the
Army will continue environmental compliance and remediation projects at
various BRAC properties. The funds requested are needed to keep planned
environmental response efforts on track particularly at legacy BRAC
installations including Fort Ord, California and Pueblo Chemical Depot,
Colorado. Additionally, funds requested support environmental projects
at several BRAC 2005 installations including Riverbank Army Ammunition
Plant, California; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; Fort Monroe, Virginia;
and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. The current estimated cost to
complete all BRAC environmental cleanup requirements is $957 million
over a period of approximately 30 years.
When the Army sells excess BRAC property, proceeds go back into our
Base Closure Account to fund remaining Army environmental and
maintenance requirements on our BRAC sites. Sales of Army BRAC property
at substantially fair market value help protect programs that support
Active, Guard, and Reserve installations.
In total, the Army has disposed of almost 225,000 acres (76 percent
of the total acreage disposal requirement of 297,000 acres), with
approximately 72,000 acres (24 percent) remaining. The current goal is
for all remaining excess property to be conveyed by 2023. Placing this
property into productive reuse helps communities rebuild the local tax
base, generate revenue, and, most importantly, replace lost jobs.
There is life after BRAC for defense communities. BRAC-impacted
communities have leveraged planning grants and technical assistance
from the DOD Office of Economic Assistance (OEA), as well as BRAC
property disposal authorities, to adjust in ways that are often not
possible outside the BRAC process. There are many instances of how BRAC
property has been put to new uses; below are three examples.
At Fort Monmouth, transferred property is now in productive re-use.
During November 2014, CommVault, a data protection and information
software company moved its global headquarters to a portion of the
former Fort Monmouth. CommVault moved 500 existing employees and 400
new employees into the new 275,000 square foot facility less than 2
years after the Army conveyed a 55 acre parcel to the public
development authority in consideration for an Economic Development
Conveyance under BRAC law CommVault officials anticipate 2,000
additional employees will be hired upon completion of a 650,000 square
foot addition to the 55 acre campus. The company's decision to re-
locate and expand at its new location is a major step to establish a
technology hub on the former Fort Monmouth.
At Fort Gillem, Kroger, one of the world's largest grocery
retailers, will open a one million square foot state-of-the-art
distribution center on 253 acres at the former Fort Gillem, creating
120 new jobs and investing more than $175 million into the former Army
and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) distribution facility over the
next 5 years. The new jobs will include warehouse, security,
transportation management, engineering and facilities management
positions. The community anticipates 1,500 new jobs over the next 2
years and revenues to support critical services for the residents of
Forest Park. Like Fort Monmouth, the Army conveyed this property to the
Local Redevelopment Authority as an Economic Development Conveyance,
receiving $15 million at closing with an additional $15 million in
structured payments over the next 7 years.
The third BRAC example is the US Army Reserve Center #2 in Houston,
Texas. This six acre site, including more than 15,000 square feet, was
conveyed in August 2012 to the City of Houston under a Department of
Justice Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) for use as a police department.
This type of re-use is common across the country whenever the Army
closes a Reserve Center.
energy
The Army is improving our installation energy use and
sustainability efforts. In fiscal year 2016, the Installation Energy
budget total is $1.68 billion. This budget total includes $45.8 million
from the DOD-wide MILCON appropriation for the Energy Conservation
Investment Program (ECIP), $150.1 million for the Energy Program/
Utilities Modernization Program, and $1.48 billion for Utilities
Services. The Army conducts financial reviews, business case and life
cycle cost analysis, and return on investment evaluations for all
energy initiatives.
Of the $1.68 billion, $45.8 million will be spent on the Energy
Conservation Investment Program (ECIP). The Army invests in energy
efficiency, on-site small-scale energy production, and grid security
through the DOD's appropriation for ECIP. In fiscal year 2014, the DOD
began conducting a project-by-project competition to determine ECIP
funding distribution to the Services. In fiscal year 2016, the Army
received $45.8 million for seven projects, including six energy
conservation projects and one renewable energy project.
Of the $1.68 billion, $150.1 million will be spent on Energy
Program/Utilities Modernization. Reducing consumption and increasing
energy efficiency are among the most cost-effective ways to improve
installation energy security. The Army funds many of its energy
efficiency improvements through the Energy Program/Utilities
Modernization program account. Included in this total are funds for
energy efficiency projects, the Army's metering program, modernization
of the Army's utilities, energy security projects, and planning and
studies. In addition, this account funds planning and development of
third party financed renewable energy projects through the Office of
Energy Initiatives (OEI). The OEI currently has 14 projects completed,
under construction, in the procurement process, or in the final stages
before procurement with a potential of over 400 Mega Watts (MW) of
generation capacity. Power purchased in conjunction with OEI projects
will be priced at or below current or projected installation utility
rates.
Of the $1.68 billion, $1.48 billion will be spent on Utilities
Services. The Utilities Services account pays all Army utility bills
including the repayment of Utilities Privatization (UP), Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs), and Utilities Energy Service Contracts
(UESCs). Through the authority granted by Congress, ESPCs and UESCs
allow the Army to implement energy efficiency improvements through the
use of private capital, repaying the contractor for capital investments
over a number of years out of the energy cost savings. The Army has the
most robust ESPC program in the Federal Government. The ESPC program
has more than 200 Task Orders at 78 installations, representing $1.68
billion in private sector investments, and over 370 UESC Task Orders at
47 installations, representing $583 million in utility sector
investments. We have additional ESPC projects in development, totaling
over $300 million in private investment and $60 million in development
for new UESCs. From December 2011 through December 2014, under the
President's Performance Contracting Challenge, the Army executed $725
million in contracts with third-party investment using ESPCs and UESCs.
environment
The Army's fiscal year 2016 budget provides $1.1 billion for
environmental programs in support of current and future readiness. This
budget supports legally-driven environmental requirements under
applicable Federal and State environmental laws, binding agreements,
and Executive Orders. It also promotes stewardship of the natural
resources that are integral to our capacity to effectively train our
land-based force for combat.
This budget maintains the Army's commitment to acknowledge the past
by restoring Army lands to a useable condition and by preserving
cultural, historic and tribal resources. It allows the Army to engage
the present by meeting environmental standards that enable Army
operations and protect our soldiers, families, and communities.
Additionally, it charts the future by allowing the Army to
institutionalize best practices and technologies to ensure future
environmental resiliency.
sustainment/restoration & modernization (r&m)
This year's fiscal year 2016 sustainment funding is $2.9 billion or
80 percent of the DOD Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM) requirement
for all the Army components. Due to this lower level of sustainment
funding, we are accepting a level of risk in degraded facilities due to
deferred maintenance. Our facility inventory is currently valued at
$299 billion.
In keeping with the FIS, the Army continues to invest in facility
restoration through O&M R&M currently budgeted for $562 million. Our
focus is to restore trainee barracks, enable progress toward energy
objectives, and provide commanders with the means of restoring other
critical facilities. The Army's demolition program has been increased
by 46 percent to $42.2 million, which increases the rate at which we
are removing failing excess facilities. Facilities are an outward and
visible sign of the Army's commitment to providing a quality of life
for our soldiers, families, and civilians that is consistent with their
commitment to our Nation's security.
base operations support
The Army's fiscal year 2016 Base Operations Support (BOS) request
is $9.2 billion in support of leadership's commitment to provide
quality of life to our soldiers, civilians, and families that is
commensurate with their service. The fiscal year 2016 BOS funding
request represents a 10 percent reduction compared to fiscal year 2014
full year execution (including OCO authorized in support of Base
Budget). It should be noted that the fiscal year 2016 BOS budget
reflects a 6 percent increase above the fiscal year 2015 BOS-enacted
level ($8.7 billion), demonstrating senior leadership's desire to
address installation readiness. Although the military and civilian
workforce is being reduced, the number of installations remains the
same. Balancing the BOS funding across 154 installations world-wide
stresses the Army's ability to provide a safe training environment and
a respectable quality of life on our installations. The Army will
continue to be fiscally challenged to meet the demands of our
installation communities.
The Army remains committed to our family programs and continues to
evaluate these services in order to maintain relevance and
effectiveness. Ensuring the resiliency of our soldiers and families is
the priority of programs such as the Army Substance Abuse Program,
Soldier Family Assistance Centers, and Suicide Prevention.
Given fiscal realities, the Army continues to evaluate programs to
fully optimize resources by eliminating redundant or poorly performing
programs and making tough decisions to adjust service levels and then
manage expectations. We continue to seek internal efficiencies/
tradeoffs as our fiscal environment forces the internal realignment of
BOS funds to support these Army priorities.
Budget uncertainties are producing real life consequences in
training and installation readiness, as well as the local community.
Current funding requires installations to scale back or cancel service
contracts that employ people in local communities and requiring
installations to work with commanders to use special duty assignments
to support installation services and programs (e.g., installation
security, transportation, vehicle and range maintenance, POL and Ammo
handling).
Without a reduction in the number of installations, the Army will
be forced to sacrifice quality of life programs at the expense of
maintaining excess capacity. The cumulative effect of funding
reductions over the years harm the overall quality of life on our
installations and adjoining communities as the Army realigns our
military and civilian population and reduces supporting service program
contracts across the garrisons.
intergovernmental support agreements
The Army is implementing an overarching strategy to incorporate
Intergovernmental Support Agreements (IGSAs) as authorized in the
fiscal year 2013 NDAA, Section 331 (codified as 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2336).
The clarification included in the fiscal year 2015 NDAA facilitates the
Army's ability to enter and participate in public-public partnerships.
The Department of the Army issued an Execution Order to Army Commands
in August of 2013 with initial guidance. Installations have identified
96 IGSA concepts, three of which have been submitted to Army
headquarters for approval. These initial proposals will assist the Army
to develop a standardized process for identifying, evaluating and
approving IGSAs. Further guidance is being developed from the
clarifications provided last year.
conclusion
The Army's fiscal year 2016 installations management budget request
is a balanced program that supports the Army as we transition from
combat, and it supports our soldiers, families, and civilians while
recognizing the current fiscal conditions.
The Army's end-strength and force structure are decreasing
consistent with the 2014 QDR. At 450,000 Active component soldiers, we
have evidence that the Army will have well over 18 percent excess
capacity. The Army needs the right tools to right size our capacity.
Failure to reduce excess capacity will divert hundreds of millions of
dollars per year away from critical training and readiness functions.
The European Infrastructure Consolidation Assessment (EIC) has been
extremely successful. It shows that the combination of our Army BRAC-
based Infrastructure Analysis and the already robust strategic plans
effort of the U.S. Army in Europe prepare us to meet the challenges of
the future. The European Infrastructure Consolidation results
demonstrate the Army's commitment to seek greater efficiencies and
ensure we are focusing resources where they can have the greatest
effect. The resulting actions ensure, even in the context of a
challenging fiscal environment, that we are ready and able to defend
U.S. interests and meet our commitment to our Allies now and in the
future.
BRAC is a proven and fair means to address excess capacity. BRAC
has produced net savings in every prior round. On a net $13 billion
investment, the BRAC 2005 round is producing a net stream of savings of
$1 billion a year. In this case, BRAC 2005 is producing a 7.7 percent
annual yield. That is a successful investment by any definition. A
future round of BRAC is likely to produce even better returns on
investment. We look forward to working with Congress to determine the
criteria for a BRAC 2017 round.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for
your continued support for our soldiers, families, and civilians.
Senator Kirk. Ms. Kern.
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF ERIN M. KERN, SES, DIRECTOR, SHORE
READINESS DIVISION, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL
OPERATIONS (FLEET READINESS AND LOGISTICS),
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
Ms. Kern. Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the Navy's fiscal year 2016 military
construction budget request.
The Navy's shore infrastructure is critical to our mission
success. Our 70 installations worldwide enable the Navy's
operational readiness and are essential to the quality of life
of our sailors, civilians, and their families. But the
cumulative effect of budget shortfalls over the last several
years has compelled the Navy to reduce funding in shore
infrastructure to preserve the operational readiness of our
fleet.
As a result, many of our shore facilities are degrading at
an accelerated rate. At sequestration levels, this risk would
be exacerbated and the condition of our shore infrastructure,
including piers, runways, and mission-critical facilities, will
further erode. We will run a great risk of mishaps, serious
injury, and health hazards to personnel.
Sequestration in fiscal year 2013 was not just a
disruption. It resulted in significant consequences, both
afloat and ashore, and we have not yet recovered. A return to
sequestration in 2016 would cause the Navy to revisit and
revise our entire strategy.
In light of funding shortfalls over the last 3 years, the
fiscal year 2016 President's budget request represents the
absolute minimum we need to execute the Nation's defense
strategy.
Navy's fiscal year 2016 military construction program
includes 38 projects valued at almost $1 billion to invest in
our infrastructure worldwide. We have prioritized funding to
enable IOC of new platforms, such as LCS, P-8A, F-35C, MH-60,
and MQ-4C, through the construction of hangars, mission control
centers, and various support and training facilities.
We are also supporting combatant commander requirements by
constructing a land-based Aegis site in Poland and upgrading
port facilities in Bahrain.
A portion of MILCON funds will recapitalize infrastructure
in three naval shipyards and improve the resiliency of utility
systems at seven bases. Three projects will improve the quality
of life for our sailors and their families by addressing
unaccompanied housing issues in Florida and Maryland, and
constructing a new child development center in Japan.
Our 2016 budget request funds the sustainment, restoration,
and modernization of our facilities only enough to arrest the
immediate decline and condition of our most critical
infrastructure. As a result, we will prioritize our funding to
address life, health, and safety issues, and to repair the most
essential components of our mission-critical facilities.
Our facilities are degrading and our maintenance backlog is
increasing. We understand this backlog must eventually be
addressed, but we simply cannot afford to do so at this time.
We will continue to carefully and deliberately manage the risk
we are taking in our shore enterprise.
The Navy's 70 installations worldwide, and the men and
women who operate them, are key enablers to our Navy's
warfighting readiness.
Thank you for supporting our shore readiness programs and
for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Erin M. Kern
Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you representing the
dedicated sailors and civilian workforce of the United States Navy. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify about our Navy's shore
infrastructure, which enables our operational and combat readiness and
is essential to the quality of service for our sailors, civilian
employees, and their families.
Our shore infrastructure is critical to the Navy's mission success.
Seventy installations across 11 regions provide the foundation for
training and preparing our sailors. Nevertheless, to comply with
today's fiscal constraints, we are compelled to continue accepting risk
in shore infrastructure investment and operations to preserve the
operational readiness of our Fleet.
impact of sequestration on shore readiness
For the last 3 years, the Navy has been operating under reduced
top-line budgets that generate capability shortfalls amounting to $25
billion less than the President's budget requests. Sequestration deeply
affected the Navy budget in fiscal year 2013 and we have not yet
recovered. Stabilized funding in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 provided by
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, along with an additional $2.2
billion above Navy's requested budget in fiscal year 2015, provided
limited relief from sequestered Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA)
funding levels and helped Navy's overall posture.
The cumulative effect of budget shortfalls since fiscal year 2013
compelled the Navy to reduce funding in shore readiness to preserve the
readiness of our operational Fleet. As a result, many of our shore
facilities are degrading. The possibility of future sequestration
exacerbates this risk and the condition of our shore infrastructure,
including piers, runways, and mission-critical facilities, will likely
erode further. This situation may lead to structural damage to our
ships while pierside, aircraft damage from foreign object ingestion on
deteriorated runways, and degraded communications within command
centers. We run a greater risk of mishaps, serious injury, or health
hazards to personnel.
military construction
The President's budget request for 2016 (PB 2016) Military
Construction (MILCON) program includes 38 projects valued at nearly $1
billion to invest in our worldwide infrastructure, which is a 30
percent increase over fiscal year 2015 levels and brings Navy back to
our historical MILCON funding levels. We focus our MILCON investments
on meeting new platform and system requirements in accordance with our
global Strategic Laydown Plan, supporting Combatant Commander
operational requirements, recapitalizing Naval Shipyards, modernizing
utilities systems, upgrading critical infrastructure, and supporting
Quality of Life programs for our sailors and their families.
Approximately one-third of our MILCON program is dedicated to
enabling the Initial Operating Capability of new platforms. Our PB 2016
program:
--Constructs a P-8A Poseidon detachment support facility in Hawaii, a
maintenance hangar with support facilities in Italy, and a
high-security building addition for the Advanced Airborne
Sensor system in Florida,
--Renovates hangars in California and outfits secure space for an
Operational Trainer in Japan for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye
early warning and control aircraft,
--Constructs training facilities and expands hangars at the West
Coast home base for F-35Cs in Lemoore, California,
--Constructs a Mission Control System facility in Florida, a hangar
and operations facility in Italy, and space for a trainer in
California for MQ-4C Triton high endurance unmanned aerial
vehicles,
--Builds a new Maritime Surveillance Systems Facility in Virginia
that will expand our ability to operate, maintain and test
surveillance systems that perform data collection and
dissemination for the Fleet, and
--Constructs a Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission module readiness
center in Mayport and converts warehouse space into an
operational support facility for LCS shore-based operations in
San Diego.
Our MILCON program also supports Combatant Commander requirements
by constructing a land-based Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Complex site
in Poland in support of European Phased Adaptive Approach. The Poland
site will complement our Aegis Ashore site in Romania, which will
achieve initial operational capability by the end of this year. In the
Middle East we are upgrading port facilities and constructing a new
Ship Maintenance Support Facility in Bahrain. We are also providing
secure space for carrier air wing facilities funded by the Government
of Japan in Iwakuni.
Naval Shipyards and depots are critical to maintaining the
warfighting readiness of our force. We will continue to prioritize
investments to address the most critical safety and productivity
deficiencies. To reduce CVN downtime, PB 2016 includes projects in
Washington State to construct a nuclear regional ship maintenance
support facility and to upgrade utilities and support structure at the
only CVN-capable dry dock in the Pacific. Our budget submission also
proposes to repair waterfront utility systems at Norfolk Naval Shipyard
in Virginia and consolidate welding school shops in Hawaii. These
MILCON projects, combined with other facilities projects and equipment
investment, enable the Department to exceed the minimum 6 percent
investment in Naval Shipyards and Depots described in 10 USC 2476,
achieving a projected 7.4 percent investment in fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2015, the Department is on track to exceed
the target with a projected 6.3 percent investment. We appreciate the
committee's support as we continue to invest in our shipyard
infrastructure.
PB 2016 makes significant investments in improving the reliability,
efficiency and security of our utilities systems and support
infrastructure. This investment, spanning seven different locations in
the United States and Guam, is focused on increasing energy resiliency
at our operational facilities, upgrading energy distribution systems,
modernizing power grids and recapitalizing waste disposal/treatment
systems.
To protect our critical infrastructure, PB 2016 includes waterfront
upgrades in Washington State to meet security requirements for our
strategic weapons and construction of a modern, secure, consolidated
communications center in Virginia.
An improvement over last year's program, PB 2016 includes three
projects to improve the quality of life for our sailors and their
families. New unaccompanied housing will be constructed for sailors
stationed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, and A-school
students at Navy Technical Training Center Corry Station, Florida. PB
2016 also includes the construction of a new child development center
to increase our child development capacity in Yokosuka, Japan.
Finally, we are funding the relocation of a reserve center from
off-base leased space to a new on-base reserve training facility at
Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada.
base operating support and facility investments
As we operate our installations, PB 2016 maintains the Navy's
commitment to adequately resource Fleet operations, sailor and family
support programs, and child development. We continue to accept a
deliberate level of risk in facility services, administrative support,
and supply.
PB 2016 funds the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of
our facilities only enough to maintain the overall condition of our
most critical infrastructure for the short term. PB 2016 funds facility
sustainment to 84 percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) model.
Although this marks an improvement from the 70 percent programmed in PB
2015, Navy is still below the DOD goal for 90 percent facilities
sustainment.
When restoring and modernizing our infrastructure, we prioritize
life/safety issues and efficiency improvements to existing
infrastructure and focus on repairing only the most critical components
of our mission-critical facilities. By deferring less critical repairs,
especially for non-operational facilities, we are allowing certain
facilities to degrade and causing our overall facilities maintenance
backlog to increase. We acknowledge that this backlog must eventually
be addressed.
housing
Our PB 2016 request supports Navy readiness by providing sailors
and their families the opportunity for suitable, affordable and safe
housing worldwide. We rely on our communities to house sailors and
their families. Where options are not available in the local community,
Navy provides housing through Government-owned housing, leased housing,
or Public-Private Venture (PPV) housing projects.
Navy's PB 2016 Family Housing request provides oversight of nearly
40,000 PPV homes, funds the operation and maintenance of 7,500
Government-owned homes, leases about 1,800 units, and renovates 20
existing family homes in Wallops Island, Virginia. We continue to reap
the benefits of family housing privatization with over 99 percent of
Navy family housing in the continental United States and Hawaii
privatized. For our Government-owned units, predominately located
overseas, we continue to work toward meeting the DOD goal of bringing
90 percent of our units up to ``adequate'' condition, which means they
are rated as a ``1'' or ``2'' on a 4-point scale. Navy's family housing
inventory is currently 77 percent adequate and, at current funding
levels, we will meet DOD's adequacy goal in 2021.
The Navy continues to manage housing for our unaccompanied Sailors
within today's fiscal constraints. I am proud that we will complete our
Homeport Ashore effort this year, meeting our goal of providing a bed
ashore to each shipboard sailor while in homeport. In addition to our
MILCON projects, we plan to renovate 10 barracks in fiscal year 2016 to
work towards meeting the DOD goal of achieving 90 percent adequacy.
Unfortunately, this level of investment is not sufficient to offset the
steady degradation of facilities and improve the overall condition of
our unaccompanied housing inventory. At current funding levels, Navy's
unaccompanied housing will remain at approximately 50 percent adequacy.
base closure and realignment (brac)
The Navy fully supports BRAC as a process to assess opportunities
to properly align our domestic infrastructure with our evolving force
structure and laydown. Under the previous BRAC efforts, the Navy has
been able to realize approximately $4.4 billion in annual recurring
savings.
We appreciate the support of the Congress in providing additional
fiscal year 2015 funds for environmental cleanup at BRAC properties.
For fiscal year 2016, the Department has programmed $157 million to
continue cleanup efforts, caretaker operations, and property disposal.
By the end of fiscal year 2014, we disposed of 93 percent of our excess
property identified in previous BRAC rounds through a variety of
conveyance mechanisms, with approximately 12,710 acres remaining. Of
the original 131 installations with excess property, the Navy has 17
installations remaining with property to dispose.
Last year, the Department of Navy completed the transfer of 624
acres at Naval Station Alameda, California, to the Department of
Veterans Affairs under a no-cost transfer. We also completed
radiological surveys of over 700 residential housing units at Naval
Station Treasure Island and signed a Development Conveyance with
Treasure Island Development Authority to allow initial property
transfers to begin in fiscal year 2015. We reduced our overall number
of installations by four last year, completing final disposals at Naval
Support Activity New Orleans, Louisiana, Naval Air Station Cecil Field,
Florida, and Naval Reserve Centers in Akron, Ohio, and Reading,
Pennsylvania.
Although cleanup and disposal challenges from prior BRAC rounds
remain, we continue to work with regulatory agencies and communities to
tackle complex environmental issues and provide creative solutions to
support redevelopment priorities, such as Economic Development
Conveyances with revenue sharing.
conclusion
The Navy will continue to carefully and deliberately manage the
risk we are taking in our Shore enterprise, with the understanding that
chronic underinvestment in our shore infrastructure takes a toll on our
ability to support deploying forces. Our Shore infrastructure must be
sustainable and resilient to changes in our operating environment and
fiscal climate. Navy installations, and the men and women who operate
them, are key enablers to our Navy's warfighting readiness. Thank you
again for your steadfast support of Navy's shore readiness programs and
your personal commitment to our sailors, Navy civilian workforce and
their families.
Senator Kirk. Mr. Clifton, let me ask you about Marine
Corps needs.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. CLIFTON, SES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
DEPUTY COMMANDANT (FACILITIES,
INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS), AND DEPUTY
COMMANDER, MARINE CORPS INSTALLATIONS
COMMAND HEADQUARTERS, U.S. MARINE CORPS
Mr. Clifton. Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Commandant General Dunford and the thousands of marines,
sailors, and hardworking civilians and their family members who
depend on the resources provided by this subcommittee and the
Congress, we thank you for your support.
The fiscal year 2016 Marine Corps military construction
budget funds 22 projects at $719 million and sustains support
of 24 Marine Corps installations, 186 Reserve centers, and a
variety of other activities on other service's installations,
such as the Security Force Regiment at Yorktown, Virginia.
The primary mission of these installations is to provide a
platform from which our marines deploy and from which they can
conduct realistic training that is necessary for them to
accomplish difficult missions and return home to their families
safely.
Accordingly, our facility investment is prioritized to
support training operations, new weapons systems, and force
presence as required by the Defense Strategic Guidance.
The fiscal year 2016 budget also improves safety, security,
environmental compliance, replaces a few aging infrastructure,
and demolishes inadequate buildings that are no longer needed.
As far as trends are concerned, the commandant has already
testified that the Marine Corps' first priority is to reinforce
the near-term readiness capabilities needed by marines who are
deployed. To accomplish that priority in fiscal year 2016, the
Marine Corps must accept risk in our infrastructure and base
operations, including our quality-of-life programs.
Although the fiscal year 2016 budget is better than the
2015 budget, funding remains insufficient to prevent
accelerated deterioration of our 12,000 buildings, range
complexes, barracks, and airfields.
By fiscal year 2020, given the current funding projections,
marines will occupy over 2,500 inadequate, aged buildings with
insufficient and failing systems.
The fiscal year 2016 budget does maintain all 1,300 houses
that the Marine Corps owns in adequate condition. And due to
the public-private housing venture, all 23,000 of those
privatized houses are expected to remain in good condition.
In conclusion, your marines are the Nation's expeditionary
force in readiness. We focus our resources on maintaining the
readiness of our forward-deployed marines. Although our
investment in the future, modernization, and in our
infrastructure is less than what we believe is required, we
will always be diligent stewards of the assets provided us, as
typified by our recent success in obtaining a clean audit
opinion.
Thank you for the time and the opportunity to speak on
behalf of our marines and our sailors and their family members,
and also the thousands of hardworking civilians who support
them.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David R. Clifton
Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester, and distinguished members of
the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Marine
Corps' facilities infrastructure programs which are critical to our
ability to train forces and be ready. Thanks to the strong support we
have received in the past from Congress, the Marine Corps has been able
to make great improvements in the quality and condition of facilities
on our bases and stations.
Marine Corps bases and stations represent an irreplaceable national
asset today and as far into the future as we can project. They are
fundamental to combat readiness, particularly the pre-deployment
training, launching, sustaining, and reconstituting of Marine operating
forces. Additionally, those bases and stations are and will continue to
be integral to the quality of life of marines, sailors, and their
families through provision of a range of support facilities and related
infrastructure.
The operation and maintenance of these installations as well as
their future development and use require planning, wise investment, and
sound execution. Numerous Marine-Corps wide efforts are underway to
ensure Marine Corps installations are ready, responsive, and capable of
meeting current and future support requirements of the Marine Corps
force.
The Marine Corps has more than $58 billion of facilities that are
used to train, house, and provide quality of life for marines and their
families. These facilities are used to perform mission-essential tasks
and must be appropriately maintained. Adequately sustaining facilities
is the highest facilities management priority.
impact of sequestration
As the Commandant of the Marine Corps has stated in earlier
testimony, the Marine Corps' share of fiscal year 2013 sequestration
cuts, combined with a sustained high level of operations, will
challenge our future ability to be the Nation's force-in-readiness. The
Marine Corps continues to evaluate long-term impacts of sequestration.
The fiscal challenges we face today will be exacerbated and significant
challenges will be forced on all the services if fiscal year 2016
sequestration reductions are implemented. Through thorough analysis, we
have determined that the Marine Corps will assume significant risk in
long-term modernization and infrastructure sustainment. Though the
Marine Corps has made significant progress over the last 8 years in
replacing old and unsatisfactory buildings, delayed or cancelled
military construction projects will have long term impacts on our
future operating budget, force posture, and the overall welfare of our
Marines.
military construction
Generally, the need for Marine Corps MILCON is driven by the
Operating Force and Marine Corps wide mission requirements such as:
--New platform or weapons introduction
--Relocating forces
--Meeting a force protection or safety standard
--Eliminating or replacing facilities in inadequate condition
--Meeting new and improved training standards
--Modernizing critical infrastructure
--Improving utilities reliability to support readiness
--Meeting environmental and energy reduction mandates
--Improving training areas to include aerial/ground ranges
--Acquiring land as necessary for Operating Force use
The Marine Corps' fiscal year 2016 Military Construction (MILCON)
program includes 22 projects valued at approximately $719 million. The
primary focus areas of the fiscal year 2016 Marine Corps MILCON budget
are to support new capabilities and platforms, provide facilities to
support training of the modern 21st century force, recapitalization and
replacement of inadequate facilities, and meeting safety and
environmental mandates. Our fiscal year 2016 program accomplishes the
following:
--Supports new aviation platforms such as F-35, KC-130J, CH-53K, and
RQ-21A with new aircraft maintenance facilities and aircraft
parking aprons.
--Improves quality of life for junior enlisted Marines at Marine
Corps Base Hawaii by providing a new barracks.
--Provides a new live fire training range to support current and
future ground unit training on Guam.
--Provides for Embassy security guard training and operations at
Marine Corps Base Quantico.
--Completes the expansion of Townsend Bombing Range initiated and
approved by Congress in 2014 to enable training with precision
guided munitions at this location.
--Improves airfield lighting and electrical distribution system at
the Marine Corps Base Hawaii airfield at Kaneohe Bay.
--Improves and ensures safety, security, and environmental compliance
posture at various bases.
--Improves utility system reliability at various bases in order to
support training and day-to-day operations.
--Replaces numerous inadequate and obsolete facilities in order to
improve operations and training.
infrastructure sustainment and restoration
The President's budget for fiscal year 2016 funds 81 percent of the
OSD facilities sustainment model requirement for the Marine Corps (an
increase over the fiscal year 2015 level). The OSD guideline is to fund
90 percent of the requirement. We remain aware that underfunding
facilities sustainment increases the rate of degradation of Marine
Corps infrastructure which leads to more costly repairs, restoration,
and new construction in the future. We are taking strategic risk in
infrastructure sustainment to support current operational readiness for
deployed forces.
When restoring and modernizing our infrastructure, we prioritize
life/safety issues and efficiency improvements to existing
infrastructure and focus on repairing only the most critical components
of our mission critical facilities. By deferring less critical repairs,
especially for non-mission critical facilities, we are allowing certain
facilities to degrade and causing our overall facilities maintenance
backlog to increase. We acknowledge this backlog must eventually be
addressed.
family housing
Our world-wide family housing inventory is 96 percent privatized.
Privatization has improved the homes in which our families live and
provides community support facilities such as community centers,
playgrounds, and ``green spaces'' that help create neighborhoods and a
sense of community for our marines and their families. Utilizing both
traditional military construction and our privatization partners the
Marine Corps will continue to build and improve the homes necessary to
supplement local community housing.
The Marine Corps is not requesting any new construction in fiscal
year 2016 through either traditional MILCON or through the use of
privatization authorities. However, we are requesting $7.9 million for
the sustainment and restoration of 18 enlisted townhomes at MCAS
Iwakuni, Japan in order to complete the final phase of renovation for
the Monzen Townhouse neighborhood. This will provide much needed
improvements to quality of life for our marines and their families
stationed overseas.
marine corps in the pacific
The Marine Corps continues to rebalance its force lay-down in the
Pacific to support the Defense Strategic Guidance. The fiscal year 2016
budget request includes funding to support the arrival of new aviation
assets and personnel to Marine Corps Base Hawaii and Japan.
Additionally, the budget includes $126 million to construct a live-fire
training range complex in Guam that will support current and future
training needs of the Marine Corps and our allied partners.
Guam, and the relocation of marines to this island, remains an
essential part of the United States' larger Asia-Pacific strategy of
achieving a more geographically distributed, operationally resilient
and politically sustainable force posture in the region. We appreciate
the removal of the restrictions from the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2014, as well as the language in Section
2822 in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015
permitting us to enter into a Refuge agreement with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Together, these provisions will allow us to move
forward on the essential Guam component of our Pacific force laydown
plan.
Last July, we provided Congress with our revised Guam Master Plan.
Under this plan, also referred to as ``the distributed laydown'',
approximately 5,000 marines and 1,300 dependents will come to Guam
versus the original plan that had considered approximately 8,600
marines and 9,000 dependents. The estimated cost, scope, and schedule
for the military construction and Government of Japan funded projects
necessary to carry out the revised plan were detailed in the Guam
Master Plan. In the next year, the Government of Japan will commit $176
million to construct a Driver Convoy Course and a complex for Urban
Terrain Range Operations at Anderson Air Force Base. To date, we have
received in our Treasury almost $1 billion in Japanese funding toward
completion of the relocation. This in itself is indeed a strong
statement of the Japanese commitment to the relocation.
conclusion
Our infrastructure programs are an important part in maintaining
our high state of readiness as the Nation's crisis response force. The
fiscal year 2016 budget request supports this premise. As funding
becomes more constrained in the future, the Marine Corps will continue
to rely on the sound stewardship of existing facilities and
infrastructure to support our needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and
appreciate your consideration of our fiscal year 2016 budget request. I
look forward to working with you to sustain the warfighting capability
and quality of life of the Marine Corps.
Senator Kirk. General Green.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL TIMOTHY S. GREEN, DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, INSTALLATIONS
AND MISSION SUPPORT, AND AIR FORCE DIRECTOR
OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, HEADQUARTERS, U.S. AIR
FORCE
General Green. Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester,
members of the subcommittee, I am honored today to represent
America's airmen, Active Duty, Air National Guard, Air Force
Reserve, and civilians, and discuss the Air Force's fiscal year
2016 military construction, housing, and BRAC request.
Our $1.6 billion total force fiscal year 2016 MILCON
request is more than 65 percent higher than last year's budget.
I want to emphasize that these funds and requested projects
support the National Defense Strategy and critical Air Force
priorities.
At the macro level, just over 20 percent of the request
supports combatant commanders' priorities and requirements.
About 17 percent of the MILCON aligns with the Secretary of the
Air Force's priorities of nuclear, space, and cyber. Twenty-six
percent is focused on today's readiness. And roughly 16 percent
of our request beds down our modernized weapons systems. And
finally, our fiscal year 2016 request includes vital quality-
of-life funding for military family housing overseas and
dormitories for our airmen.
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget also requests
authority from Congress to conduct a BRAC round 2017. The Air
Force has identified approximately 30 percent in excess
infrastructure capacity, and we believe BRAC would provide the
most comprehensive, transparent, and collaborative way to align
infrastructure capacity with mission requirements.
I want to thank you for your support in giving the Air
Force much needed relief in 2014 and 2015 from untenable
sequestration levels. Without Budget Control Act relief in
fiscal year 2016, the risk assumed to Air Force infrastructure
could have severe impacts on mission readiness.
At BCA levels, the Air Force would expect a reduction in
military construction funding that would touch every area of
our strategy. It would likely result in reduced funding to
support combatant commands, upgrade critical nuclear
infrastructure, ensure facilities are in place for our
modernized weapons systems, as well as recapitalization of
housing and dormitories. The Air Force would also expect
similar reductions in fiscal year 2016 facility sustainment,
restoration, and modernization accounts, forcing us to
prioritize day-to-day maintenance activities at the expense of
much needed facility repairs.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget request allows us
to begin addressing necessary infrastructure recapitalization
and facility sustainment and repair backlog that has
contributed to the degradation of our combat support
capabilities.
Please keep in mind that even at the fiscal year 2016
President's budget levels, the Air Force remains stressed to
meet the National Defense Strategy.
Chairman Kirk, Ranking Member Tester, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today, and I will look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brigadier General Timothy S. Green
introduction
The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 President's budget (PB) request
sets us on the path to meeting defense strategy as set forth in the
2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) through strategy-based long-term
resourcing decisions. This budget submission is rooted in necessity and
is based upon our long-term strategy and vision to provide ready
installations supporting the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force's three priorities of balancing today's readiness with tomorrow's
modernization, taking care of our people, and making every dollar count
to help ensure we can maintain and field a credible and affordable
future force.
The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 PB sets us on a path to provide
the Air Force America needs and deserves. However, even at the fiscal
year 2016 PB level, the Air Force remains stressed to meet the defense
strategy. The PB request is informed by our guiding principles which
support the Air Force's core missions. We used a deliberate process to
define what the Air Force needs to be ready today and what capabilities
we need to invest in now in order to fight future threats. The end
result is a budget which supports the defense strategy, is anchored to
the Air Force 30-year plan, and meets combatant commanders' needs.
If sequestration funding levels return in fiscal year 2016, the Air
Force will not be able to meet the entire defense strategy, nor sustain
its asymmetric advantage over potential peer competitors. Additionally,
these levels will cause continued degradation of infrastructure and
installation support. The Air Force would expect a reduction in
Military Construction funding resulting in reduced support to combatant
commands, reduced funding to upgrade the nuclear enterprise and support
new weapons systems beddown, and elimination of permanent party
dormitories from the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The Air Force
would also expect similar reductions in fiscal year 2016 facility
sustainment, restoration and modernization funding, forcing Air Force
priority on day to day facility maintenance at the expense of much
needed facility repairs.
Our unequalled security, economic, and political advantages depend
on investment in an Air Force that is able to easily succeed against
any competitor, in any environment. In order to ensure a trained and
ready force to engage in a full range of contingencies and threats, at
home and abroad, we must provide the facilities and support that enable
training, operations, and maintenance of increasingly complex and
technology dependent systems. Now more than ever, the Air Force must
make smart investments in its installations through military
construction (MILCON) and facility sustainment.
installations
Ready installations are an integral part of ensuring a ready Air
Force. The Air Force views its installations as foundational platforms
comprised of both built and natural infrastructure which: (1) serve as
the backbone for Air Force enduring core missions--we deliver air,
space and cyberspace capabilities from our installations; (2) enable
worldwide access when our national interests are at risk or
international partners need assistance; (3) foster partnership-building
by stationing our airmen side-by-side with our Allies and Coalition
partners; and (4) send a strategic message to both allies and
adversaries--installations signal commitment to our friends, and intent
to our foes. Taken together, these strategic imperatives require us to
provide efficiently operated, sustainable installations to enable the
Air Force to support the defense strategy as set forth in the 2014 QDR.
In its fiscal year 2015 President's budget request, the Air Force
attempted to strike the delicate balance between a ready force for
today with a modern force for tomorrow while also recovering from the
impacts of sequestration and adjusting to budget reductions. To help
achieve that balance, the Air Force elected to accept risk in
installation support, MILCON, and facilities sustainment in fiscal year
2015. However, in its fiscal year 2016 request, the Air Force begins to
ameliorate the impacts of that risk by increasing funding for
installations in all three of the areas noted above.
In total, the Air Force's fiscal year 2016 PB request for
installations is $1.9 billion more than our fiscal year 2015 PB request
and contains $4.8 billion for MILCON, facility sustainment, restoration
and modernization, as well as another $331.2 million for Military
Family Housing operations and maintenance and $160.5 million for
Military Family Housing Construction. For sustainment, the Air Force
requests $2.4 billion; for restoration and modernization, $850 million;
and for military construction, $1.59 \1\ billion. At these levels, the
Air Force funds Facilities Sustainment to 80 percent of the OSD modeled
requirement. The increase in MILCON begins infrastructure
recapitalization while maintaining support to combatant commander
(COCOM) requirements, the nuclear enterprise, new weapon system
beddowns, and provides equitable distribution of $203.8 million to the
Reserve components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $1.59 billion is the Total Force funding request including
Active, Guard and Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
readiness
The Air Force fiscal year 2016 PB request seeks to balance
readiness for today's fights, while also modernizing our infrastructure
for the future. The Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget proposes
investments in infrastructure to support the 2014 QDR strategic
guidance and combatant commanders' stated readiness needs in the
following areas: nuclear defense operations (NDO); space; cyberspace;
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); and the Asia-
Pacific theater.
Our fiscal year 2016 PB supports Nuclear Enterprise priorities and
includes three projects, totaling $144 million. With this budget
submission, the Air Force intends to provide a new state-of-the- art
Weapon Storage Facility at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming which consolidates
22 aging facilities (some of which have been in service since the
1960s), achieving a 19 percent reduction in facility footprint while
addressing security and operational inefficiencies through
recapitalization. The Weapon Storage Facility at F.E. Warren will
become the model for four future weapon storage facilities in the
decades ahead. The fiscal year 2016 budget also includes investment to
revitalize the Malmstrom AFB, Montana, Tactical Response Force Alert
Facilities as well as the Whiteman AFB, Missouri, Consolidated Stealth
Operations and Nuclear Alert Facility. Together, these projects will
consolidate scattered installation functions, provide adequately sized
and configured operating platforms, as well as reduce critical response
times to generate alert sorties.
The Air Force also focused on space, cyberspace, and ISR
investments in the MILCON budget request. These investment areas
account for eight projects in the proposed fiscal year 2016 PB,
totaling $172 million. The Air Force continues its multi-year efforts
to construct the U.S. Cyber Command Joint Operations Center at Fort
Meade, Maryland; strengthen its space posture through information and
communication facilities; and enhance ISR readiness with remotely
piloted aircraft facilities, intelligence targeting facilities, as well
as digital ground stations.
Consistent with defense strategy as set forth in the 2014 QDR, the
Asia-Pacific Theater remains an important strategic area for the Air
Force where it will make an $85 million investment in fiscal year 2016
to ensure our ability to project power into areas which may challenge
our access and freedom to operate, and continue efforts to enhance
resiliency. Guam remains one of the most vital and accessible locations
in the western Pacific. For the past 9 years, Joint Region Marianas-
Andersen AFB, Guam has accommodated a continuous presence of our
Nation's premier air assets, and will continue to serve as the
military's strategic and operational center in support of a spectrum of
potential crises in the Pacific.
To further support Pacific Command's strategy, the Air Force is
committed to hardening critical structures, mitigating asset
vulnerabilities, increasing redundancy, fielding improved airfield
damage repair kits and upgrading degraded infrastructure as part of the
Asia-Pacific Resiliency program. In 2016, the Air Force plans to
construct a hardened Wing Installation Control Center to sustain Guam's
remote operations, ensure resiliency with the Dispersed Maintenance
Spares and Storage Facility, and continue our efforts to upgrade Guam's
South Ramp Utilities, supporting a Continuous Bomber Presence, Tanker
Task Force, Theater Security Packages, and Global Hawk beddown. The Air
Force also wraps up its development of the Pacific Regional Training
Center by constructing a permanent road to support facilities located
at Northwest Field. This Regional Training Center will enable mandatory
contingency training and enhance the operational capability to
establish, operate, sustain, and recover a ``bare base'' at forward-
deployed locations, and foster opportunities for partnership building
in this vitally important area of the world.
This year's President's budget request also includes $252 million
for additional requirements at four COCOMs extending beyond NDO, space,
cyberspace, ISR, and the Asia-Pacific Theater. In particular, the Air
Force continues with phase two of the U.S. European Command Joint
Intelligence Analysis Center Consolidation at RAF Croughton, United
Kingdom. Our total fiscal year 2016 COCOM support makes up 21 percent
of the Air Force's MILCON request.
modernization
The fiscal year 2016 PB request also includes critical
infrastructure investments to support the Air Force's modernization
programs, including the beddown of the F-35A, KC-46A, and the
Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization efforts. The Air Force's ability
to fully operationalize these new aircraft depends not just on
acquisition of the aircraft themselves, but also on the construction of
the necessary hangars, training facilities, airfields and fuel
infrastructures funded within this fiscal year 2016 budget.
This year's President's budget request includes $54.5 million for
the beddown of the KC- 46A at four locations. This consists of $10.4
million at Altus AFB, Oklahoma, the Formal Training Unit (FTU); $4.3
million at McConnell AFB, Kansas, the first Main Operating Base (MOB
1); $2.8 million at Pease International Tradeport Air National Guard
Base (ANGB), New Hampshire, the second Main Operating Base (MOB 2); and
$37 million at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, for KC-46A depot maintenance.
This request also includes $198.3 million for the beddown of the F-
35A at five locations, consisting of $69 million at Nellis AFB, Nevada;
$56.7 million at Luke AFB, Arizona; $26.9 million at Hill AFB, Utah;
$37 million at Eielson AFB, Alaska; and $8.7 million at Eglin AFB,
Florida.
In preparation for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization
acquisition, the Air Force's 2016 budget request accounts for the
planning and design requirements essential to construction required to
beddown these new aircraft. In total, our fiscal year 2016 request
represents a balanced approach ensuring critical infrastructure
requirements to meet mission needs and operational timelines.
people
During periods of fiscal turmoil, we must never lose sight of our
Airmen and their families. Airmen are the source of Air Force airpower.
Regardless of the location, the mission, or the weapon system, our
airmen provide the knowledge, skill, and determination to fly, fight
and win. There is no better way for us to demonstrate our commitment to
service members and their families than by providing quality housing on
our installations. The Air Force has privatized military family housing
(MFH) at each of its stateside installations, including Alaska and
Hawaii, via 32 projects at 63 bases for 53,240 end-state homes.
The Air Force continues to manage approximately 18,000 Government-
owned family housing units at overseas installations. Our $331.2
million fiscal year 2016 Military Family Housing Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) sustainment funds request allows us to sustain
adequate units, and our $160.5 million fiscal year 2016 request for MFH
MILCON funds allows us to upgrade and modernize older homes to meet the
housing requirements of our Airmen, their families and the Joint
service members the Air Force supports overseas.
Similarly, our focused investment strategy for dormitories enables
the Air Force to remain on track to meet the DOD goal of 90 percent
adequate permanent party dorm rooms for unaccompanied Airmen by 2017.
The fiscal year 2016 President's budget MILCON request includes four
dormitories at Offutt AFB, Nebraska; Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; Altus
AFB, Oklahoma; and Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. With your support, we
will continue to take care of our most valued asset, our airmen and
their families.
european infrastructure consolidation (eic)
The United States remains committed to NATO and our presence in
Europe. The Air Force invested in its European infrastructure in the
last several years in order to ensure it is ready and able to defend
U.S. interests and meet its commitment to our Allies and Partners now
and in the future. At the same time, in the context of a challenging
fiscal environment, the Department of Defense recently sought greater
infrastructure efficiencies in Europe and to ensure it applies
resources where they can have the greatest effect.
Two years ago, the Secretary of Defense directed a European
Infrastructure capacity analysis to provide the basis for reducing
long-term expenses through footprint consolidations, while retaining
current and projected force structure. Under OSD direction, the Air
Force used previously established Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
processes to analyze the infrastructure capacity of 128 total sites,
including six Main Operating Bases and six Forward Operating Sites in
Europe.
In January 2015, the Secretary of the Defense approved the results
of the European Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) process. This
process produced eight consolidation opportunities that will eliminate
excess infrastructure capacity, consolidate missions, and produce
savings without reducing force structure. In the United Kingdom, the
Air Force will divest of RAF Mildenhall and consolidate intelligence
and support activities from RAF Alconbury and RAF Molesworth to RAF
Croughton. The Air Force also reaffirmed previous decisions to
streamline operations at Moron Air Base, Spain, and Lajes Field,
Portugal, and returned four small unused facilities back to their
respective host nations.
The Air Force European Infrastructure Consolidation opportunities
will cost approximately $1.1 billion (fiscal year 2016-fiscal year
2021) to implement, but will enable the Air Force to save $315 million
a year, while still maintaining our readiness and responsiveness
capabilities in Europe. Most of the implementation costs are paid for
through previously programmed European Infrastructure Consolidation
(EIC) funding.
The EIC ensures Air Force installations in Europe are right-sized
and at the right location. Our capability in Europe, along with our
ability to meet commitments to Allies and partners, is not diminished
by these actions. The Air Force is maintaining sufficient
infrastructure in Europe to support six Combatant Commands, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, and U.S. strategic allies through
permanently stationed forces, additional rotational forces, and
contingency requirements. The EIC adjustments will allow the Air Force
to address emerging concerns in Europe and elsewhere, by focusing
resources on critical operational support infrastructure.
We have consulted closely with our allies on our specific plans and
the broader security picture. These consolidations, force realignments,
and new deployments were validated through the EIC and other processes
and approved by the Secretary of Defense, in full coordination with the
U.S. State Department, and after discussions with the host nations.
closures and realignments
Building on the success of the European Infrastructure
Consolidation process, the Air Force strongly supports DOD's request
for an fiscal year 2017 BRAC round in the United States.
In fiscal year 2015 budget discussions, Congress requested that the
Services update their analyses of CONUS infrastructure capacity based
upon current infrastructure data and current force structure
projections.
The Air Force has completed a high-level capacity analysis,
comparing current infrastructure capacity to projected force structure
and mission requirements. The results of the analysis indicate the Air
Force has approximately 30 percent excess infrastructure capacity.\2\
This excess capacity results from decreases in Air Force personnel and
force structure outpacing reductions in infrastructure. Since the last
BRAC round in 2005, the Air Force has 50,000 fewer personnel and 500
fewer aircraft in its planned force structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 30 percent excess infrastructure capacity estimate was
calculated using the same approved methodology that has been employed
to measure excess infrastructure prior to previous rounds of BRAC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the last congressionally directed round of BRAC in 2005, the
Air Force has worked diligently to identify new opportunities and
initiatives to enable it to maximize the impact of every dollar. We
have demolished excess infrastructure, recapitalized our family housing
through privatization, unlocked the fiscal potential of under-utilized
resources through leasing and partnerships, and reduced our energy
costs. All of which have paid dividends. But these efforts are not
enough to allow us to continue to fund infrastructure we do not need
and pale in comparison to the savings that can be achieved with BRAC
authorities.
Despite our best efforts and innovative programs, the Air Force
must continue to spend money maintaining excess infrastructure that
would be better spent recapitalizing and sustaining our required
infrastructure and weapons systems, training to improve readiness, and
investing in the quality of life needs of its Airmen. The Air Force
recognizes that it can achieve its greatest savings to smartly reinvest
when fully divested of unneeded infrastructure. Therefore we strongly
support DOD's requests for another round of BRAC; specifically an
efficiency BRAC focused on reducing the Air Force's 30 percent excess
infrastructure capacity and ultimately reducing the demand on
resources.
conclusion
The Air Force made hard strategic choices during formulation of
this budget request. The Air Force attempted to strike the delicate
balance between a ready force for today with a modern force for
tomorrow while also recovering from the impacts of sequestration and
adjusting to budget reductions. Our fiscal year 2016 PB request begins
the recovery of installation and infrastructure investments necessary
to meet the defense strategy while maintaining support to combatant
commander requirements, the nuclear enterprise, new weapon system
beddowns, and provides equitable distribution to our Reserve
components. However, a return to sequestered funding levels will halt
readiness recovery, cut capacity and slow modernization efforts as AF
installations around the world will continue to experience
infrastructure and installation support degradation.
Finally, we continue to carefully scrutinize every dollar we spend.
Our commitment to continued efficiencies, a properly sized force
structure, and right-sized installations will enable us to ensure
maximum returns on the Nation's investment in her airmen, who provide
our trademark and essential airpower capabilities for the Nation.
Senator Kirk. Thank you. Thank you, General. General
Halverson, when I recently met with General Selva, the
Combatant Commander of U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM),
he mentioned how important the Military Ocean Terminal Concord
(MOTCO) pier was to TRANSCOM, to be able to make sure our
forces in the Pacific would be ready for any contingencies.
Could you tell me your comments on that project?
General Halverson. Thanks, Senator.
The military terminal there we have at Concord is vital. We
commit $98 million in the fiscal year 2016 construction of that
pier, Pier 2. It is important to us because it provides vital
shipping for ammunition and stuff that are tied to the
operations plans there in the Pacific.
So, one, clearly it is a strategic capability that we do
need to ensure that we have a trained and ready force, and the
munitions available to exercise, if needed, especially for
things like Korea and other places in the Pacific, so it is
vital. We are committed to it. We have put money in there
before, and we will continue to ensure that it is on our, with
your approval, we will be working that in fiscal year 2016.
Senator Kirk. Let me ask a question of Ms. Kern.
MISSILE DEFENSE SITE PROGRESS
My top priority on this subcommittee is to make sure we
build the missile defense site in Poland to make sure we can
defend our NATO ally there. It is kind of important for us from
Chicagoland to defend Poland.
Could you comment on the progress on the Redzikowo site?
Ms. Kern. Yes, sir.
Navy is standing up two sites to support Aegis ashore, one
in Romania and one in Poland, as part of the European Phased
Adaptive Approach. This will enhance coverage of NATO territory
and populations from ballistic missiles, as you know.
Navy's MILCON project complements the Missile Defense
Agency MILCON that builds the weapon system. We are
constructing support facilities such as a galley, berthing,
armory, access control, medical, and recreation space.
We awarded the Romania MILCON in 2014, and the project is
progressing well. The Romania site will achieve initial
operating capability in fiscal year 2016.
We applied the lessons we learned in Romania to our Poland
project, as we were building it in the 1391. So pending
authorization and appropriation of the budget, we anticipate
being able to award the contract for Poland in February 2016.
MARINE CORPS EMBASSY GUARD REQUIREMENTS
Senator Kirk. Mr. Clifton, let me ask you about your
request for $44 million for the Embassy Security Guard
Facility.
Can you comment on that?
Mr. Clifton. Yes, sir. As you know, the requirement for
Embassy guards across the world has grown by about a thousand,
and we also have added a capacity for augmenting the Embassy
guards with marines. So that money for construction is being
utilized at Quantico to construct a barracks for the additional
personnel and administrative and instructional support
facilities to support the increase.
Senator Kirk. General Green, let me ask about your request
for about $95 million to upgrade the nuclear enterprise. I
would say that most Americans would be pretty shocked to see
the 60 Minutes piece on how bad the communications are and the
infrastructure supporting the Minuteman missile force.
NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT
General Green. Yes, sir, thank you.
You are right, I think everybody is concerned about the
investment in the nuclear enterprise, and it is the Secretary
of the Air Force's top MILCON priority.
There are three projects in the fiscal year 2016 request.
The most important one is the nuclear weapons storage facility
at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming, and it is really the
down payment. It is going to be the first in a series of
projects to upgrade all of our weapon storage facilities at all
of our nuclear installations.
So it is very critical to us in the future as we look
forward. It is a big investment, and we appreciate the
committee's support.
We also have another important project I will tell you at
Malmstrom, and that is an alert facility, a tactical alert
facility, as we go through looking ahead. And again----
Senator Kirk. The ranking member is very interested in
Malmstrom.
General Green. Yes, sir.
Senator Kirk. And so is the State.
General Green. So we are doing the large things, as well as
the small things, because the details also matter in the
nuclear enterprise. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since Senator Udall has a meeting, I am going to cede my
time to him for questions, if I might. Go ahead.
CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Senator Tester, thank you for the courtesy.
And, Chairman Kirk, I think this hearing is of extreme
importance, because it is not only about the projects that
impact our States, as many of these projects do, but it is also
about the future state of our military and the facilities our
troops will have to train in and carry out their important
mission.
I think we can admit that some facilities are doing better.
For example, I am glad to see that the Air Force and the
Secretary of Defense have made it a priority to provide the
resources to keep our Special Operations facility strong in New
Mexico at Cannon Air Force Base. They have been a major
recipient of that funding, and I think from my couple of visits
there, things are going very well.
However, with sequestration and tighter budgets, I am
worried that we have a problem on the horizon. At bases where
maintenance has been deferred and construction projects have
been put on hold, there are looming shortfalls.
In testimony earlier this year, Assistant Secretary Hammack
put it this way, and I quote, she said, ``Facilities are
failing at a rate faster than we are being funded.'' It is my
understanding the Army now faces a $3 billion maintenance
backlog, of which there is over $200 million at the White Sands
Missile Range (WSMR).
So, General Halverson, I appreciated speaking with you
earlier in the week and you taking the time. With regard to
White Sands, as you know, there is no other place like it in
the country. For the benefit of my colleagues, it is the size
of Delaware, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia
combined. And it has the largest Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) blackout area in the country.
Furthermore, the sensors throughout the range require
continual upkeep in order to enable them to provide the data to
the testers who are testing important projects for all of the
branches of the military.
As a result of the budget cuts, the roads and the
facilities at White Sands are starting to show signs of age and
deterioration, and I am concerned that the testing capability
at White Sands will be impacted if we don't get a handle on
this issue soon.
How concerned are you about this? What are the Army's plans
to make the road and maintenance facilities a priority? And how
can we work on this together?
General Halverson. Thank you, Senator Udall. I do
appreciate your support for the great White Sands Missile
Range.
As I told you, I was the commander of Fort Sill that had
the old Fires force with the Air Defense Artillery (ADA) and
stuff, and we really needed that capability to ensure that we
do have our Patriot systems that can do their test firing and
all the testing that is there. And I did command the
Operational Test Command, as you all know, that does all the
operational testing there.
So it really is important, as you were saying, because it
is of vital interest for us to be able to test to ensure the
systems we put into our soldiers' hands will work and provide
that deterrent defensive fire that we do need. So it is of
concern.
I think you hit it right, sir, and that is why we are
already backlogged, like you said. And we really need to look
at that. That is why we are concerned about sequestration and
stuff, because within those accounts, another $2 billion could
come out of the force, and we would lose a lot of flexibility.
Things like roads, especially with the networks and stuff
that you have at White Sands, we are looking at that. I talked
to Tim Coffin when I went there, because I was there for an
office call with him, and I saw the facilities. I have his
concerns, and we are going to be putting them into what we can
do with his ability to be able to repair roads and those types
of things that he needs to have a quality-of-life issue and a
safety issue for his post.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much. We really look forward
to working with you on that.
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE AIRSPACE COORDINATION
General Green, a question about Holloman Air Force Base and
the marshalling area there. There is a quote: ``Processes in
place at Holloman now prevent aircraft from taking off into
WSMR prior to the start of airspace time,'' and that is the end
of the quote. The lack of this marshalling area will create
further backlogs for trainees getting in and out of the runway
because of limited airspace windows.
My understanding is that there are other airspace
coordination issues that remain unresolved between the Air
Force and the Army with regard to the use of the WSMR complex,
and that this marshalling area is just one of the Air Force's
workarounds for these issues.
Is that correct? And is that your understanding?
General Green. Senator, I am not as familiar with the other
airspace coordination issues. That is an operational issue more
than a military construction issue, so if I can take that
question for the record, we will get back with you with an
appropriate answer and a complete answer.
[The information follows:]
In 2014, we formalized a relationship by signing a Memorandum of
Agreement between White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and Holloman Air
Force Base. The memorandum reinforces the Office of the Secretary of
Defense's Major Range and Test Facility Base policy that test
activities at White Sands Missile Range are a higher priority than
Holloman's training activities.
Holloman also has reorganized the internal lateral and vertical
dimensions of its training airspace and also modified its airspace
control procedures to improve overall efficiency and training
effectiveness. To improve airspace coordination and scheduling
procedures, we have been simultaneously working with our Army partners.
As an example, we are considering using the coordination procedures
employed at the Nevada Test and Training Range. Also, with Air Force
training continuing to increase at Holloman, we are currently
conducting an analysis to determine if the current airspace is
adequately configured and sized to support our future range and
airspace needs.
Senator Udall. That would be great. Thank you very much. I
have a couple of others for the record. I appreciate your
prompt reply to those. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
The Senator for King Cove, Alaska.
F-35A BASING
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that
you always remember.
Gentlemen, ladies, welcome to the committee. Thank you.
This is a question, first off, for General Green, if I may,
and this regards the process that the Air Force is in. The
environmental impact statement (EIS) process has been initiated
to bed down two squadrons of F-35s there at Eielson Air Force
Base. The scoping meetings are going to take place next week.
But the Air Force is proposing a $37 million simulator building
in the fiscal year 2016 MILCON program to support the bed-down.
Now we know that a final decision is not going to be made
until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is
concluded, but assuming that all goes well and Eielson is
selected to receive the F-35s as currently planned, can you
speak to how much military construction will actually be
required to complete the bed-down, and what the anticipated
pace of construction will be moving forward?
General Green. Thank you, Senator.
You are right, as Eielson is the preferred and reasonable
alternative right now, the NEPA process is underway and the
request is simply going to align this year and give us the
ability to get the MILCON project through the budgetary
process, so it will line up for the first arrival of aircraft,
if Eielson is selected.
As far as the timeline for the construction, I do not have
the complete timeline for all the size of the construction
program, and I will need to get that to you later on. But how
we traditionally do this is line up our construction so it is
just in time for aircraft arrivals. So if there is capacity at
Eielson to provide some initial standup, we won't do the
construction until it is necessary based upon the growth of the
squadron. So I will need to line up the aircraft arrivals in
the MILCON, and we can take that for the record and get back
with you with those long-term program details.
[The information follows:]
We included $161 million worth of projects in the fiscal year 2016
to 2020 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for bed-down projects at
Eielson AFB, Alaska. Construction timelines at Eielson are somewhat
longer than for projects in more temperate locations. For example, we
have estimated a three-year construction timeline for the fiscal year
2016 F-35A Flight Simulator/Alter Squad Ops/AMU Facility project
allowing the facility to be completed before the first F-35A aircraft
arrives in July 2019. Based on the projects in the FYDP, overall
construction timeframes would run into fiscal year 2020.
The initial site survey that generated the $161 million estimate
assumed that the F-16 Aggressor Squadron at Eielson would be relocated,
but recently the Air Force decided to leave this unit at Eielson. This
will add roughly $123 million of additional military construction
projects to the F-35A bed-down, as we will not be able to use the
Aggressor facilities for the F-35A. While these new projects have not
been programmed, we now expect construction will stretch into fiscal
year 2021.
Senator Murkowski. Understood. I appreciate that.
Now, none of us think that sequestration as it relates to
our defense spending has had any kind of a positive impact
there. But if sequestration moves forward, what might that do
to the construction proposal that we are talking about with the
F-35s, recognizing that is still in the off-years here?
General Green. Yes, ma'am. If we have a sequestered budget
or Budget Control Act levels, we would expect all of our
strategy across every functional area to be affected, whether
it is nuclear deterrence operations or bed-down of weapons
systems. The priorities of that would be up to a conversation,
a dialogue, we would hope to have with the committees about the
exact timelines and the risks we would be taking.
I would expect all of our programs to be touched, the
impact of which will only be determined by the appropriation
levels that this committee and Congress is allowed to have. So
there will be a conversation, and, again, we will look at
timing and risk and where to balance that risk across the Air
Force program.
18TH AGGRESSOR SQUADRON
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
There has been a lot of back and forth about the future of
the 18th Aggressor Squadron, which operates the F-16s out of
Eielson. There are three different scenarios that are at play
right now. One keeps the F-16s there at Eielson. Another moves
them down south to Joint Base Elmendorf--Richardson (JBER). And
then a third is to locate them elsewhere, probably Nellis.
Where is the Air Force on this decisionmaking process right
now?
General Green. Right now, currently, the Air Force is going
through its strategic basing process so, as you know, ma'am,
that is an open and collaborative process. We are on track for
the Secretary of the Air Force to make a basing decision later
on this spring, and so that would allow us to then move
forward. I would expect a decision for preferred and reasonable
alternative to be later this spring, and then everything would
flow from that.
ARMY GREY EAGLE BASING
Senator Murkowski. Okay. One final question and this
relates to the Grey Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The
Army has been in discussion with the Air Force for about a year
about possible basing of the Grey Eagle there at Eielson, which
the Army regards as its best alternative. I guess the second-
best alternative would be basing it at Fort Wainwright.
So, General Halverson, when do you need a definitive answer
from the Air Force about whether or not Army can base the Grey
Eagle at Eielson?
General Halverson. Well, ma'am, we have been in
consultation with the Air Force, like you said.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
General Halverson. We have forwarded that to the Secretary
of the Air Force. And like Tim just said, they are looking at
that in their basing aspects of it. And it should be brought to
them I think soon, so, therefore, we will have a decision by
the summer. That is where we are tracking.
Senator Murkowski. General Green.
General Green. Yes, ma'am. We are on track to have a basing
decision, again, this spring with the Secretary of the Air
Force, so that is where we are in the basing process.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. And then further
information you can get back with me on regarding the F-35s is
appreciated.
General Green. Yes, ma'am. We will do that. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
Let's turn to Senator Cassidy, who wanted to do a moment of
silence for the 11 troops that were recently lost in a tragic
accident.
Senator Cassidy. Yes, several of those coming from
Louisiana, National Guardsmen, so thank you.
[Moment of silence.]
Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Let's summarize, 11 troops were killed, of
which 4 were marines and 7 were from the Louisiana National
Guard?
Mr. Tester?
F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That kind of shows
the fact that service is real business, so we want to thank you
guys for the leadership that you provide and thank the troops
who serve, whatever branch of the military they are in.
I am going to start with you, General Green. Secretary
James has said the nuclear mission of the Air Force is top
priority for the Air Force.
Could you tell me how this budget reflects her statement?
General Green. Yes, sir. It really goes to show the budget
reflects her desire for investment across-the-board. So in the
military construction accounts, it is about the dollars
invested in the three projects we have: the weapons storage
facility at F.E. Warren; the investment in using that as a
pathfinder, if you will, of the first of five to be constructed
in the future years as we go through the program; and getting
this back onto an appropriate path with our infrastructure to
support it.
Senator Tester. The weapons storage facility at F.E.
Warren, when will it be completed?
General Green. Sir, I don't have the construction timeline
out in front of me, so as we go through the bids, I would
expect it to take a couple of years to do that. And then
following that design and construction, we will begin doing a
series of other projects beginning in fiscal year 2018.
Barksdale Air Force Base is the next budget request. And then
we will go on to Malmstrom Air Force Base in fiscal year 2019
with a budget request for a weapons storage facility.
Senator Tester. Is that weapons storage at Barksdale also?
General Green. Yes, sir, it is.
OVERSEAS MILCON AND BURDEN SHARING
Senator Tester. Okay. All right. Thank you.
I just want to talk about overseas MILCON and any one of
you can answer it that wants to or you can all answer it.
Look, we are dealing with regional and global threats
across the globe, confronting adversaries on the other side of
the world with our allies, and I think this is important. But,
oftentimes, I wonder if we don't disproportionately fund the
bill and our allies somewhat stay back and say, well, the
United States is going to put the manpower in, they are going
to put the money in, so we will just let them do it.
Look, make no mistake about it, investments have to be made
to keep the world a safer place, but the U.S. taxpayer cannot
be put on the line, and the soldiers, the different branches
you represent, shouldn't be put on the line disproportionately.
Meanwhile, we put a bunch of money into MILCON projects or
other defense areas that our allies could invest in education,
research and development (R&D), reduce taxes, do all sorts of
other stuff.
So my question to you, and this is kind of a 30,000-foot
view, in terms of the overseas MILCON, does this budget
exacerbate our allies' overreliance on the United States
military to provide for their security? And why or why not?
Lieutenant General Halverson.
General Halverson. Sir, I will tell you, this budget
ensures that our allies are a cooperative partner with our
military construction. The main one that we are asking for from
a housing perspective is in Korea in the Daegu area, which is
really tied to the provide the quality of life, to allow us to
get off a lot of expensive leases and stuff we have that has
been programmed for things.
It has been really important as we work, as you know, sir.
Our regional alignment and what we are doing in the Army is
twofold. One, in 2005 base realignment and closure (BRAC), we
brought a lot of capability back to the United States and we
built that up, and now we are rotating forces there like we
have in Korea with the brigade that then goes into Humphreys
and then goes up to be the deterrent force.
The Koreans have been working with us a lot. Of the $10.9
billion, they have contributed a lot to that $10.9 billion that
we built down in Humphreys.
So collaboratively, we work very closely with all players
to ensure that we do provide that capability that we do need.
So our coalition partners are providing those places, like
Japan and Korea, that really shows they have a stake in this
readiness aspect and the deterrent capability.
Senator Tester. Thank you for that answer. I would assume
that depending on which ally you are talking about, it probably
depends on how much they are contributing.
Overall, just overall, what kind of contribution do you see
from our allies, whether it is a housing project, whether it is
a runway project, whatever it would be? Would it be 1:1, every
$1 we put in, they put in a buck? Or would it be for every $10
we put in, they put in a buck? What would it be?
General Halverson. Sir, I do not have those numbers on
those things. I can tell you in Japan and stuff, there are very
shared things for us running bases in Japan, where they pay the
majority of a lot of the workforce and some of the sustainment
aspects that we do have in Japan. So Japan has been doing
almost 1:1, if not more, from that capability, from that
partner.
Senator Tester. That is good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stick around for a second
round.
Senator Kirk. Mr. Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. General Halverson, which partner does the
poorest job of cost-sharing with us? I am just curious. You
mentioned Japan is 1:1 or maybe a little bit above, and I like
that line of questioning.
Which partner does the worst?
General Halverson. I would have to take that. I do not have
the particulars of that, sir. But we do work very closely. A
lot of it is in the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) that we
work, and that is what is really important as we work that out
from an intergovernmental perspective.
FORT POLK, LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. You make a nice presentation in your
testimony regarding the need to be very sharp, in terms of
getting the biggest bang for buck from our MILCON dollar. Let
me just thank you, by the way, again, for meeting the other
day.
And let me also put a plug in. If Fort Polk is the one
place where you are actually adding footprint, it does seem
like the best use for the base is to continue to expand its
capability, because, again, you make the case that it has to be
strictly a kind of ``does it work or not'' sort of thing, so I
will just put that plug in.
Obviously, you are familiar with the Joint Operations
Center (JOC) and the issues regarding building that.
General Halverson. Yes, Senator. I will tell you, as you
all know, Fort Polk is a remarkable post. The bottom line is it
one of the two places--we have Fort Irwin with our National
Training Center and then we have Fort Polk with our Joint
Readiness Training Center. It is a huge training environment
that we need to be able to shape the conditions for our brigade
combat teams and all our soldiers to be able to create that
environment where, therefore, they can ensure that no soldier
goes into harm's way untrained.
We do appreciate the people of Louisiana working with us,
so we have had a capability to get land and stuff, so,
therefore, it creates a better environment for us to train.
Working together, like you said, with our communities, with the
State, really does provide us those capabilities.
So, therefore, as we have more time, we can train on large-
scale, decisive operation type things, which are very complex.
And that is what we are seeing at our Joint Readiness Training
Centers and our National Training Centers, which are vital to
us and our training opportunities.
Senator Cassidy. Clearly, I have a stake in this, but it
seems like you made a great case for going ahead and building
the JOC on Fort Polk, because it does seem as if that will most
efficiently use your resources, bringing the training facility
to where the troops are stationed.
Obviously, those folks, some of whom are selling their
home, their second home--they have previously sold a home that
had been condemned. They are selling a second home. So there
has been a tremendous commitment to our country by those who
live close by.
General Halverson. Well, sir, I tell you, as you look at
our fiscal year 2016 military construction, that is why we have
invested in some mission command capability, which are our
operations and command and control facilities. You have seen
one in the cyber that we have asked for, and obviously the one
that we are committing at Army north (ARNORTH) operation
center.
So those are the commitment because mission command is a
vital capability that we need for now and into 2025, so it is
something that is a huge capability that we do need.
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, LOUISIANA
Senator Cassidy. General Green, can you elaborate on your
nuclear weapons upgrade at Barksdale and timeline and all that?
You mentioned that before.
General Green. Yes, Senator. The timeline for Barksdale is
a project to begin in 2018. So in 2 years, you would see a
request, and that is outlined in the Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP) that you have available.
We would like to take the lessons that we have learned in
the design of the F.E. Warren project, apply those at
Barksdale. And then that would be a long-term upgrade, as you
know, to that infrastructure there.
BRAC AND OVERSEAS BASING
Senator Cassidy. Okay.
Again, going back, General Halverson, to your testimony
regarding the BRAC closing, and you mentioned the facilities
overseas that you have as much as possible gone through and
shut down facilities with spare space.
Can you give us an estimate of how many--I don't know this,
I should--how many installations we have that are outside our
borders that are under the MILCON supervision? How many square
foot and how much we spend on their operations and maintenance
(O&M), et cetera?
General Halverson. Sir, obviously, like you said, I will
get the exact number of what is overseas and what is inside the
Continental United States (CONUS) of America and stuff like
that. But the challenge we have with our sustainment,
restoration, and modernization (SRM) and stuff, and the things
of how we sustain our buildings, is that from excess capacity
to right now, about 18 percent, which our parametric gives us
about 160 million square foot. And that costs us about $480
million a year that we are doing to sustain excess----
Senator Cassidy. That is both overseas and domestically?
General Halverson. That is holistically within our Army.
One of the things, as you said, is overseas and that is why
when we did our European Infrastructure Consolidation here this
last year, it looked at this ability of how we look at BRAC,
which is really looking at how we would facilitate maintaining
capability. What is best military value? But reducing
footprints----
Senator Cassidy. Can you, maybe for the record, but give me
a sense of how many facilities we do have overseas and how much
we are spending on that O&M?
General Halverson. I will have to get that back with you,
exactly the number of facilities and what that costs.
[The information follows:]
There are 27 Army installations outside of the U.S. border,
consisting of a total of 151 million square feet, with a total
Operation and Maintenance SRM cost, in fiscal year 2014, of $712
million to maintain them.
Senator Cassidy. I yield back. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. Mr. Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MARINE CORPS GUAM REALIGNMENT
Mr. Clifton, I want to discuss the realignment of marines
from Guam, and I recognize that this is a key part of our Asia-
Pacific rebalance. But I am getting increasingly worried about
the cost.
I know that the initial estimate ranged from $10 billion to
$18 billion. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned
that the cost could be as high as $27 billion. And I know the
Marine Corps is looking at reworking and rescoping the
proposal.
But I think the cost is still high in some areas, and I
want to drill down into the various cost drivers. It seems to
me that one of them is that Guam is very far away. It is a
remote place. It does not necessarily have the workforce there,
the materials there, so construction costs are going to be
high. I would like you to speak to that.
But I also think it is important for this subcommittee and
for the Marine Corps and the MILCON process to recognize that
one of the cost drivers is simply that you have to set up
infrastructure from scratch in order to do the kind of lay-down
that is being talked about. So whatever paring down of the per
unit housing cost or the training facilities or whatever else
it is, you still have a fixed cost that you are going to have
to distribute among however many marines that are on Guam that
has to do with the fact that you are doing this on Guam and not
in a place where the infrastructure is perhaps more well-
developed.
So if you could talk to the construction costs as a cost
driver and then the problem of building the infrastructure
nearly from scratch?
Mr. Clifton. Yes, sir. The cost in Guam for the relocation
of marines there is split between the Japanese Government and
the United States. The Japanese have committed about $3.1
billion, a similar amount for the United States.
Some of the facilities are being improved. Family housing,
for example, at Andersen Air Force Base is currently under
discussion among all the services to take the existing housing,
augment it for the 500 or so houses that are required by the
Marines, and upgrade across-the-board.
For the training range that is in this budget, that is a
new facility. It is $126 million for----
Senator Schatz. Right, but just to be precise about my
question, how much of the cost, and the GAO is raising the
alarm about the potential total cost, has to do with the fact
that it is more expensive to do construction on Guam? And then
how much of that has to do with the fact that you are starting
from scratch?
I think we just need to make choices when it comes to
resources that recognize where the cost drivers are. And if you
are saying it is roughly $3 billion from the Japanese
Government committed--not in, but committed--and then roughly
$3 billion from our Government, that does not cover the whole
cost of the lay-down.
Mr. Clifton. For the marines, no, sir. It sounds like that
is a good question for me to get the details and provide you
back for the record. But I think your assumptions are correct,
that it is more costly in Guam than perhaps in North Carolina
or California even.
Senator Schatz. Or Hawaii?
Mr. Clifton. Or Hawaii.
So part of what is going on, and it makes those answers a
little uncertain at this time, is it is far into the future,
and part of the effort and focus of effort right now is to try
to make those costs the most economical possible.
MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS LIFT REQUIREMENTS
Senator Schatz. I had a conversation with General Dunford
on the question of lift, and I understand it is not the MILCON
subcommittee's jurisdiction to talk about lift. But I would
like you to answer the following question. When I asked him if
there was sufficient lift capability in the region to support
the potential lay-down, he was pretty crisp. He said no. So if
we were to provide that lift, would that drive up the MILCON
projected costs?
Mr. Clifton. For the Marine Corps, if additional amphibious
lift was provided, it should not drive up the cost.
Senator Schatz. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Clifton. But that is something I would need to clarify.
As you spoke correctly, that is not my main swim lane for this
testimony.
Senator Schatz. Okay. Thank you.
USARPAC
General Halverson, I wanted to talk to you about the U.S.
Army Pacific (USARPAC) headquarters. I know it took an $11
million cut in the last appropriations process, and I know you
know how critical it is to the U.S. Army Pacific.
If you could talk about how important that headquarters is
with respect to the Asia-Pacific pivot when it comes to the
Army?
General Halverson. Thanks, Senator. I was stationed in the
25th during my major days, and I was very fortunate, although I
am not sure ``fortunate'' was the word, but when I got selected
to be the special assistant to the USARPAC commander, who was
General Ord. When I go visit General Brooks, I am in the same
headquarters I was when I was a major.
His scope of responsibility, obviously, has grown,
especially because one of the lessons we have learned from war
has been you need fusion points. You do not need stovepipes.
You need to be able to facilitate a headquarters that becomes
your mission command.
As you know, because of the $11 million cut from last year,
we are rescoping this year to be able to ensure that we are on
glide path and then to be able to get this project. It is an
iterative project.
We appreciate the subcommittee's support on this project,
because this is vital for General Brooks and the Army's focus
in the Pacific. So I really do appreciate the subcommittee's
support as we move forward, because this will be a mission-
essential capability that we need for the USARPAC.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
I have exceeded my time, but I just wanted to say for the
committee members, I have never seen a headquarters for a four-
star that looks quite like the place on Palm Circle, so I want
to be supportive as we get this thing done.
Senator Kirk. Ms. Collins.
PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kern, at the request of the Navy, Congress authorized
and approved funding for a project at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard in Maine that consolidates structural shops. It is
known as P-266.
The project aims to make submarines operationally available
sooner to the fleet than otherwise would be the case were this
project not completed. It is basically adopting a lot of lean
manufacturing principles and is going to allow the shipyard to
be even more efficient. In the end, I am sure it will not only
return submarines to the fleet sooner but it will save money.
Because of the backlog in ship depot maintenance that
Admiral Greenert has described due to sequestration, it is even
more important that we move submarines through the yard as
quickly as possible so that we can help return the Navy's fleet
to its proper state of readiness.
Right now, there is an $18 million reprogramming request to
address some of the unanticipated costs associated with this
project, and that is currently under review at the Office of
the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV).
Could you tell us when we could expect a final decision on
this request?
Ms. Kern. Senator Collins, thank you for your question, and
thank you for your support of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which,
like all of our naval shipyards, is critical to maintaining our
warfighting readiness.
The reprogramming that you are asking about, P-266, is a
fiscal year 2014 project and it actually requires an additional
$20 million to execute it. We are preparing a reprogramming
package, which I actually endorsed yesterday, and so it has to
make its way through the Navy channels and then on to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) before you will see it
here in Congress.
Based on typical timeframes, I would imagine you would see
it by early May, so you will see it soon. And provided that we
have your support, we can get this project awarded in this
fiscal year.
Senator Collins. Great. Thank you very much for your
personal help on that.
I met just yesterday with the head of Naval Reactors,
Admiral Richardson, and we were discussing the number of days
per submarine that would be saved by moving forward with this
project. He was very familiar with it, and his words are the
efficiencies would be huge if we moved forward. So I am very
pleased to hear this update and know that you understand that
any way that we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
our Navy's four public shipyards, we should really seize those
opportunities.
BANGOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FIRE/CRASH RESERVE STATION
General Green, many Air National Guard units share facility
space with their civilian counterparts, and that is, certainly,
true in Bangor, Maine, where the 101st Air National Guard Wing
has a very important refueling mission.
The Air Force National Guard's proposed budget includes
$7.2 million to refurbish and increase the space for the Guard
wing's fire and rescue facility for equipment, storage, and
training in Bangor.
As part of the wing's joint use agreement with Bangor
International Airport, the base provides all the fire and
rescue capability for the airport. The airport is giving the
base the opportunity for shared use of the runway, which is
extremely lengthy, because it is a former Air Force base, and
very well-positioned from a strategic location.
I want to thank you and General Welsh, who recently visited
the airbase, for including this project in this year's budget.
And I would like to offer you the opportunity to make any
comments you wish on the value to the Air Force of these dual-
use bases where we can share expenses with the local community.
General Green. Thank you, Senator.
Dual-use facilities are exactly where we are moving in the
future as we go to things. We are trying to make sure we
partner across-the-board with our communities so that all of us
leverage all of our real property and our assets, and this is a
great example up at Bangor.
We are excited to have the opportunity to right size the
fire station and rescue station, as you noted. They have
outgrown their capacity. They are literally bursting at the
seams so we can meet our mission and the local community's
mission.
Again, I think it represents the kind of right investment
that we need to be making in the future as we move forward.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kirk. Thank you.
The Senator for all of Milford, Connecticut.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
NEW LONDON NAVAL BASE INVESTMENTS
Thank you all for being here. I want to come back to
submarines, where Senator Collins began, and direct a question
to you, Ms. Kern.
The increasingly aggressive forward deployment of the
Russian sub fleet has gotten a lot of attention over the course
of the last few years. We know of at least one instance in
which we had a Russian submarine 200 miles off the east coast,
and it speaks to the continued importance of our only submarine
base in the northeast, which is in New London. And I appreciate
the Navy's commitment to keeping this a sustainable operation.
But as you know, the State of Connecticut has made a pretty
unprecedented commitment to that base as well, $40 million has
gone out of State coffers to continue to make investments
there. And the most recent amongst these projects is a major
smart energy electricity grid that is going to use Federal,
State, and private sector funding in order to do some major
upgrades in and around the base.
I am proud of what we are doing in Connecticut, but I am,
frankly, interested as to whether our partnership is looked
upon as a model for how operations and improvements may be made
other places. We have made a substantial commitment in New
London. We are committed to continuing that commitment.
But this, certainly, is a way in which we can potentially
save some money in other areas of the budget. I just would love
to know if this is, at least on the Navy's side, a model that
is worth looking into in other places.
Ms. Kern. Senator, thank you for your question. That is
actually a fascinating area, and I can get back to you on the
specifics. But I know that we are looking at partnerships with
several local communities across the United States for exactly
that type of thing. We have various renewable and smart energy
projects that are ongoing, and I would be happy to look into
the specifics that are happening in the Connecticut area and
get back to you on that, sir.
[The information follows:]
Partnering with local governments and industry to solve energy
problems is very much a model that the Navy is leveraging across all of
our bases. In Connecticut, the Navy has funded a design analysis and a
grid integration analysis to construct a microgrid capable of providing
reliable power to critical infrastructure during a commercial power
outage. The microgrid will be designed to be expandable in the future,
and it will have the capability to accept additional sources of
electrical power such as fuel cells, diesel generators, and renewable
energy. This effort is made possible through our partnership with the
Connecticut Office of Military Affairs and with funding assistance from
local government. With respect to renewable energy projects, the Navy
is looking into a proposed project from one of our Public Private
Venture housing partners to install 4-6 MW of solar generation on
vacant housing land.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much.
EUROPEAN INSTALLATIONS
Let me turn overseas for a moment and ask a question of
both General Halverson and General Green.
We have, since the end of the cold war, trimmed about 75
percent of personnel out of Europe. About 80 percent of our
infrastructure is gone. And in January, the Department of
Defense (DOD) just announced that we are going to be returning
15 additional sites across Europe to their host nations, and
this is going to save the budget about $500 million annually.
This is all happening at the same time that we are making a
rather sizeable new commitment to security along Russia's
western edge, our partners in Eastern Europe.
Have our plans regarding transfer of infrastructure to our
European allies changed? Has any of our budgeting when it comes
to facilities in Europe changed in light of what is happening
today on the ground in Ukraine and in light of some of the
major new commitments that we have made to European and Eastern
European security?
General Halverson. Senator, I will take for Tim first, and
then he can follow on, if he has anything to add.
I will tell you, it is very important, because like we said
with the European Infrastructure Consolidation that we looked
at those things, we really looked at this comprehensive
infrastructure to ensure that we look at ourselves, so we would
still have emphasis on military value, we would still have
emphasis on capability that we would need, and we would still
have emphasis on how we would fill our obligations with our
allies and stuff like that.
So what we saved, and what you are hearing about the
savings you hear about, the 33 recommendations that are from
the Army, we could be saving up to $168 million. So therefore,
from a capacity perspective, if we have to do those, we still
have a rotational brigade like we have, as you have heard, that
we are in Poland, Estonia, and all those places, that we are
there with a regional capability. And that is why you will see
in the fiscal year 2016, we have asked for the maintenance
facility to be Grafenwoehr, so therefore, we don't have to do
second destination costs. We can sit there and rotate forces in
there and sustain that equipment while it is in Europe, and
therefore, we could have a much quicker capability and sustain
those costs right there.
That is how we are looking at ourselves. Obviously, it is a
concern to us, because of the things like we have seen with
Russia and its overt capabilities. So we are looking at it very
closely and working with United States Europe and seeing what
they have to do.
But it really was the long-term plan that the U.S. European
Command (EUCOM) had to bring through, and that is what we tried
to do as we looked at those efficiencies internal.
Senator Murphy. Anything to add, General Green?
General Green. Just for the Air Force, it is the same
thing. The capacity, as we looked, the capacity evaluations we
consolidated capability, or we moved capability from one
location to another to make it closer to the fight. As we went
through the consolidation, the European Infrastructure
Consolidation, it looked at existing plans. And so there is
still the existing capacity to support the operations that we
need to have. So that did not go away.
And as we look at the European Reassurance Initiative, as
we go through that process, those are some smaller projects.
But we have the capacity to do what we need as a Nation in
Europe.
Senator Murphy. I understand the difference between
maintaining operational capacity and having infrastructure, but
these are countries that are clamoring for a very visible U.S.
presence. It is the best way that we can send a message that we
still stand behind article 5, and so I will continue to discuss
this topic with you moving forward. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kirk. Dr. Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you all for being here. We very much
appreciate your service to our country.
I would just like to get your views again, and I know you
are probably getting tired of talking about it, but it is so
important.
We are in the budget cycle right now, and the House has
come out with its budget. We will be marking up our budget, I
believe on Thursday.
SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS
Tell me, if we could just go through and talk about your
concerns with sequestration.
General Halverson. Senator, I will lead. Very concerned.
Gravely concerned. We already have in the budget we submitted
in fiscal year 2016 is just the minimum requirements we have.
With sequestration, like I said, it is an additional $2 billion
that we would have to phase. So, therefore, when you hear about
our backorders of the $3 billion backorders and stuff, now you
will just exasperate that.
I had to submit a budget here that I can only afford 80
percent of my SRM dollars. Now it will be much lower. So,
therefore, the concern you have or we have is with total
readiness, that readiness to our soldier and the trust when
they see these degradations of their capability. And they will
not have the money. The ranges won't be quite well because we
won't have the people to facilitate those.
Those are the concerns that we have that go to
sequestration, because it will put us at a grave concern.
Senator Boozman. So it translates to things like deferred
maintenance?
General Halverson. Yes, sir.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kern.
Ms. Kern. Senator, thank you for your question. I mentioned
in my opening statement, as General Halverson pointed out, that
the fiscal year 2016 budget request represents the absolute
minimum that we need in order to support the Nation's defense
strategy. A return to sequestration in 2016 would cause us to
revisit and revise the entire strategy globally.
While I can't talk about the specific impacts of
sequestration, because it would be pure conjecture, I can tell
you some concerns I have specific to MILCON based on how
sequestration affected our MILCON program in 2013.
In 2013, each MILCON project was reduced by 7 percent. And
with your support, we were able to reprogram MILCON dollars we
had saved over several years due to a favorable bidding
climate. However, we are starting to notice the bidding climate
is trending less favorably. So therefore, I can't be certain
that we will have the same flexibility to fill gaps in MILCON
projects if sequestration in 2016 is applied in the same way.
In that case, we would either have to de-scope or cancel
projects, so that would be my main concern with MILCON.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Clifton. Thank you, sir. General Dunford has already
testified that sequestration will cause great harm to the
security of our country. It greatly reduces the budget,
obviously, and we are already at a minimum, as Ms. Kern pointed
out. But sequestration also is an extremely inefficient way to
allocate cuts. And for the reasons Ms. Kern mentioned for
MILCON, the same effect would be on the Marine Corps.
It would preclude the Marine Corps from meeting
requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance and, more
importantly, the requirements of the geographic combatant
commanders. So there are significant impacts of sequestration
in particularly the application of those cuts.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
General.
General Green. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
General Welsh and Secretary James have both testified that
their concern with the sequestered budget levels or the BCA
levels are our ability as an Air Force to meet the National
Defense Strategy. Our MILCON budget reflects the same thing as
we go along the way. The MILCON follows the strategy. And so
when you see a shift to the Asia-Pacific, we have investments
in the Pacific. And when we are concerned about nuclear defense
infrastructure, we have investments.
A sequestered budget or BCA budget is going to have us go
back, with your support, you have gotten the budget request,
there are going to be very difficult decisions across all those
portfolios. We simply won't be able to do all of the work that
needs to be done in the years ahead, and all the easy decisions
have been made.
So it is going to be a challenge for us. And, again, it is
about having a strategy and being able to execute it. It falls
into MILCON. It falls into FSRM. And so when we look at our
facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts,
we will be having to make decisions about maintaining current
facilities and trying to keep them whole, versus repairing them
and upgrading them and, oh by the way, these projects that need
MILCON, they are not going to get the MILCON so that
maintenance money is going to be continued to be invested in
facilities that we should be eliminating over time.
So it is a compounding problem that increases year to year,
because of the compounding nature of it.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kirk. Mr. Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to echo the statement that Ms. Kern said about
the bidding climate. I think it has changed a lot in the last
couple of years, and I think your ability to reprogram money, I
think you are spot on. I just don't think it is going to be
there.
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FACILITIES
But my question is for you, General Halverson, and it deals
with Army National Guard facilities. It is my understanding
over the last 4 years, the funding for military construction in
the Army National Guard has fallen by 85 percent. And it may be
true in the Air Guard facilities, too. I am not sure about
that. But I do know this.
It is also my understanding that the average age of our
armories is about 43 years old, which if you are 58, 43 is not
bad. But the truth is the adjutant generals (TAGs) have said
that they are about 42 percent short of space. That is a
problem.
Just like everybody else on this subcommittee, I have a
spot where they need a new armory, down in Butte.
So my question is, to what extent are the National Guard
Bureaus, TAGs, and Governors all a part of the budget
conversations that you put forth to us?
General Halverson. Sir, I appreciate that. It is very
transparent to our process that we do, because we have the one
published facility investment strategy. And to that, we work
very closely with General Lyons, General Grass, to ensure that
we do hear their requirements.
The issue like you are saying is that we speak at all their
forums and stuff to make sure that their word is heard. I do
agree totally with you, that the issue that we really have to
look at from their perspective is that their structures are
failing. And we need to look clearly at their ability to
sustain that, so they can consolidate.
That is one of the issues we heard, and that is why you
will see within their military construction this year, we are
actually investing in mission command-type capability and
readiness centers for their particular needs.
Senator Tester. So what you are saying is the TAGs, the
Guard Bureau, and the Governors all have an opportunity to put
their two bits in on this budget?
General Halverson. All their requirements, we look at their
requirements. We vet their requirements. And, therefore, that
is where you get the $197 million.
Senator Tester. Okay. One of the challenges, my
understanding is, the States have is they have to have the land
in hand, so to speak, before they get on the Future Years
Defense Plan. In other words, they have to own the land. They
have to buy it up. They have to hold it. And then you guys can
put it in the cycle.
There are, understandably, few States willing to do that.
Is this still something that needs to be done? Is this
something you have heard much feedback on from Governors, for
example?
General Halverson. I have not heard much feedback from
Governors, sir, but when I do meet with them, I will ask those
questions.
Senator Tester. That is fine. I don't want to bring up
something and rouse a hornet's nest that we don't need to
either. But it would seem to me it is pretty difficult,
especially when many States are running a deficit.
ASIA-PACIFIC REBALANCE
This next question goes to Ms. Kern and Mr. Clifton. The
Navy and Marine Corps are playing a central role in our pivot--
Senator Schatz talked about this--in the Pacific. Additional
investments are going to be needed anywhere from California to
Singapore, Guam, Australia, Japan, Hawaii.
However, the full cost of the MILCON association with the
pivot is yet to be determined and far from clear. So my
question is, what is the estimate for the Navy and the Marines
associated with our pivot to Asia, short-term and long-term?
Whoever wants to start can.
Ms. Kern. I will start, sir. Thank you.
We revisit our MILCON requirements based on our global
requirements on an annual basis. We have a strategic lay-down
and dispersal process that gives us the ability to assess our
global force lay-down and ensure that our infrastructure will
support it.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Kern. Like I said, we conduct this process annually,
and it can result in MILCON project requirements.
For example, in President's budget 2016, we have a project
request that will expand our Child Development Center (CDC) in
Yokosuka. The CDC will accommodate the increase independence we
expect as a result of forward deploying two additional
destroyers in support of our presence there.
In terms of the total overall bill with respect to what
force structure we are going to have in the Pacific, it is a
little too early to tell. But, like I said, we revisit these
requirements annually.
Senator Tester. Okay. Before I get to you, Mr. Clifton,
look, I want to work with you guys, I do. But I never heard any
answer to the question. I heard what you were doing
specifically, okay. And look, I am a friend, not an enemy.
I really think it is really important, especially when we
are talking about sequestration, that you know the figures,
that at least you can come in and say, ``You know what? Over
the next 4 to 5 years this is going to cost,'' or, ``Over the
next 3 years, this is going to cost X number of dollars. Over
the next 5, it is going to cost X,'' or however you guys do it.
If you don't, it makes me think that maybe, even though you
do this strategic lay-down review annually, it makes me think
that you are really not doing what you need to do if you don't
know. I do not mean to preach to you, but do you want to talk
about that?
Ms. Kern. Yes, sir. I would be happy to follow up with you
on the specifics.
Senator Tester. That would be good.
Ms. Kern. We do have a plan for the FYDP, but I just do not
want you to think we have a plan and then we never look at it
again. We do revisit it every year.
Senator Tester. I think you need to look at it, but I also
think it needs to be guidelines that you live by. And if you
are expending more money than that plan, you need to probably
talk to us about it. And if you are not spending as much, we
need to give you a pat on the back and say thanks for looking
out for the taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Clifton, would you like to answer that question?
Mr. Clifton. Yes, sir. In fiscal year 2014 and 2015, the
Marine Corps invested about $500 million in MILCON. In 2016, we
are asking for $255 million additional. In the future years, we
are looking at $1.2 billion in MILCON for the Pacific, not
including family housing, which, as I mentioned earlier, is
still dynamic because we are trying to cut the cost down there.
Senator Tester. Got it.
So the numbers with quick math in my head, this overall
thing is going to cost about $2 billion for the Marines?
Mr. Clifton. In the construction, yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Clifton. And just----
Senator Tester. Go ahead.
Mr. Clifton. I was only going to say that, again, we
mentioned what good allies the Japanese have been in this, and
they are putting in about $10.2 billion in the kitty for this,
about $12 billion, excuse me--$8 billion for consolidation in
Okinawa, about $4 billion to $5 billion for the Futenma
replacement facility in Camp Schwab, and about $3.1 billion in
Guam.
Senator Tester. Okay. That is good on them.
I do think that Senator Cassidy's question about who is
contributing what helps, too. So thank you.
And thank you all for your service. Thank you for being
here. I appreciate the jobs you guys do.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kirk. Is it okay if we make that it? I will advise
everybody that the record will remain open until the close of
business on Friday. Members may submit additional questions, if
they would like.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Lieutenant General David D. Halverson
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
sequestration
Question. The President's fiscal year 2016 request is $74 billion
above the BCA cap in total. Clearly some difficult choices need to be
made about the Defense budget and the MILCON program, which represents
a 29 percent increase over last year's historically low MILCON request.
Where are the services taking risk in this budget request? How
manageable are the risks over the long term?
Answer. The Army is continuing to take risk to maintain, restore,
and modernize its facilities and infrastructure across the spectrum of
the Army's facility management portfolio. The Army manages this risk by
ensuring the highest priority MILCON projects are requested in the
budget within funding constraints. Deferring sustainment,
modernization, restoration, and MILCON requirements will result in a
more rapid decline of facility life-spans.
While fiscal year 2016 limitations present challenges across all
Army installations, further budget reductions would substantially
increase risks to soldier readiness and wellbeing. Over the long term,
the cost to restore or modernize facilities increases significantly as
the Army continues to take risks in facility investments in order to
mitigate the impact to its readiness from the reduced budgets of recent
years.
Question. How much risk have you already taken in your
infrastructure portfolio?
Answer. We continue to take risk in our infrastructure portfolio to
maintain, restore, or modernize our facilities and infrastructure
during this period of reduced funding levels. Approximately 69 percent
of Army facilities are in good condition. About 24 percent of Army
facilities are rated fair or poor, and approximately 7 percent of
facilities are rated as failing. Our risk mitigation and facility
investment efforts resulted in a majority of our facilities being rated
at the highest quality by 2014. However, further budget reductions
would increase the number of substandard facilities and substantially
increase risks to soldier readiness and wellbeing. Consistent,
predictable funding would help the Army further mitigate risks to its
infrastructure and installation readiness.
Question. What would the consequences of sequestration be for your
fiscal year 2016 MILCON programs?
Answer. The consequences of sequestration on the Army's fiscal year
2016 MILCON programs would create critical delays in fulfilling
operational requirements and would continue to cascade facility needs
into the future. Sequestration would increase the risks in facility
investments in order to mitigate the impact to unit readiness from the
reduced budgets of recent years.
This creates a backlog of construction projects required to replace
poor and failing facilities. Further prolonged under-investment will
cause accelerated degradation of the facilities that will ultimately
result in increased requirements for replacement facilities through
military construction. We are already operating out of many inadequate
facilities across the Army and owe our soldiers and families adequate
facilities in which to train, operate and live.
facility conditions
Question. The O&M money allocated for facilities sustainment has
declined over the last few years, and the Services can only fund 90
percent or 80 percent or even 70 percent in some cases. These decisions
may require additional MILCON in the future to replace neglected
facilities.
In general, what are the conditions of your facilities? What
percentage are failing? What percentage near failure?
Answer. In general, 69 percent of Army facilities are in good
condition, and 12 percent are in fair condition. Approximately 12
percent of Army facilities are rated poor, equating to near failure,
and approximately 7 percent of facilities are rated as failing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. The gap between the 6,000 people that the Army recognizes
at Ft. Meade and the reality of the 50,000 people who actually work
there is substantial and greatly contributes to the deterioration and
substandard maintenance funding for the installation. When are you
going to recognize what the real life situation is and fund Ft. Mead
for the 50,000 people who actually work there?
Answer. The Army's official database of record for Installation
population does recognize the Fort Meade workforce of 51,158 personnel,
including over 40,000 military service members and government
civilians. Within those numbers are over 100 Federal agencies and
units, many of which are reimbursable to the Garrison for their
facilities and services. In keeping with the Army's facilities
sustainment, restoration and modernization practices applied across all
its installations, these workforce figures are indeed being applied in
determining Fort Meade facility funding requirements.
Question. How do you expect to attract the most talented people in
the Nation to work on Ft. Meade if the buildings are so old they stifle
the mission? Don't you think it is important for the Army and the
Nation to have that talent working on future solutions for our forces?
But they probably don't want to work in labs that can fall apart!
Answer. The Army agrees it is important to the Nation that we have
the most talented workforce working on the future solutions for our
forces. The Army is committed to providing quality facilities
commensurate with the quality and talent of our servicemembers and
civilian workforce. Of the facilities rated on Fort Meade, just over 7
percent are in failing condition, which is comparable to the Army
average for Q4-rated facilities. By focusing our limited resources on
our highest priority infrastructure, the Army, through its facility
investment strategy, is continuing to take risk to ensure funding for
unit readiness meets national security missions.
Question. I have been to Ft. Meade and talked to the Garrison
Commander about his priorities for the installation but yet, when the
budget comes out, the projects that are funded don't match the need.
Where is the breakdown in this process and what are you going to do to
make sure that funding is synchronized with what people need at Ft.
Meade?
Answer. The low funding levels during the recent years have
significantly impacted the Army's ability to fund sustainment,
restoration, modernization, and construction across all Installations.
The Army is continuing to take risk in this area to ensure funding for
unit readiness to meet national security missions. The Army has
synchronized facility requirements for all Installations by following
the Army Facility Investment Strategy, that for the Army's highest
priorities, evaluates how to meet mission and facility needs.
Senior Commanders of Army Installations submit projects and the
Army evaluates, prioritizes and funds the highest priority projects
within the funding available in the military construction and
restoration and modernization programs. The Facility Investment
Strategy is the synchronization tool the Army uses, at the current
levels of funding, to ensure that the highest priority needs of the
Army can be met balanced with unit readiness.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
fort mccoy
Question. As a Total Force Training Center, Wisconsin's Fort McCoy
plays a crucial role in the training and mobilization of the U.S. Armed
Forces, ensuring that our servicemembers are fully prepared to respond
to any contingency. As such, it is critical that the Army continues to
invest in Fort McCoy, maintaining the installation's ability to support
the readiness and quality of life of our soldiers and their families.
For fiscal year 2015, Congress took a positive step and provided the
Army Reserve with additional funding for pressing military construction
projects, including $17.7 million for an ``Access Control Point/Mail/
Freight Center'' at Fort McCoy. This project is important to the safety
and security of our military personnel, their families and the
workforce at Fort McCoy.
Please explain how this project fulfills an Army requirement and
fits into the Army's facility strategy.
Answer. This project will provide Fort McCoy with an Access Control
Point compliant with Department of Defense and Army Antiterrorism and
Force Protection standards to accommodate commercial deliveries. The
existing Mail and Freight Facilities are located in World War II wood
facilities and are located within the central cantonment area. The
location of the existing facilities does not permit mail/freight
screening before materials and vehicles enter the installation
perimeter. The project will allow the installation to safely receive,
screen, process, transfer, and ship all mail and freight. The
integrated material transfer facility will allow for the centralized
offloading and screening of mail and freight which is not currently
permitted during heightened threat scenarios when commercial traffic is
not allowed within the cantonment area.
This project addresses two of the key tenets from the Army Facility
Investment Strategy; the elimination of failing World War II wood
facilities, and building out the most critical facility shortfalls. The
Facility Investment Strategy provides a comprehensive approach to
determine the best solution for facilities requirements across the Army
in priority by the highest need. The Fort McCoy Access Control Point/
Mail/Freight Center project represents one of the high priority needs
of the Army.
Question. Please provide the status of this project, including
whether the funding has been released.
Answer. The project is fully designed and ready to be advertised.
The construction funds have been provided to the Corps of Engineers to
advertise and award the project.
Question. What is the project schedule, including the expected date
of completion?
Answer. The Access Control Point/Mail Freight Center project is
fully designed and is scheduled to be advertised through Federal
Business Opportunities website on May 11, 2015. The contract is
expected to be awarded no later than September 30, 2015. Based on the
estimated contract duration, the project should be completed by August
30, 2017.
Question. It is my understanding that the Army Reserve's current
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for military construction includes
three projects at Fort McCoy: (1) a Transient Training dining facility
in fiscal year 2018; (2) an Annual Training (AT)/Mobilization (MOB)
dining facility in fiscal year 2019; and (3) an Access Control Point
for West Gate 113 in fiscal year 2020. I appreciate the Army's
inclusion of these critical projects in the FYDP, but I also recognize
that the FYDP--while a statement of Army priorities--is subject to
change.
For each project, please provide the following: How each project
addresses Army requirements and fits into the Army's facility strategy;
A detailed description of each project, including, at a minimum, cost,
schedule, and contract overview.
Answer. (1) The Transient Training Dining Facility is programmed in
fiscal year 2018 for $11 million. If funded in the budget, the
estimated contract award date is February 2018. The construction start
date would be April 2018 with a completion date of April 2020. This
project will provide a new dining facility based on the standard design
Operational Readiness Training Complex Dining Facility for 1,428
persons. The construction of this facility will provide the third of
four large dining facilities necessary to support Fort McCoy's entire
transient training dining operations required to feed soldiers which
are mobilizing and participating in annual training exercises. The
project addresses the Army Facility Investment Strategy tenets of
efficient space management to Army standards, and eliminate failing
World War II wood facilities.
(2) The Annual Training/Mobilization Dining Facility is programmed
in fiscal year 2019 for $22.5 million. If funded in the budget, the
estimated contract award date is February 2019. The construction start
date would be April 2019 with a completion date of April 2021. This
project will provide the fourth of four required Operational Readiness
Training Complex Dining Facilities. With the construction of this 2600
person facility, Fort McCoy's entire transient training population will
function out of four large facilities. The project addresses the Army
Facility Investment Strategy tenets of efficient space management to
Army standards, and eliminate failing World War II wood facilities.
(3) The Access Control Point West Gate 113 is programmed in fiscal
year 2020 for $8.8 million. If funded in the budget, the estimated
contract award date is February 2020. The construction start date would
be April 2020 with a completion date of April 2022. This project will
replace a substandard gate with an approved Army standard design access
control point. Projects that bring Access Control Points up to Army
standards are high priority requirements and support the Facility
Investment Strategy.
Question. In the Army's fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Access
Control Point for West Gate 113 was scheduled to be funded in fiscal
year 2019. Please explain why the Army Reserve pushed back the project
by 1 year.
Answer. The Army and Army Reserve conducts annual reviews of all
projects to ensure projects continue to be supported by the Army
Facility Investment Strategy and represent the most urgent
requirements. The Fort McCoy, Wisconsin Access Control Point (ACP) for
West Gate 113 was pushed back a year as a result of the annual review
of Army Reserve Military Construction requirements coupled with reduced
funding levels. There were multiple changes in fiscal year 2018, fiscal
year 2019, and fiscal year 2020 of the fiscal year 2016 budget request
Future Year Defense Plan.
Question. Does the Army Reserve plan to change the funding or
schedule of any of the three currently planned projects at Fort McCoy?
Please explain.
Answer. Until the fiscal year 2017-2021 Future Years Defense
Program development is completed, it is premature to determine if any
projects, including the Fort McCoy projects, will be affected.
______
Questions Submitted to Erin M. Kern
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
sequestration
Question. The President's fiscal year 2016 request is $74 billion
above the BCA cap in total. Clearly some difficult choices need to be
made about the Defense budget and the MILCON program, which represents
a 29 percent increase over last year's historically low MILCON request.
Where are the Services taking risk in this budget request? How
manageable are the risks over the long term?
Answer. To ensure the Navy remains a balanced and ready force while
complying with reduced funding, we were compelled to make difficult
choices in PB-16, including: slowing cost growth in compensation and
benefits; deferring some ship modernization; deferring procurement of
18 of Navy's most advanced aircraft; delaying over 1,000 planned
weapons procurements; and continuing to reduce funding for base
facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.
When restoring and modernizing our infrastructure, we intend to
prioritize life/safety issues and efficiency improvements to existing
infrastructure and focus on repairing only the most critical components
of our mission critical facilities. By deferring less critical repairs,
especially for non-mission-critical facilities, we are allowing certain
facilities to degrade and causing our overall facilities maintenance
backlog to increase. We acknowledge this backlog must eventually be
addressed.
Question. How much risk have you already taken in your
infrastructure portfolio?
Answer. To comply with fiscal constraints, we are compelled to
continue accepting risk in shore infrastructure investment and
operations. We are funding the sustainment, restoration, and
modernization of our facilities only enough to arrest the immediate
decline in the overall condition of our most critical infrastructure.
Although fiscal year 2016 marks an improvement in the facilities
funding when compared to fiscal year 2015, Navy is still below the DOD
goal for facilities sustainment. Facilities sustainment also declines
in the Future Years Defense Plan in order to preserve the operational
readiness of our Fleet.
Question. What would the consequences of sequestration be for your
fiscal year 2016 MILCON programs?
Answer. As the Chief of Naval Operations has testified, a return to
sequestration in fiscal year 2016 would necessitate a revisit and
revision of the defense strategy. Required cuts will force us to
further delay critical warfighting capabilities, reduce readiness of
forces needed for contingency response, forego or stretch procurement
of ships and submarines, and further downsize weapons capacity.
Due to the funding shortfalls over the last 3 years, we have been
compelled to reduce funding in shore readiness since fiscal year 2013
to preserve the operational readiness of our fleet. As a result, many
of our shore facilities are degrading. At sequestration levels, we
expect the condition of our shore infrastructure--including piers,
runways, and mission-critical facilities--will erode. This situation
may lead to structural damage to our ships while pierside, aircraft
damage from foreign object ingestion on deteriorated runways, and
degraded communications within command centers. We run a greater risk
of mishaps, serious injury, or health hazards to personnel.
While I can't talk about the specific impacts of sequestration in
fiscal year 2016 because it would be pure conjecture, I can tell you
some concerns I have specific to MILCON based on how sequestration
affected our MILCON program in 2013. In 2013, each MILCON project was
reduced by 7 percent. With support from Congress, we were able to
reprogram MILCON dollars we had saved over several years due to a
favorable bidding climate. However, we're starting to notice that the
bidding climate is trending less favorably. So therefore, I can't be
certain that we'll have the same flexibility to fill gaps in MILCON
projects if sequestration in 2016 is applied in the same way. In that
case, we would either have to de-scope or cancel projects.
facility conditions
Question. The O&M money allocated for facilities sustainment has
declined over the last few years, and the Services can only fund 90
percent or 80 percent or even 70 percent in some cases. These decisions
may require additional MILCON in the future to replace neglected
facilities.
In general, what are the conditions of your facilities? What
percentage are failing? What percentage near failure?
Answer. Approximately 50 percent of the Navy's shore infrastructure
is in adequate condition, which can be classified as ``Good'' or
``Fair.'' However, 12 percent of Navy infrastructure is in a condition
classified as ``Failing.'' We will continue to carefully and
deliberately manage the risk we are taking in our Shore enterprise,
with the understanding that chronic underinvestment in our shore
infrastructure takes a toll on our ability to support deploying forces.
I can assure you that the safety of our people is paramount, and we
closely monitor the conditions of our facilities to ensure there are no
risks to our personnel.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Question. Indian Head has engineers strung all over the
installation in old run down buildings and needs a new engineering
complex so they can have more effective collaboration. Again, when the
budget comes out this project is not there. When do you see Indian Head
being able to upgrade their facilities?
Answer. The Navy has more than $100 million in Military
Construction (MILCON) projects currently underway at Naval Support
Activity Indian Head to improve facilities and support infrastructure,
including an fiscal year 2011 MILCON project to construct a new Agile
Chemical Facility, an fiscal year 2012 MILCON project to modernize the
utilities system, and an fiscal year 2015 project to construct an
Advanced Energetics Research Laboratory Complex. We will continue to
carefully evaluate and prioritize proposed construction projects with
all other competing requirements as we balance risk across the Navy. It
is our goal to provide the greatest warfighting readiness and
capability with the limited resources available.
Question. What are the consequences when a mission as important as
Indian Head's is forced to be carried out in aging infrastructure?
Answer. The important work being performed across Navy's shore
enterprise, including the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head,
is critical to the Navy's mission success. Nevertheless, to comply with
today's fiscal constraints, we are compelled to continue accepting risk
in shore infrastructure investment and operations to preserve the
operational readiness of our Fleet. We acknowledge that degraded
infrastructure can impact a command as it performs its mission, and we
will continue to carefully and deliberately manage this risk as we
invest in our shore enterprise.
Question. How does this help us recruit?
Answer. Navy is compelled to continue accepting risk in shore
infrastructure investment and operations to comply with fiscal
constraints. We will continue to carefully and deliberately manage the
risk we are taking in our Shore enterprise, with the understanding that
chronic underinvestment in our shore infrastructure takes a toll on our
ability to support deploying forces.
______
Questions Submitted to David R. Clifton
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
sequestration
Question. The President's fiscal year 2016 request is $74 billion
above the BCA cap in total. Clearly some difficult choices need to be
made about the Defense budget and the MILCON program, which represents
a 29 percent increase over last year's historically low MILCON request.
Where are the Services taking risk in this budget request? How
manageable are the risks over the long term?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget represents the bare
minimum at which the Marine Corps can meet current Defense Strategic
Guidance, prioritizing near-term readiness at the expense of
modernization and facilities maintenance. Today, approximately half of
the Marine Corps' home station units are at an unacceptable level of
readiness. Investment in the future is less than what is required, and
infrastructure sustainment is budgeted at 81 percent of the
requirement, well below the Department of Defense standard of 90
percent. While assuming this risk helps us to meet near-term fiscal
challenges, it will only serve to drive up costs over the long term as
our degraded facilities become more expensive to repair. Additionally,
the Marine Corps has significantly reduced many of the programs that
have helped to maintain morale and family readiness through over a
decade of war, and the deployment-to-dwell ratio is being maintained at
a very challenging level. The operating forces are deploying for up to
7 months and returning home for 14 or less months before redeploying.
Question. How much risk have you already taken in your
infrastructure portfolio?
Answer. In order to protect near-term readiness the Marine Corps
will continue to take risk in sustaining current infrastructure in
support of operational readiness. The fiscal year 2016 budget funds 81
percent of the OSD facilities sustainment model requirement for the
Marine Corps. The OSD guidance is to fund 90 percent of the
requirement.
The Marine Corps is aware that underfunding facilities sustainment
increases the rate of degradation of Marine Corps infrastructure, which
leads to more costly repair, restoration and new construction in the
future.
Question. What would the consequences of sequestration be for your
fiscal year 2016 MILCON programs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2016 President's budget represents the bare
minimum at which the Marine Corps can meet its obligations under the
current Defense Strategic Guidance. This budget prioritizes near-term
readiness at the expense of modernization and facilities. In order to
ensure the readiness of our deployed forces under sequestration, we
would be forced to assume even more risk in long-term infrastructure
sustainment and investment in new facilities.
Sequestration would significantly degrade the condition of our
installation infrastructure, including training, runways, and mission-
critical facilities. It would also lead to the delay or cancellation of
needed military construction and sustainment, restoration, and
modernization projects. The degradation of our facilities would
accelerate, compelling the use of inadequate and obsolete facilities by
Marines and their families as well as our civilian workforce.
facility conditions
Question. The O&M money allocated for facilities sustainment has
declined over the last few years, and the Services can only fund 90
percent or 80 percent or even 70 percent in some cases. These decisions
may require additional MILCON in the future to replace neglected
facilities.
In general, what are the conditions of your facilities? What
percentage are failing? What percentage near failure?
Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 2014, the average condition of
facilities across the Marine Corps is rated as fair. 6.34 percent of
Marine Corps facilities are in failing condition. 10.61 percent of
Marine Corps facilities are in poor (near failure) condition.
______
Questions Submitted to Brigadier General Timothy S. Green
Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
sequestration
Question. The President's fiscal year 2016 request is $74 billion
above the BCA cap in total. Clearly some difficult choices need to be
made about the Defense budget and the MILCON program, which represents
a 29 percent increase over last year's historically low MILCON request.
Where are the Services taking risk in this budget request? How
manageable are the risks over the long term?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2016 President's budget request, the Air
Force begins to ameliorate the impacts of risk taken in previous years
by increasing funding in installation support, military construction,
and facilities sustainment.
This President's budget request takes a critical step toward
recovering the Air Force. However, even at fiscal year 2016 President's
budget levels, the Air Force remains stressed to do what the Nation
asks of us. To truly reverse the erosion of American airpower requires
sustained commitment, stability, and the decision-space to invest each
taxpayer dollar where it can best deliver the most combat power.
Question. How much risk have you already taken in your
infrastructure portfolio?
Answer. In its fiscal year 2015 President's budget request, the Air
Force attempted to strike the delicate balance between a ready force
for today with a modern force for tomorrow while also recovering from
the impacts of sequestration and adjusting to budget reductions. To
help achieve that balance, the Air Force elected to accept additional
risk in installation support, military construction, and facilities
sustainment in fiscal year 2015. However, in its fiscal year 2016
request, the Air Force begins to ameliorate the impacts of that risk by
increasing funding for installations in all three of the areas noted
above.
Question. What would the consequences of sequestration be for your
fiscal year 2016 MILCON programs?
Answer. Without relief from the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) in
fiscal year 2016, the risk assumed to Air Force infrastructure could
have severe impacts to mission readiness. At BCA levels, the Air Force
would be forced to reduce military construction funding resulting in
reduced support to combatant commands, reduce funding to upgrade the
nuclear enterprise and support for new weapon systems beddowns, and
eliminate permanent party dormitories from the fiscal year 2016
President's budget request.
A sequester-level budget would undermine the Department's ability
to meet the current defense strategy, have consequences to national
security at a time when our military is stretched on a whole range of
issues. Therefore, the Department urges Congress to support the budget
the President has put forward, which will avoid harmful BCA reductions.
facility conditions
Question. The O&M money allocated for facilities sustainment has
declined over the last few years, and the services can only fund 90
percent or 80 percent or even 70 percent in some cases. These decisions
may require additional MILCON in the future to replace neglected
facilities.
In general, what are the conditions of your facilities? What
percentage are failing? What percentage near failure?
Answer. The average facilities condition index (FCI) for all Air
Force facilities is 92. Any facility with a FCI less than 60 is
considered to be ``failing.'' On the basis of plant replacement value,
5.8 percent have a FCI of 59 or less. Another 2.1 percent have a FCI
between 60 and 69.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
wisconsin air national guard
Question. The dedicated Airmen of the Wisconsin Air National Guard
perform a dual State-Federal operational role; consequently, they must
always be ready to defend the homeland or deploy abroad. Access to
high-quality installations is a critical part of maintaining that
readiness. Accordingly, I am concerned that the Air National Guard has
not programmed any military construction funding in Wisconsin over the
last 5 years. Furthermore, there is only one Air National Guard
military construction project in Wisconsin in the current Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP). In other words, that is one project over a 10-
year period for an entire State.
Please describe the impact on readiness and modernization, if any,
on the Air National Guard's military construction program for Wisconsin
for the period fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2020. If there is an
impact, please describe the level of risk associated with such impact.
Answer. The fiscal year 2010-2020 period for the Wisconsin Air
National Guard (ANG) includes the $4.2 million military construction
(MILCON) project to Add/Alter Building 500 for Medical Training at
Truax Field. This project will improve the condition of the facilities
used by the 115th Medical Group, a sub-unit of the 115th Fighter Wing
assigned to the base. This includes construction of 5,900 square feet
and alteration of 8,500 square feet of facility space. The project
supports the training of medical professionals assigned to the unit,
the medical readiness evaluation of military members assigned, and the
full operational capability beddown of an Expeditionary Medical
Support-Consequence Management function which can deploy to support
emergency medical requirements for the Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, and Nuclear Emergency Response Force Package unit
assigned to Wisconsin; a domestic operations capability. The level of
risk associated with not providing this facility project is generally
assessed as moderate to significant impact to assigned training
mission.
Also, in October 2012, the ANG completed a fiscal year 2010 MILCON
project to provide an addition to the Corrosion Control Hangar at
General Mitchell Air Guard Station, Milwaukee. This project greatly
enhanced the 128th Air Refueling Wing's capability to maintain the
assigned aging KC-135 aerial refueling tanker fleet.
Question. Are there existing Air National Guard military
construction requirements in Wisconsin that remain unprogrammed and
unfunded because of current limited budgetary resources? If yes, please
describe those projects in order of priority.
Answer. Each year the Air National Guard (ANG) gathers facility
recapitalization requirements from the 54 States and Territories by
surveying State Adjutant Generals for their highest priorities. The Air
Force provides a scoring model used to prioritize all Military
Construction (MILCON) requirements across Components.
The Adjutant General of Wisconsin submitted the $4.2 million Truax
Field Add/Alter Medical Training Facility MILCON project as the State's
highest priority for the current FYDP. This project is included in
fiscal year 2020 of the fiscal year 2016 President's budget FYDP.
Question. The sole Wisconsin military construction project in the
current FYDP is a fiscal year 2020-scheduled $4.2 million addition/
alteration of Building 500 for medical training at Dane County
Regional-Truax Field, the home of the 115th Fighter Wing of the
Wisconsin Air National Guard. This project reflects the importance of
Truax Field to supporting the readiness and quality of life of our
servicemembers and their families. I appreciate the inclusion of this
critical project in the FYDP, but I also recognize that the FYDP--while
a statement of Air National Guard priorities--is subject to change.
Does the Air National Guard plan to change the funding or schedule
of the Building 500 project? Please explain.
Answer. The $4.2 million military construction (MILCON) project to
add to and alter the Medical Training facility at Truax Field provides
adequately sized and appropriately configured facilities for the
medical training functions of the 115th Fighter Wing. This includes
construction of 5,900 square feet and alteration of 8,500 square feet
of facility space, and allows the unit to vacate three buildings, when
completed. The project remains a high priority for the Air National
Guard (ANG).
Question. What is the project schedule, including the expected date
of completion?
Answer. At the present time, the ANG has no plans to change the
funding or schedule for the project. A project scheduled for fiscal
year 2020 construction would be expected to enter design by fiscal year
2019, allowing the design to be completed by fiscal year 2020. Given
fiscal year 2020 funding support from Congress, the project could begin
construction in the spring of 2020, and be ready for occupancy
approximately 12 months later.
Question. How does the project address Air National Guard
requirements?
Answer. The project supports the training of medical professionals
assigned to the unit, the medical readiness evaluation of military
members assigned, and the full operational capability beddown of an
Expeditionary Medical Support-Consequence Management function which can
deploy to support emergency medical requirements in a contingency
environment.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kirk. We will be having a hearing on Thursday,
March 19, on the Veterans Administration at 10:30 a.m.
With that, we will adjourn.
[Whereupon, at 3:39 p.m., Tuesday, March 17, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene Thursday, March 19,
which was later postponed to Thursday, March 26, at a time
subject to the call of the Chair.]