[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 1998
========================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS
RON PACKARD, California, Chairman
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CHET EDWARDS, Texas
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Elizabeth C. Dawson, Henry E. Moore, and Mary C. Arnold, Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 5
Page
Overview.......................................................... 1
Defense-Wide Questions for the Record......................... 123
Housing Privatization............................................. 175
Quality of Life................................................... 231
Army.............................................................. 337
Navy.............................................................. 521
Air Force......................................................... 615
Outside Witnesses................................................. 751
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-717 O WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,
Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
RALPH REGULA, Ohio LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
JERRY LEWIS, California JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico JULIAN C. DIXON, California
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia VIC FAZIO, California
TOM DeLAY, Texas W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
JIM KOLBE, Arizona STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
RON PACKARD, California ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
JAMES T. WALSH, New York DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina NANCY PELOSI, California
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania
HENRY BONILLA, Texas ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan NITA M. LOWEY, New York
DAN MILLER, Florida JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey ED PASTOR, Arizona
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington CHET EDWARDS, Texas
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998
----------
Thursday, February 27, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WITNESSES
JOHN J. HAMRE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
HENRY SODANO, DIRECTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. Let's begin. I want to start, as much as
possible, our hearings on time. So hopefully each Member will
make an effort to be here on time, and let us start.
I would like to introduce all of our new committee members.
Of course I don't need to introduce Bill Hefner, who has been
on the committee, chairing the committee for some time, and he
certainly is not new. I am extremely happy and fortunate to
have you with us. Introduce yourself and tell us where you are
from.
Mr. Edwards. Chet Edwards from the 11th District of
Congress and formerly a member of the National Security
Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee.
Mr. Packard. And now you are on the Appropriations
Committee and we are extremely grateful that you are on this
subcommittee.
Mr. Wamp. I am Zach Wamp from Tennessee's Third District
first elected to the 104th Congress. I served on
Transportation, Science and Small Business Committees, and I am
extremely grateful to be a member of the House Appropriations
Committee, and particularly this subcommittee.
Mr. Packard. I am delighted to have Mr. Steny Hoyer with
us. Steny, would you kindly tell them what district you
represent.
Mr. Hoyer. Fifth District of Maryland.
Mr. Packard. We are delighted to have each Member here.
I mentioned that we would like to start on time in our
hearings. And with your permission, Mr. Hefner, and if you are
not here, I am going to start anyway. Is that all right?
Mr. Hefner. You are the Chairman.
Mr. Packard. We would like to start our hearings on time.
We will hold to the 5-minute rule. I am not going to be
quite like my Chairman on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
He brought his little sand hourglass and when the sand wore out
you were done. We will try to hold to the 5-minute rule. And if
you need more time, we will go a second round or whatever is
needed, but we will not cut you off or shortchange you on the
ability to ask any questions.
And where it is advisable or possible, we would encourage
you to submit questions for the record and then our witnesses
can respond to them in that manner, too. But again, we won't
shortchange anybody on questions, it is that we would like to
pass a round under under the 5-minute rule.
I don't have a prepared opening statement that I am going
to submit. Incidentally, on prepared statements certainly I
will recognize the Ranking Minority for a statement in every
hearing. Then if any of you desire to make statements, we will
certainly honor that desire, but we will not expect statements
from every Member at every hearing. But certainly you are
welcome to present a written or a verbal statement.
Let me say that I am very pleased to be here on this
subcommittee, and to Chair it is above and beyond my
expectations, and I am very pleased to have that opportunity to
work with each of you and work with the witnesses. I have
already met with most of the leaders of the agencies that come
under the jurisdiction of this committee, and I am very
impressed with what I have learned so far and with the people I
have had the privilege of meeting.
There are some fundamental things that I would hope we can
accomplish in this next 2-year period, and let me just outline
those for the benefit of the Members and for those here. I
would like to encourage a shift in what has been, to my
knowledge, the procedures of the past in terms of budgeting and
the submission of budgets.
I have learned that it is quite common for the different
services to submit budgets that are low--balled in some areas
and honest in other areas and then they expect the committee to
``plus'' up or to increase in those areas where they feel the
committee will strengthen their budget. They intentionally come
in with what I would consider a budget that is not realistic,
knowing that they will receive the funds that will upgrade them
to a level at which they feel comfortable.
One of the first questions I intend to ask every witness
who comes here, in response to their budget submission, is are
you able and willing to live with the budget you have
submitted? And if they are not, maybe not this year but
certainly in the future years, I will expect them to say yes to
that question. I don't want anyone to submit a budget that they
can't live with, that they feel we will ``plus them up'' in
those areas where they low-ball.
If we cannot have honesty in our working relationships,
then it is simply not going to work well. I fully expect that
the budgets that will be submitted by the different services
are going to be honest budgets, period. And then we will work
together to try to improve or to make the changes that might be
necessary to meet the needs of this committee or to meet the
needs of the services. But for heaven's sake, we have got to be
honest with each other, and I don't want a bogus budget.
This year is different because, again, I think they have
gone by the procedures of the past. I would like to correct
that myself.
Secondly, we would like, and I am asking every service,and
I hope that this committee will be completely supportive of that
process, to start a 5-year planning process. We will not have a
multiyear budgeting process. I think that it is just virtually
impossible to expect that. But there is no reason why every service
that comes under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee cannot do a 5-
year plan as to where they want to go and where they want to be in 5
years. And then each year, as we review their budget submission, we
will have them update that so that we will be working on a continuous
5-year plan.
It is the only way I think that we can have continuity in
budgeting, and I think it is the only way that we will be able
to develop a construction program for the different services
that will continually meet our responsibility to fund the
highest priority for construction.
Thirdly, I believe in privatization. The previous
subcommittee that I chaired made some significant strides in
moving towards privatizing things on Capitol Hill. I served as
Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee which dealt
with a lot of the activities that take place right here in our
buildings on Capitol Hill, and we moved rather substantively
into the privatization effort.
We believe that privatization in military construction is
not necessarily a wave of the future, but it certainly should
be an option to be explored in almost every case. Where it
doesn't fit I would hope that the experts would be able to tell
us, it just isn't going to work in this instance. But where it
can work, we hope that it would be very seriously looked upon
as an alternative.
We simply have not had the money nor will we ever have the
money I believe we need to keep pace with improving our housing
and infrastructure without leveraging the private sector. We
think that we should always have privatization out there as a
possible option.
And fourthly, and lastly, I don't think this is any
different than what the committee has done in the past. I will
have as one of my highest priorities, and I think it has been
in the past, emphasis on quality of life issues, housing
issues, barracks issues, workplace quality of life, but
particularly housing and living quality of life and workplace
quality of life. Those will be a high priority.
I think they have been a high priority on this committee in
the past, which means that a goal will be to certainly
emphasize living quarters for our families and for our single
service personnel. It costs a lot of money to train our
military personnel. They have come to the services on a
volunteer basis.
If we are going to keep them after they have been trained,
we have to provide them a decent place to live and decent
facilities. And if we lose them after their very first 4-year
tour, we lose a huge amount of money in terms of training and
preparing them. And if we can retain people because we provide
them not only good benefits but also a good quality of life,
that is important.
So I have taken a little more time than I intended to, and
outlined, my fundamental goals as Chairman, but I hope that
they parallel your goals.
With those comments, let me recognize our Ranking Member,
Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is going to be a
pleasure to work with you on this committee. This is probably
one of the least partisan committees in the entire House, and I
think from the staff wise all the way through to the Members
that we have proven that over and over.
Just recently we have had roll call votes. We didn't used
to have roll call votes. We can finish our bill in about 20
minutes. And that proves the rule. We never have enough money,
and for the last few years our focus has been on quality of
life. They have established in the authorizing committee a
subcommittee on quality of life. They have not done that.
We also established one on burden sharing, which was a
focus of this committee. And years ago we started talking about
burden sharing and this sort of thing. So this is a very good
committee and we have it within our grasp to do some great
things for our military people and for quality of life.
Because, as you say, if the people are not happy in their work,
they are not going to stay there. And I think that we have to
work closely together here. And I do want to stress a little
bit about what you said, Mr. Chairman, about setting
priorities, budgeting.
And General Joulwan this morning was talking about how
important our Guard and Reserves and all these folks are, and I
want to get into that a little bit. But I want to welcome you
to the committee today, Mr. Chairman, and congratulate you and
wish you a good tenure as Chairman of the Military Construction
Subcommittee.
And if we have to travel some, well, I would hope we
wouldn't go anywhere where there are golf courses.
Mr. Packard. We will try not to.
Mr. Hefner. I want you to keep that in mind, if you would.
Mr. Packard. Where there are no golf courses, you say?
Mr. Hefner. Absolutely.
Mr. Packard. I don't think he means it, either.
Mr. Hefner. I am on record.
Mr. Packard. I want to introduce Mr. Roger Wicker from
Mississippi, also.
With that, I would like to introduce our first witness. But
before I do that, I think all of you received from the staff a
list of our hearing schedule. Our next hearing will be next
Tuesday in the afternoon at 1:30 and then they will proceed
from there. We should be done by March 13th. We plan to move
quickly, as this committee has always done.
Is there anyone else who would like to make an opening
statement?
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I would not make a statement, but
when I listen to you ask about living within their budget, it
reminds me that the way the budget process works, it has many
levels to live within.
Some may ask the question who may be very willing to live
within the budget that they submit to their department heads or
to their agency. But as it goes up, of course, it is pared down
as they try to meet fiscal realities such that the answer that
you get may be that they are willing to live within the budget
that they submitted to their agency, but they are going to have
a tough time living within the budget that OMB and the
President ultimately sent down here. Ihave had that experience
on my other subcommittees.
Mr. Packard. I think you will find that this committee will
be inclined to provide as much as we are able to provide with
our budget constraints, and so we are not looking to decrease
or to lower the commitment to our military construction
responsibilities.
I think you will find, at least to me I hope, most members
of the committee are anxious to keep that level as high as we
economically can. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I will not make it a habit of
making opening statements because I would rather hear from the
witnesses, but this being our first meeting of this
subcommittee and my attendance here on military construction
issues, I would like to underscore your comment about the
importance of quality of life.
I happen to represent an Army installation with over 40,000
soldiers. And, as most of you know, about 65 percent of the
Army is married today. On average, they spend 138 days away
from their families. And it seems to me that if we cannot
ensure quality housing, health care, and education for military
children, there is no way we are going to maintain a ready
defense force.
I think what we are doing in this subcommittee is just as
important as many of the expensive weapons programs that will
be debated in other committees. So I want to commend you for
your focus on quality of life issues and look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Wicker, any opening statement?
Mr. Wicker. No, thank you.
Mr. Packard. Mr. David Hobson has arrived. David
represents--what district, David?
Mr. Hobson. Seventh.
Mr. Packard. I appreciate you being here, David.
And I might announce that Chairman Livingston has appointed
David Hobson as the Vice Chair of this committee. So I don't
know what that means, David.
Mr. Hobson. I don't either.
Mr. Hefner. He is in charge.
Mr. Packard. But you need to know that because, obviously,
it is a very important appointment.
Mr. Hoyer. He is interested in your welfare.
Mr. Packard. It is truly a distinct pleasure to have Doctor
John Hamre here, the Comptroller of the Department of Defense,
who was appointed by the President in 1993. He is the under
secretary for the preparation and execution of the defense
budget and the management and improvement programs. As
Comptroller, he oversees both the programmatic and financial
sides of the defense budget.
My first exposure to him has been a delightful experience.
I have really learned to admire him and appreciate what he does
by working with him. He is very familiar with the process. He
served as a Senate staff assistant on the Armed Services
Committee. He served in the Congressional Budget Office. He
received his Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins. So he is certainly
qualified for his current position.
We are extremely delighted to have you here as our very
first witness. We are looking forward to your testimony.
As with all witnesses, if I get your testimony the day
before, I will read your testimony completely. I have done
that. I have made significant markings and notes on it. I would
prefer that you don't read it back to me because I have already
read it, and I hope that most of the committee members have.
So we would encourage all witnesses not to read their
testimony but to give us verbally what they feel we need to
know above and beyond their testimony and highlight their
written testimony as they wish.
Dr. Hamre, it is yours.
statement of the honorable john j. hamre
Mr. Hamre. Sir, thank you so much. It is a real honor to be
invited to be here, and I appreciate your letting me make it
more of a conversation because this is such an unusual hearing
room where we can really talk rather than pretend like it is a
big dais. I am also a little----
Mr. Packard. Can you speak up a little bit?
Mr. Hamre. I am sorry.
I am always a little intimidated when I come to the House
because, yes, I have worked in the Senate but that was because
I couldn't get a job over here. I did work for 10 years for the
Congress, and I believed very firmly then and I believe very
firmly now, I have never seen a good budget that was delivered
that wasn't improved through congressional oversight, and I
believe that very strongly. And that certainly has been the
case the last several years with this committee, and I know it
will be that way again.
Now, let me say, when I say that, I am not up here trolling
for dollars. I am not casting and asking you to add money to
our budget. We are prepared to live with the budget we
submitted. I spoke with Henry Sodano, who is my senior civil
servant who really knows what is going on--and he can't throw
his voice more than 7 feet, so that is why he has to sit back
here.
We agree that we can live with the budget we have given
you, but I also believe there are probably some soft spots in
our budget that you are going to find when you scrub it, and
there are probably some things that you are disappointed with
that we have failed to do that you are going to want to take
care of. And I think that is all fair.
I feel honestly that the program budgets have always been
improved by congressional oversight, and I mean that very
sincerely. Sir, I would like to tell you very honestly, there
are some problems with what we have submitted to you, not in
this budget, but in the overall process that has been used over
the years to build budgets.
There are a lot of people in our business that do tend to
look at preparing the budget as the first step for coming up
here and asking for yet more. I remember, I spent some time in
a seminary and I had a professor that said, us Lutherans, we
like to sin, and God likes to forgive, and it really is a very
good relationship.
Mr. Packard. Very good relationship.
Mr. Hefner. Do they need any more members?
Mr. Hamre. And I think that it is analogous to the way we
have frequently treated this committee. We have tended to not
ask for everything so we could come up here and plead for and
ask you to help us out and you give us more money.
I strongly agree with what you said, we ought to be up here
saying we can live with what we asked for and be honest about
what we are asking for, make our case, try to defend it where
we think it is good, try to fight off cuts where we do not
think they are appropriate, and then tell you honestly where we
think it isbest to add dollars.
I very much admire what Mrs. Vucanovich did over the last 2
years. She brought real discipline to the system by insisting
that things be in our 5-year plan. And as you know, we didn't
have a very good 5-year plan in the past. I think that was a
very constructive step.
I personally support very much what you have indicated is
one of your priorities, Mr. Chairman, which is to get good,
detailed planning for the MILCON budget in the Department of
Defense.
I have got to be up front and say, in the 3 years that I
have been there--and I run both the programming and the
budgeting side--we have never conducted a program review for
MILCON Projects in the out years. We do very detailed out year
reviews of what our strategy should be, what our procurement
ought to be for new weapon systems.
We have never conducted a good program review for MILCON,
and we need to start doing that. And I am going to take your
comment here as a direction for us to get started with the
planning process early on our side. I think you got us started
on that last year when you asked us to make sure the things
that were added were in the 5-year plan, and we insisted on
getting those FYDPs from the military department.
So I can't honestly tell you that what I have programmed
for MILCON in the out years is adequate. It may not be. It is
going down and it is because we haven't done a very good job
integrating it. So I take your direction as a very significant
target, and we will be conducting a thorough review of the out
year MILCON program.
I also know that this committee is a bit disappointed with
the level that we have put in the budget we have submitted to
you. It is very honest and fair that you would compare it
against the levels that you appropriated last year. Of course,
you had more money and you did add funds. Everything you added,
frankly, was very helpful.
However, our point of comparison is what we had programmed
for FY 1998 from last year's 5-year plan. While we didn't go up
or down, we were able to hold the line as we were integrating
priorities.
The highest priority for the department, frankly, was on
procurement of weapon systems. So when we got an additional
$2.6 billion from the President at the very end of the budget,
we put it into procurement. We did not put it into MILCON.
When we look over this program right now, you have the
right to say, well, if it is such a high priority for you to do
quality of life, why is it down in the Navy? Those are very
fair questions to put to us. All I can tell you is we went
through a process where we did try to integrate priorities
across the board and we just had to do something about our
modernization attempts.
That doesn't mean that we do not think we ought to address
exactly what you have put in front of us, and I will do that. I
especially welcome your call for a detailed 5-year plan that we
will be working with you.
Sir, your comment about privatization, we very much agree
with you. We have conducted a series of studies. We are
convinced that the private sector gets 30 percent more output
for every dollar they invest in family housing than we get as a
Federal Government. They are more effective at it, more
efficient. They tend to use more modern designs and materials.
They aren't blocked by cumbersome contracting processes. We
think there is a lot more efficiency using private sector
techniques.
This committee was very generous in supporting our request
for new authorities. We have used some and have several
projects underway. We have 20 or so projects pending right now.
There are a few that are already under way that appear very
promising. We do need to carry through on them. And we think,
as you have said, there is a greater opportunity for using the
energy and innovation in the private sector to get more output
for the dollars that we are asking for.
Finally, if I may comment on quality of life. This
committee has a very proud tradition of placing priority on
quality of life that even predates Secretary Perry's hard work.
Look at the pictures that you have chosen to hang in this
hearing room as evidence of your priorities. It has been the
quality of life over the years.
And we agree with you. If we are going to spend a half
billion dollars to train a pilot, if we are going to spend
$1\1/2\ million to train a good captain to run a company, you
can't afford to have him get fed up after 8 years and say, I am
out of this outfit. We are investing in people, and a big part
of that has got to be the quality of life that we give them
when they are in the military.
So I think carrying on the tradition of this committee
started under you, Mr. Hefner, carried on by Mrs. Vucanovich
and you Mr. Packard, we need to collectively find ways to
strengthen the quality of life through this program.
I strongly agree with what you said, Mr. Edwards. It turns
out that 75 percent of our housing stock is 30 years old, 75
percent. And we are not replacing it--we are replacing it on
something like a 50-year cycle. That is just not adequate. We
have got to do better than that.
So it has to be a combination of us gettingadditional
resources into this area through better 5-year planning, real program
planning for MILCON, and getting better leverage for those dollars
using private sector innovation and energy so we can get more output.
Sir, I would stop here, if that is all right, and use this
opportunity to address questions that you and the committee
have.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Doctor.
[Prepared statement of Hon. John J. Hamre follows:]
[Pages 9 - 15--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Each of us should speak as loudly as we can.
Our stenographer is having difficulty hearing.
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Hefner first for
questioning, if he doesn't mind.
Mr. Hefner. I don't have very many questions.
When we talk about budgets, it has always been a bone of
contention with us and we always felt like the military
construction was not a sexy item. Nobody ever goes and cuts for
renovation of barracks and what have you as they do with B-1 or
B-2 or submarine or aircraft carriers. And the problem we
always have here is I guess we are a little bit cynical, we get
the idea that they say, hey, we will send that budget over. And
the Members that have bases in their area that have concerns,
they will take care of the housing and stuff, they will eat it
up. And that used to be the case.
But this budget that we have had for the past 2 years has
actually been stagnant at best. I can remember when we had
actual dollars more than we have had in the last 3 or 4 years.
So this committee I think has done a remarkable job with what
we have had to work with.
One question I would like to ask you.
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir.
guard and reserve funding levels
Mr. Hefner. It has to do with the Guard and Reserve,
particularly the Army, on their military construction. Now
General Joulwan this morning talked about--he was very
eloquent, very positive about the Bosnia operation, and he said
from the military standpoint, on a scale from 1 to 10, he would
give it about a 9, which is remarkable. We lost one person and
that was to an accident.
But he also talked about the importance of the Guard and
Reserve forces in the Bosnian operation, and he said he would
just like to give them a special award. It is my understanding
that the Guard and Reserve make up 30 or 40 percent of our
total force today but we don't expend anywhere near that on
their budget, and they are an essential part of our total
force.
Shouldn't we have a better, more professional budget system
to deal with the Guard and Reserve?
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir, I really do think we should. Last
year, Congress told us and actually put some hooks in our flesh
about putting the more forthright program together for the
Guard.
Frankly, when it came forward to us in the budget proposal
from the services, it wasn't very good and we sent it back. We
worked with them and we got it beefed up. And I wouldn't say it
is particularly strong even right now.
I think that is very much the tradition that we had where,
don't ask for it, we like to sin, God likes to forgive, we like
to come in short, Congress will give us more money, we will
work all that out. But as you said, I think those days are
gone.
When I look at the congressional budget resolution where
the dollars are below the President's budget request and both
sides are bound and determined to get to a zero deficit by
2002, I don't think it is going to be easy to get more money.
So I think if we are going to honor the total force concept, we
have got to do a better job on our side of building a program
that makes sense, and that we can defend to you.
I would say we have a hard time right now saying that
program is adequate. We can execute it and it does reflect
balanced priorities, but it probably was short of what we would
really like to do in the long run.
Mr. Hefner. I hope you would keep that in mind. The
Chairman has already issued the warning there are not going to
be add-ons, somebody coming in and saying, Mr. Chairman, I need
an armory in my district because we have to have some place to
have games and stuff. There is not going to be armories unless
it is authorized and it is 35 percent designed and ready to go.
So I just would appreciate you giving that some thought.
Mr. Packard. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment on
that? I think you captured the essence of what will make all of
this work. If they do their planning on a long-term basis, a 5-
year basis, and that planning process obviously should require
them to put the highest priority at the top of the list, it
then gives us good reason to say or ask, is it in the 5-year
plan?
If it is not, it either has not been among the highest
priorities and, therefore, maybe should not be funded at the
expense of other needs, or the 5-year plan needs to be
reevaluated. And I have no problem with that reevaluating
because some things will drop off of the 5-year plan and other
things might be added because circumstances change. But it will
help them to submit a budget, an honest budget, if it is based
upon a long-term plan that helps them develop their budget
requirements.
We hope that we can insist on that. And if a message can
get back to all of the agencies that come under this
committee's jurisdiction that we are going to expect their
budget proposal to fit and match their planning process, and if
they don't do their planning then their budget is really going
to be a hit and miss thing.
I think that the Guard and Reserve, particularly the Guard,
facilities' bill in the past has been put together, at least
from this committee, by virtue of who requests an armory or a
facility and not so much their long-term plannedpriorities, and
I would hope that we could change that.
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir. We have had too much history where the
Guard can't get projects they think are crucial for their
mission into the program. That is something that we need to be
working on on our end.
There is a particular problem with Reserve components. They
feel that they are not adequately represented to express their
needs inside the building. That is something that we do have to
tackle to make sure they are fair and full partners in the
building that process, and that we don't simply treat them as
stepsons or stepdaughters and then make them come up to you and
say they have been cheated and need to be bailed out.
Mr. Hefner. I don't have any further questions.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Doctor. It is nice to have you here.
You are absolutely right. Over the years that is what has
happened, the Guard is left out and people say we can go to the
Members and we will get that runway or whatever the zoning for.
I know that for a fact because I have done it. That is the only
way you can get it done.
I do want to thank you, though. We had a building last
time, the acquisition support facility at Wright-Patterson with
which we worked with the Secretary. Now I guess it is in the
program and we are happy to see that happening, and I want to
thank you all for that.
defense energy deficiency act
I also wanted to talk to you about two other things, that
they are somewhat germane to what we are talking about here. It
is called the Defense Energy Deficiency Act. I don't know if
you are aware of that or not, but we used to call it the FAR
bill but we changed it around. That does some infrastructure
things for bases that we can get that done.
I don't know whether your office is working on this
project, or what you think of it. It said they needed some way
to get around the FAR to get this energy stuff going. When it
comes to the infrastructure on some of these bases, you have no
way to fund it anymore. So is there any way you could help us
on that?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, I think you are exactly right. First of
all, a lot of the utilities on our bases are in poor shape.
They are old and very hard to get funding for something you
can't see. So things like transformers and utilities and
pipelines and everything else, are in poor shape and decaying.
We do have a proposal. We would like, frankly, to be able
to go to the private sector to basically have them buy and
operate some of this stuff and get it faster than we otherwise
could get it if we were going to go through regular and normal
channels. We have a legislative proposal this year to do that.
We would be glad to sit down and work with you if there is
anything we can do to convince you on that or make it a better
proposal.
Mr. Hobson. Kenny, what is the name of that guy--Millard
Carr is the engineer that has been working on this. This came
out of the Defense Department and we will try to work with you
on it.
Mr. Hamre. Believe me, we will do that. Mr. Sodano, when he
gets back, will link up with Carr and go through it. We would
very much like to find ways to expand the use of the private
sector in helping us modernize our utility systems.
Mr. Hobson. I can tell you, my local utility is not real
happy with me, but I think it is the right thing for the long
term. So I am willing to take the political hit from the local
community because I think long term across the country it is
what should be done.
wright-patterson afb: simulator
I have one other question and, that is, what happened with
the simulator at Wright-Patterson, the $7 million?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, the money is there. Nothing is going to
happen to it. I have been holding back in every one of these
cases. I am going to make sure I am not going to disrupt an
underlying program or cause greater cost over time. However, we
have a problem with Bosnia. I have a $2 billion Bosnia bill and
I do not have any way to pay for it.
The administration has proposed a supplemental with
offsetting rescissions. I know that sort of thing is not going
to get approved, and I am working with the committees to make
sure we can find a way to pay for that. By Monday I will call
you and see where it stands. And if there is anything I am not
doing that is disrupting it, believe me, I will make sure that
that does not happen.
base realignment and closure savings
Mr. Hobson. The last thing relates to Base Realignment and
Closure, BRAC. And I know you discussed a little bit of it in
here. Are you really seeing any savings?
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir, we are definitely seeing savings. We
go through a process of analyzing them every year. We believe
right now the study state annual savings associated with the
four rounds of BRAC is going to be about $5.6 billion.
Let me say that I am nervous that a lot of the
environmental costs right now may not have been adequately
covered. Of course, we would have those costs one way or
another, whether we closed the base or not because we can't
avoid our liabilities associated with cleanup. But frankly,
those bills are probably going to end up higher which would
lower the amount scored against BRAC. But we are getting honest
savings of about $5\1/2\ billion a year.
May I use this opportunity to say, I know there is a lot of
concern about another round of base closures.
Mr. Hobson. That was my next question, so go ahead. I have
been through this twice.
Mr. Hamre. And you have probably seen the darker side of
the forest, as I recall from our conversation.
Sir, everything right now is on the table. We are looking
at the Quadrennial Defense Review. We are looking at
infrastructure reduction and what we have to do.
Secretary Cohen has been very explicit by saying, don't
come forward and pretend you can fix this problem with rounds
of BRAC. ``Let's have three more rounds of BRAC and fix this
problem.'' That is unrealistic. We are going to have to find
out all across the board in a systematic way what does it take
for us to align our program and our resources. That may
necessitate another round of BRAC.
If it does, of course we can't do that on our own. We have
to get your permission to do that. We will lay that out in
detail. It is very clear, our force structure is downabout 30
percent and our infrastructure is down only about 15 percent. Having
said that, there is an awful lot of infrastructure that, frankly, is
for mobilization expansion. I mean, I may not need anywhere near the
kind of range capacity that I currently have, but if we ever have to
mobilize, that would become one of our primary mobilization centers. I
just can't get rid of it now because there is an artificial mismatch
because infrastructure end strength--so we are going to have to think
it through. It will have to be reasoned very carefully.
We need to know what our long-term strategy is, what our
force structure is going to be, and we need to have a real 5-
year planning process for MILCON. I would argue that last piece
has not been in place and we need to put it in place.
I am not predicting that there will be rounds but I also
have to tell you it could come out of the process when all is
said and done. Of course, it all has to be with your
permission.
overseas housing
Mr. Hobson. I have seen some of this housing overseas. I
hope Mr. Packard will carry on overseas and in these bases, we
need to try to bring up some of this housing. What we are
asking them to do now is just not the right thing to do.
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir. And especially in Korea. We tried
putting some more money in this year for Korean housing,
because we thought we were not going to occupy for more than 5
years at the end of the Korean War and they are still in them,
and it really is embarrassing what some of those facilities are
like. I appreciate very much your support on that, sir.
Mr. Packard. I said earlier, I wasn't sure what benefit
comes from being appointed Vice Chairman. I took him out of
order and that was the benefit that he got. I announced that I
would take them as they arrived, and that is what we will try
to do from here on out. Mr. Edwards will be next.
omb scoring of housing privatization
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hamre,
for being here.
In terms of our efforts to privatize some housing programs,
are we having problems with OMB in terms of scoring? It seems
to me that will bring down a lot of the privatized housing
programs if we don't find a solution to that.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, that was what brought down 801. And it
wasn't just OMB. Congress and the administration worked on the
new pay-go scoring rules, and one of those rules dealt with how
you treat new long-term leases and how you reflect the
obligation If you are going to do it, you ought to put in all
those costs up front and not undermine 801.
We worked a lot of that out with OMB a year ago, and we
felt when we launched the initiative and you approved it, we
thought we had much of it worked out. I do believe there has
been a little bit of backsliding with the OMB.
I spoke with Frank Raines and he is very supportive of this
initiative. However, there are lots of little arcane decision
rulings that require our vigilance to ensure they don't
undermine this important initiative.
I know I need to get better on that. I will meet with OMB
to see where it stands and I will get back to you, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
family housing
My second and final question is, based on your numbers,
over 70 percent of our housing stock is 30 years old or older,
and our present schedule replaces housing once every 50 years,
it seems to me the problem is getting worse. Tell me what is
the administration's plan to improve the problem rather than
allowing it to get worse?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, I think we have great hopes for this
private sector housing initiative and using that as a way to
jump start it, but it also means we have to be putting more
resources in the input side. I think we held the line this
year. We didn't let it get worse, but it didn't get better
either. While we were going through the process, the people
that had the loudest voice got the lion's share at the table
this year. Frankly, that was the procurement accounts.
When you look at it, I don't disagree with those decisions.
However, in the long run, and in the QDR, one of the things
that we have to get a handle on is what is the proper funding
level for military construction and family housing.
So the long-term solution is to watch us very carefully,
what we do with the results of the QDR and what we report to
you in our program next year.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Wamp.
davis-bacon
Mr. Wamp. Just a two-part question. What is the impact of
Davis-Bacon requirements on this particular budget request and
what would the benefits, other than financial benefits, be if
you could waive Davis-Bacon requirements?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, I will get you a formal cost estimate of
how much higher the costs are because of Davis-Bacon. I know
this is of course a white hot political issue and it has been
for years. So I will get you that number, unless, Henry, you
know it now.
Mr. Sodano. We estimate it to range from 3 to 17 percent
depending upon location.
Mr. Hamre. We will get you the formal estimate.
Mr. Packard. That is about standard I have heard for all
government projects.
Would Mr. Wamp yield for just a moment? I had a question on
that and this might be the appropriate time to ask it.
In our efforts to privatize, if a private contractor
submitted a bid to build, to lease, and then to manage for a
long-term period of time, are there laws that require that
private enterprise to submit their bid only based upon the
highest or the prevailing wages under Davis-Bacon, or could
they come in with the union contracts?
Mr. Sodano. There is a Comptroller General decision that
addresses that question. They say, basically, if appropriated
funds are being used for the contract, then we are obliged to
comply with the Davis-Bacon act. If there is substantial
investment of private funds in that contract, then we are
absolved from its provisions. It depends on what funds you are
using for that contract whether you are subject to the Davis-
Bacon rules or not.
Mr. Packard. I will want to pursue that further to get some
details on it because I think that certainly has the potential
of finding a way to provide military housing or military
facilities in a very competitive way and leverage our dollars.
Mr. Hamre. Why don't we provide a memo to you that explains
what that is. I would say, we feel very much like a shuttlecock
in an Olympics badminton tournament here when it comes to
Davis-Bacon. It is a pretty white-hot kind of issue.
[Insert for the Record: Comptroller General decision
follows:]
[Pages 22 - 23--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. It is. But that certainly would be an
incentive to privatize, there would be incentives if, in fact,
there were ways to waive that.
Excuse me for taking so much of your time.
Mr. Wamp. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Then Mr. Hoyer and then Mr. Wicker.
fiscal year 1998 budget request
Mr. Hoyer. Doctor, the Chairman makes a very interesting
point. Let me ask you, what was the level of capital requests
for MILCON construction this year?
Mr. Hamre. What the services sent to us?
Mr. Hoyer. What they projected their needs to be. You don't
have to do it specifically, but this is an $8.4 billion budget
request.
Mr. Hamre. I think it is roughly the same amount. We didn't
really cut anything this year. I don't believe we ended up
below the submission.
Mr. Sodano. We added projects to the guards.
Mr. Hamre. There were a few projects that came in where
they were duplicative of things that were added last year, so
we eliminated that, but the dollars all went back to the
service.
Mr. Hoyer. Essentially what you are saying is, and this is
the Chairman's point, that what the budget reflects is what the
service themselves deem to be the need?
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir.
portsmouth naval hospital
Mr. Hoyer. I have a parochial question and it is not mine.
Congressman Pickett, who is not a member of this subcommittee
but of course is a good friend of all of ours, is very
concerned and wanted me to ask you the status of the hospital.
We have got $34 million that was authorized and appropriated
for fiscal 1997 and is not being spent. He is very concerned.
Mr. Hobson. That is bigger than mine.
Mr. Sodano. No, the amount that was appropriated in 1997 is
released. The medical facilities folks requested that project
in 1998.
Mr. Hamre. I don't believe we have any money on withhold
from the past. What he may be asking about is there was a----
Mr. Hoyer. My question from Mr. Pickett, is if this is
fiscal year 1997 money?
Mr. Hamre. We will check that. I know of no reason why it
would not have been released. I think it has been released.
Mr. Hoyer. He intimated there might be some sort of GAO
investigation.
Mr. Hamre. What I am sure he is asking about is the final
increment on the Portsmouth project. There was an additional
building that really was not part of the hospital they wanted
to improve as a renovation and that was about $34 million. They
wanted it very much to be in fiscal year 1998.
There is a GAO investigation under way to determine whether
or not it is cost effective. The documentation originally
provided by the Navy indicated that it was not cost effective.
There was a GAO investigation directed by Congress last year.
We have not yet received the results of audit; therefore, we
put all of the funds in 1999. The project is in our 5-year plan
and it is in 1999. It is not in 1998 because we don't know what
the GAO will find.
Mr. Hoyer. Do you know when you expect that?
Mr. Hamre. Have you heard, Henry? We will find that out,
sir.
Mr. Hoyer. If you could do that, because I am sure Mr.
Pickett is going to ask me about it again and I am sure he will
ask you directly. He doesn't have to go through me.
Mr. Hamre. And I told him, it is in our 5-year plan. It is
really an issue of timing, was it appropriate to put it in
1998, and we thought it was not because of the pending inquiry.
It may not be cost effective. But I will report back to you.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further
questions.
[Clerk's note.--The requested GAO audit is scheduled for
completion in late April 1997.]
Mr. Packard. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. Dr. Hamre, thank you for coming. I appreciate
your willingness to appear before the committee. I hope we do
yield a better product.
Mr. Hamre. You will.
bosnia supplemental
Mr. Tiahrt. Sometimes we wonder when we work through all of
this. And the frustrating part about a democracy is nobody gets
their way. But I am very concerned about the administration's
approach to the defense budget discussion. Not being a part of
the defense budget, I didn't hear all the talk about the
recessions. But, I think it puts in jeopardy a lot of the
priorities that we have when we have a $2 billion shortfall.
Many of the things that we have with the voluntary Army
that drives our problems aren't attractive to people. We don't
always fill up our academies because it is not attractive
enough for the current society to join the military. It is a
quality of life issue.
When we have the option to go around the globe and do
wonderful things, we need to pay for those things. And I think
when we don't do that we are not being straightforward, and it
puts us in jeopardy.
I wonder if there is going to be a recommendationthe $2
billion recession and if so, how will it affect military construction
and quality of life issues?
Chet Edwards talked about 75 percent are now married. Well,
child care is a great issue because a lot of them are married
to other members in the military. So is the supplemental going
to jeopardize those priorities that we think are important?
Mr. Hamre. Thank you, sir.
First of all, let me lay out factually the budget that we
submitted for fiscal year 1998 has all the costs for Bosnia
imbedded in our budget request, so we are not going to have a
situation like we had in 1997 where we get into the year and
have a hole that needs to be filled by trying to scrape it up
from other accounts. I think that situation creates the
condition you have described quite rightly where it is very
awkward for you to put resources on things that you think are a
priority for Congress and yet the first inclination for us was
to use those to pay for something that you didn't think was
right in the first place.
The problem I always have with things like Bosnia is that
we really ought to debate Bosnia and not simply how to pay for
Bosnia. How to pay for Bosnia is an important debate, but
secondary to the policy. Because of the way we have done it, it
forces us to confront this funding disconnect. We do have about
$2 billion funding disconnect in 1997.
The administration's proposal is for Congress to accept a
cancellation of about $2 billion and then reappropriate $2
billion to go to Bosnia. A cancellation is a rescission with
any of the details as it were.
If history is a guide, you are not going to do that. And I
don't blame you. But that is giving me the choice of deciding
what to do or what not to do. And you all didn't run for
election and get elected to turn it over to me to decide what
to do with the projects.
So I have to find a way of working with the Appropriations
Committee to come up with sources that are acceptable to you to
pay for Bosnia. That is going to be tough.
I have been working with my people, with Henry and others,
to try to find ways to do that that aren't controversial. I
will tell you, there are no easy dollars available in the
department. Last year, it was relatively easy because we had a
windfall for about $800 million in the National Reconnaissance
Office, some intelligence programs where we didn't need it in
fiscal year 1996 and we were able to basically use that and
then I replaced it in the out years. I don't have those kinds
of relatively easy dollars.
So right now I think I have about $700, $800 million, but I
am a far cry from having $2 billion. I need to sit down and
work with the professional staff on this committee and National
Security Subcommittee to find a way to pay for it.
If I can't do that then I have to go through the very
painful process of coming back and saying I don't want to do
this project, and you know how hard that gets for both of us.
So I think over the next 3 or 4 weeks working with the
committee we will find as many sources as we can.
I know the staff on the committee is scrubbing our budget
as well, maybe it is overstated, maybe it could be smaller, we
don't think it is but it might be, and we can bring closure to
this if we can get a supplemental passed, which we really do
need by about the middle of April, without going through the
very painful debilitating process of fighting with the very
people that we are asking to help us. And that is the dilemma
we face.
And fortunately I have professionals, like Mrs. Dawson, who
are working with us and her counterpart, Mr. Grone, on the
National Security Committee. Now, the one thing that--and
Chairman Packard asked me this yesterday, are you going to lay
this on the MILCON budget, and I said no. I did misspeak and it
was not intended to mislead, in that I do have some inflation
savings from prior years and about $40 million of it is in
MILCON. But again it is going to be your decision if you choose
to use that.
We are not going to systematically go around to try to ding
those projects that are Member projects to pay for Bosnia.
Because I know you are not going to agree to that and it is
going to force me to have a fist fight with people that are,
frankly, trying to help us.
Mr. Tiahrt. Looking at the scope of government in the last
couple of years, the largest work scope growth has been the
Department of Defense. We probably spent a billion dollars in
Haiti, a couple billion in Bosnia, maybe $3 billion.
Mr. Hamre. Six and a half, sir.
Mr. Tiahrt. It is an increase in work scope. Yet when I see
the request from the administration come in, there is a
reduction in that very part of the budget which they have
increased the work scope the most. I don't understand the logic
and it makes our job more difficult because we are going to
have to lesson the quality of life in order to meet this
increase in work. I am very concerned about the ongoing
projects that we have in 1997.
Mr. Hamre. And my pledge to you is to work as hard as I can
with the professional staff and with the Chairman and others
and the Ranking Member to make sure it is done in a fair and
equitable manner and that we are not going out of our way to
hurt anybody, and we will not hurt anybody in this process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Doctor, I have a small, parochial project too having to do
with the simulator.
Mr. Hamre. Please raise it with me. I will be glad to go
through it with you.
base realignment and closure--environmental cleanup
Mr. Olver. I will do it but not here at the moment. I
wanted to ask a further question about the BRAC commissions.
The first of those commissions was in 1989. Is that cleaned up?
Is the budget for that now cleaned up?
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir. And I think there is $31 million left
altogether that might be available for any final actions, but
that is 99.9 percent cleaned up.
Mr. Olver. My areas of involvement was in 1991, was Fort
Devens. Is that one cleaned up?
Mr. Hamre. In the aggregate it is, about 88 percent. I
don't know the status particularly but we will find out.
Mr. Olver. I am glad that you didn't say it is cleaned up,
because I think there is some sense there are a number of items
that have slid and it is not sure which ones are going to be
done.
Mr. Sodano. Environmental cleanup associated with the first
round of BRAC is now being done with subsequent round funds.
Mr. Hamre. So a lot of this is going to continue for some
time now, especially on the environmental side.
Mr. Olver. If you could give me some sort of summary of
where we are on that, some of the items that were designed for
Fort Devens, I would appreciate it.
guard and reserve personnel components--decrease in military personnel
You had mentioned here they are down by 30 percent in
force, in infrastructure by 15 percent, and at least in terms
of the active bases, this has been mainly done through the BRAC
commissions. Is the Guard personnel on increase or decrease at
this point?
Mr. Hamre. Well, Guard personnel are on a downward trend.
Mr. Olver. All Reserves as well?
Mr. Hamre. All Reserves, yes, sir, are on a reduction. I
believe our active duty force will be down a total against the
1980 base. I think it is down about 34 percent and I think the
Reserve components are down only about 22 percent. So it is
less than the active duty reduction but there is still a
reduction for all of the Reserve components. I don't recall but
I will get it to you what the reduction is by component.
[The information follows:]
[Page 29--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Olver. Most of the Guard, say the Army Guard, focuses
on units. Are there any of those that have more than one unit
in the same armory? Have they been built in such a way that
they could accommodate an area more than one unit, relatively
small units, units maybe becoming smaller?
Mr. Sodano. They are sized to accommodate multiple units.
Mr. Olver. You do size them to accommodate multiples?
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Are those multiples more than two units of
Guard?
Mr. Sodano. Yes, sir. I have seen as high as three units
using a single armory, but it wasn't sized for three units.
There was an audit several years ago that found the Guard was
sizing armories for three different units. In other words, if
each unit included 200 people, they sized the Armory for 600.
They don't do that anymore. Now the armory is sized for the
largest unit but the training is staggered so that multiple
units can use the same armory.
Mr. Olver. In your planning process, would you be
considering that, if the Guard is coming down slowly, albeit
slowly, but in its total perhaps coming down? In my area there
are a lot of armories and it might actually make sense in a
long-range planning point of view to take locations which are
very close to each other and--
Mr. Hamre. Modernize a number at the same time.
Mr. Olver. Yes, modernize and consolidate at the same time.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, I think I am reflecting my personal lack of
awareness of the underlying program because we have not,
frankly, done overall program reviews. Let me get smarter and
work with the Guard and come up to talk with you about it.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Olver.
I have held my questions to the last and may not always do
that, but I did today and because I thought it would be best to
hear from all so that I would not duplicate.
Let me go through your testimony briefly. There are only
one or two questions that my staff helped me on. But in your
presentation, you have compared your request to last year's
request.
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir.
chemical demilitarization
Mr. Packard. That does not help me a lot. I want to know
what this year's request is in comparison to last year's
appropriated level. You can do both, but I would like to be
able to compare what we appropriated last year to what you are
requesting this year. Just a simple question that I am
personally interested: Is napalm considered a chemical?
Mr. Hamre. No, sir.
Mr. Sodano. The Chemical Detail Program concentrates on
unitary chemicals. Right now we use binary chemicals. The
stockpile that we are storing is unitary chemicals that are
deadly in and of themselves.
Mr. Hamre. But we demilitarized conventional munitions all
the time and I think napalm is in that category. It is not
considered to be like a chemical munition that has, like, a
nerve agent.
overall funding level
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
I was very interested to find out and I am surprised to
find out how much of our budget and our family housing budget,
and I am not being critical at all, that 81 percent of it goes
for maintenance, leasing operations and so forth. And I have
visited some of these facilities so I know how they work and
yet it was surprising that only 19 percent of that huge portion
of our budget goes for construction of new facilities or the
refurbishing of existing facilities. I think it was an
interesting fact that so much of our budget goes to maintain
what we already have. I wasn't aware of that. Again, I think I
understand more of it now.
It has been expressed before, and certainly I want to
express my concern, the budget proposes a $2.1 billion
reduction in your total defense budget. Seventy-five percent of
that comes out of MILCON, $1.6 billion, and that is of course a
major interest to members of this committee that so much
emphasis is being placed on readiness and procurement and yet
we hear a lot of lip service to a significant commitment to
quality of life issues on our bases.
I guess I don't quite understand why it comes out that we
are being asked by the President's proposal to absorb 75
percent of DOD's budget reductions.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, what this comes down to is are we measuring
it against what you ended up appropriating, which was in the
aggregate about $10 billion higher than the President's budget
request last year, or against the President's baseline. I
understand the legitimacy of your wanting to measure it against
how you ended up the year.
From the President's perspective, we did not systematically
say, we want to go cut MILCON because we were coming down, we
were actually building from the bottom up a budget proposal,
and we were very pleased, to be able to hold onto the MILCON
dollars with the primary emphasis going into modernization, but
we certainly weren't trying to go out and cut your budget, sir.
Mr. Packard. Anything?
Mr. Hoyer. I think he meant 1 billion. If we were 10
billion higher----
Mr. Hamre. Not in this committee. This committee isabout 1
billion, but I think in the aggregate DOD wide, it is about 10 billion.
family housing
Mr. Packard. On family housing, and I want to stay on
family housing because I think all of us have expressed it is a
priority, including the Defense Department, but last year the
budget request proposed a 25 percent reduction to family
housing and this year a 31 percent reduction in family housing
request, and again that is from request to appropriated levels.
Mr. Hamre. That is an active request.
Mr. Packard. Right, I am aware of that. But that is the
reality, the 25 percent request reduction last year and 31
percent of the request reduction this year. And that really
does not convince me that family housing is a top priority when
we see that. That is more of a comment than a question.
On the family housing improvement fund, there is no request
for family housing improvement funds. That is zero on your
request.
Mr. Hamre. Yes, sir, for this year only, for 1998.
Mr. Packard. And how do you justify that?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, it is largely because there are available
balances from the prior year that weren't going to get spent,
and so if we asked for the dollars they weren't going to get
executed for fiscal year 1998. And so we really think what we
have is what we really could execute.
Mr. Packard. Where are those available funds in family
housing?
Mr. Hamre. In family housing, in 1997. Because we were slow
in getting off the blocks, we have got dollars available in
1997 that, frankly, weren't going to be executed until 1998. It
was simply an execution effort, sir.
Mr. Packard. You are asking for a transfer authority or you
intend to use transfer authority, and I am wondering where
those will be transferred from. Are we looking at housing funds
that are already there, or are we looking to transfer from
other accounts?
Mr. Sodano. Legislation provides for authority to transfer
from the family housing construction account into the family
housing improvement fund.
Mr. Packard. That brings up my concern, then, as to will
there be construction projects that will go away wanting if we
transfer from the family housing construction account to the
family housing improvement fund?
Mr. Hamre. Sir, no. As a matter of fact, our concept is
that we would transfer it in and get more housing out of it,
that we are not going to take and not do a project that you
have authorized and appropriated and then spend it on something
else. We will actually use the private sector tool to get more
housing for that location. But it is meant frankly to show the
leverage we will get from the private sector for that.
May I say, sir, we also would love to have you, as a
committee, institute transfer authority only inside the MILCON
account. For example, right now we cannot move dollars from
housing into construction. We have such transfer authority with
the national security part of the defense bill and we can't
move any of it without your permission.
So I know there is some concern that somehow we would be
cheating on a project or undercutting something. We could not
do that under these ground rules without your permission on any
of it. If it is possible for us to be able to work with you, we
would love to be able to do that, but again, you would be
totally in control. I am not asking you to commit to anything,
sir, because I know this committee has some serious questions
about it.
transfer authority
Mr. Packard. My response to your request to be able to
transfer up to $200 million, my initial reaction is no way, we
are just not going to relinquish that kind of ability to
monitor.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, you would be able to not only monitor it,
you would have to approve it. Under no conditions would we do
it unilaterally. We probably have not done a very good job of
explaining that. But this would not be something we could do on
our own, this would be something we could only propose to you
and you would have total veto over.
Mr. Packard. My understanding of what I read was it would
leave the Secretary with the sole option and decision-making,
and that is what I am saying now.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, then we have misled you by not properly
communicating this, because under no terms would we propose to
you that we would be able to unilaterally change what you have
done.
Mr. Packard. Well, we will look into it. My analysis of it
was that it would transfer from the Congress to the Secretary
sole determination.
Mr. Hamre. We have misled you, then, with the way we have
referred to it because we are not proposing that.
quality of life
Mr. Packard. We had an interesting experience when I toured
one of the bases this past week, a couple of interesting
experiences that maybe members of the committee would be
interested in dealing with quality of life issues.
We found that when the question was asked to one of these
young recruits what--and, incidentally, we visited probably the
most deplorable barracks we could find, and we asked them what
is it that you would like to see, have available to you here in
this barracks more than anything else?
We thought it might be more privacy or two plus two
barracks in this instance--and then I will ask a question on
the one plus one concept--or perhaps more privacy in the
latrines or shower areas or so forth, which were deplorable.
But that was not it. Interesting enough, to these two men that
we talked to, the thing they wanted more than anything else was
a telephone.
That came as quite a shock to me because I never thought,
sitting here on the committee, that a telephone was a serious
quality of life issue, but they wanted a telephone.
The second thing they wanted, because most of them have a
car, they just wanted to get off base when weekends come or
time off. They wanted a place to fix their car and service
their car.
Those were the two top priorities that we heard from the
men themselves or troops themselves. I think it was
interesting. And now that I think about it, those are important
things to a young single guy on a base in those barracks when
there is no place to go and yet we sitting here or you sitting
there would never think it was a top priority.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Edwards is suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that
there is a synergy between those two.
Mr. Packard. I think there is.
Mr. Hobson. If I could interrupt the Chairman, if you would
have heard some of the testimony yesterday, they found out some
other things to do in those barracks with the way the barracks
are set up today. The results are not all that good with the
pregnancy rate in some of the barracks.
Mr. Packard. There is no need for the car if the telephone
is not working. Any way, it was interesting to me.
But when we talk to the commanding officers what the
greatest need was, it is probably an area where we are very
prone, and you have already mentioned it in your comments, to
neglect, and that is the underground, unseen infrastructure. We
are building brand new barracks. On this base that we visited
there is a brand new barracks that is under construction, and
we visited some that were completed, and yet dirty water is
coming through the faucets at those brand new facilities
because of the underground utilities that have not been
repaired. They leaked. They break. They are old. They are World
War II vintage. And I don't know that we are spending any money
to upgrade the underground infrastructure. At least I don't see
it in the budget, and I think it is an area that is easily
overlooked because you don't see it. And even our base
commanders don't put it in high priority. But it is reaching
the point where it is critical.
The young men moved into their barracks and in one instance
the electricity was off for several days when they first moved
in, and again it is the basic infrastructure. This is where 5-
year planning can come to help us, if we can begin to put some
of these neglected areas that are really crucial to our
servicing these men and women into a long-term plan.
troop housing--``one plus one''
Back to one plus one barracks. When I met with the Air
Force joint chief personnel, we got different signals. They
were absolutely committed to one plus one. That is where you
have one person in each cubicle or each living compartment in
the barracks, complete privacy, in other words. They have their
own bathroom. They have their own living quarters. As small as
it is, it is still their own and it is not for two people. That
is their goal in the Air Force.
When we visited the Marines out at Camp Pendleton, they
absolutely did not want one plus one. They thought it would be
a detriment to their morale, a detriment to their goals and so
forth. They would live with two plus two but some would even
prefer to have it still more communal.
It was interesting to get a different viewpoint from the
different joint chiefs. I think everyone admits that the one
plus one is a very noble goal but a very expensive goal and
will take a long time to get there. But I am interested to know
if there is a DOD policy or defense-wide policy on the goal of
one plus one, two plus two, or other alternatives.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, we went around and around and around on
this and, frankly, this was one of those things this committee
was forcing us to confront last year. I was frustrated in two
dimensions. One is a single goal is very hard to apply when the
underlying environmental conditions that each of the services
have are so different. And so Marines genuinely have a very
different problem than does the Air Force. The Marines deploy
and go to war. The Air Force usually deploy and go to war from
a base. And so they have a very different culture and the
importance of the base is a very different flavor.
Where I was most frustrated was the willingness of the
military departments to establish a goal but not to pay for it,
to say I want one plus one but I am not willing to put any
money up to do it, and I thought frankly that smacked of
trolling for dollars, I am going to specify a new goal to try
to get there and, oh, by the way, I don't have any money to pay
for it.
And so I was pretty adamant about this, if one plus one is
our policy, we ought to resource the darn thing. And instead we
have plans that weren't going to get to one plus one for 23 and
25 years.
So this is one of those constitutional tendencies I felt we
had to put together a long-term plan--not have a long-term
plan, state long-term goals that have very direct resource
requirements that nobody was prepared to reflect in their long-
term program. And we did that last year and I would argue we
probably still have a disconnect in that area. That is one of
those things that we ought to jump on.
Where it stands now is that everybody, except the Marines,
would like to build to a one plus one standard for new
construction. The Marines would prefer to stay two plus two
partly because of the nature of the Marine mission and partly
because they have too far to run to catch up. They couldn't get
to one plus one and they need to stretch their dollars further.
That is not the case, of course, for new enlistees. They
are in a barracks in an open bay type configuration for a
period of time. I think where you ought to rightly ask us to
come and say is, if one plus one is the standard, when are you
going to get there? That is the goal.
Mr. Hobson. The Navy isn't going to go to a one plus one.
Mr. Hamre. No, sir. But one plus one I believe varies a
little bit, and Henry, correct me if I am wrong, but I think
one plus one, the size is a little different from each of the
services as well. I think one plus one for the Air Force is
more generous than one plus one is for the Navy and Army.
Mr. Sodano. Actually, there is a standard but there are
some differences--I think the Army is allowed extra space for
their additional gear.
Mr. Hamre. Because they have got all their gear, like
backpacks. But there is definitely--I mean, there is a
standard, one plus one. The Marines, however, are not going to
be on that for a combination of reasons. But the bigger problem
is we are a long ways away from getting there.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, you may be interested in a story
that this exchange reminds me of. Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Gingrich
led a delegation to the Persian Gulf, to Saudi Arabia, in
September of 1990 and went to King Camp Airport where we had
deployed, even in September, I guess a couple thousand troops.
We visited a tent. The tent must have been 65 degrees. It was
100 degrees-plus out. I was actually cold in the tent. When we
got back in the bus, we went to the mess hall, and as we got
out of the bus, I saw some guys and I went up to them and I
said, boy, I tell you, those tents are really something,
fellows, its 65 degrees in there. And a young private looked at
me and said, sir, those are Air Force tents. The Air Force had
repositioned their tents and were fully air conditioned. The
Army tents were on line then and had no air conditioning and I
had made a hit with that Army private. He was ticked off with
the Air Force.
Mr. Packard. It is an area that I am trying to analyzehow
we deal with different standards for different services in this
committee in terms of our funding and in terms of our priorities.
Mr. Hamre. Sir, I think we really have to respect the
genuine differences that each of the services have for the kind
of environment and kind of culture that has developed because
of their war-fighting arrangements. Sixty or 65 percent of
Marines are first-termers and it is a very different emphasis
than it is for the Air Force, so we have to understand that. So
there are going to be some differences here.
Mr. Hefner. I would like to make a point and this is not
something that comes with any particular administration. This
has been a problem ever since I have been on this committee
about requests and priorities. The Army has been very timid
about making their requests. And I said when I was on the
Budget Committee and joint chiefs were there and Army guys, you
just tell us what you need and we will live with it. And the
Navy and Air Force were raising hell about having to have a
bigger allocation, but the Army has been so passive about their
demands. And I would like to see them get their back up a
little bit.
I went to, I don't know if it was Oklahoma or Texas, but
they were operating the most sophisticated weapons the world
has ever seen and then when they get off work they have to walk
across an unpaved parking lot and stand in water up to their
ankles to get a shower.
Mr. Packard. Again, we come right back to this long-term
planning, if they do that with deep commitment to the process
then when it gets to this year, that plan works up to this
year, that should greatly assist them in putting together their
budget request because they have already planned it on a long-
term basis. If they neglect that part of it, then they are
always going to be willing to take what is left over.
It has been a very interesting hearing and I deeply
appreciate not only my colleagues here and their questions and
their involvement but I appreciate your testimony, both of you.
Before we leave, are there any additional questions that
any of you would like to ask? I would not want to shortchange
anybody.
I have a packet of questions that we have not asked that we
intended to submit and ask you to respond to them. And so if
you will do that, we would appreciate it. But other than that,
I have no further questions.
Again, I want to thank you, Dr. Hamre, for very, very
meaningful testimony and the witness that you are, and I
appreciate it very much. And with that, this hearing is
adjourned.
Mr. Hamre. Thank you, sir.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Packard.]
Private Sector Initiatives
Question. Please bring us up to date with the current
status of the Department's efforts to promote private sector
ventures for family housing and barracks.
Answer. Since being provided the new authorities last year,
DoD has been aggressively working to develop the programmatic
foundations for housing privatization and actively test the new
tools on specific projects. A report on our first year's
progress has been provided to Congress. A copy is attached.
(Attachment 1)
[Pages 37 - 68--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Troop Housing--Budget Request
Question. How many spaces are included in the budget
request for troop housing?
Answer. The FY 1998 budget request includes $631 million to
construct/modernize 40 barracks and 11,517 living spaces.
Troop Housing: Cost to Buy-Out Troop Deficit (Army)
Question. What will it cost to buy out the current troop
housing deficit?
Answer. Approximately 6 billion dollars in constant FY 1997
dollars.
Troop Housing: Cost to Buy-Out Troop Deficit (Navy)
Question. What would be the cost to buy-out the current
troop housing deficit?
Answer. The Navy has planned to eliminate the Bachelor
Housing deficit while reaching the 1+1 standard. This plan will
cost $1.9 billion over 18 years ($105 million per year) and
will not only eliminate the deficit but will upgrade
substandard quarters and replace inadequate quarters to meet
the new 1+1 DoD standard for permanent party. The Marine Corps
has a dedicated funding stream for MILCON averaging $56 million
per year until Fiscal Year 2005 to eliminate our inadequate
spaces. The total cost is approximately $448 million.
Troop Housing: Cost to Buy-Out Troop Deficit (Marines)
Question. What would it cost to buy-out the current troop
housing deficit?
Answer. The Marine Corps has a dedicated funding stream for
MILCON averaging $56 million per year until Fiscal Year 2005 to
eliminate our inadequate spaces. The total cost is
approximately $448 million.
Cost to Buy-Out Troop Deficit (Air Force)
Question. What would it cost to buy-out the current troop
deficit?
Answer. Once the Air Force completes its Dormitory Master
Plan in July 1997, we will have the information to accurately
determine the size of the dormitory deficit and the estimated
cost to buy-out the deficit.
[Pages 70 - 71--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (Army)
Question. What percentage of the officers and enlisted
force are single or unaccompanied?
Answer. Data compiled in February 1997 shows 23 percent of
officers and 39 percent of enlisted personnel are
unaccompanied. The average total unaccompanied rate for Army is
37 percent.
Question. How many men and women, by service, are living in
permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing, and how many
single or unaccompanied personnel live in off-base housing?
Answer. Approximately 134,000 Army personnel live in
permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing compared to
12,200 single or unaccompanied personnel in off-base housing.
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (Navy)
Question. What percentage of the officers and enlisted
force are single or unaccompanied personnel?
Answer. Approximately 29% of the Navy officer population
and 42% of the Navy enlisted population is single or
unaccompanied. Marine Corps statistics are 30% officer and 59%
enlisted.
Question. How many men and women, by service, are living in
permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing and how many
single or unaccompanied personnel live in off-base housing?
Answer. The Navy has a total of 55,400 bachelor personnel
living in permanent party quarters and 46,200 living in the
community.
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (Marines)
Question. What percentage of the officers and enlisted
force are single or unaccompanied personnel?
Answer. 59.4% of all enlisted Marines are single and 29.9%
of all Marine officers are single.
Question. How many men and women, by service, are living in
permanent party unaccompanied personnel housing, and how many
single or unaccompanied personnel live in off-base housing?
Answer. As of 3 Dec 1996, there are 79,311 Marines living
on-base in bachelor housing and 10,656 bachelor Marines living
off-base in the civilian community.
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing (Air Force)
Question. What percentage of the officers and enlisted
force are single or unaccompanied personnel?
Answer. As of 31 Jan 97, 24% of the active duty officer
force and 35% of the active duty enlisted force are single. The
Air Force has 10,706 officers and 67,813 enlisted personnel
assigned overseas. Of the active duty personnel assigned
overseas, 34% of the officers and 43% of the enlisted personnel
are unaccompanied.
Question. How many men and women, are living in permanent
party unaccompanied personnel housing, and how many single or
unaccompanied personnel live in off-base housing?
Answer. The Air Force has approximately 72,000 permanent
party men and women living in enlisted and officer
unaccompanied personnel housing and approximately 44,000 single
or unaccompanied enlisted and officer personnel living in off-
base community housing.
[Pages 73 - 100--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Lost Design (Army)
Question. How much in lost design occurred in fiscal year
1996 for each service?
Answer. For fiscal year 1996, the amount of lost design for
MCA and Army Family Housing Construction was $4,320,000.
Lost Design (Army Reserve)
Question. How much in lost design occurred in fiscal year
1996 for each service.
Answer. The Army Reserve had $949,000 in lost design in
fiscal year 1996.
Lost Design (Army Guard)
Question. How much in lost design occurred in fiscal year
1996 for each service?
Answer. In FY 1996 the Army National Guard lost design in
the amount of $19,157.50.
Lost Design (Navy)
Question. How much in lost design occurred in fiscal year
1996 for each service?
Answer. The Navy MCON program has $3,454,000 in lost design
occur in fiscal year 1996.
Planning and Design (Air Force)
Question. How much in lost design occurred in fiscal year
1996 for Air Force?
Answer. The Air Force defines ``lost design'' as design
that is no longer applicable due to changes in scope or
criteria. Of designs accomplished in fiscal year 1996, $3.9
million was categorized as lost design. The leading cause of
lost design was refinements in 1+1 dormitory projects. This
program started in fiscal year 1996 and we are incorporating
lessons learned.
Breakage and Deferred Design (Army)
Question. How much breakage and deferred design occurred in
fiscal year 1996 for each service?
Answer. For FY 96, the amount of design breakage for MCA
and Army Family Housing Construction was $1,507,000. The Army
does not track deferred design since it is not considered lost
effort until the project is canceled.
Breakage and Deferred Design (Army Reserve)
Question. How much breakage and deferred design occurred in
fiscal year 1996 for each service?
Answer. The Army Reserve had $432,000 in design breakage in
fiscal year 1996.
Breakage and Deferred Design (Army Guard)
Question. How much breakage and deferred design occurred in
fiscal year 1996 for each service?
Answer. The Army National Guard design breakage for FY 1996
was $0.00. The deferred design for FY 1996 was $2,716,923.31.
Breakage and Deferred Design (Navy)
Question. How much breakage and deferred design occurred in
fiscal year 1996 for each service?
Answer. The Department of the Navy MCON program had
$3,379,000 in breakage occur in fiscal year 1996. No design was
deferred in fiscal year 1996.
Breakage and Deferred Design (Air Force)
Question. How much breakage and deferred design occurred in
fiscal year 1996 for Air Force?
Answer. The Air Force defines ``design breakage'' as design
accomplished for projects that have been canceled and are no
longer required. Of designs accomplished in fiscal year 1996,
$852 thousand was categorized as design breakage. The Air Force
defines ``deferred design'' as design performed for required
projects that will no longer be accomplished as part of the
military construction program in the originally programmed
fiscal year. Of designs accomplished in fiscal year 1996, $400
thousand was categorized as deferred design.
Davis-Bacon
Question. What is your estimate of the amount within the
budget request for fiscal year 1998 that is attributable to the
provisions of Davis-Bacon?
Answer. To my knowledge, there have been no recent studies
on the effects of the Davis-Bacon Act on military construction
costs. Previous studies have indicated the cost impact of the
Act to range between 3-10 percent of construction costs
depending upon the specific circumstances and assumptions used.
Those estimates do not include the cost of administration and
enforcement of the Act. The most recent comprehensive review of
Davis-Bacon Act costs was a 1979 General Accounting Office
study, however, much has changed since 1979 and without a
similarly rigorous study the Department would be reluctant to
provide an estimate of the impact of the Act on the FY 1998
request.
Phase Funding
Question. Does the budget request include funding for any
projects at a level that exceeds the amount of construction
that can be put in place during fiscal year 1998?
Answer. None of the new projects included in the FY 1998
request are ``phased'' or funded for construction over multiple
fiscal years. The Navy budget request includes $9 million for
Phase IV of an Advanced System Integration Facility (Anechoic
Chamber) to be constructed at the Naval Air Warfare Center,
Patuxent River, MD. This is the last ``Phase'' (completion) of
a multi-phase construction project.
[Clerk's note.--See Army hearing regarding Fort
Leavenworth.]
[Pages 103 - 121--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Unspecified Minor Construction (Air Force)
Question. Has this appropriation met the needs of the
components over the last two years? What shortfalls, if any,
have been encountered?
Answer. The appropriation has been sufficient to meet our
most urgent Air Force needs. Minor shortfalls have been
accommodated through reprogramming actions.
Planning and Design
Question. Does the budget request include sufficient
planning and design funds to execute the entire fiscal year
1998 and 1999 program?
Answer. The Department's estimate for planning and design
(P&D) requirements for the budget year is based on the size of
the two succeeding fiscal year military construction programs.
For example, the amount requested for FY 1998 will be used to
complete design on FY 1999 projects and to initiate design on
the FY 2000 projects. Therefore, the size of the FY 1998
request is a function of the size of the FY 1999 and FY 2000
construction programs. Consequently, the $189.9 million enacted
in FY 1997 for planning and design will complete the design of
the FY 1998 program and bring the FY 1999 program to the
required 35% design level and will allow the Department to
execute the entire FY 1998 program.
In addition, the $201.5 million requested in FY 1998 for
planning and design is sufficient to complete design on the FY
1999 military construction program, which will allow for
execution in FY 1999, and bring the FY 2000 program to the
required 35% design level.
Question. Are any projects in the ``Defense-Wide'' budget
request at less than 35 percent design? If so, list and justify
such projects.
Answer. Design has only recently been initiated on a $9.3
million project to construct a Headquarters Addition for the
Defense Commissary Agency in Ft Lee, Virginia; however, the
project was included in the Department's FY 1998 program
because it is still believed to be executable in the program
year.
Real Property Maintenance
Question. What is the total fiscal year 1998 budget request
for real property maintenance? How much is earmarked for
barrack renovation?
Answer. The total FY 98 budget request for real property
maintenance is approximately $4.4 billion. Service budget data
does not breakout the projected amount to be spent on barracks
renovation and this number can not be accurately estimated at
this time.
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by
fiscal year, the total amount approved by Congress for
reprogramming for ``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'' for
the last five years.
Answer. The following table identifies the reprogramming
requests approved by Congress for the Military Construction,
Defense Wide account for the last five years.
Reprogramming request approved by Congress
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year
1992.............................................................. 5.5
1993.............................................................. 13.3
1994.............................................................. 26.6
1995.............................................................. 14.0
1996.............................................................. 16.3
[Clerk's note.--Question for the record submitted by Mr.
Hefner.]
Private Sector Initiatives
Question. During testimony, Dr. Hamre cited an estimated
30% savings from housing privatization. Please provide the
basis for that estimate.
Answer. The criteria used for developing housing
privatization projects is that we must achieve at least a 3:1
leveraging of our funds. This means that when compared to
comparable DoD MILCON project costs at a given site, we will
acquire at least 3 times as many units for the MILCON cost, or
we will acquire the same number of units as the MILCON for \1/
3\ the cost.
[Clerk's note.--The following are questions for the record
regarding projects requested under the ``Military Construction,
Defense-Wide'' Account.]
Defense Commissary Agency Headquarters Addition
Question. Why is this project included in Military
Construction, rather than non-appropriated funds?
Answer. A surcharge on selling prices in commissaries is
authorized by 10 USC 2685. Sub-paragraph (b) of 10 USC 2685
limits the construction and construction related uses of the
surcharge proceeds to commissary store facilities only. An
administrative building is not a commissary store facility.
Question. How many additional personnel will the
Headquarters addition accommodate?
Answer. The addition will accommodate 275 additional
personnel.
Question. How many off-post facilities are currently being
leased by the Defense Commissary Agency? What are the current
leasing costs of these facilities?
Answer. DeCA is currently leasing 4 off-post facilities at
a total annual rent of $618,768.
Question. What is the payback period for new construction
versus continuing lease?
Answer. The key factor in estimating the payback period is
the residual value of the government-owned facility in the new
construction alternative. OMB circular A-94 mandates the
inclusion of a residual value in lease versus purchase
analyses, based on the rationale that the Government would
retain a usable asset even if the particular use for which the
facility was originally constructed is no longer valid. If
residual value is taken into account, the cumulative net
present value of the headquarters building addition is
approximately equal to that of a GSA lease at one year of
occupancy of the facility (2001). If the residual value is not
taken into account, the cumulative net present values of a GSA
lease versus the headquarters building addition become equal
after approximately 18 years of occupancy (2018). At present,
the off post rental cost is less than that estimated for a GSA
rental alternative because a significant number of personnel
are located in a facility that was never designed for office
use. The assumption at the time this facility was rented was
that the occupancy would be for less than five years. The
continuation of these leases is not considered a viable long
term alternative.
Question. The form 1391 does not provide estimated design
status, basis, total design cost and construction start date.
Could you please provide us with this information?
Answer. The project is at a 15 percent design level and
includes a site plan, schematic floor plans, cross sections, an
architectural rendering and a detailed parametric cost estimate
(considered to be equivalent to an estimate based on a 35
percent design). The design cost is estimated at $744,000, and
the construction contract award date is estimated to be June
30, 1998.
Question. Submit for the record a copy of 10 USC 2685.
Answer. A copy of 10 USC 2685 is attached.
[Pages 124 - 174--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Wednesday, March 12, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
WITNESS
JOHN B. GOODMAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS
AND INSTALLATIONS)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. I appreciate Mr. Edwards being here, and I'm
sure others will join us as we proceed. This morning we're very
pleased to have with us John Goodman who is the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Industrial Affairs and Installations.
This hearing will focus on privatizing our housing efforts in
the Defense Department. We're very anxious to hear your
testimony this morning, Mr. Goodman. It's a crucial area, one
that we're very interested in, certainly, generally supporting
of the concept.
We look forward to hearing your report on how the
Department is managing the efforts for the services--all the
services to exercise the new authorities which have been
granted in terms of privatizing. And we've read carefully, at
least I have, your testimony completely, and we prefer that you
summarize, that you highlight what you feel the Committee ought
to hear in terms of the important issues but would prefer that
you not read the testimony unless you insist.
It took me a while last night to get through it, so it
would take the rest of the morning doing it again. Mr. Hefner,
I'm sure, will join us later, but Mr. Edwards, do you have any
opening comments?
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that while I
know there are many meetings going on simultaneously, I
appreciate, and I know other members of this Committee do, too,
your focus on quality of life and housing issues. I just came
from a breakfast this morning where I learned that the Army is
planning to make an adjustment in their recruiting process. The
Army will actually take more young soldiers, new recruits, who
will only have to sign a 2-year contract rather than a 3-year
contract.
We are starting to see the slippery slope and it is these
anecdotal situations like these, any one of which would not
alarm me but together, they concern me. I just cannot think of
anything more important than quality of life and housing issues
for our military families. So, I want to thank you for your
focus and attention on this issue and appreciate Secretary
Goodman being here today.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. With that, I will review
the biography of Mr. Goodman. He has certainly had a very
distinguished career, both educationally and experience-wise,
and we're very pleased to have you where you're serving. It's
our pleasure to work with you. And at this time, we'll have you
go ahead and present your oral testimony, and then we'll have
it open for questions.
Statement of the Honorable John B. Goodman
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Edwards, I'm very pleased to
be here today. This is the first time I've had an opportunity
to testify before this Subcommittee and I look forward to a
long and productive working relationship with you. I will
certainly not read my entire testimony to you this morning, but
with your permission I would request that mystatement be
included in the record.
Mr. Packard. It certainly will.
Mr. Goodman. I would like, if I might, simply to summarize
what I think the main points were in that testimony. But before
I do, I want you to know that for the Department, and I know
for this Subcommittee as well, there is a very important link
between readiness and quality of life, and between our ability
to attract and retain the kind of high quality personnel we
need to be able to ensure we have a winning force in the
future, and housing is a critical role in that endeavor.
This Subcommittee was a driving force in the establishment
of our initiative in housing privatization last year. I'm
really grateful for this opportunity to discuss with you our
efforts to use private sector capital to help revitalize
housing.
What I'd like to do today is to provide a short report card
on where I think we are after our first year in the process.
Overall, I think our first year was successful. We both
developed programmatic foundations for housing privatization
and we began to use the new tools that were provided to us.
First, the Housing Revitalization and Support Office, HRSO,
is up and running. That office provides the focal point for
developing the legal, financial, and operational policies of
the program. These policies are required, are critical to
ensure that the projects that we develop are, first, accepted
by the private sector and, second, protect the Department's
financial interests. HRSO helps develop and train our housing
personnel in the intricacies of real estate development and
finance, and this is new to us. HRSO also helps spread lessons
learned so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every
project.
Second, we've established protocols for site visits;
financial models to analyze the use of the tools that we've
been provided at different sites; a mortgage guarantee program
to ensure lenders against political risk of base closure,
downsizing, deployment; a process to provide direct loans; and
also to convey existing DOD assets to real estate developers as
part of our contribution to the deals.
Over the past year, we've had to deal with many legal
issues, as well the impact of RIF sharing between the
government and the private sector and the impact of those
issues on scoring. We've not resolved all of these issues and
we're working with OMB to that end, but both impact how we
structure real estate deals and how our projects will be
treated financially.
Third and most important, we've initiated a number of
projects that help us determine how best to use our new
authorities. One year ago as we received the authorities in
March of 1996, I told then-Secretary Perry that I thought we'd
be able to put about 2,000 units into the housing pipeline in
our first year. In fact, the 6 projects that are now approved
for development involve more than 4,000 units, twice what we
had earlier predicted. When I met with Secretary Perry before
he departed, he said, ``Well, it is not as much as I hoped but
more than I expected.'' From Secretary Perry, who you know has
been a champion of our young enlisted troops and their need for
housing, I took this as high praise indeed. But it's not good
enough and we plan to double that effort over the coming year.
The military services have nominated an additional 42 sites
for evaluation in Fiscal Year 97. And as we build on the
lessons learned thus far, our program execution in both the
number of housing units and the speed with which we develop
deals will improve.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this first year has been
successful, but we are working to improve our performance and
make it even better. We have to continue to improve on the team
work between the base commander, the services, and the key OSD
offices, my office, Office of General Counsel and the
Comptroller. We have to continue to revise our decision-making
tools and work with OMB to determine how our project is going
to be scored. And consistent with managing the Department's
financial interests, we have to reduce our procurement times
and speed up what we're doing. The need for our young troops is
simply too great.
The funds appropriated to the Family Housing Improvement
Fund have enabled us to develop critical tools, prepare the
RFPs in a number of locations, and fund the government's
contribution in our first project. Going forward, we're going
to use the funds appropriated to this account to support the
best projects that help meet the program's objectives.
We're now still in the early stage in the program where
we're still learning, and we still need to learn what works.
But we believe that it's important to establish incentives for
all of the services. Specifically, we will award funds
appropriated into this account, regardless of service, based on
the following criteria: The project addresses a critical
housing priority; the project achieves our target leverage; the
project cannot be readily funded from other available sources;
the project expands our experience in using the tools and
mechanisms that you have given us in this test period; and the
project broadens our base of project size and configuration. As
our experience grows, we plan to refine these criteria and make
them even more specific.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we've had a good first year.It's
not been easy because we're learning how to do business in a new way.
However, we're committed to the program and we're working hard to build
on our first year efforts to increase its size and scope. I am truly
eager to work with you and other members of this Committee, and I'll do
my best to answer your questions. Thank you, sir.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable John B. Goodman
follows:]
[Pages 178 - 190--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much. I think that in our
questions today we would like to concentrate on just how well
we have done this first year, where the problems are and what
we've learned. Also, is this whole process fulfilling the
intent of being able to provide housing at an affordable cost
to the users, which is intended to be our service personnel?
overall funding
With that--I'm getting my questions out here. Let me begin,
and then we'll come to Mr. Edwards after I ask a couple of
questions, and we'll just go back and forth. In 1996, we
funded--or as the program was initiated, we funded $22 million.
In the '97 budget last year, or this current fiscal year, we've
funded $30 million. The Department has not submitted funds for
Fiscal Year 98. Why is the Department of Defense not requesting
any funding for the Family Housing Improvement Fund and for the
Unaccompanied--Personnel Housing Improvement Fund for the
Fiscal Year 98?
Mr. Goodman. First, in regard to family housing, as Dr.
Hamre mentioned before in his testimony before this
Subcommittee, we had unobligated balances, which is an issue
that he was looking at. But I think equally, and perhaps more
important, the services and Department believe that significant
additional resources would be made available through the
authority that you've given us to transfer funds from MILCON
projects into the account.
Mr. Packard. So, you're looking for transfer authority, but
how much is in the account now? Unobligated balances as you
mentioned?
Mr. Goodman. Approximately, $30 million.
Mr. Packard. About 30. And why were they not obligated?
Mr. Goodman. Largely, sir, because we simply--we weren't
able to get projects through in time to do so. We've spent
approximately $17 million between our administrative expenses,
funding for the RFPs that I mentioned, and the first project,
and we are working to obligate this additional money as fast as
possible, using the criteria that I outlined for you.
Mr. Packard. Now, this program was meant to be a
supplement, not a substitute for the traditional construction
account. Yet, compared to last year, the budget request for
family housing, new construction and improvement to existing
housing, decreases by $300 million or a 31 percent decrease,
and maintenance of existing housing is reduced by almost 100
million. Why these reductions to the funding of these accounts?
Mr. Goodman. I think those changes occurred for several
reasons, Mr. Chairman. The first point I would make is that
relative to the President's request in Fiscal Year 97, our
overall expenditures, our overall requests for family housing
and barracks increased in large measure because our request for
barracks increased significantly. And you're quite correct:
Even relative to our own request last year, much less to what
Congress appropriated, our housing requests declined.
I think this--I think the overall, the overall budget
reflects the importance that the Department attaches to quality
of life, but in housing I think we simply are in a situation
where the Department was putting together and was seeking to
put together a balanced overall program, and our installations
and housing funds had to compete on that basis. So, we were
weighing all of the priorities of the Department.
Mr. Packard. Your request, what was your request level? And
I'd like you to compare it to what was appropriated last year.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Not what was requested.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir. Our Fiscal Year 98 request was $680
million, and my information is that the FY 97 appropriation was
$980 million. So, about a 30 percent decline from what this
Committee and Congress appropriated last year. We were simply
unable to maintain the level of effort that you provided,
although we are obviously quite grateful for those funds and
are putting them to good use.
Mr. Packard. Has this been a tradition before you came? Was
this a tradition of requesting significantly less than what was
appropriated?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I would need to refresh my
memory on the data. My recollection is that relationship has
changed somewhat over time in terms of appropriated funds and
budget requests, but I would be happy to provide a more
detailed answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
[Page 193--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Privatization as a Supplement
Mr. Packard. Okay. I'm concerned that inside Washington the
belief is that privatization is the panacea to solve all of our
problems, in particular the $30 billion housing problem that we
know about. We have a housing problem that is essentially
bankrupt and one that needs to be managed in a total rather
than in bits and pieces. I think we all recognize this. We need
a balanced program that includes adequate variable housing
allowances, traditional construction, and privatization if
we're going to repair and improve this problem.
What role do you see for traditional housing construction
as DOD privatizes and moves toward privatizing of housing?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to use the new
authorities that were provided to us to leverage our dollars as
much as we possibly can. We are now in the process of learning
the kinds of markets and situations in which those authorities
will enable us to do so. I agree with you that this cannot
replace our existing military construction funding approach to
housing because I am certain that we are going to find markets
in which those tools for housing construction simply do not
work. I think what we are seeking to do now is to determine, in
fact, where we can put these tools to their best possible use
and where they will not apply.
As we do that, I anticipate that we are going to
findsituations where when we have a housing need where we're going to
go straight to MILCON approach because we will have learned that
privatization will not work. I agree with you, sir, that I don't
believe that it is a panacea, but I do think that it it can and will
enable us to address a number of deficiencies in a much shorter time
period than we otherwise would be able to do so.
variable housing allowances
Mr. Packard. What are we doing to improve the variable
housing allowance system?
Mr. Goodman. I understand that our overall allowance system
is now under revision. I would need to provide a more detailed
answer to you for the record on that, sir.
[The information follows:]
The current DoD allowance system determines variable
housing allowance (VHA) rates by survey, using member
questionnaires to determine the actual housing costs paid by
the local military. This survey system tends to make allowances
too low in high cost areas and too high in low cost areas.
The new system would combine VHA and Basic Allowance for
Quarters (BAQ) into a price-based local Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) rate. This price-based system would be indexed to
local housing costs and therefore not tied to unrelated pay
raises as is currently the case with BAQ. Analysis indicates
that the new system should be budget neutral because we now
overpay in some areas but underpay in others. At current
funding levels, the new system will not affect the current
absorption rate.
There are several advantages to combining the existing BAQ
and VHA. First, allowance changes will clearly be tied to an
established index. Second, it eliminates the need for annual
surveys of the housing costs of all service members. This is an
expensive, cumbersome process without added value. Third, there
would be no need for an annual certification process, and many
redundant regulations and rules can be streamlined. Finally,
and most importantly, it will standardize absorption rates
across the Department. This will allow for a consistent,
equitable treatment for everyone, with increases and decreases
being directly and proportionately changed as a function of the
housing costs.
The Department believes the new BAH system is important
because it should allow us to better rely on the private
sector. Implementation, if approved by Congress, would proceed
over a period of years. The new system would ``grandfather''
members so that their payments will not go below previous
allowance levels.
Mr. Goodman. I agree with you, though. I think that
allowances are also an important part of the housing
privatization puzzle because those provide the cash flow. In
the way that we're working, the allowances provide a good
portion of the cash flow that helps make some of these projects
financible. So, we need to make sure that we get those numbers
right.
Mr. Packard. What I would really like to do before we're
done today is to get a feel for how well the variable housing
allowances are going to satisfy the demand or the need for our
personnel occupying the private housing that we build, and
that's something we'll get into in a minute. You mentioned that
there are times and areas where traditional construction will
work better than privatization or vice versa. Do you have some
specifics that you could list as areas where it may or may not
work?
Mr. Goodman. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman, because I
think we're still learning where the privatization tools will
work.
Mr. Packard. Okay.
Mr. Goodman. But obviously, making that determination is
important to us because it will help speed our overall
decision-making process. It's a very, important question.
Mr. Packard. Well, at some point in the future we will, I
think.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Fine. I'll withhold further questions until
later. We're very pleased to have Mr. Hefner with us and, with
your permission, Mr. Edwards, I'll yield to him first. So----
Mr. Hefner. Mr. Chairman, I haven't had a chance to review
yet, and I apologize----
Mr. Packard. Would you like Mr. Edwards to go first?
Mr. Hefner. Yeah. I just wanted to apologize for being
late. This is what happens when we have two committees meeting
at one time. And we were just talking about--and then I will
yield to Mr. Edwards. We don't really have a track record. I
know the Navy's done some things, but we don't really have
anything to compare this with as of this date. So, you don't
know where it would be appropriate and where it would not be
appropriate, do you?
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir. We're still learning that at this
point.
Mr. Hefner. Okay. I'll have some other questions later, but
I'll yield to Mr. Edwards.
omb scoring
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Goodman,
where are we on the OMB scoring problem?
Mr. Goodman. This is an ongoing issue and we have been
working with the Office of Management and Budget. The program
is new for them as well. At the moment, what we are trying to
work out are scoring guidelines and participation guidelines to
help determine how much private sector risk, public sector risk
is important in the project to benefit from scoring under the
Credit Reform Act. Those discussions had been taking place at
staff level. I'm now in discussions with my counterparts at the
Office of Management and Budget and our leadership in the
Department, and I know that Director Raines (phon.) wants to
get together and resolve these issues as soon as possible
because we need that foundation to help us determine how we can
move forward. And I think we're anticipating getting this
resolved in very short order.
Mr. Edwards. As of today, though, would rental occupancy
guarantees be greatly limited by the OMB interpretation of the
law?
Mr. Goodman. I think rental occupancy guarantees would be
treated as a long-term obligation of the government. And,
therefore, any funds associated with those guarantees would be
scored up front. But I think that is going to remain a key part
of whatever the final guidelines are going to be. I think that
tool is not going to be as useful to us. That was the same
issue that arose in 801 Housing and I don't think we're going
to overcome that.
The issues that I'm more focused on now with OMB relate to
issues such as how loan guarantees and direct loans are
treated, how we discount cash flows, what kind of reserves--
when the private sector puts up reserves for replacement of
houses, how were those treated. We're really down in the weeds,
but some of those weeds are awfully important in determining
how our project's going to be treated financially.
Mr. Edwards. My second and final question would be
regarding the five authorities permitted under this Act. After
one year, do you have a sense of which tools you think will be
useful in the real world and which ones might not be so useful?
Mr. Goodman. Well, I think we have some initial
experiences. I don't think we have enough information to make a
firm judgment. We now have tried two limited partnerships. And
at Fort Carson and Lackland we're using some different tools.
We're using our loan guarantee authority, our direct loan
authority, and our authority to convey land. Those tools,
particularly the conveyance of land and loan guarantee
authority, enable us to get even better leverage than I think
we did at Corpus Christi and Everett. RFP's are out in both
locations. We haven't seen the bids yet and I think we're going
to need to evaluate those bids before we see whether we think
those tools are really useful. I'm optimistic about them, in
part, because I think they give you just an awful lot of
purchase on the housing problem.
Mr. Edwards. All right, very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Kingston.
site selection
Mr. Kingston. I noticed on the projects that you have
listed--how do you determine who is eligible? For example, I
have the need on a military base in our district to try to get
some new barracks and new family housing, and it's a large
order, about 100 million. How do we get them on track to see if
they would qualify?
Mr. Goodman. The first step in the process is that the
services nominate sites as candidates. We ask the services to
suggest sites where they have a critical need that they believe
might be filled through use of these tools.
Mr. Kingston, I believe we have, in fact, a project on the
list from your district at Fort Stewart.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. Can you have somebody brief my folks on
that and let me know where we are on it?
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir, we'd be glad to do.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. Also, just taking the example of the
Corpus Christi Navy Base, when you save that money, which was
considerable, does the housing allowance go up and offset some
of that savings?
Mr. Goodman. No. There are no changes, there are no changes
in the housing allowances that we pay to the service men and
women who will be living on these bases. If they had been
living in government housing before for some reason and now
they moved into this kind of housing, they'd be receiving
allowances that they didn't otherwise have, but there are no
changes overall in the allowances.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. We don't save in one pocket and spend
in another? That's what I was asking.
Mr. Goodman. No, sir.
proper balance
Mr. Kingston. Then another question, I'm not sure about
this. We probably need to follow up with you, but we also have
a Navy base in our district and apparently--that's King's Bay.
When the Navy came there, they had indicated that as much as
possible there would be off-base housing, apartments and so
forth, and I am not sure if that's for the enlisted personnel
or the officers, frankly. But now some of the private apartment
owners are complaining that the Navy has been too aggressive,
building on-base housing. What is the balance of that?
Mr. Goodman. That, Mr. Kingston, is a very good question.
One of the issues that we face anytime we engage in housing
construction, whether it's through the military construction
approach or through, through the privatization tools, is that
there are sometimes issues in the local real estate community
about the effect of that construction on the local housing
market.
My understanding is that as part of our planning process,
each of the services in a slightly different manner conducts
surveys to determine what the requirement is regarding adequate
housing or new construction. I think it's very important as
part of this privatization process that we work closely with
the local community to help ensure that we come up with a
project that helps strengthen the relationships between
communities and the base, rather than making them more
difficult. I don't think there's a single answer to that
question, but it's an issue we need to be very cognizant of.
Mr. Kingston. Let me give you just some specifics on one.
Since the City of St. Marys has had vacancies in their
apartments--that's the little town there--of 15 to 30 percent
and the rental units, of course, according to the apartment
owner, are very reasonable, but King's Bay continues to build
more housing. Who would we work with on your staff to maybe
specifically look at this in more detail?
Mr. Goodman. Well, on this issue, what I would be happy to
do is get the housing folks on my staff to also get together
with the folks from the Navy who are determining what their
initial requirement is to meet with your staff. And if you
like, we will call your office----
Mr. Kingston. That would be great.
Mr. Goodman [continuing]. We'll call your office this
afternoon to try to set that up.
Mr. Kingston. That would be great. Thank you, Mr. Goodman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Hobson is--has a
hearing coming up in a few moments and he has at least one
question he'd like to ask.
energy saving
Mr. Hobson. I just have one long question I'm going to give
you, and I'd like you to answer it at some point. We spend
about $3 billion to provide energy to installations in the
Defense Department and we, I think, could do a lot better job
if we had--you know where I'm going with this because we've
worked together and you've been very helpful--with more
effective energy management. I started out working with Josh
Gottbaum to establish a not-for-profit institution to assist
installations in upgrading energy and infrastructure. We used
to call it the Forrestal Institute. We changed the name. But
this would have hadsome minor start-up cost and actually would
have been a small percentage of the actual savings that we have gotten
from this. And I really appreciate Millard Carr and his expertise. He's
been wonderful. He knows all the problems with the FAR. He probably
wrote a lot of it, but he knows the problems with that.
And I guess at some point I'd like you to tell us where
we're going to go. I understand that the controller zeroed out
the funding, that the institute is now coming forth with a
little different proposal which may be positive in the Army,
and some other people are starting off on their own to do
things. But, I'm concerned about how much they can do on their
own; I'm happy to see them do things on their own, but I'd like
some understanding with you. One, I think there needs to be
more done and, two, if it doesn't work the way they're trying
to do it now, that we go back and look at some way of working
together. This idea didn't originate with me, this originated
with you guys and then people changed along the way. Not you,
you weren't there. But I'm a little concerned about where we're
going.
I'm willing to step back and say let's let them see what
happens, but I'd like some commitment that we really go at this
in the future.
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Hobson, first, I know this idea didn't
originate with me, but what I do know is that your leadership
and interest in the issue has helped maintain a keen focus in
the administration and in the Department of Defense on the
importance of better energy usage, and I thank you sincerely
for your strong interest in this. It has been important to me
personally and important to the Department as we seek to figure
out ways of bringing down our energy bill. I agree with you
entirely.
As you know, we worked hard last year on this proposal and,
frankly, had some difficulties as we were trying to come up
with an administration proposal. But we had a great deal of
success going down another route with these energy performance
savings contacts and establishing the authority and the ability
to do that, and I think that offers us a great prospect to
achieve very much the same ends.
What--I think what we would like to try is to see whether,
in fact, this can help us achieve those ends. And if it does
not, I think you are exactly correct. We need to go back and
look at that other proposal. I simply didn't want the best to
be the enemy of the good, and I think we have a really good
opportunity to do some good work here. But I'd like to provide
you a longer answer to this. But we look forward to working
with you on that in the future and appreciate your support.
Mr. Hobson. Very big stick out there.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Hobson. Mr. Hefner, would you
like to go ahead?
Privatization vs. 801 Housing
Mr. Hefner. Just briefly. Mr. Kingston raised the point
that--and this happens everywhere we do housing. The local
people say hey, they're building houses here and we've got
plenty of apartments here and houses and it's hurting our local
economy. How is this going to differ from 801 housing? Now, we
have a big 801 housing project at Fort Bragg, in that area. It
works very, very well, and I haven't always been a real fan of
801 housing, but it's worked very, very well.
How is this different from 801 housing? A second part of
the question is will the local contractors and the people be
able to bid or will this be the big, large, multi--people that
work multi--not multistate, but big companies have the
advantage of being able to come in and get these contracts.
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Hefner, on your second question, we are
seeking to open this bidding up to a much broader commercial
market. We are enthusiastic about having local, statewide,
regional and national firms take a look at these projects. We
want to evaluate the best possible deals that we can get. But
one of the ways that we can get better prices on these projects
and better performance is by expanding the realm of bidders who
are willing to take a look at that. There is nothing that
excludes local, local or regional participation in these
projects.
To some extent, it may be a function of the size of the
projects, and we're doing projects of various sizes. And I
assume that there would also be a significant amount of
subcontracting in these projects. So, I would also expect that
there would be significant work on that basis.
Regarding your second question about 801 housing, I think
this is a very important point and one that we need to keep at
the top of our minds. One of the key issues that we have in our
RFPs is a focus on management. There are two really critical
parts of these projects. The first is how were they financed
and constructed, the first part of the deal. And we want to
make sure that we have folks who are financially strong,
financially able, who have good financial backing and can carry
it through construction.
The second issue is how will the projects be managed over
time? And that's quite important because some of these
projects, such as Corpus Christi, for example, are 10-year
projects. At Fort Carson, we're looking at a 50-year project.
We're looking at out-leasing land for 50 years, so it's very
important to us that the partner that we are picking is someone
we think has the ability to manage over time. So, some of our
key requirements in our RFP relate to management, and we will
be evaluating past performance just as we now do in our
acquisition programs because we want a good solid track record,
that the people who we pick are going to be able to do what
they say they're going to do, will devote the reserves that
they say they're going to devote. So, I think that we need to
maintain a strong focus on those issues to ensure that these
projects are successful.
Mr. Hefner. Well, I understand that, and I'm for
privatization when it makes sense. I hope that you won't do a
lot of bureaucratic paperwork and what have you, because some
of these small people don't have the resources that the big
national companies would have but the bottom line is going to
be that the Federal Government is going to be responsible. Is
that going to be the case?
Mr. Goodman. It depends----
Mr. Hefner. If the bottom line is if they forfeit or unable
to make it, it will come back that the Federal Government will
have responsibility to honor the----
Mr. Goodman. The nature of our liability differs depending
on the tools that we use. In the Corpus project,our liability
goes no further than our initial equity contribution. The liability of
the 801 projects----
Mr. Hefner. How long is that, how long is that for, 10
years?
Mr. Goodman. It's a 10-year project, but our equity isn't
up front. We are----
Mr. Hefner. But after 10 years, do you have the option to
renew, or after 10 years can the owners take the property and
do whatever they wish with it?
Mr. Goodman. I believe we have the option to renew for 5
years, but at the end of that period the plan is that the
property is sold and that we get our contribution back, plus
any profits on top of that, plus our share of any profits on
top of that. And that's money that we would then plow back into
the Family Housing Improvement Fund.
Mr. Hefner. You have an option to renew, but do you have to
negotiate the renewal contract?
Mr. Goodman. No.
Mr. Hefner. It's the same?
Mr. Goodman. It would maintain under the same terms.
Mr. Hefner. There's one other thing that bothers me a
little bit especially when you've had these bases--Fort Bragg.
We're having an experience now where they're doing some pilot
programs about moving, and there's an awful lot of local movers
that have been involved with moving in the Fort Bragg area. But
now they're finding that they're going to select one or two of
the major moving companies--and this is just going to put the
small guy completely out--he's going to be out. And then you're
going to wind up with and at the mercy of the big guy. And I
want us to be very careful if we do this because my desire is
to have affordable housing for our troops, and we've been doing
that for a long, long while.
And when we met with Mr. Pirie a few years ago and he came
up with this concept, we were excited about it. But we want to
be very careful--or I want to be very careful before we really
embark on something that we don't at least have a real good
chance of success, because wasted money does not get anybody a
place to live and it really don't help the problem. But I want
to thank you for coming before the Committee today, and it was
nice to meet you in the office the other day and we look
forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodman. Thank you, sir.
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Hefner. Let me ask
you a question concerning unaccompanied housing. What kind of
progress are we making in the privatization of unaccompanied
housing and why is it taking so long to implement this program?
It's been on the books for a year now.
And then perhaps also, is it a fact that the funds
requested for this account, for the fiscal year, are just '98
and '99? Does the fact that you have not requested funds--
signal that DOD does not intend to implement barracks
privatization?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, we are working hard now to
figure out whether and how we can use the authorities, and we
are working particularly with the Air Force on two projects to
see whether we can use them. There are two key issues that we
need to address in these projects. The first is the financial
viability of the project. Barracks are different from houses.
If you forgive me, I don't mean to be stating the obvious in
front of the Chairman of the MILCON Subcommittee, but the--it's
more like funding a dormitory than it is like funding a
multifamily housing project. The BAQ/VHA for our young enlisted
troops is significantly less than it is for our slightly higher
grades or folks with families. So, we need to figure out first
whether we have sufficient cash flow through BAQ/VHA to be able
to make these things work financially. The second issue gets to
the question that Mr. Edwards raised, which relates to how will
these projects be scored. One of the issues that I'm talking
with OMB about now is how you score projects where we assign
people. And what we're seeking to figure out is if we assign
troops to barracks the equivalent of a rental occupancy
guarantee? And we don't have an answer to that.
It's something that we're going to have to work through, so
we've got both that sort of policy scoring issue on the one
hand and the financing issue on the other. I am not waiting to
resolve the latter to really seek to move forward and
understand the former. And we're working with the Air Force to
do that, but I think we're just at a very early stage there.
I think at this point I would certainly would not say that
we don't intend to implement the authority. If we can make
those tools work, we certainly will do so.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Mr. Olver?
Number of Housing Units for 1997 and 1998
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goodman, I'm
looking at your assessment on what you call visions for future
success, and I notice in your--your request, I take it, is to
be able to do 8,000 units in 1997. How much money was finally
appropriated for that?
Mr. Goodman. There's no specific funds appropriated. Mr.
Olver, I wanted to put a stretch goal out there for 1997. We
did the same in 1996, and I think we did a very good job in
meeting it. That 8,000 is a stretch goal, and if we meet it I
think it's terrific.
Mr. Olver. Where do you think you'll be? Where do you--
where are you at?
Mr. Goodman. We've got----
Mr. Olver. Plus or minus.
Mr. Goodman. Well, we're looking now--we have 42 additional
candidate sites for this year and we're out doing site visits
at a number of them to determine how we can use our tools. To
some extent, the total number of housing units we do depends on
how large each of those projects turns out to be.
In light of the fact that we have 200,000 housing units
that are in need of revitalization or replacement, I thought it
was very important for us to have a stretch goal but one that
was--and to go back to Mr. Hefner's comment, one where we want
to make sure that we're doing this in a smart manner and
protecting the Department's fiduciary interests.
Mr. Olver. All right, well, what's your goal in this for
Fiscal 98 that we're talking about now? What's your stretch
goal here?
Mr. Goodman. My goal is to continue to increase and expand
the program as fast as we could possibly go as we determine
what projects work. I cannot tell you in good conscience what
number I thought we would achieve in '98. I don't think we have
the experience at this point to be able to determine that.
funding sources
Mr. Olver. I see. Well, I was trying to put bounds on what
we're talking about here, and I notice in reading several of
your proposals that are in process, which are either '96 or '97
monies, or ones that--I guess there are probably some of both--
that in general in these privatizations your per unit costs
through this method are in the range of $25,000 a unit on
average, recognizing that you've got single and family units,
and single and multi, and different kinds of units involved,
and I was just trying to get a sense of what kind of dollars is
in here in this budget for this particular program. I haven't
been able to ferret that out of the testimony, so if you have
something you can give me a sense?
Mr. Goodman. Let me see if I can do a better job of
responding. We have said in the Department that with our
projected funding streams it would take us about 30 years to
solve our family housing problem under traditional approaches.
Obviously, the more money we put into the housing budget the
faster we can solve that problem, but it's still a great number
of years.
Secretary Perry's goal for this was to try to help use
these authorities to solve that problem in about 10 years. That
would mean if you only used these authorities, and they were
used for every project, that we would up the range to about
20,000 units a year.
Mr. Olver. But that would be amortizing those units out in
15 years.
Mr. Goodman. Twenty----
Mr. Olver. In 10 years.
Mr. Goodman. 200,000 units--right, as I said, that was
the----
Mr. Olver. But you wouldn't do that. You would use--it
should--it ought to be good for 30 or 40 years, shouldn't they?
Mr. Goodman. We have such a tremendous backlog of
requirements and needs in housing, that would help us solve the
backlog and then you would move on to a steady state----
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Mr. Goodman [continuing]. Of replacement.
Mr. Olver. With that approach, all right.
Mr. Goodman. I'm unable to tell you how fast we're going to
be able to ramp up to that 20,000 level but what I want to
assure you is that we're going to do it as fast as we possibly
can, consistent with protecting our financial interests. But I
think the per unit costs--I would correct the per unit costs of
houses under these projects. I'd like to provide, to the extent
I can, the exact number for the record but it's considerably
higher than 24--for a family house, more than $25,000 a unit. I
think we're probably in the 70,000-plus range, but my----
Mr. Olver. Well, but wait a minute. Excuse me, maybe we
need to settle that or make certain we're talking on the same
basis. In the Corpus Christi project you're talking about 400
units for 30 million, which would be 75,000, true, but the
Navy's equity contribution is 9\1/2\ million, which is about
25,000, about a third of that. I think the total projects seem
to average in that 75, 80, 90 thousand range, somewhere in that
range, but the equity portion seems to be only about a third of
that.
Mr. Goodman. Forgive me, I thought you were talking about
total construction costs for the units.
Mr. Olver. No, I want to know what you're asking from us.
Mr. Goodman. I understand. My confusion----
Mr. Olver. To get--if we're going to get 280,000 units--or
your goal for 8,000 units, I was looking back and sort of
figuring, well, that must have meant somewhere in the 200
million range, but I was trying to--of our contribution to it,
essentially, but I was basically trying to get confirmation of
whether I was making this calculation and these inferences
correctly and I can't find the number anywhere. So I'm--then I
was trying to get--just to be completely open here, I was
trying to figure out, well, what were you looking for in '98
and what was our commitment going to be on that in this
program.
Mr. Goodman. As I said, forgive me, I thought you were
talking about total construction costs as opposed to what our
per unit contribution was, and I think--and your math is better
than mine, but I think you're quite right in the Corpus deal.
I think on some projects, frankly, we may get even better
leverage than in Corpus. We will not--but we are not seeking
appropriation from this subcommittee into the Family Housing
Improvement Fund in Fiscal Year '98.
Mr. Olver. You're not.
Mr. Goodman. No, sir. We are anticipating that we would
transfer funds from the Military Construction account into the
Family Housing Improvement Fund, and leverage those dollars for
our high priority projects in that manner.
base realignment and closure
Mr. Olver. Okay, the--are all the proposals that you are
thinking about in the places where you are looking for RFPs and
so forth, asking for RFPs--there's quite a number I sense
you're trying to get--are all of these--these are--are they all
places which are outside the BRAC proposals? Are any of these
places, places that are, for instance, on--involved in BRAC
'95, or what somewhere down the road you're going to be in a
very different form, bases in a different form?
Mr. Goodman. None of the projects are at bases that have
been closed in previous BRAC rounds. There are projects
relating to places that may have been realigned as part of a
previous BRAC round. In other words----
Mr. Olver. But the housing would be related to what its
ultimate realignment is.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay, there are--there's a section in your
paragraph on the conditions for future success where it reads
``Projects to date have generally been sized below an
installation's full housing need.''
Given that there is an enormous need, I can imagine that
being--that makes--that seems to me to make very good sense,
that your projects would not attempt to do everything up--
everything in one base up to full completion because there's so
many needs in your 200,000 units.
And then it goes on to say that--basically some comments
that ultimately lead to the economies of scale are such that
increasing the size of the projects would raise the total
number of units that you get, which is fairly obvious, butthat
would lead you toward doing an ever-greater portion of the number in
one place by increasing the size to get economy of scale. You might--it
might go against the sentence, ``Projects to date have generally been
sized below an installation's full housing need.''
Would you like to kind of assess the balance here between
the policies?
Mr. Goodman. I agree with you. I think that our goal is to
help solve our housing problem. What I've noted is that it
doesn't take a whole lot more work on our part to do a 300-unit
project than it does to do a 200-unit project, or to do a 400-
or 500-unit project than to do a 300-unit project, and if we
can figure out how to leverage our dollars so we can do that
larger amount--that larger project, and we have a requirement
to do so, that it gets more houses for the amount of management
effort and attention that we have to spend.
So all other things being equal, I certainly would favor
trying to do more houses in a project to fill a requirement
rather than doing two or three separate projects to meet that
requirement. We need to pay attention as we're going through
this process to figure out what's the best size of the projects
from the perspective of the private sector.
In other words, are there projects that are too big for
certain kinds of developers, going back to Mr. Hefner's
question? And that's something that we're testing at the
moment.
But where we have a base with a huge requirement, I'd like
to be able to solve that problem with a fewer number of
projects, if we can.
Mr. Olver. Okay, I guess what I--your comment after I
finished that question was you agree with me, and my smile was
that, my goodness, you're a wonderful politician because I
didn't know how anybody could have known what they ought to
agree with at that particular point, but in any case, I guess
your answer is essentially what I had hoped it might be.
Reflecting the numbers here that you're talking about, your
need is up in the 200,000 range and we're talking about out
there with no requests for additional monies in either Fiscal
98 or Fiscal 99, I guess it is. So you're really working on
monies that have already been out there to float as projects.
So your goals are in the range of only 5 or 6 percent of
the total need out there, thus far at least in terms of money
put forward. So we're going to have a hard time getting to the
20,000 level in the next--during this 10-year period if the
first 2 years are at zero, but, you know, we're starting to see
how this whole privatization program works out.
Mr. Goodman. There are two sources of funding for the
program. One is--actually, three sources, if I might. One is
funds that are directly appropriated into the account by this
Committee. The second is funds that are transferred from our
Military Construction Housing accounts into the account to do
privatization projects, and----
Mr. Olver. And you can do that as long as they are not
otherwise designated funds.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, or we can use it to substitute projects.
So, for example, at Fort Carson Congress appropriated about $16
million in 1995 for a construction program. We're able to
transfer the money into the account, leverage it, and address a
much, much bigger problem.
The third source of funds is, to the extent that the
projects themselves are able to save money--in other words,
you're not able--either if you're not able to use all the money
that's transferred into the fund for a project or, for example,
at Corpus Christi where we get dollars back into the project,
we can use those funds, then, to expand.
But I think the greatest source of funds that the
Department is looking at is the, the principal tool, is the
transfer.
Mr. Olver. I see.
Mr. Goodman. The transfer tool.
Mr. Hefner. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Olver. Sure.
Mr. Hefner. But you can't do this unless you have the
authority of this Committee. The Chairman has to sign off.
Mr. Goodman. Yes.
Mr. Hefner. What it amounts to is reprogramming, isn't it?
Mr. Goodman. Absolutely, and built into the legislation at
two key points along the way is notification to Congress. The
first is before we proceed with an RFP; and the second is
before we transfer funds.
You're exactly right. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Mr. Olver. I guess the gist of my questions here about
BRAC's and so forth was that--and we're at such a low level of
meeting a need. The need is very high compared with the point
at which we've reached, but if you're--if we're talking about
the difference between 200 units and 300 units, or 300 and 400
units, as economies of scale, or even up to 1,000 units in a
place, we're nowhere. Even in those locations we're not
probably coming to a very high percentage of the need. What
concerns me is the--I would be concerned if, in the economies
of scale, we were suddenly doing 20,000 in one place or
anything like that because there was a need in that particular
base when the way we function here, and have functioned for the
last few years at least and still are probably in a
considerable degree of flux, we might be deciding, well, that
was not a base that we really intended to use in the same form,
at the same level, same size, or so on, so--but as long as
we're using economies of scale and trying to fill in that hole
of need up to some level that's well below the full level, I
don't think there's any problem in my mind.
Mr. Packard. Let me go to Mr. Wamp and then we'll come back
in another cycle.
davis-bacon
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodman, from my perspective as a former developer of
apartments and real estate two issues have continued to come up
as we've had these hearings in the last 5 or 6 weeks. As we
privatize some of these housing needs in our combined armed
services, is it your opinion that Davis-Bacon, which the
testimony has shown may inflate the cost of construction as
much as 25 percent, definitely applies or might not necessarily
apply when you privatize and enter into an agreement with a
company in the private sector to provide these housing needs?
And the second question--I'll just throw it out as well--
came up earlier from our colleague, Mr. Tiahrt, asking the
question whether or not the Department of Defense can or is
interested in building equity as a limited liability partner
with these private companies. Should we just turn over this
responsibility through a long-term contract,to the private
company without regard to whether or not we build up equity? Is that an
issue or should it be?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Wamp, in regard to your first question,
our lawyers have taken a close look at this and have determined
that in each of these cases the statute is such that Davis-
Bacon does apply and has been included in all of the projects.
I know that this Committee asked the comptroller to try to
get a handle on what those costs were, and we are working with
him and the folks in Acquisition and Procurement are working
with him in support of being able to provide an answer back to
this Committee, but it does apply.
On the second issue, we----
federal acquisition regulation (far)
Mr. Packard. Before we leave that issue, if the gentleman
would yield, let me extend that question beyond Davis-Bacon to
FAR. What has been the determination on FAR? When does it
apply?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to answer that
question now and come back to Mr. Wamp's question?
Mr. Packard. Yes.
Mr. Goodman. We looked at that question in particular when
we----
Mr. Packard. FAR is actually a higher level of requirement
than even Davis-Bacon, is it not?
Mr. Goodman. A higher level of requirement--Davis-Bacon--
I'm not sure I understand your question, sir. Davis-Bacon
applies whether we use the FAR or whether we don't.
Mr. Packard. Okay, go ahead and proceed with your answer.
It will be fine.
Mr. Goodman. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, to you or to Mr.----
Mr. Packard. No, to the FAR question.
Mr. Goodman. Okay. When we had teams working on the Fort
Carson and the Lackland RFPs, as I noted in my statement, and
the Fort Carson folks came back and said they wanted to use the
FAR, and Lackland said they wanted to come back and not use the
FAR, and what I will tell you I was surprised when I saw these
two projects that looked roughly similar with these two very
different approaches, and I asked two questions.
The first question was to our lawyers: are one of these
folks wrong? I wanted to make sure that there was no legal
prohibition, and it took more time than I would have liked to
get an answer to that question but the answer was, no, both
approaches were legally permissible as those projects were
defined.
The second question, I asked was we're going to have RFPs
going out at about the same time for--in two of our first
prioritization projects a lot of the same development folks are
going to be there. Are they going to care? In other words, will
this somehow inhibit the project? So we went out and we talked
to a number in the development and in the finance community to
try to figure out whether this would have some impact on market
acceptance, and the answer that I got back there was that it
didn't matter.
I then tried to figure out whether there were significant
differences in costs. I did not get an answer that one was
significantly greater than the other in terms of costs so my
conclusion was that we should allow both of them to move
forward along those lines and then evaluate and see if we can
draw some lessons going forward.
I think the significant issue here--at least one of the
significant issues here is the amount of control that is
exercised using the FAR or going with a non-FAR approach, which
is essentially using a leasing vehicle as your solicitation
mechanism. It may well be that we have more control via a
contract, which you do under the FAR, than we do through a
leasing mechanism.
This is an issue that's important to me to resolve. It's
one that we are looking at actively because I want to make sure
that we're going to do this in the most efficient mechanism
that we can.
Mr. Packard. You have one, though, that will be done under
FAR and one that's not.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Excellent. Go ahead with----
limited partnership agreements
Mr. Goodman. In response to your second question, the Navy
in 1995 was given the authority to enter limited partnership
agreements, and that was then continued in the authorities that
were part of the '96 Defense Authorization Act. I think my
objective is primarily to figure out the best and most
efficient ways to meet our housing needs. If entering a limited
partnership agreement is the means to do that, I think it's
certainly an approach that we need to explore.
I don't think the Department of Defense is in the for-
profit business, but that said, if we're going to enter a
limited partnership agreement and we're putting up funds, I
certainly want to make sure the Department of Defense is
getting a good shake out of the deal.
Mr. Wamp. So the jury is still out on that issue, really.
You'll test it as you go to make sure that your interests are
protected no matter how that goes?
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir, and we have one on which we have
broken ground and a second project that's now before this
Committee for review.
davis-bacon
Mr. Wamp. Just one follow-up question. You say in your
testimony, ``We must continue to improve the capabilities of
our work force and learn to adopt private sector practices.''
If Davis-Bacon applies, what are the other benefits, the other
cost savings, the other private sector practices, that save
money? If the private sector has to adhere to Davis-Bacon,
where else are the great cost-saving measures?
Mr. Goodman. It's a very good question. I think it relates
first to the standards. We are building these projects to
commercial standards. We are not specifying the projects so
greatly as we often do in our normal military construction
approach, so that they're having to do something considerably
different.
By doing so, we are also bringing more potential developers
into the realm of folks who willing to bid on our projects. I
think that competition will also be quite beneficial in driving
down some of the costs.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
area cost factors
Mr. Packard. On that point, to be more specific and also it
relates to some of the things that Mr. Olver was trying to
resolve in his mind, on the Corpus Christi project with
404units, that figures out to $79,000 a unit from what our figures
show. On Everett, Washington, you have 185 units, and that figures out
to $101,000 per unit, or about a 20 percent difference. Are those
differences reflected in the size, in the cost of construction from
area to area? What are some of the factors that enter into the 20
percent difference from one area of the country to another or one
project to another?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, that's an important question. I
would like to provide you a complete answer to that question,
if I might, for the record.
Mr. Packard. Are there different techniques or are you
using different tools from one to the other in those two
instances?
Mr. Goodman. No, sir, the solicitations look very much the
same.
Mr. Packard. So it is pretty well a like-project
comparison, okay.
Mr. Goodman. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I will provide a full
answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
Housing being developed under these two projects are very
similar in size and amenities. The principle differences in
development cost between these two projects is the cost of land
and the area construction cost factor. Land for the Corpus
Christi project costs less than $1,300 per unit compared to
more than $13,000 per unit at Everett. This nearly $12,000 per
unit cost delta accounts for more than half of the per unit
development cost difference. Additionally, there is a 15
percent difference in area cost factors between Corpus Christi,
Texas and Everett, Washington, with Everett, Washington being
15 percent higher.
bureaucracy
Mr. Packard. I'm still concerned about the time that the
process takes. For instance, the Air Force Lackland project,
that began really in October of '95, and just last month we
finally had the request for proposals. I understand the delays,
at least in this instance, might be attributed to a 20-step
process. A process that involved a lot more hearings, and
presentations, and briefings, and so forth, but nevertheless
are there efforts to streamline the process and what can this
Committee do to help in that effort?
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you entirely. I am
also concerned about the time that it has taken us. Let me tell
you, what we're doing at various steps along the way and what I
think will enable us to speed up the process.
Once the service nominates the site, the first thing that
we do is go out and do a site visit. Initially, this process
took about 5 months. I have no idea why, but I considered that
entirely unacceptable and I did not think that the reports that
I received back from those site visits would have required that
amount of time.
We developed better protocols for the visits, we gained
access to the kind of national data you need to be able to run
some of the housing cost information so we could plug it into
the models that we developed. We now have that process down to
about 3 weeks. From the point that the site visit goes out,
we're getting a report back in 3 weeks. That is probably close
to acceptable.
The second stage in the process after you do that is
developing the RFP. The traditional approach by which these
things happen in the Department of Defense is they get multiple
briefings up through the service. Actually, since it starts out
in the field you have briefings up through the major command,
then up through service headquarters, and then multiple
briefings within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, so
that, the poor folks who are doing this, by the time they're
done before you even get an RFP out have probably given 20
briefings.
I did not think that made sense so my first step in the
process now is before we even get a report back from the
field--is to bring together the folks from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the service folks so we can identify
what it is we think we need and agree on a timetable to get it
there, and I am holding people's feet to the fire as to those
timetables, so that the folks that are doing the work are not
having to get multiple approvals.
You mentioned Lackland; the same applies to Corpus
Christi--a number of issues which were first-time issues for
us. You asked me the question about FAR and non-FAR. Since
there were legal and potentially financial issues at stake, I
wanted to make sure that I had a good answer to that question.
It took longer than I would have liked but that was an
important issue. I think we now know the answer to that
question.
So I think that having worked out some of these critical
issues will significantly speed up our RFP development stage.
I'd like to bring that down, and you mentioned the length of
time. We ought to be in the 6-month, 6- to 9-month, time frame
for RFP development max, and better still.
Mr. Packard. So is it essential that all 20 steps or so
that you mentioned before or after the RFPs are sent out to go
through the different levels and different agencies or can
those be combined? I have to assume that the briefings are very
similar from one agency to the next, and you're probably all
right over there at the Pentagon or somewhere where they could
maybe jointly hold some of the briefings, consolidate them.
Mr. Goodman. One of the things that we have done very
successfully in the acquisition, in the hardware acquisition,
area is to develop integrated product teams, where you have
everybody sitting around the table. I'm doing that with all of
the folks at my level, and I'm insisting that that also happens
at the action officer level, so that you don't get into this
whole sequential process. I think that's exactly the direction
that we need to do more of.
delayed regular construction projects
Mr. Packard. Have the funded housing, family housing,
construction projects been delayed pending outcome of
privatization research and projects? And has the site selection
process also slowed down because of these privatization
efforts?
Mr. Goodman. I'm sorry, sir, would you repeat the question,
please?
Mr. Packard. Well, I'm concerned or interested in whether
the funding for family housing projects has been delayed
pending the outcome of privatization projects; and the second
question would be has the site selection process slowed down--
or slowed the regular construction process down? Is
privatization interfering with and slowing down other
construction processes?
Mr. Goodman. To the extent that we are evaluating whether
we should replace housing funded through our traditional
military construction approach with privatized housing, it
certainly does slow that down because what we're seeking to do
is figure out is there a better way to do that.
Regarding site selection, are you referring to when we're
trying to figure out where you locate--where you might locate
the privatized housing project?
Mr. Packard. Yes, and has that slowed down the regular
construction program?
Mr. Goodman. I think the answer to that question is no.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Okay, yes, Mr. Hefner.
privatization versus 801 housing
Mr. Hefner. Well, I have a lot of questions, and I feel
sure you're going to have a lot of questions before we sit
down--the bottom line is that, and Mr. Wamp mentioned this
about equity--of course, I would like to see some equity, but
my concern is not so much equity. My concern is responsibility
that the federal government will have as far as costs go, and I
have said, often said, in the 801 housing I would like to be a
developer and get in the 801 housing where I would have the
guarantee of the money. I would be guaranteed full occupancy
and I would be guaranteed after 20 years that it's mine; we're
going to renegotiate. I mean, that's a heck of a deal.
But I see a lot of problems arising from this, and
especially I see a lot of problems for those of us that have
bases in our districts where we're going to have a lot people
coming to us, small contractors and the local economy folks,
that are saying ``we've got units here that are sitting open
and we can't rent them,'' what-have-you and this sort of thing.
But again I go back to my earlier statement that my concern
is to try to get the most for our dollar, and get a decent
place for our people to live, and, you know, one solution,
maybe kind of far out, would go back to what we did years ago.
We build housing on base and we teach a course in our services
on how to be carpenters, and plumbers, and what-have-you, and
have them learn a trade so if you don't make a career out of
the service you learn a trade and keep them up ourselves. That
is one solution, but I just hope that you don't set up a
situation where you're going to have a huge bureaucracy.
A lot of small companies are going to say, ``Hey, we can't
do that. We can't do all the paperwork. We can't read all the
rules'' and a lot of them are not going to be able to do it
financially unless they have the backing from a NationsBank, or
First Union, or whoever. They're not going to be able to
participate, and what worries me is the giant conglomerates
come in and the first thing you know it will be--we'll have a
cartel in building houses for the military. I don't think
that's real good.
Privatizing sounds real good, and I'm for the free
enterprise system and all this, but I think we have to be very
careful, especially in this area, because you're dealing with--
like in Fort Bragg. I keep going back to Fort Bragg, but Fort
Bragg is the absolute lifeblood of Fayetteville, North
Carolina, and you've got people there that for 20 years have
been in a moving business and working in conjunction with the
base there. You've got people there who have been building
condominiums, and homes, and what-have-you.
And one other question. Will these buildings that will be
built, they won't be built on the installation. They'll be
built in different areas. Will there be different designs
especially for the specific sites--will they be site adaptable?
Will you have architects you'll work with and what-have-you?
Mr. Goodman. Some of our projects are on private land and
some of our projects are on base. At Fort Carson and Lackland,
those are both on-base projects.
I think we are not seeking to mandate a design but we're
certainly asking them to do projects that are attractive
projects in which our service members and their families will
want to live, and that's very important.
o&m account
Mr. Hefner. One other question, briefly. In O&M money--O&M
money is used for upkeep, what-have-you. That money, if it is
not used, could it be transferred into this program?
Mr. Goodman. I don't think so. I think the only thing that
we are allowed to transfer into the fund is military
construction funds.
Mr. Hefner. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
installation involvement
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Hefner. The next series of
questions that I have I think are quite crucial, and they
really will relate to how well the personnel out on the bases
and the users, the men and women who will occupy the housing,
how well they're involved in this process. I sense that there's
a void here that I would like to get your response to.
At Everett and Corpus Christi, were family housing projects
developed without the involvement of the bases, or the
personnel, or the installations, why was that done? Why didn't
you consult with the bases themselves, the personnel who
actually knew more about the location, and the site, and the
project, and the need, why were they not consulted?
Mr. Goodman. Two comments, Mr. Chairman. First, the site
visits/RFP preparation was done largely before the Housing
Revitalization Support Office was set up here as I understand
it, but I've reviewed these issues with the Navy and my
understanding is that the local base commanders were consulted
in the process as they were trying to figure out what kind of
need they had, what kind of unit configuration they needed, and
roughly where those should be.
Mr. Packard. Were the officials from these installations
involved in the site selection, in the choosing of developers?
Were they involved in negotiating the rents the Navy agreed to?
Were they involved in those kinds of activities?
Mr. Goodman. The actual site selection was, as I understand
it, part of the bid, so the question then is were there local
people who were part of the source selection team.
Mr. Packard. Were they part of the team?
Mr. Goodman. The information I've received to that question
is no, they were not. You had people from the fleet and from
NAVFAC, but there were not folks on the source selection team.
Mr. Packard. Why not?
Mr. Goodman. I don't know the answer to that question but
what I do know is that in our projects that we have at Lackland
and Fort Carson, with which I'm more intimately familiar, that
we have been working extensively with the base commanders in
helping define the projects, and, in addition, that those base
commanders are holding open town meetings to which all families
are invited to discuss the projects, what they're thinking
about, to promote greater involvement.
I think this is a very important issue because I think we
need to promote greater user input into these projects. We
normally count on our base commanders to do this, and I think
it's an issue on which I want to focus in greater detail.
Mr. Packard. So, you mentioned in your oral statement that
you want to build on lessons that you've learned thus far. This
you would consider one of those things you want to change
because you feel it was a void in the processing of the first
two projects?
Mr. Goodman. Well, to be honest, at the time we began this
at Lackland and Fort Carson, I didn't know the, the actual
extent of, involvement. I'm not sure I have an opinion at this
point about who should be on a source selection team, but I
think it is desirable, but more importantly I think it's
desirable that early on we have as much local input as
possible.
Mr. Packard. Well, I think to highlight this problem and
maybe you can explain why, as I suggested last week, February
27, the housing officials at the Naval Station in Everett were
unaware of the agreed-to rents, and part of the reason is it's
never been discussed with them or the sailors in that area, and
that certainly is something that I don't understand. As of
almost a week ago they are not even aware, or were not aware,
of the rents that would be charged and the agreements that have
already been signed or made.
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that tomorrow there
is a meeting between some of my staff, Navy personnel, and
Committee staff. I will work to make sure that we are able to
answer those questions.
user involvement
Mr. Packard. On the user involvement question, in your
testimony you state that ``I now bring together senior Service
and OSD officials to review the major outlines of projects and
identify major concerns and issues.''
At what point in this process do you bring the actual men
that will occupy those units into the picture?
Mr. Goodman. Well, the base commander and the local folks
are now involved early on.
Mr. Packard. Were they before?
Mr. Goodman. I'm unable to answer that, but I know what we
have done at Lackland and Fort Carson. I believe that the
commanders at Corpus were involved early on in determining what
the broad configuration of the project would be.
What we do now, though, is that when the HRSO service team
goes out to do the initial site visit, that then results in
that report that I mentioned is going to come back in 3 weeks.
They're meeting out there with the commanders and with the
commanders' housing staff.
That discussion is important, and the communication there
is important because we need to make sure the local commander
has a good understanding of what is possible, and we need to
learn from him also what is desirable, and that is a really
important communication that takes place.
Mr. Packard. When I visited the facilities in the San Diego
area, Navy as well as Marine Corps facilities, we visited the
housing placement offices and talked to the personnel and they
were frankly very expert on knowing where adequate housing
would be available for young men and women who would come in
seeking housing. They would know rental rates and structures,
what was appropriate, what was too high, what a particular rank
would be able to afford, and then we talked to some of the
families themselves and found what kind of housing they could
afford and what kind they simply could not afford to move into.
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Packard. From my personal point of view, within a
matter of a day's visit, I got some information that I think
would be essential for this process to work. I think thatthe
commanders don't know as much as those housing people know that are
responsible on a day-to-day basis to help these young families find
housing, and I think that the families themselves can tell your people
some things that they wouldn't get from a base commander, or certainly
not get from your Pentagon hierarchy that is in this loop of processing
the projects.
Mr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, let me correct the impression
that I inadvertently created. When the site team goes out
there, it does not just meet with the commander. It is meeting
with all of the folks in their housing office.
I've also in the last 6 months visited a number of bases
and I find the most useful thing when I visit houses, and I'm
accompanied, as I'm sure as you are by the commander, is to try
to leave the commander by the door and get the, generally, the
spouse to give me a tour of the house without the service
member there, because you know you're going to get the straight
scoop and nobody's going to be worried about what the impact's
going to be on their career.
I think it is important that we have these open town
meetings and that our folks are there. I think those
discussions are important. I think it is both helpful in
defining the project, and it's an important validity check. I
just didn't want to leave you with the impression that I am not
in complete agreement with your position.
Mr. Packard. I don't think that was done in the case of the
Corpus Christi or Everett projects. Now you are indicating to
me that you've changed that process.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. I don't believe the sailors or the families
were really involved in this whole question of whether they can
afford the housing project--or the houses in the project that
was being developed.
Mr. Goodman. I'm not sure whether they were consulted, and
I would like to be able to defer that discussion, if I might,
to our meeting with your staff tomorrow because I----
Mr. Packard. The ongoing projects that are under your
jurisdiction now, you intend to involve that input?
Mr. Goodman. Oh, yes, sir.
utilities
Mr. Packard. One other question that relates, I think, to
the users, and this really, I think, gets to the question of
whether the projects are going to succeed in terms of what
we're building them for. We're building these projects under a
privatization process to provide on a quicker basis needed
housing for our military personnel, mostly for your mid- or
lower-level ranks.
One of the concerns that I've picked up in this process,
reviewing it and studying it, is the question of utilities.
That can make or break a deal of whether it's doable for some
of these service personnel because they're on a very finite
allowance, and if, in fact, they're expected to pick up the
utility costs that can be a significant addition that may not
be factored in when they are initially built.
What range of options are being considered under the
various projects now regarding the costs of utilities? Is it
correct that the cost of utilities is one factor used in
determining the variable housing allowances, and, if so, isn't
the decision to exclude utilities from a privatization project
thereby--therefore leaving it to be assumed by the occupant,
isn't that tantamount to paying for the utilities twice?
Mr. Goodman. First, we have dealt with this differently in
our two different kinds of projects.
At Corpus Christi and at Lackland, utilities--the total
rent that will be paid by the service members and their
families is their BAQ/VHA. They will not be paying any
utilities out of pocket.
There are, I understand, black boxes to which we could
eventually put meters if we ever decided to change that, but
that is not included in their expected rent.
Mr. Packard. How was that handled at Corpus Christi and
Everett?
Mr. Goodman. At Corpus Christi and Everett what is the
service members will be paying, will be paying for utilities.
To get to your earlier point, our calculations of BAQ/VHA
never covered all of the members, all of their--all of the
utilities that people have to pay when they go in the private
sector and rent housing. I don't think we're double paying
here.
Mr. Packard. Do you have an estimate of what the utility
costs are at Corpus Christi and Everett?
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir, I do, and let me tell you on what
those numbers are based. Let me first just mention, if I might,
if I can go through Corpus Christi because we went through a
similar process in Everett.
In 1994, Naval Facilities Engineering Command went out to
calculate the average monthly cost of utilities in the Corpus
Christi/Ingleside area, hiring a firm, Metro Market Trends,
Incorporated. Based on a range of data, including surveys of
state and local real estate management firms, interviews with
the local utility, Central Power and Light, with other utility
providers, looking at the average utility cost per month for
the Corpus Christi/Ingleside, Texas, area, they came up with a
range of $90 per month for a two-bedroom to $125 per month for
a four-bedroom.
As part of the solicitation, the bidders were asked to
estimate what they considered to be likely utility costs for
their projects, and I don't have those numbers but I understand
that they came in roughly within those ranges.
Navy consultants then went out to validate that information
and they surveyed recent commercial projects in the area, and
the numbers were in the same ball park.
Now, one of the things I think is unique here is that as
part of the RFP energy efficiency, the ability of the
developer's to save energy was specifically noted as an item
that would be reviewed as part of the total project. So these
projects are likely to be even more energy efficient than the
other local houses.
I understand that some data that the Committee may have
seen is in disagreement with these numbers, and I think that
what I would propose is that at this meeting tomorrow we share
this full data with Committee staff to be able to provide this
to you.
Mr. Packard. I think the real issue for me is, is it
included? Are the utilities included in the rental feethat's
normally quoted to service personnel, or is it an addition, or is it
separate, and is that taken into consideration in terms of their
allowance and their ability to pay?
In other words, will we drive service families away from
these projects because they cannot absorb the utility costs
plus the cost of rental? If we drive them away then, of course,
we're building, privately building, homes that are not to serve
the purpose for which we're building them.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir, I think that is exactly the right
question. My understanding, based on the information that I
have reviewed to that, is that no, we are not doing so, that
their rent plus their utilities, when you compare BAQ/VHA to
their rent plus the utilities, that that is well below what we
consider acceptable housing costs prices.
But I understand that some data that this Committee has
seen may be in conflict with those numbers and I know that my
staff and the Navy would like to get with your staff and really
lay all that information out, because we shouldn't have any
disagreements about that fact.
intended purpose of privatized housing
Mr. Packard. I'm ready to wrap this up because we do have a
vote going on, but the thing that I would like to close on is
these are very, very important beginnings. We cannot afford to
fail on these initial pilot projects because they will set the
tone for all other projects to follow, and we're looking for
grand success in this area, and I think you know that we are
supporting the concept; but we are concerned about some
loopholes that we sense have not been carefully addressed in
the two initial projects, Corpus Christi and Everett.
I would be very, very concerned, if, in fact, after we all
went through all of this effort, we found that the developer
could not provide a rental including utilities that the
personnel could afford. If they can't afford them, then it's
either going to officers or it's going to go to some other
people who we did not intend to address, then we would have
people still unaddressed in terms of adequate housing simply
because we didn't do these right to begin with.
And then if we model all future projects after these two
initial models without correcting these loopholes, then we've
got a serious problem, and we haven't solved our problem for
providing adequate housing for our mid-level personnel. That
would be a tragic mistake and I don't wish for that to happen,
and so we will follow very closely to make certain that these
projects provide affordable housing.
If an E-5, or E-4, or an E-6 cannot get into this kind of
housing because they simply did not have enough allowance and
have to pick up additional costs for utilities that were not
calculated in, then that becomes a serious problem. I don't
care whether it pencils out economically at the end of the 10
years or the 15-year-period. You may be able to justify that it
was a good venture, but if it still failed to provide them with
the housing then we're diverting those funds to an effort that
is not solving the problem that we intended those funds to be
used for. That's the crux of what I am trying to get to.
I've got some other important questions but not the time to
ask. I don't choose to ask you to remain and wait for me to
vote and come back. I will submit them to you for your
response. Would you be willing to do that?
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. And any other questions that any member of the
Committee might ask you?
Mr. Goodman. Of course.
Mr. Packard. But that is very critical to me. I sense that
these first two projects had some areas that may leave us
wanting in those areas, and we may want to pursue that a little
bit further. I sense, however, that you are trying to correct
these concerns as we proceed with other projects.
Mr. Goodman. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. With that, the hearing is adjourned and thank
you very, very much. You've been a good witness.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Packard.]
HRSO Administrative Expenses
Question. Why is the Department proposing to transfer HRSO
administrative expenses from the Family Housing Improvement
Account to the Defense-Wide O&M account which is under the
jurisdiction of the National Security Subcommittee?
Answer. HRSO was chartered by the Secretary of Defense to
develop both family housing and barracks projects using the
alternative authorities for acquisition and improvement of
military housing provided by Congress. However, Congress
established separate funds for family housing and barracks
projects, required that the funds be separately administered,
and prohibited commingling of the funds. Since HRSO will be an
integral participant during the development of both family
housing and barracks projects, funding HRSO activities through
the Family Housing Improvement Fund would violate the
commingling of funds prohibition. Consequently, to comply with
the legislation, funding for the HRSO was moved from the Family
Housing Improvement Fund to the O&M Defense-Wide appropriation
in FY 1998 where similar management support activities are
funded. Since the Department could comply with the existing
legislation by moving HRSO funding to the O&M Defense-Wide
account, no legislative change was necessary.
Question. Of the funds appropriated in the past two years,
how much has been spent on staff salaries and how much has been
spent for consultants?
Answer. None of the money appropriated to the Family
Housing Improvement Fund has been spent on HRSO staff salaries.
HRSO staff salaries for the 15 individuals assigned to HRSO are
paid from O&M or Military Pay appropriations of their parent
organization. Of the money appropriated in the past two years
for HRSO administrative expenses, about 89% will be spent on
consultant support for development of the program and specific
projects.
Question. How much of the HRSO funding has been spent to
date for facilities and equipment, travel and for consultants
and their travel?
Answer. To date we have spent a total of $3.6 million to
develop the program and specific projects. Of this, $455K has
been for HRSO facilities, equipment and travel. The remainder .
. . $3.2 million has funded consultant support.
Question. Who is paying for the additional training of
service personnel to gain expertise in private sector
operations and, specifically what type of training are they
receiving?
Answer. All HRSO staff are required to attend the National
Development Council's demanding three week ``Housing
Development Finance Professional Certification Course.'' So
far, half of the HRSO staff has earned their certification and
the other members are in various stages of the course work.
This or similar training is also required for most service
personnel who are developing privatization proposals. The Army
is sponsoring the National Development Council courses which
are being attended by HRSO staff as well as staff from all
branches of the military. The HRSO is paying for its staff
members to attend and the Services are paying for their staff
members to attend their courses.
Question. Why is the fiscal year 1998 request of $7 million
for HRSO salaries and expenses more than double what has been
spent in the last two years?
Answer. As we ramp up the program and increase the number
of projects the level of consultant support require increases
proportionately.
Question. Provide for the record detailed justification for
the $7 million request.
Answer. Approximately $600,000 will go to HRSO facilities,
equipment and travel similar to first year expenditures. The
remainder will be for consultant support consistent with
projected ramp-up of the program. The detailed project workload
for FY98 will depend on progress of projects currently in the
pipeline.
Question. Provide for the record all salaries paid by OSD
and the individual components of all HRSO personnel.
Answer. HRSO salaries for staff members are as follows:
1........................................ GS8........................ Step 10.................... $37,289
1........................................ GS9........................ Step 1..................... 31,680
1........................................ 04......................... A/F........................ 47,970
1........................................ 05......................... A/F........................ 59,468
1........................................ 05......................... USMC....................... 61,545
2........................................ GS13....................... Step 5..................... 61,913
1........................................ GS14....................... Step 2..................... 66,707
1........................................ GS14....................... Step 7..................... 77,466
1........................................ GS15....................... Step 6..................... 88,590
3........................................ GS15....................... Step 10.................... 98,714
1........................................ SES 3...................... ........................... 113,751
------------
Total.............................. ........................... ........................... $1,004,434
Question. Provide for the record all actual expenditures to
date and planned expenditures for the remainder of fiscal year
1997.
Answer. Actual expenditures to date are $3.6 million.
Planned expenditures for the remainder of fiscal year 1997 are
$2.4 million.
HRSO Jurisdiction
Question. Are there any plans to expand HRSO jurisdiction,
perhaps to oversee the proposed utility privation?
Answer. We expect to limit HRSO jurisdiction to
privatization of military housing.
Economic Analysis
Question. When conducting an economic analysis on these
projects, does the Department look at what the total cost
(including housing allowances and utility payments by service
personnel) over the life of the project is?
Answer. Yes.
Transfer of Funds
Question. Has there been any reluctance on the part of the
Services to transfer an entire construction project
appropriation into the Family Housing Improvement Fund, even
when the cost of privatization is less than the traditional
construction project?
Answer. No experience yet. All of the projects currently
approved for development expand the number of housing units
being constructed under privatization and require the entire
military construction project appropriation for funding.
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
Question. What problems is DoD having in determining
whether or not the FAR applies is housing privatization
projects?
Answer. DoD General Counsel has closely reviewed whether
the FAR applies to privatization projects. The answer depends
on which authorities are used in a specific deal and how they
are used. Basically when there is a direct obligation of
appropriated funds to directly acquire military housing or
services, the FAR applies. In many privatization projects this
will not be the case. However, the Military Department may opt
to use certain FAR provisions because they are deemed
appropriate to protect the interest of the government.
Question. Is the Department experiencing increased costs for
housing privatization projects due to the FAR?
Answer. There are specific FAR clauses which have been conjectured
to increase costs. Investigation of the specifics of these increases
have thus far been inconclusive. The most commonly mentioned clause
regards application of the Davis Bacon Act. In this case it doesn't
matter whether the solicitation is under the FAR or not, since Davis
Bacon applies due to the federal nature of the projects.
Question. What is the estimated percentage of increased costs of
housing privatization projects using the FAR?
Answer. As discussed in Question 13, results of investigation into
this question have been inconclusive.
Question. What is estimated increased cost of the FAR for the
ongoing housing privatization projects at Fort Carson, Camp Pendleton,
and Corpus Christi?
Answer. At present, we have no hard data that would support
increased costs related to following FAR. We are continuing to evaluate
the issue.
Question. Why was Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, allowed to issue
the Request for Proposal (RFP) for its housing privatization project
without the FAR provisions?
Answer. The Lackland project is a real estate transaction. The
primary legal instrument for the project is a ground lease of the
installation land. Outleases of federal land are not governed by the
FAR. The FAR applies to ``the acquiring by contract with appropriated
funds of supplies or services (including construction) by and for the
use of the Federal Government through purchase or lease . . .'' (FAR
part 2.101). The Air Force's role in the Lackland project is merely
that of a lessor of land whose interests are defined and protected in
both the commercial and public sectors by a lease agreement. The
improvements (housing facilities) will be owned by the ground lessee.
The ground lease will incorporate, as an exhibit, a subordinate
companion operating agreement which will implement the lease and
address day-to-day details. The ground lease will control in the event
of conflict between any provisions of the two instruments. The Air
Force is following competitive procedures in determining which
developer will be selected to construct the housing on the outleased
land.
Impact Aid
Question. How is impact aid going to be determined with
privatization projects?
Answer. Normally, when housing is off-base (thus taxable) a low
level of impact aid is available to local schools. For on base housing,
a higher level of impact aid would be provided. This presumes there is
not an on base school available.
Expiration of Authority
Question. Will five years be enough to get a thorough testing of
the privatization market for family housing? For unaccompanied housing?
Answer. We believe the five year test period will provide adequate
time to see how the authorities work.
Non-Performing Contractors
Question. In the traditional Construction and Family Housing
programs, there are well-established and widely-understood means for
dealing with non-performing contractors. In general terms, how would
this be handled under an FHIF-Funding Project?
Answer. This is one of the major concerns with the program. The
goal is to ensure we select experienced proven managers to provide
quality operation and maintenance. We also have to write contracts
which accurately specify performance criteria. To accomplish this we
are providing expert consultant support to help structure solicitations
and evaluate proposals in this critical area. Additionally we are
reviewing some of our experience from the Section 801 Build-to-Lease
program for lessons learned in this regard.
Question. Is special attention being given to avoid non-performance
of maintenance work?
Answer. Yes. See answer to the preceding question.
Voluntary Assignment
Question. What assurance can you provide that assignment of
individual service members to FHIF-funded family housing units will be
strictly voluntary?
Answer. Service members will be referred to privatized housing when
assigned to the military base. As with regular military family housing,
they will choose whether to live there or not. The privatization
projects are being structured to be desirable for our service members
vice mandatory. One of our authorities allows us to provide rental
guarantees to the developers, and OMB considers assignment of
individual members as a rental guarantee. Due to severe budget scoring
incurred under this authority, we do not anticipate providing rental
guarantees at this time.
Question. How would OSD respond to any involuntary assignment?
Answer. As described in the preceeding answer, a project designed
with involuntary assignment would not be feasible due to budget scoring
impact and would not be approved.
Question. Is it correct that there is no guarantee that any
military personnel will occupy FHIF-funded family housing units?
Answer. As noted in the two preceding questions rental guarantees
would have severe budget scoring impact and therefore offer little
advantage over normal military construction. We do not anticipate using
rental guarantees at this time. However the privatized housing is
designed to be affordable, quality housing which military personnel
will live in by choice.
OMB Scoring
Question. What problems is DOD having with OMB scoring of housing
privatization projects to ensure they are fully funded before contracts
are awarded?
Answer. OMB has agreed to scoring under the Credit Reform Act for
our projects at Ft. Carson and Lackland AFB. We are working closely
with OMB to formalize procedures for future projects as we finalize
these first two. In any case scoring for each project is approved by
OMB prior to contract award.
Question. How did OMB score the projects at Corpus Christi
and Everett?
Answer. The projects at Corpus Christi and Everett are
limited partnership projects and, as such, are scored 100% up
front. They do not qualify for credit reform scoring.
Question. Is this scoring of any value in predicting how
OMB will score future projects?
Answer. The scoring used on these projects will be of value
only for projects executed using limited partnerships.
Non-Appropriated Funds
Question. For the projects that you have reviewed to date,
has there been any involvement whatsoever with the non-
appropriated funds, such as out-lease of land that includes a
commissary, officer club, theater, or recreation facilities?
Answer. No.
Question. If so, how is this included in the calculations?
Answer. Not applicable.
Property Taxes
Question. When the Services issue RFP's for privatization
projects, what direction is given to bidders regarding property
taxes?
Answer. The private developer is responsible for all real
estate taxes. Whether they are required to be paid or not has
raised considerable discussion in the Ft. Carson RFP process.
The DoD position is that taxes are not required but this does
not rule out possible litigation regarding this issue.
The city or state may not be able to tax the land or
buildings if exclusive federal jurisdiction applies, but the
burden is on the private entity to verify and obtain the
necessary paperwork from the taxing authorities. As stated
before, there is considerable legal disagreement over this
issue.
Question. Is the Department seeking statutory clarificaiton
of whether or not property taxes will apply to these projects?
Answer. Not at this time. Each project must be considered
on an individual basis based on the specific legal terminology
used when the land in question was transferred to DoD.
Maintenance
Question. What is the range of options being considered under
various projects regarding costs for maintenance?
Answer. This is a critical aspect of the program which will
significantly impact the long term viability of the projects. We are
emphasizing selection criteria that ensure proven, quality operators
will be selected and have enlisted expert consultant help in the source
selection process.
Limits on Federal Liability for Costs
Question. What is the range of options being considered under
various projects regarding limitations on Federal liability for costs?
Answer. We expect operation and maintenance of the projects to be
provided by the private sector for our housing privatization projects.
Unit Size
Question. Should we continue funding the construction of two
bedroom units or are larger units for lower graded enlisted personnel
and their families, the ones that are needed most?
Answer. Projects are developed for the grade structure and family
demographics of the specific location. We anticipate a mixture of units
based on the local requirement.
Family Housing Improvement Fund
Question. Why were the Navy's Limited Partnership Agreements at
Corpus Christi the only ones funded completely from the Family Housing
Improvement Fund even though the installation had construction funds
available which could have been used?
Answer. At the time the Corpus Christi Limited Partnership
Agreements (LPA) were executed the congressionally added fiscal year
1995 construction funding was committed for award of a parallel
military construction project to construct 100 units at Naval Air
Station Kingsville. Therefore the Family Housing Improvement Fund
provided $9.5 million to the Navy for execution of this limited
partnership which was the first test of our new authorities.
HRSO Workload Measurement
Question. What workload measures can you provide to indicate what
value is added to Service proposals by HRSO's efforts?
Answer. During the first year of operations, HRSO established the
policies and procedures necessary to implement the initiative.
Specifically, HRSO issued guidance to define how to take projects from
inception to completion. It developed a comprehensive pro forma to help
screen the financial feasibility of projects at potential privatization
sites. It established protocols for the collection of site specific
data, as well as criteria for identifying those sites where the
authorities could be used most effectively. And it contracted with
expert consultants to assist in the complex and unfamiliar task of
commercial real estate development and finance.
HRSO joins with the Military Departments to form site visit teams
to evaluate the feasibility of privatization and to recommend which
specific authorities would be best suited to the circumstances of the
particular location. The HRSO also oversees the RFP process and is the
DoD action office to address legal and Office of Management and Budget
issues.
The HRSO has also worked aggressively to increase awareness and
understanding of the program in both the commercial real estate and
financial communities. The HRSO addresses industry associations,
national conferences and local industry forums for each project. The
HRSO Internet Home Page hhtp://www.acq.osd.mil/iai/hrso) is a good
example of this outreach.
Question. What accomplishments have been achieved so far?
Answer. In our first year, we got off to a good start. In December,
the Department broke ground on the first project--a limited partnership
project at the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, for 400 units
of junior enlisted personnel family housing. The Department of the Navy
cost for the project is $9.5 million. Using our traditional MilCon
approach, it would have cost the Navy about $12 million to build just
100 units. The Navy issued an award in March for our second project--a
$6 million partnership project at Naval Station Everett, Washington, to
construct 185 units for junior enlisted personnel. We have issued
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for two other projects; two more RFPs are
under development. All together, these projects will revitalize more
than 4,000 units. The Department is now reviewing a host of new sites
nominated by the Military Departments to expand the program
significantly in the coming year.
Question. What measurable plan of work does HRSO have for fiscal
year 1997 and 1998?
Answer. In developing candidate sites for FY 97 and FY 98, the
military departments were instructed to evaluate both family housing
and barracks, to increase the number of candidate projects, and the
number of units in each project. Projects to date have generally been
sized below an installation's full housing need. Since the costs to
bring a project to completion do not increase significantly with size,
larger projects are more cost effective than smaller ones. Increasing
the size of projects would also raise the total number of housing units
that could be constructed or revitalized through the program. Our goal
is to double the number of units planned for construction and
revitalization--from the 4,000 in FY 1996 to 8,000 units in FY 1997 to
16,000 in FY 1998.
[Page 223--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. For the majority of these contracts, the units
were built on government-owned land, outleased to the
contractor at a nominal cost. The terms of the contract require
the contractor to remove all improvements from this leased land
and to vacate the site at the completion of the 20-year period.
In theory, the Department of Defense could seek authority to
renew and/or renegotiate these contracts in some manner yet to
be determined. It is more than half-way through the lease
period for the oldest of these contracts. Is there an overall
plan for the completion of the program?
Answer. The earliest 801 projects terminate in 2006. As we
determine our housing requirements through our normal planning
process, we will take completion of this program into account.
At this point it is too early to tell whether we need to keep
these projects in the inventory or not.
Question. Will the completion of the section 801 program
fall under the purview of HRSO? If not, why not?
Answer. We do not anticipate completing the 801 program
under the purview of HRSO at this time. Currently the HRSO
authorities are in a five year test period of the earliest 801
completion is 2006.
Question. Is there a possibility that the Family Housing
Improvement Fund could be used in connection with these
``build-to-lease'' contracts?
Answer. As noted in the preceding question, the HRSO test
authorities are in a five year test period and the earliest 801
completion is 2006. Consideration of this connection is
premature before requesting permanent HRSO authorities.
Funding Mechanism
Question. The authorization and appropriation for the FHIF
specifically permit transfers to the Fund from amounts
appropriated for Construction in ``Family Housing'' accounts.
Have any such transfers occurred? If so, from which accounts
and in what amounts? If not, why not?
Answer. $5.9M was transferred from Navy family housing
accounts to fund the Navy's Everett project. Congressional
notification was provided in February 1997.
Legislative Proposals
Question. Provide for the record any authorization and
appropriation language that is deemed necessary to establish a separate
account in the Military Construction Appropriations Act to fund all
expenses for HRSO, including payroll compensation and benefits of
Federal employees.
Answer. No language is required.
O&M Account
Question. Why was a decision made to fund such expenses under the
Defense-Wide O&M account in the National Security Appropriations Act,
rather than propose language to accomplish such funding in the Military
Construction Act.
Answer. HRSO was chartered by the Secretary of Defense to develop
both family housing and barracks projects using the alternative
authorities for acquisition and improvement of military housing
provided by Congress. However, Congress established separate funds for
family housing and barracks projects, required that the funds be
separately administered, and prohibited commingling of the funds. Since
HRSO will be an integral participant during the development of both
family housing and barracks projects, funding HRSO activities through
the Family Housing Improvement Fund would violate the commingling of
funds prohibition. Consequently, to comply with the legislation,
funding for the HRSO was moved from the Family Housing Improvement Fund
to the O&M Defense-Wide appropriation in FY 1998 where similar
management support activities are funded. Since the Department could
comply with the existing legislation by moving HRSO funding to the O&M
Defense-Wide account, no legislative change was necessary.
Project Data
Question. For the record, submit form 1391s for all projects
proposed for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, including but not limited to
Corpus Christi, Everett, Fort Carson, Lackland AFB, and Camp Pendleton.
Answer. The Services have not prepared 1391s for the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects. The information
normally provided by a 1391 is required to be submitted during the
congressional notification process prior to the Department's
solicitation of the project. Notifications have been sent to congress
for Corpus Christi, Everett, Fort Carson and Lackland AFB. The Camp
Pendleton and other MHPI projects are currently being prepared and
reviewed by the Services and DoD prior to submission. It normally takes
130 to 140 days to develop the project and solicitation plan. At the
end of this period the Department has sufficient information to meet
the MHPI reporting requirements.
Budget Appendix Material
Question. The Program and Financing Statement for the fiscal year
1998 budget shows total obligations of $5 million for the Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund during fiscal year 1997, with
unpaid obligations of $5 million at the end of fiscal year 1999.
Why does the Program and Financing Statement for the Family Housing
Improvement Fund show an unobligated balance of $62 million at the end
of fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The Program and Financing Statement for the Family Housing
Improvement Fund does not show an unobligated balance of $62 million at
the end of FY 99. It shows $62 million of unexpended obligations, and
$19 million unobligated.
Corpus Christi, Limited Partnership Agreements
Question. Why are only 404 housing units to be built when a
shortage of 602 units was identified?
Answer. As a pilot project the scope of the Limited Partnership at
Corpus Christi was a balance between being large enough to stimulate
local development and yet small enough to be manageable. Additionally,
the Navy typically only programs military construction projects up to
90 percent of requirement.
Question. Why did the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) and Navy Official agree to ``rents plus utilities'' that
are more than lower graded enlisted personnel can afford?
Answer. In the solicitation for the Navy's Public-Private
Venture for housing for the Corpus Christi area, the Navy told
developers that they should consider the BAQ/VHA for an E-5
with dependents as the target rate for a 3-bedroom unit. Rents
for the different units were not fixed at thee BAQ/VHA for each
pay grade or for any particular pay grade. Navy wanted the
developer's offered rents to be an element of the evaluation
process so that they could select that development proposal
which offered the Best Value to the government, that is, the
highest quality housing with the lowest rents closest to the
target E-5 with dependents. It was recognized that an E-7 with
dependents would have less out-of-pocket expenses as a tenant
in a 3-bedroom unit and an E-3 with dependent would have more.
The fiscal year 1995 legislation which authorized the Navy
to enter into a Limited Partnership for the development of
family housing identified an objective with respect to rental
rates, namely, that the rental rates for some or all of the
units available to service members be affordable to such
members. ``Affordability'' is defined in terms of the service
member's ``Maximum Allowable Housing Cost.'' This objective has
been met for the target population.
Question. What are OSD and the Navy going to do if lower
graded enlisted personnel do not rent the housing units built
for them because they cannot afford them?
Answer. There is no indication that the target grade
families, E-5, would not chose to rent units in these
developments. However, if military families do not elect to
completely fill these developments, the Limited Partnership
Agreement does allow the developers to lease available units to
civilian occupants. Civilian lease terms are limited to one-
year to maintain lease preference for military families.
Question. What have the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and Navy done to protect the Government's $9.5 million
investment if Landmark Residential defaults on the Limited
Partnership Agreements and walks from the two Corpus Christi,
Texas housing privatization projects?
Answer. There are a number of features incorporated into
the Limited Partnership Agreement which protect the Navy's
investment. Landmark Organization, Incorporated, and its
president, Mark Schultz, have provided personal and corporate
guarantees. All budget overruns (construction and operation)
are assumed by the General Partner. During construction, an
independent consulting architect reviews invoices and approves
payment, i.e., the pro rate release of the Navy's capital
contribution. The Navy's maximum liability is $9.5 million, the
amount of its investment. In the event of default, the
defaulting partner's interest may be sold, with the proceeds
applies to (1) pay off long-term debt and (2), at the option of
the Navy, either 67.4 percent of the balance to the Limited
Partner, and 32.6 percent to the General Partner, or $1.5
million to the Limited Partner, and then the balance to the
General Partner.
Question. What do they intend to do if this happens?
Answer. The Navy's maximum liability is $9.5 million, the
amount of its investment. In the event of default, the
defaulting partner's interest may be sold, with the proceeds
applied to (1) pay off-long-term debt and (2), at the option of
the Navy, either 67.4 percent of the balance to the Limited
Partner, and 32.6 percent to the General Partner, or $1.5
million to the Limited Partner, and then the balance to the
General Partner.
Naval Station, Everett, Washington
Question. How far is the new housing development in
relation to the Everett Naval Station?
Answer. The new housing development is approximately eleven
miles from the Naval Station.
Question. What is the driving distance and how long does it
take to drive it during the normal rush hours?
Answer. Proceeding North along 1-5 from the base, it is
about 6 miles to Marysville, and another 5 miles to the housing
project. During normal rush hours, it takes approximately 20-30
minutes to drive from the housing project to the base.
Question. What are the monthly rents to be charged for the
two, three, and four bedroom houses?
Answer. The 1997 monthly rental rates to be charged are as
follows:
2-Bedroom--$725.
3-Bedroom--$750.
4-Bedroom--$850.
These rates are approximately $95 below market rates for
comparable units.
Question. What are the estimated monthly utilities for each
of the above houses and who pays them?
Answer. Tenants pay for the utilities for their units.
Utilities are approximately $85 to $105 depending on unit type.
Question. What do the E-1s through E-5s at the Everett
Naval Station think about the new houses?
Answer. Interest is extremely high. Brand new townhouses
are an exciting alternative to apartment style living. Another
positive reaction is the proximity to the commissary and
exchange along with a very short commute to the Naval Station.
Question. Can they afford the rents, especially those with
large families who need a three or four bedroom house?
Answer. The Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Everett
Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) indicated that rents for
three-bedroom units should be targeted at the housing allowance
(BAQ/VHA) of an E-5. The rent structure in the LPA reflects
this objective inasmuch as both three and four bedroom rents
plus estimated monthly utility costs are below the DoD
established Maximum Allowable Housing Cost (MAHC) of an E-5.
Similarly, the two-bedroom units cost, rent plus utilities, is
below the MAHC for E-1 through E-4's. The MAHC is used as one
of the principle measures to determine if a military family is
suitably housed.
Question. Do they intend to live in the new houses and, if
not, why not?
Answer. Yes, sailors do intend to live in these new homes.
Question. After the 6th year 20 percent of the
units are to be sold annually. Will an E-5 be able to afford
the proposed sales price to sailors?
Answer. Assuming 90 percent Veterans Affairs (VA) financing
for 30 years with a six percent adjustable rate mortgage (ARM)
and no unusual consumer debt, most E-5's would qualify for a
$135,000 home, using standard Veterans Affairs (VA)
underwriting ratios. Some applicants may require additional
review and justification depending on individual family
finances. Obviously, spousal income or increased down payment
would improve the income to debt ratio.
Fort Carson, Colorado
Question. What are the estimated revenues and operating expenses
for the project for 50 years? For 75 years?
Answer. The estimated revenues for the project are $2.23 billion
for 50 years and $5.42 billion for 75 years.The estimated operating
expenses (excluding vacancy allowance) are $894 million for 50 years
and $2.17 billion for 75 years.
Question. What are these amounts for the 1,824 housing units for
which the military occupants currently forfeit their housing
allowances?
Answer. The estimated revenue for the 1,824 housing units is $1.41
billion for 50 years and $3.41 billion for 75 years. The estimated
operating expenses (excluding vacancy allowance) for 1,824 units are
$565 million for 50 years and $1.37 billion for 75 years.
Camp Pendleton, California
Question. Who originated the housing privatization project at Camp
Pendleton?
Answer. Camp Pendleton was submitted for consideration as a
privatization project by the Department of the Navy during the first
round of nominations in 1996.
Question. Did Camp Pendleton's Commanding General express a
preference for privatized housing versus military constructed housing?
Answer. He expressed a preference for a solution that would provide
acceptable housing for the troops as fast as possible.
Question. Were any family housing military construction projects
held hostage so as to press forward with the privatization project?
Answer. The primary method of funding privatization projects is to
leverage existing family housing military construction funds. In the
case of Camp Pendleton the Department of the Navy proposed using $20M
appropriated for a FY96 project at Camp Pendleton.
Question. Are the Camp Pendleton personnel in favor of the housing
privatization? If not, what are their concerns?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Why has HRSO been non-responsive to Camp Pendleton
officials requests for information since the industry forum?
Answer. I have no information related to HRSO being non-responsive.
If there is more specific information, I'll be happy to look into it.
Question. When can the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
officials expect to get the data they need from HRSO to complete the
Request for Proposal (RFP)?
Answer. They have been provided everything required.
Account Balances/Allocations
Question. What is the balance of funding in the Family Housing
Improvement Account and the Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement
Account?
Answer. The Family Housing Improvement Fund balance is $30.7
million. The Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund balance is
$5.0 million.
Question. How do you envision allocating funding in these two
accounts to ensure competition?
Answer. This initial opportunity money needs to be sued judiciously
to maximize testing the authorities. This has to be weighed against the
financial viability of the project and the severity of the housing
problem. I will evaluate each project on the following criteria: the
project addresses a critical housing priority; the project achieves our
target leverage; the project cannot be readily funded from other
available sources; the project expands our experience in using the
tools and mechanisms that you have given us in this test period; and
the project broadens our base of project size and configuration. As the
program matures I plan to refine these criteria and make them even more
specific.
Current MilCon planning process for housing provides basis for
developing projects in areas of greatest need. It also allows us to
leverage existing resources. I will encourage the Military Departments
to look at those sites for privatization.
Question. Has the remaining $30 million been committed to a
Service? Follow up: I learned during the Air Force hearing yesterday
that HRSO has agreed to contribute up to $4 million for the Lackland
project. Is this the case?
Answer. The $30 million has not been committed to any specific
service or project. We intend to use the $30 million toward the best
projects, regardless of service, that help develop effective use of the
authorities. This will be done following the criteria I outlined in my
opening statement. Under that criteria, we have agreed to fund up to $4
million toward the Lackland project.
Budget Tool
Question. Based on what I know from the Everett and Corpus Christi
projects, it concerns me that the Navy may be using housing
privatization as a budget tool to cut costs at the expense of sailors
and their families, rather than as a program tool to provide suitable,
affordable housing for them. Can you assure me this is not the case?
Answer. It is not the Navy's intent to use housing privatization as
a budget tool to cut costs at the expense of sailors and their
families. They are using the authorities to increase the availability
of suitable, affordable housing as part of the improvement of overall
quality of life for our military service members.
Use of BRAC Funds
Question. Why is the Department seeking authority to allow the
transfer of Base Closure funds into the Family Housing Improvement
Fund?
Answer. The Department evaluated the need for authority to transfer
Base Closure family housing funds into the Family Housing Improvement
Fund. There appears to be merit to using the privatization authorities
to provide housing at reduced cost at bases gaining forces because of
base closure actions, however, we believe it is premature to request
authority at this time.
Question. Is there any prohibition on using direct appropriations
to the Family Housing Improvement Fund at a BRAC location?
Answer. No
Question. Have the Services and DoD determined any specific
locations where the transfer of BRAC funds would be useful?
Answer. The only sites I am aware of where transfer of BRAC funds
might potentially be useful are Air Force sites at Maguire AFB and
Travis AFB.
Installation Reluctance
Question. Have there been any instances where an installation has
been told to do a privatization project when the base is reluctant to
do so?
Answer. For privatization projects to be successful there has to be
agreement and ``buy-in'' to the plan at all levels. I am not aware of
any instances where the base has been forced to do privatization.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Packard.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Dicks.]
Naval Station, Everett, Washington
Question. Mr. Goodman, one of the first projects is at Naval
Station, Everett. In your testimony, you describe this project as
providing 185 units of off-base housing. The Navy will contribute $5.9
million toward the total project cost of $19 million.
When do you anticipate the award of this project to be announced.
Answer. The Limited Partnership Agreement for this project was
awarded 23 March 1997.
Question. When do you anticipate the project will be ready for
occupancy?
Answer. Certificates of Occupancy should be issued on the first
units in September 1997. Units will then become available for occupancy
at the rate of approximately 23 units per month. According to the
developer's most recent production schedule, a Certificate of Occupancy
for the last unit will be issued in April 1998.
Question. In your testimony, you mention that the term of
this contract will allow renters to purchase units on favorable
terms after the first six years of the contract. Does this mean
that you anticipate an ongoing requirement to build more units,
as units are purchased by renters?
Answer. This projects adds 185 units to the private market,
whether for lease or for sale. These additional private housing
assets will continue to reduce the Navy's deficit regardless of
ownership status.
Question. The terms of the ``on-base'' housing contracts
appear to be for a long time; 50 years for the initial
contract. Are you convinced that these contracts will provide
adequate guarantees that the quality of the housing will be
maintained over the entire period of the contract?
Answer. We believe that adequate safeguards can be
incorporated into our contracts to assure appropriate levels of
maintenance for the entire period.
Question. For both of the ``on-base'' projects that you
describe, you mention a ``loan guarantee for base closure.''
How would such a provision affect the decision process when
reviewing bases for any future round of closures?
Answer. The costs related to paying off the loan guarantee
would be considered part of the financial impact of closing the
base in question during any future BRAC.
Question. What has been the reaction of the base commanders
to these projects?
Answer. The reactions have varied. Some appreciate the need
to find an alternative to traditional MILCON; others don't. As
we demonstrate these projects are a viable alternative to
MILCON I believe reaction will be positive.
Question. What has been the reaction of the private sector?
Has there been lots of interest reflecting the prospect of
healthy competition?
Answer. There has been an enormous amount of private sector
interest in this program. Each of the Industry Forums have been
attracting well over 200 people each. To date, more than 500
companies have requested the Fort Carson REP and hundreds more
have requested the Lackland AFB RFP. There were over 400 people
in attendance at the Fort Carson Pre-Proposal Conference.
Additionally, there are currently over 700 names on the Housing
Revitalization Support Office mailing list to whom we send
program updates and industry forum and RFP announcements, and
more than 1,500 people access the HRSO Home Page each week. The
Internet address is: http://www.acq.osd.mil/iai/hrso.
Question. Does this mean that you anticipate that Family
Housing and Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Funds to be self-
sustaining from this point forward?
Answer. We don't know yet. If we are able to achieve
significant leveraging of MILCON money from projects converted
to privatization we may be able to make the accounts self-
sustaining.
Question. Do you anticipate that this initiative will
result in any changes to the cost of housing that our service
men and women experience? Will it change the housing allowances
that the services pay to the service members?
Answer. We are structuring privatized projects around the
rents supportable by existing BAQ/VHA allowances. The intent is
to provide affordable quality housing at rent levels that our
service men and women can afford with their current level of
allowances. Privatization alone will not change the housing
allowances.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mr. Dicks.]
Tuesday, March 4, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WITNESS
JERRY T. ALLEY, JR., COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR FORCES COMMAND
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. Let's call this hearing to order, ladies and
gentlemen. I fully expect this to be an outstanding hearing.
This is our opportunity to hear from the gentlemen who really
understand and know the life and the needs of our service men
and women. And so, it's a pleasure to welcome each of you who
head up the enlisted men and women of our services. We deeply
appreciate your testimony and being here as a witness.
Today's hearing will focus primarily on quality of life
issues. In our last hearing most of us on the committee
expressed this as being one of our highest priorities. It will
continue to be a high priority. I mentioned in the last hearing
my visit to Camp Pendleton which is in the heart of my district
and certainly one of the great bases of amphibious training in
the world. But while we were there, referring to quality of
life issues, the question was asked of two young people--not
too long out of boot camp--what were the two issues or the
quality of life issues that were most important to them that
they do not have, and to our surprise, the telephone was listed
as the most important issue in their barracks. They didn't have
a telephone. Well, that came as a surprise to me and I think to
most of us who were there that something as almost
insignificant as a telephone is such a high priority to our
young men and women. And sometimes we don't understand really
what quality of life issues are to individuals.
The next thing, the next listed item was a place to repair
their car. I would have never thought of those two items as a
major need for our service men or women. And yet, as I listen
to them and begin to think about it, it became clear that those
are huge issues to young men and women who are somewhat tied to
their barracks for a large part of their lives and no place to
really communicate. So, it was an interesting revelation to me.
I really do look forward to this hearing and to your
testimonies. I've read them carefully and I've highlighted them
and marked them. There are some questions that I'll have but,
overall, I was very, very impressed with what you've submitted
to this committee. So, we will look forward to that.
And with that in mind, I would like to have--Mr. Hoyer,
would you like to represent the minority side on an opening
statement?
Mr. Hoyer. I'd like to represent the majority side--but
given the state of things--I'll represent the minority side. I
want to say that, gentlemen, I apologize. I'm going to have to
run out because we have another hearing on the Drug Institute
at NIH and they're specifically having it early for me. So,
I've got to be there. But I wanted to come by and welcome you
on behalf of Mr. Hefner and our side of the aisles. Actually,
this is not an aisle. Everybody on the committee has the
highest respect for you gentlemen. I came because I wanted to
hear the real rank in the service. We deal with the officers a
lot, but there's no officer that I've met that's worth their
salt that doesn't know full well that the services succeed or
fail on their enlisted personnel, and nobody's in closer touch
with them than you are. And so, I'm pleased to be here.
Chief Hagan, I'm particularly pleased to be here with you.
I know you spent a little bit of time at Pax. It's probably not
enough because it's a great place to be, but I'm pleased to
have you here and look forward to your testimony. Although I
will not be here for your comments, I want to let you know that
I will read all four of your statements with great interest,
because I think what you have to say will be very important to
the perspective that this side of the aisle and that side of
the aisle has on the matters that come before this
subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me that
opportunity.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. And he's absolutely
right. This is really not a partisan committee at all. It's
probably one of the most bipartisan subcommittees on
Appropriations, for which I'm grateful, and I appreciate your
comments.
Mr. Edwards, do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I am here to listen, but I think
you said it well in our first meeting, that quality of life
issues have everything to do with maintaining a strong national
defense and readiness. And as someone who represents a large
Army installation, Fort Hood, and recognizing 2/3 of the Army
is married, I think there is much to be said about how we
recruit soldiers, but we re-enlist the family. So, I think your
testimony today is just as important as someone testifying
about bombers or aircraft carriers. I'm thrilled that you are
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this meeting.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. And, Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman, some of our committees were so
far apart, but I think we do have an issue like Chet talked
about. The qualify of life is important to all of us and you do
re-enlist the family. And we're looking forward to hearing from
you who work where the rubber meets the road. So, I'm looking
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. And we'll now move into
the testimonies of each of you, and I won't introduce you
separately. I'll just have you move one after the other. The
Army will come first with Jerry Alley, Jr. He's the Command
Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army Forces Command. And for the
Navy we have Sgt. or Chief Petty Officer, excuse me, John
Hagan, the Master Chief Petty Officer for the Navy. The
Marines, which are always near and dear to me, Lewis G. Lee,
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. Representing the Air Force
is Eric Benken, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force.
Each of you, we're grateful to have you here. I have read
all the testimony. I would prefer that you don't just
regurgitate it to us. We just want to hear what you think are
the problems and the needs of the men and women who you
represent service-wide. We would hope that you would highlight
the things that you think are important, but not just read your
testimony. And with that, we'll go to you, Sergeant Major
Alley.
statement of sergeant major jerry t. alley, jr.
CSM Alley. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I'm honored to
appear here today to represent the enlisted soldiers and their
families of America's Army.
I have submitted to you a written statement, and I request
that it be entered into the record.
Mr. Packard. So ordered.
CSM Alley. First, I would like to thank the subcommittee,
sir, for the additional funds that you providedover the last
year. Those funds were utilized in our family housing, and our barracks
accounts with the additional money that we were given, we were able to
refurbish 1100 homes, 5300 billet spaces to Department of Defense's
standard of ``1 plus 1.'' This was in itself, it was a great morale
builder for our soldiers and their families.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, deployment of America's Army has
not easened in the last year. We continue to have soldiers
deployed worldwide. In addition to the 100,000 soldiers that we
presently have stationed overseas, last year we had a daily
average of 35,000 soldiers away from home in over 70 countries.
These soldiers were doing--were maintaining peace in Bosnia,
tyranny and aggression from Iraq and Southwest Asia. And on the
home front, they were used in emergencies for hurricanes,
fires, and floods.
Throughout my travel I talk to soldiers that are deployed,
preparing to deploy, or returning from deployed. These are
dedicated young men and women and are committed to their
country. They know that the American people only have so much
money to provide the men and women of our Armed Forces. These
soldiers only want to serve and serve proudly. They only ask
that they be allowed to maintain their families and the
soldiers in living conditions that are adequate to the
standards of living. The Army is committed to acquiring and
providing adequate benefits to our soldiers and their families.
If we are able to recruit and retain the American soldier, we
must provide benefits.
As you know, we understand the quality of the soldier is
there. Also, though, we need to understand that the family is
an important product, also, of the United States Army. We
enlist soldiers, we re-enlist families. As you know, the most
important member of a military family is the spouse. The spouse
will decide in the majority of the times whether the soldier
stays in the Army or gets out.
I hope during our discussions here that we come up with a
quality of life package that will adequately support America's
Army and help us keep the great men and women we have in
uniform. I'm looking forward to your questions. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much.
[Prepared statement of Sergeant Major Jerry T. Alley, Jr.
follows:]
[Pages 235 - 240--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Tuesday, March 4, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WITNESS
JOHN HAGAN, MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY
Mr. Packard. Master Chief Petty Officer Hagan.
Statement of Chief Petty Officer John Hagan
MCPON Hagan. Chairman Packard, committee members, thank you
for the opportunity to speak on behalf of sailors and their
families and thank you for what you have done in the past for
the Navy.
I submitted a written testimony that you've reviewed to
and, from previous experience, I am confident it will be
carefully considered. So, I will quickly summarize a few
points. I would direct your attention to the photos that I have
taken the liberty of displaying on the map here to talk about
shipboard life.
I realize this is the MILCON Subcommittee and the MILCON
does not include shipbuilding. But, in fact, it's very
important and very relevant. Over 175,000 sailors serve on sea
duty currently. It is what we do, it is why we exist. Sea duty
experiences shape sailors' lives and attitudes and they are at
the heart of every career-related decision sailors make.
Allow me, please, to put these shipboard berthing photos in
perspective. And, by the way, these photos were taken recently
on the Navy's newest carriers, the John Stanos and the George
Washington, and coincidentally the largest warship. The space
in this room is 600 square feet. If I could put these photos in
context of this room, we take 600 square feet of unobstructed
space aboard ship and put 16 three-tier racks. And so, we would
berth 48 people in this space. By raising the overhead, and I
imagine this is a false ceiling, and going to a taller space,
we would probably put 96 in this space on 2 decks. In the
little room that we pass through, the foyer, there would be
four to five sinks, three urinals, and four toilets, or six or
seven toilets if it were female berthing, and two or three
showers.
Sailors, 48 again on this deck, would sleep and store all
their belongings in this space. Again, MILCON is your primary
responsibility, but Navy's MILCON needs simply to be
prioritized with the shipboard sailors' lifestyle in clear
focus. In the current MILCON plan, there are no projects
programmed for single sailors afloat. This is a long-neglected
area. While we have done well by families--and, in fact, I
thank you over and over again very sincerely for how well we
have done--we have neglected the single sailor that lives at
sea for 36 to 60 months.
On all but the smallest ships and submarines, the single
sailor lives there in pay grades E-4 and below. E-5 will
finally have BAQ/VHA 1 July of this year, thanks to the wisdom
of this body. But they live there for 36 to 60 months with no
access to better facilities ashore. On the small ships, they do
move into the barracks, but even that doesn't make real good
sense because, for example, the smaller MHC is considered
inadequate, the coastal mine sweeper, to berth in while in home
port. But the berthing inhabitability on the small MHC is
really better than the larger MCM which is considered adequate
for berthing in port.
So, we have issues. They are inflexibly difficult to
overcome and I don't have any proposal for making life and
habitability aboard ship better, simply that we do better at
pierside and home port for the time that the sailor is in home
port. To put that into context, a typical 5-year tour, and far
too many of our ratings serve 5 years or 60 months at sea, can
include as much as 60 percent of the time out of home port or
constrained to shipboard by duty without violating the current
OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO guidelines. Typically, the long sea tour of
60 months is followed by the shortest shore tour of 24 months,
never more than 36 months.
So, I ask you for consideration in these areas for the
sorts of pierside facilities very similar to what you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in your opening comments to meet the
needs of sailors aboard ship and home port. And I will tell you
we're having the greatest of difficulty finding the money and
prioritizing our current assets to do even some makeshift
rehab/refurbish sort of things to meet that need.
I will summarize by telling you I have no complaints about
sea duty. We all realize we are up against the basic laws of
physics when it comes to shipboard life. And, in fact, there
are some simply great aspects of living so closely at sea. The
team-building and the pride that is generated is absolutely
essential to our mission. I won't neglect the family house
MILCON. I would just say very quickly I came back from Lamore
late Sunday night where I saw the new family housing that's
replacing the 1950 vintage poured concrete structures and the
sailors out there are ecstatic with that gain, as are sailors
in so many locations that I detailed in my testimony, or
attempted to detail. And so, I thank you for that and I look
forward to responding to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Chief Petty Officer John Hagan
follows:]
[Pages 243 - 255--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Let me break for a
minute.
[Recess.]
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 1997.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
WITNESS
LEWIS LEE, SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS
Mr. Packard. And now we'll go to the Sergeant Major of the
Marine Corps.
Statement of Sergeant Major Lewis G. Lee
SGTMAJ Lee. Mr. Chairman and committee members, I too am
very honored to appear here today. And obviously, I'm not
deployed, but I want to tell you that 22,000 of our men and
women from the Reserve and the active side are forward deployed
today. Readiness and operational responsiveness remain our
number one priority. And, of course, as you well know, quality
of life enhances that readiness. Among our priorities remains
military construction and infrastructure within our bases and
stations.
We've been lucky to receive your support, and we are indeed
appreciative of that, and continue to make significant
improvements in our bachelor housing. We maintain 97,000
bachelor housing spaces around the world and, unfortunately,
about 10,447 of those are classified as inadequate. Now, having
said that, I want to make sure you understand that I don't have
anybody that doesn't have a place to live.
The FY 98 Quality of Life Program has included $71 million
for repairs and maintenance, and $42 million for replacement
reconstruction. In addition to the '97 additions, that allowed
us to apply in excess of $88 million to a backlog of repairs
and over $59 million to constructing approximately 1200 man
spaces. For that we are truly appreciative, and we believe with
your continued support we will be able to eliminate inadequate
BEQs in 10 years. I know that seems like a long time, but then
again, in reality, that's not a long time. I also want to
comment that the whole room replacement of our furnishings, we
were on a 25-year cycle 2 years ago. We are down now to a 13\1/
2\-year cycle and we think that by fiscal year 02 we will be
able to do what the DOD standard is, continually refurbish our
rooms every 7 years. We put $25 million into new furnishings
last year, $17 million, thankful to you all, this year. And,
gentlemen, I have seen those furnishings. They're good, they're
quality, they're what Marines want. In fact, they go out and
pick them out and we put them in the buildings.
We're making progress on our, backlog of maintenance and
repairs. We were at $106 million backlog in maintenance and
repairs of BEQs, single housing, in FY96. We're down to $80
million at the end of this year. That's a lot of money, but
we're down to $80 million by the end of this year. And the
Commandant, Gen. Krulak, has committed to eliminating all
backlogs by the year 1905. We can do that, and he's committed
to it.
In our family housing, we have about 25,350 family units
today. I'll be honest with you: We need to replace or
revitalize about 13,000 of those. And considering everybody we
need to provide housing for, we need about 10,980 more units.
So, we're not in good shape in family housing, but we know
where we are.
Our FY 98 budget gets funded at 14 percent less than it was
in FY 97, but we're going to be able to do some good things in
fiscal year 98, although we're 14 percent less. We're going to,
for instance, replace 133 units at 29 Palms, California, and
we're going to build new units, 171, at Camp Pendleton and 166
at MCAS Miramar, and we're going to revitalize 40 more units at
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. So, we are going to make some
progress.
And again, the backlog of maintenance and repairs for
family housing is calculated the same way it was for BEQs, and
we're behind there. So, we intend to continue the emphasis on
reduction of this. And again, with the support that we're going
at right now, without increases but with the continuing
support, maintenance backlog will be finished by the end of
fiscal year 01. And again, that seems like a long time but it's
not.
Where we are, reconstituting our neighborhoods and
rebuilding, we're including not only the basic quarters but
other quality of life, what I call amenities, within the
neighborhood that we are building up for the families, and such
things as community centers, ball fields and playgrounds, just
to name a few. We found out that we build all that stuff into
it, just like a development would, were cheaper in the long run
than adding it to it piecemeal.
For our families who live off base on independent duty,
we're dedicated to helping them find adequate and affordable
housing, and there's a lot of information in my testimony that
deals with that. I'm not going to try to recite it here, but I
want you to know that probably the ones that might have the
toughest living conditions are family members on independent
duty who are disenfranchised from a major military
installation; this is of great concern to us. I know that
Congress is looking to help us. We've got some initiatives in
DOD, within the Marine Corps, to help ourselves.
I'm going to round this thing out by saying--when you talk
to the Marines, mostly quality of life is measured by the
housing itself. But I want you all to know we're also pursuing
better training and working facilities on our bases and
stations. Our bases and stations are our proving ground that we
deploy our combat units from. So, whatever we do to those bases
and stations infrastructure-wise, we have to make sure that we
have training and working locations that really support the
fact that when we send people out they will be trained and
qualified to not only win but come back home alive.
And last but not least, because you all ensure that the
Marine Corps receives these kind of things--and this is not
military construction, but I want to pass onto you also the
fact that we appreciate that through your alls' support we are
now building the best field equipment, personal gear, and
personal equipment, that our Marines have ever had. And
remember, our Marines spend 40 to 60 percent of their career
deployed or in a field training environment. And the example of
what you all have bought us in the past and what you're
actually going to buy for us this year is 23,600 more sets of
cold weather gear, extreme cold weather gear, 12,900 combat
tents like we've never had before, 25,700 load-bearing systems,
8,700 sets of new style body armor that will stop rounds and
fragmentation, and 3700 advance combat crewman helmets. And
I've got a whole litany of things that we're purchasing this
year for our Marines.
Again, quality of life is measured by a lot of things but,
basically, our intent is always to try to equip, train, and
provide our Marines with the quality--with the capability that
if we have to fight they will win. And not only will they win,
but they'll survive because, again, coming back home alive is
the greatest qualify of life of all.
You all have helped us. We're making progress. I thank you
on behalf of all my Marines and I ask your continuing support.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much, Sergeant Major.
[Prepared statement of Sergeant Major Lewis G. Lee
follows:]
[Pages 260 - 272--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WITNESS
ERIC W. BENKEN, CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE
Mr. Packard. And lastly, we'd like to hear from Chief
Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Mr. Eric Benken.
Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Eric Benken
CMSAF Benken. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee
members, and thank you very much for the opportunity to be here
today.
During my last assignment as a senior enlisted advisor in
Europe, I was able to see first-hand the tremendous work that
this committee has done in the past to improve the quality of
life for our service members. Visits to our bases by committee
members gave them a first-hand view of the need for quality of
life improvements, improvements that have been neglected in
Europe for many years due to downsizing and restructuring.
Because quality of life directly equates to readiness and
retention of quality people, your work has a direct impact on
the status of our armed forces and how well we'll respond to
our nation's call. MILCON's support to improve our dormitories
for our single airmen, to replace and renovate our aging family
housing, and to provide increased child care is essential to
our readiness.
Because of the reduced size of our military, every member
must be a highly trained, multiskilled contributor to our
defense team. Improvements in quality of life remove the
distractions that can take away from readiness. In Europe, when
quality of life initiatives began to take hold, our forces were
able to concentrate on their mission without distraction and we
saw much improved morale and fighting spirit. This was
especially true among our single airmen who are often living in
crowded, central latrine dorms that are rapidly deteriorating.
Our troops are eternally grateful for all that you do for
them. We have the best Air Force in the world today and we need
to keep it that way. And again, I appreciate the opportunity
for the dialogue today.
[Prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Eric W. Benken
follows:]
[Pages 274 - 284--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
morale and welfare
Mr. Packard. Well, thank you very, very much for your
synopsis of your written testimony and for the paramount things
that you brought to our attention.
Let me just ask a general question and then I'll open it up
for my colleagues to ask anything that they would like.
Probably nothing affects the morale of our men and women in the
services more than the quality of life issues that you've
addressed in your testimony and we're emphasizing on this
committee. Would you give the committee an evaluation of what
you consider the morale generally in your branch?
CSM Alley. Sure. Basically, in the Army our morale is very
high when it comes to our job ability, our performance, and
taking care of our soldiers. Our problem comes when we start
talking about health services, pay, deterioration of housing,
deterioration of barracks, and the constant threat of
downsizing.
The Army's morale is great when it comes to us doing our
job. We're good at it, we are very proficient, and the soldiers
love being soldiers.
Mr. Packard. Your biggest concern then, and the concern of
your troops, is the uncertainties of their future?
CSM Alley. Yes, sir, the constant uncertainties.
Mr. Packard. Gentlemen?
SGTMAJ Lee. Well, actually, in the Marine Corps, as the
Sergeant Major said, the, the morale is good. Our men and women
are ready to go at anytime. In fact, I find when they think
they're being left out of something they're very disappointed.
But if there is concern, I think, the medical is at issue with
them. I think the medical is the biggest issue.
Mr. Packard. Be more specific on your medical.
SGTMAJ Lee. On medical it is the families and their access,
the quality of the care once they arrive at the installation.
Mr. Packard. The troops themselves are not being
neglected--
SGTMAJ Lee. Active duty Marines themselves are comfortable
and they're satisfied. Whether it'll be around when they retire
or when they get out or not, or what they're entitled to, is a
question for them. Primarily, though--then again, I want to
refer back to the ones who are disenfranchised from a major
installation, our independent duty Marines and their families--
where CHAMPUS causes a lot of confusion. And wherever you go,
you'll have a litany of different types of problems. So that is
a big concern.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, I would assess our morale as excellent.
I will tell you that our retention rates are good, primarily
based on the accent that we have given to quality of life
improvements, the dormitories, the fact that we are able to
give our troops single rooms and the ``1 plus 1'' dormitory is
critical to retention. We need to continue to improve our
family housing and our access to child care. Roughly, 80
percent of our troops are married with family members today.
About 20 percent live in the dormitories.
So, the accent has been on quality of life and that is the
reason that we are enjoying this state of morale that we have.
I will tell you that there are perceptions: The potential
erosion of benefits, potential attack on the retirement system.
The Tricare system that we have is going to be good, we
believe. We're working very hard at that. However, that is a
perception, especially among the retirees and those over 65,
that that is a benefit that is--has been lost.
So, we have some things on the horizon that we need to
watch and we need to be careful of. But as far as MILCON and
things like that, the support that this committee has given us,
I think that has been absolutely critical to the fact that we
are enjoying this morale.
MCPON Hagan. Sir, I'll repeat part of what you've already
heard. The morale, as I define it, is, in the Navy, very good
across the spectrum. I travel extensively, as you expect, and I
go to pockets of places where morale is bad. Morale, as I think
we want to discuss it here, long-term worries--and let me add
before I leave that that I find morale to be the best where
sailors are working the hardest and sacrificing the most.
That's always amazed me. I can't articulate it as well as I
would like to, but at the end of an extended deployment--in the
middle of an extended deployment sailors are enjoying some good
morale, doing what they were trained for, and I find that to be
very satisfying and gratifying.
Worries: Maintaining the present OPTEMPO. Maintaining the
present OPTEMPO comes with costs. We worry about the strong
rumors of future drawdowns and future--and those rumors are
occasionally put to rest when Secretary--previous, former
Secretary of Defense Sperry would put that rumor to rest and it
would pop back up again.
Advancement opportunity suffers during drawdown. BRAC
causes all sorts of uncertainty. So, those rumors plague us and
those are big picture things that sailors worry about. I would
just add that the MILCON gains almost everywhere I travel,
almost everywhere I travel. I can point to something recently
come up out of the ground, coming up presently or a
groundbreaking is scheduled, and that goes a very long way
toward credibility for future promises.
retention
Mr. Packard. Thank you. One of the most influential factors
for retention that was mentioned, not only in written testimony
but in your responses, is the quality of life issues. I note
that in yours, Master Chief Petty Officer, your testimony, that
you address the matter ofwhether there ought to be a priority
for the senior enlisted man versus the junior and newly enlisted man.
How would you determine the balance, the proper balance? Because
retention really is at the junior level, it is not your senior enlisted
personnel that you worry about in terms of retention. You don't usually
lose them at 16, 17 years, we lose them at 3, 4, and 5 years. How do
you balance between these quality of life emphases that we want to make
between those two grades?
CSM Alley. Sir, we really lose our people at two points,
first termers and the 10-year mark.
Mr. Packard. Good observation.
CSM Alley. At the 10-year mark, they have just enough time
to continue with their career, or they have time to get out and
start a new career. Last year the Army had a significant
problem at the 10-year mark, and we had concerns at our initial
mark. Why? Same thing we just discussed here. We were still in
the process of downsizing.
There is a happy medium. I think we have to look at the
total Army and take care of our soldiers every day. That's the
only way that we're going to be able to maintain a happy
medium, and we need to stop all rumors of downsizing, base
closures and issues like that. Rumors do more damage than
anything.
Mr. Packard. Interesting.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, we're concerned about our second termers
as well. You know, we--and again, I go back to this perception
of the erosion of benefits. You know, we have three retirement
systems now. We have the one that was prior to 1980 which we
fall under. You have the one between '80 and '86. And then
those that came in after 1986 who are now getting to about the
10- or 11-year point in their career are starting to say
whoops, my retirement isn't as good as that one you had prior
to 1980. So, they're re-evaluating their options.
And I will tell you that if you take somebody who works on
a B-2 aircraft or something like that, who was a highly skilled
technician who we have invested a lot of money into the
training, gets an offer from Northrup or somebody like that, it
looks very attractive to them. So, we are concerned about our
second termers, especially when you lay on some of the skills
that have the high OPTEMPO that are going over to the desert
for the fifth or sixth rotation for a 90-, 120-day stint. That
starts to wear on them.
So, that's why the quality of life things and those
distractions that take place at home, we want to minimize
those, and those are things we can do something about. We can't
do anything about the contingencies or the political side of
what we do, but we can control and we can attack the quality of
life things. And that's why it's very, very important to us to
be able to do that. So, we are concerned about second termers.
Mr. Packard. Any comments?
MCPON Hagan. Sir, you said how do you balance, and
``balance'' is a great word and the answer is good leadership.
It's becoming increasingly difficult for leadership to make
some decisions. I'm a very strong proponent. I'm over 40 years,
going on 5 years in this job. I've had a lot of time to think
through, study, discuss. I believe a strong career force needs
to have the promises kept to it, and I am a strong proponent of
limiting, or at least fully evaluating, what we do for the
first-term force in terms of the large expense for a huge
number of people and what that same amount of money can do for
the smaller career force.
We're taking care of the junior enlisted in places like San
Diego by giving them assignment housing at the same priority as
their senior counterparts to some housing areas and not to
others. It's working fairly well. We have in the Navy perhaps,
I believe, out of all the forces the only real third- and
fourth-term retention challenge. I will tell you quite
honestly, without meaning to be facetious, when a sailor has
come ashore after a 5-year sea tour, hasn't had a full shore
tour and is looking at a re-enlistment decision, has perhaps
lost a wife on the first tour, considers the separation to be
part of the reason, they think long and hard about the cost of
going back.
The high tech ratings have good employment opportunities.
I'd like to say, and I say it to large numbers of junior
sailors on flight decks and in hangar bays, when I say that I'm
not in favor of extending every benefit of the career force to
the first-term force, and I explain it by saying it's a very
transitory period that you're in that first-term force. It's
the entry level. Some degree of deprivation is not only to be
expected, but perhaps good, some degree of dealing with delayed
gratification, all the while maintaining that threshold we
can't go beneath is usually very clear.
So, balancing and good leadership, I think we're doing
fairly well in the Navy. We could use some help, as I've
written in the testimony, but thank you for the question.
SGTMAJ Lee. Sir, I guess I'll be a little more blunt. We
are a first-term organization, a very young force, and an
enlisted man in the Marine Corps, his or her life doesn't
change if they stay 4 years or 30 years. I am absolutely
against extending every benefit that a career Marine deserves
due to their extended period of sacrifice, and they do
sacrifice, they do suffer hardship, as long as they stay in the
Marine Corps. I just see no need.
And in giving them--or taking from them and giving to this
massive first-term organization that I hire on for 4 or 5
years, and I'm only going to keep a few of them past that, I am
not giving them everything that I need to give to my career
Marines, man and woman, family, whatever the case might be.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Hefner.
navy personnel at crystal city
Mr. Hefner. I don't have any particular questions, but
we've heard all this, you know, the same problem exists from
year to year and from budget to budget. And it is good to see
that we're making some strides in your particular area.
I'd just like for my own information, how many people--you
may not have this but you can get it for me for the record. How
many Navy personnel do we have stationed in Crystal City?
MCPON Hagan. I'll have to get you that exact answer for the
record. It's probably on the order of 300 or 400. Now, I'll
have to back up. I'm thinking enlisted. Enlisted and officer is
probably on the order of several thousand. Enlisted, maybe on
the order of 300 or 400 scattered out in the various offices.
If it's higher, it'll surprise me, but I'll certainly get you
that for the record before the end of the day.
[The information follows:]
Navy has a total of 4441 personnel working in Arlington
County. This is broken down as 2758 officers and 1683 enlisted.
In Crystal City itself Navy has 960 officers and 299 enlisted.
Mr. Hefner. Don't they have a new development down towards
Quantico?
MCPON Hagan. Not a new development towards Quantico. We
have a Woodbridge Family Housing. We have a new development up
in Maryland that has been open about a year, and those two
housing units--and we have a brand-new one, MILCON over at
Anacostia that I refer to in my testimony as one of the many
places we're grateful for the MILCON. And those housing totals,
in total, have gone a long way toward making duty in
Washington, D.C., a lot more palatable for the enlisted mid-
grade careers that come up here. And we take care of literally
every junior sailor pretty quickly with that housing or other
arrangements.
downsizing
Mr. Hefner. Has the downsizing had an impact on some of
these communities where we just got new housing and what have
you?
MCPON Hagan. BRAC has had a positive and a negative impact,
as you would guess, in Charleston, South Carolina, where we
BRACed most all the fleet there. We have an excess of family
housing for the remaining sailors at the Naval Weapons Station,
and for the airmen, available for the Air Force's use as well
there. But BRAC in places like Groton, Connecticut, as I go
into at some length, Groton doesn't even pop by the traditional
parameters of--and whether a place is housing critical. It
isn't even on the top 10 list. And yet, it may well be the
number one priority for the Navy because BRAC has changed the
way we ought to measure things.
The BRAC impact at other places has made long housing waits
where there has been short ones. It has given us a bulge that
we'll have to work through in our housing issues.
morale
Mr. Hefner. Somebody mentioned--I believe this gentleman
from the Marines talked about men seem to be happiest when
they're the busiest. Who was that that--we had some hearings
not long ago in the Defense Subcommittee and Gen. Joulwan
(phon.) was with us day before yesterday, and we had some
enlisted men that had done duty in Haiti and was now doing duty
in Bosnia, and it was amazing to hear these young men talk
about how proud they were of the accomplishments that they have
achieved. And I don't know what--I guess that would relate to
morale, but they seemed to be pleased that they were doing
something they believed to be very, very important. Is that
what you were talking about when you referred to when they are
very busy and engaged?
CSM Alley. The American soldier is very proud of the job he
does. If he does it overseas, he's even prouder because another
nation gets to see it. Right now, I don't see any soldiers that
are not working hard. As I said, I have a daily average of
35,000 deployed overseas, in addition to the 100,000 already
there.
So, yes, sir, I think we keep our soldiers busy and the
morale is high. Our problem is not morale, sir, our problem is
the spouse of that soldier who we've deployed to Haiti or to
Bosnia; he's on his third rotation in one year, and he hasn't
had an overseas assignment yet.
Mr. Hefner. I suppose that health care and worrying about
whether you're going to be downsized and what have you sort of
reflects the populace of the country, that people are worried
about their jobs, their health care, this sort of thing. Sort
of mirrors what most people, especially us older people, are
thinking about, health care and this sort of thing.
I think you do a tremendous job and it has been--when I was
chairman of this committee, for the past several years, our
focus has been on quality of life, and I remember a few years
ago going to Texas to Mr. Edwards' district--it was Mr. Leeds'
(phon.) district at the time. There were some of the people--
some of the spouses who talked to us. They were at an old
cafeteria trying to remodel it to where they could have a day
care center, we have really worked kind of hard to try to do
the things that we think are important for retention and for
quality of life, and I commend you for your dedication and I am
proud to have you here today.
The gentleman from North Carolina, where in North Carolina?
SGTMAJ Lee. Well, we both are, sir. I grew up in Sampson
County, down in Goldsboro.
MCPON Hagan. Ashville, sir.
Mr. Hefner. Ashville. From one end to the other. Got a big
hog industry down south----
SGTMAJ Lee. One of the reasons why I left.
Mr. Hefner. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Tiahrt.
medical care
Mr. Tiahrt. I guess when we talked about quality of life,
housing seemed to be what most of you mentioned as a big
definer of quality of life, and I think we're trying to make
progress there. But you also mentioned keeping promises several
times or failing to keep promises. I'd like to understand that
a little better. What's the most commonly perceived promise
that's not being kept, Mr. Lee?
SGTMAJ Lee. Sir, as I said, the biggest thing I have
trouble with, sir, is the medical side. And primarily, that
comes from the families and the family members. And again,
especially that comes from the ones who are, like I say, not
close to a military installation.
And the ones who are nearing retirement, even like myself,
I think I'll be okay. I still trust the system to be there. But
I've got a lot of people who are talking to me about they don't
really believe that the availability of medical care is going
to be there when they need it, and they feel like it's been
promised to them and I think, from a layman's understanding, it
has been promised to us. So that's the big issue I deal with,
sir, that I really can't explain away. I can explain away
almost everything else.
I would like to say that I don't think that is causing me a
problem retention-wise, and certainly it's not causing me a
problem recruiting-wise. I'm exceeding my recruiting standards.
In all honesty, I have more people that want to stay in the
Marine Corps, at every level, at least on the enlisted side,
than I have room for. So, we're doing good in a lot of areas.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Hagan, would you concur?
MCPON Hagan. I would partially, sir. I will tell you that I
am able to stand in front of every audience and defend and
define that we haven't got any broken promises. The retirement
system has been dealt with honestly. The attempt last year to
do something that didn't grandfather the present population was
the first that I know of that got high profile, that would have
been dishonest. All the other things, the changes in the
retirement system require explanation and those are perceptions
that have to be dealt with.
When I talk about keeping promises, I talk mostly about
worries about the future internal to the Navy. Well, let me
address the medical care very briefly.
MCPON Hagan. I'm happy with the progress here. And, if we
continue to be as responsive as we have been in the initial
deployment of track here to getting the troubles out of it,
understanding the issues, but that's a perception we deal with
regularly, the free medical care was promised. We, again, deal
with a perception and a reality. So, number one, inside the
Navy lifelines that I would make you aware of is a tempo for
sailers on sea duty means that they deploy pre-major
deployments in a five year sea tour and the promise that they
will roll ashore at a particular time, or the promise that the
inner deployment cycle that the year, the one year, or
hopefully longer, but we hope no less than one year between
major deployments, will be a time that you can have some
quality of family time. That's a promise that's getting
increasingly difficult to keep. The promise of upward mobility
for all ratings, given the retention challenges is a promise
that's increasingly difficult to keep. But, I will tell you to
leave the positive angle that I really believe is there, we're
making and keeping promises and it's interaction like this
that's, I believe, allowing us to do that.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Alley.
CSM Alley. The third biggest thing is medical care, as
always. As you know, Tricare is not one system. It's seven or
eight different systems. It depends on what side of the street
you're living on this week; Your Tricare and my Tricare are not
the same. Soldiers don't understand it. One of the biggest
things soldiers don't like and which has nothing to do with
this committee, the fact that somebody published a report that
Congress is looking at raising the retirement age to 55 now.
So, when you retire at 20 years, you're going to get another
job until you reach 55 to get your retirement check. It's
rumors of this nature that soldiers don't like.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, I would say to you that we are a family,
not only of active duty but of retirees, as you know, those who
served in wars before us. When I came on active duty in 1970,
my net pay was $3 a day and I was told, at that time, that,
``Okay, hold up with the pay because you're going to have
medical care the rest of your life. Your family members won't
have to worry about that. You'll have a retirement'', and those
kinds of things. So, you go through your career. You don't buy
a house because you're on the move so you don't build up
equity. And, that's okay. You put up with those kinds of things
because you're proud to serve your nation and you want to do
that. So, the retiree community feels that they have been left
out, especially when it comes to the medical care. Those that
are 65 are sent a letter, basically saying, you are no longer a
member of the military medical community and oh, by the way, go
sign up for Medicare. I had a retired gentleman come to my
office today that's 71 years old who informed me that he pays,
has a deduction from his social security for Medicare, that he
has a copay of about $25 on the 100, that he has to have
supplemental insurance policy at $90 a month to pay for that,
and things like that. And, he served in World War II and his
comment to me was, ``You wouldn't be going to this hearing
today if I hadn't fought in that war'', you know. We could have
been under a different regime. So, those are the kinds of
things. We fight perceptions. I will tell you that
legislatively, last year for instance, and I've gone back five
years on this, Congress has been very good to us and you have
made great gains for us and we're very appreciative of that.
But, we have to--we have a very small force and a very talented
force that we need to maintain and we need to keep this force.
And, we cannot lose the momentum of quality of life gains. And,
I think that's the point that I would stress to you very, that
is very important today, is that we do not want to lose that
momentum because we are on a, on a glide path, a glide path
that may take us into what I think may be a hollow force
syndrome that we experienced in the late seventies. We do have
highly skilled people that can and do have options if they want
to exercise those options. Those are my perceptions and that's,
that's kind of what I pick up in the field and we spend about
20 days a month on the road talking to troops.
Mr. Tiahrt. We appreciate your interest. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Edwards.
retention
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me thank
all the--services. As I hear from military leaders from other
countries come to the United States and visit our
installations, they come away more impressed with our non-
commissioned officer corps than anything else. You have risen
to the top of the non-commissioned rank so, congratulations.
Thank you for what you do. One problem I have is trying to
determine how we objectively evaluate morale and general
attitude in the military. Your subjective answers are probably
as good as any answer we can get from someone. But, I have to
wonder, if I had been in this room in the 1970's when we now
recognize we had a hollow force and when morale was not good,
what would have been the objective standards that would have
told members of Congress that we have serious problems? Does
each of your services keep records or retention rates? I assume
that's as good of an----
CMSAF Benken. Yes, sure we can.
Mr. Edwards. Indication of what morale really is,
objectively speaking. Do you have that or could you provide
that over the last several years to the committee?
Well, what has been happening with those retention rates
overall? Have they been steady, going up, going down? Could you
generally give me an answer?
[The information follows:]
The Air Force does maintain enlisted retention rates for
first-term (those on their firs contract), second-term (those
who have completed their first-term and reenlisted for a second
term), and career (those that have completed their second-term,
but less than 20 years of service). The retention rates have
been relatively steady, with a slight decline this past fiscal
year as indicated in below data. Historical goals: 1st Term =
55%; 2nd Term = 75%; Career < 20 = 95%)
[In percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category/fiscal year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------
1st term............................................ 52 59 58 61 59 63 59
2nd term............................................ 69 77 76 82 81 77 76
Career < 20......................................... 93 95 96 97 96 96 95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSM Alley. The Army has retained the soldiers that they
needed the last five years. Now, this year, unlike prior years
we must expand our recruiting. Remember, we were downsizing for
five years also.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
CSM Alley. This year we're going to recruit one for one and
we're having some problems right now.
Mr. Edwards. Well, let me ask you about that. I am told
something that greatly concerns me, if it's true. In the latest
numbers, the percentage of high school graduates recruited in
the Army dropped from the high 90 percentiles down to 88
percentile. Is that approximately correct and if so, do you
have any----
CSM Alley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Any thoughts as to why that is
happening?
CSM Alley. Prior to the downsizing, our percentage rate was
88 to 90 percent. During the downsizing years, we raised it up
because we didn't need as many soldiers.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
CSM Alley. So, we did not recruit one for one. Now, we are
recruiting one for one, and we had to go back to our original
objective of five years ago, which is to put the percentage
rates back at 88 to 90 so we can maintain a one for one ratio.
In saying that, all the soldiers do have a high school
equivalency or a high school diploma. Everyone, and only 2
percent will be Category IV, and they have to be high school
graduates with a diploma.
Mr. Edwards. So, when I hear the number 88 percent, the
others have GED's or----
CSM Alley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Equivalency degrees?
CSM Alley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edwards. Okay.
CSM Alley. But, they must score in the top percentage on
the Armed Forces test.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
CSM Alley. They cannot score below Category I-IIIA. They
have to score in the top.
Mr. Edwards. Okay. Any others? Comments?
SGTMAJ Lee. Sir, I think, again, we're a little bit
different. You have to understand our organizational structure.
We recruit about 40,000 people every year. We don't recruit one
for one. In fact, of the 40,000 people I'll recruit this year,
if they all stay in the Marine Corps four years from now, 82
percent of them are going to go back out into society. We're
only going to keep about 18 percent of our first term force. We
need to keep what we have coming into us to sustain our
recruiting effort but, we're not having any trouble recruiting
and, we are recruiting in excess of what we even set, ourself,
standards for. We feel some luck, 107 percent of our total goal
for the last 20 months, I believe, and while our high school
diploma is 95 percent, we're getting 97 percent. So, we're
doing great there. On the other side, sir, we retain a very
small career force and I'll be honest with you, they serve out
of patriotism and dedication to duty and that's why I said a
while ago, I want them taken care of. I want all Marines taken
care of; I want them to care.
MCPON Hagan. One last question. I'd like to ask very
briefly if during draw down, the retention figures that we'll
give you during draw down, are skewed by the fact that we're--
we have planned and premeditated attrition, even during that
time, though, we needed, could not have done without SDAP and
SRB money to shake the force and retain certain skills and I
would add, outsourcing and the changing shape of the force has
impacted or is beginning to impact and it is widely perceived
to be impacting it greatly. The seashore rotation, more of our
ratings are spending 60 months at sea now than, than at any
time in recent history and that's a, a bad trend. So, we have
some future retention worries for the mid term as well as the
first term force.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, if I could add, we've--we met our
recruiting goal but we, we're considering this as having the
caution lights on. In our Armed Forces Qualification tests,
before, about 88 percent scored in the upper half. It's down to
about 83 percent now and in the first quarter of ninety-seven,
it was down to 79 percent.
Mr. Edwards. Was it?
CMSAF Benken. So, our recruits are a little bit less
qualified than they have been in the past. So, the caution
lights are on.
Mr. Edwards. Right. Thank you. I think my time is up, so
let me just ask for the record, if I could, Mr. Chairman, if
each of you could answer again, for the record, not orally,
whether there is a process whereby you interview enlisted
personnel that voluntarily leave each respective service and
are those records available to us, both on an individual basis
and a collective basis? It seems to me that would be a good way
for members of Congress to evaluate what the problems are and
why people are leaving voluntarily. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
The Air Force does not conduct exit interviews for
personnel who leave the Service. However, we do have survey
data from 1993 indicating why enlisted members separate.
Primary among the reasons they gave for deciding to separate
were pay and allowances, amount of additional duties, and
recognition of one's efforts.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join the
chorus of grateful members of this subcommittee and, in fact,
Congress, to thank each of you for yourselves and all the men
and women that you represent in the respective services. It's
almost like a choir here today because your request or, in
fact, our desires, and this is a very bipartisan effort here,
where we're talking in certain generalities because in terms of
specifics, we'll be, I think, fighting as a subcommittee for
just about every dollar of your request and in some cases much
more. But, in a specific objective approach, with limited
resources in FY 98, specifically the MILCON budget, and I
understand health care and how it relates directly to quality
of life probably is much more than any other area, but, with
regard to the MILCON request and FY 98 budget, in a time of
limited resources, give me one particular example in your
respective service, where you think we can get the most bang
for the buck, on any new program, any new dollars spent, any
request that's in this budget, where you think we could make
the most difference with that dollar?
MCPON Hagan. I'll be happy to start by telling you, the sea
service unique needs of the Navy, which include the single
sailor serving afloat, in the long term, I'm not sure the
impact would be immediate, but in the long term, I'm positive
it would be dramatic. We have sailors that make life changing
decisions, including marriage and leaving the Navy when they,
in fact, love what they do because life on board ship is
arduous and they're not sure when that will change. By adding
MILCON, focused on and targeted at, they can--life in home
port, when pierside and are more pleasant and more convenient,
we would have a big long term gain. The short term gain would
be to continue the momentum that we have in family housing and
to evaluate very carefully any departure from the traditional
delivery method for family housing before we buy into fully.
Mr. Packard. May I just have you yield for a moment? What
percentage of the Navy personnel are on sea duty at one time?
MCPON Hagan. Sir, the number that--of 172,000, it's a
difficult question to answer simply but I'll try. 172 to
175,000 sailors currently serving on sea duty out of a force of
320,000 enlisted right now.
Mr. Packard. Over 50 percent?
MCPON Hagan. Yes, sir. Well over 50 percent and some who
were serving--that doesn't count anybody that's serving an
isolated duty like Diego Garcia. So, it's over 50 percent and
for some sailors, that increasingly high number I talked about
earlier, it is five-sevenths of their career expectations. Five
out of every seven years will be at sea.
Mr. Packard. Then approximately, if you continue to yield,
approximately what percentage of the budget is devoted to pier
side versus all other parts of your Navy career?
MCPON Hagan. The swag, I will give you, is nothing more
than a swag but it is, it would be a single digit, sir.
Mr. Packard. Be very small?
MCPON Hagan. It might be a very low single digit.
Mr. Packard. And, that's why you're emphasizing that part
of your testimony so much?
MCPON Hagan. It is, sir.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
SGTMAJ Lee. Sir, I'd like--say that we, we in the Marine
Corps tend to take what we have and where it ain't and--onto
where it's not absolutely programmed, we got to do this week,
we have a tendency to stretch it out as far as we can. And in a
lot of places we are refurbishing and fixing things instead of
using the assets provided to build from the ground up because,
i.e. I can refurbish two, two and a half houses that will look
like new houses for the price of one new construction. We do
that periodically, where we are allowed to do it. I think
that's the best use we can make of the----
CSM Alley. Sir, Army housing is basically 37 years old.
Will we ever go into any refurbishing? Our barracks are 30 to
40 years old. The barracks we have today were built for a
conscript Army. I think we need to continue the current pace
for upgrading our barracks and homes and if anything at all,
acquire additional homes. So, 75 percent of the Army lives off
post.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, we need to continue to improve our
unaccompanied housing and also our family housing. We've got
41,000 people that are on a, on a waiting list. Again, our
average house is about 34 years old. We've got about 58,000
that require improvement or replacement and at current funding
levels it would take us about 26 years to eliminate the
backlog. So, that's priority. The other thing is child
development centers would be the third thing I would say is we
need to improve on that.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Parker.
Retirement
Mr. Parker. Well, I'm going to broach a subject that is a
little bit different. I hear a lot of talk and I don't want to
start any rumors but you're already hearing them anyway. I'm on
another committee. I was on another committee a couple of years
ago and one of the members got up and started talking about the
contract between a person going in the military and the
government and talked about it being legal versus what--well,
he said it's not a legal contract. And, it's not a legal
contract. It's a--I consider it a moral contract. And, what he
wanted to do was just say, ``Well, what we need to do is just
change the system where everybody currently in the system can't
retire until they're 55.'' I said, you cannot do that to
people. You can't put them in that situation and then turn
around and say, we're going to change your whole life. We're
going to change how you view your retirement, what your plans
are. We're going to just totally destroy it. Now, my question
is this. This idea is not going to go away and, like I say, I'm
not trying to start rumors but because of the budgetary
restraints, we're going to continue to come back to this. We've
already seen changes in retirement over a period of years. You
look at 1980, you look at 1986, there are going to be other
changes in the future. Now, we don't get people of your level
together coming into this committee or any other committee very
often and what I would like is for you to tell me what you
think, and I'm not telling you, and I know that you won't agree
with the concept. I mean, I'm taking that for face value. If a
decision were made, let's say like on retirement, holding off
on retirement until at 55 like Federal employees or whatever.
If that would occur--first of all, I believe that it would have
to be for those coming into the military now. I mean, it could
not be for anybody in the military at this point, but for those
prospective individuals that are coming in. How would that be
perceived and from the standpoint of your, of the military
personnel but also how would that affect your recruiting and
retention?
SGTMAJ Lee. Okay. First of all, let me make sure you
understand. I hope we don't have--okay. But, in allhonesty, the
way we are, the way we do business and why we exist, it would not have
an impact on our recruiting because I don't think very few enlisted
Marines go in the Marine Corps with any intention of making a career
out of it. We challenge them, we discipline them and those that, those
that do well enough, that we got room for, we keep. I do believe that
would have a tremendous impact on the career force, though. But, right
now, I only maintain a small career force and we do everything we can
to take care of that career force. So, I don't think it would have an
impact on the Marine Corps on recruits cause I just don't think the 18
year old man and woman who join today, in the Marine Corps, are worried
about anything except getting through the first four years. But, once
we're into three or four, I believe we have a tremendous problem
getting those people to stay 20, 30 years.
MCPON Hagan. For the, understanding the size of the line
item that we're talking about in the budget and the number of
efforts that are made to keep it, to slow its growth, not to
make it smaller, I do understand the question and it would, of
course, have to be grandfathered because nothing else--anything
else would be a broken promise that would cause havoc and it's
impact on the career force, quite honestly, I don't think is
predictable because the factors that go into it--if you had a
very--if your career was not arduous, if, in fact, you were in
a sure intensive rating, you weren't transferred around the
world and you could serve until age 55, a lot of people are not
like the four of us sitting here at the table and, and we want
to serve till 55 or 60 if you can change the law as regards us.
But, they're going to make us go sooner. An awful lot of people
are, are making their decisions about family separation, what
the trade off is for this. The figure I gave you of five years
of sea duty involving as much as 60 percent or three full
years, either separated from your family because you're
constrained to the ship for duty when it's in port or for
section duty, or absolutely out of home port, deployed or in
another place, you wouldn't trade that for a delayed pension
benefit and retention, I think, would be extraordinarily
difficult to predict.
CSM Alley. I agree. You would have to look at the career
force. Could the career force stay in to age 55? That would
have a significant impact. On top of that, now, a soldier
coming in today who retires at 20 years gets less than 40
percent of his retirement pay. If I was going to make the
military a career, under what you're saying, I'd come in, spend
my three or four years, and then I'd go in the Guard and
Reserves. At age 60, I would get more than what you're going to
give me to serve my country full time. So, I don't think you
would have too many career soldiers.
CMSAF Benken. Sir, my initial reaction is that's a stake in
the heart to, to the careers. It really is. You would have to
completely overhaul, I think, the entire military compensation
package and benefit package and take a complete relook at it
and then sell that to the newcomers. You'd have to grandfather
to begin with and I will tell you that a lot of people serve
out of their heart. And, they serve for all the right reasons
and it's patriotism and it's wanting to do good things for
their country. And, you know, our people that serve today are
role models for America. Everywhere they go. When they go
outside the gate, they get 100 percent credibility. Anybody
that looks at American servicemen or women, today, thinks of
them with very, very high regard. All of us served in a time
when we had people that used to come to the base in civilian
clothes and go home in civilian clothes. I don't ever want to
return to that day. I don't ever want to return to the day of
the hollow force. I want to keep these young men and women that
I look in the eye today and when they come out of basic
training, 88 percent of them say, ``I joined to serve my
country.'' And, we need to take care of them and, and
retirement is part of that. And unless, unless there is--
overhaul the entire package and take a relook at it and, and
compensate them for what they do, I would, I would--my
recommendation would be we not fool with the retirement again.
We've already done it twice.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
CMSAF Benken. Yes, sir.
Housing
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Mr. Wicker.
Mr. Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, Sergeant
Major I'm delighted to know that you're from Sampson County. I
spent four years in Wayne county, Seymore Johnson. And, you
know, there's another side to those pigs. North Carolina
barbecue's pretty good. That's one of the things I really miss.
When I was on active duty, it was 1976 to 1980, and it seemed
like, to me, although I don't know any statistics about this,
that a lot of them, the mid to upper graded enlisted people
chose to live off base and use their basic allowance for
quarters to buy a house or to rent a place. It seems to me as
I've gone on into the Reserve and been various places, that
we're now requiring more and more people to live on base
because the services have gotten smaller. And, so I note, Chief
Alley, that you said there's a 40,000 personal waiting list. Is
that for married personnel or is that for just the enlisted
ranks in the Air Force? And, would you comment about whether
there's some people that would really rather live off base and
use their BAQ, but are not allowed that option anymore.
CMSAF Benken. We have 41,000 on the waiting list, sir, and
I'm not sure what the break down between officer and enlisted
is. I would think that that's total. Yes, sir. I will tell you,
in a lot of communities, today, and a lot of this has to do
with perhaps our society and how communities go, depending on
where you're at. Right outside of Robins Air Force Base, for
instance, in Georgia, you can hear gunfire and things like
that. So, we have a lot of people who want to live on base for
those reasons. And, sometimes the housing that they can afford
downtown is in areas of town that are dangerous or they feel
are potentially dangerous to their families. So, I think
that's, that's part of the overwhelming desire to live on base.
We also have a gap in the amount of money members are expected
to pay out of pocket for housing. In other words, you know, by
mandate, 85 percent is covered by the housing allowances, BAQ
and VHA and the 15 percent comes out of, out of our pocket.
That gap has grown to about 21 percent.
Mr. Wicker. Say that again.
CMSAF Benken. We have housing allowances. Okay. Our housing
allowance, BAQ, VHA is a supplement depending on the cost of
living and the area. Okay? 15 percent of our pay, or 15 percent
of our housing cost comes out of our pay. That's mandated,
either by Congress or DOD requirement or whatever. So, it's
often times cheaper--that gap grows, or has grown to about 20
percent and we have worked to close itthrough BAQ and VHA
reform we're looking at to try to close that gap. But, that is another
reason why people would live on base because you just give up your BAQ
and your VHA so you don't have that extra, beyond the 15 percent that
you would pay out of your pocket, if that, if that makes sense.
Mr. Parker. When you say you hear gunfire, are you talking
about they're in a neighborhood, it's a tough neighborhood to
hear gunfire?
CMSAF Benken. Right. Right. So, the option would be to live
on base, they would prefer to live on base. And, there are--and
I will be honest with you, too. There are cultural things--you
know, when you're in the military and as you know this, sir,
having served, that there is a certain military culture. There
are things that your children have access to on base. There is
a security that's on base when you're deployed for those kinds
of reasons. That's why family housing is very important to us.
All of those things combined.
Mr. Wicker. Do all four of you agree that most married,
enlisted people would prefer to live on base rather than to
live off base and get the BAQ?
CSM Alley. Yes, sir, because of exactly what the Chief
said. Security. It's a different atmosphere. I would tell you
that the average soldier, if he's living in an area that he can
afford on what we give him, probably has to carry a gun to work
and a gun back home because he's in a rotten neighborhood.
MCPON Hagan. I would----
CSM Alley. Living on post, you have that secure feeling,
and you save money because you're not taking money out of your
pocket like Chief said, because it may be 21 percent in one
area. If you're in Atlanta, it's about 35 percent; it continues
to grow, and we don't ever increase it for the average soldier.
MCPON Hagan. I would, would not unequivocally say yes
because the data wouldn't reflect that. But, first of all, I
tell you, there's no location in the navy where we're requiring
any married sailors to live in housing. That's an option we've
chosen not to do. We've closed housing down in Charleston
rather than say require someone to move into housing, that--
that used to be a practice, to fully utilize those resources.
To answer the question before us now, there are people
depending on their circumstances would certainly want to use
the BAQ, VHA which is, in some areas very adequate. It is
mandated by law as Chief Master Sgt Benken said, the target if
for it to cover 85 percent. The formula is very complex or if
we're to cover 85 percent of your housing needs on a sliding
scale. And, a lot of people would happily put 25 or 30 percent
with that to invest in a home at some point. So, they would not
like to live on base. But, if you have rephrased the question
to say, does 100 percent of an 81 an option to live in family
housing? Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Packard. Why did the Navy discontinue the practice of
requiring utilization of existing housing?
MCPON Hagan. Well, we haven't discontinued it anywhere that
is not BRAC impacted, first of all. There is a waiting list
everywhere that has not got a BRAC migration away from that
location. We haven't discontinued it for single sailors in the
BEQ because that would be a waste of scarce funds. They're
required to live in BEQ so long as it's adequate. We just
haven't done it in locations where we could have because the
savings would not balance out the negative impact on a sailor's
life. It would be the wrong thing to do ethically, actually.
And, we try to keep our housing needs. We, for instance, house
a lot less sailors. Our housing infrastructure, relative to the
Air Force, for example, can house a smaller percentage, a
significantly smaller percentage of our married families. And
so, we don't really have that problem. We have a waiting list.
Generally, everywhere. The only examples are BRAC impacted by
migration away from that community.
SGTMAJ Lee. Sir, we too have a waiting list almost
everywhere. You asked me if most of my families would prefer to
live on base. I would say, I'd say yes, yes.
quality of life funding levels
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Wicker. If any of you need to
leave, I just want to make an announcement now that our next
hearing will be tomorrow morning at 9:30 and our witness will
be Mr. Mike Walker, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Logistics, and Environment, for your
information. Let me ask one or two questions and then others
may have a second go around if they'd like. It was mentioned,
that in past experience of this committee, in terms of trying
to catch up on quality of life issues and the momentum is there
now and please not to lose the momentum and yet as we review
this year's budget, the President has requested and I think the
recommendation of the Joint Chiefs a lowering of the level of
quality of life appropriations in every case, in every branch.
Why do you think that we are seeking less funding in these
quality of life areas than last years appropriation level?
MCPON Hagan. I'd be happy to lead off. Our leaders debate
with tooth and tail and none of us want to live in the best
family housing on the face of earth and not have the weapons
systems and the resources to go to war and win. All of us in
positions of leadership, whether it be midgrade enlisted
leadership or our senior four stars understand that. I'm still
dismayed by seeking lists, if seeking lists translates to
losing the momentum in some key areas because it would be
pennywise and pound foolish in the long run but we do all
understand, I believe, the tough decisions that are being faced
in terms of research and development, in terms of--we can't
fight this Navy 20 years from now by putting free ships into
commission for a year. We can't maintain 340 or 330 ships. We
all understand that, even a sailor at the deckplate level and,
again, tough decisions required of everyone but that's my first
response.
CMSAF Benken. Tough decisions are the balance of
modernization and things like that, you know. I know our own
Chief of Staff puts it very well when he talks about Korea and
how we had a 37 to 1 kill ratio and because we didn't modernize
our air superiority aircraft, we entered the Vietnam war and I
think our kill ratio was like 2.5 to 1 against a fifth rate Air
Force. And then the only reason it was that good is because we
have superior pilots. But, that's the kind of issue that's
really tough. We have to modernize. We have to have the weapons
systems to save lives. We have to have that. So, it's a balance
and it's a tough one and all of us recognize that.
CSM Alley. Yes, sir. There's no doubt that without
modernization, we're not going to make it in the Army of the
21st Century, but we also understand that if you don't have
quality soldiers, you don't need modernization.
SGTMAJ Lee. I'm not exactly sure. I'm not that confident in
my answer but I think we're requesting about along the lines of
what we've been requesting. I know last year and the year
before we got a significant plus-up of quality life--and some
of that went to--milcon and family housing plus a quality of
life wages. Some of that went to--milcon and family housing,
sir.
Mr. Packard. I think you heard though, my comments probably
have leaked back to you that we're going to try to change that
and deal with more realistic budgeting.
SGTMAJ Lee. But as I say, I believe we actually requested
along the lines of what we have requested in the past, sir. In
the case of the Marine Corps, it's not a tremendous amount of
money, but it's about what we need, and it's not a trade off
this year or fiscal year 98 for procurement because we're down
in those areas already.
one plus one barracks standard
Mr. Packard. One other question and then we'll open it up
for others who may wish to. On the one plus one barracks
standard that's been determined for most of the branches of the
services. I'm not sure the Marine Corps has bought off on that
but if I read your testimony right, you've actually got a
waiver for that and we certainly heard a different message at
Camp Pendleton last week that they don't necessarily feel that
it would be healthy for the Marines. They really feel that it
may create a softer life than what you'd like your Marines to
have. Be that as it may, I'd like your response on whether it's
a realistic goal, if in fact it might be putting too much money
into one little segment of quality of life at the expense of
other areas, or delay the upgrading and the refurbishing and
the new construction process that's going on in each of your
branches of the service, or is it a realistic goal and is it
going to be a goal that we can hold to?
CMSAF Benken. Sir, it is realistic and it only affects
about 20 percent of our troops. 80 percent of them will live in
existing infrastructure that was built to the existing two plus
two standard. All we're going to do there is provide the person
their own room. You know, we have, we put two people in 180
square feet, and, sir, I would have a hard time living with my
wife, she's here today, in 180 square feet. And we put two
human beings in that situation and that's, and that is just not
good. The one plus one is very important to us and, again, it's
20 percent of the force and we're only going to build. Our new
construction will be to that standard for the most part. So,
we're going to use the existing infrastructure that we have,
that impacts 80 percent of our force and see what goes out
until their service life has ended.
CSM Alley. And we're doing the same thing. We're not
creating new barracks. The problem that I have is that we have
barracks in which I can sit in my room and watch the guy's TV
next door. We have actual cracks in the walls. These are the
types of living conditions that we have to get soldiers out of.
That's what I'm worried about. I consider that quality of life.
MCPON Hagan. Sir, it's a very realistic goal and in the
Navy, right down to the Secretary level, I think it will please
you to know that waivers, we grant a lot of waivers to the one
plus one standard because to put people out on BAQ and VHA,
single sailors, would be an unwise use of scarce resources
when, in fact, we fall modestly short of the one plus one
square foot and other standards. A permanent waiver in that
case is an appropriate thing to do for the life of that
structure. A temporary waiver in other cases because the sailor
is on sea duty deploying out of those barracks like at Lamore
where we have 11 squadrons, 10 of which deploy heavily. But I
would point out the one plus one standard doesn't give much
play on these ships here where you get 18 square feet per
person. The top left photo there is looking at 12 racks and
that is on the George Washington in that particular shot, where
12 sailors live. There may or may not be a lounge that they
have access to and they do live on that ship for their full sea
tour unless they're married or they are an E-5 and E-5's were
only granted the BAQ, VHA authorization in July. So, one plus
one is a realistic goal and one of our challenges, I suppose
for all of us, certainly for me, is to paint the difference, to
paint a picture to find the difference between a goal and how
long it will take us to get there and how long it'll be before
these sailors, when they're in port, move off of these ships
into barracks, realistic goal, but I think our needs are the
greatest of all the services and that's what I hope to portray
in my testimony.
SGTMAJ Lee. And, those are realistic goals for us to go to
one plus one and in the case of our largest population of
enlisted Marines, our lance corporals and below. We don't want
them living by themselves in a room to be honest with you. We
want them to have the support of one another, cohesion, team
work, look after each other. We are trying very hard to put our
corporals and sergeants, our E-4's and E-5's in separate rooms.
But, no, it's not a realistic goal. We've got a permanent
waiver. We don't feel the one plus one meets our needs.
Mr. Packard. Well, the Marine Corps, was that different
policy than the other branches? Are they worried about an
erosion of the level of funding that would go toward our
overall housing? You'll still get your level of funding and
then you can use it with a different goal in mind? Mr. Edwards,
to you have other questions?
housing
Mr. Edwards. Well, just one last question. There are a lot
of issues will deal with in a subcommittee that interrelate to
other subcommittees and committees in this House, but basic--
Sgt Maj Alley and Sgt Maj Lee, maybe you could address this. It
does affect families' ability to afford housing, so it would
affect this committee. I am hearing Army soldiers saying there
is a real problem. They're asked to be deployed on average 138
days out of the year, and the Marines even more days than that.
If a soldier is married, the moment he leaves for the National
Training Center, $200 is taken out of his paycheck, out of
basic rations pay. Is that, from each of your perspectives, a
real morale problem? It is not a huge dollar figure in the
perspective of the Defense budget, but would that measurably
impact morale if found a way to deal with that? It has to
affect their ability to afford housing when they are off post,
because----
CSM Alley. I was just at Ft. Hood, Texas, two weeks ago. It
has, for the young soldier, a significant impact. I don't know
if you realize, but when we deploy these units, the wording of
the order determines if he loses his BAS or not, not what he
does or where he goes. Deployment to contingencies versus
exercises is really the determining factor. On contingencies or
operational missions, they keep their BA; on exercises, they
lose it.
Mr. Edwards. Right.
CSM Alley. We tell soldiers, ``But you've got to remember
the basic rations allowed is not for you and you should not
count on it.'' You can't tell a family that. They count that
200 and some dollars as part of their entire income, and the
spouse counts that in writing out the bills. So, it has a
significant impact on the American soldier.
SGTMAJ Lee. It's not compensation. It's food and money for
the individual and if we're going to continue to take it away
from them when we deploy, we're going to issue the majority of
them mealcards. Regardless of which way we go, I don't really
see the Marine Corps getting around it because that can be a
lot of money.
Mr. Edwards. And in the Army, I think there are many
enlisted personnel having problems. For example, they are
stretching their dollars to pay for their apartment each month
and all of a sudden $200 is taken out of their paychecks--then
that 20 year old wife whose husband has just been deployed,
suddenly can't afford the apartment. I recognize that it may
cost a certain amount of money, but do you at least hear these
complaints? In the Army, there is feedback that there is a
problem. Is it a problem in the Marine Corps?
SGTMAJ Lee. It's problem with the individual, yes. They
don't like to have the money taken from them, but the bottom
line is they got to be fed. They can't have free food and the
$200.
Mr. Edwards. When you go from feeding four people to three
people to two, when a husband or wife are deployed, you don't
necessarily save $200 in grocery bills. In theory you might
argue that but buying food for three is not really that much
cheaper than buying food for four in the real world.
SGTMAJ Lee. Let me say, that is a problem and I'm not sure
the way we're pursuing this as a solution is the right way to
go.
MCPON Hagan. Let me put it into a little better context for
you, sir. When you report to sea duty as we establish what
percentage the Navy serves at sea, you lose that BAS for your
entire sea tour. If you get in return three meals a day on the
ship, the inequity here is that in order to fully utilize that
benefit you'd have to come back to the ship for every meal.
That's unrealistic and it's unfair so that one is broke. There
is another aspect to it that's broke and it isn't cheap, in the
zero sum game we live in where plus up has been eliminated from
our vocabulary cause that message has come through loud and
clear on some issues I've worked, sir, recently. It isn't a
small amount of money and is a larger issue for the Navy than
for any other service because of the number of sailors that
live afloat. Seabees of the four to seven months out of 12,
right now our Navy Seabees, the eight construction battalions
have the highest--tempo in the Armed Forces. When they're in
battalion they're seven months out of 12. When they leave, they
lose that $220 and get $3.50 a day in return, drawing no career
sea pay because they don't live on ships, it's a problem for
their morale. It's both a perception and a reality and so we
deal with it and I think we can do better. I think there are
some interim and some long term solutions for that dilemma.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Tiahrt. Any questions? Mr.
Parker.
gangs
Mr. Parker. I've got one question and you brought up the
thing about the communities in which some of the bases are
located and some of the problems. Do we have a gang problem out
there. You see it on television or occasionally something comes
up and you, all of you are travelling around a great deal,
you're talking to a lot of people you're seeing. Do we have one
in the military?
CMSAF Benken. As far as military----
Mr. Parker. Yes.
CMSAF Benken. I'd say the Air Force does not. We've done
studies on that. We are a reflection of our society so I
suppose in the family member context that there could be, that
could exist.
CSM Alley. I have seen nothing that shows that we have
them, especially on our own posts. We do have gangs in the
public schools, but as far as that migrating to posts or the
soldier's kids from posts being in them, I have not seen that
in my travels.
MCPON Hagan. As you're asking that question, sir, active
duty sailors, no, sir, we do not.
SGTMAJ Lee. I concur. No, sir.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Wicker.
Mr. Wicker. No.
Mr. Packard. We have other questions that we won't take the
time at this hearing but we would like to submit them and if
you would respond to them, we'd appreciate that. And, with
that, ladies and gentlemen, I want to particularly thank this
panel. It's certainly refreshing to hear from those who really
constantly are rubbing shoulders with the troops out there that
they recruit and career levels. I appreciate you being here,
Sergeant Major Alley, Master Chief Petty Officer Hagan,
Sergeant Major Lee and Chief Master Sergeant Benken. And, with
that, if there's no further questions, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the Record submitted by
Chairman Packard:]
Marsh Task Force--Army
Question. Now that the Marsh Task Force on Quality of Life
has been released for a year, what specific steps have been
taken to address the issues highlighted by the Task Force? In
your opinion, is progress being made by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. The Army is pursuing initiatives across the entire
range of issues cited in the Marsh Task Force to improve the
quality of life of our soldiers and their families.
Housing--Army Family Housing (AFH): The Army vision is to
provide quality on and off-post housing and services for
families. The Army wants to maximize the use of the fiscal year
1996 Military Housing Privatization Initiative authorities
commonly known in the Army as capital Venture Initiatives
(CVIs). The CVI program leverages government dollars to obtain
private-sector interest, operations, and investments to fix
family housing.
Army Barracks: The Army recognizes the importance of
quality barracks and has made them its number one facilities
priority. The Army's Barracks Modernization Program provides
for both new construction and renovation of existing barracks
into single-soldier communities that meet the 1+1 design
standard agreed upon by all Services--a net private living area
of 118 square feet per soldier. The program is on track to
provide quality barracks at the 1+1 standard for every soldier
by 2012, eight years sooner than we reported last year, which
demonstrates the Army's commitment to improving the quality of
life for single soldiers. The cost to buy out the Barracks
Modernization Program is estimated at $6 billion.
Personnel Tempo: Army's personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO)--the
percent of time a soldier spends away from home and family for
training and deployment--remains at an all time high. During
fiscal year 1996, soldiers who deployed on temporary duty,
operational deployments, and training exercises (non-local)
were away from their home stations for an average of 197 days.
In addition, the average combat arms soldier who was not
deployed on a contingency operation spent approximately 140 to
170 days in combat training away from home overnight (local and
Combat Training Center) to maintain readiness. The Army
lessened the impact of PERSTEMPO by: rotating units through
contingency operations to lessen the overall burden; selective
use of reserve component forces to augment operational mission
tasking; global sourcing for operational deployments; use of
contract civilians; and stabilization of deployed soldiers. The
Army continues to spread deployment requirements across the
force, but with the recognition that some units and soldier
specialties, by virtue of their mission and skills, will be
required to deploy more frequently than others.
Community and Family Services: In the area of community and
family support and housing the Army continues to seek more
efficient and effective ways to deliver services while
minimizing the need for infrastructure. Our results include:
Meeting the DOD goal to satisfy 65 percent of demand for child
care while building only replacement centers; focusing on
outreach in family support programs; testing more effective
ways to deliver the fitness and recreation programs; and
evaluating more effective delivery of the MWR program under the
unified resource concept.
In summary, progress has and is being made by the Army to
address issues highlighted by the Task Force. We have focused
our initiatives on providing the highest level of services to
our soldiers and families while continuing to pursue operating
efficiencies.
Marsh Task Force--Navy
Question. Now that the Marsh Task Force on Quality of Life
has been released for a year, what specific steps have been
taken to address the issues highlighted by the Task Force? In
your opinion, is progress being made by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. In my opinion there has been substantial progress
in every Quality of Life area highlighted by the Marsh panel
with the possible exception of OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO where the
challenge is very tough. Navy OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO has been held
within specified guidelines, but most initiatives being studied
have long range potential.
Family housing and BQ facilities throughout the Navy are
improved and several private/public ventures are the direct
result of Dr. Perry's progressive thinking and Marsh panel
recommendations. However, BQ and family housing revitalization
requires resources in order to ever make significant gains.
Maintaining revitalization is critical to Quality of Life.
While these gains are very satisfying and greatly appreciated,
aging infrastructure and new established BQ standards make it
clear that the present rate will never achieve the stated goals
and plus-ups will be required.
I would be happy to respond to your specific issues/
concerns with more detailed answers, but to answer the question
thoroughly would require volumes.
Marsh Task Force--Marine Corps
Question. Now that the Marsh Task Force on Quality of Life
has been released for a year, what specific steps have been
taken to address the issues highlighted by the Task Force? In
your opinion, is progress being made by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. Due in part to the Marsh Panel findings and
recommendations, we have made great strides in improving the
quality of life for our Marines and their families. This
commitment is reflected in our new QOL Master Plan published in
August of last year. The plan outlines a coordinated and
comprehensive approach to achieving our vision of providing
appropriate level of quality of life services to all Marines,
and their families, regardless of where assigned. As such, it
acts as a reference tool for determining priorities and
applying resources in the most effective way. The FY98 budget
includes $539 million to support quality of life initiatives.
Adequate compensation remains our highest priority, while
improvements to bachelor housing continue to be our highest
housing priority. Marine Corps QOL program additions include
$71 million for repair and maintenance of barracks and $42
million in replacement construction in FY98. In FY97, QOL
additions allowed us to apply $88 million to barracks repair
and over $59 million to construct approximately 1,180 new BEQ
manspaces, and 840 open squadbay spaces at the School of
Infantry, Camp Pendleton, California. All BEQ construction
programmed through FY05 will provide the 2x0 room
configuration, which will help us eliminate inadequate BEQ
spaces in 10 years. BEQ furnishings are also being upgraded
through our ``Whole Room'' furnishings program, and the
furniture replacement cycle is being reduced from 13.6 years to
the DON standard of seven years beginning in FY02. We are also
making great progress regarding our backlog of maintenance and
repairs (BMAR) for BEQs. Our goal is to eliminate the BMAR for
our entire barracks inventory by FY05.
In FY98 Family Housing improvements include: replacement of
133 units at Twentynine Palms; construction of 171 units at
Camp Pendleton; construction of 166 units at Miramar; and
revitalization of 40 units at Camp Lejeune.
Other QOL programs include recreation, leisure, family and
children services, information, religious and counseling
programs. These programs are the commanders' tool to help build
a strong Marine Corps community. Improvements include increased
hours of operation, better trained staff, more and upgraded
equipment and renovated or new infrastructure such as our new
fitness centers at Camp Pendleton and Camp Lejeune.
We continue to address the growing child care demand
through new and expanded initiatives. These include expanding
Family Child Care (FCC) to incorporate off-base residences,
enhancing our Resource and Referral Program, pursuing
outsourcing options, and focusing on the child care needs of
Marines on recruiting and independent duty.
The QOL initiatives outlined above have improved the
standard of living for our Marines and their families. The
Marine Corps has made a significant commitment to improving QOL
by a balanced application of resources, organization and
command influence. We believe we have programmed to reach an
acceptable level in these QOL domains which were addressed by
the Marsh Panel.
Marsh Task Force--Air Force
Question. Now that the Marsh Task Force on Quality of Life
has been released for a year, what specific steps have been
taken to address the issues highlighted by the Task Force? In
your opinion, is progress being made by the Department of
Defense?
Answer. The Air Force continues to build upon its
successful Quality of Life programs where were positively cited
throughout the Task Force's Oct 95 report, and thus have
directly contributed to the Department of Defense's overall
progress with key issues. In response to the report's
recommendation for a defined standard for bachelor housing, the
Air Force significantly influenced OSD's adoption of the new
``one-plus-one'' private sleeping quarters configuration for
dormitories. Such a dorm is under construction at Scott AFB and
our new assignment policy will phase in private rooms for all
permanent-party members living in existing dormitories by
FY2002. Also, Air Force will buy out all remaining central
latrine dormitories for permanent-party members by FY 1999. In
answer to the Task Force's recommendations to update community
standards and to include more private sector involvement in
family housing, the Air Force has formulated a whole-house/
whole neighborhood concept supported by comprehensive Housing
Community Plan. With the help of Congress, we are investing a
combined FY96/97 total of $610M in the military family housing
construction program. A new 420-unit family housing
privatization project at Lackland AFB is evidence of our
commitment to private sector involvement to accelerate the pace
of revitalization.
We've also satisfied the Task Force's recommendation to
establish a universal definition of personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO)
by spearheading the adoption of the measurement for PERSTEMPO
within OSD--``one day away is one day away''--whether off
station for operational or unit training purposes. The Air
Force goal is to hold this PERSTEMPO count to no more than 120
days per year for each person. Our progress has been
substantial, moving from 13 weapon systems exceeding this 120
day threshold in FY94 to only 4 in FY96. A significant part of
this success is contributed to contingency tasking management
and following the advice of the Task Force to leverage the
Reserve Component. In FY97, we are committing $136.9M in man-
days to make optimal use of Air Reserve Component volunteers to
reduce taskings on active duty units.
In the area of community support, we answered the Task
Force's call to sustain appropriated support of child care by
increasing the ratio of appropriated to non-appropriated
providers from 1:5 to 1:3. This addition of 325 appropriated
providers will help us keep user fees stable and satisfy more
of the high demand for toddler and infant care. In our recent
actions to respond to our single members' desires for better
fitness center accessibility by adding authorizations to extend
operating hours, we satisfied the Task Force's recommendation
for such program expansion. We are also attempting to restore
funding to a youth intervention counselor program initially
funded by Congress in FY95 to address the Task Force's
suggestion to promote youth programs to resolve emerging gang
problems. Adhering to other Task Force findings, our Family
Support Centers continue to provide exceptional personal
financial management services to their communities.
Finally, in response to the Task Force's recommendation to
standardize tuition assistance reimbursement rates, the Air
Force's tuition assistance program is under review by OSD to
become the standard for all the services. We continue to fully
fund a program which covers 75% of tuition costs up to a
maximum of $250.00 per credit hour--a $57.4M investment in
FY97.
In summary, the Department of Defense is making excellent
progress in addressing the issues highlighted by the Task Force
and the Air Force continues to provide essential leadership to
those efforts.
Impact of Terrorism on Personnel--Army
Question. Has the threat of terrorism impacted those
personnel stationed in the Middle East? Are we doing everything
possible to protect our service men and women from terrorist
attacks?
Answer. The threat of terrorism has had an impact on the
quality of life of personnel stationed in the Middle East. It
has led to restricted movement to and around the civilian
community, as well as placing increased training requirements
on already demanding jobs. Also, we have reduced the number of
accompanied billets within the Central Command Area of
Responsibility and have required selected families to return to
the United States.
Before the Khobar Towers bombing, there were 600 to 700
dependents in Saudi Arabia at any given time. Service members
had the option to serve 12-month unaccompanied or 24-month
accompanied assignments. As a result of the Khobar Towers
bombing, the Secretary of Defense approved departure of all
Department of Defense family members from Saudi Arabia tot he
Continental United States in safe-haven status and directed
that Central Command reduce the number of Department of Defense
family members in the Central Command Area of Responsibility.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)
approved 59 military and civilian key billets for Saudi Arabia
and 28 for Kuwait. Key billets are identified as those
positions authorized as accompanied assignments. All other
billets were converted to unaccompanied (dependent-restricted)
status. Of the 59 key billets in Saudi Arabia, 22 were U.S.
Army. Of the 28 key billets in Kuwait, 17 were U.S. Army.
Soldiers in key billets are required to serve 24 months whether
or not they elect to be accompanied. In addition, school age
children (K-12) are not authorized to be moved to Saudi Arabia.
We have made these changes because they provide the best
possible protection of our forces and their families consistent
with completing our mission.
We are taking every reasonable precaution to protect our
service men and women from terrorist attack. We have relocated
and consolidated personnel to specific facilities deemed more
suitable for hardening from terrorist attack. hardening
measures taken include: new perimeter fencing, increased stand-
off improved lighting, berm construction, employment of blast
walls, surveillance equipment, new access controls, changes in
traffic patterns, and relocation of living quarters to the
interior of the compounds. Troop deployments for force
protection include two infantry companies with command and
control, one 21-member Explosive Ordnance Detachment element,
one military police platoon and 176 individual augmentees of
varied skills. We have implemented increased threat awareness
training through both pre-deployment training as well as in-
theater training.
Terrorism--Navy
Question. Has the threat of terrorism impacted those
personnel stationed in the Middle East? Are we doing everything
possible to protect our service men and women from terrorist
attacks?
Answer. The threat of terrorism has impacted the personnel
stationed in the Middle East in the sense that their awareness
of the threat has been heightened through increased
Antiterrorism training. Antiterrorism training consists of the
knowledge and use of defensive measures used to reduce the
vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorism acts.
Service personnel in the Middle East have received
Antiterrorism training from Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS) agents and have been provided the best possible
information available.
We are doing everything possible to protect our service
personnel from terrorism attacks in that we are constantly
evaluating the capability of our units in the Middle East and
vulnerability to terrorist attack. These evaluations provide
direct, real-time input to force commanders in the region
regarding their weaknesses, as well as recommend corrective
measures. In the NAVCENT AOR, negotiations with host nations
are on-going and $2.5M identified to lease land contiguous to
the Administrative Support Unit (ASU) Bahrain complex. Upon
execution of a lease and with Congressional approval,
construction of berthing facilities will be accomplished
enabling ASU to vacate a vulnerable high rise downtown. In
addition, Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Teams
(FAST) have been assigned to augment Navy Security Forces in
protecting personnel living in the local populace and ASU
complex, and, explosive detection dog teams have been detailed
to Bahrain.
Terrorism--Marine Corps
Question. Has the threat of terrorism impacted those
personnel stationed in the Middle East? Are we doing everything
possible to protect our service men and women from terrorist
attacks?
Answer. Following the Khobar Towers bombing and in response
to the Downing Commission, SECDEF revised policy in DODD
2000.12 of 15 Sep 96 to expand the role of the CJCS and
Combatant Commanders for the protection of forces. Accordingly,
responsibility for force protection of personnel stationed in
the Middle East rests with the Commander-In-Chief, U.S. Central
Command (CINCUSCENTCOM) and with the Department of State's
Chief of Mission. CINCUSCENTCOM has conducted numerous
assessments of the security posture within his area of
responsibility, specifically within the Middle East region and
has taken certain actions to reduce the potential for U.S.
service personnel to be targeted for terrorist attack. Measures
include the establishment of an interim Marine Corps Security
Force Company at Bahrain; the removal of DOD family members
from the operating area; expansion of terrorism awareness
training to include threat briefings for deploying personnel;
and the establishment of a force protection coordination cell
under JTF-SWA. Additionally, CINCUSCENTCOM has submitted for
additional funding from CJCS to undertake security enhancements
and is currently evaluating addition of personnel with certain
skills to enhance force protection planning. From a Marine
Corps perspective, we have reinforced our foundation programs
for combatting terrorism and instituted a training program
Corps-wide designed to increase the individual awareness of all
deploying personnel prior to arrival in any region outside the
United States to include the Middle East. While we can never
guarantee that our service men and women will not be targeted
by terrorists in the future, we are taking measures to increase
individual awareness and harden our facilities which will
reduce the terrorists opportunity and minimize the risk
inherent to the forward deployment of U.S. service personnel.
Impact of Terrorism--Air Force
Question. Has the threat of terrorism impacted those
personnel stationed in the Middle East? Are we doing everything
possible to protect our service men and women from terrorist
attacks?
Answer. Yes. The threat of terrorism has impacted our
people in terms of living standards and freedom of movement in
the area in addition to the risk itself. To better counter the
terrorist threat the U.S. Air Force moved it's operations from
Kohbar Towers to Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB). PSAB is in a
remote location removed from any population centers. PSAB did
not have enough permanent facilities to accommodate all of the
personnel moved to that location. People are being housed in
tents and modular trailers at this time. Negotiations are on
going with the Host Government to build permanent facilities.
Many projects have been accomplished to provide for the comfort
of the people assigned. Although people are housed in tents,
each tent has a cable television provided. Four hot meals per
day are available in the messing facility. The Army Air Force
Exchange Service has established a Base Exchange, Burger King,
Pizza Hut, Baskin Robbins, Laundry/Dry cleaning, Barber Shop
and various concessions. The Fitness Center provides outdoor
basketball courts, soccer, baseball fields, running track, and
a weight training room. The Recreation Center shows movies,
provides telephone access, card room, video check out and a
library. A Chapel and Air Transportable Hospital are also on
site. Additional Security forces have been assigned to PSAB.
Key leadership positions have been extended to one year tours,
insuring continuity. The Security Forces have been provided
advanced detection and surveillance equipment. Training
programs have been established to reinforce the Force
Protection mindset. Additional funding has been allocated to
meet security needs. The Air Force is making every effort to
protect their people and resources from a possible terrorist
attack.
Overseas Installations--Army
Question. What unique problems do the single service member
and those with families face overseas?
Answer. Soldiers and family members overseas are in a
unique situation in that they are separated from their support
structure and culture. They rely on their installations to
provide almost everything for them, such as shelter, food,
schools, stores, places to worship, and recreational and
entertainment facilities. Due to housing shortages, some
families are forced to live on the economy and may face
language barriers, transportation difficulties, and social
isolation. While installations, both in the continental United
States and overseas, provide the training, maintenance,
administrative and support facilities that we require to
perform our mission, overseas installations are far more
critical to the quality of life of our soldiers and their
family members.
Question. Do you feel the services are adequately
addressing overseas housing and facility needs?
Answer. The Army is adequately addressing overseas housing
and facility needs within budgetary constraints.
Overseas Installations--Navy
Question. What unique problems do the single service member
and those with families face overseas?
Answer. Families stationed overseas often face cultural
barriers as well as financial problems when arriving at their
new duty station. They experience people who speak a different
language and have many different cultural norms. In addition
some Sailors experience financial troubles overseas when they
arrive in a country with a much higher cost of living.
Fortunately, COLA in almost every location I visit is adequate
and meets this need. However, there is an inherent inequity in
single shipboard Sailor COLA as opposed to their married
counterparts. This inequity is centered around the theory that
the single Sailor aboard forward deployed ships eat all their
meals on the ship, while married Sailors buy a portion of their
food on the local economy. This is, of course, flawed reasoning
and in fact compounds the basic inequity associated with BAS
(all shipboard Sailors inflexibly forfeit BAS in exchange for
rations in kind (RIK) and there is no option for partial BAS
payment recognizing that some meals in homeport are taken
ashore in a liberty status. The Navy's overseas screening
program attempts to minimize these difficulties before a member
transfers overseas. Family Service Centers located overseas
also alleviate some of these problems once the member has
transferred with inter-cultural relations training and
financial management education and counseling.
Question. Do you feel the services are adequately
addressing overseas housing and facility needs?
Answer. The Naples Improvement Initiative will relocate NSA
Naples, COMFAIRMED and over 50 tenant commands from leased
facilities in the Agnano Crater to a Navy MILCON Facility at
Capodichino Airport and to the Naples Support Site in leased-
constructed facilities. The Capodichino area will include a
fitness center complex, barracks, gymnasium, and galley. The
Naples Support Site will include leased housing (up to 1,000
family housing units), a child development center, schools, a
hospital, and other community support facilities. The first 500
homes will be completed by the end of fiscal year 1998. The
first 36 homes will be available for occupancy in later April
1997. A total of 232 homes will be completed in 1997 and an
additional 268 will be delivered in 1998. This initiative will
greatly improve the quality of life and safety of our Sailors
and their family members in Naples.
The Navy's most serious overseas family housing problem is
the inadequate support of suitable housing. Much of the housing
is unsafe, in poor condition, or too expensive for Navy
families. One way we are addressing this issue in Atsugi and
Yokosuka, Japan, is by the construction of new homes for Navy
families by the Government of Japan under the Japanese
Facilities Improvement Program. In fiscal year 1997, 534 new
homes will be completed with an additional 458 homes planned
for fiscal year 1998. To address the issue in Europe, we are
obtaining additional family housing leases in Italy at Naples,
Sigonella, LaMaddalena and Gaeta; and Rota, Spain.
During FY 1997 a block-lease project for 65 homes at
Palmeri in Sigonella, Italy, is under construction. Twenty-four
of the homes will be complete and ready for occupancy this
year. The remaining 41 homes will be completed by March 1998.
Navy is also proceeding with lease-construct projects at
Sigonella, La Maddalena and Gaeta and reviewing requirements
for additional housing in Rota. Funding for these projects is
included in the FY 1998 request and the outyears.
There are unique problems that both Navy single service
members and those with families face overseas. They must adapt
to local cultural customs and the language of the host country.
Direct member rentals on the economy are not without problems.
Language barriers with landlords, absence of closets, voltage
differences, lack of insect screens on windows, water
shortages, theft, lack of air conditioning, inadequate heating,
costly utilities, and lack of potable water are just a few of
the challenges that our military members and their spouses and
children have to deal with overseas. To improve the living
conditions of families living on the economy the Navy expanded
its overseas furnishings program. Families are provided cooking
stoves, refrigerators, kitchen cabinets, wardrobes, light
fixtures, washers and dryers, and transformers.
Overseas Installations--Marine Corps
Question. What unique problems do the single service member
and those with families face overseas?
Answer. Unique problems associated with overseas assignment
include spouse employment, family separation, limited medical
facilities for special needs families, limited housing, child
care, community and recreational facilities, cultural and
language barriers, geographic separation from family and
friends, more than usual time away from home for Marine due to
deployments or field exercises. Single members are less likely
to be prepared financially. Predestination information as
provided by Family Service Centers and sponsors are essential
for planning and problem prevention actions. Longer lead time
for notification of a PCS, especially for first term enlisted
and single members is desired to help avoid pitfalls of
arriving in an overseas location and not being able to
effectively manage the barriers of language, transportation,
money exchange, and cultural differences of food, customs and
etiquette of the host country. Service members with families
are usually on waiting lists for base housing. Children's quick
adjustment to school is important to avoid grade level
complications and learning difficulties. Some members on
unaccompanied overseas tour move their families on their own
and then cannot cope with the unplanned costs of living on the
foreign economies. Spouses accompanying service members are at
a disadvantage concerning employment due to SOFA agreements.
This is especially true for professional positions requiring
licenses that creates a break in work experience making it more
difficult to obtain employment upon return to CONUS.
Question. Do you feel the services are adequately
addressing overseas housing and facility needs?
Answer. The majority of our Marines overseas are stationed
in Japan where housing and facilities are being adequately
addressed by the Japanese Government through construction of
quality homes, barracks and other facilities to address our
deficits. They have also demolished some of the oldest units.
The existing family housing on Okinawa should be sufficient to
satisfy negotiated requirements of USMC Accompanied Tours and
additional units programmed at Iwakuni should satisfy the
family housing requirement there. Also, as a result of our
Bachelor and Family Housing Campaign Plans, adequate attention
is now being paid to the repair and furnishing of our overseas
housing.
Overseas Installations--Air Force
Question. What unique problems do the single service member
and those with families face overseas?
Answer. The issues for our overseas members were considered
when we developed the Air Force priorities for pursuing an
adequate quality of life for our members, families, and
civilian employees: compensation and benefits, safe and
affordable housing, quality health care, a balanced OP/
PERSTEMPO, community and family support, retirement benefits,
and educational opportunities. Housing for families and single
members, health care, commissaries and exchanges, libraries and
fitness centers are critical to our overseas troops. They offer
members and their families needed services and familiar
activities; products and brand names that serve as touchstones
to home. Single service members must adapt to a different
culture with limited resources. They are heavily reliant upon
whatever is offered or provided by the installation. Families
also face isolation when they are forced to live great
distances from the installation because of limited military
family housing. They are also impacted by the limited
availability of employment opportunities for spouses, and where
child care availability is limited on an overseas activity,
families have limited options. Having said this, the Air Force
has been and remains committed to ensuring our services and
programs support our overseas service members and their
families. We support programs like the Overseas Family Member
Dental Program (OFMDP) which provides dental care to family
members in Europe and is expanding to the Pacific. We are
turning our attention to overseas housing, recreation, and
health care programs. We are eliminating permanent party
central latrine dormitories and moving to new ``1 + 1''
standard for our single members, and pursuing several Military
Family Housing replacement projects throughout Europe and the
Pacific. To promote health and fitness, we are establishing
Health and Wellness Centers at all major overseas
installations. In addition to these initiatives, we recently
gained POV storage and round-trip port travel reimbursements
associated with overseas assignments in the 97 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Question. Do you feel the Services are adequately
addressing overseas housing and facility needs?
Answer. Yes, we feel the Air Force is adequately addressing
our most pressing overseas family housing, dormitory, and other
quality of life facility needs given the current budget
constraints.
Our overseas installations have undergone several years of
limited or deficient funding levels for quality of life, family
and unaccompanied housing. Now that the force drawdown has
become more stable, we are beginning to reinvest in our
facilities and housing for our forward-deployed members and
their families. We ask for continued Congressional support of
our overseas requirements.
Stabilization Force (IFOR) Deployment--Army
Question. How is the morale of our soldiers deployed in
support of the IFOR mission? And, what about the families left
behind? Are they receiving the proper support?
Answer. The morale of our soldiers is generally very high,
as these soldiers feel they are involved with a mission that is
benefiting the citizens of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) area.
The morale of the soldiers continues to stay high as long as
they feel their families are being properly cared for at home
during their deployment, and they receive equitable credit for
the length of the deployment upon their return.
Family support is crucial in U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) due
primarily to the status of forces agreements which limit a
spouse's ability to function (sign documents, access
facilities, banking, etc.) without the service member. USAREUR
established a comprehensive program of family assistance and
related programs. The Family Support System (FSS) includes
Family Support Groups (FSGs); the expansion of the Army
Community Service into a more comprehensive Family Assistance
Center (FAC); and a requirement that commanders appoint and
train Rear Detachment Commanders (RDCs) and develop a family
support plan.
USAREUR activated 21 FACs to assist families of soldiers
deployed to Bosnia. The FAC is a central point for providing
assistance, guidance, and information or referral to family
members during a deployment or other contingency operation.
Families of deployed soldiers are encouraged to participate in
the unit FSG. FSGs are established to provide activities and
support that will enhance the flow of information, morale, and
esprit de corps within the unit. An FSG also provides a network
of communication among the family members, chain of command,
and community resources. To ensure FSGs are available for
families of deployed soldiers throughout Europe, USAREUR
requires all deploying units to implement and sustain FSGs.
With certain restrictions, family members and FSGs are allowed
morale telephone calls and e-mail and fax access to deployed
soldiers. In addition, an FSS e-mail address for FSG leaders,
FACs, and RDCs is on-line, allowing quick dissemination of
information to everyone.
Rear detachment personnel are critical in the family
support system available to support families of deployed
soldiers. Lessons learned from Desert Shield/Desert Storm
indicated that rear detachment personnel must have appropriate
training on the resources available to assist them in
supporting families of deployed soldiers. The Commander-in-
Chief, USAREUR, is strongly committed and personally involved
with rear detachment training. USAREUR has conducted four rear
detachment training sessions in support of the Bosnia
deployment.
The Family Support System established by USAREUR is working
well. Approximately 95 percent of the families remained in
Europe while soldiers deployed to Bosnia.
IFOR Deployment--Navy
Question. How is the morale of our soldiers deployed in
support of the IFOR mission? And, what about the families left
behind? Are they receiving the proper support?
Answer. Sailors deployed in support of the IFOR mission
are, in large part, deployed as part of their regular
deployment cycle. That is what we as Sailors do, deploy to meet
this mission. Their families left behind for the duration of
the deployment are cared for through the many support systems
already in place to provide assistance every time Sailors
deploy.
IFOR Deployment--Marine Corps
Question. How is the morale of our soldiers deployed in
support of the IFOR mission? And, what about the families left
behind? Are they receiving the proper support?
Answer. As is generally the case when Marines are in an
operational environment, morale is high. Deployment to support
operation IFOR was treated the same as any other deployment.
One of the core programs and focus in our Family Service
Centers is ``Deployment Support,'' which provides both members
and families with pre-deployment briefs as well as return and
reunion briefs.
IFOR Deployment--Air Force
Question. How is the morale of our soldiers deployed in
support of the IFOR mission? And, what about the families left
behind? Are they receiving the proper support?
Answer. Theater CINCs are reporting high morale,
efficiency, and effectiveness among airmen deployed to their
area of responsibility. Specifically, the Air Force recently
sent 6,000 ``how's it going'' surveys to airmen deployed to
Southwest Asia and throughout the Balkans. To date, 15% of the
surveys have been returned with a projected completion date of
31 March 1997. Thanks to Air Force Family Support Centers,
family members of deployed personnel get outstanding support
during all phases of the deployment process--deployment
preparation, support during separation, and guidance for
anticipated reunions. Spouse support groups suhc as ``Hearts
Apart'', Youth/ Teen classes, morale calls to deployed members
and assistance during deployment process (identification of
special needs) illustrate our support to families of deployed
personnel.
Physical Fitness Centers--Army
Question. I understand there are too few quality fitness
centers on DOD installations. What is the importance of these
centers and what benefits can be found by providing new,
improved center?
Answer. Physical fitness centers are the cornerstone in
providing soldiers opportunities to enhance their readiness. A
soldier's level of physical fitness has a direct impact on
combat readiness. Programs and opportunities offered through
fitness centers improve productivity, enhance unit cohesion,
promote esprit de corps, and meet mission, recreational,
social, and competitive needs.
Modern, improved physical fitness centers that offer a
variety of programs and state-of-the-art equipment aid
commanders in providing fitness programs focused on the
specific wartime mission functions of their units. The U.S.
Army emphasizes total fitness to help meet its war and
peacetime operations by providing adequately and professionally
staffed modern fitness centers with state-of-the-art equipment.
Physical Fitness Centers--Navy
Question. I understand there are too few quality fitness
centers on DOD installations. What is the importance of these
centers and what benefits can be found by providing new,
improved centers?
Answer. The Department of the Navy has always emphasized
the need to maintain certain levels of fitness to ensure that
personnel would be in condition to perform required duties and
be physically prepared for the hardships of deployment.
Maintaining a physically-fit fighting force is mission
essential and integral to readiness. Navy fitness standards
require each Sailor to exercise a minimum of three times a
week, in addition to weight and bodyfat maintenance. Thus,
fitness is a condition of employment for Navy men and women.
Recent quality of life surveys indicate accessibility to
fitness centers and programs is a top concern for Navy
personnel. Over 45 percent of Navy fitness centers were
constructed prior to 1960. Providing a safe, modern environment
in which to meet established fitness standards is of paramount
importance. Providing funding to boost this particular quality
of life issue can directly impact retention of our service
members. Of equal importance is the positive effect of fitness
on maintaining good health and reducing the risk of death from
coronary heart disease, the leading cause of death in the
United States.
An additional important factor is the need to outfit every
ship with a minimum quantity of high quality fitness equipment
which can endure the rigors of shipboard use. Maintaining a
minimum aerobic fitness level in a deployed sea duty
environment is difficult at best.
Physical Fitness Centers--Marine Corps
Question. I understand there are too few quality fitness
centers on DOD installations. What is the importance of these
centers and what benefits can be found by providing new,
improved centers?
Answer. Fitness centers provide the following benefits and
are important to the Marine Corps for the following reasons:
They contribute to overall mission readiness by providing
facilities that improve the physical fitness of Marines (and
families).
They are a focal point for supporting health and wellness
programs.
They are instrumental in support of the Quality of Life
programs mandated by DoD--fitness centers are the number 1
priority of MWR patrons in all recent QOL surveys.
Fitness centers provide the capability to conduct the
following programs: strength and endurance training programs;
aerobics programs; rehabilitation and injury prevention
programs; and individual fitness assessments and health risk
appraisals.
Currently Marine Corps fitness centers are: very old (only
four built in the last ten years); housed in buildings designed
as something else (old mess halls, bowling alleys, and
warehouses) and are lacking in adequate space; lack properly
qualified and certified staff personnel; and have modern
equipment but not always the sufficient numbers, or proper mix,
to support the usage demand.
Physical Fitness Centers--Air Force
Question. I understand there are too few quality fitness
centers on DOD installations. What is the importance of these
centers and what benefits can be found by providing new,
improved centers?
Answer. Fitness in the Air Force is not discretionary. All
Air Force active duty members must meet fitness standards in
support of the mission. To meet this requirement, we must make
sure every airman has the opportunity to take part in a regular
daily exercise routine. Fitness centers provide an environment
essential to that.
One-third of the members surveyed said fitness and sports
programs are the most important base-level service on their
installations. According to our surveys, AF members visit our
fitness facilities over 7 million times per month. They also
tell us that if we extended hours of operation, improved the
equipment in the facilities, and expanded the number of
facilities, they would use fitness centers even more.
The average AF fitness center is 30 years old and was built
to accommodate a single gender force. While renovations have
been made over the years to accommodate female users, most
facilities are still below contemporary standards. The Air
Force has identified a requirement for 17 fitness center
projects totaling $91M in the Fiscal Year Defense Plan. Higher
mission requirements precluded them from being included in the
FY98 budget request.
Family Separation--Army
Question. Are families choosing family separation because
of housing shortages rather than mission requirements? I
believe these personnel are referred to as ``geographical
bachelors.'' How widespread is this problem?
Answer. Geographical bachelors are unaccompanied personnel
voluntarily separated from their families and drawing housing
allowances at the ``with dependents'' rate. Since this is a
personal choice, the Army does not track this information.
Family Separation--Navy
Question. Are families choosing family separation because
of housing shortages rather than mission requirements? I
believe these personnel are referred to as ``geographical
bachelors.'' How widespread is this program?
Answer. There are many reasons Sailors are choosing to make
PCS moves without their families. Many of these reasons are
detailed in my written testimony. Among the reasons are the
career of a spouse, an investment in a home at a previous duty
station, and the availability of housing at their new duty
station. One current example of the growing number of
geographical bachelors is New London, Connecticut. In this
region, two new casinos have increased the local population by
more than 20,000. The availability of off base housing is
limited, leaving more than 500 names on the waiting list for
family housing. Many Sailors are choosing to accept orders as a
``geographic bachelor,'' but barracks rooms are limited and the
``geographic bachelors'' are being forced out of their
barracks. New London is not an isolated example, but in fact,
this is a growing problem that requires attention.
The reasons that Sailors report to new duty stations
unaccompanied are often complex and deeply personal. This
situation is regrettably occurring more often than ever before
and shows no sign of decreasing.
Family Separation--Marine Corps
Question. Are families choosing family separation because
of housing shortages rather than mission requirements? I
believe these personnel are referred to as ``geographical
bachelors.'' How, widespread is this problem?
Answer. The choice to become a geographical bachelor is
based upon very individual and personal circumstances, such as
a spouse with a good job at the former duty station, or
ownership of a house that the Marine does not want to (or
can't) sell. Or perhaps the Marine prefers not to move children
during the school year.
Lack of readily available on-base housing can influence the
decision to become a geo bachelor, but it would not be the
determining factor since BAQ/VHA is always available for living
off base. Some Marines choose to be a geo bachelor for several
months while they are on the waiting list for base housing. But
with BAQ/VHA always an option and the personal circumstances
involved in each decision, we do not consider geographical
bachelorhood to be problematic.
Family Separation--Air Force
Question. Are families choosing family separation because
of housing shortages rather than mission requirements? I
believe these personnel are referred to as ``geographical
bachelors''. How widespread is this problem?
Answer. This is not a big problem in the Air Force.
Families usually do not choose family separation because of
housing shortages. Although availability of housing may delay
arrival of some families. Instead, families normally choose
family separation because of other reasons such as allowing
dependents to complete the school year or to allow the spouse's
continued employment.
Family Housing Versus Bachelor Housing--Army
Question. What inequities exist between housing policies
for married and single personnel?
Answer. Junior soldiers with families can choose where they
want to live, while their single counterparts are required to
reside in the barracks. Also, barracks living for junior
soldiers is a more closely supervised environment.
Question. Are we providing an equal balance between the two
in rectifying the problems?
Answer. Yes, we believe the adoption of the 1+1 living
standard for single soldiers goes a long way to equalizing some
of the inequities between single and married soldiers.
Family Housing Versus Bachelor Housing--Navy
Question. What inequities exist between housing policies
for married and single personnel?
Answer. One of the more significant inequities between
married and single personnel is the freedom of choice. In most
cases, married personnel can live either in the private sector
or apply for Navy housing if available, based on their
individual family requirements or desires. Their single
counterparts in the junior enlisted pay-grades must live where
the Navy tells them to. For many this is on board ship with
upwards of 30 roommates, for the others it is in barracks with
2 to 4 roommates and for a relative few it is in the local
community. Other inequities include the square footage given
the individual. For a married person in government quarters the
minimum sized house is approximately 950 square feet; the
single Sailor in the barracks receives 90 square feet living
space minimum, not including common space, and the shipboard
Sailor receives even less. Single Sailors who live in the
private sector also receive less BAQ/VHA than their married
counterpart. Additionally, living in barracks or on board ship
subjects the single Sailor to more inspections, working parties
and a much greater loss of privacy and personal freedom.
Question. Are we providing an equal balance between the two
in rectifying the problem?
Answer. While considerable effort is underway to improve
housing for single sailors such as allowing E5s and E6s to move
off ship and off base and providing the new 1+1 standard for
our single sailors in the barracks there still remains much to
be done.
Family Housing Versus Bachelor Housing--Marine Corps
Question. What inequities exist between housing policies
for married and single personnel?
Answer. Inequities do exist in various aspects of the two
housing policies. They are in the areas of: (a) how personnel
are housed (bachelors reside with a roommate and share a bath
with 3 others; married members are assigned housing that
provides a separate bedroom for each child); (b) routine
inspections are conducted in bachelor housing rooms to ensure
cleanliness and order; there are no similar inspections in
family housing; (c) storage for possessions is a concern in the
barracks as very little is provided; in family housing storage
units and garages exist along with a design for increased
interior storage areas; and, (d) bachelor junior enlisted
personnel are housed on base without an option to reside in
town; the private sector is the primary source for family
housing and military family housing is only provided where the
private sector cannot meet the need.
Question. Are we providing a equal balance between the two
in rectifying the problems?
Answer. The Marine Corps has written a draft
``Headquarters, Marine Corps Plan for Centralized Direction and
Oversight'' to ensure a balance is achieved. This draft
addresses bachelor and family housing in addition to other
areas of facilities management. It provides a vision, strategy,
goals, and desired funding profile. As a result, an increased
emphasis has been placed in the bachelor housing area to
provide a quality of life which is comparable to those living
in family housing. To this end, the main goal is to eliminate
our inadequate inventory in 10 years with a dedicated funding
stream averaging $50 million per year in our MilCon account. In
the family housing area, the construction requirement is
estimated the same as bachelor housing except projected family
housing deficits in the private sector, as determined by market
analysis, are considered. Our family housing funding level will
allow us to continue construction of new units in high deficit
areas (in Fiscal Year 1998 only), replacement of some units
where revitalization is no longer economically viable,
revitalization of units with severe environmental problems, and
eliminate further increases to the backlog.
Family Housing Versus Bachelor Housing--Air Force
Question. What inequities exist between housing policies
for married and single personnel?
Answer. Married personnel are not required to live on base,
they may choose to live on base or off base (with the exception
of a few people in ``key and essential'' designated positions
who must live on base). In comparison, junior unaccompanied
personnel must live on base, and unaccompanied housing does not
always afford the same amount of space and privacy as family
housing. For example, dormitory rooms are smaller and do not
have adequate storage space, or space to entertain guests.
While most dormitories have some large, public areas (lounges,
kitchens, laundry facilities) these do not offer the same
measure of privacy as family housing quarters. Additionally,
dormitory facilities are controlled by unit commanders; thus
dormitory residents are subject to details to clean common
dormitory areas unlike their counterparts in family housing.
Question. Are we providing an equal balance between the two
in rectifying the problems?
Answer. We're doing better to close the gap between family
and unaccompanied housing standards. Air Force corporate
leadership believes unaccompanied airmen on their first term of
service should be housed on-base because (1) they can least
afford to live off base due to low housing allowances, and (2)
they should receive continuing guidance and leadership
mentoring during their initial years of service. With the
Department of Defense approval of the new 1+1 dormitory
standard and the new Air Force private room assignment policy,
the Air Force is making major strides toward correcting
inequities between family and unaccompanied housing. These
steps satisfy unaccompanied airman's primary quality of life
concern: privacy. Because Air Force corporate leadership also
views unaccompanied housing as directly tied to force
recruiting, readiness, and retention, Air Force leadership is
committed to achieving private dormitory rooms as soon as Air
Force resources permit.
Bachelor Housing--Army
Question. From your discussions with your personnel, what
is their preference--to live on the economy or to live in
contemporary barracks?
Answer. According to the Tri-Service Survey which was
conducted in 1992, 83.8 percent of the single soldiers
interviewed preferred to receive separate quarters allowance
and live off-post.
Question. What are the top three complaints you hear about
housing, for single personnel?
Answer. Single soldiers want more privacy, space, and less
supervision.
Bachelor Housing--Navy
Question. What are the top three complaints you hear about
housing for single personnel?
Answer. Personal freedoms/restrictive rules and
regulations, privacy/square footage, inspections/working
parties.
Bachelor Housing--Marine Corps
Question. From your discussions with your personnel, what
is their preference--to live on the economy or to live in
contemporary barracks?
Answer. Young enlisted Marines definitely prefer the
convenience and cohesion of living in the barracks. As a single
Marine attains more rank and time in the Service, he often
prefers to live on the economy.
Question. What are the top three complaints you hear about
housing for single personnel?
Answer. Single Marines are most concerned about: (1)
housing that is neat, well maintained, and offers ample storage
for their possessions and equipment; (2) better furnishing; and
(3) cable television and telephone hookups.
Bachelor Housing--Air Force
Question. From your discussions with your personnel, what
is their preference--to live on the economy or to live in
contemporary barracks?
Answer. For the most part, our junior airmen prefer to live
on base, as they typically do not have the financial means to
adequately support themselves on the economy. As they mature in
age and grade, we find the natural desire is to live off-base
on the economy. Of course, the location of the installation is
key to their response depending on whether they live in a high
or low cost area of the country or live overseas.
Question. What are the top three complaints you hear about
housing for single personnel?
Answer. The top three areas of concern our enlisted airmen
living in dormitories cited in the 1995 quality of life survey
were: (1) Privacy--88% of dormitory occupants stated having ``a
private sleeping room'' when asked what would most improve
their quality of life, (2) facility maintenance, and (3) size
of the room.
Family Housing--Army
Question. What are the most frequent complaints you hear
about family housing?
Answer. The principal complaints are: congested housing
areas; insufficient parking; and antiquated kitchens,
bathrooms, and floor plans.
Question. What type of waiting list are our enlisted
personnel and their families faced with for on-base housing?
Answer. There are approximately 18,000 enlisted families on
waiting lists for government family housing. The average
waiting time varies by location and depends on the family's
bedroom requirement. On the average, enlisted families wait
about 15 months for on-post family housing.
Family Housing--Navy
Question. What are the most frequent complaints you hear
about family housing?
Answer. The most frequent complaints the Navy hears from
its families about housing is the poor condition of their
existing government homes; the shortage of government homes;
and the lack of affordable and suitable community housing.
About 36,000 homes in the Navy's family housing inventory
require revitalization, including replacement, improvements and
major repairs, to bring them up to Neighborhoods of Excellence
standards. The Navy's $2.5 billion backlog is scheduled to be
eliminated by the end of fiscal year 2005. This year's request
includes funding for the replacement of 128 at Lemoore,
California, and revitalization of 2,231 homes at 29 locations.
the Navy is currently exploring the options associated with the
Public/Private Venture legislation as a means to improve the
living conditions for our Sailors. These options could allow
the Navy to correct our facility deficiencies or replace the
homes in a timely manner. The Department of Defense also is
continuing to look at proposals to change the housing allowance
system that would allow members to afford a wider selection of
housing and reduce the need for military housing.
Question. What type of waiting list are our enlisted
personnel and their families faced with for on-base housing?
Answer. As of 30 September 1996, there were about 22,000
enlisted families on worldwide waiting lists for family
housing. The waiting times for assignment to family housing
vary from one month to several years depending on the location,
time of year, and other factors. For instance, there are some
waiting lists in Japan which are as long as three years. The
number of families on the waiting list reflects a combination
of families who: would prefer to live in government housing;
are unsuitably housed in the private community; or expect
assignment to government quarters during their tour of duty.
The waiting list excludes families who decided not to apply for
assignment to government quarters because it would not become
available during their entire duty at that installation.
Family Housing--Marine Corps
Question. What are the most frequent complaints you hear
about family housing?
Answer. The principle complaints about family housing are
the lack of housing, waiting times, size of units, the
inability to provide routine maintenance due to lack of
funding, houses remaining unrepaired or in unsightly condition
for extended periods, and outmoded unit design.
Members living in civilian housing are also most
dissatisfied with the condition and cost of their housing,
neighborhood safety, and length of time it takes to get to
work.
Question. What type of waiting lists are our enlisted
personnel and their families faced with for on-base housing?
Answer. There are more than 6,000 families on the waiting
list. The average waiting time is approximately 15 months;
however, waiting times vary significantly by location and pay
grade of the member.
Family Housing--Air Force
Question. What are the most frequent complaints you hear
about family housing?
Answer. The most frequent complaints we hear about family
housing are: units are too small; units do not allow one
bedroom per child; and the waiting time to be assigned to
housing unit is too long.
Question. What type of waiting lists are our enlisted
personnel and their families faced with for on-base housing?
Answer. Our enlisted married personnel and their families
are faced with waiting lists that are 12 to 24 months long at
many locations. The Air Force has approximately 41,000 families
on lists waiting for assignment to family housing.
Housing Allowance--Army
Question. Are we now providing an adequate housing
allowance to enlisted personnel?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) has reviewed the
current system for determining housing allowances to correct
inherent inequities and inefficiencies, particularly for junior
enlisted personnel in high-cost areas. A joint working group
developed a methodology for combining Basic Allowance for
Quarters and Variable Housing Allowance into a single Basic
Allowance for Housing indexed to increases in housing costs.
One of the main components of the new system is to compute
allowances based on external price data for housing costs from
the private sector instead of housing rental expenditures. The
Army has concurred in the provisions of proposed legislation
drafted by DOD that will improve junior enlisted housing
allowances especially in high-cost areas using the new Basic
Allowance for Housing. DOD will soon forward this proposal to
Congress for approval.
Housing Allowance--Navy
Question. Are we now providing an adequate housing
allowance to enlisted personnel?
Answer. No, in most Navy Fleet Concentration Areas we are
not providing adequate housing allowances. Currently, Basic
Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) is indexed by wage costs, not
housing costs. Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) is based on
survey data as reported by members, reflecting what they can
afford to spend on housing rather than what might be
appropriate. As a result, BAQ nor VHA have been able to
consistently keep up with the growth in housing costs, and have
unfairly disadvantaged those in high cost of living areas while
favoring those in low cost of living areas. The current DoD
housing allowance reform initiative to combine BAQ and VHA into
a single allowance based on external price data will enable us
to target the housing allowance more appropriately and for the
first time tie the allowance to a national index of housing
costs. Housing allowance (HA) reform is long overdue. The
current HA reform has been well staffed and represents a major
step forward. I anticipate it will resolve several long
standing housing compensation inequities.
Housing Allowance--Marine Corps
Question. Are we now providing an adequate housing
allowance to enlisted personnel?
Answer. The combination of Basic Allowance for Quarters
(BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) is intended to cover
85% of a Marine's off-base housing costs, leaving 15% to be
paid out-of-pocket. Currently, individual Marines pay about
19.6% of their housing costs out-of-pocket. In this regard,
BAQ/VHA is not adequate, particularly for Marines in more
expensive areas. The BAQ Reform proposal for FY98 will
alleviate many of the problems associated with the current BAQ/
VHA system, and will reduce the percentage of housing costs
absorbed by the individual Marine.
Housing Allowance--Air Force
Question. Are we now providing an adequate housing
allowance to enlisted personnel?
Answer. For most junior enlisted members, current housing
allowances do not cover the intended 85% cost of off-base
housing. As a result, members now absorb 19.4% instead of 15%
of housing costs. The current average absorption for an E-5
with a family is $158/mo (15% absorption = $116/mo; additional
4.4% absorption = $42/mo). Two recent initiatives, rate
protection (FY96) and VHA locality floors (FY97) were designed
to improve housing allowances for our most junior members and
have provided some relief to these members. The proposed
housing allowance reform will tie housing allowances to local
housing costs. Many enlisted members will see increased
allowances as a result. The reform is not intended to address
members absorption, although absorption is a definite
consequence. Additional legislative action will be required to
buy-down member absorption.
Housing Referral Offices--Army
Question. Overall, how important are housing referral
offices and how successful are they?
Answer. As long as the Army houses approximately two-thirds
of families off-post and 70 percent of those are junior
enlisted families, the Army will need housing referral offices.
They are very important in finding safe, affordable off-post
housing in the shortest time for relocating soldiers and their
families. They are highly effective and successful; they
provide the assistance required for soldiers to locate housing
that meets their families' needs in the shortest possible time.
Housing Referral Offices--Navy
Question. Overall, how important are housing referral
offices and how successful are they?
Answer. About three-fourths of Navy military families
reside in private housing. Housing referral personnel assist
families, as well as bachelors and eligible civilians, to
acquire adequate, affordable housing on the economy. Housing
Referral Services are useful to junior military personnel who
have less experience at making good decisions when obtaining
housing. A newcomer to an area may encounter such problems as
unethical and discriminatory landlords; unfamiliarity with
neighborhoods, schools, and local housing laws; and rental/
utility deposits. It takes time to research the housing market,
and time can be precious when a family has just relocated and
the military member is trying to orient to a new job or is
scheduled to ship out in a couple of weeks, leaving the family
behind. The housing office helps make it less of an ordeal by
providing needed information and services. Housing Referral
Services are vital at overseas locations in helping military
members and families find suitable housing in communities that
are very different from those in the U.S. The Housing Office
helps with lease review, negotiation, and security deposits;
provides listings of units that meet an acceptable level of
criteria; and is a conduit with the utility companies, helping
with utility hook-ups and billing ``problems.'' Housing staffs
take families to vacant homes in the community. This showing
services is invaluable for families whose car has not yet
arrived from the U.S. and public transportation is not
convenient or available. When the inexperienced military person
deals directly with the landlord, they are vulnerable because
they may not know the right questions to ask, make incorrect
assumptions, or simply have a problem communicating because of
language differences. The housing office looks out for the
military member and his/her family's best interests.
To ease upfront costs for newly relocated personnel, the
housing office establishes deposit waiver programs with local
landlords. The Rental Set Aside Program is a winning situation
for both the military member and landlords. Landlord/resident
mediation services help resolve disputes. Continuously improved
automated systems provide comprehensive and current listings
for community housing. Interactions with the local government
and real estate/property management organizations further help
with placing personnel in the private community. Housing
relocation services help educate personnel on what to expect at
their next duty station.
The above housing referral services contribute much to the
well-being of military members and their families. Housing
referral services have been greatly enhanced under the Navy's
Neighborhoods of Excellence concept of improving family housing
services. Customers at most installations now enjoy expanded
office hours in the evening and over the weekend, and expanded
showing services. Without housing referral services, Navy
personnel would have to rely on local realtors and property
managers to locate housing. Local realtors normally place more
emphasis on for-sale properties rather than affordable rental
properties required by Navy families, particularly E-1 through
E-6 enlisted personnel and their families. Many of the unique
services required by military personnel are not provided by the
private sector.
Providing housing referral services is an effective means
of housing families as the Navy steps back from constructing
new homes and relies more on the private sector, privatization
authorities, and improved allowances.
Housing Referral Offices--Marine Corps
Question. Overall, how important are housing referral
offices and how successful are they?
Answer. Housing offices are an extremely important element
in our service to families living in both military family
housing and in the private community.
Housing offices are responsible for the centralized
management of all aspects of family housing. These
responsibilities include: participating in family housing
market analyses to determine housing requirements; recommending
programming for housing acquisitions; planning for operations,
maintenance, repairs, alterations, and improvements;
translating plans and programs into budget requirements;
applying resources (funds and manpower); controlling, issuing,
and repairing furnishings; assigning and managing housing
units; managing rentals; leasing housing units; conducting
habitability inspections; informing occupants of matters
involving local police and fire protection authorities, school
boards, and other community services; mediating complaints from
occupants; implementing self-help programs; and maintaining
records of inventory, condition, and costs.
For members arriving at an installation, housing referral
offices provide a variety of counseling services. These
include: providing maps and information packets on the local
communities; networking with realtors; maintaining convenient
access to all new community rental and for-sale listings;
conducting workshops and advising members on home buying; and
tailoring the housing search to the members' affordability
range, location desires, and specific family member
requirements (schools, hospitals, spouse employment, etc.).
The referral counselors also inspect housing complexes for
adequacy and suitability for our military members and provide
mediation services in landlord/tenant disputes. Counselors work
with local landlords to waive application fees, credit checks
and security fees for military members.
The referral offices have been successful in assisting the
majority of our families find housing. However, even with their
efforts our housing deficit remains at over 10,000 homes.
Housing Referral Offices--Air Force
Question. Overall, how important are housing referral
offices and how successful are they?
Answer. Housing referral offices are extremely important in
helping Air Force members and their families locate acceptable
community housing. Since being established in 1968, the offices
have helped over sixty percent of the Air Force accompanied
population locate housing on a continuous basis. Housing
Referral offices provide counseling to service members and
their families on home finding, renting, buying and selling.
They also help settle landlord disputes and provide preliminary
inquiries to validate discrimination complaints. At overseas
locations, referral offices help bridge the gap between service
members and local language and customs.
Job Satisfaction--Army
Question. List in order the priorities to ensure job
satisfaction of our enlisted personnel.
Answer. Job satisfaction priorities are: Adequate
compensation and benefits, adequate housing, realistic training
with state of the art equipment, and quality health care;
maximum flexibility for commanders to provide for soldiers'
quality of life, including: Flexible duty hours, civilian
education opportunities, unit functions, and promotion
opportunities and personal recognition; an adequate support
environment for soldiers and their families.
Job Satisfaction--Navy
Question. List in order the priorities to ensure job
satisfaction of our enlisted personnel.
Answer. In our Retention/Separation Questionnaire,
completed voluntarily by Sailors who are separating,
reenlisting or extending, we ask Sailors to rate their
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 45 factors of Navy life,
and to identify which of the 45 factors would be the most
important reason for leaving (or thinking of leaving). The top
six responses for Fiscal Year 1996, similar to those from
previous years, identify the following factors as having the
highest satisfaction level:
1. Job security
2. Support and recreation services
3. Quality of commissary and exchange
4. Geographic location of jobs
5. Coworker competence
6. Education benefits
When we examine responses of only those Sailors who chose
to stay (reenlist or extend), we see a slightly different
emphasis, with greater importance for job content and the
military chain of command:
1. Job security
2. Support and recreation services
3. Job fulfillment/challenge
4. Respect from superiors
5. Geographic location of jobs
6. Use of skill/training on the job
All of these factors are clearly important to our Sailors.
We are also concerned about improving the factors that Sailors
who left cited as the reason for leaving:
1. Family separation
2. Promotion and advancement opportunity
3. Basic pay
4. Quality of leadership/management
5. Quality of Navy life
6. Job enjoyment
Job Satisfaction--Marine Corps
Question. List in order the priorities to insure job
satisfaction of our enlisted personnel.
Answer. The Marine Corps is not just a job; it is a way of
life. Therefore, any measure of satisfaction will necessarily
include elements from all facets of service, not just from a
Marine's specific job. Focus groups of active duty Marines have
identified and ranked the following 5 issues as their top
concerns: leadership, pay, family issues, benefits, and
training/optempo.
Job Satisfaction--Air Force
Question. List in order the priorities to insure job
satisfaction of our enlisted personnel.
Answer. There is no formal registry of enlisted job
satisfaction priorities in the Air Force. Therefore, using the
premise that the reasons people stay in the Air Force also
enhances their job satisfaction, our priorities would be based
on why people stay. Historical survey data collected from 1988
to 1994 indicates enlisted members stay with us for reasons
such as opportunity for education/training, availability of
medical care, and retirement benefits.
Child Care Needs--Army
Question. Are we meeting the needs with the growth in
single soldier parents, dual military couples and more spouses
in the workforce?
Answer. Fiscal year 1998 funding provides the Army the
capability to satisfy the DOD goal of 65 percent of its child
care demand through three primary delivery systems: child
development centers, family child care homes, and supplemental
services.
Question. What efforts are being made to provide increased
child care during deployments such as IFOR?
Answer. Child care programs extend operating hours during
the weekdays, open for care on weekends, and provide respite
care to meet community needs. Additionally, on-site hourly care
for unit functions and family support group meetings is offered
to support deployment-related activities. Local trainers
schedule classes for caregiving staff on coping with stress,
staff awareness of stress in children, and parent support.
Question. Would you update the committee on the need for
new facilities and are adequate funds available for operation
of the centers?
Answer. We have an adequate number of facilities and are
committing our funds to replace or upgrade existing facilities.
Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA), funds are adequate to
operate Child Development Centers (CDCs). Also, Family Child
Care in government quarters enables the Army to avoid capital
investment and sustainment necessary for CDCs.
Child Care Needs--Navy
Question. Are we meeting our child care needs with the
growth in single soldier parents, dual military couples and
more spouses in the workforce?
Answer. In my estimate, one of the most difficult tasks is
defining and establishing the real need. DoD has established a
goal to have all services meet 80 percent of the child care
potential need for children ages 0-12 years by FY-2005. Navy is
currently meeting 47 percent of the ``potential need,'' and has
a plan to reach 65 percent of the ``potential need'' by FY-03.
Current program includes care for 25,974 children ages 0-5
years and 12,006 children ages 6-12 years. The current delta is
14,377 spaces for children 0-5 years of age.
Of the care provided the following shows the percentage of
categories of parents with children in care:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center Family
based child care
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single military............................... 7.1 8.8
Dual Military................................. 4.8 7.6
Military w/spouse............................. 82.6 79.8
DoD civilians................................. 5.5 3.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. The DoD formula for calculating potential need is based on 8
percent of children of single parents and 6 percent of children of
dual military parents.
The Navy's plan to reach the 65 percent goal includes:
(1) Continued operations of existing programs which
includes center based care and Family Child Care (FCC).
(2) Maintaining eleven (11) programmed MILCON centers
through FY-03. In addition, increased O&MN funding is
identified in POM-98 to operate these centers once completed.
(3) Use of off-base civilian child development centers:
a. Contract with qualifying civilian centers in fleet
concentration areas to ``buy down'' rates: Contracts have been
awarded in Jacksonville and Norfolk, and we plan to award
additional contracts in these areas, as well as San Diego,
Seattle, and Pearl Harbor. The Service member will pay the same
rates as they would in an on-base development center, and the
government will pay the contractor the difference. Civilian
centers must be accredited by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children to qualify for this contract.
b. Resource and Referral (R&R). We have hired R&R personnel
to assist parents in obtaining care in off-base centers.
Parents will pay civilian rates; no subsidy will be provided by
the Navy. In addition, these personnel will be able to identify
possible state, county or federal subsidies for qualifying
parents. These referrals count toward meeting our potential
need for child care if the centers are nationally accredited
and the parent cost is no more than 120 percent of the cost
they would pay in an on-base center.
(4) Expand FCC to certify military spouses living off-base
in civilian housing which will create a larger pool of
providers in more locations surrounding the military
installation. In addition, FCC subsidies are provided in
certain areas.
(5) Simultaneously, the Navy is conducting an A-76
Commercial Activities Study in the San Diego area, to write a
performance work statement, develop the government's most
efficient organization on a regional basis, and determine if
the private sector can effectively compete and meet the
potential need by 2003, at equal or better quality and
availability, and at equal or less cost to the government. The
test will include use of qualifying on and off-base child
development centers and in-home care.
Question. What efforts are being made to provide increased child
care during deployments such as IFOR?
Answer. There is no requirement for child care during deployments.
Single Sailors or dual-member marriages must provide their own
caregiver in their absence. In accordance with OPNAVINST 1740.4A, the
Navy requires all single and dual military members to complete a family
care plan that designates persons responsible for the care of their
dependent children during deployments or emergencies. If children are
in Navy child development programs prior to deployment and the designee
has access to the programs, the children may remain in care. For short
periods of TAD, members who have children in Family Child Care (FCC)
often name the FCC provider as the responsible designee with the
cooperation of that care giver.
As the Navy's senior enlisted leader, I am greatly concerned that
we, the Navy, do everything possible to ensure that all hands
understand that deployment custodial care is the sole responsibility of
the service member.
Question. Would you update the Committee on the need for new
facilities and are adequate funds available for the operation of the
centers?
Answer. The Navy initiative includes 11 MILCON centers programmed
and funded through FY-03.
Child Care Needs--Marine Corps
Question. Are we meting our child care needs with the growth in
single soldier parents, dual military couples and more spouses in the
workforce?
Answer. The Marine Corps has identified resources and worked hard
to expand services to meet the growth in child care requirements. The
DoD goal set for each of the Services is to provide for 65% of the
potential need which translates to 15,000 child care spaces for the
Marine Corps. Currently, the Marine Corps program supports access to
14,000 spaces.
Question. What efforts are being made to provide increased child
care during deployments such as IFOR?
Answer. Our response to this problem is delegated to the local
level. Installation commanders and child care program directors do what
they can to extend operating hours and to offer services, sometimes at
no cost, to support the special needs of families during these periods.
The Marine Corps also sponsors a fee subsidy program for family child
care homes; these subsidies may be used to compensate for special
family needs and circumstances during deployments.
Question. Would you update the Committee on the need for new
facilities and are adequate funds available for the operation of the
centers?
Answer. The FY96 MILCON program included a center at MCB Camp
Pendleton; the FY97 program funded projects at MCAS New River and
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms. Many of the children to be accomodated in
these three facilities are currently in temporary facilities on the
bases, therefore operational funds are available to support the opening
of these facilities. There are no funds for child care centers in FY
98; however, the FY99 program includes a center at MCAS Cherry Point;
additional O&M funds would be required to support this facility. There
are no other MILCON projects for child care centers in the FY96-99
timeframe.
Child Care Needs--Air Force
Question. Are we meeting our child care needs with the growth in
single soldier parents, dual military couples and more spouses in the
workforce?
Answer. The Air Force child care program is one of the largest in
the United States, providing more than 48,000 child care spaces per
day. The Air Force is still not able to meet the 85,000 spaces a day
that are needed. We are currently meeting 57% of the need and
facilities are programmed to meet 65% of the need by 2001.
Question. What efforts are being made to provide increased child
care during deployments such as IFOR?
Answer. Where there are large numbers of individuals deployed, the
installation commander can open or extend the operating hours of Air
Force child development centers to meet the child care needs of those
families left behind. Air Force child development centers are open
other than normal operating hours during a month to meet the special
needs and requirements of the parents on the base.
Question. Would you update the Committee on the need for new
facilities and are adequate funds available for the operation of the
center?
Answer. The Air Force has identified nine child development centers
($31.1M) for inclusion in future military construction budget requests:
Andrews AFB MD, Bolling AFB DC, Scott AFB IL, MacDill AFB FL, Eglin AFB
FL, Luke AFB AZ, Falcon AFB CO, and two at Wright-Patterson AFB OH. We
are striving to meet the Department of Defense goal of 65% of the child
care demand by 2001, and 80% by 2005. The additional child development
centers that are needed to satisfy the 80% child care demand goal are
not currently prioritized in the Air Force program. Higher mission
requirements precluded their being their being included in our FY98
budget request. As these centers are approved, funds for their
operations will be included in the AF budget.
Bachelor Housing--Army
Question. What is the preference of our enlisted personnel (single
and married) to live on or off base?
Answer. According to the Tri-Service Survey which was conducted in
1992, 83.8 percent of the single soldiers interviewed preferred to
receive separate quarters allowance and live off-post. Given the
current state of the Army, with its frequent deployments and
unaccompanied tours, most families prefer to live on-post. The number
one reason is a secure and safe environment. The second reason is the
cost of suitable, off-post housing.
Bachelor Housing--Navy
Question. What is the preference of our enlisted personnel (single
and married) to live on or off base?
Answer. Three-fourths of Navy families live in the private
community. Based on the results of the Variable Housing Allowance
Survey conducted in the Summer of 1996, 34 percent of married enlisted
personnel living in the private sector indicated a preference for on-
base housing.
Bachelor Housing--Marine Corps
Question. What is the preference of our enlisted personnel (single
& married) to live on or off base?
Answer. The preference for on-base housing versus living on the
economy is a highly personal one. This preference is also location
specific and depends on the quality of both on-base and civilian
housing, affordability, commuting distances, surrounding support
facilities, and availability of DOD schools in some areas.
The waiting list for Marine Corps on-base housing exceeds 6,000
families, indicating a continued strong desire of families housed in
the civilian community to move into on-base housing. One strong factor
influencing this preference is the frequent deployment of Marine Corps
service members and the feeling that family members left behind will be
more secure on-base.
Finally, the significant ``out-of-pocket'' cost differential
between on-base and off-base housing cannot be ignored as a major
contributing factor to the continued preference for on-base housing.
Bachelor Marines have indicated in the 1994 Marine Corps Quality of
Life Study (Kerc Study) that they are less satisfied than families with
the quality of on-base housing and indicated a stronger preference to
live off-base. Marine Staff Sergeants and above have the option to live
off-base. We are addressing the junior enlisted bachelor quarters issue
through an extensive bachelor quarters construction program. Marine
Corps leadership desires our junior enlisted Marines to continue to
live on-base where greater access to morale, welfare, and recreation
facilities and dining facilities will help them live within their pay
and allowances.
Bachelor Housing--Air Force
Question. What is the preference of our enlisted personnel (single
and married) to live on or off base?
Answer. Approximately 60 percent of unaccompanied personnel live on
base, and 40 percent live off base. For the most part, our
unaccompanied junior airmen prefer to live on base, as they typically
do not have the financial means to adequately support themselves on the
economy. As they mature in age and grade, we find the natural desire is
to live off-base on the economy. Of course, the location of the
installation is key to their response depending on whether they live in
a high or low cost area of the country or live overseas.
For our married personnel approximately 60 percent live off base
and the remaining 40 percent live on base, however there is a strong
desire to live on base as evidenced by 41,000 families on the waiting
list for base housing. The primary consideration for families wanting
to live on base is cost; in many locations member's housing allowances
are not sufficient, driving high out-of-pocket costs and a preference
to live on base where there are no out-of-pocket costs. Other factors
driving a preference to live on base are proximity to base (work,
medical, and community services), and safety and security of family
members while military members are deployed or experiencing higher TDY
rates.
Assessment of the Medical Program--Army
Question. Do you think the quality of DOD's medical facilities and
the quality of medical care that is provided in those facilities is as
good as it should be?
Answer. The Department of Defense's (DOD's) medical facilities
provide a consistently high level of quality medical services. The
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has
surveyed and accredited all Army medical facilities. Hospitals
throughout DOD continue to outscore civilian and federal peers on
surveys and continue to set national standards for quality of care.
The age of our facilities, however, continues to remain an issue.
With a steady decline of medical military construction (MILCON) funds
and the burden of sustainment shifting back to the services, our
facilities will be approximately 110 years old before they can be
replaced. Currently, approximately 42 percent of Army health and dental
clinics and 32 percent of Army hospitals and medical centers are
classified as substandard as a result of their age and condition.
Although much progress was made in the late 1980's and throughout this
decade to upgrade our hospitals and medical centers, health and dental
clinics, training and medical research facilities must also be
modernized.
Question. Would our enlisted personnel rather receive their medical
care at DOD facilities, or elsewhere--and why? Are there significant
differences of opinion between active duty as compared with the views
of dependents?
Answer. Enlisted personnel would prefer to receive their care in a
military treatment facility (MTF). They understand the military system
and are comfortable with it. The latest Army annual survey of
beneficiaries indicates that overall satisfaction with medical care is
up from the previous year, that access to health care has improved, and
that our beneficiaries are receiving the high quality of care they are
accustomed to receiving. In Regions where TRICARE has been implemented,
TRICARE PRIME enrollees express satisfaction with the program. Active
duty personnel are automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime. All TRICARE
Prime enrollees, whether they are active duty of non-active duty,
receive their primary care in MTFs.
It has been generally stated that soldiers are more concerned with
the source of their families health care than they are about their own.
Family members' issues with health care involve access, cost, and
quality. Beneficiaries believe they are receiving quality health care.
For the most part, military hospitals and clinics are close to where
most soldiers and their families live, which makes it more convenient.
This convenience is important, especially for junior enlisted personnel
who may have difficulties with transportation. Additionally, there are
no other user fees or co-payments associated with care in MTFs as there
would be if treated in civilian facilities. This cost would also have a
major impact on junior enlisted personnel.
Question. Are there differences between DOD facilities at U.S.
installations and those overseas--where there is no real alternative to
military health care?
Answer. There are virtually no differences between Department of
Defense medical facilities on U.S. installations and overseas. We
provide a wide range of medical services in our medical facilities both
here and abroad. However, with the downsizing of the Army in Europe,
access to military hospitals has decreased and drive times have
increased as we have reduced from nine hospitals to three. We have,
however, emphasized improved access to primary care with increased
staffing of our clinics and expanded clinic hours. We have also
provided expanded dental services for active duty families through
contractor-provided dental support. The three Services in Europe, in
concert with assistance from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health
Affairs), are establishing a TRICARE program for Europe that will help
families through referral centers, health care finders and translators,
patient liaisons, and development of preferred providers and
institutions. A TRICARE Europe Support Office has been established in
Ramstein Air Force Base and is working to implement a comprehensive
program in Europe.
Assessment of the Medical Program--Navy
Question. Do you think the quality of DoD's medical facilities and
the quality of medical care that is provided in those facilities is as
good as it should be?
Answer. I am confident that Navy's medical facilities are good and
that the medical care provided in those facilities is of the highest
quality. All Navy Medical Treatment Facilities are currently accredited
by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations' (JCAHO). JCAHO is the internationally recognized
credentialing organization for military and civilian medical treatment
facilities.
Question. Would our enlisted personnel rather receive their medical
care at DoD facilities, or elsewhere--and why? Are there significant
differences of opinion between active duty personnel as compared with
the views of dependents?
Answer. We do not have data that specifically addresses the issue
of enlisted personnel's preferred site of medical care, either at a DoD
facility or civilian facility. However, the 1996 Annual Health Care
Survey does give insight into how our beneficiaries rate our services.
Data indicates that active duty personnel and their dependents who have
experienced both military and civilian health care in CONUS Catchment
Areas are more satisfied with civilian health care than military health
care. There is no statistical difference in responses between active
duty beneficiaries and dependents of active duty beneficiaries.
Previous survey data from 1992 shows that a majority of junior enlisted
respondents would not pay out of pocket for a civilian health plan but
would enroll in it if it was free. Figure 1 illustrates the
dissatisfiers for Active Duty and their family members from the 1996
Annual Health Care Survey of DoD Beneficiaries.
FIGURE 1
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family
Active active
duty duty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military facility too far away.................... 29.8 26.9
It is too difficult to get an appointment at a
military facility................................ 22.0 23.8
Facility has been closed.......................... 1.3 5.2
The services I need were not available............ 15.9 22.6
I can get better care from civilian providers..... 28.2 38.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are there differences between DoD medical facilities at
U.S. installations and those overseas--where there is no real
alternative to military health care?
Answer. Our data exhibits no difference between CONUS and OCONUS
facilities. All medical construction is accomplished under uniform DoD
guidance and construction standards. Navy medicine incorporates any
additional standards required by the host nation's laws, for example,
light-wells in Japan. Overseas medical treatment facilities (MTFs),
like their CONUS counterparts, undergo inspection by the Joint
Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)
every three years. A JCAHO survey includes a determination of
compliance with strict physical plant standards. For the last complete
JCAHO survey cycle (1994 through 1996), the average Navy CONUS MTF
JCAHO survey score was 92.5; the average Navy OCONUS MTF JCAHO survey
score was 92.7. Beneficiaries overseas receive more comprehensive
services from the MTF than in the U.S. because of the lack of
alternatives, i.e. dental care for dependents, easier access to
orthopedics and ob/gyn services.
Assessment of the Medical Program--Marine Corps
Question. Do you think the quality of DOD's medical facilities and
the quality of medical care that is provided in those facilities is as
good as it should be?
Answer. I am confident that the Navy's medical facilities are good
and that the medical care provided in those facilities is of the
highest quality. The data below indicates that our medical treatment
facilities (MTF's) consistently score higher than their civilian
counterparts on the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations' (JCAHO) triennial inspections, which include
evaluation of the facility and the medical care delivery system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average JCAHO score--
Year -------------------------------------
Navy MTF's Civilian MTF's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.............................. 89.7 82.7
1994.............................. 92.3 88.1
1995.............................. 94.3 (\1\)
1996.............................. 93.3 (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not available.
Question. Would our enlisted personnel rather receive their medical
care at DOD facilities, or elsewhere--and why? Are there significant
differences of opinion between active duty personnel as compared with
the views of dependents?
Answer. We do not have data that specifically addresses the issue
of enlisted personnel's preferred site of medical care, either at a DOD
facility or civilian facility. However, the 1996 Annual Health Care
Survey does give insight into how our beneficiaries rate our services.
Data indicates that active duty personnel and their dependents who have
experienced both military and civilian health care in CONUS Catchment
Areas are more satisfied with civilian health care than military health
care. There is no statistical difference in responses between active
duty beneficiaries and dependents of active duty beneficiaries.
Previous survey data from 1992 shows that a majority of junior
enlisted respondents would not pay out of pocket for a civilian health
plan but would enroll in it if it was free. The table below illustrates
the dissatisfiers for Active Duty and their family members from the
1996 Annual Health Care survey of DOD Beneficiaries.
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family
Active active
duty duty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military facility too far away.................... 29.8 26.9
It is too difficult to get an appointment at a
military facility................................ 22.0 23.8
Faciilty has been closed.......................... 1.3 5.2
The services I need were not available............ 15.9 22.6
I can get better care from civilian providers..... 28.2 38.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are there differences between DOD medical facilities at
U.S. installations and those overseas--where there is no real
alternative to military health care?
Answer. Our data exhibits no differences between CONUS and OCONUS
facilities. All medical construction is accomplished under uniform DOD
guidance and construction standards. Navy medicine incorporates any
additional standards required by the host nation's laws, for example,
light-wells in Japan. Overseas medical treatment facilities (MTFs),
like their CONUS counterparts, undergo inspection by the Joint
Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO)
every three years. A JCAHO survey includes a determination of
compliance with strict physical plant standards. For the last complete
JCAHO survey cycle (1994 through 1996), the average Navy CONUS MTF
JCAHO survey score was 92.5; the average Navy OCONUS MTF JCAHO survey
score was 92.7. Beneficiaries overseas receive more comprehensive
services from the MTF than in the U.S. because of the lack of
alternatives, i.e. dental care for dependents, easier access to
orthopedics and ob/gyn services.
Assessment of the Medical Program--Air Force
Question. Do you think the quality of DoD's medical facilities and
the quality of medical care that is provided in those facilities is as
good as it should be?
Answer. The quality of our medical facilities is not as high as it
should be. We continue to be underfunded in Operations and Maintenance
and Military Construction to property maintain, repair, modernize, and
replace our medical inventory. Based on projected funding, we have a
modernization/replacement cycle of approximately 100 years. Couple this
with the state of our average facility--28 years old and built to
support a concept of care from the 1960s--and we can not provide
facilities with appropriate space, functionality, and technology as we
transition from an inpatient focused system to an ambulatory focused
system. The impact is we have older, less efficient facilities which do
not meet the expectations of our patients or the requirements of our
staff.
However, a number of facts support the conclusion that Air Force
medicine is outstanding. Within the current three-year cycle, the Air
Force overall average score on surveys by Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations again slightly exceeds the
national average.
Air Force inpatient facilities consistently perform better than the
aggregate average of the Maryland Hospital Project Quality Indicator
Project (MHA QIP) (includes 900+ inpatient facilities) in several
performance areas such as inpatient mortality, cesarean sections,
perioperative mortality, unscheduled readmissions and unscheduled
returns to the operating room.
The Air Force continues to experience a lower rate of malpractice
claims per 100 physicians than the largest civilian malpractice insurer
in the nation, even accounting for the Feres doctrine.
Question. Would our enlisted personnel rather receive their medical
care at DOD facilities, or elsewhere--and why? Are there significant
differences of opinion between active duty personnel as compared with
the views of dependents?
Answer. In 1996, DOD surveyed a stratified random sample of
beneficiaries worldwide. This particular question was not addressed.
However, a similar question was asked of the beneficiaries. ``Did you
receive any health care from a military facility or provider in the
past 12 months? The active duty enlisted force responded with 62
percent of them receiving care from a military medical treatment
facility (MTF) in the past 12 months. Of those who received care from
the MTF, 71 percent were satisfied with the care they received.
Military active duty do not have the option to use civilian over
military health care. Therefore, the survey did not address why they
chose military over civilian care. However, the overall study shows
that technical quality is the first of several determinants. When
comparing active duty personnel to active duty dependents, findings
show that 94 percent of active duty usually go to a military facility
while 77 percent of the family of active duty go to a military
facility. Although we have no scientific basis for this conclusion, we
believe that the family of active duty choose our MTFs because of a
desire for high quality coupled with lower costs.
We recognize the previous data may not fully respond to your
question. The most current data available that directly responds to
these questions was provided to this committee last year. Basically, we
reported from a 1994 Air Force Surgeon General's survey (the most
current to date) that beneficiaries were asked, ``If you were given the
opportunity to enroll in a variety of health care plans today, which
source of care would you choose?'' Forty percent of active duty
enlisted personnel responded that, if given the choice, they would
choose military sources over CHAMPUS, private insurance, employee
programs or other federal non-military facilities.
Enlisted families also preferred military sources (39 percent) over
any other option available.
Question. Are there differences between DOD medical facilities at
U.S. installations and those overseas--where there is no real
alternative to military health care?
Answer. DOD surveyed a stratified random sample of beneficiaries
worldwide. Findings show that the mean levels of satisfaction were
generally lowest among beneficiaries living overseas. Mean levels
tended to be highest among those living in stateside non-catchment
areas. On each of the 10 scales, however, the means among the three
groups always fell within a relatively narrow range. For example, on
the overall satisfaction scale, overseas beneficiaries responded with a
mean level of satisfaction of 3.2, stateside catchment area
beneficiaries had a mean of 3.4, and stateside non-catchment area
beneficiaries had a mean of 3.5.
Recruitment/Training/Re-enlistment--Army
Question. What does it cost to recruit and train an enlisted
service member for his or her first assignment?
Answer. The average cost to recruit and train an enlisted member of
the Army in fiscal year 1996 was approximately $34,200. The cost
breakdown is as follows:
Accession Cost \1\............................................ $8,486
U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command..................... 720
Basic Training................................................ 8,000
Advanced Individual Training.................................. 16,000
Clothing Issue................................................ 1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 34,206
\1\ This cost includes expenditures for the Army College Fund,
enlistment bonuses, Loan Repayment Program, military and civilian pay,
advertising, communications, computers, and recruiter support. Because
this is an average cost per accession, it can vary significantly from
year to year based on the total number of accessions.
Question. What are the current first-term, second-term and career
reenlistment rates?
Answer. For fiscal year 1996, reenlistment rates (percent of
eligible soldiers reenlisting) for initial term (first term), mid-
career (second term up to ten years active service), and careerists
(over ten years active service) are as follows:
Reenlistment rates
Percent
Initial Term...................................................... 53.4
Mid-Career........................................................ 84.7
Career............................................................ 93.1
Recruitment/Training/Reenlistment--Navy
Question. What are the current first-term, and career re-enlistment
rates?
Answer. Current reenlistment rates for Fiscal Year 1997 (fiscal
year to date, through the end of February) are:
Percent
First-term........................................................ 53.9
Second-term....................................................... 59.2
Career............................................................ 83.0
Recruitment/Training/Reenlistment--Marine Corps
Question. What does it cost to recruit and train an enlisted
service member for his or her first assignment?
Answer. The average cost to recruit and train an enlisted service
member are:
Average cost to recruit an Enlisted Marine: FY96, $4,934; FY97,
$4,939; FY98, $5,029; and FY99, $5,393.
The cost shown is determined by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Accession Policy, and includes O&MMC costs for
recruiting and advertising; and MPMC costs for military salaries and
enlistment bonuses.
Average cost to train an Enlisted Marine at his/her first permanent
duty station:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Issue (MPMC)........ $1,037 $1,038 $1,084 $1,106
O&MMC....................... 2,249 1,993 2,035 2,207
MPMC........................ 9,902 11,008 9,662 11,480
-------------------------------------------
Total................... 13,188 14,039 12,781 14,793
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are the current first-term, second-term and career
re-enlistment rates?
Answer. Reenlistment rates for FY 96 were:
Percent
First term........................................................ 21.3
Second term....................................................... 57.6
Career............................................................ 94.5
We continue to meet our goals for first term reenlistments, as
established in our First Term Alignment Plan (FTAP). The FTAP ensures
first term Marines are not reenlisted in excess of our career force
requirements in each Military Occupational Specialty.
Recruitment/Training/Reenlistment--Air Force
Question. What does it cost to recruit and train an enlisted
service member for his or her first assignment?
Answer. It cost an average of $14,600 per member from recruit to
arrival to first duty station.
Question. What are the current first-term, second-term and career
re-enlistment rates?
Answer. FY96 first-term reenlistment rate was 59%, second-term--76%
and career--95%.
Reasons for Leaving the Service--Army
Question. What do you find are the most common reasons for leaving
the service?
Answer. Based on various surveys conducted by the Army Research
Institute and RAND and input from commanders, the most common reasons
for leaving the Army are: To test the civilian market; effects on
personal life caused by military obligations; duty location; to pursue
civilian education; and spousal dissatisfaction and family
consideration.
Reasons for Leaving the Service--Navy
Question. What do you find are the most common reasons for leaving
the service?
Answer. In our Retention/Separation Questionnaire, completed
voluntarily by Sailors who are separating, reenlisting or extending, we
ask which of 45 identified factors is the most important reason for
leaving (or thinking of leaving) the Navy. Although the exact rank
order of responses varies somewhat from year to year, the significant
reasons have stayed much the same since the current version of the
questionnaire began in 1990. For Sailors who left voluntarily in Fiscal
Year 1996 the top six reasons were: (1) Family separation; (2)
promotion and advancement opportunity; (3) basic pay; (4) quality of
leadership/management; (5) quality of Navy life; and (6) job enjoyment.
Reasons for Leaving the Service--Marine Corps
Question. What do you find are the most common reasons for leaving
the service?
Answer. Focus groups of active duty Marines have identified a
number of issues that appear to be important factors in the decision to
remain or separate from the Marine Corps. They ranked the following 5
issues as their top concerns: leadership, pay, family issues, benefits,
and training/optempo.
Reasons for Leaving the Service--Air Force
Question. What do you find are the most common reasons for leaving
the service?
Answer. The most recent data we have available is for 1993. (We did
not collect data throughout the drawdown.) The most common factors
influencing officers include promotion opportunities, recognition of
efforts, and availability of civilian jobs, and those influencing
enlisted members include pay and allowances, amount of additional
duties, and recognition of one's efforts.
Family Violence Cases--Army
Question. The Marsh Task Force cited that ``more than 28,000 cases
of military family violence were substantiated in 1994.'' What efforts
have been taken or are being taken to see that Family Advocacy Programs
are more proactive?
Answer. The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) has taken a very
proactive approach in addressing family violence by developing and
implementing comprehensive prevention materials (e.g., educational
videos) and DOD Family Advocacy Quality Assurance Standards. FAP has
initiated a number of programs, including Family Advocacy Law
Enforcement Training (FALET), Stress Management Training, a Chain of
Command education program, and a Child Abuse Prosecutors Course. In
addition, the Army plans to establish a spouse abuse victim advocacy
program at each Army installation in fiscal year 1998.
The FAP coordinates and works cooperatively with other Army
Community Service (ACS) programs to include Financial Counseling,
Exceptional Family Member Program, Relocation, Family Member
Employment, and Outreach. The FAP works with local agencies to provide
and coordinate services and training with child care providers, school
counselors, mental health providers, chaplains, law enforcement, and
Staffs Judge Advocate.
Family Violence Cases--Navy
Question. The Marsh Task Force cited that ``more than 28,000 cases
of military family violence were substantiated in 1994.'' What efforts
have been taken or are being taken to see that Family Advocacy Programs
are more proactive?
Answer. The Navy New Parent Support Program, our primary prevention
program for child abuse at over 40 installations world-wide, represents
a best option, research-based strategy to provide voluntary early
intervention to high risk vulnerable junior service members and their
families with complex needs around the time of a child's birth. The
Navy is providing spouse abuse victim support services at 19
installations and clinical support services at 21 sites to children
witnessing violence. Two other Family Advocacy Program (FAP) prevention
efforts include: the Youth Outreach Program to improve character,
skills and resilience among Navy youth; and the Return and Reunion
Program to reintegrate families after long deployments. Continued
congressional support will ensure continuation of these programs at
approximately 50% of our installations that represent a majority of the
Navy population.
Family Violence Cases--Marine Corps
Question. The Marsh Task Force cited that ``more than 28,000 cases
of military family violence were substantiated in 1994.'' What efforts
have been taken or are being taken to see that Family Advocacy Programs
are more proactive?
Answer. The Marine Corps Coordinated Community Response (CCR)
provides the operational and philosophical framework for a
comprehensive proactive approach to family violence prevention and
intervention. The CCR supports prevention efforts that protect and
support victims and hold offenders accountable. The following are some
of the family violence prevention programs available on installations:
a. New Parent Support Program (NPSP)--This abuse prevention program
provides home visitation to Marines and family members who are
expecting children or who have children up to 6 years of age.
b. Mentors in Violence Prevention--This program targets young
Marines and encourages their participation in the prevention of gender-
based violence.
c. Youth Violence Prevention--This pilot program at MCAGCC, 29
Palms focuses on violence prevention and targets youth in pre and
after-school programs.
Family Violence Cases--Air Force
Question. The Marsh Task Force cited that ``more than 28,000 cases
of military family violence were substantiated in 1994.'' What efforts
are being taken to see that Family Advocacy Programs are proactive?
Answer. The Air Force Family Advocacy Program (FAP) has several
aggressive homebased prevention and outreach programs that target Air
Force families at risk for maltreatment. These programs are primary and
secondary prevention education services that provide families with
adaptation and family resilience skills. Currently, there are 77 First
Time Parents programs, staffed with registered nurses, that provide
home-based prevention interventions. The goal of this program is to
prevent child and spouse abuse. Services include home visits by a nurse
pre- and post-delivery that includes unborn/infant family development
education, newborn behavior/language, and support of Air Force
families' role adaptation to parenthood.
Another proactive effort, Home-based Opportunities Make Everyone
Successful (HOMES) programs are now available at 27 Air Force bases.
HOMES is a prevention program where services are provided by a nurse
and social worker team. Goals of this program are to reduce spouse and
child abuse, increase use of Air Force and civilian community
resources, prevent disease, promote health and fitness of Air Force
families, prevent poor birth outcomes and enhance Air Force family
resiliency.
Our Family Advocacy Research has proactively identified risk
factors in several areas of domestic violence and informed the field.
Through our partnership with the University of New Hampshire and the
University of Missouri we have recently completed a review of domestic
violence entitled ``Partner Violence: A 20 Year Review and Synthesis,''
which will soon be placed on an internet Web cite to benefit not only
those who work with military families but also the civilian sector.
Our data shows Air Force spouse and child abuse rates have remained
stable over the past several years and are now declining. In addition,
the severity of these cases has also declined. We believe this positive
data is in great part attributable to our proactive intervention
efforts.
Family Advocacy--Army
Question. How are the services helping to deal with the problem of
one parent being deployed and creating a single parent situation?
Answer. The Army has established a comprehensive program of family
assistance and related programs to support the needs of family members
during deployments. The Family Support System (FSS) includes Family
Support Groups (FSGs) and the expansion of the Army Community Service
into a more comprehensive Family Assistance Center (FAC). Commanders
appoint and train Rear Detachment Commanders (RDCs) to develop a family
support plan. With certain restrictions, family members and FSGs are
allowed morale telephone calls and e-mail and fax access to deployed
soldiers. In addition, an FSS e-mail address for FSG leaders, FACs, and
RDCs in on-line, allowing quick dissemination of information to
everyone.
Families of deployed soldiers rely on the FAC and RDC for accurate
information, and immediate or emergency assistance. The FSGs are
established by unit commanders to bring families together to help each
other during deployments. The FSGs provide activities and support that
will enhance the flow of information, morale, and esprit de corps
linking family members, the chain of command, and community resources.
Question. Are we experiencing youth gang problems on our
installations?
Answer. Installations experience varying degrees of misconduct by
youth living on-post, some of which could be construed to be ``gang''
related.
The Army does not consolidate at Department of the Army level data
on youth or youth gang related crimes. In November, 1996, DoD
established the Defense Incident Based Reporting System (DIBRS) for all
Services. When fully operational in 1998, DIBRS will enable the
Services to collect and report all criminal incidents on installations
to include juvenile and gang incidents.
Notwithstanding the lack of Army level reported data at this time,
soldiers were recently surveyed on this issue. The Spring 1996 sample
survey of military personnel conducted by the U.S. Army Research
Institute, asked: ``To what extent is there a problem with youth
violence, organized gangs in our military and nearby civilian
communities?'' Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported moderate
to very great problems with organized gangs on post. Thirty-nine
percent reported moderate to very great problems with organized gangs
in nearby civilian communities.
Family Advocacy--Navy
Question. How are the services helping to deal with the problem of
one parent being deployed and creating a single parent situation?
Answer. Deployment is an accepted way of life within the Navy. One
parent being deployed has not been a significant problem as related to
the Family Advocacy Program. Support services including Family Support
Groups and Child Care Programs are tailored to accommodate deployment
situations, as well as assistance from Family Service Centers
throughout.
Question. Are we experiencing youth gang problems on our
installations?
Answer. Not on any large scale. I know of only a couple of isolated
incidents over the last year and, in fact, I hesitate to call them
``gang'' problems. Without minimizing the seriousness of juvenile
criminal activity, I believe in most Navy locations we experience the
routine problems of youth in a changing society. These problems in and
of themselves, without any so called ``gang'' component, are serious
enough and Navy currently does no have sufficient resources to deal
with ``latch key'' kids, and other phenomenon of todays society. Many
commands have extensive community partnership outreach personal
excellence initiatives which match Sailors as tutors and big brothers/
sisters with selected school children. I believe the sense of community
at Naval bases is a great help in minimizing youth delinquency and
criminal activity. There are, however, insufficient resources to
support youth activity centers, intramural youth leagues, dependent
youth recreation centers, etc. One of the most frequent questions my
wife is asked in her capacity as the Ombudsman to the Navy at large
pertains to the scarcity of youth programs, full time counselors, etc.,
in many locations.
Family Advocacy--Marine Corps
Question. How are the services helping to deal with the problem of
one parent being deployed and creating a single parent situation?
Answer. The Family Advocacy Program provides a number of support
and education services to parents who are geographically separated from
their spouses due to deployment. Services and programs to these parents
are coordinated with Family Service Center Staff to maximize assistance
to these parents. Services may include individual and group support
activities, crisis intervention, parenting classes/groups that
specifically address their special circumstances, referrals to other
services on and off the installation.
Question. Are we experiencing youth gang problems on our
installations?
Answer. We do not have a youth gang problem on Marine Corps
installations. However, we are fully aware of gangs in close proximity
to our bases and the potential for contact with dependents and even
young Marines. We do experience a certain amount of juvenile crime in
our housing areas, but none that is gang-related. Through good working
relationships with local law enforcement agencies, active family
involvement, and proactive juvenile enforcement teams, we have been
able to prevent gang related activities from taking root on our bases.
Family Advocacy--Air Force
Question. How are the services helping to deal with the problem of
one parent being deployed and creating a single parent situation?
Answer. Family Readiness is a key issue for Family Support Centers
(FSCs) focusing on helping to ease deployment stress on families.
Collaboration among all base agencies has been successful and
essential. FSC services alleviate stress and seek to keep families
informed: Pre-deployment Family Readiness Workshops, ``Hearts Apart''
programs, regular contact with families throughout deployment, ``Give
Parents A Break'', and Spouse Morale Calls are examples of programs
that have been successful. The following are comments from around the
Air Force: (1) From a first term airman's spouse at RAF Alconbury:
``The pre-deployment readiness training, your aftercare, and your phone
calls have been wonderful! I always knew that no matter how tough it
may have been, I was never alone!''. (2) RAF Lakenheath: FSC-wide
effort assisted stressed spouse, along with Air Force Aid, to have
vehicle repaired and overcome a potential crisis. Another indicator is
the increased usage of available programs by families of deployed
members: (1) Financial assistance programs and Air Force Aid have
higher use by families of deployed personnel, (2) Spouse Morale Calls,
and (3) ``Give Parents A Break'' have growing popularity, easing stress
for single parents. A number of base agencies are working together with
the squadron to enable families to prepare for, and to cope effectively
with, the many stresses of deployment.
Question. Are we experiencing youth gang problems on our
installations?
Answer. The Air Force has not experienced an organized or focused
gang problem on its installations. It has, however, experienced some
gang-related incidents impacting its installations and people (both on
and off base). Incidents ranging from graffiti and vandalism up to drug
dealing, assaults and murder have occurred, with the majority at the
lower end of the spectrum. Air Force military members and their
families, as well as Air Force civilians, were victims and perpetrators
in some cases. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations analyzed
gang-related activity on and around Air Force installations in 1992 and
1995; reporting: (1) a very small number of Air Force personnel and
family members were street gang members, and some committed violent and
other criminal acts; (2) a small number of Air Force personnel and
family members were victims of street gang violence; and, (3) Air Force
school-aged family members were particularly vulnerable to street gang
problems. In response to this question, AFOSI reported that gang
activities continue to impact some Air Force installations and people.
Spousal Employment--Army
Question. During your travels what problems do you hear associated
with spousal employment, both in CONUS and overseas?
Answer. Spouses say the tow most common barriers to finding a job
are lack of available jobs that utilize the spouses' training,
experience and skills, and a lack of jobs in an acceptable salary
range. Key obstacles to spouse employment are:
a. Fewer Positions.--While the legislation and programs
establishing military spouse hiring preference are beneficial to
spouses and attempt to reduce the burden of military relocations,
recent government downsizing has reduced the total number of Federal
government positions. Consequently, there are fewer positions for which
military spouse preference applies.
b. Limited Career and Promotional Opportunities.--Frequent
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves and frequent job changes limit
career and promotional opportunities. Private sector employers are
reluctant to hire spouses and invest in their training when they know
the spouse will leave in two or three years. In addition, transfer of
college credits from one school to another is difficult for family
members whose education is interrupted by a PCS move.
The Family Member Employment Assistance Program (FMEAP) is designed
to help spouses overcome employment problems due to frequent transfers.
Such transfers result in breaks in employment, education, and training,
which frequently force spouse to start job searches and career
development from scratch. Program offerings include: job search
workshops in resume writing, interviewing skills, and networking;
career counseling; self-employment skills; job referrals from various
local, state and federal job banks' and jobs skills training.
c. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR).--The only problem USAREUR encounters
on a regular basis is the lack of entry-level positions for military
spouses. For spouses located outside the continental United States,
that fact severely limits their employment possibilities. With fewer
government positions available in USAREUR, the Family Member Employment
Assistance Program (FMEAP) maintains a steady business with family-
member spouses.
Spousal Employment--Navy
Question. During your travels what problems do you hear associated
with spousal employment, both in CONUS and overseas?
Answer. Many spouses express frustration with their under-employed
status. They are often forced to accept positions that are not in line
with their career goals or are highly overqualified for positions they
accept. They are reluctant to complain because they feel fortunate to
get any type of job.
Spouse are often at the mercy of employer attitudes. Employees tend
to want 3 to 4 year commitments and are reluctant to hire military
spouses with short term work histories. Due to frequent moves, spouses
report difficulty gaining experience and advancing in a given career
path. Employers often aren't willing to invest resources in spouses who
cannot make long-term commitments to the company. Without the
appropriate training and experience, promotions are not likely.
Military spouses often feel their military status affects their salary
and benefits. Until employers perceptions about military spouses
change, there will continue to be a barrier to employment.
Spousal Employment--Marine Corps
Question. During your travels what problems do you hear associated
with spousal employment, both in CONUS and overseas?
Answer. The mobile military lifestyle is reported by spouses to
present barriers to employment and career development that spouses in
stable work environments do not experience. Spouses are often
discriminated against in competition for jobs due to the service
members' affiliation with the military. Spouses have to vigorously work
at convincing employers that they are dependable and will be available
for work. Other barriers are: last hired is the first laid off, under
employment, and lower pay often with no medical, dental or retirement
plans. The mobility of the service member's career then results in the
establishment of two separate households and puts unique strains on the
family. Spouses with careers are less willing to move each time a
service member is transferred.
OCONUS barriers are more detrimental to spouse employment than
CONUS employment. Spouses often put their careers on hold to accompany
the service member overseas knowing that employment is nonexistent or
limited. SOFA agreements at overseas installations prevent employment
in some cases and under employment. Other factors include: language,
transportation and child care in a foreign environment.
Spousal Employment--Air Force
Question. During your travels what problems do you hear associated
with spousal employment, both in CONUS and overseas?
Answer. CONUS--One of the problems that we find across the service
is the unrealistic expectations of spouses concerning ``Spouse
Employment'' programs. Military programs were designed to prepare
spouses for the job search by designing training programs to meet the
needs of the first time job hunters, professional spouses, and those
interested in furthering their education or those who wish to use their
talents in volunteer positions. The program was never intended to be a
placement service. That is why the Air Force calls its program ``Career
Focus.'' OVERSEAS--The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in some
countries limits employment for spouses especially in Italy, Turkey,
and Korea. Most spouses in those countries cannot consider entrepreneur
types of employment. Some bases, however, provide classes for spouses
on preparing for job searches once they return to the mainland. At
Lajes, the Family Support Center Career Focus office prepares spouses
for resume writing and interviews and helps them set up interviews
before they leave the island. At Ramstein, there is a special course
for spouses interested in starting their own business. They learn about
contracting, financial concerns, marketing, etc. We also try to get
overseas spouses interested in volunteering. They can use that
experience on their resumes. So despite the problems of a limited job
market, there are opportunities to take advantage of overseas.
Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) Overseas--Army
Question. What benefit does the WIC program provide junior enlisted
families?
Answer. The WIC program provides supplemental foods, health care
referral, and nutritional education to junior enlisted soldiers and
their families. The program is designed to target women, infants, and
children who are nutritionally at risk. The WIC program's preventive
approach helps save long-term health costs and treatment for families,
as well as reducing the work load on the military health care system.
Question. Are problems arising because these benefits are not
available overseas and what is being done to rectify this problem?
Answer. This program currently is unavailable to soldiers overseas.
Entitlements for junior enlisted families enrolled in the WIC program
are terminated once they are assigned overseas. DOD petitioned Congress
to establish the program overseas for soldiers and their families. The
Fiscal Year 1995 DOD Authorization Act authorized the Secretary of
Defense to implement a special supplemental food program outside the
United States, and directed the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to provide funding. Implementation of the program has been
delayed due to funding problems. DOD and USDA are working to resolve
the issue.
Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), Overseas--Navy
Question. What benefit does the WIC program provide junior enlisted
families?
Answer. The WIC program provides our junior enlisted families the
same benefits of improved infant nutrition and discretionary income as
their civilian counterparts.
Question. Are problems arising because these benefits are not
available overseas and what is being done to rectify this problem?
Answer. The Navy has a very active overseas screening program
designed to ensure that no overseas assignments are made for service
members not capable of living within the economic and health
constraints engendered by an overseas assignment. While the Marsh panel
found that most E-4 and below are eligible for WIC, the Navy maintains
a policy that E-3 and below service members with dependents are not
eligible for overseas assignment, no exceptions. It is therefore
anticipated that any overseas WIC program will provide the most benefit
to those services with less stringent overseas screening programs. So
long as COLA is at an adequate level and BAQ/OHA are paid, there is no
need for WIC. Married Sailors overseas often enjoy greater
discretionary income for the basics than their counterparts in the U.S.
Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) Overseas--Marine Corps
Question. What benefit does the WIC program provide junior enlisted
families?
Answer. The WIC program provides junior enlisted families with the
following: formula, milk, peanut butter (diet staples). The program,
which is offered through local departments of social services has been
a tremendous financial benefit to junior enlisted families.
Question. Are problems arising because these benefits are not
available overseas and what is being done to rectify this problem?
Answer. The junior Marines and their families who would be eligible
in the States for the WIC program have to go without the program
overseas. This puts a real strain on those young families and it is
especially detrimental if the family has to live off base on the
foreign economy. Fluctuations in the dollar often cause tremendous
hardship. The Chaplains, Red Cross and Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society
are called up to provide assistance overseas; however, they too are
limited in what support they can provide. The WIC program needs to be
authorized for use overseas.
Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) Overseas--Air Force
Question. What benefit does the WIC program provide junior enlisted
families?
Answer. The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) provides food vouchers and nutritional information
to at-risk, low income pregnant women, postpartum mothers, and infants
and children up to age five. The WIC program is administered at the
Federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
Question. Are problems arising because these benefits are not
available overseas, and what is being done to rectify this problem?
Answer. The major problem facing young enlisted members overseas is
lack of adequate finances. Young military families overseas are faced
with economic difficulties because of the high cost of living in areas
such as Germany and Japan. Many live off base in isolated areas.
Expensive automobile insurance claims a large part of the member's
paycheck. WIC would provide nourishing foodstuffs to eligible junior
enlisted families who may need assistance to buy groceries. In the
Pacific, 12% of families using the child care centers earn less than
$23,000 in total income per year. In Europe, 10% earn less than $23,000
per year. The nutritional education component of WIC, which teaches
young families to prepare healthy low-cost meals, is as important an
element of the WIC program as is the better known food subsidy. This is
a long-term benefit that helps not only the mother and child, but the
entire family--a true primary prevention dividend. This program is not
currently available overseas due to a lack of funding.
Education--Army
Question. Would you share with the Committee what you hear in your
travels about the quality of education for dependents.
Answer. Soldiers' concerns about the quality of their children's
education is directly related to where they are stationed. Overseas,
they want schools to offer courses that meet the elective, pre-college,
and occupational needs of their children. Department of Defense
Dependents' Schools (DODDS) conducted a six-year analysis which was
highlighted in the recently released 1995 ``Report Card from DODDS
Parents.'' This showed the percentage of parents who awarded ``A's and
``B's'' to our overseas schools rose significantly from 54-percent in
1989 to 67 percent in 1995, indicating a very positive trend.
Exceptions to the trend were the gifted and talented programs, which
the DOD Education Activity (DODEA) plans to review in light of these
findings.
Stateside, where many soldiers' children attend schools which are
run by local education authorities (rather than by DOD), soldiers'
concerns relate to the availability of sufficient funding for these
public schools. U.S. Department of Education Impact Aid funding is
usually less than 40 percent of the cost to educate a dependent child.
Local taxes do not make up for Impact Aid budget reductions. Regardless
of where they are located, our soldiers want schools to have the
resources, personnel, and technology necessary to support their
children's learning.
Education--Navy
Question. Would you share with the Committee what you hear in your
travels about the quality of education for dependents?
Answer. I receive very few complaints about the quality of
education provided to military families in DoDDs-served locations
overseas. Achievement test scores in DoDDs are consistently higher than
the national average, and few U.S. school districts offer the caliber
of early intervention and medically-related services found in DoDDs.
Observed or reported weaknesses include overcrowding, day care (for
special needs children in particular), and inadequate recreational
opportunities for high school children.
Two non-DoDDs overseas locations frequently cited by concerned
parents are Guam and Hawaii, where many military families elect the
financial sacrifice of placing their children in private schools due to
perceived weaknesses in public education.
In the U.S., the persistent underfunding of impact aid to school
districts with a significant proportion of military families is of
growing concern.
Education--Marine Corps
Question. Would you share with the Committee what you hear in your
travels about the quality of education for dependents.
Answer. In general parents are very pleased with the education
provided by the Department of Defense Education Activity. When concerns
were expressed over the implementation of a new mathematics program,
Math Land, the Marine Corps and DoD Dependent Schools were interested
in what parents had to say. According to the survey conducted, the
Marine Corps parents were most concerned about the implementation of
the program and the effect of a totally new, non-traditional approach
to mathematics when it came time for students to transfer back to
stateside schools. DoD Dependent Schools provided more information to
parents and set up summer workshops for teachers to ease the
transition.
Education--Air Force
Question. Would you share with the Committee what you hear in your
travels about the quality of education for dependents?
Answer. Generally, the information received on the education of our
dependents is good. There are isolated cases as in any school system
where problems arise. Problems are dealt with expeditiously between
school officials and the military commanders. Communication between the
school system and the military community has improved over the past few
years. Current emphasis on teacher improvement, more rigorous
standards, technology development, and the adoption of a school home
partnership program have promoted effective integration of school,
community and family.
We do have grave concerns regarding the professional leadership
within the Department of Education in the Territory of Guam. Children
of assigned personnel attend the Guam public schools. DoD does not
operate schools on the island of Guam. Our major concern is the poor
quality of education provided by the Guam public schools and the lack
of accountability in the areas of instruction, maintenance, and hiring
practices. The educational program provided by the Guam public schools
is not comparable to the program provided by the DoD schools overseas
or the DoD domestic schools located on military installations in the
US. The current and previous commanders at Anderson Air Force Base in
Guam have always been concerned about the quality of education that
military children receive attending the Guam public schools. As
recently as March 3rd, the Guam Department of Education was threatening
school closures, staff layoffs, elimination of student services,
cafeteria closings, and the curtailment of interscholastic activities
due to lack of funds. Even with the additional DoD dollars over the
past ten years (FY 96=12 million), the problems continue. It may be
time that we seriously consider all other viable options including
recommending to DoD that we consider building DoD schools to provide
quality educational programs for our dependents on Guam.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Packard.]
Wednesday, March 5, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WITNESS
ROBERT M. WALKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS,
LOGISTICS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Walker
the other day, and it was a real pleasure to meet with you and
to visit with you, and I'm expecting a very good hearing this
morning. We want to welcome you here to our third hearing this
year. I think you're known as Mike to most people.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. I did want to congratulate you for including
foreign barracks improvements in your funds. We think that
that's an area that is certainly needed. The quality of life
issues are as important to our overseas troops as they are here
at home.
I've read very carefully your full testimony. It's very
inclusive. It certainly is well organized and well done, and I
appreciate it very much. I may have some questions as we get
into the question and answer period, that are specific to your
testimony, as well as some general questions that I'll have.
Welcome, Mr. Tiahrt.
And so with those very brief remarks, and for the benefit
of the members who might not be able to remain, we will
proceed. Our next hearing is at 9:30 tomorrow morning. We
apologize for the early hour, but it does help us not to
conflict with votes and with other activities of the day.
We're moving along very well on our hearings, and I might
mention that the hearings have been very well organized and
very well done. I've been very pleased thus far. Tomorrow
morning's hearings will be the Navy and the Marine Corps and
our witness will be Mr. Robert Pirie, the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Installations and Environment.
We're very, very pleased to welcome this morning Mr.
Walker, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Logistics and Environment. And before we have
you introduce your support group that's here with you, I think
it would be appropriate for us to meet those who are here with
you. I'd like to invite Mr. Edwards if he would like to have
any opening statements.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, because of the 10 o'clock
memorial service for our former colleague Frank Tejeda, who was
a great veteran and member of Congress, I am going to pass on
my opening statement. I am glad to have the Secretary and other
leaders here. Thank you.
Mr. Tiahrt. I also pass and am glad to have you here.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. I think most of us have
either read or will read your testimony, and I think it's your
style not to just----
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Reiterate what you've written.
Mr. Walker. Sure.
Mr. Packard. We'd appreciate if you would hit what you
consider the highlights for this Committee to know and hear,
and then we'll open it up for, for discussion.
opening statement--honorable robert m. walker, asa (ILE)
Mr. Walker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
those comments, and I would ask that my full statement be
included in the record.
Mr. Packard. Certainly will.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, let me introduce those who are
with me. I think many of the members know Mr. Paul Johnson, who
is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations
and Housing. He's been testifying before this Committee for
many, many years. Back when I worked on the Senate side and sat
in a similar position, as Hank and Liz, Paul was testifying
before me in those days. And I must tell you that sitting here
on this side of the table is still an unusual feeling for me.
Mr. Packard. Let me interrupt. I had intended to read a
little bit of your biography and mention that you had spent
considerable time doing just what we're doing.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Serving as a staff person on the Senate side
on military construction appropriations, but you've had a lot
of other very noble--experiences that I won't go into but----
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've spent many hours
in this room before conference I might add. But it's a pleasure
to be back.
I'm also accompanied by Maj. Gen. Randy House. Gen. House
is our new Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management. And we are very glad to have him with us. Gen.
House not only brings with him the experience of a former
installation commander, he was a commander at Fort Riley, but
for the past, 2 plus years, I suppose, Randy has been the
senior military assistant to the former Secretary of Defense
Bill Perry. So he brings a wealth of experience to us at a
critical time and we need that kind of experience in our
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management.
I'm also accompanied by BG Bill Bilo who has testified
before this Committee on several occasions. He's the Deputy
Director of the Army National Guard. And BG James Helmly, who
has also testified many times before the Committee, as the
Deputy Chief of the Army Reserves.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to appear
this morning on behalf of our request for family housing and
military construction.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all probably agree that we have
the best Army in the world today and probably our best Army in
our history. Our challenge, as you heard from the testimony
yesterday, our challenge in the future is to keep it that way.
And while we may have the best Army today, it's not preordained
that we are going to continue to have the best Army in the
future. The fact is, as you heard yesterday, that in, that in a
good economy, it's hard to compete with the civilian job
market. Studies are showing that the propensity of young people
to join the military today is declining. And this year in the
Army----
Mr. Packard. Let me interrupt you just a moment. I heard on
the news on the way in that the Army has decided to not require
a high school diploma because enlistments are down.
Mr. Walker. What the decision is, previously we have
required 95 percent of our recruits to have a high school
diploma and the additional 5 percent to have a GED or
equivalent. What we have determined to do is to go back to the
Department of Defense standard which is 90 percent high school
diploma and 10 percent GED. That was what the decision was.
And Mr. Chairman, one reason is that this year we need to
recruit almost 90,000 young men and women. Three years ago,
when I was sworn in, we were only recruiting 65,000. So we're
trying to compete in a better economy and it's difficult. And
of course then, once we recruitsoldiers, they gain skills and
training that are valuable in the civilian job market. So there is no
guarantee that we will always be able to attract and retain the young
men and women that we're going to need in the future to continue to
protect this nation's interest. That's why the work of this
Subcommittee, quite frankly, is so important.
It's really imperative that we continue to provide a good
quality of life for our soldiers and their families. If ever
our soldiers perceive that we have lost our focus on quality of
life, if ever they believe that we're not doing what we can for
them, then the Army, frankly, is in danger of losing its edge,
and we cannot let that happen. When I was nominated, I told the
President that it was my view that if you take care of
soldiers, they'll take care of the nation. And that is still my
basic philosophy and always will be as long as I'm in this job.
But in these tight budget times, and with a balanced Federal
budget becoming a reality, I think we're probably going to find
it increasingly difficult to put our money where our mouth is
as the saying goes.
The request before you today represents many months of
debate and many months of discussion within the Department of
the Army. The guidance that we received from the Secretary of
Defense, Secretary Perry, was that we continue to emphasize
readiness as the first priority and that we provide the maximum
pay raises allowed by law. And then once we did that, all the
other requirements had to compete for the remaining resources.
This past year, we reformed the process that we use internally
to program our 6-year budget plan for the Army budget. And that
actually allowed us to give new focus, especially to quality of
life requirements. And as a result, Mr. Chairman, the request
before the Subcommittee does represent some progress from
previous years. In the FY 98 request that's before you, we were
able to increase the military construction and family housing
accounts by $300 million over the amount we had previously
planned for the '98 budget year. And I'm pleased to report that
this budget request, for the first time in many years, many
years that I can remember, requests more funding for active
Army military construction than was approved by the Congress in
the previous year. That hasn't happened in a long time. As a
result of this increase, Mr. Chairman, we were able to fully
fund our highest priorities which are barracks and strategic
mobility.
Mr. Chairman, since I've been an Assistant Secretary, I've
found that today's soldiers are very realistic. They know that
we cannot do everything right now. They understand that there
are financial limits and budgetary restraints. But what they do
want to know is that we have a plan to make things better and
that we're working to execute that plan. And Mr. Chairman, we
have developed a plan to replace or revitalize or renovate
single soldier barracks in the United States by 2008,
throughout the world by 2012. The previous plan called for not
finishing that until the year 2020, and that was just too long.
So Mr. Chairman, we deeply appreciate this Committee's support
for our barracks effort, and we ask for the assistance of the
Subcommittee in helping us keep that plan on track in the
future.
Now with regard to family housing, Mr. Chairman, the
request before you would replace or revitalize 1,000 units of
family housing. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have 119,000 sets of
family quarters. And we cannot ask America's soldiers and their
families to wait more than a century while we replace
substandard housing. I think we all probably agree that there's
a great deal of truth in that saying that you recruit soldiers,
but you re-enlist families. And the problem is that in our
current budget climate traditional methods of providing family
housing is never going to be enough for us to meet our
requirements. And it's my personal judgment that if we fail to
provide quality housing for soldiers and families, they will
essentially vote with their feet. They either won't enlist, or
once enlisted, they won't stay in the Army, and we'll be left
with a major personnel challenge and major personnel shortages.
We cannot let that happen.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are looking at ways of
leveraging the private sector to help us construct and renovate
and operate and maintain family housing. And I want to thank
this Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, for its foresight in approving
the seed money in previous years that helps us to implement the
legislation which permits us to test a wide range of housing
privatization concepts. Just a couple weeks ago, I visited Fort
Carson to review the Army's first and the Department of
Defense's most complex family housing privatization effort. And
during fiscal years '98 and '99, we plan to proceed with an
additional 14 projects. And from my visit to Fort Carson, I'm
confident that the test there is going to be successful. I
believe that it's going to help us to define the kind of long-
term approach that we need to take for family housing. So Mr.
Chairman, we would ask for the Committee's continued support
for our privatization initiative.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to our base closure program, I'm
proud to tell you that we've finally turned the corner. Fiscal
year '97 is the first fiscal year where we will begin to save
more money from base closures than we're spending. And it's
taken us 9 years, but the investment is beginning to pay off.
And by the end of fiscal year 2001, when the current round of
base closures must be completed, we will be saving $1 billion
annually from what we would have been spending without base
closures and realignments. And those savings are taking into
account the large cost of environmental cleanup that we have to
undertake. So we ask for the Committee's continued support for
our request to fund the base closure program.
And Mr. Chairman, before I conclude and take your
questions, I would like to highlight one particular request
that's before you, and that is our prepositioning program in
the Persian Gulf region. Last month, I visited our new
prepositioning afloat maintenance facility which is in
Charleston, South Carolina. And during my visit, the Army was
loading the first LMSR. That's the acronym for the six football
field-size cargo ship that will join our war reserve afloat
fleet in Diego Garcia. And I want to emphasize here this
morning, Mr. Chairman, the absolute importance of
prepositioning to deterrence in that region of the world.
While I was walking around observing the loading
operations, I asked a young PFC who was working there on the
ship in the loading operations what it all meant to him. And
without thinking, he said: ``So Saddam Hussein won't make the
same mistake again.'' And that PFC I think was right on the
money. I believe that if we had had tanks and equipment
prepositioned in the region in 1990, Saddam would have probably
thought twice before he decided to invade Kuwait.
During Desert Shield, it took us 20 days before we had even
the first M-1 tank in the desert. Twenty days, that's a long
time. A lot can happen in that length of time. Last fall, when
the President deployed elements of the 1st Cav, we had a
brigade of soldiers beginning to fall in on tanks that were
prepositioned in Kuwait in 96 hours. And that I really think is
deterrence, Mr. Chairman.
But I will tell you that our existing prepositioning in
the region, the brigade in Kuwait and the brigade afloat that
we have available to the region, is not enough to ensure long-
term deterrence or to ensure an adequate defense if Saddam or
some other enemy of freedom were to decide to attack. A future
enemy is not going to do what Saddam Hussein did. He just sat
there and let us build up our forces for 6 months, essentially
unchallenged. And that will never happen again. So we deeply
appreciate this Committee's support for our prepositioning
initiative in Quatar. The last phase of this project, Mr.
Chairman, is included in this budget request, and we
respectfully ask for your continued support.
Now Mr. Chairman, I have taken the last few minutes to talk
about what is in our request. Let me take just a moment to talk
about what is not in the request. As we went through the
programming process, every requirement could not make it to the
top of the list. And because of the necessity that we had to
prioritize and make tradeoffs and ensure, at the same time,
that we had adequate funding for readiness and personnel, we
were unable to provide increases for operational facilities
construction or for Guard and Reserve MILCON. And that, I will
tell you, is our challenge for the future.
We found ways to, and we're working on, other ways of
improving quality of life investments. But the requirement to
increase investment in operational facilities, investment in
Guard and Reserve MILCON, is here on us, and we've got to find
ways to do that. And this is coming to us at a time that for
the Army we also have to find ways of increasing our science
and technology budget and our equipment modernization budget.
And when we see that challenge and factor in the likelihood of
a balanced budget, we know that the budget for military
construction is not going to grow appreciably. So for us, we
know what that means. We know that we have got to continue to
do some things better, that we're going to have to continue to
become more efficient, that we're going to have to continue to
adopt better business practices. Doing that is not going to be
easy. But I'll tell you, it's the approach that we're going to
have to take if we're going to find the resources to make the
facility investments that are needed for a modern Army,
particular for the Army that we're going to require in the 21st
century.
So Mr. Chairman, we're going to need the help and support
of this Committee along the way. We thank you for all your help
and support in the past. We're going to need it now more than
ever, and we look forward to our continued partnership on
behalf of the men and women of the Army, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of the Honorable Robert M. Walker
follows:]
[Pages 343 - 375--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Walker. I was going
to go to you first, Mr. Edwards, but apparently you are out of
time so----
Mr. Edwards. I am sorry. To those members who arrived after
my opening comments, Frank Tejeda's memorial service is going
to be held at 10 a.m. As a member of the Texas delegation and a
friend of Frank's, I apologize for leaving early. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. That's fine. If you would submit any questions
you have for the record, we'll certainly----
Mr. Edwards. I will do that. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much.
budget planning process
We had a good visit when you came to my office, Mr. Walker,
about a 5-year planning process. I noticed in your formal
submitted remarks that you have presented a 2-year budget which
was new to me, and I really was not only intrigued but somewhat
grateful to see that. That is the beginning, in my judgment, of
a 5-year plan. Would it be difficult, or is it going to be
difficult, to do very similar to this in future years where we
would be able to see what your long-term plan is, as you've
showed us a 2-year plan, extend that to a 5-year plan?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. We actually have in our planning
process now a 6-year planning cycle. So we actually have goals
for the years beyond fiscal year '99 through the year, fiscal
year 2003 for military construction, family housing, base
closure, for all of our requirements in the Army. That is put
together in our future year defense plan, and I'm sure the OSD
comptroller would be willing to share that with the Committee.
Mr. Packard. Is that the basis of your budget planning on a
current annual basis?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir, it is. When we reformed the budget
planning process last year, we essentially utilized the first
year of the future year defense plan for fiscal year '98 as the
basis for the budget for fiscal year '98, '99----
Mr. Packard. Do you see much change in that plan? Is there
a great deal of updating or changing that takes place from year
to year?
Mr. Walker. From year to year, there is a modest amount.
For future years, you'll see large changes, quite frankly. It's
a planning cycle, and a great deal of things change over time.
We would hope, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that over time we'll
be able to persuade others in the Army as we go through the
prioritization process to put a little more money into family
housing and into military construction for the Guard and
Reserve, for operational facilities, because as youlook in
those future years and those out years to 2003, it's still pretty low,
we need to work on that.
Mr. Packard. Well, I appreciate your efforts in that
regard. I think that if we can get that throughout Government,
just not here at MILCON, that will be I think a great step in
the right direction.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
infrastructure requirements
Mr. Packard. While I was out visiting some of the bases in
my initial visits that I'm trying to do, there was an area that
I think stood out rather clearly as an area that's easy to
neglect and possibly is neglected, and that is the underground
infrastructure on our bases. Most of our bases are old. They've
been around for a long time. Most of them at least go back to
World War II. And a lot of the underground infrastructure is
World War II vintage or older in many instances. When you build
a new barracks or a new building or even on-base housing, it
doesn't change brackish water or brown water or sewer problems
or electrical problems, if the underground infrastructure has
not been upgraded. That's a huge, expensive item and one that's
easy to forget or overlook because it's not seen. And is that
included--and I notice that you've mentioned infrastructure. Is
that included in your long-term budgeting?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. And take barracks, for instance, as
you mentioned. We program underground infrastructure
improvements such as utility improvements, as part of those
projects. But as you look overall at the infrastructure
challenge that we face, we probably have as much as $6.9
billion in infrastructure requirements, substandard
infrastructure that needs to be improved. They tell me that
probably 50 percent of our infrastructure, the underground
utilities and the like, is substandard today. And I can tell
you from visiting some of our locations around the world, we're
going to have a hefty price to pay someday when they start
failing in major ways. So it is an area of great concern.
I'll tell you one of the things we're doing. As a matter of
policy, the Army is attempting to privatize as much of our
utilities as we can. We're finding that water and sewer plants,
electric utility distribution, other utility facilities are
often of interest to local communities. And we're proceeding
with privatization. We have a goal to privatize up to 100
percent in the future as you look long term into the 21st
century. I will provide for the record the number of utilities
that we've already privatized, the number that we have
underway. We have studies of roughly 100 going on right now. We
believe that that is one way to deal with our infrastructure
problem. Many, many local communities see benefit, because
they're able to gain some benefit by the privatization as well.
So that is one way that we will have to deal with our
infrastructure problem.
[The information follows:]
Utilities Privatization
The Army now has 12 utility privatized, 8 in the process of
being transferred, and over 100 at various stages of study.
Mr. Packard. The problem is so large, I'm not sure that we
could even make a dent in it that would be observable----
Mr. Walker. That's right.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. If we didn't find a way to fast
track it, and privatizing may be one of those ways.
Mr. Walker. And you know, we're finding that in the
civilian sector too. Our infrastructure is beginning to
crumble.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, glad to
have you here. I think you've got a very tough job. The
Department of Defense is the only branch of the Federal
Government, to the best of my recollection, that has had an
increase in work scope and a decrease in budget. Most everybody
else has a decrease in budget and a decrease in work scope. So
you have a tough job.
Mr. Walker. It is a daily challenge, I will tell you.
Mr. Tiahrt. I imagine it is. And it takes innovation. I
think, for example, Gen. House formerly at Fort Riley came up
with a good way of trying to provide good housing by
renovating. And I think that's part of what's in this budget is
to continue that effort. And I want to comment on that. I
appreciate your innovation, Gen. House. It really has left a
good legacy behind in Fort Riley.
But I'm a little concerned about not budgeting things that
the military has to do, like Bosnia. And I just want to put
this on the record, that we have got to be honest about what
we're going to spend, and the Administration has to be honest
about what they're going to spend in overseas missions, because
it is an increase in work scope. And everything that you do in
your area of Installations, Logistics and Environment, is
placed at risk by not budgeting such missions. So that makes
your job increasingly more hard, as far as the requirement of
innovation and cutting corners and, I don't want to see that.
We talk about quality of life and the way we do this for our
installations. Yesterday we had the chief master sergeants and
those who represent the men and women who do the work. And they
said that you re-enlist the family. You enlist the soldier. You
re-enlist the family. And that's where you got a tough job.
I see Ft. Leavenworth disciplinary barracks $63 million.
And I assume that's budgeted for to house more prisoners.
Mr. Walker. It's for replacement of the current facility--
--
Mr. Tiahrt. So it's not expansion.
Mr. Walker. No, sir. Well, actually, it will be a smaller
prison than the one we have now.
Mr. Tiahrt. All right. We have got a lot of other places
that I'd like to spend money on besides prisons.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
privatization
Mr. Tiahrt. But I understand you have some priorities.
Privatization is another initiative that I support. I
appreciate your efforts. I hope I understand this. You're
trying to move military personnel into a private housing market
and allow them to build a little equity? Is that part of the
initiative too going beyond the privatization?
Mr. Walker. Over time, that could be part of the
initiative. The current initiative, for instance, at Fort
Carson, is to seek a developer who would take over the 1,800
units of family housing that we have and renovate those units
in 5 years, and in addition to that, to build another 825 units
of new housing, and all within 5 years. And then continue to
operate that housing and maintain it for a period of 50 years
with a 25-year option after that. If we did that, using the
current program that we've got, it would be over 50 years
before we could ever accomplish that kind of construction, that
kind of renovation at Fort Carson, which is a very high-cost
area for soldiers.
So that is the essence of our first privatization
initiative which is ongoing at Fort Carson. We'll be looking at
other methods in those other 14 that I mentioned in my opening
statement to try to see what works best. I'm one of those
people who believe that what works best at Fort Carson may not
work at Fort Riley, for instance, and that you have to have a
menu that you can choose from.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by
saying this. I would like to see us continue this privatization
thought by allowing members of the military to develop some
equity in a home somehow. Instead of investing in the
infrastructure through privatization, let's invest in the
people, and let them build a little of their own equity. I
think there ought to be a way we can do that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Packard. That's an interesting concept. You mean to
build up--if you'd yield--to build up equity in a privatized
base housing project?
Mr. Walker. You might ask the other Services about that. My
recollection is one of the Services is looking at that specific
proposal. And that will be part of the test with----
Mr. Packard. I'd like to find out.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. If you could--let me know.
Mr. Walker. We'll sure do it.
Mr. Packard. Very good. Thank you very much. Mr. Olver
please.
Mr. Olver. Taking me out of turn?
Mr. Packard. Well, no, I----
Mr. Olver. I'm perfectly willing to pass to the others
while I read some more of the material, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. I'll go to someone else. I was going to go
from one side to the other irrespective of the order of
arrival. But Mr. Hobson would be next then.
barracks projects in europe
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm an old real estate
guy, so I start looking at numbers, and I look at four projects
in Europe. How many troops are going to be in Europe in the
next 2 years, 5 years--you know pretty much now.
Mr. Walker. Well, what we----
Mr. Hobson. If you don't, I want to get the CINC back in
here again.
Mr. Walker. Right.
Mr. Hobson. Because he said get a number, and he supposedly
got a number.
Mr. Walker. Right. The number overall, for all of the
Services, is roughly 100,000. For us, it's about 65,000.
Mr. Hobson. 65,000.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hobson. How many units are you going to do for $43
million?
Mr. Walker. I'll have to provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Troop Housing in Europe
Four projects in Germany for a total of 43 million dollars
will renovate barracks for approximately 307 soldiers.
Mr. Hobson. Yeah, well, let me tell you my problem. I start
looking at numbers, and I see $43 million. If I'm right, and
you've got--you said the number of troops. But I want to know
how many units you're going to do for $43 million. That's a lot
of money.
Mr. Walker. It is----
Mr. Hobson. In the private sector, if you're going to
build--of course, I'm not building in Europe, I'm not building
on a base, and I don't know what rules you have to follow. If
you had to follow the rules over there, this probably would
build a different number of units. But I'd like to know what
we're doing. You know, I'm not real happy with some other
contracts the Army has done, mainly trucking contracts. So when
I start looking at housing stuff, I know a little more about it
than I do trucks although I'm learning.
guard and reserve components
The other thing is that I'm very concerned about is--and
this may be a wrong assumption. Let me put it this way. But my
feeling is that the Army historically has not done as good a
job with its Guard and Reserve units as some other Services,
and I don't want to get into that. But I think that's a real
problem in our readiness. When I see this coming this way,
that's a problem with me, because long term, when the Army has
to go, those people have to go. And then they get a lot of
criticism because they're not ready, or they have to stand off
someplace for a period of time, and then you take a lot of heat
for that. I realize there is only so much money to go around.
But the Army has got to look at what the change in the world is
today, and whether we like it or not in the records, there is
more dependence on the Guard and the Reserve and what they do.
I think the Army is a little slow in recognizing that.
Mr. Walker. Well, thank you for those comments, Mr.
Chairman. I came out of the National Guard. I spent a great
deal of time in the Tennessee National Guard and D.C. National
Guard. And I can tell you today we can't go to war or go to any
deployment without a large increment of the Guard and Reserve.
Saturday, I just welcomed back my old MP unit from the D.C.
National Guard back from Germany, where it had been since last
July, to replace MP units that had gone on to Bosnia. If we had
a major deployment like Desert Storm, 60 percent of the people
would be Guard and Reserves. We cannot go to war without them,
so we appreciate your comments.
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I----
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Olver,
we'll come back to you. We'll go on then with Mr. Parker. Mr.
Parker.
Mr. Parker. Thank you. I want to follow up with what Mr.
Hobson has said. And I don't want to be confrontational. You
know, I want to be sweet this morning. But I, I have a real
problem. And let me tell you why I've got that real problem.
Let's start off by my asking you a question. Do you accept the
fact that you get a bigger bang for the buck with the Guard and
Reserve as far as mission than anything else you've got in the
military?
Mr. Walker. That is a common phrase I use in all my
speeches, yes, sir.
Mr. Parker. Okay. So you, you accept that fact. I accept
that fact.
Mr. Walker. I certainly do because I know----
Mr. Parker. And historically, this country has never had a
tremendously large standing Army. It never has.
Mr. Walker. Right.
Mr. Parker. And we're, we're looking at things in a
different way now. If you accept that fact, when I look at the
figures that you have as far as the MILCON needs for the Guard,
I don't see the numbers there that are necessary. Now I'm going
to make a request of you. I want the Guard, Army Guard, to give
me, give this Committee, what it needs, what it feels its needs
are to have total readiness for its mission. My personal view
is that the figures that you have in the budget are not there.
Do you feel it meets all its needs?
Mr. Walker. I don't know if you were here when I mentioned
in my opening statement that that's a great deficiency in this
budget.
Mr. Parker. Okay, now, okay, now you admit that it's a
deficiency.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
army guard budget
Mr. Parker. Now I want to know why in God's name are we
taking the one part of the budget that has the greatest bang
for the buck, and we're sitting back saying that's a great
deficiency and, and we just can't quite do that right now. Why,
to me, that's ridiculous.
Mr. Walker. What the Guard did during the programing
process, with the funds available to the Guard--and I might ask
Gen. Bilo to speak to this a bit, because he sat on those
planning committees as well--the Guard used funds first for
readiness requirements. And once they put those readiness
requirements and paid for them, the funds available for
investment, such as construction, were just not available. And
is there anything you'd like to add to that, Gen. Bilo?
BG Bilo. Sir, I'd only add that regarding the Army budget
process that we went through, the Guard was represented on each
panel----
Mr. Parker. Were you given a number first, or were you
asked to give how many--look, you can approach it two different
ways. You can turn around, and you can say tell me what you
need to be prepared. Or they can say here's your number, and
just go up to your number, and then that's where we're going to
cut off. Which way did you approach it?
BG Bilo. Sir, we took--as everybody did that worked through
that budget process--the staff took requirements in, and they
competed within the installations program evaluation group.
Mr. Parker. Were you given a number----
BG Bilo [continuing]. Part of the budget--no.
Mr. Parker. You----
BG Bilo [continuing]. No. No, sir.
Mr. Parker [continuing]. Were not given a number.
BG Bilo. No, sir. We, took a requirement--we, had to
compete within that program evaluation group, and then each
group had to compete within the Army, each one of the six
groups had to compete for part of the total pie. And there were
a lot of decisions made based on priorities, and I represented
them, I took in our priorities, and everybody else took in
their priorities. The final outcome, the decision makers set
the priorities, and the final result was the MILCON budget that
we submitted here.
Mr. Walker. I've got to add, it's really worse than it
looks in the budget, because I will tell you about our
internal--what, what the General didn't say is that when we
finished our internal budget reviews, there was about $3
million left in MILCON for the Guard. And as a result of
decisions made after we sent the budget to the Department of
Defense, we were able to increase that to the $45 million that
you see today.
Mr. Parker. But Mr. Walker, the problem I have is in the
past, this Committee and the Congress have always put add-ons,
you know, to push up the number. Now you all know that. You
expect that. You--and, and I think, my personal view is that
basically, the Pentagon says well, boys, they're not going to
allow us to do this. And they will put some add-ons on this
thing, because they know we can't operate at this level. So
what we will do is we're just going to wait, and we'll put in
what we feel we need, and we know we'll get some add-ons later
on. I'm going to tell you, that is a crazy way to budget, but
that's what's been happening in the last few years. And I
think----
Mr. Walker. I think you're----
Mr. Parker [continuing]. Now, now and no disrespect
intended, but I think that's the mind set over there now.
Mr. Walker. Yeah, I think there's a growing understanding
that this Committee faces the same problem we've got. You all
have a limited amount of money to deal with. Add-ons are going
to be a lot more difficult for you. So those who might think
that in the Army or, or in the other Services are, are going to
have to rethink it because the future----
Mr. Parker. Well, first of all, I think that is a
ridiculous way to budget.
Mr. Walker. Yes, I agree with you.
Mr. Parker. I think it's a ridiculous way to plan. And my
personal view is, and I'll close with this. I've got some more
questions. But there is not a realization in the Pentagon this
is a different world. Now being from the south, I've heard
about civil war before. Friend, you all got a civil war at the
Pentagon. Everybody over there is fighting. They're fighting
with each other and each Service is fighting each other for
those limited resources. You got the Guard out there, who I
believe is being pushed to theside. Now that's my own personal
view. And I guess being from a state where Sonny Montgomery comes from,
I guess that's an inherent thing----
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Parker. But I'm going to tell you this, everybody's
going to be hurt if we don't start having a plan out there
where we know where we're going. And right now, I don't see
that we really know where we want to go.
Mr. Walker. Let me say this QDR process, the quadrennial
defense review that's undergoing, that's going on right now,
and I hate to second guess what may happen. But I think what
we're going to find is that more responsibilities will probably
be given to the Guard and Reserve as a result of that. Our
challenge is to make sure that the resources go with that.
And----
Mr. Parker. Let me just interrupt. It is to the benefit of
the regular military to turn over missions to the Guard where
the Guard is not funded properly and watch them fail. Now
that----
Mr. Walker. The Guard won't fail.
Mr. Parker. I'll tell you what, if they're not funded
properly, they will.
Mr. Walker. Oh, let me give you an example. Back a year or
so ago, we had a rotation of our Sinai mission, which has
traditionally been active component, fully manned by Guard and
Reserve with a handful of active component leaders. It was a
great success. The Army is looking internally at other
missions, such as the Sinai mission, where the Guard and
Reserve can, can help reduce the personnel tempo of our active
component----
Mr. Parker. Let me ask you a question. When we go to
Bosnia, and the Guard and Reserve could have gone over and done
a lot of the work, but it's contracted out to Brown and Root,
and I'm sure Brown and Root needs training. I'm sure of that. I
mean, you know, these guys with Brown and Root, I mean, you
know, they've got families to support. They need that income,
and they need to know how to do some things I guess.
Mr. Walker. Well----
Mr. Parker. But the Guard and Reserve could have done some
of that.
Mr. Walker. We have the----
Mr. Parker. The Guard could--and, and everybody says well,
it's cheaper to contract out. I don't think in the long run
it's cheaper.
Mr. Walker. We asked the same question, quite frankly. That
was an issue that was discussed at great, great length both in
OSD and in all the Services. The Department of Defense asked
Logistics Management Institute to do a study. And they did show
that there was about $140 million savings as a result of using
Brown and Root, which is the LOGCAP contractor. There will be a
different one in the future.
In addition to that, if you--you would probably have to
change some of your force structure around. But as we looked in
at the issue, at the study that LMI did for DOD, they did find
some, some reduction in cost through contracting.
Mr. Parker. Can I tell you something?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Parker. It's hard for me to understand, unless somebody
is biased against the Guard, how they can look at that type of
situation, and see what they needed and what the Guard needs,
and the training potential that is there, and how everybody can
be so smart and make such a mistake; and I don't know how they
made that mistake but I will tell you before it's over with
we're going to regret that type of decision, because Brown and
Root, when it comes to our national defense, these are fine,
patriotic people, but the Guard is necessary for us to do what
we need to do in this country.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, there's no question about
it, and, you know, we have roughly 6,000 Guard men and women
who are directly associated with the Bosnia mission, either
in----
Mr. Parker. And----
Mr. Walker [continuing]. Either in Bosnia or in Germany.
Mr. Parker [continuing]. They have a lot of Brown and Root
people over there.
Mr. Walker. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Parker. And that's a problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Olver.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have I gained any time
in the process of these deferrals?
Mr. Packard. I thought there was a little erosion of your
time--but I don't want to impose that.
unspecified minor project--massachusetts arng
Mr. Olver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker, for your
testimony. I--being new to this committee this is a good
summary overview and I wanted to comment on a few areas, ask a
few questions. Let me take a parochial thing or two, one
obvious and maybe not quite so obvious, but there is a
construction project for the Massachusetts Army National Guard
which had been programmed in Fiscal '97 under the unspecified
minor construction for the Air Reserve at Westover. It was for
a helicopter flight simulator for the Army Guard unit which is
based there, which I'll talk about again a little bit later,
but it had been approved by the National Guard Bureau in July
'96 and placed on the '97 unspecified list, and then that
approval was withdrawn. I don't expect you necessarily to be
able to answer this but--directly--but I want to know what's
happened to it, and why it was withdrawn, and where it's been
put to, because on the unspecified list about to be going
forward once it's been programmed, I would think, if you're
planning process is rational.
Mr. Walker. I don't know quite this answer. I might ask
General Bilo if he's familiar with it.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir. The minor dollars of '97 were
redirected. We were told to redirect those funds to other
projects.
Mr. Olver. To what projects?
BG Bilo. I can provide that list for the record. I do not
have the list with me.
[The information follows:]
Directed Minor Construction Projects
The following FY 1997 Army National Guard projects were
directed by Congress:
$ Millions
Scout armories, various locations, AK......................... \1\ 1.425
Army aviation helicopter landing pads & taxiway, Decatur, IL.. \2\ .575
Bachelor officer and enlisted barracks, For Harrison, MT...... \1\ 1.495
Land acquisition, Fort Harrison, MT........................... \1\791
Training simultation building, Camp Rilea, OR................. \1\1.350
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total..................................................... $5.636
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SAC initiatives.
\2\ HRC initiatives.
[Clerk's note.--The Conference Agreement provided the full
amount of the budget request ($5.5M), which did not contain
project-level justification.]
Mr. Olver. You were told to redirect them?
BG Bilo. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. After you had--you had programmed them and you
were told to redirect them.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Oh, well, okay. You were asked----
Mr. Packard. You were asked to redirect----
brac environmental
Mr. Olver. By language in the legislation that this
Committee--well, we'll have to track that down. Maybe you can
help me and maybe staff of the Committee can help me track down
this process. I'll leave that but you know it's an issue of
concern to me in any case. Let me--on your--the section on base
closures, I notice that you have indicated what I hope are good
numbers on what the one-time implementation costs and savings
were and what the long-term benefits are after the--after
completion. I notice that the major area of what would appear
to be remainder of things to be done is in the environmental
area, and in the 1988 draft you've got only slightly over half
the sites that have been completed. Do you have the money
appropriated? Is the money there in the BRAC account to
complete those sites?
Mr. Walker. The BRAC account, of course, will end in 2001
under the current----
Mr. Olver. All of them or just the one for 1988?
Mr. Walker. No, all of them.
Mr. Olver. All of them?
Mr. Walker. If there are remaining environmental
requirements, we will pay those out of our O&M budget and our
budget for environmental clean-up, but we are obligated under
the law to make those clean-ups as rapidly as possible. Some of
the monitoring and some of the clean-ups will extend, quite
frankly.
Mr. Olver. So you're--it can continue to be used----
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. For these.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Well, let me go on, then, the--interestingly the
1991 seems to have a higher percentage cleaned up but there's
one that I have a concern about, and that--well, I just want to
ask you if in these base closures there is an environmental
contamination that's discovered after land has been conveyed to
the development authority that didn't know that it was--to a
state, to a public development authority, or whatever, that
didn't know that contamination was there, it's discovered
afterward, clearly it's an Army-related environmental problem.
Are you taking up responsibility for that?
Mr. Walker. My understanding is the Superfund law requires
that, and if I'm wrong my staff might tell me.
Mr. Olver. That is correct.
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Olver. So there can be--there should be no question of
whose responsibility it is.
Mr. Walker. Right.
Mr. Olver. Is there, then, an argument that goes on about
whether the Army was responsible? Although it seems in these
bases it's pretty clear, isn't it?
Mr. Walker. If there has been some subsequent reuse which
might be attributed, there would be some discussion. But, no,
sir, other than that, no.
Mr. Olver. But you do accept the responsibility; it is in
the law that that should be the case?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
power projection platforms
Mr. Olver. Okay, let me leave that for a moment. Let me go
on, then, to your Reserve program, and I wanted to--in page--
the section on Reserve analysis, you make the comment in
discussing the Reserve program that most of your Reserve
requests are for Fiscal '98 and '99, includes a large--a number
of projects at Fort McCoy, one of the Army's 15 power
projection platforms. I--I'm, as I said, new to this Committee.
I understand you have or are about to have two Reserve power
platforms? Are the others Army Active power platforms? Can you
explain to me what this power platform process is, and maybe
there's a map somewhere that maybe more of us would be
interested in----
Mr. Walker. We'll be glad to provide that kind of map for
you, and Fort McCoy, for instance, would be one of those
locations where you'd mobilize if there were to be a major
deployment.
[The information follows:]
[Page 387--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Walker. I don't have any----
Mr. Olver. How many Reserve power platforms are there to
be?
Mr. Walker. I'd like to have----
BG Helmly. There are two; there are Army--and Army Reserve.
There are----
Mr. Olver. Two?
BG Helmly. There are 15 in the entire Army, Active Army,
Army National Guard, and Army Reserve. The Army Reserve has
assumed those as missions from Forces Command, and the 15
number is the number of installations that the Army staff, in
conjunction with the U.S. Army Forces Command, determined
necessary to mobilize and move, mobilizing Active, National
Guard, and Army Reserve forces through to meet the two major--
conflict scenario within the National Military Strategy.
Mr. Olver. Okay, but you say there are two, and there are
15. Is it 15--is----
BG Helmly. It's 15 total.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. These platforms for Active,
Reserve, and Guard?
BG Helmly. That's correct, and two are operated by the Army
Reserve.
Mr. Olver. Reserve, and those are McCoy in Wisconsin and
Dix in New Jersey?
BG Helmly. The Army Reserve will assume command of Fort Dix
on 1 October of this calendar year.
Mr. Walker. We just passed you a map.
Mr. Olver. Oh, okay. And I notice that a lot of this
construction money is for Reserve centers. The centers that are
to be created in California and maybe converted or created, I
don't know, as it is suggested in Michigan, Tennessee,
Virginia, are these at a level of usage that articulate with
the platforms or are these going to be more platforms?
BG Helmly. Sir, I don't want to try to speak for my
neighbor, General Bilo, but both the National Guard and Army
Reserve are community-based on a daily basis throughout our
towns and communities. In the Army Reserve, we have some 1,400
centers that are located in local towns in virtually every
state in the Union that house our units and soldiers on a daily
basis. The 15 power projection platforms are major
installations that you see on the map in front of you there
that we move to for mobilization, for collective training and
in the case of combat formations, tank gunnery, major weapons
gunnery, maneuver training and in the case of the Army Reserve,
running a petroleum line, say, or have hospitals in the field,
that one cannot accomplish at the local center in a town or a
community.
Mr. Olver. If I may, just to clarify here, when--again, the
15 and 2, I would infer from the way you're--the way--not
exactly the words, but the way you're using them, that the 2,
which are Reserve platforms, will not have Active Army units on
them?
BG Helmly. Sir, on a daily basis, they will not house
Active Army units. They will train Active Army units, well as
National Guard and Army Reserve, but on a temporary basis, if
you will.
Mr. Olver. Well, the other 13 which are Active platforms,
will those have Reserve or Guard units?
BG Helmly. The other----
Mr. Walker. For training, yes.
BG Helmly. The other 13----
Mr. Olver. For training but not for general housing, not
for general location?
Mr. Walker. And for mobilization, yes.
BG Helmly. For mobilization.
Mr. Walker. In fact, all 15 will have a mix. All 15 will
have a mix during a mobilization period.
Mr. Olver. Okay, this is going to be a little bit of
Chinese water torture to get all of this through. I have more
but I'll--I will pass for a while. Will we have another round?
Mr. Packard. Yes, we'll come back. Mr. Wamp.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there may be
additional anxiety from the gentleman from Mississippi so I'll
yield to him for----
Mr. Parker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, I know that you've expressed an interest in this but
I would like to publicly ask that we have a briefing on the
Guard and Reserve.
Mr. Packard. I think that's in the process of being
scheduled.
Mr. Parker. Also I would----
Mr. Packard. And part of this discussion will certainly be
amplified there.
Mr. Parker. And I think before that, I would--before we
have the briefing, I would like submitted to this Committee for
all the members a--in a utopia--what they would like to have as
far as meeting the--what they feel their mission is and the
real needs that they have as far as military construction and
readiness. I think that in order for us to make the decisions
that we need to make and the priorities that we need to make,
we need to have that, and I--and the reason that I'm saying
that is because I don't feel that the 200--250 million in
MILCON over--in the budget, is it $250 million until 2003?
Mr. Packard. That's probably about right.
BG Bilo. Sir, the filing that we submitted that Mr. Walker
talked about, in our budget submission, which you have copies
of, we did a six-year plan, and it's got about $226 million in
it for the six-year plan.
Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that is a real
figure from the standpoint of what is needed. I would like to
know what they really need, and that way we--when we go into
these briefings we will have a much better idea of what we
need, but I respectfully submit that and I appreciate the
gentleman's consideration.
Mr. Walker. Let me add that the National Security
Committee, in it's report last year, required a report on just
that issue, Congressman, and that report will be coming soon.
We actually have a meeting this afternoon to review it.
Mr. Packard. Will it be available before the briefing is
scheduled?
Mr. Walker. When is your briefing, Mr. Chairman? We'll make
sure it is.
Mr. Packard. I think it will be probably about two month
from now.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
davis-bacon
Mr. Wamp. Reclaiming my time, as a member of the Army
Caucus and one who was born at Fort Benning while my father was
on active duty, I have to tell you that my brother was born
there a year prior to me, and my father says that he cost about
8 bucks and I cost about $12.00 to be born, and my parents are
still questioning whether or not they got their money's worth.
But it was a good deal, I think. But, welcome, Mr. Walker. We
all have our different interests. I continue to go back through
these hearings and ask questions about Davis-Bacon. Can you
tell me, without jeopardizing any confidentiality or putting
yourself in an awkward position, what the Army says to the
Administration with respect to the increased costs associated
with Davis-Bacon; exactly how you assess what that cost is; if
it's just something that we accept and go on, or is it
something that every year we continue to question; and is the
burden that the Davis-Bacon provision places on our
construction requirements growing?
Mr. Walker. The studies are actually mixed on exactly what
the level of impact is. Some studies say there's more impact
than others. I might ask General House and Mr. Johnson if they
have anything to add on Davis-Bacon?
Mr. Johnson. It depends on what the project is. In fact, at
Fort Carson, when we looked at that there was no difference in
the Davis-Bacon cost of construction or the other. So, as I
said, that's an inference that varies from place to place.
General House. Sir, thank you, just to clarify that for the
record, it's complex enough that----
Mr. Packard. May I interrupt just a moment? Ourstenographer
is unable to get the recording, so could you come up to the table and
use the microphone. So, General, please come forward.
General House. General House, sir. I was just saying I
would like to provide that for the record because of the
complexity of your question.
Mr. Wamp. Let me ask you this, just for my understanding as
well. Does Davis-Bacon apply to our construction overseas in
any situation? I mean, if we're not using contractors from the
United States----
General House. Correct.
Mr. Wamp [continuing]. Then it doesn't apply. So this is a
domestic problem, and even then the testimony that you'll
submit for me will reflect that based on different regions of
the country it's a problem in some areas but it's not a
significant problem in other areas where the cost of labor may
be just as high as Davis-Bacon requirements in that particular
region?
General House. Correct. Sir, I really need to go back and
respond to that on the record.
Mr. Wamp. Well, I'll look forward to that.
General House. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
The General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget
Office have concluded that mandating Davis-Bacon wage rates
adds a small percentage (less than 5%) to construction costs in
the United States. In heavily unionized areas, like large
cities, most contractors pay wages comparable to Davis-Bacon
rates on non-Federal projects. However, larger differences may
exist in more rural areas.
Mr. Packard. May I just comment briefly? I think that this
Committee's position in the past has been that Davis-Bacon is a
requirement by law that our military has to comply with. This
Committee does not have jurisdiction over, of course, changing
Davis-Bacon. There are other committees that deal with that. I
think what I'm interested in as it relates to Davis-Bacon is if
in the process of privatizing projects, does that change the
dynamics as it relates to Davis-Bacon? I think on ordinary
construction work that's--military construction that's done by
the military through normal processes, I don't think there's
any way that they can avoid complying with Davis-Bacon
requirements, am I correct in that, General House?
General House. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. I think my question, and I think it maybe was
stimulated by a question that you were asked earlier in an
earlier hearing, was has that changed as we look at
privatizing?
Mr. Walker. If you take the Fort Carson project, for
instance, though it's a private--a project that seeks a private
investor, certain regulations apply, the federal acquisition
regulations apply, and the lawyers tell us Davis-Bacon does
apply in that instance.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Kingston is here. We
won't start the second round until we hear from your first
round.
recruiting
Mr. Kingston. Well, I'll try to make it snappy, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Secretary, General Frederick Vollrath said
recently that because of the sexual harassment and other
problems, the Army is starting to recruit non-high school
graduates?
Mr. Walker. Well, that wasn't exactly his statement. Our
studies do not show yet whether or not sexual harassment has
had an impact. In fact, as we go out and talk to recruiting
commands, we're finding that that's not coming up. What we are
finding, which General Vollrath indicated yesterday and I
mentioned in my opening statement earlier, is that it's the
economy, that we're having a tough time recruiting people
against a good economy when there are some really good
opportunities for them.
Mr. Kingston. Well, I think he was misquoted in the press.
He's among friends here, so--that happens from time to time.
Two things: One question that comes into my mind is that
recently a home-schooler in our district said that he was not
allowed in the Army because the Army did not accept a home-
schooled high school diploma. Is that correct? We've looked
into it a little bit and I think you have something that
requires a certified or recognized school, and it does, I don't
think intentionally, hurt home-schoolers. Home-schoolers
generally have pretty high SAT scores, good moral values, and
all the right stuff I would think you were looking for. Tell me
about home-schoolers in the Army, because I found that to be
disturbing to the extent that I would like to pursue it in
legislation if I need to.
Mr. Walker. I'll be honest with you. I do not know the
answer to that but we'll be glad to provide it for the record.
Mr. Kingston. Okay, because I think you would be denying
yourself of a great crop of kids if that is the case, and let's
look through it together and let me know how I can help you.
[The information follows:]
In the Army, LTG Vollrath recently approved an increase
from 5 to 10 percent in the number of individuals with an
alternative education credential that the Army can enlist
annually. This change will increase the opportunities of those
who are home schooled. Individuals with alternative education
credentials, such as home schooling, will still be required to
score in the upper mental test score categories (I-IIIA on the
Armed Forces Qualification Test), which is, we feel, the most
valid measure of quality for enlistment in the Army. We are
confident that taking this step opens the pool of those
eligible to enlist without reducing quality and assists us in
meeting the higher accession mission in FY 97 and in the years
ahead. Although some research has indicated that attrition
levels are slightly higher among individuals with alternative
education credentials, the Army leadership feels that we cannot
achieve the FY 97 mission (89,700) without adjusting the High
School Diploma Graduate goal to that of the Department of
Defense standard (90%). The Army will continue to monitor the
attrition levels of all recruits in an effort to identify any
potential problem areas.
barracks renovation
Mr. Kingston. Now, the second question: I know that a lot
of the enlisted people live on post and they are in dormitories
or barracks. But their college counterpart in the private
sector is in a dormitory equivalent. The barracks tend to be
dreary, smelly--I've noticed in the ones that I've toured the
ventilation is bad because they've got a 1970's technology
probably moving to first-generation buildings that have windows
that don't open, and kind of stuffy, and so forth; and I would
imagine that you lose a lot of 25-year-old enlisted people to
the private sector because after you've trained them to be a
high tech mechanic or whatever they can do better in Lockheed
or wherever.
Mr. Walker. Right, you're right on target. That's exactly
what we talked about earlier in the early part of the hearing
in my opening statement, and that's one reason--what we've done
is we've established a barracks renovation plan where all the
barracks in the United States are going to be renovated or
rebuilt between now and the year 2008, all of them. That's
150,000 or more units, and the previous plan called for 2020,
and that was too long. So we've been able to put more money.
We've got, oh, in this budget when you add up military
construction, when you add up operation and maintenance funds,
when you add up funds coming from Europe, from Germany, the
Republic of Germany, and from Korea and Japan, we have over
$550 million--almost $550 million to spend just for barracks
renovation. Well, I mean, we're really putting our money where
our mouth is in that regard just because of what you said.
There's a tremendous problem out there that we've got to
correct, and if we don't correct it these young people are
going to vote with their feet and we're going to have a real
personnel problem.
Mr. Kingston. Well, let me get provincial. Page 6, you're
talking about 18 projects?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Kingston. I represent Forts Stewart and Hunter. Are
they listed in that 18, and if so, what rank?
Mr. Walker. Oh, I'll have to get back to you on exactly
where Stewart projects are in the ranking and in the future
year defense spending. We'll be glad to do that.
[The information follows:]
Fort Stewart Barracks Projects
The eighteen projects do not include projects for Fort
Stewart or Hunter Army Airfield. One Fort Stewart project, a
$54 million barracks for the sub-post at Hunter Army Airfield,
is programmed in the FYDP for fiscal year 2000. Fort Stewart is
also scheduled to receive $12.5 million of fiscal year 1997
Quality Of Life Enhancement, Defense, funds to repair and
renovate five VOLAR barracks buildings to the modified 1+1
standard.
Mr. Kingston. They fall in that category perfectly and I
think that, you know, we want to help in that direction. I have
some photos, just coincidentally. If we can share those to you,
we'll be delighted----
Mr. Walker. I appreciate it. Let me tell you, I am
intimately familiar with the Fort Stewart situation because my
executive officer, who is here with me, was the last garrison
commander at Fort Stewart, and I got him because of his great
experience. He keeps me advised on a daily basis of that.
Mr. Kingston. Good. We're glad to see you have a hometown
bias here. Let me mention one other thing in terms of the
resumed quality of life, it may fall under your support. Fort
Stewart has something like 26 warehouses with about 250,000
square feet total. They're all in World War II era buildings.
Some of them can't be used. They can only use about 150,000 of
the 250,000 square feet. Those are the warehouses that
distributed all the equipment that was deployed for Desert
Storm, because 24th Infantry, as you know, was involved in it,
and so that is also a major security concern, I would think,
having such an inefficient distribution setup. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walker. I will tell you our second priority, below the
barracks, is strategic mobility where we get at those very
issues.
guard and reserve training
Mr. Packard. I find that every member has a hometown bias
and that really relates back to what Mr. Parker was bringing
up, and I don't want to belabor that. He stepped out. But I
think the discussion on the budgeting process for the Guard and
the Reserve should be held until we have the briefing for that
purpose, but it does certainly emphasize what I think we talked
about in our personal visit a few days ago. That is, that one
of my goals, and I hope one of the goals of this Subcommittee,
is to make the transition to where we have absolutely accurate
budgeting requests for the Guard and Reserve--in all MILCON
issues, but particularly the Guard and the Reserve, where I
think we've seen a plussing-up by this Committee beyond the
request. We think that the Guard and the Reserve leaders ought
to make the priorities of where we should budget the money, and
try to reduce, the political process that goes on after we
receive your budgets and requests. But we will discuss that at
another time. I would like to pursue for my own education, the
kind of training that takes place with the Guard and the
Reserve. I'm not sure I totally understand, maybe other
Committee members do but I don't--the kind of training that
takes place among our Guard and Reserve units in comparison
with Active Duty training and so forth. I would like to hear,
probably, maybe even from some of your----
Mr. Walker. Sure, I'll turn to them in a moment. It depends
on what the jobs of those units are. Some of them are earlier
deployers than others, so that affects the level of training
that they get. We have 15 enhanced brigades in the Army Guard,
for instance, that receive a higher level of training than
perhaps some of the other brigades who deploy much later in the
war fighting. So if I could turn to General Helmly and to
General Bilo if there is anything they might have to add?
BG Bilo. Sir.
Mr. Packard. You're welcome to step up and take a seat if
you'd like.
army national guard training
BG Bilo. Sir, I would just say, speaking for the Army
National Guard, as Mr. Walker said, the level and intensity of
training that different units do is based on their priority and
types of unit. Basically, the Army National Guard, they've got
a one weekend a month, and they've got a 2-week annual,
training period. There's other types of training that we do
overseas to support the CINCs. Those periods usually last for 3
weeks, and these areselected units with special skills.
Mr. Packard. And do they--on their 1-weekend-per-month
training, is that usually done locally at the armories, at the
facilities locally?
BG Bilo. Sir, there's a mix on that now, and I would like
to just take a minute. The Army has developed a total-Army
school system. We're in the process of spreading this total-
Army school system throughout the entire country, and it
involves the Active as well as the Guard and Reserve. The
object is to regionalize certain areas that are going to be
taught, whether it be leadership training, whether it be
infantry training, armor training, artillery, communication,
quartermaster, and have troops go to different regions like, a
region within a region of the country, and either the Guard or
the Reserve has a responsibility to train and give that kind of
instruction. We're going to a regional training approach
because every state can't have a tank range. Every state can't
have a one-of-a-kind. The money isn't there. That, coupled with
distance learning, the Army distance learning program, is
changing the way we train. It has increased the value of the
readiness centers, which we also refer to as power projection
platforms. We deployed 18 units direct to Bosnia from our
readiness centers, and what we've had to do in those cases is
to link with the Army classroom of the future using a lot of
different technology, simulations, and automation. We've had to
go in and redesign some of our existing armories, and in
planning for future new readiness center construction, we've
taken this into account.
Mr. Packard. And your 2-week training period is generally
at a place--that's not local?
BG Bilo. No, sir. It could be in a local state training
area, but most of the time it isn't. The bases that General
Helmly talked about, it could be done there; it could be done
on any of the other Active Army installations. Any of the power
projection platforms which were discussed earlier, this
training can also take place there.
Mr. Walker. For instance, the Tennessee Enhanced Brigade
trains at Fort Stewart.
Mr. Packard. What is the difference in the training between
the Guard and the Reserve?
BG Bilo. There's no difference in the standard, of course.
The only difference that I would say, and certainly General
Helmly will comment on this, would be different kinds of units,
where we do our training and what kinds of training, only
because we have different kinds of units. The Army National
Guard has all the combat structure in the Reserve component,
most of the combat support structure, and the USAR is largely
comprised of combat service support structure. It's just
different types of units and the types of training. That's only
the difference.
Mr. Walker. General Helmly, is there anything you would
like to add----
BG Helmly. Yes----
Mr. Walker [continuing]. To this discussion?
army reserve training
BG Helmly. Congressman, my answer to that is that the
standards are the same. The Army Reserve and National Guard
have much in common. First of all, we're proud to serve the
country as part of the Army. Legislated somewhat differently,
but functionally organized differently by the Army. The Army
Reserve no longer has, and perhaps it was a part of the anomaly
that we spoke of regarding a standing Army for 50-plus years--
we shed ourselves of combat units, which have the historical
military connotation of tanks, artillery, infantry, large
weapons. We're now organized into combat support, combat
service support, primarily, and that actually is our historical
legacy since our formation in 1917. Very heavy in the Army
medical department, into combat support hospitals, specialized
teams; very heavy into engineering, military intelligence, the
signal, civil affairs, psychological operations, all, the
entire range, of supporting skills for the Army on the
battlefield. Thus, we require very little in the way of major
ranges for tank gunnery or artillery and very little in the way
of major maneuver areas where you can maneuver large formations
of soldiers. A lot of our training takes place, if you will, in
a facilities environment where we train our maintenance
soldiers. Some is environmentally constrained because of the
support nature, water purification and petroleum handling as an
example, are difficult to comply with the environmental laws of
the nation, protect that heritage, but also pump live
petroleum, purify water, brackish water, et cetera. So we have
to be very careful as we move about training those units. Our
units are organized primarily at a company level, 150 to 200
soldiers commanded by a captain or major, or a detachment. We
have some very specialized units, seven-man neurosurgical
detachments. Those are very difficult to train. Often we train
with civilian industry going out to hospitals or local
organizations and using facilities there. We do move to the
major platforms for the 2 weeks annual training during the
summertime or any time during the year. We do conduct our fair
share of overseas exercises as General Bilo mentioned, again,
in our core competency skills in the support arena.
Mr. Packard. Who plans the curriculum or the training
activity for a given week or a given 2-week period?
BG Helmly. The United States Army Reserve forces in the
continental United States are commanded by the U.S. Army
Reserve Command, subordinate to U.S. Army Forces Command, our
four-star headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and the training
guidance is prepared there. We do have forward stationed Army
Reserve units in the Pacific and Europe commanded by the
Seventh Army in Europe and the U.S. Army Pacific in Hawaii, and
they plan, in conjunction with Forces Command, the training
doctrine--I'm sorry, training guidance. All of the doctrines
and standards are published by the Army's Training and Doctrine
Command, so, if you will, the standard for a combat support
hospital is set by the U.S. Army Medical Center at Fort Sam
Houston, subordinate to Training and Doctrine Command, and that
standard of what must be performed in terms of tasks and to
what level are the same as they are in the 82nd Airborne
Division or a Fort Bragg-based hospital in the National Guard
and the Army Reserves, so that when we take the field in battle
you have, indeed, one Army.
Mr. Packard. Are all of the members of the Guard and the
Reserve former Active Duty people?
BG Helmly. No, sir. I don't want to try to speak to
specifics of the National Guard but we recruit each, if you
will, from the civilian population. We do, in the Army
Reserve--any young man or woman who enlists in the regular Army
has a legal obligation to the nation for up to 8 years, so if
they complete a 3-year active duty tour and leaveactive duty,
they automatically come to the individual ready Reserve, in which we
provide oversight through our personnel center in St. Louis. They then
can go into a National Guard unit and are recruited often by the
National Guard, or an Army Reserve unit if they wish to serve there,
but we also recruit off the street, if you will.
Mr. Packard. What kind of basic training do you provide a
recruit off the street, as you say, that has not had previous
active duty basic training, and so forth? How do you deal with
that in the Guard and the Reserve in terms of that person
coming right out of nowhere and never having had any previous
military training?
BG Helmly. Sir, they go through the same basic and advanced
technical training as their regular Army counterpart in both
the National Guard and the Army Reserve program, based on our
recruiting requirements, a number of school seats in initial
entry training and in advanced individual training. So it's the
same--it's conducted by the same training center.
Mr. Packard. How does that work and how effective is it if
you have a unit that is made up of someone who was a master
sergeant in the Army and then went into the Reserve or the
Guard, versus someone in that same unit who came in out of
nowhere and has to go through, really, the basic training? How
do they work together as a unit when they have that much
disparity in terms of experience?
BG Helmly. Well, the master sergeant, of course, would be
occupying a non-commissioned officer's supervisory position. If
the master sergeant had come off active duty in the regular
Army, we would expect that soldier to perform to standard as he
or she was doing in the regular Army. The private, of course,
would be the same relationship as he would have in a regular
Army unit, different grade, expected to perform to the same
standard but a different task. The private would be the worker,
if you will, performing mechanical skills, water purification
skills. The master sergeant would be the supervisor. And we
find that the former active duty soldiers bring a wealth of
experience. It helps us in another way, also. The soldier who
is recruited off the street into the Reserve components views
the Army through that set of limits, than the regular, former
regular, Army soldier who comes to a Reserve or National Guard
unit and begins to realize that, indeed, we do have a one-Army
standard; that the Reserve and National Guard can, indeed,
perform many missions that perhaps sometimes they're perceived
as not being capable of performing. So it helps us a great
deal.
Mr. Packard. General Bilo.
BG Bilo. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. You can stay right there. It's fine.
BG Bilo. General Bilo again, sir. Your question about the
master sergeant. If you walk into a unit, and if you visit a
unit, an Army National Guard unit, or for that matter a USAR
unit on a weekend drill, you'll find if you go through a
personnel roster that you'll see people at different levels of
training. Basically I think the answer to your question is we
have initial entry training for the people who are fresh and
have never had any prior service. We have individual training,
people going away to specialty schools in the Army or changing
their military occupational specialty, and when the unit gets
together during the 2-week annual training phase they do
collective training. So there isn't a problem with the master
sergeant coming in from active duty and a person coming in off
the street. The total Army school system takes into account
that there are people at different levels, but as General
Helmly said, no matter what level they're at or what component
they're in, it's task, condition, and standards are the same,
and when they go to collective training they're evaluated on
task, condition, and standards no matter what component they're
in.
Mr. Packard. I appreciate very much the detail on this
subject. It's something I've wanted to know and I have not
known. Mr. Olver?
power projection platforms
Mr. Olver. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Now having had a
map to look at, I'm ready for another round. But actually,
please, tell me what is the second, then, Reserve power
projection platform? What do you call it, a 3-P or a P-3 or
something? What----
BG Helmly. Sir, to clarify, perhaps--and I apologize for
any confusion we may have caused. The 15 power projection
platforms, of course, are not only the number of Army
installations across the spectrum. There are many more, and
then you also have some similar active installations run by the
National Guard, and state-owned installations. The 15 were
developed by U.S. Army Forces Command in a streamlining process
looking at mobilization for the two major regional contingency
scenarios. There were formerly 39, and it was considered ``39''
was a Cold-War figure. We needed that number of installations--
--
Mr. Olver. Which was the second one of the Reserve
platforms?
BG Helmly. To get to your point, Fort Dix, New Jersey, and
Fort McCoy are the two that are also----
Mr. Olver. Okay, so I was right in the first place but you
diverted me by saying you didn't--weren't taking over Dix until
sometime later.
BG Helmly. That's correct, sir, 1 October of this----
Mr. Olver. But it's to become your second platform.
BG Helmly. That is correct.
Mr. Olver. Okay, well, now, the idea that we're given
that--are there more or fewer Reserve personnel now than
there--5 years ago?
BG Helmly. In the case of the Army Reserve, the Army
Reserve has decreased its end-strength and the selected Reserve
from 319,000 in Fiscal Year '89 to 208,000 in Fiscal Year '98,
which is our budget end-strength number, about a 35\1/2\
percent reduction.
Mr. Olver. Okay, 35 percent reduction from--over those 10,
a total of 10, fiscal years.
BG Helmly. That's correct.
Mr. Olver. Now why--did I hear correctly that you have
1,100 or something like that Reserve centers, Army Reserve
centers?
BG Helmly. 1,400 approximately.
Mr. Olver. 1,400? 1,400 across the country--are----
Mr. Walker. 2,300 National Guard armories.
army reserve centers
Mr. Olver. Okay, and 2,300 Guard locuses. Why, then, for
the Reserve are we creating more centers, then, if the number
of total personnel has gone down by 35 percent? Why would we
need more centers?
BG Helmly. In terms of----
Mr. Olver. If we've already got 1,400?
BG Helmly. Right, in terms of----
Mr. Olver. Have we consolidated any of those? I mean, in
terms of Guard, the comments were made in the testimony, Mr.
Walker, that we continue to pursue the use of joint
installations and facilities by more than one Reserve
component. This is--yes, it's in the Reserve testimony, and yet
we're creating more Reserve centers?
BG Helmly. Sir, we're not----
Mr. Olver. Way down?
BG Helmly. In actuality, we're not creating more. We're
replacing some. We could go into all of the construction
factors out of Defense and Army standards dealing with plant
replacement value, and year life-span of facilities, et cetera.
Mr. Olver. Well, maybe you'd describe for me then when
you're talking about the capital--going back to that, going to
the capital program that you have indicated which is supposed
to serve four centers in Virginia, Tennessee, Michigan, and
California, are these, then, replacing two centers which are
already there or something along those lines?
BG Helmly. Sir, I'll--I could go to each of the specifics.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
BG Helmly. Let me cite, if I can, the first, that we have
gone through an exhaustive process, not completed yet, to
identify under-used centers with priority on leased facilities,
to get out of leased facilities. From that, go to owned
facilities to identify those which are under-used--definition:
20 or fewer Army Reserve soldiers--try to get out of those. We
have initiated an effort in conjunction with the--of the Army
to co-locating MEP stations with Army Reserve centers in an
effort to reduce costs to ourselves and the personnel side of
the Army. That's where we do the testing of initial entry
recruits. We do occupy a number--I can provide it for the
record--of joint-use facilities with the Army National Guard as
well as the other Reserve components of the other Armed
Services in an effort to co-locate ourselves, reduce your
utilities cost, reduce your repair/maintenance, as well as
reduce your construction backlog and replacement.
Mr. Olver. So, I mean--a lot of the Army Reserve centers
are, then, in leased facilities rather than owned by the Army.
Some are owned, some are leased.
BG Helmly. Sir, I would only differ with the word ``a
lot.'' I don't have----
Mr. Olver. A lot? Some.
BG Helmly [continuing]. The number--whatever, ``some
number.''
Mr. Walker. I will tell you from my perspective it's more
than it should be. We're spending an awful lot on----
Mr. Olver. On leases.
Mr. Walker [continuing]. On leases, so we would like to get
out of those leases to the maximum.
Mr. Olver. Do you think it's more cost effective to own,
and maintain, and so forth, with Davis-Bacon and putting that
one into it versus the leased facilities? Well, that's one
perfectly good reason----
Mr. Walker. Well, economics show you that----
Mr. Olver. Yes. No, well, let me then ask you, given that
the total personnel had come down is the number of 1,400 of
Reserve centers that we have now, is that up or is it down in
the same 10-year period that you've said that the personnel are
down?
BG Helmly. Sir, I don't want to give you that number now.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
BG Helmly. I believe that it's down----
Mr. Olver. I'd sort of like to see an analysis of how
that's moving because if you're trying to take locuses where
there are very small units, this issue of consolidation for
efficiency and what you describe as getting out of leased
facilities out to be as significant as the--well, maybe it's
part of BRAC in some cases, but in many cases probably not if
these smaller centers----
BG Helmly. That is correct. There have been a number of
BRAC-related actions which have reduced what we call, and what
the law is named, ``Reserve Enclaves.'' I give you as an
example Fort Devens in Massachusetts, which was BRAC'd but
became Devens Reserve Forces Training Area.
Mr. Olver. You discovered my parochial in the midst of----
BG Helmly. Well----
Mr. Olver [continuing]. In the midst of these questions
about the Reserve.
BG Helmly. It so happens I visited there just a couple of
months ago.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
BG Helmly. But, if I could, we'd like to provide you from
Mr. Walker's office--we'll provide you over that same period of
time the number of centers we occupy, where we are today, and
of that number the number of leased buildings and facilities
that we occupy.
[The information follows:]
USAR FACILITIES PROFILE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 1990 1992 1994 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAR Facility Locations (All)...................................... 1444 1457 1466 1501 1418
Leased Facilities.................................................. ....... ....... 611 526 372
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve was consistently short of authorized
facilities square footage (60-65% of required) until 1994 when
the dynamics of downsizing, and the acquisition of Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) enclaves brought the Army
Reserve up to 80% of required space. This accounts for the less
than equivalent reduction in facility requirements to the
reduction in USAR end-strength. Aggressive reductions in
leases, however, did take place and leased properties was the
major area in which reductions were made.
Mr. Olver. May I go on?
Mr. Packard. Of course.
o&m for army guard facilities
Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move on
for a moment to the Guard issue because it seems to me that
some of the same things might be said. It's my understanding
that there's been some frustration with the--from this
Committee in earlier times for strategic thinking to come out
of the Department as to where Guard facilities are, and what's
happening to the Guard numbers, and the maintenance and the
possible consolidations of those, and that we have not gotten
much in the way of recommendations. It's just been left to this
Committee to do add-ons or something along those lines. Am I
correct in reading the testimony, am I correct that the Guard
facilities are maintained by monies appropriated by this
Committee that would go to the states?
Mr. Walker. No, sir, the construction is actually a 75/25
percent cost share, with the states providing 25 percent.
Mr. Olver. Construction is 75 percent us----
Mr. Walker. That's----
Mr. Olver [continuing]. And 25 percent state.
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. To--your testimony on page 21 says at the top,
``The National Guard Bureau does not own, operate, or maintain
these facilities.''
Mr. Walker. That's right.
Mr. Olver. That ``the states, territories, and
commonwealths perform these functions----''
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. ``of ownership, operation, and
maintenance.''
Mr. Walker. Once constructed, the states operate and
maintain the armories.
Mr. Olver. But do we--the--do we--the further comment on
the page before is that their average age--this is the
armories, the Guard facilities--is ``35 years. States take care
of these facilities using the limited resources in Real
Property Maintenance accounts, as authorized and appropriated
by Congress.''
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. I'll let General Bilo explain the
real property maintenance account and how it is provided to the
states.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
BG Bilo. Yes sir, I would like to go back just a minute on
your question about new armories, sir, or new----
Mr. Olver. Yes.
BG Bilo [continuing]. Readiness centers. The Guard's whole
program for readiness centers is to replace existing readiness
centers. A different category which we submit for is
operational maintenance sites--excuse me, organizational
maintenance sites, and most of those come as a result of new
construction, but it's based on acquiring modern equipment that
cascades from the active component to Guard units. Old
maintenance sites and facilities are inadequate to support this
equipment. An example is an M-60 tank would fit inside a
maintenance bay but we had an M-1 that didn't. So we had to
replace the organizational maintenance shop to take care of
that and I just wanted to point that out to you, but our
program is based on the replacement of existing readiness
centers.
Mr. Olver. That's a construction account. Replacement would
be a construction account.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Which is 75 percent federal and 25 percent
state?
BG Bilo. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, and there's different
categories which I'll explain to you. But on leasing--armories,
we had a little under 75 armories or 100 readiness centers
leased by us--and I believe about 23 of those are in the state
of Alaska. It's a special arrangement on Indian or Eskimo land,
and they're very small, half the size of this room. They're in
very remote locations, part of our old scouts that we had up
there. But, sir, a readiness center that's built on federal
land, the MILCON is 100 percent federal. The O&M cost is 75
percent federal and 25 percent state. That's how the cost for
O&M is done. Now, if we build a readiness center on state land,
the MILCON is 75 percent federal, 25 percent state; the O&M is
100 percent state, or in some cases.
Mr. Olver. The O&M? Operations and maintenance is 100
percent state.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. That's in--oh, I see. Well, then----
BG Bilo. We work arrangements where there's a split, 50
percent federal, 50 percent state.
Mr. Olver. So that's a negotiation?
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Arrangement?
BG Bilo. And maintenance facilities, which I alluded to,
airfields, et cetera, those types of facilities, the MILCON is
100 percent federal, and then the O&M is 75 percent federal, 25
percent state.
Mr. Olver. So that the comment here which is--which I read
again, this ``average is 35 years. States take care of these
facilities using the limited resources in Real Property
Maintenance accounts, as authorized and appropriated by
Congress,'' I should not conclude from that that all the money
that they use--there is some portion of the money--actually
you've said that O&M----
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Is totally state, unless there's
some special arrangement----
BG Bilo. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. For O&M to be provided----
BG Bilo. And these----
Mr. Olver. If--would it--the reason that we have leaky
roofs in our armories which are 60 or 80 years old, the oldest
ones, is that the state has not----
BG Bilo. Sir, that's part of it but the older--yes, sir,
and the older the facility, the more costly to repair.
Mr. Olver. Yeah, undoubtedly.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
massachusetts army guard facilities
Mr. Olver. Undoubtedly. I'd love to have somebody give me a
sense of what facilities for Army Guard we have in
Massachusetts and the age of those facilities. I mean, I can
quickly name a couple that are very close to others where it
might make sense to reconstruct one and, you know, and divest
the others.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Back to the state and let them turn it into
ayouth center or something like that.
BG Bilo. Yes, sir. Sir, we would be happy to provide that
list to you for all your facilities in the State of
Massachusetts.
Mr. Olver. Well, it's going to take a long time for me to
understand this complexion.
Mr. Packard. I'm sure that it can be arranged to have a
briefing at your office to give you whatever you need to know
in terms of details and specifics.
BG Bilo. Sir, I would be more than willing to come over at
your request and give you a total laydown----
Mr. Olver. Oh, you don't want to do that.
Mr. Packard. Of course he does.
Mr. Olver. I would be happy to----
Mr. Packard. Of course he would.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a suggestion
because of the great interest of the Committee in the Guard and
Reserve program, as you get ready for your briefing, and you
might consider this for the briefing, there's a Reserve Forces
Policy Board that's established that serves both, in law, both
the Secretary of Defense and the Congress as an advisor to the
Congress on Reserve issues, both the Guard and Reserve. The
chairman of that board is a fellow by the name of Terry
O'Connell, a very dynamic individual and a great advocate for
the Guard and Reserve. You might want to have Chairman
O'Connell over for a discussion, and I think you'll find, and
your members will find, that he has something to add to the
issue.
troop housing--``1 plus 1''
Mr. Packard. That's a good suggestion. Let's see what we
can do, and if you deal with him--other members of the
Committee would enjoy it. Let me ask a couple of quick
questions that hopefully you can answer very quickly and then
we'll conclude. On the ``One-Plus-One'' barrack standard, what
impact has that policy had on the military construction budget
and are you meeting your targets with ``One-Plus-One'', and is
that having a negative effect upon providing budget monies for
other parts of your needs?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, of course, we began the ``One-
Plus-One'' in the Army in Fiscal 1994, which was the year
before the Department of Defense established the standard. We
believe it's a good investment in the quality of life for the
soldiers because it's so important to try to retain these
soldiers in the force. ``One-Plus-One'' cost you a little bit
more. On a space-by-space basis, it will cost you a little bit
more, but we think that that investment is worth it.
Mr. Packard. And it hasn't slowed you down on other
priorities?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, the overall budget has slowed us
down.
child care facilities
Mr. Packard. Okay. The child care facilities, you have a
goal, the DOD has a goal, that 80 percent of total child care
needs are satisfied, and yet you have no budget request for
Army child care centers. Is the Army meeting this goal or
moving toward this goal?
Mr. Walker. Oh, right now, we're reaching 64 percent of the
Army--DOD goal is 65 percent. The DOD goal is 65 percent, and
we're almost there. It's a mix of not only child care centers
but also in-house child care and the like.
Mr. Packard. So are you moving in that direction?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Packard. And the fact that you have no budget request
for child care centers is not going to slow us down----
Mr. Walker. No, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. In trying to achieve that goal?
Mr. Walker. In the future years defense plans there are
some child care centers. For instance, in Fiscal '99, next
year, there will be two in Germany.
unneeded infrastructure
Mr. Packard. Right, okay. One last question. You mentioned
on page 3, the early part of your testimony, that ``we must
divest of all unneeded real property.'' This is old buildings
that are boarded up and the paint is peeling off. It's more
expensive now to demolish those buildings, apparently, under
environmental requirements, lead paint, and asbestos, and so
forth. Are you meeting the goal of divesting a facility every
time we replace one?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir; we are. In fact, we're doing more
than that. In our Operations and Maintenance account that's
before the Defense Subcommittee we're providing over the 6-year
budget plan $100 million a year in operations and maintenance
funds that's to be used exclusively for eliminating excess, the
old excess infrastructure. With that we'll eliminate about 10
million square feet a year, so we'll eliminate another 60
million square feet over the next 6-year budget plan, but we've
got about 150 million----
Mr. Packard. And how much are we rebuilding?
Mr. Walker [continuing]. In excess infrastructure.
Mr. Packard. How much are we replacing in terms of square
footage?
Mr. Walker. I'll have to get back to you.
Mr. Packard. Less than that?
Mr. Walker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Yeah, okay.
Mr. Walker. Much less.
[The information follows:]
Demolition
So as to not to increase the Army inventory, there is an
equivalent amount of demolition for each square foot of new
construction. This demolition is in addition to the other
infrastructure reduction initiative underway.
Mr. Packard. If any member on the Subcommittee wishes to
submit additional questions, you'll respond I hope.
Mr. Walker. We certainly will, very quickly, I'm sure.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. With that, ladies and gentlemen, I
want to thank you very much for a very, very fine testimony and
a very good hearing. I appreciate the chance to meet with you,
Mr. Walker, and now the hearing is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Packard:]
Private Sector Initiatives
Question. Please bring us up to date with the current
status of the Army's efforts to promote private sector ventures
for family housing and barracks.
Answer. The Army has 15 approved projects at various stages
of development. We are focusing on projects that impact large
numbers of assets, thereby fixing the housing problem quicker.
The Fort Carson Request for Proposals (our first privatization
project) was issued in December 1996, and we anticipate award
this summer. The other sites are: Forts Stewart, Hood, Bragg,
Detrick, Dix, Hamilton, Campbell, Eustis, Sam Houston, Meade,
Lee, Riley, Sill, and Lewis. If the Fort Carson project goes as
planned, and the other sites are feasible projects, we expect
to award most of them during Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. Fiscal
Year 1997 will see the award of Fort Carson, and we expect an
acceleration of the program during Fiscal Year 1998. We want to
test the Military Housing Privatization Initiative authorities
for barracks renovations as well as new construction. We are
soliciting nominations from our major commands to use these
authorities for our barracks program.
Question. What other private sector initiatives is the
Department pursuing?
Answer. The Army recently initiated studies to be conducted
in accordance with OMB Circular A-76, Performance of Commercial
Activities, of almost 10,000 positions. In utility systems
privatization, 12 systems have been privatized (six natural
gas, two electric, one sewer, one water, and two waste water
plants), eight more are nearing completion (five water, two
electric, one sewer), and more than 100 other utility systems
are under study for possible privatization. We are also
pursuing 25 public-private ventures for morale, welfare and
recreation facilities in which the Army offers the use of
government land for a specified period to a private developer
to use to develop and operate needed MWR services for soldiers
and their families.
Question. Do you anticipate any legislative proposals this
year in this area?
Answer. The Army submitted two legislative proposals for
FY98 on utilities privatization that are being worked by OSD
and OMB. The first is to authorize the Service Secretaries to
convey utility plants with underlying land after notifying the
appropriate committees and subcommittees. This will enable
installations to complete privatization actions within a
predictable time frame without being tied to the legislative
calendar. The second proposal is to exempt the transfer of
government-owned utility systems from the federal tax on
contributions in aid of construction. Without the exemption,
privatization actions with private utility companies can become
uneconomical, since the utility would merely pass the tax along
to the Army.
The Army also has legislation language to authorize the
transfer of the water and wastewater systems at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, and Camp Parks Reserve Training Center,
California, which it is holding pending the outcome on the
first legislative proposal above.
In the MWR facilities area, the Army is considering a
legislative proposal that would authorize Service Secretaries
to make real property on military installations under their
control available to private entities, without fair market
value consideration, for the purpose of establishing commercial
businesses that will contribute to the morale, welfare, and
recreation of members of the Armed Forces. Rather than
providing fair market value lease payments for the use of
military real property, the private entities would deposit into
the installation's MWR fund account money in amounts that the
Service Secretary or his designee deems appropriate. These
funds would be available for the same MWR-related purposes as
prescribed for the non-appropriated fund accounts into which
they are deposited. The section is necessary in order to
establish exceptions to statutory provisions that generally
require the Service Secretaries to receive fair market value
payments in return for the lease of military real property.
In addition, a legislative proposal is being reviewed by
OSD and OMB that would expand opportunities for and benefits of
outleasing real and personal property at military
installations. This would provide additional funds for
installation operation and maintenance, providing potential for
quality of life improvements as well as benefitting local
communities and businesses.
Facilities Privatization Initiatives
Question. Has the Army utilized the Capital Venture
Initiative (CVI) approved in the fiscal year 1996 DoD
Authorization Act, as a solution to meeting facilities
shortfalls?
Answer. The Army has identified 15 sites to potentially use
the fiscal year 1996 DoD Authorization Act authorities. Our
primary goal at these sites is to renovate our existing
inventory and turn over operation and maintenance to the
private sector. When the economics allow, the Army will include
construction of new units to address inventory deficits in Army
Family Housing.
Question. Has the use of CVI provided housing quicker and
at a lower cost than conventional military construction?
Answer. No projects have yet been awarded under the 1996
legislation. However, based on our financial and economic
analyses, the privatization tools in the legislation will
provide housing more quickly and at less cost. For example, if
Fort Carson is awarded as planned, we expect to revitalize the
entire 1,824 unit inventory and build an additional 840 new
units at Fort Carson within five years. Without privatization
we do not have the resources to ever fix it all. Thus,
privatization may become a powerful tool in our strategy to
improve the quality of our family housing in the U.S.
Question. What is the current status of the Army goal to
privatize 75 percent of all feasible utility systems?
Answer. The Army is aggressively pursuing privatization of
utilities and housing. We now have 12 utility systems
privatized, 8 in the process of being transferred, and over 100
at various stages of study. Our goal is to privatize 100
percent of the natural gas systems because of the risk to life
and safety, and 75 percent of all remaining utility systems by
the Year 2003.
Family Housing Improvement Fund
Question. While the Department is placing an emphasis on family
housing privatization, there is no appropriation request for the Family
Housing Improvement Fund for fiscal year 1998 and instead the
Department will use transfer authority. Briefly, how does your Service
intend to exercise this authority in the coming year?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense centrally manages,
programs and budgets for the DoD Family Housing Improvement Fund
(FHIF). The fund received direct appropriations of $22 million in
fiscal year 1996 and $25 million in fiscal year 1997. These funds are
available until expended; approximately $30 million remains available
to finance projects.
Consistent with design of the initiative, project award will use
cash, land, and/or facilities depending on the site and terms of the
contract. Some sites may not require any up-front money. However, if
cash is needed (for example, mortgage guarantees), funds will come from
either the family housing construction account at that site, or the
Army will request funding from the centrally managed FHIF.
Question. In the past two years $45 million has been appropriated
for the Family Housing Improvement Fund. What rationale does the
Department use for the distribution of these funds? Is it allotted to
the services, or held centrally to allow every project to compete?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense centrally manages,
programs and budgets for the DoD Family Housing Improvement Fund
(FHIF). Consistent with design of the initiative, the Army will
transfer family housing construction funds in Fiscal Year 1998 for FHIF
projects at locations where construction funds are approved and the
economics of the privatization project require such a transfer. Where
funds are required and not available for transfer, the Army will
request funding from the centrally managed FHIF.
Question. Are we seeing a movement for this program to be a
substitute for construction versus the original intent that it be a
supplement?
Answer. The Army continues to concurrently program and budget for
housing construction projects and privatization initiatives to maintain
flexibility in attacking our housing problems. Both programs are
focused at installations where our needs are greatest. As a result, we
simultaneously develop projects using both programs at some locations.
Marsh Task Force
Question. Last year, the DOD Task Force on Quality of Life reported
its findings to this committee. They cited five major issues affecting
the standard of living for single and unaccompanied personnel. What
steps has the Army taken in the past year to address these issues, and
how do you envision these plans working?
Answer. Responses concerning the five major issues are provided
below:
Issue 1: Broad policies for bachelor housing.--The approval and
implementation of the 1+1 standard signaled the Army's commitment to
improve the quality of life for its single soldiers. The new standard
incorporates the concerns addressed by soldiers and adjusts the gap
between family and unaccompanied personnel housing. Revision of the
Army Housing Management Regulation reflects the Army's commitment by
increasing the focus on policies directly relating to single soldier
housing.
Issue 2: Policy Governing Required and Allowed Residents in
Barracks.--The Army provides guidance regarding housing of single
soldiers by establishing broad assignment parameters with authorized
latitudes to accomplish the military mission. The Army leadership views
barracks assignment decisions as an important command prerogative,
directly tied to good order, discipline, readiness, and morale.
Issue 3: Suitability Criteria for Bachelor Housing.--General
adequacy standards for single soldiers are addressed in the Army
Housing Management Regulation for both on and off-post living
facilities. We have surveyed our barracks, identified those that no
longer meet current suitability criteria and developed a modernization
plan. If adequacy standards cannot be met, commanders may authorize
soldiers to reside off post, except for military necessity. Housing
offices provide community homefinding, referral and relocation services
for all soldiers, single and married. Information regarding on-post and
off-post housing and related services is updated regularly and
available Army-wide. Installations also provide orientation briefings
for newly arrived personnel, to include available housing services.
Issue 4: Bachelor Housing Funding--Insufficient and Unfenced.--Over
the past year, the Army has conducted detailed analysis of the barracks
situation and the minimum requirement for the Army Force Structure. We
have committed over 46 percent of the Military Construction, Army (MCA)
program in the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to the Whole Barracks
Renewal Program. In addition, we have initiated an OMA Barracks Upgrade
Program to renovate barracks built in the seventies and early eighties
to an approximately 1+1 standard. Annually, $150 million are dedicated
to this program. As a result, the time to buy out the barracks
modernization program in the U.S. was reduced from the year 2020 to
2008. Overseas, timelines to achieve a modified 1+1 standard have been
reduced from the year 2020 to 2010 in USAREUR and from 2020 to 2012 in
Korea.
Issue 5: Management and Operation of Barracks.--The Army is working
diligently to create separated working and living environments for our
single soldiers. The design of the Whole Barracks Complex also referred
to as Single Soldier Communities, replaces our old gang latrine type
barracks and provides a neighborhood type atmosphere similar to an off-
post apartment complex. The complex is designed to enhance single
soldier's quality of life by providing privacy, additional space and by
taking administrative functions out of the barracks. This greatly
improves customer service and directly affects personnel readiness,
morale and retention.
Barracks Standard
Question. Please comment on how the Army has incorporated the DoD
1+1 barracks standard in this year's budget request.
Answer. The Army has been using the 1+1 standard for all barracks
military construction projects since 1994. However, in Korea, we are
building barracks under waiver from the OSD standard until we are out
Quonset Huts and Relocatables. Then we will build barracks and assign
spaces according to the standard. This year's budget request includes
18 barracks projects for $338 million.
Question. As a result of the DoD-wide barracks standard, has the
Army reduced the amount of planning and design required for these
projects, through the use of standardized design?
Answer. Some savings have been realized and they are already
reflected in the budget request.
Question. Has the Army budgeted for a balanced program, one which
provides improved troop housing yet still meets the growing
infrastructure improvement needs?
Answer. Yes, over half of the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
Military Construction, Army (MCA) is committed to upgrade housing for
single soldiers to the ``1+1'' standard. The whole barracks renewal
program is the Army's highest priority for Quality of Life (QOL) and,
as such, a great emphasis is placed on buying out the substandard
conditions by 2012.
Another high priority program, receiving approximately 13 percent
of the MCA funding, is the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) which
constructs infrastructure to enhance deployment of the Forces such as
railheads and airfield upgrades and roads.
Remaining Army projects, not in the Strategic Mobility or Barracks
programs, compete for available funding based on contribution to
readiness, mission support and urgency of need. The Army feels this
balance is the best it can achieve within the limited resources
available.
Question. Has the Army developed a plan to use privatization in
meeting the ``1+1'' standard? We want to test the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative authorities for barracks renovations as well
as new construction, but have not yet developed a plan. We are awaiting
the results of our Fort Carson family housing project to gain all of
the lessons learned needed to expand the program into the barracks
area. Also, we are soliciting nominations from our major commands to
use these authorities for our barracks program.
Question. Testimony last year stated that all barracks projects in
the fiscal year 1998 program will be budgeted based on parametric
design, unless a 35% design was already performed. Have all the fiscal
year 1998 barracks projects been budgeted based on parametric design?
Answer. No. The Army is using parametric estimates to the maximum
extent practical in the preparation of budget estimates. For the FY98
budget request, parametric estimates were used to develop costs for 13
of the 18 barracks projects requested. The remaining five (5) barracks
projects had designs sufficiently underway to provide 35% cost
estimates for the budget.
Barracks--Priorities
Question. Has the Army developed a listing of the barracks backlog
by location?
Answer. Yes. The Army has a listing for replacing and upgrading
barracks to support its overall strategy to buy out the barracks
program. We are evaluating results of a recent data call which will
form the basis for prioritization by location.
Question. Has the Army completed its overall master plan and
strategy for development of barracks installation-by-installation?
Answer. The Army has an overall strategy for replacing and
upgrading barracks to the 1+1 standard. The strategy is implemented
using two programs; the MCA whole barracks renewal program and the OMA
Barracks Upgrade Program. These two programs address the total, Army-
wide, requirements for construction or conversion to a 1+1 standard
with a target buyout for 100% of the requirement worldwide by 2012.
Question. If so, what are the top five installations with the
highest priority?
Answer. The committee has before it our request for fiscal years
1998 and 1999. After these requirements have been fulfilled, our next
priority installation locations are Korea, Germany, Fort Bragg, Fort
Stewart, Fort Meade, Fort Eustis, Fort Lee, and Fort Lewis.
Barracks Program Execution
Question. Have you run into any difficulties executing the FY 1997
barracks programs?
Answer. No, all barracks projects are scheduled for award this
fiscal year.
Question. What is the current troop housing deficit?
Answer. The Army has a requirement to provide barracks for
approximately 137,600 unaccompanied enlisted soldiers world-wide. At
this time, approximately 57 percent of our barracks spaces do not meet
adequacy standards.
Question. Does the Army intend to exercise any new authorities to
execute the 1997 and 1998 barracks projects instead of using
conventional military construction?
Answer. No. The Army has a long-range plan to look at all its
housing assets in relation to privatization. We are awaiting the
results of our Fort Carson family housing Capital Venture Initiative
project to gain all the lessons learned needed to expand the use of new
authorities into the barracks area.
Question. Are there practical limits to the number of barracks
projects that can be executed in a given year, if so, what is the level
of those annual limits?
Answer. Using construction funds, there is generally no limit that
could be executed in any given year. Army-wide, we would probably not
saturate the Corps of Engineers capability to handle added work,
however, at an installation we need to have enough space to house
soldiers displaced by construction activities.
barracks rpma
Question. Last year the Army received $149 million for barracks
renovation under the Real property Maintenance Account in the National
Security Appropriations Bill. Provide for the record a list of projects
that will be funded by this initiative and the status of each project.
Answer. Attached is the current Army plan for execution of the two
year Quality of Life Enhancement, Defense Appropriation.
[Pages 409 - 410--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
,Real Property Maintenance Account
Question. Is it correct that the Real Property Maintenance Account,
which is funded in the National Security Appropriations Bill, is
budgeted at only 63% of the requirement for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Real Property Maintenance (RPM) is actually funded at 61%
Question. Describe for us how the Army makes the tough decision
between the funding levels proposed for RPMA and Military Construction.
Answer. The Army followed a comprehensive decision-making process
to review, validate, and prioritize its total six years requirements to
arrive at a balance of funding within the available resources. in the
specific areas of Real Property Maintenance (RPM) appropriations and
Military Construction, Army (MCA), we follow a three-fold facilities
strategy. First we focus our investment on our most important readiness
areas, such as Quality of Life and Strategic Mobility, second, we are
divesting all unneeded real property, through base closure actions,
privatization initiatives, and demolition, and, third, through
efficiencies and proven business practices, we are reducing the cost
required to support our facilities and related services, including
management and maintenance of our real property inventory.
Panama Relocation
Question. For more than twenty years, the treaty obligation for the
return of all properties to the Government of Panama by December 31,
1999 has been publicly known. Yet here we are, dealing with an eleventh
hour relocation of the Southern Command to Miami, leasing an
administrative facility and reviewing a fiscal year 1998 budget request
for family housing. The Army's plan is to lease eight family housing
units late in fiscal year 1997 [subject to the appropriations
limitation of not to exceed $15,000 per unit per year], and to purchase
these units in fiscal year 1998 if Congress agrees to an appropriation
of $2.3 million for these eight units--an average cost of $287,500 per
unit.
If this budget request is denied, how will the Army proceed?
Answer. If the budget request is denied, the Army must use its High
Cost Lease authority for the eight Command Group units. The other
alternative is to have the eight Command Group personnel use their
allowances and seek their own accommodations. However, neither of these
options is acceptable since the leasing limits and housing allowances
will not allow command group members who have representational
responsibilities to find adequate quarters to carry out these official
duties.
Question. Bring us up to date with the current status of the Panama
Canal Treaty Implementation Plan?
Answer. The U.S. Forces are strongly committed to the
implementation of the Panama Canal Treaties of 1977 and have worked
closely with the Government of Panama to ensure smooth transfers. Since
1979 the U.S. Forces have transferred approximately 30,000 acres of
land and 1,631 facilities. The most recent transfers were Fort Amador
in September 1996 and the Arraijan Tank Farm in January 1997. The 15
November 1994 Panama Canal Treaty Implementation Plan transfer schedule
establishing transfer dates for the remaining property has been
modified as follows:
atlantic side transfers
1999: Fort Davis Communication Site, Pina Training Area, Fort
Sherman, Galeta Island.
pacific side transfers
1997: Arraijan Tank Farm (January), Summit (January), Curundu Flats
(July), Balboa Elementary School (August), Albrook Air Force Station
(September), and Gorgas Army Community Hospital (November).
1998: Quarry Heights (January), Herrick Heights (January), Morgan
Avenue (January), Bryan Hall Complex (January), and Panama Canal
College (July).
1999: Cocoli, Ancon Hill Communications Site, Empire Range/Camp
Ruosseau, Corozal Commissary, Curundu Middle School, Cerro Gordo
Communications site, Curundu Laundry, Chiva Chiva, East Corozal, West
Corozal, Fort Clayton, Fort Kobbe, Balboa High School, Ammunition
Storage Point #1. Howard air Force Base, Balboa West Range, Rodman
Naval Station, Farfan, and Marine Corps Barracks.
Question. What is the current status of the Army's efforts to
identify and secure eight leased housing units?
Answer. The Army has developed an acquisition plan based on leasing
eight houses with an option to buy. A Request for Proposals outlining
the Army's needs and intentions is being developed for circulation with
the private sector.
Question. Under the Family Housing subaccount for leasing, the 1998
column shows 70 leased units in Miami, with 840 months purchased in
1998, at a total cost of $1,168,000, or $1,390 per unit per month. How
did you determine that 70 units were required for the SOUTHCOM
relocation, and how did you reach the estimate of cost?
Answer. The 70 leased units include 62 units for junior soldiers
with 3-4 bedroom housing requirements and eight units for Command Group
personnel. A market analysis conducted by the Corps of Engineers
determined that 62 soldiers would be unable to find adequate housing
because either costs exceeded their housing allowances or there was an
insufficient supply of 3-4 bedroom units available within the commuting
area. The other eight units are for the Command Group personnel who are
considered Key and Essential Personnel. The costs were estimated for
the 62 units by using the normal lease limitation of $12,000 per unit
per year plus the Consumer Price Index adjustment for each fiscal year.
The costs for the eight units were estimated by using the high cost
lease-limit of $14,000 per unit per year plus the Consumer Price Index
adjustment for each fiscal year. Leasing funds for these eight units
are required pending completion of the purchase/construct request at
some point during the fiscal year.
Installation Status Report
Question. Please describe for us how the Installation Status Report
was used in developing the Fiscal Year 1998 program?
Answer. When the Fiscal Year 1998 budget was prepared, only the
results of the Fiscal Year 1995 Installation Status Report (ISR) were
available. 1995 was the implementation year of the ISR, it was limited
to active duty installations in the Continental United States, and
provided only minor input in developing this year's program. The ISR
gives the Army a systematic, consistent look at its facilities. As the
database grows it will provide the Army with additional screening
factors for facilities requirements and facility condition trends,
enhancing the Army Military Construction (MCA) program development and
assisting in identification of potentially critical revitalization
programs.
Korea
Question. What is the current construction backlog in Korea, by
type of facility?
Answer. Based on current data, the projection to buyout the
facilities deficit in Korea is currently $5,300,000,000. Military
Construction, Army (MCA) is currently programmed only for Quality of
Life (QOL) projects, thus, mission and training facilities upgrades are
funded via Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), Real Property
Maintenance, and host nation construction.
Question. Please describe difference between the two Korean
burdensharing programs--the Combined Defense Improvement Program (CDIP)
and the Republic of Korea Funded Construction?
Answer. U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) programs and manages the two Host
Nation Funded Construction programs: Combined Defense Improvement
Program (CDIP) and the Republic of Korea Funded Construction (ROKFC)
program for all Services in Korea. USFK negotiates the amount of
funding through annual cost-sharing negotiations each calendar year
(CY).
CDIP Projects. Commonly known as the ``warfighting'' program, the
Republic of Korea (ROK) limits funding to those projects which support
or enhance warfighting capability. The ROK funding for this program for
Calendar Year 1996 is $50 million, $33 million is for Army projects.
This program is expected to continue at the same funding level.
ROKFC Projects. This program provides cash to the USFK for
primarily quality of life (except Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
facilities), infrastructure, and environmental projects. Under this
program, the ROK provided $55 million in Calendar Year 1996, $37.5
million for Army projects. It is anticipated that the funding level
will remain fairly constant.
Question. Please describe how these two programs are helping you
meet your facility needs in Korea.
Answer. The annual addition of $70 million of new construction
provided to the Army by the Republic of Korea provides barracks,
mission and support facilities, and infrastructure upgrades and greatly
enhance the Army's readiness and quality of life in Korea.
Question. What is the current troop housing deficit in Korea? What
is the projected deficit after completion of the FY 1999 program?
Answer. In Korea, barracks for approximately 17,500 enlisted
soldiers require replacement or renovation. After completion of the FY
1999 program, barracks for approximately 15,200 enlisted soldiers still
require renovation or replacement.
Southwest Asia
Question. What is the current status of the second phase of the
Strategic Logistical prepositioning complex in Southwest Asia?
Answer. The final design of Phase II is being completed and project
will be out for bid to contractors in April of 1997 with anticipated
award in July 1997.
Question. Mr. Walker, last year you testified that the third phase
of the Southwest Asia prepositioning project was programmed at $66
million in fiscal year 1998, but this year's budget request totals $37
million to complete the project. What accounts for the differences in
cost to complete the project.
Answer. Since last year's hearings we have received actual
contractor bid data from the Phase I award and have been able to adjust
our current project working estimates to reflect those actual costs.
Question. Last year we were assured that the location of this
project had been declassified, but this year's request is under
``Overseas various Locations''. Why isn't the location named?
Answer. As this project is a three phased project over three
appropriation years it was retained under the same line items for audit
and continuity purposes.
Question. Will the contractor for the first phase need to re-
compete for the second phase, and again for the third phase.
Answer. Yes.
Historic Preservation
Question. What is the current status of the report that is due to
be submitted to us by March 28 regarding historic homes [directed by
last year's Senate Report 104-287, page 10]?
Answer. The report is currently being coordinated among the Army
staff; we anticipate meeting the March 28, 1997 submission date.
Total Army School System
Question. Describe for us the current status and the future plan
for the Total Army School System (TASS).
Answer. I am advised by the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, who has jurisdiction over TASS, that TASS is currently
operational, scheduled for full implementation in October 1997. As
General Sullivan, former Chief of Staff, Army (CSA), said when he made
the decision to implement TASS, ``My expectation is that, ultimately,
the component of the school and/or instructor will be transparent to
the student. Additionally, I believe that we are making leader
development more accessible and less expensive, and that we are making
important strides in the integration of America's Army.'' U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command's (TRADOC) goal is to achieve that
vision.
Question. What is being done to utilize excess capacity at existing
schools--both active duty and guard and reserve--prior to seeking new
construction?
Answer. As the Army moves to a combined Structure Manning Decision
Review (SMDR) process in the next few years, use of excess capacity
will be maximized. The SMDR is a training management process that
compares the training requirement to the schoolhouse capacity and
resolves resource constraints for the first three years of the POM
(Program Objective Memorandum). The training requirement is based on
the number of soldiers that must be trained in specific specialties to
meet the Army's readiness requirements based on force structure. RAND
Corporation is currently studying options for optimal solutions to
excess capacity issues. Currently, the United States Army Reserve
(USAR) and the Army Reserve National Guard (ARNG) are using the SMDR
process to ensure utilization of capacity while eliminating duplication
of effort between the USAR and ARNG TASS battalions.
Question. How are the requirements, capabilities, and capacities of
the guard and reserve factored into TASS?
Answer. Currently, TASS is the combination of the former ARNG and
USAR school systems. The Active Component (AC) supports TASS through
``functional alignment'' of the proponent schools and the Title XI
program. The requirements, capabilities, and capacities of the guard
and reserve are the current requirements, capabilities, and capacities
of TASS. These are consolidated in the SMDR process. Following the Army
vision, TASS and the active component system will merge, with soldiers
from either RC or AC attending any of the schools for full credit. This
will occur once courseware and equipment issues are resolved.
Question. Are any projects in the 1998 request related to TASS?
Answer. In fiscal year (FY) 98, there is no Military Construction,
Army (MCA), requirement expected as a result of TASS. The Army Distance
Learning Program (ADLP) is crucial to TASS implementation and to the
future readiness of the Army. It does include Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), and Other Procurement, Army (OPA), funds for
the upgrade of facilities with distance learning classrooms for TASS
battalions.
Question. Is it correct that the TASS staff at the Army's Training
and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has recently been cut from 36 people to
14 people?
Answer. TRADOC Coordinating Element (TCE) at Deputy Chief of Staff
for Training (DCST), TRADOC, was projected to include 36 personnel when
fully staffed. In June 1996, The DCST changed the missions and
functions of TCE and spread the TASS mission across the entire DCST
organization. The TCE has 14 personnel with the sole mission of TASS
implementation, while more than 38 additional personnel support the
TASS effort within the other directorates of DCST. There are also
coordinating elements within each region which provide direct support
to the TASS battalions.
Question. Is TASS really just a scheduling tool . . . in other
words, has TASS ever functioned to disallow proposed education or
training as unnecessary, duplicative, or otherwise inappropriate?
Answer. TASS is more than a scheduling tool; it is a major change
in Army Training. TASS (TRADOC) is an active player in the areas
mentioned above for USAR and ARNG. The ARNG and USAR have been
eliminating unnecessary, duplicative or inappropriate courses from
their schools. In the future, all three components will delete
unnecessary, duplicative, or otherwise inappropriate education and
training through the combined SMDR process. A limited combined SMDR was
tested in FY96 with the Artillery School and the Command and General
Staff College for those courses which have been redesigned as TATS
courses (courses which are standard between the Reserve Components (RC)
and Active Component (AC). A full SMDR is programmed as the process
evolves over the next few years.
Unobligated Balances
Question. The budget proposes to finance a total of $7.9 million
from unobligated prior year appropriations for the Army Reserve
account. Why was it formulated in this manner, and why didn't the
Department request a traditional rescission of these funds? Provide for
the record the individual sources which derive the $7.9 million.
Answer. The Department of Defense directed the Army Reserve to
finance $7.9 million of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 budget from prior
year unobligated funds. The Army Reserve did not request a rescission
of the unobligated prior year funds because these unobligated funds re
not considered to represent actual savings. Military construction cost
estimates and initial contract costs are only approximations of the
true cost of projects. Therefore, as part of normal program management,
these unobligated funds re applied to in-scope contract modifications,
unforeseen problems, contractor claims, and reprogramming actions on
other projects for which legitimate shortfalls occur. The individual
sources which derive the $7.9 million reduction, although subject to
change, are tentatively identified as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location FY 1996 reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA.............................. Camp Parks......... $161,000
KS.............................. Olathe 539,000.....
NC.............................. Hickory............ 600,000
NH.............................. Manchester 900,000.
NV.............................. Las Vegas.......... 5,700,000
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 7,900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the FY 1997 appropriation or in the prior years' unobligated
balances, that are no longer required due to force structure changes,
base realignment and closure, mission changes, bilateral and
multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include on the list
military construction projects, family housing and construction
improvement projects, and projects financed under the base realignment
and closure accounts.
Answer. MCA: None. AFH: None. BRAC: Fort Huachuca, Arizona,
Warehouse, FY 97, PN 44446235, BRAC 95, $8,00,000: Requirement can be
met with existing facilities. The funds have been reprogrammed for high
priority BRAC Operation & Maintenance requirements.
Host Nation Support
Question. The budget request includes $20 million for Host Nation
Planning and Design. What is the Army's estimate of the size of the
construction program that will be funded by host nations during FY
1998, and what is the estimated allotment of the requested $20 million,
by location?
Answer. The expected construction placement for all Service during
FY 1998 is $1 billion in Japan; $105 million in Korea; and $60 million
in Germany. The expected allotment of FY 1998 Host Nation Planning and
Design funds is $16 million for Japan; $1 million for Korea, and $3
million for Europe.
Question. Last year Congress appropriated $20 million to the Army
for Host Nation Planning and Design for criteria development and for
surveillance of design and construction related to construction. Has
this amount proven adequate?
Answer. Based on the expected program, $20 million should be
adequate.
Question. What is the estimated allotment of the $20 million
(appropriated last year), by nation?
Answer. The FY 1997 Host Nation Planning and Design funds have
currently been allocated as follows: $17 million for Japan; $1 million
for Korea; and $2 million for Europe. The allocation will continue to
be monitored to determine if further adjustments are necessary.
Question. Please provide for the record a list of Army projects
that will be executed in FY 1997 under host nation funded programs in
Japan and Korea, and in the Arabian Gulf, as well as any information
you can provide on NATO Infrastructure and Payment-In-Kind projects in
Europe.
Answer. See attachment.
[Pages 416 - 417--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. Have host nations declined to fund any projects
that the Army requested in FY 1997? If so, what projects were
denied, by which host nation, at what cost, and for what
reason?
Answer. The Government of Japan (GOJ) will not include the
following types of projects in the Japan Facilities Improvement
Program (JFIP): (1) military related or offensive in nature;
(2) ammunition storage; (3) certain kinds of recreational
facilities like golf courses; (4) chapels; (5) repair and
maintenance; and (6) politically sensitive as local officials
must approve building permits. Consistent with this policy,
Japan refused to fund a $15.5 million Ammunition Storage
project at Kawakami Ammo Depot with the explanation that the
local mayor would not approve the required construction permit.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) recently deferred an Army
project proposed for the next Combined Defense Improvement
Program (CDIP)--Aircraft Parking Aprons (Ph 1) at Camp
Humphreys, $1.9 million. This project was deferred by the ROK
Joint Chiefs of Staff to make funds available for a U.S. Navy
pier project. The Army expects the project to be included in a
future CDIP program.
Reprogrammings
Question. Please submit for the record a table which shows
by fiscal year, the total amounts Congress has approved for
reprogramming actions in the ``Military Construction, Army''
and the ``Family Housing, Army'' accounts over the past five
years.
Answer. See attached table.
[Pages 419 - 421--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Chemical Demilitarization Program
Question. Funding for the Chemical Demilitarization Program has
been provided under the ``Military Construction, Defense-wide''
account, but the Army remains the Department's agent for the execution
of the program. Please summarize for us the current operation of the
program, and the funding projections for the remaining construction.
Answer. I am pleased to report to you that the funding and
management strategies established by the Congress as described below
have and continue to work extremely well. Public Law 99-145 directed
that funds to destroy the chemical agents and munitions be set forth in
the budget of the Department of Defense for any fiscal year as a
separate account and not be included in the budget accounts for any
military department. However, an exception was granted for the related
military construction funds which were budgeted in the Military
Construction, Army account until Fiscal Year (FY) 1995. Section 142 of
Public Law 103-337 amended Public Law 99-145 which directed that the
military construction funds for the chemical demilitarization
facilities be budgeted in the Military Construction Defense-wide
account. The rationale provided for this change was that budgeting for
the construction of these facilities within the Military Construction,
Army account would unnecessarily and improperly inflate the size of the
Army's military construction projects. Funds authorized and
appropriated for the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program in the
Military Construction, Defense-wide account are released from the
Office of the Department of Defense (Comptroller) to the Department of
the Army for execution. Also, Public Law 99-145 directed that the Army
become the Executive Agent to carry out the destruction of the United
States' chemical stockpile. Office of the Secretary of Defense
oversight is provided from the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs). The
Army Acquisition Executive manages the execution of the program. The
Program Manager, Chemical Demilitarization executes the program. The
Army possesses the expertise in the acquisition, storage and
destruction of chemical agents and munitions; training in chemical
warfare defense operations; and qualifications regarding safety in
handling chemical agents and munitions. The United States Army Corps of
Engineers provides expertise and assumes responsibilities for
construction of the demilitarization facilities.
[Page 423--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. Please describe for us the environmental actions
required and/or facility construction certification packages
needed to start a chemical demilitarization project.
Answer. Prior to construction of the chemical
demilitarization facilities several environmental documents
must be developed and approved. These include:
a. Documentation required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, the Army is required to develop
a site-specific Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describing
the proposed action and its potential impact to the surrounding
environment. This document is reviewed by several government
and state agencies, as well as the public. Also, NEPA requires
that the Army develop a Record of Decision which states the
Army's intentions associated with the project.
b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Clean
Air Act (CAA) Permits. Permit applications which describe the
facility's design and proposed operational parameters for these
permits are prepared by the Army and submitted to the affected
State. Included with the applications are Ecological and Health
Risk Assessments. Permits are issued by the concerned state to
the Army after public review.
c. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Permit. The TSCA
permit application is prepared by the Army and submitted to the
affected Regional and Headquarters National Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). This document addresses the poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in the M-55 rocket firing tubes.
These permits are issued to the Army following EPA and public
review.
d. Storm Water Permit. The permit application, describing
the management of storm water and silt runoff during
construction, is prepared by the Army and submitted to the
affected state.
e. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit. The application is submitted to the affected state
which describes the project's management of storm water for
sites over 5-acres and the effluents from the sits's sewage
treatment facility.
f. The environmental permits and certifications required to
construct and operate a chemical disposal facility are
summarized below:
(1) Prior to Award of the Construction Contract: Final
design prepared and certified in accordance with the Unites
States Army Corps of Engineer procedures; RCRA and CAA permit
applications submitted to State; TSCA permit application
submitted to EPA; Site-specific Environmental Impact Statement
(SSEIS) approved; and Record of Decision based upon SSEIS being
signed.
(2) Prior to the Start of Construction: RCRA and CAA
permits issued; and Storm Water permit issued.
(3) Prior to Operations: Independent Facility Certification
(completed and accepted); RCRA permit demonstrated (trial burns
conducted and accepted); TSCA permit granted (trail burn
conducted and accepted); and NPDES permit issued.
You can be assured that all environmental permit
documentation is being closely coordinated with the federal and
state regulators. We have established site-specific Integrated
Product Teams to assist in quality control and preparation of
the environmental documents. Additionally, the program has
layered oversight by independent agencies and organizations to
ensure compliance with all federal and state regulations.
Child Development Centers
Question. What percentage of the total child care need is
the Army is currently meeting?
Answer. The Army is currently meeting 64 percent of the
child care need and expects to meet 65 percent by fiscal year
1998.
Question. What is the Army's goal for meeting the need--has
it increased from last year's goal of 65 percent?
Answer. Army's goal is still to meet 65 percent of the
total child care need. Currently, the Army is meeting 64
percent of the child care need and will increase to 65 percent
by fiscal year 1998 at current funding levels.
Question. What is the current deficiency in the total
number of spaces for child development facilities worldwide?
Answer. The Army has a shortfall of 891 child care spaces.
The Army goal is to satisfy 65 percent of the child care need.
The Army plans to eliminate this shortfall by using a
combination of Family Child Care in government housing, school-
age programs in existing facilities/schools, and alternative
programs.
Question. Can you provide a list of the highest priority
military construction projects to address the Army's child care
deficiency?
Answer. The highest priority military construction projects
are Kitzingen, Germany and Mons, Belgium which are budgeted for
in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Why are there no child care projects in the
Army's budget request for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Although there are facilities in need of
renovation/replacement, there were insufficient resources to
fund all of the Army's infrastructure revitalization
requirements. Expansion of care is planned through the use of
Family Child Care in government housing, school-age programs in
existing facilities/schools, and alternative programs.
Question. Please provide for the record a list of child
care projects requested for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The army has requested two child care projects for
fiscal year 1999: Kitzingen, Germany and Mons, Belgium.
Base Realignment and Closure
Question. Are there any schedule slippages in ongoing realignments
and closure?
Answer. No. The Army's BRAC program is ahead of schedule. The Army
is working to implement all initiatives on an accelerated basis in
order to realize the savings as soon as possible. All closures will be
completed prior to July 2001.
Question. After the completion of all actions, is there a
possibility that excess installation inventory will remain which would
justify another round of realignments and closures? If so, how soon?
Answer. There are currently no legislation provisions for future
BRAC rounds. The Army is currently analyzing infrastructure
requirements in concert with the Quadrennial Defense Review. This will
indicate which areas contain excess capacity and may be subject to
further reductions. An evaluation of the QDR results will indicate
whether the Department of Defense might profit from another round of
BRAC.
Family Housing Privatization and the Housing Authority
Question. How are the Army's efforts proceeding with the various
privatization efforts for family housing?
Answer. We are very optimistic about the potential benefits of the
authorities you gave us in Fiscal Year 1996. Our progress has been slow
due to the number of, issues we had to address and work with OSD. This
is true of any new program, but we believe we are over the hurdles and
we can only see major advantages to the program. The private sector is
also very interested in the program as evidenced by the nearly 400
requests for bid packages. Fiscal Year 1997 will see the award of the
Fort Carson project, and we expect a visible acceleration of the
program during Fiscal Year 1998.
Inventory
Question. How many family housing units do you have in the United
States, and how many do you have overseas, excluding sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Army will have 91,711 units in the
United States and 27,165 units overseas.
Question. How many Section 801, Section 802, and leased units do
you have in the United States, and how many do you have overseas?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the Army estimates there will be 4,080
Section 801 units, 276 Section 802 units, and 71 other leased units in
the United States. We estimate there will be 11,168 leased units
overseas; there are no Section 801 or 802 units in foreign areas.
Age of Housing Inventory
Question. What is the average age of the family housing inventory?
Answer. The average age of the family housing inventory is nearly
36 years.
Question. What percentage of the family housing inventory is over
30 years old?
Answer. Approximately 69% of the family housing inventory is over
30 years old.
Question. What percentage is over 40 years old?
Answer. Approximately 25% of the family housing inventory is over
40 years old.
Housing Deficits
Question. What is your current worldwide family housing deficit?
Answer. The Army's world-wide family housing deficit is 10,322
units.
Question. What are your three largest deficits, and how large are
they?
Answer. Based on calculations made from the latest Army Stationing
and Installation Plan, the three largest deficit locations are: Fort
Bragg, NC, 1,650 units; Fort Hood, TX, 1,530 units and Fort Campbell,
KY, 982 units.
Question. What are your three most expensive deficit locations,
based on the actual payments of housing allowances?
Answer. The three most expensive deficit locations, based on
housing allowances, are Hawaii, Fort Lewis, WA and Fort Bragg, NC.
Waiting Lists
Question. How many families are on waiting lists for government-
provided family housing, and what is the average waiting time?
Answer. Historically, the Army has approximately 2,000 officer
families and 18,000 enlisted families on waiting lists for government
family housing. The average waiting time varies by location, depending
on bedroom requirements. On the average, officer families wait no more
than 10 months and enlisted families wait no more than 15 months for
on-post family housing.
Off-base Housing
Question. How many families are living off-base?
Answer. There are approximately 190,000 families living off-post.
Question. What are the criteria for suitable off-base housing?
Answer. The Army's criteria for suitable off-base housing are:
a. Location. The dwelling is within a 1-hour commute by privately-
owned vehicle during normal commuting hours, or within other limits to
satisfy mission requirements and the dwelling is not in an area,
subdivision, or housing complex designated by the installation
commander as ``not acceptable for health or safety reasons''
b. Cost. For making programming and/or acquisition decision, the
maximum acceptable monthly housing cost is the total of BAQ plus
Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) plus the maximum out-of-pocket cost
(50% of BAQ). Total monthly cost includes rent, utilities (except
telephone and cable TV), and other items of operating expense that are
compensable by the VHA.
c. Size. The minimum net square footage for family dwelling units
are: 1 bedroom, 550; 2 bedrooms, 750; 3 bedrooms, 960; 4 or more
bedrooms, 1,190. The dwelling unit has the minimum number of bedrooms
to ensure no more than two persons share a bedroom. For unaccompanied
personnel the unit is unshared and meets minimum space standards for
government housing and provides the occupant a private bedroom, and
that the total area (private space plus proportionate share of common
areas) meets the minimum space standards for government housing.
d. Condition. The dwelling is well maintained and structurally
sound. It does not pose a health, safety, or fire hazard. The dwelling
is a complete unit with private entrance, bathroom, and kitchen for
sole use of its occupants. The kitchen, a bathroom, the living room and
the bedrooms can be entered without passing through bedrooms. The
kitchen has stove and refrigerator connections, and space for food
preparation. At least one bathroom has a shower or bathtub, lavatory,
and a flushable toilet. The dwelling has air conditioning or a similar
cooling system and a permanently installed, adequately vented, heating
system, if it is in a climate where those are included in Government
construction per MIL-HNBK-1190. The dwelling has adequate electrical
service. The dwelling has washer and dryer connections, or accessible
laundry facilities are on the premises. The dwelling unit has hot and
cold, running, potable water. In some foreign areas, construction
standards for community housing do not provide for potable running
water. In such places, hot and cold running water shall be provided and
a continuous supply of potable water shall be made available.
e. Occupant Owned Housing. All occupant owned housing is considered
adequate.
``Suitability''
Question. How many families are unsuitably housed, and how is
``unsuitable'' defined?
Answer. Approximately 76% of on-post family housing does not meet
current construction standards, and approximately 10,000 Army families
living off-post are not suitably house. ``Unsuitable'' off post housing
is defined as those housing units that do not meet the off-post
adequacy criteria.
Deferred Maintenance
Question. What is the current annual funding requirement for family
housing maintenance and repair?
Answer. The current, annual, unconstrained funding requirement for
maintenance and repair is $685 million.
Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?
Answer. The Army discontinued collecting data about deferred
maintenance and repair (DMAR) at the end of fiscal 1995 when the
Installation Status Report (ISR), Part I--Infrastructure was
implemented. Based upon the ISR, the estimated cost of repairs and
improvements to achieve quality condition CI for family housing
facilities is $5.2 billion. Quality condition CI means that at least
90% of the inventory meets current standards.
Question. How much maintenance and repair work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what the limiting factors?
Answer. The Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management estimates the Army can execute a maintenance and repair
program equal to the fiscal year 1998 requirement of $685 million. The
single, most limiting factor is completing engineering design work for
major maintenance and repair projects in order to award the contracts
before the end of the fiscal year.
Construction Improvements
Question. How much construction improvement work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what are the limiting factors?
Answer. The Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management estimates that approximately $450 million per year could be
awarded for family housing construction improvements Army-wide. The
major limiting factors are the availability of planning and design
funds and design lead time of approximately one year.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Question. What is the average operations and maintenance cost per
family housing unit?
Answer. The Army is funded at an average operation and maintenance
cost in fiscal year 1998 at $7,888 per owned dwelling unit.
Question. How does the average cost compare with the requirement--
assuming ``no growth'' in deferred maintenance?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the average operation and maintenance
amount is 97 percent of the funding level necessary to sustain the
inventory at its current condition.
Currency Fluctuation
Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for
your overseas housing programs during fiscal years 1996 and
1997?
Answer. In fiscal year 1996, losses in the currency
fluctuation account for family housing operation and
maintenance were $26.9 million. In fiscal year 1997, based on
data available through January 1997, we expect a gain of
approximately $10 million in the currency fluctuation account
for family housing operation and maintenance. The currency
fluctuation account is centrally managed by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and is separate from the Family Housing,
Army appropriation.
Officer Quarters
Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a)
how many general/flag officer quarters you have, separately
identifying CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these
quarters exceed the statutory space limitations, and (c) the
average O&M cost per unit.
Answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONUS OCONUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of GFOQ........................ 243 94
Number that exceed statutory space
limitations.......................... 214 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average O&M cost per unit (based on FY96 data): $25,861.
[Pages 428 - 430--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Defense Intelligence Agency Missile Space Intelligence Center
Question. There is a budgeted project for a replacement
facility for the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile Space
Intelligence Center at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.
DIA says that upon completion of this project they intend to
simply return the old facility to the Army's control. What is
the Army's plan for re-use or demolition of this facility?
Answer. Future use of this facility is being re-evaluated
based on resource constraints. At this time, there are no funds
available to renovate this facility for other tenants nor is
there a tenant signed up to renovate and move into this
facility. This building will be placed in a lay-away status
when the Missile and Space Intelligence Center moves into the
new facility.
Barstow-Daggett
Question. By letter dated February 4, 1997, the Committee
was notified of the Army's intent to initiate the design of
several military construction projects, including a heliport
for Fort Irwin, to be located at Barstow Daggett, California.
However, this project is not programmed for construction
funding until fiscal year 1999. Why is it programmed in fiscal
year 1999, rather than fiscal year 1998?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 was the earliest timeframe for
programming the project given constrained resources and
timeline for negotiating use of property and possible cost
sharing with county and state officials..
Question. Submit for the record a history of funds
appropriated to date for efforts at Barstow-Daggett.
Answer. The Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1995,
includes $10 million for the airfield at Barstow-Daggett. The
Military Construction Appropriation Act, 1996, includes $10
million for the airfield at Barstow-Daggett.
Question. Submit for the record a copy of the current from
1391 for this project.
Answer. Copy attached.
Question. Describe in some detail what steps have been
taken to assure that previously approved authorization and
appropriation for this project will not be allowed to expire,
and to authorize reprogramming of previously appropriated
``airfield'' funds for this ``heliport'' project.
Answer. Language for the authority to use existing
authorization of $10 million for an airhead at Barstow-Daggett
to be used for the construction of a heliport at the same
location has been submitted on 12 March 1997. The language
allows the first phase of the project ($20 million) to be
executed upon completion of the project design in FY98.
Question. What is the current status of the environmental
study and other work related to the possible land acquisition
for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin?
Answer. The Real Estate Planning Report (REPR) for the
Southern Alternative was completed in February 1997. The draft
EIS was completed and distributed for public comment in
December 1996. The public comment period is open until 7 April
1997. Remaining environmental tasks include the Preliminary
Assessment Screening, the Project Mitigation Plan, the Economic
Analysis, and the Biological Protection [Fencing] Plan.
Estimated completion is September 1997.
Other engineering tasks include: Utilities Corridor
Topographic Mapping & As-Builts, Highway 127 Topographic
Mapping, and Berms Feasibility Study. It is estimated these
tasks will be completed in September 1997.
Question. What is the current status of the report on this
subject that is due to be submitted to us by March 15?
Answer. The report to Congress on the National Training
Center Land Acquisition for the Southern Expansion is currently
under review by the Department of the Army and the Secretary of
Defense. The study will be formally submitted to the Committee
upon completion of the review.
[Pages 432 - 434--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas U.S. Disciplinary Barracks
Question. What is the current capacity of the Disciplinary
Barracks, what is the current inmate population, and why will
the replacement facility have a capacity of 512?
Answer. The capacity of the current Disciplinary Barracks
(USDB) is 1503 inmates for minimum, medium and maximum
confinement. The current population is 1030 inmates which
includes trustee personnel. The prison population is being
reduced by 500 based on agreement with the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. The new USDB will have a design capacity of 512
inmates for minimum, medium and maximum security prisoners. It
is expected that upon completion the new USDB will have an
occupancy rate of 400-450 inmates.
Question. Can the replacement facility accommodate all
existing vocational training programs?
Answer. The replacement facility is designed to accommodate
all existing vocational programs at the USDB. It is meant to be
self-sustaining as is the current facility.
Question. What is the potential cost and scope for
expansion of the new facility beyond the budgeted project?
Answer. There is no proposal to expand the scope of the new
facility. It is expected that upon completion, the new USDB
will have an occupancy rate of 400-450 inmates. If the need
arises because of overcrowding, we expect that regional
facilities can absorb some inmates based on length of sentence,
type of offense, and available bed space.
Question. Why is full funding required in a single year?
Answer. The new USDB is requested in a single year because
it is intended to be a complete and useable facility complex.
Upon completion, the entire function and population of the
existing USDB (minus inmates transferred to the Federal Bureau
of Prisons) would be transferred to the new facility. Partial
or phased funding (and occupancy) would require extensive
transportation, and associated risks, to move inmates between
confinement and support facilities on a daily basis. It would
also require both facilities to be maintained and operated
during the transition period.
Question. The form 1391 shows a construction start date of
12/97. How much construction can be put in place during fiscal
year 1998?
Answer. Current estimate is $20 million and will be put in
place during fiscal year 1998.
Question. Why is the proposed site for the new facility so distant
from the existing Disciplinary Barracks?
Answer. The site is the nearest location that will meet
requirements for the correctional facility as well as providing a
suitable construction site.
Question. To what extent does this drive up costs--for such items
as roads and utilities, and for Operation and Maintenance
considerations such as additional costs for transportation of people
and things.
Answer. Going to an unprepared site can increase the cost of
supporting facilities such as roads and utilities. However, operation
and maintenance costs are not expected to be significantly affected by
site selection.
The Army considered two sites. The site chosen avoided $7 million
in additional costs that would have been required to prepare the
original site.
Question. What is the plan for re-use or demolition of the existing
Disciplinary Barracks?
Answer. Upon completion of the new facility the existing facility
complex will be demolished pending environmental (historical) concerns.
There is no current plan to re-use the existing facilities. However,
since the National Park Service and the Advisory Council of Historic
Preservation has designated the USDB a significant historic structure,
the Army must adhere to the process prescribed in Section 106 of
National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, a NEPA analysis is
required which can be conducted parallel to the historic process.
Question. Why do we need a confinement facility? What other
operations were examined, such as expanded regional military
confinement facilities, or confinement in non-military federal
institutions? Could the entire facility and operation be privatized?
Answer. Sec 951, Title 10, USC allows the Secretary to establish a
confinement facility for violators of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, however, in that event one of the responsibilities of the
Secretary state he shall ``. . . provide for education, training,
rehabilitation and welfare of offenders confined in a military
correctional facility . . .'' The Army is the executive agent to
confine prisoners for all Services. This is accomplished at the U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. Alternatives to repair the
``Castle'' were developed and an economic analysis performed. The
analysis showed that, over a 25-year life cycle, the least expensive
alternative is to construct a new facility. Regional facilities can not
replace the USDB. The regional facilities have an occupancy rate of
approximately 75% and are unable to absorb all or even the majority of
the remaining 500 medium and maximum security inmates at the USDB.
Level 2 facilities (confinement less than 5 years) are not capable of
handling maximum security inmates on a long-term basis. The Federal
Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) can't accept all the USDB inmates. More than
half the current inmates are undergoing the appellate process, have not
been formally discharged from the military and are not eligible for
transfer to the FBOP. Military prisoners who retain their active
military status remain subject to the military justice system. Also,
the FBOP is already overcrowded and to take all military inmates would
exacerbate the shortage. The FBOP did agree to transfer of 500 inmates.
If the mission was to be privatized, DoD would still be asked to
provide a facility for the current population at the USDB.
Question. The current Disciplinary Barracks were built with inmate
labor, and it has held up quite well for nearly a century. How large
was the inmate workforce at the time of construction, and how long did
it take to complete construction?
Answer. The existing Castle facility was constructed in 7 years
(1908-1915). Interior finish work continued through the early 1940s.
Construction methods were very poor, as evidenced by the insufficient
reinforcing steel in the structural concrete and the ``low-fired''
bricks used in the exterior walls (allow moisture to penetrate and
crumble under heavy loads).
Question. Can this project be justified on purely economic
grounds--avoid O&M costs, more efficient manpower utilization, and so
forth?
Answer. Yes. The construction of a new USDB to a more efficient
design will save approximately 290 military police spaces and 35
civilian spaces for a projected cost savings of $4.8 million dollars/
year. Additional savings will be realized in the area of staff support
(e.g., housing, barracks). Using inmate labor to save the Army money by
BASOPs off-sets, repairing TA-50 and other equipment, millwork, etc.,
was key to the Army's decision last August. Centralized management of
inmate labor in one facility, and efficient design of the new prison
make it a Win-Win situation for the Army.
Question. The Army often claims considerable success at
rehabilitating inmates at the Disciplinary Barracks. What are the
limitations of trying to measure recidivism in this unique population?
Answer. The Army currently tracks recidivism (subsequent re-arrest
by police) of those inmates that are released on parole. There are no
official records or completed studies examining the recidivism rate of
all military inmates released. A study has been initiated which is
examining the recidivism rate of all military inmates released from
1990 to 1995 (five-year period). Initial indications are the recidivism
rate is 7.3%, based on 1,544 inmates released and 113 which have been
re-arrested. The study, when completed, will further identify types of
offenses and background history of offenders.
Question. What is the current value of inmate labor in the
operation of Fort Leavenworth? Would this increase, decrease, or remain
constant upon completion of this project?
Answer. In 1996, USDB BASOPs offset due to inmate labor was $2.5
million, and FY 97 projection is $2.8 million. These figures do not
include installation NAF support details that include inmate labor at
the recycling center, stables, kennels, and auto craft shop. It is
projected to remain constant upon completion of the project.
Question. Three major assessments were performed in 1991, 1992, and
1994. Summarize for us the findings of these assessments.
Answer. 1991: Finney and Turnipseed, Topeka, KS. The castle was
evaluated for gravity, wind, and seismic load capacity. The criteria
used was the Army seismic criteria at that time, which reflected the
requirements for new construction. Its recommended repairs include;
partial replacement of exterior walls; connect floors to walls;
reconstruct tiers in domicile wings; replace overstressed floor slabs;
install seismic joints; strengthen foundations; strengthen overstressed
structural members; and improve moisture protection by tuckpointing and
replacing spalled and cracked masonry and concrete. The estimated cost
for repairs was $200 million.
1992: Kansas City District, K.C., Mo. This study reexamined the
seismic portion of the 1991 study to reflect the most current seismic
criteria recommendations for existing buildings as promulgated under
FEMA-178, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. The goal was
hazard reduction but at a higher risk of damage. State of the art
seismic reinforcement techniques were also incorporated to reduce the
overall cost of the repairs to $63.3 million. The gravity load and
envelope repairs were the same as the 1991 study. The main seismic
repairs consisted of core drilling the walls to add reinforcement and
underpinning the foundations to resist seismic uplift.
1994: Kuhlman Design Group, Maryland Heights, MO. The intent of
this study was to use a different analysis technique (computer
modeling) to independently validate the 1991 study. Since the 1991
study identified similar structural problems throughout all wings of
the Castle, the 1994 study modeled a typical Castle domicile wing. It
also focused on earthquake forces, since any reinforcement made to
withstand those forces would also strengthen the structure against
horizontal wind loads. The Kuhlman study indicated that the existing
Castle could not withstand an earthquake measuring more than 4.8 on the
Richter scale. Even though only 2 earthquakes of that approximate
magnitude have occurred Kansas within the last 125 years and both were
centered over 75 miles away. Modern building codes require that large
structures such as prisons in this region be constructed to withstand
earthquakes of this intensity.
Question. What further assessments could be performed to confirm
possible areas of concern? At what cost and how long would it take?
Answer. We believe nothing would be gained by further studies.
Question. What changes have been observed and documented since the
1994 assessment?
Answer. In 1995, a structural firm conducted a baseline assessment
of the structural situation within the USDB. They installed movement
gauges on the 9 major cracks throughout the building. Readings of the
gauges reveal only negligible movement since 1995.
FT Huachuca, Arizona Whole Barrakcs Complex Renewal ($20,000,000)
Question. What is the cost for demolition of the three existing
barracks buildings?
Answer. Estimated cost for demolition is $287,000.
Question. Will this be funded within this project, or elsewhere?
Answer. The estimated demolition cost is included within the
estimated project cost.
Fort Carson, Colorado Close Combat Tactical Trainer Building
($7,300,000)
Question. This project provides the first facility of a combined
arms tactical training (CATT) system complex. What are the future
military construction requirements for this complex?
Answer. The family of training systems encompassing the CATT are
being developed over an extended period of years utilizing shared
technologies and at collated, linked or stand alone sites. Currently
there are four other programs in various stages of development with no
definitive projects identified to date.
Question. Why weren't other projects included in the fiscal year
1998 program?
Answer. Projects for the remaining four phases are being phased in
according to the development of the corresponding shared technologies,
hardware requirements, and production schedules which have not been
finalized.
Fort Gordon, Georgia--Whole Barracks Complex Renewal ($22,000,000)
Question. This project includes a ``soldier community building,''
at a cost of $1,721,000. Please describe this item in some detail.
Answer. Under the 1+1 barracks complex standard a soldier community
facility is provided for soldiers to handle common service items which
includes a washer and dryer area, a mud room for cleaning heavily
soiled items from an exercise, visitors meeting lounge, activity/game
room area and bulk item storage facilities.
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii--Whole Barracks Complex Renewal
($44,000,000)
Question. This project involves the demolition of 26 buildings.
Briefly describe the buildings that will be demolished.
Answer. The facilities to be demolished consist of old wooden
storage houses built in 1921.
Crane Army Ammunition Activity, Indiana--Ammunition Containerization
Complex Phase I ($7,700,000)
Question. This project will have Phase II which is programmed in
fiscal year 1999. Why wasn't this second phase included in the fiscal
year 1998 program?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 project is a separate distinct phase
from that requested in 1998. Funding constraints require this follow-on
phase to be programmed next.
Concord Naval Weapons Station, California--Ordnance Support Facility
($23,000,000)
Question. What is the basis for the estimated cost for the land
acquisition that is included in this project?
Answer. The railroad land purchase is integral to the project to
incorporate the existing tracks into a rail serviced container transfer
and holding complex. A portion of the existing right-of-way is in the
footprint of the improvements and some existing trackage will be
incorporated into the improvements. Proposed construction by the Army
will render the remaining portions of the tracks unusable by the Union
Pacific Railroad. Purchase of the land will eliminate a high risk
position for the Government in future negotiations should the right of
way be obtained by lease. The current cost estimate is based on a
market analysis which determined the present appraised value.
Fort Riley, Kansas--Closed Combat Tactical Trainer Building
($7,300,000)
Question. Describe in some detail the ``special foundation work''
that is required for this project.
Answer. Site soil conditions indicate an expansive clay type soil
which requires the design agency to provide either pile footings or
extra thick floating floor slab as a construction solution.
Question. This project will complete a complex started in fiscal
year 1996. Is the demolition of existing facilities included in this
project?
Answer. There are two facilities to demolish under this phase
included in this project.
Question. If so, what are the demolition costs, and how will it be
funded?
Answer. The demolition costs are estimated at $452,000 and have
been included in the estimated total project cost for this project, as
shown on the DD Form 1391.
Fort Sam Houston, Texas--Whole Barracks Complex Renewal ($16,000,000)
Question. The DD Form 1391 shows that this project is only 5
percent designed as of January 1997. Isn't there a requirement of 35
percent prior to budge submission?
Answer. The Army has adopted the use of parametric estimates, with
congressional approval, commencing with fiscal year 1998 program and
they are now used in lieu of a 35 percent design. A parametric estimate
is considered an equivalent project cost estimating tool and the DD
Form 1391 reflects that a parametric estimate has been performed for
this project.
Environmental Compliance
Question. How large is the backlog of requirements for
environmental compliance projects, and how long will it take to buy-out
this backlog?
Answer. The Army National Guard compliance backlog is $74 million.
Funding to the levels listed below will adequately fund all recurring
and programmed compliance requirements, as well as buy out this backlog
over the next three years.
FY 1998: $121 M including $20 M Buy-out.
FY 1999: $117 M including $30 M Buy-out.
FY 2000: $112 M including $24 M Buy-out.
Expiring Authorizations--Army National Guard
Question. For projects that have been previously appropriated but
not yet executed, list any authorizations that will expire in 1997,
1998, or 1999, if any identifying the year of expiration.
Answer. 1997: Barracks, Fort Indiantown Gap, PA.
1998: None.
1999: None
Excess Prior Year Authorization
Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization, if any?
Answer. At the end of Fiscal Year 1997, the Army National Guard
anticipates $5.9 million in residual prior year authorization.
Army National Guard End-Strength
Question. What is the authorized end-strength for 1996 and 1997,
and the projected end-strength for 1998?
Answer. The authorized end strength for the Army National Guard was
375,000 in FY 1996, (actual total was 369,976); and 366,516 in FY 1997.
The projected end-strength for FY 1998 is 366,516.
Base Closure--Army National Guard
Question. For the record, list the locations where facilities were
transferred to the National Guard components under base realignment and
closure.
Answer. There have not been any transfers to the Army National
Guard at this time. The Army National Guard, through the Adjutants
General of four States is in the process of receiving the following
installations: Ft. Pickett, VA and Ft. Chaffee, AR on 1 October 1997;
Ft. Indiantown Gap, PA on 1 October 1998; and Ft. McClellan, AL on 1
October 1999.
Question. What increases in facility requirements have resulted
from such transfers?
Answer. The Army National Guard has assumed all recurring costs to
operate and maintain the facilities on these sites. In addition, it
assumes responsibility for all existing backlog of maintenance and
repair.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the National
Guard components under base realignment and closure, are the BRAC
accounts fully meeting the construction requirements at those
locations?
Answer. Again, no facilities have been transferred yet. However,
there is one construction project required at Ft. McClellan. When its
scope is finalized, we will have a better indication of whether the
BRAC accounts can fund it.
Question. How far have such transfers gone toward resolving
facilities shortages for the National Guard components?
Answer. The transfers have had no impact on Army National Guard
facility shortages. The Army was fulfilling an existing requirement to
train the Army National Guard. This requirement has not changed, but
not the Army National Guard will run the installments.
Army National Guard Inventory
Question. What is the value of the current physical plant, and the
types, numbers, and average age of facilities?
Answer. The current plant replacement value of the Army National
Guard's physical plant is $16.3 billion. Of this, $7.9 billion is in
armories, $4.2 billion is in training facilities, $2.8 billion is in
logistical facilities, and $1.4 billion is in aviation facilities. The
average age of these facilities is 36 years. These facilities contain
65.8 million square feet which the Federal government supports, and
67.0 million square feet which the State's exclusively support. Among
these facilities are 3,214 armories, 241 United States Property and
Fiscal Officer facilities, 121 Army Aviation facilities, 4 Aviation
Classification and Repair Depots, 701 Organizational Maintenance Shops,
69 Combined Support Maintenance Shops, 24 Mobilization and Training
Equipment Sites, 40 Unit Training and Equipment Sites, 10,576 training
facilities, and 4,520 miscellaneous logistical facilities.
Backlog--Army National Guard
Question. What is the current backlog of facility requirements?
[Clerk's note.--The following report, dated April 9, 1997,
was submitted subsequent to the hearing. The Army National
Guard's response to the above question was the submission of
pages 12 through 27 of the report, excluding the first eleven
projects (which were contained within the fiscal year 1998
budget request). The report was directed by House Report No.
104-563, the House Report to accompany the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The report itemizes 788
unfunded projects, totaling $3,485,117,380, beyond those
projects currently programmed through Fiscal Year 2003 in the
Future Years Defense Program.
Note the Army National Guard's response to the following
question, regarding the history of the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.]
[Pages 440 - 469--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
History of Budget Request--Army National Guard
Question. Submit for the record a chart which will show the
history of the fiscal year 1998 budget request [aggregate total
only, not a project listing]. At a minimum, this chart should
display the amount approved by the National Guard Bureau, the
amount approved by the Army, the amount approved by the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, and the amount approved by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Answer.
FY 1998 Budget Cycle
[In millions of dollars]
Army National Guard requirement............................... 454.000
Initial submission to Army/OSD................................ 7.049
Final submission to Army/OSD.................................. 45.098
Submission to Congress........................................ 45.098
Question. How much would be required to keep even with facilities
needs?
Answer. Given an estimated plant replacement value of $17.2 billion
for FY 1998, it would take $398 million annually to provide facilities
for new missions, replacement, and revitalization. This figure also
includes the funds required for the planning and design effort.
Family Housing--Army National Guard
Question. List the locations and number of units of family housing
occupied by the National Guard components.
Answer. The Army National Guard has no family housing.
National Guard Backlog of Maintenance Repair
Question. What is the current backlog of maintenance and repair
funded under the operations and maintenance accounts, by component?
Answer. The Army National Guard backlog of maintenance and repair
for FY 1997 is approximately $322.1 million.
Question. What is the annual funding requirement to avoid growth of
the backlog?
Answer. To avoid growth in the Army National Guard's backlog of
Maintenance and Repair in FY 1998, the annual funding requirement will
be $333.3 million.
Parametric cost Estimates--Army National Guard
Question. To what extent do you rely on parametric cost estimation
in the design of military construction projects?
Answer. The Army National Guard uses parametric design to establish
the initial scope of projects. Parametric cost estimation is used to
develop the initial cost estimate for projects.
Question. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of
parametric design estimates?
Answer. We find parametric design estimates are accurate for
establishing the scope for facilities which the Army National Guard
routinely constructs. For example, readiness centers and maintenance
shops are routinely constructed. In these cases a parametric design can
be 95% accurate for determining the required square footage. For unique
facilities that have never, or rarely been constructed, parametric
designs are not as accurate.
[Pages 471 - 472--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. Has this appropriation met the needs of the
components over the last two years?
Answer. The Army National Guard has made the best possible
use of minor construction funds. However, many worthy projects
have been deferred due to constrained resources.
Question. What shortfalls, if any, have been encountered?
Answer. The FY 1997 Congressional language directed what the Army
National Guard would fund with its FY 1997 unspecified minor
construction funds. Because of this, the following projects were
deferred to future years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Location Project ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP ROBERTS, CA..................... HAND GRENADE QUALIFICATION 124
COURSE.
STONES RANCH, CT................... TNG SITE, AMMO BUNKERS.... 387
ELBERTON, GA....................... ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE 319
SHOP ADD.
SAVANNAH, GA....................... ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE 147
SHOP ADD/ALT.
CP BEAUREGARD, LA.................. ARMY AVIATION SUPPORT 353
FACILITY, INTERIM
FACILITY.
WESTOVER AFB, MA................... FLIGHT SIMULATION BLDG 363
RENOVATION.
CP ASHLAND, NE..................... WASH RACK UPGRADE......... 174
FT DIX, NJ......................... REGIONAL TRAINING SITE, 186
MAINTENANCE ENGINE ROOM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard Demolition of Unneeded Facilities
Question. How large is the inventory of unneeded facilities
awaiting demolition?
Answer. The current inventory indicates that 758,721 square feet
require demolition.
Question. Is the work funded exclusively under the operations and
maintenance account?
Answer. No, demolition is part of major construction when an
existing facility is being replaced by new construction.
Question. How will this work be tracked to ensure that funds are
used for demolition?
Answer. The Army National Guard has established two Army Management
Structure codes exclusively for demolition not associated with new
construction: one for facilities that receive 100% Federal support, and
one for facilities that receive a 25% State match.
Question. What is the level of effort for this work for fiscal year
1997?
Answer. The current estimate for demolition requirements is $3.3
million. Because of funding constraints in performing demolition not
associated with new construction, we estimate less than $100,000 in
demolition will actually take place in FY 1997.
[Pages 474 - 487--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Facility Definition--Army National Guard
Question. What difference is there, if any, between an armory and a
readiness center?
Answer. There is no difference between an armory and a readiness
center. Either facility is a structure that houses one or more units of
the Army National Guard and is used for home station training and
administration of those units. However, in recent years, armory
utilization has been greatly enhanced to support the expanded role of
the Army National Guard in the Total Army mission. The term readiness
center calls attention to this expanded role. Readiness centers in the
Army National Guard are oriented toward the training and mobilization
of the citizen-soldier. Training focuses on individual, squad, crew,
team and leader training with the NCO as the primary trainer, using
simulators, distance learning and other technologies to achieve and
sustain qualification of the individual soldier. The readiness center
also provides our soldiers with a sustainable, accessible and secure
base from which they can rapidly mobilize and deploy in times of need.
State Master Plans--Army National Guard
Question. Bring us up to date with the current status of the
National Guard Bureau's five-year program to fund development of state
master plans.
Answer. A program is in place to fund five States in FY 1997, with
twelve States each fiscal year thereafter. This program will provide
the States with a State wide Master Plan and software to aid in Real
Property development. The Real Property Maintenance Plan is a dynamic
document, a continually evolving source of guidance for Real Property
decision making in the State.
Question. Which states will be funded in fiscal year 1997?
Answer. The selected States are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
and North Dakota.
Question. Why is this effort funded under the O&M account, rather
than under Military Construction planning and design?
Answer. Military Construction planning and design funds are to be
used to design specific projects. The goal of Master Planning is to aid
in Real Property decision making, not to design specific projects.
Question. Does the National Guard Bureau currently have access to
each State's 10-year Long Range Construction Plan?
Answer. Yes, not only do we have access, but we maintain a copy of
each State's Long Range Construction Program.
Environmental Compliance--Army Reserve
Question. How large is the backlog of requirements for
environmental compliance projects, and how long will it take to buy out
this backlog?
Answer. The Army Reserve's backlog of unfunded compliance
requirements is approximately $12 million. This unfunded backlog
consists of Class II and Class III compliance actions that are not
classified as ``must fund'' requirements. Additional funding in the
amount of $3 million per year would permit this backlog to be
eliminated in about four years.
Expiring Authorizations--Army Reserve
Question. For projects that have been previously appropriated, but
not yet executed, list any authorizations that will expire in 1997,
1998, or 1999, if any, identifying the year of expiration.
Answer. Army Reserve projects meeting this criteria are listed
below. These projects are all scheduled for award in fiscal year 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pgm amt
Appn year Location ($000) Auth expires
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................... Olathe, KS................. 539 30 Sep 98
1997.................................... Buffalo, MN................ 4260 30 Sep 99
1997.................................... Ft Bragg, NC............... 9966 30 Sep 99
1997.................................... Geneva, PA................. 9352 30 Sep 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Army Reserve
Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization, if any?
Answer. For all fiscal years through FY 1997, Army Reserve military
construction authorizations exceed appropriations by $788,000. This
excess prior year authorization will expire on 30 September 1998.
Army Reserve End Strength
Question. What is the authorized end strength for 1996 and 1997,
and the projected end strength for 1997?
Answer. The authorized end strength for the Army Reserve is 230,000
for FY 1996 and 215, 179 for FY 1997. The projected end strength for
the Army Reserve as of September 30, 1997 is 210,950.
Base Closure--Army Reserve
Question. For the record, list the locations where facilities were
transferred to the Reserve Components under base realignment and
closure.
Answer. As a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the
Army Reserve has acquired facilities (transfers from other services) at
the following locations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona....................... Williams Air Force BRAC 91
Base.
Ohio.......................... Rickenbacker ANG Base BRAC 91
South Carolina................ Myrtle Beach Air BRAC 91
Force Base.
New York...................... Naval Station, New BRAC 93
York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What increases in facility requirements have resulted
from such transfers?
Answer. Army Reserve facility requirements have generally been
reduced as a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions. The
Army Reserve has been able to consolidate some activities and eliminate
some leased facilities, thereby reducing operation and maintenance
costs.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the reserve
components under base realignment and closure, are the BRAC accounts
fully meeting the construction requirements at those locations?
Answer. To date, Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) accounts have
funded Army Reserve military construction requirements arising solely
out of base closure actions.
Question. How far have such transfers gone toward resolving
facilities shortages for the reserve components?
Answer. The BRAC program has had a negligible effect on the
military construction backlog. Most facilities retained for Army
Reserve use at Reserve Component (RC) enclaves were already occupied by
Reserve units. However, in four cases, additional buildings were
acquired to alleviate existing space shortages.
Inventory--Army Reserve
Question. What is the value of the current physical plant, and the
types, numbers, and average age of facilities?
Answer. The plant replacement value (PRV) and average age of Army
Reserve facilities are estimated at $3.6 billion and 32 years,
respectively. The PRV and average age of facilities at Army
installations commanded and controlled by the Army Reserve is estimated
at $1.9 billion and 47 years, respectively. Major functional activities
include 925 U.S. Army Reserve Centers, 107 Joint Armed Forces Reserve
Centers, 112 Area Maintenance Support Activities, 28 Aviation Support
Facilities, 24 Equipment Concentration Sites, and 12 Regional Training
Sites.
Army Reserve Backlog
Question. What is the current backlog of facility requirements?
Answer. The total military construction (MILCON) backlog for Army
Reserve facilities and Army installations under Army Reserve command
and control is estimated at $1.9 billion.
Question. How much would be required annually to keep even with
facilities needs?
Answer. The Army Reserve has a total annual requirement of $96
million just to meet revitalization needs for its facilities and
installations. The revitalization needs represent the minimum essential
requirements to prevent further deterioration of the inventory.
Army Reserve Family Housing
Question. List the location and number of units of family housing
occupied by the reserve components.
Answer. Most full-time support assignments in the Army Reserve are
with troop program units located in civilian communities all over
America. Government-furnished family housing will usually not be
available in these locations. Where government housing is available,
all active duty soldiers, including Active Guard/Reserve (AGR)
personnel, are considered for family housing in accordance with
applicable regulations of the respective Services operating the family
housing units. The Army Reserve does not maintain a centralized
database or any other upward reporting system for family housing
information on individual soldiers.
Army Reserve Backlog of Maintenance and Repair
Question. What is the current backlog of maintenance and repair
funded under the operations and maintenance accounts, by component?
Answer. The backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) for Army
Reserve facilities is currently estimated at $125 million. The BMAR for
Army installations under Army Reserve command and control is currently
estimated at $56 million.
Question. What is the annual funding requirement to avoid growth of
the backlog?
Answer. Annual maintenance and repair funding requirements to
prevent growth of the backlog of maintenance and repair are $115
million for Reserve facilities and $49 million for Army installations
under Army Reserve command and control.
Parametric Cost Estimates--Army Reserve
Question. To what extent do you rely on parametric cost estimation
in the design of military construction projects?
Answer. The Army Reserve is using the Modular Design System (MDS)
for all new military construction designs. The ``front end'' of the MDS
software contains a ``programmer's package'', which facilitates
development of the project scope and building layouts. This portion of
the software uses parametric cost estimating to generate project cost
estimates very early in the design process.
Question. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of
parametric design estimates?
Answer. The Army Reserve is very confident in the accuracy of
parametric cost estimating functions and capabilities of the MDS
software. The programmer's package produces a preliminary cost estimate
very early in the design process that is at least as accurate as a 35%
design estimate in a traditional design.
[Page 491--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. Has this appropriation met the needs over the last two
years?
Answer. The Army Reserve's unspecified minor construction
appropriation has been adequate to meet identified needs.
Question. What shortfalls, if any, have been encountered?
Answer. No shortfalls exist in available funding at this time.
Army Reserve Demolition of Unneeded Facilities
Question. How large is the inventory of unneeded facilities
awaiting demolition?
Answer. The Army Reserve does not demolish unneeded reserve
centers. There facilities are reported as excess and disposed of on the
local market. At Army installations under Army Reserve command and
control, about 290,000 square feet of World War II structures are
planned for demolition at a estimated cost of $2.1 million.
Question. Is the work funded exclusively under the operations and
maintenance account?
Answer. Demolition is funded under operations and maintenance
accounts, except when buildings are being demolished within the
footprint of a new facilities being constructed using military
construction accounts.
Question. How will this work be tracked to ensure that funds are
used for demolition?
Answer. The Integrated Facilities System--Mini/Micro (IFS-M) is
used to track the demolition program and funding.
Question. What is the level of effort of this work in fiscal year
1997?
Answer. Demolition of World War II structures at Army Reserve
installations will be accomplished subject to the availability of funds
at the end of the fiscal year.
Reprogrammings--Army Reserve
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by fiscal
year, the total amount approved by Congress for reprogrammings for the
last five years.
Answer. Congress approved the following total amounts for
reprogrammings for the Army Reserve:
Total amount
Fiscal year of funds approved by Congress
1992.................................................... $2,960,948
1993.................................................... $3,481,000
1994.................................................... $6,308,452
1995.................................................... None to Date
1996.................................................... None to Date
Projects No Longer Required--Army Reserve
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation or in the prior years'
unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignment and closure, mission changes,
bilateral and multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include
on the list military construction projects, family housing construction
and construction improvement projects, and projects financed under the
base realignment and closure accounts.
Answer. The Army Reserve has canceled six prior-year, unawarded
projects as a result of force structure changes, training mission
changes, and non-availability of suitable land:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year State Location Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................................ Arizona................. Ft. Chaffee............. Regional Training Site
(RTS) Medical.
1990................................ Massachusetts........... Ft. Devens.............. RTS Maintenance.
1990................................ Pennsylvania............ Ft. Indiantown Gap...... RTS Maintenance.
1991................................ Arizona................. Ft. Chaffee............. RTS Maintenance.
1991................................ Minnesota............... Walker.................. USARC/OMS.
1993................................ West Virginia........... Weirton................. USARC/OMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve Unobligated Balances
Question. What is being done to improve execution rates and to
avoid large unobligated balances?
Answer. Army Reserve major construction program execution is 100
percent for fiscal year (FY) 1995 and prior years. For FY 1996, only
one line item remains to be executed: a land acquisition valued at
$539,000. The FY 1997 program is on schedule for 100 percent execution.
The Army Reserve is using the Modular Design System (MDS) to improve
the ability to execute projects in the year of funding.
Question. For the record, submit a list of all projects for which
funds were previously appropriated, but which have not yet been
executed. This list should include, at a minimum, the year in which
funds were appropriated and the estimated contract award date.
Answer. The Army Reserve has only one project, a land acquisition,
that meets this criteria:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year State Location Pgm amt Sched awd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................ Kansas............. Olathe............ $539,000 June 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento, California, U.S. Army Reserve Center ($13,072,000)
Question. The budget requests an appropriation of $13,072,000 and
an authorization of $20,972,000 for an Army Reserve Center in
Sacramento, California. Why is there a difference in these amounts?
Answer. The Department of Defense directed the Army Reserve to
finance $7.9 million of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 budget from prior
year unobligated funds. The reduction in appropriation request was
applied to this one project. The total estimated cost of the project,
equal to the authorization request, is $20,972,000. This information is
displayed on the DD Form 1391.
Question. For the record, submit a form 1391 totalling $20,972,000
for this project.
Answer. The DD Form 1391 contained in the budget request shows the
full cost of the project to be $20,972,000. A revised DD 1391,
reflecting an appropriation request of $20,972,000, is submitted as a
separate attachment.
[Page 494--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. For the record, submit three forms 1391 (totaling
whatever is required) to fund this as three separate projects--
an Army Reserve Center, an Organizational Maintenance Shop, and
an Area Maintenance Support Activity.
Answer. The Army Reserve submits as a separate attachment
two DD Forms 1391 for only two projects, not three--An Army
Reserve Center and a combined Organizational Maintenance Shop
(OMS) and Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA), referred to
as an OMS/AMSA. It is neither economically wise nor desired to
construct two separate buildings on the same site in which
similar and concurrent maintenance activities would be
performed. OMS activities are those performed by the tenant
reserve unit personnel, including full-time military members.
An AMSA is a maintenance activity staffed by civilian personnel
who provide support to reserve units on a full-time basis.
[Pages 496 - 497--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin Army Reserve Readiness Training Center Phase II
($14,856,000)
Question. Why is this project tallied in the ``C-1'' as a
training facility, rather than as a troop housing facility,
since this phase of construction covers only billeting?
Answer. The Army Reserve originally developed the Army
Reserve Readiness Training Center (ARRTC) as a single project
in 1989. Forces Command directed the phasing at a later date.
Phase I provided for the main training building, and Phase II
provides for the billeting portion of the project. This
structure provides transient billeting for over 8,500 students
attending various courses at the ARRTC throughout the year. The
facility does not house permanent party personnel, but is
considered an essential and integral part of the training
facility. Therefore the Army Reserve did not code the project
as a troop housing facility.
Planning Process
Question. We have talked personally about my desire for a
firm planning process and I know you share my concern. I was
interested to learn last week that while the Army National
Guard claims to have a construction backlog of over $4 billion
they have no concrete or orderly plan to eliminate the backlog.
Mr. Walker, what can we do and what needs to be done about the
lack of support and funding requested by the Department to have
each component place a strong emphasis on the need for long-
term plans and the need to adhere to them?
Answer. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has
fully supported the Army's long-term barracks and strategic
mobility construction programs. For remaining infrastructure,
the Army's construction backlog requirement is based on a 25-
year buyout of the deficit and maintaining a 57-year
revitalization cycle for existing facilities. Funding is
insufficient to achieve these goals, however, by focusing
available resources we have accelerated our barracks upgrade
program for completion in 2012 and we will complete strategic
mobility construction with the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP)
ending in fiscal year 2003.
Current funding levels for Family Housing do not permit us
to ever buy out the backlog of construction. To compensate, we
are vigorously pursuing the Military Housing Privatization Act
authorities passed in fiscal year 1996 to leverage private
capital against our requirements and improve the quality of
housing for our soldiers and their families.
We need your support of the projects we have requested in
the budget to stay on track with the programs we have funded,
both in the United States and overseas.
The Army National Guard requires each State to submit a
Long Range Construction Program annually. The Army National
Guard then creates a Future Years Defense Plan by prioritizing
the projects from all the State programs based upon the
priority of the units the projects support, the design status
of the projects, and the State priority. The highest weight
goes to unit priority and because the Army National Guard force
structure is in flux, a project's place on the Future Years
Defense Plan is likely to change from year to year. Moreover,
starting in Fiscal Year 1997, the Army National Guard is
providing the States an additional planning tool by funding,
over five years, a master plan for each State. However, this of
itself will not reduce the construction backlog. Quite simply
there are insufficient funds within the Army as a whole to make
a dent in a construction backlog that exceeds $1.3 billion for
the Army National Guard alone. That is, assuming no inflation,
to reduce the current backlog over even 10 years would require
$130 million for construction and $39 million for planning and
design. During this same period, a new backlog of equal or
greater significance would develop. This does not include the
requirement of $3.5 billion in revitalization projects in the
current Long Range Construction Plan.
The Army Reserve does have a long-term plan to eliminate
its construction backlog. However, the reason that this backlog
cannot be eliminated as quickly as might otherwise be desirable
is due to the limited funds made available for this program due
to the fiscal realities that the Army faces from a constrained
budget. This does not mean that Army Reserve projects are not
being supported by the Army leadership; the Army Reserve's
highest priority projects are, in fact, fully funded. It does
mean that budget realities preclude the funding of many
worthwhile projects with a lower priority.
Infrastructure Requirements
Question. What emphasis is the Army placing on the growing problem
of infrastructure replacement? In particular, when you do a whole
barracks renewal are infrastructure deficiencies addressed?
Answer. The Army addresses deficiencies in infrastructure when
planning and constructing whole barracks renewal projects so that the
resulting project is complete and useable. The Strategic Mobility
program also constructs infrastructure to enhance deployment of the
Forces such as railheads and airfield upgrades and roads. For other
than barracks and Strategic Mobility, projects compete for available
funding based on contribution to readiness, mission support and urgency
of need. Projects specifically related to infrastructure repair may
receive funding if they are of high enough priority.
The Army is also attempting to solve utility infrastructure
problems through privatization efforts, with the goal to privatize at
least 75% of all utilities. For central heating plants not feasible to
privatize, the Army will begin a five year program in 1998 to modernize
and repair those systems.
Family Housing Maintenance
Question. The budget includes a reduction of $57.5 million from the
enacted levels for family housing maintenance. This is after a
reduction of over $106 million in fiscal year 1997. Is this budget
adequate to address the tremendous need for maintenance and repair of
existing units?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 Army Family Housing maintenance and
repair budget represents 94 percent of the sustainment level of
funding. The sustainment level represent the amount necessary to
maintain our dwelling units at their current condition with no
improvement and no deterioration. This budgeted amount will keep units
open but not stop the continuing deterioration of the inventory. In
regard to the total maintenance and repair requirement, the fiscal year
1998 budget represents 72 percent of the requirement.
Privatization
Question. Describe for us what the Army plans to accomplish through
its various privatization efforts
Answer. The Army is aggressively pursuing privatization of
utilities and housing. We now have 12 utility systems privatized, and
over 100 at various stages of study. Our goal is to privatize 100
percent of the natural gas systems because of the risk to life and
safety, and 75 percent of all remaining utility systems by the Year
2003. We have the Fort Carson Request for Proposal, and 14 other
installations in various stages of development for family housing
privatization. The lessons learned from the Fort Carson solicitation
will be applied to these and follow on privatization projects.
Barracks/Balanced Program
Question. $338 million, or 57 percent of the Army's construction
request, is for whole barracks renewal. Has the Army been able to
budget for a balanced program with emphasis on 1+1, one which provides
proper troop housing yet still meets the growing infrastructure and
operational needs?
Answer. Yes, over half of the FY98 budget request for MCA is
committed to upgrade housing for single soldiers to the ``1+1''
standard. The whole barracks renewal program is the Army's highest
priority for QOL and, as such, a great emphasis is placed on buying out
the program by 2012.
Another high priority program, receiving approximately 13 percent
of the MCA funding, is the Army Strategic Mobility Program which
constructs infrastructure to enhance deployment of the Forces such as
railheads and airfield upgrades and roads.
Remaining Army projects, not in the STRATMOB or Barracks programs,
compete for available funding based on contribution to readiness,
mission support and urgency of need. The Army feels this balance is the
best it can achieve within the limited resources available.
Demolition of Excess Facilities
Question. Last year, this committee added a total of $30 million
for the purpose of demolishing excess facilities. Unfortunately, this
initiative did not make it through conference. Is the Army placing
enough emphasis on eliminating excess facilities, and what can this
committee do to help correct the deficiencies?
Answer. Yes, the Army is still emphasizing the disposal of unneeded
infrastructure. The Army has just successfully completed a five-year
Facilities Reduction Program in which we disposed of approximately 39
million square feet of unneeded facilities, freeing up resources to
better care for our required facilities. In the Fiscal Year 1998
budget, we increased funding for infrastructure reduction to $100
million (in Operations and Maintenance/Real Property Maintenance
Accounts) and plan to continue throughout the Future Years Defense
Plan.
Total Army
Question. Mr. Walker, I realize that this question probably exceeds
your portfolio, but you are singularly qualified to give us the benefit
of your views in this area.
Is it time to review the basic mission of the Army National Guard
and the Army Reserve as members of the Total Force?
Answer. The Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve
have different and distinct missions. Because both reserve components
are an integral part of the Total Force, we are constantly reviewing,
analyzing, and assessing their missions. The Army National Guard is
designed as a balanced force which mirrors the structure and capability
of the Active Army. Because of Federal and State obligations, their
current critical role in the Total Force must be maintained. In fact,
we are seeking ways to better integrate and develop mutually supportive
activities.
Question. This is a very broad question, but we keep hearing that
the reason the Reserve Components are so active in seeking the support
of Congress is that they do not get sufficient support from the Army.
It strikes me that Army is not doing whatever it can for the Reserve
Components--and especially for the Army National Guard--it might be
because it does not value their contribution to the Total Force.
Do you know if this whole relationship between the active duty Army
and the Army and the Reserve Components will be scrutinized by the
Quadrennial Defense Review?
Answer. One of the key areas that the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) is examining is the relationship between the active duty Army and
the Reserve Component. The QDR is an OSD level look, but the Army is
establishing mechanisms to explore ways to better integrate the Active
Component and Reserve Component and then implement the best of those
findings. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations has established a
Process Action Team to develop these initiatives. The Active Army has
always recognized the value of the citizen-soldier tradition as
personified through the Army National Guard.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Packard.]
[Clerk's note.--Question for the record submitted by
Congressman Parker:]
MILCON Needs of the National Guard
Question. I am very concerned with the propensity to underfund the
Army National Guard with an apparent expectation that Congress will
plus up the funding level with add ons. What we are getting are budget
requests that do not come close to meeting the readiness and quality of
life standards that are required for the Guard's mission.
I would like to request the Army National Guard submit for the
record the military construction requirements that would be required to
upgrade the aging Guard infrastructure. The FY 1998 budget
justification identifies approximately $250 million in MILCON needs
through 2003. However, I suspect the real Army National Guard
requirements are considerably higher.
Can you quantify what the Guard's real and immediate MILCON needs
are? Can you have the Guard submit a project list that would reflect
those needs? For the record, I would expect such a list to exceed $450
million.
Answer. Following is the Army National Guard's project list:
[Clerk's note.--Note that this response is the text of
pages 12 through 27 (excluding the first eleven projects, which
were contained within the fiscal year 1998 budget request) of a
report dated April 9, 1997 that was submitted subsequent to the
hearing. The full text of the report appears earlier in this
hearings record.]
[Pages 501 - 517--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mr.
Wicker:]
Bed-Down of Avenger Air-Defense-System Units, Various Locations,
Mississippi
Question. In last years House Report 104-563, report language was
included entitled ``Military Construction to Support the Bed-down of
Avenger Air-Defense-System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi.''
This language directed the Secretary of the Army to submit the
appropriate scope and cost variation reports to the Congressional
Defense Committees as required by law.
The conversion of the National Guard Unit (1-204th Air Defense
Artillery Battalion) headquartered in Newton, is complete except for
MILCON funds needed to complete the modifications to the facility in
Morton, Mississippi and the new construction of an organizational
maintenance shop (OMS) in Decatur as directed by the Army.
How does the Army intend to fund the remaining projects and when
will the Army submit this reprogramming request? Why was it not
included in the President's Budget Request?
Answer. The source of funds to be reprogrammed can not be
determined. As reflected in the Semi-Annual Submission of Military
Construction Audit Train submitted to the Congress in November 1996,
the Army National Guard has a funding shortfall of approximately $26
million. Our first priority is to eliminate this shortfall. However,
these projects would have a high priority should additional savings
become available. The reason the remaining projects were not included
in the FY 1998 President's Budget Request was because Decatur was not
sufficiently designed.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mr. Wicker.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Meek.]
SOUTHCOM Headquarters Relocation
Question. Are there any difficulties now, or expected, with any of
the leases for the headquarters building or housing units?
Answer. There are no problems with the current building lease. The
lease is a 10 year firm term lease and is scheduled to be completed on
26 May 97, at which time the lease will be executed and SOUTHCOM will
begin occupancy. It will take approximately four months to ready the
building for full occupancy, including installing communications and
computer equipment. The lease was originally reported to the Senate
Armed Services and House National Security Committees on 28 Jul 95 and
approved by the House National Security Committee, Subcommittee on
Military Construction on 31 Aug 95. A revised acquisition report was
submitted to the same committees on 31 Jan 97 to notify the Congress of
a proposed increase in the annual rent to provide for security upgrades
and acquisition of an additional 19 acres of land adjacent to the
building for a security buffer. The security buffer and upgrades were
recommended by the Defense Special Weapons Agency following a force
protection assessment conducted in Nov 96. Committee staff members were
briefed on the recommendations on 26 Feb 97. Mr. Hefley subsequently
placed the security upgrades and buffer on hold, pending receipt of
additional information. Because the increased annual rent exceeds the
prospectus threshold prescribed for public buildings by 40 USC 606, GSA
will also have to submit a prospectus through OMB, to the House and
Senate Public Works committees for approval.
Housing for the 8 key and essential personnel must still be funded.
The Army proposes to lease the houses beginning in Aug 97, pending
receipt of authority and appropriations to purchase them. DOD has
included $2.3M in the President's budget for the acquisition. An
Acquisition Report (pursuant to 10 USC 2662) stating all requirements
for unaccompanied personnel and family housing, was submitted to the
Senate Armed Services and House National Security Committees on 28 Feb
97.
Question. It is my understanding that the current or expected
leases for facilities for SOUTHCOM are cost-effective and favorable to
the Department of Defense. Is this correct?
Answer. Yes, that is correct. The Department of the Army completed
an economic analysis on 28 Jul 95 that calculated the net present value
(NPV) for the following three options in Greater Miami:
a. Leasing a facility in the private sector: NPV=$32.1M.
b. New construction on a parcel of land owned by the FAA:
NPV=$35.7M.
c. Renovation and new construction at Richmond Heights, a Coast
Guard facility site: NPV=34.6M.
Based on the net present value, leasing was the most favorable
option.
Question. Will you supply for the record information about the
length of time spent, number of personnel involved, number of
alternative sites examined, and cost including site visits, analyses,
and personnel time, of the process that led to the decision to relocate
SOUTHCOM to the greater Miami area.
Answer. In 1995, an OSD/JCS Selection Committee performed a review
of potential relocation sites. The committee reviewed 126 sites in 26
cities, and considered the following factors: the ability of SOUTHCOM
to effectively perform its mission, quality of life, and cost. The
committee submitted three sites to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for
decision: Washington, DC; New Orleans; and Miami. Miami was determined
to be the best location. The actual costs associated with these studies
and review processes have not been quantified but the studies and
effort spanned several months.
Question. If DOD were to reopen the search process to identify a
different geographic area in the continental United States for the
SOUTHCOM headquarters.
(a) What would be the advantages or disadvantages in terms of
national security to a location other than Miami?
Answer. SOUTHCOM states: Since we have moved operationally from the
planning to the implementation phase of the relocation process, the
disadvantages are numerous, and if we had to revert back to initial
phases of the relocation process, we know of no advantages.
We have indicated to Panama US Commitment to revert back several
sites this year based on the HQ relocation timeline. Restudying the
move would require retention of these areas in Panama which could then
cause a firestorm of public protest in Panama, and would give the
perception, right or wrong, that we are NOT LEAVING. It would
definitely inhibit the ability of both the GoP and the USG to negotiate
for a post-99 presence and probably ruin the chances for a successful
Panamanian plebiscite on a Post-99 presence.
USG focus, decisiveness, a resolve would be questioned;
This could be viewed as a negative USG signal to the Latin American
community which was accepted the reality of American turnover of the
canal and might see the ``restudy'' as a crude attempt to exert
pressure against Panama. Most countries in Latin American welcome the
SOUTHCOM headquarters move to Miami because they place great emphasis
on Miami as the US epicenter for Latin America.
Prolonging the relocation process redirects Command focus from its
primary missions.
Question. (b) What would be the additional costs to DOD?
Answer. Costs associated with breaking the lease: Agreement to
lease guarantees contractor the lease rate for 10 years. Worst case
buyout is the present value of the 10 year stream of payments of
$1.734M per year plus the sunk costs associated with the installation
of the communications infrastructure and the building enhancements, or
requirements over and above that which would be required for a standard
GSA building.
a. Present value--Assuming interest rate between 6-8%: $11M-13M.
b. Sunk costs--Communications backbone: $7.6M; building
enhancements: $1.3M.
c. Communications equipment and service contracts: $27.8M.
d. BellSouth Contract: $3.5M.
Personnel turbulence costs: The cost to service members in personal
turbulence would be significant. Newly assigned personnel are now
typically pre-locating their families in the Miami area and then
reporting in an unaccompanied status to Panama for a few months. This
is done in anticipation of the approaching relocation. Homes have been
privately purchased or leased. Children have been enrolled in schools.
Spouses are pursuing their careers. To delay SOUTHCOM's relocation
would impart hardship on the hundreds of service members and their
families.
Question. In last year's evaluation, when DOD selected the Greater
Miami/Dade County area for the new home of Southern Command, did the
local community offer any cost saving options or incentives that would
lower Department of Defense costs?
Answer. Although all of the communities under consideration offered
incentives, the DOD study did not evaluate incentives in making the
site selection. Miami was chosen as the preferred site for the reasons
set forth in response to question #7.
The county offered a $1.5M assistance package to be applied toward
infrastructure costs. The funds have been made available to the
building owner who has provide an accounting to the community detailing
the actual expenditures.
Other incentives by the community have been assistance to
individuals in the form of relief from realtors' fees and security
deposits, holding seminars and otherwise providing information to
service members moving into the area.
Question. Are the plans to relocate SOUTHCOM to Greater Miami on
schedule and on budget?
Answer. The building construction is 95% complete and on schedule.
The building will be complete on 26 May, at which time the process of
installing communications and computer equipment commences. This
process will continue through September in order to render the building
fully operational by 26 Sep. SOUTHCOM's detailed planning for the
phased movement of personnel and operation is also on schedule.
Facility construction and communications/computer equipment are
also within budget.
Key and Essential housing is pending approval of funding in the
President's budget.
Question. Will you supply for the record the reason Miami was chose
as the site most favorable for the SOUTHCOM relocation?
Answer. The OSD/JCS selection committee in considering sites for
the SOUTHCOM relocation focused on three criteria in their
recommendations to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. The criteria were:
Mission (access to theater, cultural integration, governmental
interagency access), Quality of Life (housing/living costs, schools,
medical, crime, personnel support, employment availability), and Cost
(non-recurring-facilities, communications, furniture, relocation;
recurring-civilian pay, official travel, maintenance, security,
utilities, housing allowances).
Miami scored highest in mission in effectiveness and second in
other two categories of cost and quality of life. Based upon the
selection committee's input, Secretary Deutch chose Miami on 24 March
1995.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Mrs. Meek.]
Thursday, March 6, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
WITNESS
ROBERT B. PIRIE, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENT)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. Let's go ahead, ladies and gentlemen. We've
got a minute. I'd rather be a minute early than a minute late.
We're delighted to have this hearing. We're very, very pleased
to have the Honorable Robert Pirie with us today. I had the
privilege of meeting with him in private and I'm really
impressed with his leadership at this assigned area. I want to
welcome each of you here. Just as a matter of procedure, we
appreciate those who are supporting you here, Mr. Pirie, if you
need to use them at any time, we would certainly be happy to
have them on the record. If they are to address any question or
any issue, please come forward where they can be heard and the
stenographer can pick them up.
This morning's hearing is focused on the construction
program for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Mr. Pirie is the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment. He's had remarkable experiences that have
qualified and prepared him for this assignment. It's a
Presidential appointment. He's a Naval Academy graduate, a
Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and served for 20 years as a naval
officer. He worked at the Congressional Budget Office, was the
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and later
became the Assistant Secretary of Defense with Manpower,
Reserve Affairs, and Logistics, the President of Essex
Corporation in the private sector. You've had some rather
remarkable experiences and we certainly are proud to have you
before our committee again this year. I'm particularly pleased,
Mr. Pirie, that you have included in your budget overseas
requests for barracks and for improvements of some of our
overseas facilities, such as Sigonella, which I've been to see.
We are anxious that we don't overlook our overseas facilities.
As we've talked before, housing and quality-of-life issues
are important, to this subcommittee. We are very pleased also
that you've moved into the private sector to assist in getting
some of our facilities built and we will be looking forward to
your testimony. I'd like to hear from Mr. Hoyer. Incidently our
ranking member, Mr. Hefner, is on his way and will be here
shortly. Traffic was a little more difficult this morning than
usual, and he's called in but will be here. But, did you have
any comments, Mr. Hoyer?
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this
opportunity. On behalf of Mr. Hefner, Mr. Olver and myself, I
want to welcome Secretary Pirie to the hearing room. Secretary
Pirie, as you noted, is both a Naval Academy graduate and a
scholar, a Rhodes Scholar. He had a distinguished military
career with hands-on experience and operational experience as
well as private sector experience. I've had the opportunity to
work with Secretary Pirie over the years. He is an
extraordinary able and very easy person with whom to work. I
look forward to hearing his testimony and I know that this
committee will be advantaged by having the opportunity to work
with him and I know I speak for Mr. Hefner. And Mr. Olver is
here, he can speak for himself, but we're looking forward to
his testimony.
Mr. Pirie. Thank you, thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Olver, do you have any comments?
Mr. Olver. I'll be very, very brief. Congratulations on
Navy's win last night, and secondarily, while I don't have the
kind of long experience that Mr. Hoyer has had in dealing with
you, I notice that we were both graduates in '55, but you are
obviously older than I.
Mr. Pirie. He must not want anything.
Mr. Olver. As it turns out, as it so often does, I've got
two hearings going this morning so I'm going to be most
interested in what you say. I don't have to have any seacoast.
Mr. Pirie. It's an insular view that you have.
Mr. Olver. Right, it's an insular view that I have but I
will be very interested in what particularly in Massachusetts
is the structure of both active and reserve forces under your
command, so to speak here, for the purposes that are involved
and, I guess, let me just make kind of a blanket request that
some of a mapping or road mapping, something that shows me what
those facilities are in Massachusetts. If you'd like, I'd be
happy to see what they are broader in New England in the active
and reserve under the Navy.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir. We'll be glad to provide that for you.
[The information follows:]
The Navy has very few bases in Massachusetts. The last
remaining Navy base in Massachusetts is NAS South Weymouth
which is scheduled to close this year as part of the BRAC 1995
Commission recommendations. In support of the Navy & Marine
Corps Reserves we have NRC Quincy and N&MCRC Worcester. Former
reserve centers in Pittsfield and Chicopee were closed in 1994
as a result of BRAC 1993 decisions and their operations
consolidated in NRC Quincy.
Mr. Packard. Our next hearing, is scheduled for Tuesday at
1:30 in the afternoon. The subject will be the Air Force
Construction Program and Mr. Rodney Coleman will be our
witness. So for those who might have to leave early, we hope
that you'll be aware of that schedule.
Now, Mr. Pirie, we're very pleased to have you here. I have
read all of your testimony and underlined it and there may be
some questions on it, so if it's to your liking, we'd
appreciate it if you would not read the testimony--and I don't
think that's your style anyway, from what I understand. If you
would just tell us what you think we need to hear and what we
need to know and highlight the areas, we'd appreciate it, and
maybe to begin with, you might want to introduce some of those
who are here to support you.
statement of the honorable robert b. pirie, jr.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today
are Admiral Dave Nash, who is the Chief of the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command; Major General Joe Stewart, who is the
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps for Installations and
Logistics; and Rear Admiral (Select) JohnBrunelli, who is the
Deputy Chief of the Naval Reserve. And so if I completely fail, they
can pick me up and carry me out. And, with your permission, I will just
hit the highlights, Mr. Chairman. After the introduction, this may seem
rather dry and informalistic, but just a couple of points that may be
helpful.
Overall, our Fiscal '98 MILCON, Family Housing, BRAC
requests, all of those things put together, are $2.8 billion.
And that's down $800 million from our '97 level, because, in
the environment of downsizing and fiscal stringency and the
need to beef up our investment accounts, our judgement is that
this is all we can really afford in this area. And there is
great and continuing pressure to reduce the overall
infrastructure costs and increase force moderation.
Fiscal '98 MILCON is down about $200 million from Fiscal
'97. We just could not find the money, given other priorities,
to sustain the '97 level. We focused on those projects that
support military needs--military readiness needs--including
quality of life. About a third of our Fiscal '98-'99 budget is
for bachelor quarters (BQ) construction. It'll provide an
additional 5,676 spaces and it will replace 1,723 old and
substandard spaces in our bachelor quarters.
All permanent party BQs in the Navy that are built new will
be to the new 1+1 standard. The Marines will replace their
oldest and worst facilities using a standard called 2 + 0,
which, in our judgement, is the fastest and best way to get the
most Marines into acceptable living conditions.
The fiscal '98 Family Housing Budget is down about $200
million from Fiscal '97. The primary reduction is in new
construction. This is a result of the decision we made to scale
back the acquisition of houses that the government would own
and operate. We looked in depth at the cost of housing our
sailors and marines in the private sector with housing
allowances versus in government-owned and operated homes. We've
concluded that building and operating government houses is not
a good deal either for the taxpayer or for the average sailor
or marine. It costs about $15,000 a year to operate and
maintain a government-owned house, on the average. We pay our
members, not in government housing, about $8,000 a year in
allowances to which they generally add about $2,000 a year from
their own pockets, on the average, to get decent housing.
Our research indicates that in many locations, the private
sector can provide appropriate housing at a price much closer
to the allowance figure than to what it costs the government to
put up a house. We think it's a good idea, at this point, to go
slow on government provided housing and to explore the
possibilities open to us in public/private ventures, and in
enhancing allowances.
Last year's BAQ increase and the increase in VHA floor,
given to us by the Congress, are a big help. The Office of
Secretary of Defense is now preparing a report and
recommendations to remedy some of the other known defects in
the current allowance indexing methodology and we believe that
will help us a great deal, too.
Navy and Marine Corps are making public/private ventures in
housing a reality. Now, we had a ground-breaking last December
for 404 homes in the Corpus Christi, Texas area. Occupancy will
begin this November. We have just notified the Congress last
month that we will be proceeding with 185 homes in Everett,
Washington, in which the Navy is a limited partner,
contributing $5.9 million while the general partner contributes
$12.9 million. We expect to sign that agreement this month and
we have occupancy of the quarters in May, 1998. Both projects
I've talked about give sailors preference in renting and a rent
reduction of approximately $100 per month over comparable homes
in the local.
In the base closure area, the Fiscal '98 BRAC budget is
down about $400 million from Fiscal 97 because of lower BRAC
MILCON needs. By the end of the year 2000, we will have
invested $10.9 billion in the implementation of four rounds of
base closure that began in 1988. By that time, we will already
have saved $15 billion, for a net savings of $5 billion, and
we'll save $2.6 billion a year thereafter. We're on the down
slope of BRAC implementation. We've already completed 66
percent of all mandated closures and realignments. Thirty-one
more are scheduled for this year including major ones, Long
Beach Naval Ship Yard and Naval Air Station Alameda.
Fiscal 1998 is the last year with significant construction
requirements for implementation of BRAC. Our BRAC budget is
transitioning from closure and realignment to completion of the
environmental cleanup and disposition of the property. We are,
of course, committed to the cleanup of all BRAC property and we
give priority in funding to sites with near-term reuse
potential. The general area of BRAC this year has seen the
privatization of Naval Air Warfare Center, Indianapolis and
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville. These actions have saved
the taxpayer money, saved jobs in the area, and opened the
possibility of continued productive use of the installations
under the aegis of the local redevelopment authorities. We're
pleased with this result because it shows that we, working
together with communities, can get past the trauma of BRAC
rapidly.
We're pursuing a number of initiatives to reduce
infrastructure support costs including out-sourcing,
privatization and regionalization of functions. And details of
that kind of thing are in my testimony and we'd be quite
pleased to explore any avenues that you would be interested in.
And that really concludes my summary.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable Robert B. Pirie, Jr.]
[Pages 525 - 546--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
summary. Mr. Hoyer, would you, I'm going to yield to the two
members who have to leave a little bit early. Would you mind?
Mr. Hoyer. No, that's fine.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Olver, would you like to go first, because
you may have to leave.
massachusetts base reasignment and closure
Mr. Olver. Thank you very much. I wanted to--following up
my comments and connecting with what you have had to say, on
the BRAC closures, I think there was one BRAC closure in
Massachusetts. That was the Weymouth Naval Air Station.
Mr. Pirie. That would be the Naval Air Station in South
Weymouth.
Mr. Olver. Is that one of those that's completed, is that
one of the 118 completed or is that still--
Mr. Pirie. No, that's still going on. And I have to explain
that BRAC closures take place in a number of stages, such as
the stage in which the mission of the base ceases and we no
longer carry on the activity formerly carried on there. There's
another stage called operational closure and that is one in
which the people who are associated with the base leave and the
base is placed in a caretaker status. And finally, we hope
fairly soon the base is cleaned up and disposed of and turned
over to the local community for the reuse that they choose to
make of it. So this precedes--and this one hasn't even been--
this is not even----
Mr. Olver. Well, which year was it, was it '91 or '93.
Mr. Pirie. It was selected in Fiscal '95.
Mr. Olver. Oh, it was selected in '95.
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Mr. Olver. So it's one of the latter ones.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, and it has not----
Mr. Olver. Place it in your schedule of 118 complete, 31
for 97, 14 for 98, 12 for 99 and so forth. Any idea what its
planned schedule is?
Mr. Pirie. I think it's 2000 closure, I think.
Mr. Olver. Really?
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Mr. Olver. So it will be one of only the two in the year
2000, in Fiscal 2000?
Mr. Pirie. I think that's right. I'll correct myself. It's
either----
Mr. Olver. Would you check on that?
Mr. Pirie. It's either '99 or 2000. But it's out there.
Mr. Olver. Okay. I would appreciate knowing whether--my
understanding is that the Marine Air Reserve unit that was
there is to be consolidated with the Air Force at the Air Force
Reserve Base at Westover, Massachusetts. Is that--do you know
that to be the case?
Mr. Pirie. Admiral Brunelli.
ADM Brunelli. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Mr. Olver. Okay. So there would have to be things that--
there are things in the BRAC budget that relate to what goes on
at the Naval Air Station in preparing it for decommissioning or
whatever you call it.
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Mr. Olver. And there have to be things that happen at
Westover to accept--I think the unit has been moved, hasn't it,
officially, or hasn't it been officially moved?
Mr. Pirie. I don't know.
Mr. Olver. Maybe somebody could give me a----
Mr. Pirie. We'll give you a rundown of that
Mr. Olver [continuing]. A briefing on how that goes. But
I'm particularly interested in what will be necessary to bring
about that move in an orderly manner and in what, in which year
and when we have to prepare to make that move. Is this the kind
of move that is going to be common in the BRAC closures, that
is, co-locations of Naval Air with Air Force Reserves, reserves
from the two services in a place where they may fit together or
is it unusual?
Mr. Pirie. It's not--it's more unusual than common. I can
think of one other place, Naval Air Station Atlanta, in which
we are co-located with the Air Force and it's a joint base. We
have both Navy and Marine Corps units at the Naval Air Station
Atlanta and it's working very well. And we expect the Westover
thing to work out equally well.
navy force levels
Mr. Olver. Okay. My only other question, I notice that in
your testimony you list something--I was surprised to find the
total number of--the total force--although that may be just--
well, active, I take, 50,000 men and women in the Navy and
Marine Corps operating force. That would imply that the total
present Navy and Marine Corps together is under 200,000, is
that correct?
Mr. Pirie. No. The Marine Corps is 174,000 and the Navy is
on the order of 400,000 people total. So I'm not really sure
what part of the testimony you're referring to.
Mr. Olver. So I guess it--well, there's a sentence here, on
any given day, roughly 30 percent of Navy and Marine Corps
operating forces consisting of more than 50,000 men and women
aboard 100 ships, is deployed around the world. On any given
day, 30 percent of the Navy and Marine operating force. It must
be in the definition of what operating force is versus what the
total present forces are.
Mr. Pirie. No. The operating forces here would be forces
assigned to deployable units and the third of the units that we
have that are deployed, are, in fact, deployed.
Mr. Olver. Are outside the country, is that what that
means?
Mr. Pirie. That's right.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Mr. Pirie. But there's a fairly substantial support
establishment that supports all those deployable units.
Mr. Olver. Okay. I'd like to understand what--how one
categorizes and breaks down what is our total into operating
and support or something like. Maybe we could see----
Mr. Pirie. We would be very glad to give you that.
Mr. Olver. I was led into thinking that the numbers from
that were much smaller than they actually are and I would like
to know what the totals are, that would another thing.
Mr. Pirie. I'd be very glad to supply that.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, known as Joint Pub 1-02, defines operating
forces as ``Those forces whose primary missions are to
participate in combat and the integral supporting elements
thereof.'' Naval operating forces include aircraft carriers,
other surface ships, Sea Bees (destroyers, frigates, amphibious
assault, combat logistics, etc.), submarine (ballistic missile
submarines and attach submarines), aircraft squadrons, Marine
Corps ground combat elements that deploy, as well as the
Sailors and Marines that are assigned to these units.
Generally, at any given time about one third of all naval
operating forces are deployed, one third are in a work-up/
training mode preparing to deploy, and one third are in
maintenance or overhaul mode ashore.
Non-operating forces do not deploy. These include most
shore based commands and headquarters functions, administrative
units, public works functions, maintenance activities such as
shipyards, aviation depots, supply activities, Naval hospitals,
recruiting training, basic skill and advanced training
schoolhouses, as well as the Sailors, Marines, and civilian
personnel assigned to these units.
Mr. Olver. Thank you, thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Olver. Mr. Hobson?
housing privatization
Mr. Hobson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be very
brief, sir. I like the idea of using the private sector in this
house as long as we don't get held hostage to it at some point.
But I don't understand the Navy's housing requirements as much
as maybe the Air Force's. I've got a big Air Force base in my
district, so I know Norm is probably really up on it. But
overseas are you going to do the same thing?
Mr. Pirie. No. Overseas, generally, we do not do that.
Either we provide government housing overseas or we enter into
leases with qualified local corporations. We have not explored
the notion of doing public/private ventures overseas and I
think, given our experience with some of our overseas leasing,
it would be very complicated.
Mr. Hobson. So overseas, you're going to try to provide on-
base housing, is that what you're going to try to do?
Mr. Pirie. Overseas generally we try to provide on-base
housing. It varies from area to area. Every single area has its
own set of interesting problems. But it is quite desirable, in
a fair number of areas, for us to provide on-base housing.
Mr. Hobson. Okay. But in this country you're going to
continue to move towards a privatization effort?
Mr. Pirie. In this country, we think there is a robust
housing market and we, particularly since we're capital short,
we need to tap that housing market and we need to give our
people that are access to that market and we need to work with
those people better.
Mr. Hobson. Well, I'd just like to say, I encourage that
and whatever we can do to support that, I certainly will want
to support the Chairman and I don't know if the rest do. Last
term, when I was on this committee also, we tried to encourage
that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pirie. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hobson. It's nice to see some guy that's graduated from
college about the same time I did.
Mr. Pirie. I use the same kind of stuff in my hair.
Mr. Hobson. When I came here, only six years ago, I didn't
have any gray. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Pirie. It's the job.
Mr. Hobson. We've got a Navy secretary upstairs also today.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Hobson's on the Defense Subcommittee,
also. We appreciate very much your testimony and your response.
Mr. Hoyer, we'll go to you next.
funding levels
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, in your statement, on
Page 2, you unfortunately note that we cannot afford to invest
more in our shore infrastructure. The financial realities that
confront the Navy and every other service, as we in Congress
try to balance the budget are tough. But at the same time, I
supported the $9.6 billion that you referred to, the add-on, of
which 200 plus may have gone to the Navy. The chairman in our
opening hearing said that we want to have the witnesses be
ready to live with the budget presented. I'm sure you're ready
to live with the budget presented. But, in order to accomplish
our objective, how far short, do you think, if money were not
the factor, if this were 1982, or '83, or '84 or '85, when debt
didn't matter to us, what would you think would be our total
Navy need?
For instance, in referring to your statement, one of the
things that we do in every public enterprise, and in private
enterprises, is steal from maintenance and upkeeping when times
get tough. It's easy to do and we think tomorrow won't come and
it won't crumble and fall. What ought we spend to do the job
that you think ought to be done given the fact that we
understand that we don't have the finances to do that? I know
that's a difficult question but I'm trying to figure out how
far short are we? I am one who does not believe that we can
further reduce our defense expenditure. It's a dangerous world.
The Army is now having trouble in terms of its recruitment.
They have to lower, maybe not their standards, but lower the
average educational attainment of their recruits. Tell me what
we really ought to be doing, if we had the capacity to do it?
Mr. Pirie. Well, let me begin by agreeing with you on two
points, Mr. Hoyer. One is that we need to keep our defenses
robust and able to deal with the challenges that we meet and
reduction doesn't seem like a good idea at this point. Secondly
that we have to live with what we are given and so we have
balanced this as best we can into executable and so forth,
although we are not really happy with the over all level. How
much could we spend? We could effectively spend substantial
increases in real property maintenance, in family housing, in
the military construction for things like piers, runways,
hangers, ramps, things that are related to the operational
forces. And I really hesitate to give you a figure, but Admiral
Nash, sitting behind me, runs the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command and they have done an admirable job of obligating,
putting under contract and executing what we have thrown at
them over the years.
Mr. Hoyer. Let me then, if I can, Mr. Chairman, ask Admiral
Nash a specific question. Quite obviously, whenever you prepare
a budget, you prepare a list of needs, that need may be from
one to ten. You may have money only to fund one, two and three.
That does not mean that four through ten are not necessary, it
means as a practical matter that, as you submitted a budget to
your superiors, though Secretary Perry up the chain, some got
cut. What was the figure that you provided of needs that were,
I won't say critical, but important needs in the short term?
ADM Nash. Well, sir, I will, if I may, get back to you with
the exact figure, but what we do, as you well know, is we
basically take a five-year look at it and put in----
[The information follows:]
We annually take a six year look at military construction
requirements and put projects in priority order referred to as
the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). Our assessment indicates
we need approximately $950 million per year to provide an
appropriate level of funding to eliminate our current
construction backlog. Our request for construction funding is
prioritized along with all the other needs of the Navy.
Mr. Hoyer. Which the chairman is very supportive of and
wants done.
ADM Nash. Yes, sir. And so, if you ask me, what more would
we want to invest, I'd say we'd look in our list that's already
in our budget, or in our pom over the five years and we would
pick from those projects. Because we have a rather rigorous
process as far as actually at the base level and moves all the
way up through the Navy, to decide where we ought to invest. So
when one wants to find other places that would be wise to
invest, it would be--we can go to that. Like we've done in the
past, we just picnic. That helps me as the executor, because
I'm able also to get the work underway and get it done in the
time frame that you want to see it done. So that would be what
I would recommend if there was more money to be put into, we
would just look in our--yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. But generally you'll discuss that. Is it true,
on your statement, you say have a $3 billion backlog that's
going to go up to $3.7 billion.
ADM Nash. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. I mean, obviously you've identified $3.7 billion
worth of work that needs to be done, isn't that correct?
ADM Nash. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you.
Mr. Hoyer. I think that Mr. Dicks made my point, and that's
really what we're looking for. We understand that we have
limited financial resources. I am somebody who's going to vote
for the balanced budget amendment, notwithstanding President
Clinton's view on it. I've continued to vote for it because I
think we need to have constraints. I'm also one of those who
believes that this country can afford to keep it's military at
peak operating efficiency. We need to know what that is and we
need to argue what that is. Not because we'll get it, but we
need to keep focused on what the need is that we're not meeting
so that nobody is deluded that we are funding everything that
which we need to fund. In fact, we're funding that which we
think we can afford today, not necessarily that which we need.
And that's what I want to make sure that I know about, that's
what----
Mr. Dicks. I think I'll start this one, on procurement.
Mr. Hoyer. Transgress on the Chairman's time.
Mr. Dicks. On procurement, we know we're about $16 billion
a year short. So you just have two areas here, O&M and talking
about defense-wide, I mean, we're at least $16 billion a year
short in terms of modernization for weapon systems. The
procurement budget's gone up to $135 billion in '85 down to
about $41 to $44, we'd plus it up a little bit, but that's
where we are.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I've got to leave, I've got
Secretary Rubin in front of the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee.
Thank you very much, sir.
family housing improvement fund
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, I have to go to Defense. I have
one question, if my colleague would let me. Tell me, you don't
have any money, I'm told, in the Family Housing Improvement
Fund and you're just going to use transfer authority, is that
correct? Apparently Congress has given you some money, but you
have not requested any for '98?
Mr. Pirie. That's exactly right, sir. We have not requested
it for '98. We did have some for '97 and we expect, if we
don't----
Mr. Dicks. And you haven't used it all?
Mr. Pirie. No, we have not used it all, the '97 money. If
we work these public/private ventures and need money, we expect
to reprogram from other accounts. We need a more orderly way, I
think, to budget for public/private ventures than the Family
Housing Improvement business, which is a small amount that goes
to OSD, gets split between three services and so forth.
Mr. Dicks. Out there, in our state, we're doing one of
them, as you mentioned, Everett. It's very--people are very
excited about it. I think this is a good way to go, I think we
can go a lot further, get a lot more done, and it's a better
way to go. But, have we got all the problems with CBO and OMB
on scoring straightened out, are they on board on this?
Mr. Pirie. The public/private ventures that we're working,
we have succeeded in getting through the scoring net on those,
simply because we're working them in ways that limit the
government's liability. So we're in--with OMB, yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that consideration
and also thank you for starting these at 9:30 and starting them
on time so we can get a least a half an hour in before other
hearings.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
limited partnerships
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary,
yesterday, when the Army was here, my colleague, Mr. Hobson
from Ohio, identified himself as an old real estate guy and I'd
like to think of myself as a former real estate guy, not quite
in that category yet. But having come out of the real estate
development business and actually been involved in housing
construction for about a decade, I'm very interested in this
privatization notion all across our armed services and I read,
on Page 13 of your testimony, that you have actually entered
into a very fresh agreement, brand new, kind of uncharted
waters, with Landmark Organization of Austin, Texas to build
404 housing units in Texas. And I'm interested in two things,
really. One, is there a way for the Navy to build up equity
ownership in these units through these agreements so that as we
privatize the Navy can actually make, possibly get, not just
more efficiencies from a cost standpoint, but build up equity
over time, which is the notion that my colleague, Mr. Tiahrt
from Kansas actually raised in other hearings, which, I think,
is a good point,having come out of that business, there may be
a way. I know some of our BRAC processes. I have a volunteer ammunition
site in my district that's not a BRAC closure. They kept it active, but
it's in a reindustrialization program and through long-term leases back
to local government, they're actually lowering their maintenance costs
and getting a return. It's all very creative. We've got a lot of assets
that we need to do as much as we can with. My question is, do you think
there's a way to integrate some equity buildup over time, or do you
think that's not the route that the Navy or other armed services should
go, and secondly, have you found that Davis-Bacon applies or doesn't
apply when a private contractor, or developer is actually providing,
the construction on a project like this one in Austin and Corpus
Christi, Texas?
Mr. Pirie. I think I'll let Admiral Nash deal with the
Davis-Bacon matter. Are you looking for equity, that is
individuals building up equity in particular houses or are you
talking about the government building equities in the
partnership or corporation?
Mr. Wamp. The government.
Mr. Pirie. There are a huge number of different ways we can
enter into these limited partnerships, and certainly that's one
possibility. The ones that we have ventured into so far, we're
simply a limited partner and to the degree that the general
partner succeeds, the partnership prospers; our share will
increase and we will make money, which we'll return to this
housing account. Whether or not these things prosper, if your
question implies, do we want to eventually build up enough
equity and take over the housing for ourselves, convert it to
government housing, I don't think that's a particularly good
idea. We haven't done that very well in the past. The housing
industry really functions very well in the United States, it's
efficient and we think that tapping that industry and using it
not only to produce houses but also to manage and so forth, is
the right way to be. We want to be a small part of a robust
efficient market. We don't want to create our own----
Mr. Wamp. Kind of a follow-up question. I've looked at
quite a bit of housing yesterday. And Mr. Hobson made the point
having out of the business, he was trying to get a total
development cost, then total construction cost, and then a per
unit cost and then try to factor some reasonable cost per
square foot. Exactly what is this costing per square footage?
Is it is $100 a foot or is it $150 a square foot. Do you have
any idea what the developers projections are on these 404 units
where the private sector is building on a per-square-foot cost
for the actual construction, not the land value, but just the
improvement costs of the construction of the units?
Mr. Pirie. I'll definitely defer to Admiral Nash on that
one.
davis-bacon
ADM Nash. All right, sir. First on your Davis-Bacon, no,
sir, it doesn't apply because it's actually the partnership
that is building the housing and owning it, so it's not a
federal government contract.
Mr. Wamp. That's interesting. It does not apply he said,
versus yesterday, the Army actually thought it did apply. I
think that was the answer from the Army.
ADM Nash. Well, I don't mean to contradict him, but----
Mr. Pirie. Well, it may be that the Army is entering into a
deal that--I mean, because these all take different forms.
Mr. Wamp. If I could interrupt some previous testimony
indicated that this particular provision can raise the cost 25
percent over all to our military construction budget. That's
significant dollars. If it doesn't apply, that's----
Mr. Packard. That's a huge incentive for privatization.
Mr. Wamp. It's a huge incentive for privatization,
absolutely.
ADM Nash. And the other thing, sir, is we've figured over
time, we build housing per square foot at about the same cost
as the industry does across the nation. And I think we might
build a little bit bigger house, a little bit different house
and so therefore there would be some cost differentials, so I
think we're pretty much on the mark. And so I think we are
competitive, yes, sir.
Mr. Wamp. One other point that I want to say for the record
is, I was involved in multifamily housing before the Tax Reform
Act of 1986.
Mr. Pirie. Lester, too, wasn't he?
Mr. Wamp. And a lot of our housing construction in this
country that was driven from the private sector was driven for
tax reasons and not net profit reasons, the old-fashioned way,
where you pay the mortgage down and you try to generate net
income per month on your investment. And we've got to make sure
that tax reform, as it relates to the overall country, is
integrated with any of this new privatization. We don't want
our tax code to encourage developers to do it the way they were
doing prior to reform, where a lot of tax-exempt bond financing
and the tax benefits for the development actually spurred
developers to build low cost temporary housing. I know you all
have standards that you have to live by, but I'd like to see
this investment in masonry, long-term low maintenance, very
efficient units in terms of the utilities cost and periodic
infrastructure updates. So I think our tax code needs to make
sure that we keep in mind any privatization efforts that are
underway in the armed services so that the developers have the
incentive, in your case, to invest long-term, to do it the old-
fashioned way and make sure that there are no bells and
whistles thrown into the deal for whatever tax benefits that
take away from the long-term stability and maintenance cost of
the investment.
ADM Nash. Sir, I'll confirm on the Davis-Bacon so we don't
get off on a tangent.
Mr. Wamp. Sure, for the record.
[The information follows:]
Navy legal counsel has determined that Davis-Bacon
regulations do apply to housing privatization under current
legislation. However, it has not had any cost impact on the
Navy's two existing initiatives at Corpus Cristi, TX and
Everett, WA because the large contractors who have the
financial means to enter into these contracts are already
paying prevailing wages equal to or greater than the labor
rates dictated by Davis-Bacon rules.
ADM Nash. For the record, if that's all right, sir.
Mr. Wamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. There is a call for a vote. Let me
ask one question and then we'll go over and vote and come back,
if you wouldn't mind. It takes, hopefully, only about 10 to 12
minutes. We may be having another vote, I don't know. I was
pleased, as I have been in most of the witness' written
testimony that you're moving or looking at a '98-'99 budget,
you've addressed it that way in your testimony. Which means
that you're looking at at least an immediate two years, even
though we don't budget on a two-year basis or on a multi-year
basis, your planning is on that basis.
Mr. Pirie. In general, you do.
five-year plan
Mr. Packard. And you're pretty well done--I'm impressed
with that. I was pleased to hear, in Admiral Nash's response
that they are looking, that they draw from their five-year
plan. It would be of value, to me at least, and maybe to all
members of this subcommittee to see your five-year plan and
it's helpful to me to see your two-plan and to see '99 in
addition to the '98, simply because it allows me to see where
you're going and how you're spacing your funding requirements
and so forth. How difficult would it be to do that on a five-
year plan?
Mr. Pirie. I think a five-year plan is provided, is it not?
ADM Nash. I believe we provided to OSD.
Mr. Pirie. We'll work on that, Mr. Chairman, I can get it
for you.
Mr. Packard. I think it would be helpful to me and I'm sure
the other members--because, as you know we've talked about it,
one of the goals that we've now established for all agencies is
to develop their five-year plan and then modify that each year
so that it's still updated and they still have the five years
from year to year. But, at the same time, develop their budget
from that five-year plan.
infrastructure requirements
And the last item I'll discuss before we leave is the
infrastructure, underground, unseen infrastructure. Very few of
those who have testified thus far from the branches of the
services have really addressed that seriously and yet, I sense,
that that's a major long-term, rather significant cost item,
easy to overlook because it's not seen and it's not something
that has a direct effect upon the quality of life, and yet it
really does have a significant effect upon quality of life. A
good illustration of my concern was when we visited Camp
Pendleton. For the benefit of the General, we saw all of the
substandard housing and we saw some of the new housing and the
daycare centers that we're doing a relatively decent job of
addressing, it's a serious problem. And yet, when we were about
to leave, General Reinke mentioned, in fact, I was in the car
with him, just he and I and the driver, and he mentioned that
it's unbelievable how bad the pipes, the underground
infrastructure is. It's World War II vintage, of course, and in
many of our bases, it's been even longer than that. It's never
really been replaced. And when they build a new barracks, and
these brand new faucets and a brand new building and all of the
wonderful amenities that we include for our service personnel,
they turn on the faucet and brown and ugly water comes out, not
because of the new construction, but because of all of that
that supplies the need or the utilities and water to the new
construction. Are we addressing that adequately, is it a
neglected area and, if so, is there thought being given to a
long-range program of upgrading the underground utilities?
Mr. Pirie. We share a problem with the United States at
large, is that much of the infrastructure you don't see, the
water systems, utilities, waste water treatment and things of
that kind are aging. Part of the interest in our
regionalization and privatization initiatives involves things
like turning those over to private utility companies or getting
private utility companies to come in and replace the systems
and take over the operation.
Mr. Packard. You did address that in your testimony.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. I saw where that might be one of the more
attractive areas for privatization and that may hasten the time
when--because I see this as long-term--if we do it by simply
budgeting and doing it in-house, it could be a long-term
process and a very expensive process.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. But it's an area that you don't believe we're
neglecting or we're overlooking.
Mr. Pirie. No, we're not. I mean, we know we have problems
and we're addressing them as rapidly as we can.
Mr. Packard. Let me go vote and then I'll be back. And
there's an advantage to all of my colleagues leaving and
there's a disadvantage. One is the advantage is I have you all
to myself, and the disadvantage is that I have you all to
myself.
(Brief recess.)
barracks standards
Mr. Packard. We'll call it back to order. And I think that
I'll proceed with some questions that I have for you, Mr.
Pirie. You mentioned in your statement this morning that the
fastest and best way to get the Marines into adequate housing
was the 2 + 0, barracks standard. Why does that not apply to
all branches of the services, particularly the Navy?
Mr. Pirie. The Marines have a particularly bad problem.
They have a very substantial number of spaces that are open-bay
barracks and things of that kind, so in the case of the
Marines, we thought it was prudent to waive the 1 + 1 standard
to just allow them to deal with the problem that, which
otherwise would take an inordinate length of time. In the case
of the Navy, we don't start from such a bad base and we
consider that the 1 + 1 standard is what we really want to take
into the 21st century and it will stand up to kind of the
improvement, let's say, of the standards and lifestyles.
Mr. Packard. It's a very high goal and I guess, and I'm
certainly not expressing a displeasure with that goal of 1 + 1.
My only concern would be that in an effort to reach that goal,
it may slow down the process of replacement and new
construction simply by additional costs for the 1 + 1.
Mr. Pirie. There are places where we have waived it on a
case-by-case basis because, in some cases--
Mr. Packard. In the Navy?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir. If it would require a redesign of
something and hold up a project for a year or two years, if a
particular location is in very bad shape for BQs, we have
issued some waivers. But we think--we just don't want to build
a lot of stuff that people in the 21st century will think of as
junk.
Mr. Packard. Let me ask the General if he would respond. In
my brief exposure to this 2 + 0 waiver that the Marines have
had, is it not so much that the fact that their problem is more
acute and they just need to get something done, but rather that
they, themselves, would prefer the 2 + 0? They feel the
influence and the atmosphere they want to create for their men
and women is, the 2 + 0 is conducive to that, is that a correct
interpretation, General?
GEN Stewart. Sir, you know, our intent is to still stay by
the DOD policy, which is 1 + 1, but we see a lot of quality in
the 2 + 0. I mean, it's good for unit training, it's good for
teamwork, it's good for cohesion. So there are some real strong
points to a 2 + 0, but yet, nevertheless, I mean----
Mr. Packard. Is there a division in the Marine Corps on
this ranking official?
GEN Stewart. No, sir. We're--I mean, there is some
discussion about it, but we're going to do what we're told and
we're going to go to the 1 + 1. Our problem is we couldn't get
there until 2078, you know, with the funding we have, so, but
we don't think that it's a big drawback to go to 2 + 0 for
those reasons.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
GEN Stewart. Yes, sir.
family housing
Mr. Packard. Seventeen percent reduction in the request for
family housing, we've discussed that and there's been other
questions. In your statement, Mr. Pirie, you mentioned that
it's primarily because of base closing and I'm wondering if
that----
Mr. Pirie. But the reduction in the number of our houses is
primarily caused by base closures since we've moved out of
places where we had family housing, yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. And thus the reduction in the request?
Mr. Pirie. No, sir.
Mr. Packard. The reduction, is there a connection there?
Mr. Pirie. No, sir.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Then I misread your testimony. Okay.
What is the rationale for a 17 percent reduction, just not
being able to find the money?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir. As Mr. Dicks mentioned, we have very
substantial pressure in the modernization accounts and we're
just trying to find money everywhere and everyone is sharing
the pain. That's our share.
regional planning
Mr. Packard. I was really impressed with the Navy moving to
a regional plan. I presume you've been working in that
direction for quite some time. But I just think that's a great
idea and certainly it should work in the areas you outlined in
your testimony, where there are concentrations of naval
facilities, like San Diego, and Puget Sound and Jacksonville
and Pensacola, places like that, it's just a natural. And as I
read it, I thought, why we hadn't concentrated on that before,
but that's a great idea. How far along are we in that, is it
still in the planning stages and can it be across branches of
the services? You have M.C.R.D., for instance, in San Diego,
are there ways to actually blend different branches of the
services into that regional planning process?
Mr. Pirie. It is, in fact, just beginning, although in
places like Jacksonville, we have a number of initiatives off
the ground. So it's beyond the planning stages, but, I mean,
there is a great deal more that needs to be done. It certainly
can be across service and there's a lot of cross-service
support in a number of areas. So that I think it's very
promising. We can, in fact, get Admiral Scudi who is Navy's
point man on this to come and give you a rundown, Mr. Chairman,
if you would like that.
Mr. Packard. Let me ask a couple of questions here, and
then see if that's the appropriate thing to do, we can
certainly do that. How much distance do you consider
regionalizing before it reaches a point of being just too
remote?
Mr. Pirie. I think it depends upon what the particular
situation is. I mean, for a consolidated deal with the electric
power utilities and so forth, we might take a very substantial
slice of the east or west coast, and get a consolidated deal.
For other kinds of things, they would be much more local. So it
really depends upon the circumstance, laundry services,
probably, fairly local.
Mr. Packard. Well, as I read that and began to mull over
the concept in my mind, and then consider that in view of my
visit to the Naval facilities, particularly in San Diego, and
I'll expand that as we can. But San Diego's regional concept is
not unlike several of the other areas that you've mentioned.
The requirements of housing could cross-pollinate with
different branches in the services if they're in the same
locality or same region, and it may be that there could be some
savings, and it may not be a bad idea for Marines and Navy
personnel, or Air Force personnel and Army personnel to live in
the same housing projects as neighbors. I don't know that that
would be a detriment. It may be a real plus.
Mr. Pirie. Navy and the Marine Corps in the San Diego area
have, in fact, have a memorandum of agreement and the housing
is all in a pool. You know, it's Navy and Marine Corps housing.
Mr. Packard. And the referral services and the efforts to
help people find housing could be regionalized as well?
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir. San Diego has an excellent referral
service.
Mr. Packard. They do, I saw it.
Mr. Pirie. It's first class.
overseas construction
Mr. Packard. And it is. And I presume it--well, I saw that
as a real good idea and I hope that it will progress. I had the
chance to visit Sigonella as well, while on a recent trip, and
was briefed on the housing problems there, about 3:00 in the
morning, incidently. That was not their problem, that was our
fault. We had weather problems that delayed our getting off
from here and so it changed the schedule, but he was there to
brief us. They have some unique problems there and I don't know
whether that's unique to a lot of our overseas problems, but it
was my first exposure to the nature of problems that we have in
providing housing in some foreign countries.
Mr. Pirie. Sir, every single base has a different set of
problems. Everyone is unique, sir.
Mr. Packard. Well, I guess you're right. They are trying
some privatizing there, even though it's overseas, and they are
struggling with it, but the CO there really felt that he was
making progress and ultimately would be successful in getting
some of the problems worked out for private housing built, much
on the same concept that we do here in the States.
Mr. Pirie. We have lease authority overseas which is not
scored and which is different from our in-states authority and
we are able to use the overseas leasing authority to enter into
arrangements for--which essentially get us the use of private
housing overseas. We have a very big project in Naples, which
your staff director can tell you a lot about.
Mr. Packard. I've been to Naples, but not for the purpose
of seeing the housing problems. I'll do that, at some point,
but I understand that it's rather severe.
Mr. Pirie. It's rather severe but we've got a good solution
in place and I think it's going to work out very well.
Mr. Packard. Do you? Italy is not the standard run-of-the-
mill country to work with on something like that, how have you
worked that out in Naples?
Mr. Pirie. The Naples project is a long-term lease for a
facility, the initial increment of which will be 500 houses,
with an option on a further 500, which we hope to proceed to
build fairly soon, and it is in a location that is much more
accessible to the work place for our people, so that their
transit time, instead of having to go all the way across
Naples, they will be able to get onto an autostrada and get to
work in just maybe 10 or 15 minutes.
Mr. Packard. That's good.
Mr. Pirie. And it will be an enclosed location, not
necessarily--not walled, but it will be a discrete location in
the village which will have support facilities, a chapel,
schools, and things of that as well as the housing. So we think
it will be a great deal better for them. It will have it's own
water plant. Water in Naples has been a problem and we've been
issuing bottled water to the people for some time.
Mr. Packard. Are the problems different in places like
Germany or Korea, in terms of overseas problems that you have
to deal with? Is this same opportunity for leasing there as
there is in Italy?
Mr. Pirie. The problems are different. In Korea, for
example, in the Seoul area, the Army is the executive agent and
we have a small presence there and we take what the Army gives
us. We have a base at Chin Hu in Korea, where the housing,
which is left over from an earlier era, is just absolutely
superb. So it's different everywhere.
regional maintenance centers
Mr. Packard. You mentioned eight regional maintenance
centers that have been established and then some additional
regional repair pilot centers. What are they, what's the
concept there and where are they at? How are you proceeding
with them?
Mr. Pirie. They are in major fleet concentration areas like
Gulf of Jacksonville. There's one in New England that is run
out of New London.
Mr. Packard. On the west coast?
Mr. Pirie. On the west coast, San Diego and the Puget Sound
area. And the regional maintenance idea is simply to
consolidate maintenance functions like electric motor repairs,
so that you don't have 15 electric motor repair shops in the
Norfolk area. You have one, they do it at the ship yard now,
and the Navy enlisted personnel and the craftsmen from the ship
yard work side-by-side, so the enlisted personnel get excellent
training and so forth. And the costs of the whole operation are
held down. The regionalization of maintenance is, I think--and
this is not my business, incidently, that I'm talking about.
I'm a real estate person, but the regionalization of
maintenance is a terrific idea that's going to have big payoff
in the future.
Mr. Packard. Is that going to require some significant
construction work?
Mr. Pirie. I think that it's likely that it will require
less rather than more. I mean, we're using, the electric motor
example, we're using the electric motor facilities at Norfolk
Naval Ship Yard and actually that capacity more efficiently.
Mr. Packard. To be responsive.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, sir.
pier modernization
Mr. Packard. Well, in some of the Navy facilities in San
Diego, we saw the revitalization and actually the building of
new pier facilities on North Island. How far behind are we, or
are we behind on pier facilities throughout the country,
throughout the Navy?
Mr. Pirie. We have a great deal of backlog of maintenance
on piers to make up. I can't give you an exact figure. I will
supply that for the record, but, you know, in many of our
locations, our piers are not in as good shape as they ought to
be and that's going to be a major focus of our future efforts.
Mr. Packard. With the home-porting concepts, is that going
to require changing our piers or adding some to certain areas,
like we are at San Diego? Is that being done?
Mr. Pirie. We're pretty well there, in terms of the
existing pier facilities. Modernization is going to have to
take place. There may be some new piers required, for example,
if it's decided to home-port an additional aircraft carrier in
the Bremerton area, we'd probably have to build a pier there.
The pier in--or the wharf in San Diego will be to accommodate
the aircraft carriers that will be home-ported there. They will
be--the Navy's now doing an environmental impact statement on
the carrier home-porting on the west coast, so I can't
anticipate the answer particularly, but the nuclear carriers
have different requirements from the conventional carriers, but
this doesn't argue a major pier building requirement. We're
building in ones and twos and upgrading certain locations, but
our major problem in piers is refurbishing and keeping in good
shape what we have rather than building new.
third-party contracting for child care services
Mr. Packard. The Navy has been selected to conduct the
demonstration program for third-party contracting for child
care centers, or child care services, I should say, not
necessarily the construction of the centers. Incidently, San
Diego, as you know, I think, has been selected as the area to
really pilot the out-sourcing concept of this whole service.
How is that working, and are we far enough along to evaluate it
and just update me on where we're at?
Mr. Pirie. I'll have to supply that for the record, sir.
That's not my bailiwick. The Assistant Secretary of Manpower
and Reserve Forces----
[The information follows:]
The Department of the Navy has two outsourcing initiatives
underway. The first is the demonstration project, included in
the FY95 DoD Appropriations Act, for which DoD requested Navy
to serve as the Executive Agent. The purpose of this project is
to expand availability of affordable child care in five fleet
concentration areas by contracting for spaces to ``buy down''
rates in qualifying civilian child development centers. Service
members would pay the same rate as they would pay at an on-base
child development center, and the government would pay the
contractor the difference. Criteria for civilian centers to
participate in this program is accreditation by the National
Academy of Early Childhood Programs, a division of the National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Two legislative requirements, the Service Contract Act
(SCA) and the Crime Control Act, have impacted implementation
of this initiative.
The first solicitation was issued in FY95 but the feedback
from potential bidders in the Norfolk area indicated the SCA
minimum wage rate was higher than the child care wages in the
Norfolk area. The Department of Labor (DOL) recommended that
Navy conduct a wage survey and present the results to the DOL.
The Navy did conduct a survey, which resulted in lower SCA wage
rates in most of the five areas.
A second solicitation was issued and in December 1996, five
contracts were awarded in Norfolk, Virginia and three in
Jacksonville, Florida for a total of 235 spaces. The contracts
can not be implemented until sufficient background checks have
been completed to meet the requirements of the Crime Control
Act. Delivery orders will be issued for the Norfolk contracts
in March 1997. A third solicitation will close 8 April 1997, to
include San Diego, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.
We do know that the current contracts provide economical
spaces for children ages three to five years. However, we don't
know if civilian centers will be able to provide economical
spaces for children under two years of age, which is our
greatest need.
Secondly and simultaneously, the Department of the Navy is
conducting an A-75 Commercial Activities Study in the San Diego
area. This study will write a performance work statement and
develop the government's most efficient organization on a
regional basis (both Navy and Marine Corps). It will also
determine if the private sector can effectively compete and
manage the Department's current child development program, as
well as increase future capacity to meet the child care
requirement by 2003. This test includes use of qualifying on-
and off-base child development centers and in-home family child
care.
We are presently working with our Office of the General
Counsel to resolve the question of the application of the SCA
to the Family Child Care (FCC) providers. Currently, FCC
providers are not government employees. The Department of the
Navy manages the FCC program, which includes the recruitment,
certification, training, and inspection of FCC providers and
homes. In some locations the Department of the Navy provides a
payment to the provider to subsidize the amount paid by the
parent. The Navy Office of the General Counsel is reviewing the
overall concept to determine the appropriate contract mechanism
and potential application of the SCA to the FCC program.
Mr. Packard. But it is conceptual as well, and I'd
appreciate any report you could give on this event for the
record. Looking at the parochial side, I noticed in your
testimony also that Miramar Naval Air Station is building a new
mess hall or dining facilities. Was that necessary because of
the restructuring of Miramar and the Marines coming to Miramar,
or would that have been necessary if Miramar would have
continued as a naval air facility?
Mr. Pirie. It would have been necessary even if the Marines
hadn't come to Miramar. The existing mess hall was an
unsatisfactory facility and we would have needed to do that
sooner rather than later.
Mr. Packard. Do you know when that's to be completed? I've
not been at Miramar for a few years.
Mr. Pirie. The mess hall in Miramar, '98.
marsh task force
Mr. Packard. We've talked about private sector initiatives
and you certainly do have my strong support to move in that
direction where it works and we're finding that it works in
many more areas than perhaps we initially were thinking. But
you've outlined some of the areas where you're pursuing that.
The Marsh Task Force last year identified five areas where the
quality of life would be addressed, that affected both the
singles and unaccompanied personnel as well as family housing,
but primarily I think it was single and unaccompanied. What
steps are the Navy and the Marine Corps taking to address these
issues? How do you envision the plan working?
Mr. Pirie. Well, the Marsh Panel found that our housing
situation was not particularly satisfactory and recommended the
creation of a military housing authority. We've examined that
proposition and rather than go in that direction, have chosen
to emphasize the public/private ventures and the Pirie
initiatives that we have. I think we've got a great deal of
learning yet to do about public/private ventures in housing and
before we launch off and create a mega housing authority, I
think we probably ought to see how these other ways of dealing
with the private sector and bringing in private sector capital
can be made to work for us. So that's where we're putting our
money, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Perhaps maybe my last question, and then if we
submit additional questions to have you respond for the record,
you'd be willing to do that, I'm sure.
Mr. Pirie. Gladly, Mr. Chairman.
demolition of excess facilities
Mr. Packard. Again, as I drive through bases and it's
obvious that there are old buildings that are boarded up, not
used, they're really deteriorated to the point where they are
an eyesore and they're a problem. I know that you're
concentrating on that more and more, I think what we've heard
previously is that the goal is to certainly, at least, take one
down for every one they replace or add. Would you report on how
the Navy is coming in that area, demolishing old structures,
and the problems you're having with it?
Mr. Pirie. Well, we've had substantial amounts of money put
in the budget both in '96--I mean, rather '97 and '98 for
demolition and we're emphasizing and it's an important
practice, not only because the old buildings are unsightly and
expensive to just be caretakers of, but also because there's a
tendency for people to want to move back into the old buildings
from time to time and then you're stuck with them for even more
periods of time. So it's one of our priorities and we haven't--
--
Mr. Packard. Have you expended all of the monies that have
been allocated for that purpose in the last two budget years?
ADM Nash. We'll get back to you on that, sir, but we have
spent some of it, I'm not sure that we've spent all of it, but
we're really focused on this program because we really think
it's one very, very important thing for us to be doing.
[The information follows:]
We have obligated the entire $6.4 million allocated in 1996
in our centrally managed O&M account for demolition. In 1997 we
have obligated about 10% of the $25 million allocated and are
currently preparing the balance of the program for execution
and funds obligation by the end of the year. There is also
demolition included in some military construction projects when
the new building is placed on an already occupied site or an
inadequate building is replaced. Also, some of our major
claimants and installations are demolishing facilities with
their own O&M funds.
Mr. Packard. I have the privilege of going out and playing
golf at Camp Pendleton every now and then and I drive right by
a lot of those buildings that are really waiting for demolition
and so if the funds are not being spent, then it's not because
there is not the need there.
Mr. Pirie. Well, there is a need, yes, sir. And I'm sure
General Reinke has told you that, you know, he wanted to
bulldoze one of them and somebody moved in and then he couldn't
do it and----
Mr. Packard. Well, and you can't just bulldoze them any
more.
Mr. Pirie. Yes, that's true, sir.
Mr. Packard. Some environmental requirements make it so
that it's almost as costly to tear them down as it is to build
them. Well, that's exaggerating, but the point is, it isn't
like it used to be where you could just either put a match to
them or you could bulldoze them or even hire somebody--or
somebody actually will pay you to come in and take the lumber
off. You can't do that anymore. There's paint and asbestos and
environmental problems and it's a different story now, I
recognize that. And that's unfortunate in some ways. I
appreciate your response, Mr. Pirie. We're very fortunate to
have Ms. Anne Northup with us today, welcome to the
subcommittee. She's from Louisville, Kentucky, a new member of
our committee, the Appropriations Committee. She doesn't sit on
this subcommittee, but has asked if she could come and ask a
question or two that relates to some of her issues in her
district, and so I certainly yield to Mrs. Northup at this
time.
louisville, kentucky
Ms. Northup. Thank you. Mr. Pirie, I have several questions
related to the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville. I know
that the Naval Ordnance Station was sort of the first effort at
privatization. It occurred in my district, it had quite a--
there was quite a lot of press, a lot of effort by the Navy to
point to a successful effort at privatizing a facility. There
are a lot of concerns related to that, both short-term and
long-term and I'd like to go over some of those with you now.
The short-term is that United Defense is the company that
has the contract. When companies bid on privatizing Naval
Ordnance, there, of course, would have to be an estimate of
what the contract would be for business. Was the Navy going to
buy $5 million worth of business, or $100 million of business
at this facility. And your, the Navy, estimated the level of
business to be about $47 million. But after United Defense won
the contract and before the facility actually changed hands,
that was reduced to $41 million. And the company, United
Defense was required to hire people at a level to sustain $41
million worth of Navy business.
Almost immediately after that was privatized, you reduced
the contract to United Defense to $35 million. This is a $6
million change, there are all of the people who were offered
work at United Defense, had to give up all of their previous
opportunities for future work at federal installations and
retirement benefits and other benefits. So they took quite a
chance on the Navy when they became employees of UnitedDefense.
I know that you're working hard to find the $6 million, but I am very
concerned about that trend. I think if the Navy did not intend to keep
their level of work at a sustained level through the short-term
transfer so that there would be any viability for this facility, that
should have been decided up front so that nobody took the risk, not the
city, not the county, not the individual employees.
But since they did, you know, I want to know what your
level of commitment is and what you think will happen in terms
of sustaining, on the short-term, the level of commitment that
you, that the Navy estimated.
Mr. Pirie. I'm not the Assistant Secretary of the Navy who
deals with workload or assignment of work to Louisville. That's
the job of the Assistant Secretary for Research, Development
and Acquisition, Mr. John Douglass. So I'm just not in a
position to say what the Navy is going to be doing there. The
whole rationale behind the closure and privatization was the
sort of downsizing of the Navy and the diminution of the amount
of gunwork there is to be done. So I know that there's some
difficulty in finding the work to put it. But I'll have to let
Mr. Douglas respond to that question, ma'am.
[The information follows:]
The Navy is committed to giving privatization-in-place at
Louisville every opportunity to succeed as long as the quality
is acceptable and the costs are competitive. The Navy has a
vested interest in this initiative in that it retains a much
needed technical capability to support the fleet, shrinks Navy
infrastructure, and saves money. Our commitment has been and
will continue to be that all of this type of work needed by the
Navy will be performed by the Louisville privatization
contractors. The declining Navy budget, the need to fund
contingency operations, and the reduction in the size of the
fleet will all have effects on the financial level available to
support existing systems in the fleet. As you stated we are
continuing to work with the privatization contractors to reduce
costs and are continuing to identify funding for our much
needed fleet support work.
Ms. Northup. Well, you know, the concern is there are
people that--there's a reason, it's the pentagon, and I've
decided that there are five sides to every project we do. But
you are the person in charge of installations and the future of
this installation depends on the Navy finding this work and
sustaining the cost for this work. So I'm asking you to be
engaged in the question, after this meeting, of whether or not
the work is going to be there. I'm realizing that this is an
evolving process, but again, I'd like to point out. It was less
than two months after transfer that a $6 million cut was in
place. You know, that, to me, does not signal a good faith
effort on the Navy's part to fully fund what was necessary to
sustain these jobs.
Let me say that I understand that you cannot commit and nor
can the Navy, nor can they to taxpayers, long-term level of
work that can be done over the next 20 years to make sure that
this privatization takes place and is successful. But clearly,
the first year, the second year, in that time frame, the Navy
has got to provide the work there that they said they were
going to do. My understanding is that it's not a question that
there's not the work. It's where this work is going to take
place, and that maybe privatization conceptually, at the top
levels, is something the Navy wishes to do. It's a good deal
for taxpayers, they get more work done at a cheaper cost. And
that ought to be the goal of what the Navy, whether it's
installations or contracts or whatever, is trying to achieve.
However, farther down the line, there may be people within
the Department of the Navy that would rather keep that business
on Navy controlled sites rather than privatization sites. So
even though the work is being done, it's my understanding there
are other places where there are similar opportunities for work
where this work is being carried out that are not privatized.
So if there is a conflict within the Navy about whether they
want to privatize an amount of work, it's my, at least,
understanding that it's not there isn't work, it's just not
coming to Louisville. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Pirie. No, I have no idea what the situation is. It's
not my area of responsibility.
Ms. Northup. The success of the privatization, do you
consider that part of your responsibility?
Mr. Pirie. The success of the privatization is essentially
up to the local redevelopment authority and the corporations
involved. And I have been urging the Mayor of Louisville and
Mr. Jimly, the head of the local Redevelopment Authority, to
think very seriously about supporting that facility with
private sector work because it appears to me that that Navy
work is going to be declining over the years.
Ms. Northup. Over the years, I would agree with you. But I
want to reiterate that they have to see it through in the
short-term. But I'm glad you brought up long-term development,
because that was the second question I wanted to ask you. There
is no way that they are going to be able to have any private
work in there despite the fact that it's in a prime location,
we have a great opportunity, unless the Navy is willing to do a
conveyance, an economic development conveyance of the property
to the local Redevelopment Authority. What are your plans in
that area?
Mr. Pirie. When the Redevelopment Authority has developed a
plan to use the facility, we will make that in accordance with
the regulations for disposing of the property. The primary
alternative and the environmental impact statement, we are
required to by NEPA and when the environmental impact statement
is done, it will really depend upon what the local
Redevelopment Authority asks for in that redevelopment plan and
whether they ask for an economic development conveyance or some
other mode of conveyance, we will have to consider that on its
merits and in accordance with the laws and regulations we have
to comply with.
Ms. Northup. When do you expect the environmental impact
statement to be completed?
Mr. Pirie. Well, I don't know, I guess we really have to
hear from them about what they want to do with the property
before we can start the environmental impact statement.
Ms. Northup. Well, they're in a real bind here, because
there is--we know there is environmental cleanup, about $26
million. No company is going to come in there and be at that
facility if they don't know that they have a long-term lease.
And we can't offer a long-term lease because we don't have a
conveyance. So you're not going to act until they have a plan.
They're--it almost adjoins our airport, because it's a UPS hub
in Louisville, there is a tremendous dynamic right now in
Louisville of economic development around the UPS hub.
Companies that want to have overnight servicing of products,
overnight repair, whether it's in--we have 14 companies that
have come in. They would love to consider Naval Ordnance. Navel
Ordnance needs them very badly and it's good for the Navy
because it will help reduce the rental that United Defense had
to pay, and therefore reduce their overhead.
But none of those things can take place. If the Naval
Ordnance cannot offer a long-term lease for a building or for
property on there, they can't offer that as long as there are
the environmental problems.
Mr. Pirie. Well, I see no reason why they can't offer a
long-term lease. Why should they not be able to?
Ms. Northup. Well, they are apparently under the belief
that until the--that companies will not sign a lease until the
local Redevelopment Authority has control of the property.
Mr. Pirie. Well, we haven't found that difficulty in other
areas of the country.
Ms. Northup. What other areas is----
Mr. Pirie. Charleston.
Ms. Northup. Charleston?
Mr. Pirie. Yes.
Ms. Northup. Do you have any idea where--I know that there
is a set aside in the budget, in the President's budget for
environmental cleanup for base closures, bases that the Navy is
no longer going to own. Do you have a priority of what bases
that money will be spent, at what bases that money will be
spent?
Mr. Pirie. We put priority on the bases that have the best
near-term reuse prospects. That's simply a budgetary
consideration.
Ms. Northup. So is there a list?
Mr. Pirie. There's no--well, we do have a list of--and a
plan for cleanup, we can provide you that, yes.
Ms. Northup. Just this week, or last week we were informed
that all the ball teams that have originally played on the
extra land out there, this community-wide effort, that they
would no longer be allowed to play because of the dioxin, trace
amounts of dioxin that was found in the soil. I guess it's
pretty clear that if we're going to--if a company moved in
there and perhaps the environmental impact statement shows that
there is some hazardous materials, that the company wouldn't be
able to stay in that building or on that facility.
Mr. Pirie. We're working with the local EPA to assess the
amounts of dioxin and we should have a report fairly shortly on
that. It's not at all clear now whether it is a hazard to human
health and safety, but we want to make absolutely sure that we
know before we let the kids back on the ball fields. We are
proceeding to assess the site to make sure that we understand
what's there. And you said trace amounts of dioxin, trace
amounts are parts per trillion, that's a very small amount of
dioxin. We're not certain that it's really a hazard.
Ms. Northup. Well, again, I can't tell you how focused the
people of Jefferson County are on making this privatization
work. It's in--it's located so strategically in Jefferson
County, near the airport, near the UPS hub, for economic
development opportunities. We're very eager to have private
companies come in there. We realize that it's a long-term
future, but if, because of environmental cleanup, or lack
thereof, or lack of conveyance, we are unable to proceed to
make this viable based on private companies coming in there,
then we have to continue to rely on the Navy for a longer
period of time. You know, I've talked to you about the United
Defense, if that were an individual occurrence, I would say, I
could understand that maybe it had caught somebody off guard,
but there was also the Cockie, that's 60 employees that went
with the Cockie. They had a budget that was in place, the
transference of the facility occurred on the 20th of August. On
September 19th, the Division of the Navy that oversees it
issued a stop work order. It was less than a month after the
signing and had apparently the intention of transferring that
work up to their own installation rather than allow a private
company to begin to grow these services, or to begin to provide
these services. That's hardly a good-faith effort at
privatization. If they didn't intend to fund it and keep the
funding at a level amount long enough to get this private
effort on its feet, then they shouldn't have privatized it and
shouldn't have taken all these jobs and had these men and women
take these risks. So I ask you, to whatever extent you are in
charge--you can participate in solving this and making this a
good-faith effort, at least on the short-term, a full-funded
effort, I would ask you to do that.
Mr. Pirie. I'd be glad to help in any way I can.
Ms. Northup. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I just ask you, in the
process of the appropriations budget, I'm not on this
subcommittee, I am on the committee, but I think as we
appropriate money in the process, that we have to make sure
that we live up to the contracts, the efforts that we make and
that the Navy looks up to those expectations and those
responsibilities. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, we appreciate your appearance
before the committee. Mr. Kingston, you've just arrived. We've
got a few minutes before we adjourn, so why don't you----
Mr. Kingston. That puts some pressure on me----
Mr. Packard. No, no, you have the rest of the meeting.
hiring home schooled individuals
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
wanted to ask you the same questions that I asked Secretary
Walker with the Army yesterday. In terms of recruitment, the
Army read some statements about hiring non-high school
graduates and so forth, and I had no editorial comment on that
at all. But recently a young man came to our district office
who was unable to be accepted into the armed services, although
he did not name Navy, but because he was a home-schooler, a
graduate from a home school. Do you have a policy on home
school?
Mr. Pirie. This is another area, which I am delighted to
say, is not my area of expertise. And I'm sorry I don't know
the answer to that question, but we could provide that for you,
sir.
[The information follows:]
In response to the proliferation of new types of
educational credentials that had surfaced (e.g., high school
equivalencies based on competency examinations, adult
educational diplomas, experiential learning diplomas, etc.), in
1987 the Department of Defense developed a three-tier system
for classifying educational credentials. The three tiers are:
(1) high School graduates; (2) alternative credential holders;
and (3) non-high school graduates. For enlistment purposes
individuals in tier one are considered high school diploma
graduates, while those in tiers two and three are identified as
non-high school diploma graduates. Consistent with this OSD
policy guidance, the Department of the Navy considers and
enlists home schooled applicants as Non-High School Diploma
Graduates (NHSDGs). Current Department of the Navy policy
limits the enlistment of NHSDGs to five percent of total fiscal
year accessions.
ritalin
Mr. Kingston. I would be very interested in that. And you
know, while you're at it, if you could tell me what your
program is on Ritalin, kids on Ritalin, if you accept them. I
can tell that you--you probably spank your children, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Pirie. My children are in a position to spank me.
Mr. Packard. That's the drug that's used for hyperactive
kids these days.
Mr. Kingston. Yes. Yuppie parents drug their kids, they
don't spank them.
Mr. Packard. Not this yuppie parent.
Mr. Pirie. My youngest is 28 years old.
Mr. Kingston. This drug is very, very common in elementary
schools all over the country, and kids are given it and it
calms them down for their hyperactivity. If you're a 10-year-
old boy and you're a hyperactive boy, the world's against you
today because the teachers can't spank you. We, also in our
district office, encountered a young man who had been on
Ritalin and because of that, he was not accepted into the armed
services, because it was considered a disease that regular
medication had to be applied for. And it was not again the
Navy, but I can promise you it's something that also, I
certainly don't fault the armed services for saying we don't
want people who are chronic drug users because of a physical
condition because you have to have high physical standards. But
on the same hand, I don't know that parents have a clue about
this or student guidance counselors and it is something that--I
think it's just a scandal growing, if you will, that there are
a lot of people who don't know when they put their kids on
Ritalin that they're ruining a potential career in the armed
services.
Mr. Pirie. That's right. This is the provence of our
Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Dr.
Rostker, but I'll take this up with him. I do know, just sort
of in passing, that if someone is on a program of regular
medication, that that's a bar to enlistment. But I don't know
that that should necessarily apply to this one. But I'll find
out and we'll get the answer to it.
[The information follows:]
Consistent with a Department of Defense Directive 6130.3
``Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, and
Induction,'' any individual who currently uses Ritalin to
improve or maintain academic skills will be disqualified for
enlistment. Individuals who have had a history of academic
skills disorders which interfere with work or school after the
age of twelve and have a history of medication, but who are
currently not using Ritalin or other medication to improve or
maintain skills, may apply for a medical waiver. Waiver
packages are carefully reviewed on a case by case basis by the
Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED) and must contain a
psychological consultation and letters from teachers,
counselors and coaches which verify that the person functions
normally in an academic setting without medication. Upon
reviewing an applicant's request for a waiver, BUMED looks for
at least one year of normal function off medication. If an
applicant is still in high school or college, BUMED looks for
one semester off medication as indicative of their ability to
function well in a mainstreamed arena. Many young people cease
to require medication support as they mature since they adapt
to effective forms of adult learning that allow them to become
successful physicians, teachers, attorneys, dentists, etc.
However, some young people continue to require medication to
function at a reasonable level of learning and responsibility.
These are the applicants who are not considered suitable for
military service. Methyphenidate (Ritalin), a Schedule II
controlled substance, and other similar drugs also have a
significant possibility for abuse. Should an applicant receive
a waiver to enter the Navy or Marine Corps, any interruption of
medication supply, especially in an operational setting, could
significantly impair their ability to function and may impair
the success of the mission or impose personal safety concerns.
Mr. Kingston. In this case, many of them have been on
Ritalin for say a two or three-year period of time, they ended
it when they were 15 or 16, but other times they go on and I am
not criticizing the parents who put children on Ritalin as much
as I'm saying, people don't realize how serious this decision
is, because if they're not well informed about it, they should
know about it.
Mr. Packard. That may not be unique to Ritalin either,
there may be other drugs for other problems.
Mr. Kingston. That's true. That's a drug problem.
Mr. Packard. But the point, I think that maybe Mr. Kingston
is making, is that any drug that would be used to perform any
function on a child or even a teenager, if they're using that
drug when they come up for enlistment, it may affect their
potential for enlistment. So I don't know that you'd want to
reevaluate your policy, but maybe there may be an educational
need here.
Mr. Kingston. I think it's an education need because I
think your policy has good reason and we don't want to
micromanage your policy, we micromanage too many other things
that we're busy on. I also have, in my district, King's Bay
Naval Base.
Mr. Packard. I was there last month, a super place.
Mr. Kingston. All my dealings with them, just absolutely
topnotch people who could do anything that they want to, very
intelligent, very well disciplined and very impressive.
Mr. Packard. Very good--super relations with the community,
very harmonious.
Mr. Kingston. We're glad to have them there.
Mr. Packard. On the Ritalin issue, the normal practice or
the normal procedure would be that they outgrow the need for
it. I had one son for whom it was prescribed but by his early
teens he had outgrown it and that's the normal procedure. So
that if they're still on it at the time that they are ready
for, old enough for enlistment, it may be a more serious
problem than the Navy or any other branch would want to deal
with. And it may therefore, the policy, may have some
significant appropriate application. But I don't know whether
the history of ever having Ritalin, I don't think would affect
enlistment if they're off of it.
Mr. Kingston. I think that what my question was more to
make sure the Navy has a policy on it, and to do my part to
make sure that the parents and the guidance counselors, because
sometimes the schools administer the drug, but that folks know
about it. But I know lots of children, lots of my friends and
relatives who are on the drug who could be affected by this.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. We sincerely appreciate your being such a good
witness and answering our questions and we're very delighted to
have you before us. We appreciate the chance to work with you
as we develop the budget and as we develop our bill. If there
are no other questions or comments, thank you, and the hearing
is adjourned.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Packard:]
Family Housing Maintenance
Question. The budget request includes a reduction of $46 million
from the enacted levels for family housing maintenance. This is after a
reduction of over $25 million in fiscal 1997. Is this budget adequate
to address the tremendous need for maintenance and repair of existing
units?
Answer. Yes. The Department of the Navy's fiscal year 1998
maintenance request provides sufficient funding to take care of routine
maintenance, preventive maintenance, service calls, and change of
occupancy, as well as small repair projects that work off the backlog.
The number of homes we need to maintain has decreased due to
divestiture of excess homes primarily due to base closure. Homes
requiring whole house revitalization, which includes improvements as
well as concurrent repairs, are funded out of the improvement account.
Sigonella, Italy
Question. What is the current status of providing additional family
housing at Sigonella Naval Air Station in Italy?
Answer. Naval Air Station in Sigonella, Italy, has an inventory of
98 government owned homes and 460 government leased homes available for
Navy families. An additional 65 leased homes at nearby Palmeri are now
under construction.
Currently, most of the Navy families living in the private
community are unsuitably housed. Housing in the community has
undependable utilities and lacks central heating, kitchen cabinets and
appliances. We have initiatives underway that would provide a total of
904 homes. A lease construct project for the first phase of 404 new
homes is now under negotiation.
Barracks/Balanced Program
Question. $172 million, or 32 percent of the Navy's construction
request, is for Bachelor Enlisted Quarters. Has the Navy been able to
budget for a balanced program with the emphasis on 1+1, one which
provides proper troop housing yet still meets the growing
infrastructure and operational needs?
Answer. Yes. Overall, the construction budget proposed by the
Department of the Navy presents a reasonable balance between improving
QOL and supporting infrastructure/operational needs.
Family Housing Improvement Fund
Question. In the past two years $45 million has been appropriated
for the Family Housing Improvement Fund. What rationale does the
Department use for the distribution of these funds? Is it allotted to
the Services, or held centrally to allow every project to complete?
Answer. Recently, the Department of Defense adopted the following
criteria regarding the use of the centrally-managed FHIF:
The project addresses a critical housing priority.
The project achieves target leverage.
The project cannot be readily funded from other available
resources.
The project expands our experience in using the privatization tools
and mechanisms.
The project broadens our base of project size configuration.
Question. Are we seeing a movement for this program to be a
substitute for construction versus the original intent that it be a
supplement?
Answer. No. We are experiencing a learning curve during which time
the DON--and private indsutry--are working together to gain a better
understanding of how the new legislative authorities can best be used
to provide access to quality, affordable housing for our Sailors and
Marines.
Unobligated Balances
Question. The budget proposes to finance a total $8.5 million from
unobligated prior year appropriations for the Family Housing, Navy
account. Why was it formulated in this manner and why didn't the
Department request a traditional rescission of these funds? Provide for
the record the individual sources which derive the $8.5 million.
Answer. The proposed use of $8.5 million of unobligated prior year
appropriations to offset the cost of the replacement of 128 homes at
the Lemoore Naval Air Station allows the Navy to construct more homes
there than would otherwise be possible in Fiscal Year 1998. The Navy's
budget proposal maximizes the use of general savings available from
prior year appropriations to minimize the need for Fiscal Year 1998
appropriations.
If a general rescission is the preferred means of addressing the
$8.5 million of general savings, the Lemoore project must be fully
appropriated at a cost of $23,226,000. The general rescission should be
applied to Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 as follows: fiscal year 1996,
$5,000,000; and Fiscal year 1997, $3,463,000. This would also eliminate
the requirements for reprogramming and cost variation that would be
inherent with the lower appropriation.
At the time that the budget was submitted to Congress, it was
unclear whether or not a general rescission could be applied without
the identification of specific projects as the source of funds. As a
result, the Navy did not request a tratiional rescission of funds,
because the funds to be used to offset the cost of the Lemoore project
cannot be attributed to specific Fiscal Year 1994-1997 projects.
Specifically, $5.3 million of the total $8.5 million are derived
from general savings that are currently available to the Navy as a
result of a unique series of circumstances, dating back to Fiscal Year
1989:
In Fiscal years 1989 and 1991, two large housing projects were
authorized and appropriated for the Long Beach Naval Station:
Fiscal year 1989, construct 300 units--$26.1 million.
Fiscal year 1991, construct 300 units--$25.0 million.
During the latter part of Fiscal Year 1991, both projects were
canceled as a result of a 1991 Base Realignment and Closure action.
Rather than rescind the funds for these two projects, Congress
directed that the funds be used to construct needed housing at both
Alameda and San Diego. 344 units of housing at Alameda had been
authorized and appropriated in Fiscal Year 1990 at a cost of $28.4
million. Soon thereafter, funds for this project were reprogrammed to
repair and replace property damaged by Hurricane Hugo. In their
Conference report accompanying the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal year 1992, the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees directed that $34.0 million (of the $51.1 million available)
from the two Long Beach projects be used to construct the 344 units at
Alameda. The remaining $17.1 million was to be used to construct 148
units at San Diego.
In the latter part of 1993, this time as a result of 1993 Base
Realignment and Closure action, the Alameda project was canceled. The
$25.0 million that had originally been appropriated for the Fiscal year
1991 project at the Long Beach Naval Station was subsequently rescinded
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees via the Military
Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994.
$17.1 million of the original Fiscal Year 1989 Long Beach
appropriation was used to construct the 148 units at San Diego. The
contract was awarded in April 1993 and completed in May 1995.
Rather than let the $9.0 million balance expire at the end of
Fiscal Year 1993, the Navy utilized split-funding authority to apply
these funds toward the execution of several Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993
projects--resulting in general savings in each of these two fiscal
years. In similar fashion, these savings were applied toward the
execution of several subsequent-year projects. In addition, a portion
of these savings ($3.6 million) was used as a source of funds for the
recent reprogramming to complete the construction of 300 units in San
Diego. The remaining balance of $5.4 million is available as general
savings in Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997.
An additional $3.2 million of general savings is available in
Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 as a result of savings on a number of other
Fiscal year 1993 and prior projects. Likewise, these savings were also
applied to subsequent-year projects--resulting in the availability of
additional general savings in Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997.
Third Party Contracting for Child Care Services
Question. How will the Service Contract Act impact this outsourcing
option?
Answer. We are presently working with the Office of General Counsel
to resolve the question of the application of the SCA to the family
child care (FCC) providers. Currently, FCC providers are not government
employees. The Department of the Navy manages the FCC program, which
includes the recruitment, certification, training, and inspection of
FCC providers and homes. And, in some locations DON provides a payment
to the provider to subsidize the amount paid by the parent. The Office
of General Counsel is reviewing the overall concept to determine the
appropriate contracting mechanism, and the potential application of the
SCA to the FCC program.
Child Care Facilities
Question. Does the Navy meet the Department of the Defense goal of
providing for 65 percent of the child care requirement?
Answer. The Navy currently meets 47% of the child care requirement.
Funding has been programmed to meet the 65% goal by FY 2003.
Question. What is the current plan for reducing and eliminating
current deficiencies?
Answer. The Navy plans to increase capacity through the following
alternatives.
(1) Selected programmed MILCON centers through FY03. In addition
increased O&MN finding is identified in the FYDP to operate these new
centers once completed, and to also fund current centers so they can
operate at maximum capacity.
2. Use of off-base civilian child development centers:
a. Contract with civilian centers in fleet concentration areas to
``buy down'' rates: Contracts have been awarded in Norfolk and
Jacksonville, and will soon be awarded in San Diego, Seattle and Pearl
Harbor, to ``buy down'' rates in civilian accredited child development
centers. The Service member will pay the same rate as they would pay at
an on-base child development center, and the government would pay the
contractor the difference. Criteria for civilian centers to participate
in this program is accredition by the National Academy of Early
Childhood Programs, a division of the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
b. Resource and Referral: Navy has hired resource and referral
personnel to assist parents in obtaining care in off-base, state
licensed centers. Parents will pay the civilian center rate (i.e.,
subsidy will be received from the Navy). However, spaces will be
counted toward meeting the 65% goal if the center is accredited and the
parent cost is no more than 120% of the cost they would pay at the on-
base center.
(3) Expand Family Child Care to authorize military spouses living
off-base to be certified Navy in-home care providers, creating a large
pool of providers in more locations surrounding the military
installations.
(4) Simultaneously, the Department of the Navy is conducting an A-
76 Commercial Activities Study in the San Diego area, to write a
performance work statement, develop the government's most efficient
organization on a regional basis, and determine if the private sector
can effectively compete and meet the potential need by 2003, at equal
or better quality and availability, for equal or less cost to the
government. The test includes use of qualifying on and off-base child
development centers and in-home care.
Question. Provide a listing, in priority order, of the location and
estimated cost of all child care development center construction
necessary to eliminate this backlog?
Answer. The following is a prioritized list of child care
development center construction that has been validated by the Navy's
planning system:
NAS Key West FL............................................... 4,130
MCAS Cherry Point, NC......................................... 4,890
NH Portsmouth, VA............................................. 2,300
NAVICP Philadelphia, PA....................................... 1,550
NAS Keflavik IC............................................... 4,466
NAVICP Mechanicsburg, PA...................................... 1,600
NSB New London, CT............................................ 3,300
Norfolk NSY Portsmouth, VA.................................... 4,700
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA........................................ 2,600
NAS Lemoore, CA............................................... 2,400
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.......................................... 3,500
NAS North Island, CA.......................................... 6,400
NSB Pearl Harbor, HI.......................................... 1,900
NAVPHIBASE Coronado, CA....................................... 2,800
NAS Oceana, VA................................................ 1,550
NSWCCSTSYS Panama City, FL.................................... 1,060
NAS Jacksonville, FL.......................................... 1,300
NS Pearl Harbor, HI........................................... 2,700
NSWC Dahlgren, VA............................................. 3,200
NWS Earle, NJ................................................. 1,240
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 53,456
Environmental Compliance
Question. What is the total amount requested to meet environmental
needs?
Answer. A total of $37,340,000 is requested for Fiscal Year 1998
for construction to meet environmental requirements and $47,997,000 is
requested for Fiscal Year 1999, for a two year total of $85,337,000.
Question. For the record, provide a listing of the individual
projects and associated costs?
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project cost
PNO Activity ST Description ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1998
375.............................. Portsmouth Norfolk VA................. Oily waste collect 9,500
NSY. system.
053.............................. Camp Pendleton MCAS CA................. Emergency spill 2,840
control.
400.............................. Pearl Harbor NS.... HI................. Oily waste coll 25,000
trtmnt sys.
---------------
1998 Total................. ................... ................... ................... 37,340
FISCAL YEAR 1999
406.............................. Newport NETC....... RI................. Boiler plant 8,700
modifications.
497.............................. Pearl Harbor PWC... HI................. Sewer outfall 23,947
extension.
149.............................. Indian Head NSWC... MD................. Annealing oven 8,200
facility.
410.............................. Pearl Harbor PWC... HI................. Steam condensate 6,200
return SY.
420.............................. Guam Navacts....... ................... Bilge oily 950
wastetrmnt fac.
---------------------------------- ---------------
1999 Total................. ................... ................... ................... 47,997
===============
Grand Total................ ................... ................... ................... 85,337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elimination of Explosive Safety Waivers
Question. Please provide for the record a list of projects
programmed in Fiscal Year 1998 that are part of the Navy
Investment Strategy to eliminate explosive safety waivers as
directed by the Department of Defense.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project cost
PNO Activity ST Description ($000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
708.............................. Yorktown NWS....... VA................. Gymnasium.......... 5,400
186.............................. Jacksonville NAS... FL................. Ordance loading 1,330
apron.
202.............................. El Centro NAF...... CA................. Ordance facilities. 11,000
---------------
1998 Total....................... ................... ................... ................... 17,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Marine Corps does not have any projects programmed in
Fiscal Year 1998 that are part of the Navy Investment Strategy
to eliminate explosive safety waivers.
Question. Does the Fiscal Year 1998 budget request satisfy
or buy-out the Navy Investment Strategy requirement to
eliminate explosive safety waivers? If not, what is the future
requirement by fiscal year and location?
Answer. The Marine Corps FY 1998 budget request does not
satisfy or buy-out the remaining explosive safety waivers
requiring elimination. The following table contains the Marine
Corps explosive safety waiver locations and the projected
fiscal year that the requirement will be satisfied:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Reason for waiver Program year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAS Cherry Point, North Permits storage of Unprogrammed.
Carolina. ordnance within the
Airfield Explosives
Prohibited Zone for
runways 14/32.
MCAS Yuma, Arizona............ Permits storage of FY 2000.
ordnance in magazines
that generate
Explosive Safety
Quantity Distance
(ESQD) Arcs that
extend beyond the Air
Station's boundary.
The land encumbered
is agricultural and
leased by the Air
Station..
MCAS Yuma, Arizona............ Permits loading of FY 2002.
explosives on combat
aircraft in the
flight line areas
without the Inhabited
Building Distance
requirement being
meet..
MCB Camp Pendleton, California Permits use of the Unprogrammed.
Horno Canyon
Helicopter Landing
Zone with ordnance
that generates an
ESQD Arc of 1,250
feet..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barracks Standard
Question. Please comment on how the Navy and Marine Corps have
incorporated the DoD ``1+1'' barracks standard in this year's budget
request.
Answer. The Navy is committed to achieving the 1+1 standard for our
permanent party Sailors by 2013. While programming projects to meet
this goal, the Navy must also provide for the need of Sailors attending
schools and transients in remote/isolated locations. In our 1998
request, the Navy has programmed seven projects. Four of the projects
are for permanent party personnel, two are for students and the seventh
is for transients in Bahrain.
The Marine Corps has received a waiver to the DoD ``1+1'' standard
for its FY 1998 barracks projects and is currently building 2+0 room
configured barracks. We feel this is the best balance between
maintaining operational readiness and enhancing the quality of life
(QOL) of our enlisted Marines in the shortest amount of time. The
Marine Corps FY 1998 request includes three CONUS projects built to the
2+0 alternative for permanent party personnel that will deliver a total
of 767 spaces.
Question. Have the Navy and Marine Corps budgeted for a balanced
program, one which provides improved troop housing yet still meets the
growing infrastructure improvement needs?
Answer. Yes $273.8 million or 39% of the DON construction program
is for bachelor quarters. This commitment to funding extends to FY 1999
and beyond.
Question. Have the Navy and Marine Corps developed a plan to use
privatization in meeting the ``1+1'' standard? If a plan has been
developed, how is the effort working?
Answer. The DON is in the early stages of developing Bachelor
Housing privatization projects. It has not moved beyond the conceptual
phase.
Barracks Planning and Design
Question. As a result of the DoD--wide barracks standard, have the
Navy and Marine Corps reduced the amount of planning and design
required for these projects, through the use of standardized design?
Answer. Yes, the amount requested in the FY 1998 Department of the
Navy budget submittal for planning and design was reduced in regards to
barracks projects. The adjustment was made for two reasons--to account
for savings that are being realized in using a standardized module
design approach, and in recognition of the proportion of the FY 1998
and FY 1999 MCON programs these barracks projects represent.
Question. Have the Navy and Marine Corps developed a single
standard design for barracks, or a very limited number of standard
designs?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's policy is to use design
standardization to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with user
requirements. Three standard modular layouts for 1+1 BEQ rooms have
been developed for garden-style, motel-style, and hotel-style barracks.
These layouts have been incorporated into our design manual for
bachelor quarters (MIL-HDBK-1036) and serve as the basic building
blocks from which the final 1+1 BEQ designs are developed. This is the
same methodology that was previously used for the design of our 2+2
barracks. It results in a significant decrease in the actual design
cost when compared with unique, one-of-a-kind designs.
Our experience has shown that site adaptable designs work best
where there is no allowable flexibility in functional layout nor
structure, e.g., ordnance magazines; or where there are little or no
problems fitting a facility onto a site, e.g., family housing. In the
case of barracks, the functional layout for a single 1+1 module is
easily pre-designed, but the final design of the overall facility is
influenced by the number of modules to be constructed, the
characteristics of the site, and the specific geographic and
climatologic requirements. For example:
Large, unrestricted sites allow the construction of garden-style
apartments using standard residential construction methodology.
Smaller more constricted sites require either motel or hotel-style
designs and depending on the number of stories, will require vastly
different structural and mechanical systems.
In each case, the design of the structural and mechanical systems
is dependent on site-specific geographic and climatic factors.
Where possible, existing designs are site adapted to construct
follow-on projects at a single installation, or similar projects at a
nearby installation as conditions allow.
Question. How do the Navy and Marine Corps evaluate whether the
architectural plan or appearance of an area or installation is
important enough to warrant significant additional design costs, rather
than requiring a standard design?
Answer. All of our projects are reviewed for compliance with the
Base Exterior Architectural Plan (BEAP). Each installation develops a
BEAP to ensure that architectural elements on an installation complex
are coordinated and compatible with local community characteristics. At
those bases where a historic or significant structure exists, the
projects are required to comply with the BEAP and often are reviewed by
state historic preservation officials. We comply with the BEAP and
spend the appropriate amount of design necessary to achieve the purpose
of the project and the BEAP.
Barracks Backlog
Question. What is the current troop housing deficit for the Navy
and Marine Corps?
Answer. The DoN strategy for erasing the troop housing deficit
includes the elimination of all barracks spaces which are deemed
inadequate by DoD standards. Currently, we have 11,600 of these spaces
in the Navy's inventory and 10,000 in the Marine Corps'.
The Navy estimates that it will require $2.3 billion over the next
sixteen years to construct the 38,500 spaces necessary to satisfy its
1+1 barracks requirement. The Marine Corps cost is the same but the
execution time-frame significantly longer. This is due to their
strategy to first build enough 2+0 barracks spaces to erase their
existing inventory inadequate spaces. The 1+1 construction that follows
is estimated to cost $1.9 billion over seventy-three years to construct
35,500 spaces. FYDP funding required to work towards the 1+1 barracks
standard goal is $0.7 billion for the Navy and $0.3 billion for the
Marine Corps (cost of eliminating inadequate spaces using 2+0
configuration).
Barracks Program Execution
Question. Have you run into difficulties in executing the Fiscal
Year 1997 barracks program?
Answer. The Department of the Navy barracks construction program is
about $260 million in Fiscal Year 1997. Through March 1997 we have
executed $80 million, or 30%, of the program. We are not having
difficulty in executing this program in Fiscal Year 1997, and expect to
execute the entire 1997 barracks program in Fiscal Year 1997.
Question. Are there practical limits to the number of barracks
projects that can be executed in a given year, and if so, what is the
level of those annual limits?
Answer. There are no set limits to the number of new construction
barracks projects that can be executed in a given year. Given adequate
time to perform the necessary planning required prior to commencement
of design, and sufficient funding for the preparation of the design
documents, there are a number of acquisition tools that would allow us
to execute a substantial barracks program.
The one limitation would be in the case of renovation projects. In
this instance since military members are displaced during the period of
renovation, it would not be prudent to renovate all barracks at one
installation in a single year.
Question. Is it the Navy's intention to execute the 1997 and 1998
barracks projects as conventional military construction items, or to
exercise new authorities?
Answer. At this point in time, the Department of the Navy intends
to execute the 1997 and 1998 barracks projects as conventional military
construction items. The program criteria for the use of new authorities
is still under development in OSD. We are in the earliest phase of
considering notional candidate locations.
Barracks
Question. How much of your current barracks inventory is deemed
inadequate to permit permanent party assignment?
Answer. The navy and Marine Corps currently have 11,600 and 10,000
spaces respectively which are inadequate for permanent party
assignment.
Question. How much of your off-base bachelor housing is deemed
unacceptable?
Answer. Currently, we do not have an acceptable measure for
tracking the suitability of off-base housing for our single Sailors and
Marines. However, past surveys have shown a strong desire amongst this
constituency to continue living off-base provided housing allowances
are sufficient to help them afford adequate housing in the private
community.
Question. How do you define ``inadequate'' or ``unsuitable'' or
``unacceptable,'' both for on-base unaccompanied enlisted housing and
for off-base bachelor housing?
Answer. The Navy typically does not use terms such as
``unsuitable'' or ``unacceptable'' to define the quality/condition of
our BQs. The Navy classifies on-base housing as follows:
Adequate: Meets or exceeds minimum size standards of adequacy in
DoD 4165.63M and the condition of all building systems is acceptable
such that necessary repairs can be made within the commanding officer's
authority.
Substandard: Fails to meet either the minimum size standards of
adequacy in DoD 4165.63M or the condition of one or more building
systems is below acceptable engineering standards, but the problems can
be economically repaired to make the building adequate (e.g., repair
costs less than 70 percent of the facility replacement value).
Inadequate: Does not meet minimum standards of adequacy in DoD
4165.63M and cannot be economically repaired, e.g., repair costs 70
percent or more of the facility replacement value and thus must be
replaced.
The suitability of bachelor housing off-base is not usually
assessed except with regards to affordability, basic environmental
livability factors (running water) and proximity to work place (less
than 60 minute drive in rush hour).
Dormitories--Navy
Question. What is the long-range plan of the Navy to meet the
``1+1'' barracks standard and how long and at what cost will it take to
accomplish your goal?
Answer. The Navy's plan to reach the DoD mandated 1+1 standard is
estimated to cost $2.0B over eighteen years (completed by FY 2013) and
will include the upgrade of all substandard assets, the replacement of
all inadequate quarters, and the replacement of lost capacity due to
the new 1+1 standard.
To assist in meeting the goals of the new standard, the Navy is
reviewing their assignment policies to get in line with the Air Force;
and, in CONUS, to normally house only E-4 and below permanent party
personnel. Adjusting the assignment policy will reduce the cost of
implementing the new DoD standard yet will continue to provide bachelor
housing to the groups that needs it the most (i.e., the E-1 to E-4
junior enlisted sailors). Generally, E-5 and above personnel in CONUS
will live off base and receive a housing allowance.
The Marine Corps intends to continue requesting waivers to
construct 2+0 configured barracks until all inadequate spaces are
eliminated in FY 2005. After all enlisted Marines are adequately
housed, the Marine Corps will begin implementation of the 1+1 standard.
This transition is estimated to be complete by FY 2078. The Marine
Corps estimates it will cost $360 million to eliminate inadequate
barracks spaces using 2+0 configured modules. This phase of the 1+1
transition accounts for about sixteen percent of the estimated total
cost of $2.3 billion.
Question. Is it correct the Navy does not include shipboard Sailors
in analyzing your barracks requirement?
Answer. Essentially, yes. The vast majority of our shipboard
Sailors are assigned to ``large'' ships (i.e., in excess of 1,000
tons), and are not included in the final determination of bachelor
housing requirements. Shipboard Sailors assigned to ``small'' ships
(i.e., those less than 1,000 tons) are included in the final
determination of the requirement.
Question. Why is this and do you foresee any change in this policy?
Answer. Historically, Sailors assigned to ``large'' ships (i.e.,
those in excess of 1,000 tons) have been berthed aboard ship, both
while underway and while in port. The Navy has considered these ships
to provide ``adequate'' quarters for the Sailors assigned aboard. There
are currently 175,000 Sailors without dependents serving on sea duty.
The majority are assigned aboard large ships. At this point, we foresee
no change to this policy.
Under current law (Title 37, United States code, Section 403--Basic
Allowance for Quarters), Sailors without dependents who are on sea duty
and are above the grade of E-5 are entitled to a basic allowance for
quarters. Effective 1 July 1997, the Secretary of the Navy can
authorize the payment of a basic allowance for quarters for Sailors
without dependents who are on sea duty and serving in pay grade E-5.
Dormitories--Marine Corps
Question. Will the Marine Corps continue to seek waivers to the
policy of ``1+1'' barracks standard? If so, why?
Answer. Yes. The Marine Corps intends to continue requesting
waivers to construct two-person configured bachelor quarter rooms until
all of its inadequate spaces are eliminated in 2005. The two-person
configurations are less expensive than the 1+1 allowing the Marines to
move Service members out of inadequate spaces sooner than would
otherwise be possible.
Question. Does the Marine Corps intend to develop a modified
barracks standard? If so, briefly describe the modified standard?
Answer. The Marine Corps has developed a standardized design for
the 2+0 room configuration. This provides a total of 180 net square
feet living/sleeping area with a private bath area and two bulk
storage/closets. It can be utilized by two E1-E3's or one E4-E5. This
has been coordinated with the Navy and inserted into the revised
Military Handbook 1036: ``Bachelor Quarters Design Manual.''
Real Property Maintenance Account
Question. What amount did the Navy receive for barracks renovation
under the Real Property Maintenance Account in the National Security
Appropriations Bill last year? Provide for the record a list of
projects that will be funded by this initiative and the status of each
project.
Answer. The FY 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill included $174
million for Bachelor Quarters maintenance. Real Property Maintenance
funding is used for recurring maintenance, minor repairs, minor
construction and major repairs. Of the $174 million appropriated,
approximately $130 million will be for major repairs. This funding is
provided to major claimants and activities for execution. Individual
project selection is based on local priorities and executability and
are not corporately maintained.
The FY 1997 Defense Appropriations Bill included a funding increase
for Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense. This funding was provided
for Real Property Maintenance for facilities which contribute to
improving quality of life, including barracks. The Navy has allocated
an additional $51 million of this funding specifically for barracks. A
full DoD report on the planned obligation of this funding is currently
being prepared and will be forwarded in June 1997 as required in the
House Defense Appropriation Report 104-67.
The status of the Marine Corps's allocation of FY 1997 Quality Of
Life, Defense funds is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
Activity Project Title (thousands) Est Obligation Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAS Yuma AZ............................ Rpr Struc, Mech, Plumbing, Bldg 1,073 Aug-97
661.
MCAS Yuma AZ............................ Whole Room Concept............. 384 Aug-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Improve Classrooms, Bldg 62302. 194 Jun-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Rpr Roof & Heating Sys, 3006- 684 Jul-97
MWTC.
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Repair BEQs 43258, 43269....... 6,506 Oct-97
MCRD San Diego, CA...................... Rpr Doors/Frames, H-Style BEQs. 763 Nov-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Improve Bldgs 4136 and 4138.... 480 Sep-97
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. Seismic Rprs To 9 Bldgs........ 1,890 Jul-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Rpr Bldgs 41344, 41346, 41348.. 4,018 Sep-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Repair Roof Bldg 24100-Redesign 1,650 Jul-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Repair 3 BEQs 1396, 1397, 1398. 8,782 Sep-97
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. Seismic Repairs 2 Bldg......... 492 Dec-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Rpr Roof, Heating, 2002/5006- 684 Jul-97
MWTC.
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. Renovate Bldg 1613............. 242 Dec-97
MCB Camp Pendleton, CA.................. Repair Classrooms, Bldg 62302.. 2,159 Jul-97
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA............. Seismic Repairs 1621/22/1555... 891 Jul-97
MCLB Barstow, CA........................ Maint BOQ Q11, Garages 140/141. 422 Jul-97
MCLB Albany, GA......................... Renovate Odd Numbered Barracks. 750 May-97
MCAS Kaneohe, HI........................ Roof Repair, Bldg 301; Mag24 HQ 720 Jun-97
MCAS Kaneohe, HI........................ Repair BEQ Air Conditioning 888 Aug-97
#1654.
MCAS Kaneohe, HI........................ Repair BEQ Air Conditioning 888 Jan-98
#1633.
MCAS Kaneohe, HI........................ Repair Beq Air Conditioning.... 888 Jan-98
MCAS Cherry Pt, NC...................... Repairs To BOQ 497............. 798 Oct-97
MCAS New River, NC...................... Replace Hvac Complete,......... 1,482 Oct-96
MCAS Cherry Pt, NC...................... Repairs To BOQ 496............. 798 Oct-96
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.................... Replace Hvac Systems Hp-115, 678 Dec-97
BEQ.
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.................... Replace Built Up Roofs, Bldgs 636 Oct-96
Bb250, Bb255.
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC.................... Replace Hvac Systems Hp125 670 Dec-97
Barracks.
MCAS New River, NC...................... Replace Hvac Complete, As4025.. 1,424 Oct-96
MCAS Beaufort, SC....................... Structural Repairs To Chapel... 433 Nov-97
MCCDC Quantico, VA...................... Renovate Harry Lee Hall, Bldg 265 Sep-97
17, Improvements.
MCCDC Quantico, VA...................... Renovate Harry Lee Hall, Bldg 2,466 Sep-97
17--Repairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naples Support Complex, Italy
Question. What is the current status of the Naples Support Site
Initiative?
Answer. The Naples Support Site consists of four Increments. The
status is as follows:
The first increment includes the master planning for the entire
support site, the construction and leasing of an elementary and high
school, 500 family housing units with options for the Navy to add up to
an addition 500 family housing units, and related infrastructure. The
provision of land required for the entire Support Site is also included
in the first increment. Leases for the first increment were signed in
December 1995. Construction on the housing, schools and related
infrastructure is progressing well and is approximately 30% complete
overall as of the end of February 1997. The recent furnishing of a
model housing unit was a major milestone. The first 36 family housing
units are expected to be ready for occupancy at the end of April 1997,
a delay of one month from the original schedule. The elementary school
and the high school are expected to be complete in August 1997 and
September 1997, respectively. The high school cafeteria and gym are
expected to be complete in October 1997.
The second increment consists of 11 community support buildings
including child care, fire station, and the Village Forum (quick stop
retail services such as convenience store, video rental, laundry,
restaurant, chapel, library, and transient quarters) and site
infrastructure for all remaining increments. The lease was awarded for
this increment on 7 March 1997. Phased occupancy of these facilities is
expected from July 1998 to March 1999.
The third increment is a three-story medical/dental facility
consisting of approximately 160,000 gross square feet, a separate
central energy plant of approximately 10,000 gross square feet and a
paved parking area. The medical/dental facility will contain offices,
examining rooms, 30 patient beds, a cafeteria and other features
itemized in the design specifications provided in the Request for
Proposals (RFP). The RFP is scheduled for release by the end of April
1997 with lease award planned for November 1997. The RFP will request
proposals under the existing five-year lease authority and for
increments up to 20 years. The latter is subject to congressional
approval of proposed special legislation for up to 20-year lease
authority as part of the FY 1998 Defense Authorization Bill.
The fourth increment includes recreation and main retail buildings
such as a fitness center, bachelor lodge and the exchange/commissary
building. The RFP is scheduled for release in August 1997 with lease
award planned for April 1998.
Fiscal Year 1998 Request
Question. Provide a listing of all planned Fiscal Year 1998
projects which were submitted to Congress in March 1996 which are not
included in the February 1997 submittal.
Answer. A list of projects is attached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Activity PNO Title Curr FYDP year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA................................ Lemoore CA NAS...... 105B Weapons handling 1999
area impvs.
CA................................ Point Mugu CA NAWC.. 031 Range operations UF
center.
FL................................ Key West FL NAS..... 604 CDC................. 1999
HI................................ Kunia HI NSGA....... 001 BEQ (PH 1).......... 1999
WA................................ Everett WA NAVSTA... 045 SIMA................ 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of Facilities
Question. What are the average ages of Navy and Marine Corps
facilities?
Answer. Based on a weighted average of the plant value, the average
age of the Navy's physical plant is 46 years. The average age of Marine
Corps facilities is 36 years.
Plant Replacement Value
Question. What is the current replacement value of the Navy and
Marine Corps' physical plant?
Answer. The current Plant Replacement Value (PRV) is $142 billion
for the Navy and $30 billion for Marine Corps.
Backlog
Question. What are the Navy and Marine Corps' construction backlogs
and how many years would it take to eliminate the backlog at current
funding levels?
Answer. The construction backlog for Navy is $8.6 billion. The
Marine Corps construction backlog is $2.5 billion. If the Department of
the Navy average annual MCON funding level of $650 million was devoted
entirely to projects in this backlog, the backlog would be eliminated
in about 17 years.
Planning and Design
Question. Do the Navy and Marine Corps have sufficient planning and
design funds to execute the entire Fiscal Year 1999 program?
Answer. Yes, the FY 1998 planning and design (P&D) appropriation
request if approved in full will provide sufficient funds to complete
the designs for all presently anticipated FY 1999 Navy and Marine Corps
projects. The amount requested, however, is the bare minimum and does
not provide for any contingency, such as unforeseen additional FY 1998
design requirements.
Minor Construction
Question. Provide for the record all minor construction projects
funded in Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996 and the current status of Fiscal
Year 1997 appropriation.
Answer. The following are lists of the Unspecified Minor
Construction (UMC) projects funded in FY 1995 and FY 1996:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy/MARCORP Amount
UMC PNO activity Project description ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY95 PROJECTS
P601 (Classfied Site).... Equipment Storage... 1,500
P632 NTC Great Lakes..... Recruit Confidence 370
Course.
P245 NAWS Point Mugu..... Seawall Extension... 470
P517 NS Roosevelt Roads.. Cold Storage........ 675
P065 ASO Philadelphia.... Fire Protection 1,400
Pipeline.
P900 NAS Cecil Field..... Land Acquisition.... 450
P100 NAS II Sigonella.... Water Treatment 1,300
Plant.
P101 NAS I Sigonella..... Water Storage Tank.. 860
FY96 PROJECTS
P729 MCB Hawaii.......... Flight Simulator 1,500
Training Facility.
P157 NSB Pearl Harbor.... MK48 ADCAP IMA 1,500
Expansion.
P288 NSWC Crane.......... Battery Evaluation 360
Facility.
P315 NUWC Keyport........ Sanitary Wastewater 700
System.
P200 FLTACTS Yokosuka.... Interim CV Berth 1,500
Dredging.
P040 NSA Souda Bay....... Aircraft Operations 1,320
Building.
P365 NDW Washington...... Acquisition Center 1,140
of Excellence.
P571 NSB Kings Bay....... Dredging (Site VI 1,050
Layberty).
P140 NSA Souda Bay....... Marine General 1,200
Purpose Facility.
P570 PWC Great Lakes..... Sewage Treatment 620
Plant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current status of the FY 1997 appropriation is as follows: four
projects are programmed for execution this fiscal year. Currently one
project is awarded, two others are planned for award by May 1997, and
the subsequent award of the fourth project will then completely utilize
the FY 1997 UMC appropriation.
Question. What shortfalls have you found in this account in the
last two years?
Answer. There was a shortfall in FY 1995 and FY 1996 funds, and a
reprogramming for an additional $2.85 million was requested and
approved. This reprogramming provided the funding for the award of
three additional projects in FY 1996 to meet urgent MCON requirements.
We are currently evaluating the need to submit a reprogramming for
FY 1997 UMC funding. As we begin to get the first project requests
utilizing the FY 1996 legislative authority which allows for UMC
projects which are ``to correct a life-, health-, or safety-threatening
deficiency'' to be up to $3 million the pressure to restore funding
levels in this account to the historical annual level of $14 million
will increase.
Conversion Tables
Question. Submit for the record tables for the conversion from
English measurements to metric, and from metric to English.
Answer. Tables are attached.
[Pages 581 - 582--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any
projects, either in the Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation or in
the prior years' unobligated balances, that are no longer
required due to forced structure changes, base realignment and
closure, mission changes, bilateral and multilateral
agreements, or other reasons. Please include on the list
military construction projects, family housing construction and
construction improvement projects, and projects financed under
the base realignment and closure accounts.
Answer. The Department of the Navy has only one project
that is not required and which has not already been canceled,
rescinded, cited as source of reprogramming; or had its
authorization terminated.
The following project is no longer required:
Military Construction: P-312, MCSFB Norfolk, VA. Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters, $6,800,000.
Family Housing Construction: None.
Family Housing Improvements: None.
Base Realignment and Closure: None.
Reprogrammings
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by fiscal
year, the total amounts Congress has approved for reprogramming actions
in the ``Military Construction, Navy'' and ``Family Housing, Navy''
accounts over the last five years.
Answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. No. No. No. No.
Proj ($M) Proj ($M) Proj ($M) Proj ($M) Proj ($M)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCON--Navy......................................................... 9 18.20 9 37.19 8 47.34 4 29.64 4 10.67
MCON--Marine Corps................................................. 4 8.85 2 3 0.47 0 1 1.00
MCNR............................................................... 0 0 3 10.075 1 3.55 0 0.00
Fam Housing........................................................ 1 0.15 1 7.00 0 0 0.00 1 10.00
Other: (UMC, P&D, EC, DF, Access Roads, etc.)...................... 3 20.32 2 25.29 3 29.55 1 8.90 4 16.55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory
Question. How many family housing units do you have in the United
States, and how many do you have overseas, excluding Sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases?
Answer. Inventory numbers as of 30 September 1996, excluding
Sections 801 and 802 and excluding leases:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United
States Overseas Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy............................. 55,681 11,504 67,185
Marine Corps..................... 24,586 537 25,123
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 80,267 12,041 92,308
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many Section 801, Section 802, and leased units do
you have in the United States, and how many do you have overseas?
Answer. There are no Section 801 or Section 802 units at overseas
locations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section--
-------------------------- Domestic Foreign
801 802
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy........................................................ 2,414 0 693 1,592
Marine Corps................................................ 600 276 125 0
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 3.014 276 818 1,592
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of Housing Inventory
Question. What is the average age of the family housing inventory?
Answer. The average age of the family housing inventory is 35 years
for Navy and 32 years for Marine Corps.
Question. What percentage of the family housing inventory is over
30 years old?
Answer. Approximately 57 percent of Navy's and 60 percent of the
Marine Corps' family housing inventory is over 30 years old.
Question. What percentage is over 40 years old?
Answer. Approximately 26 percent of Navy's and 34 percent of the
Marine Corps' family housing inventory is over 40 years old.
Housing Deficits
Question. What is your current worldwide family housing deficit?
Answer. The projected worldwide family housing deficit is 15,000
homes for the Navy and 10,511 for the Marine Corps.
Question. What are your three largest deficits, and how large are
they?
Answer. The three Navy locations with the largest deficits are San
Diego, California, 4,000 homes; Corpus Christi, Texas, 1,000 homes; and
Norfolk, Virginia, 950 homes. The three Marine Corps locations with the
largest deficits are Camp Pendleton, California, 5,016 homes; Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, 3,581 homes; and Oahu, Hawaii, 470 homes.
Question. What are your three most expensive deficit locations,
based on the actual payments of housing allowances?
Answer. Based on a comparison of Variable Housing Allowance rates
at our most critical deficit locations, the three most expensive Navy
deficit locations are Everett, Washington; San Diego, California; and
Whidbey Island, Washington. The three most expensive Marine Corps
deficit locations are Camp Pendleton, CA; Camp Lejeune, NC; and Oahu,
HI.
Waiting Lists
Question. How many families are on waiting lists for government-
provided family housing, and what is the average waiting time?
Answer. As of 30 September 1996, there were 25,000 Navy families
and 6,000 Marine Corps families on waiting lists for family housing.
The average waiting times for assignment to family housing vary from a
few months to several years depending on such factors as location, time
of year, and other factors. The waiting list reflects the quality,
cost, and availability of housing, commuting distances, surrounding
support facilities, and availability of good schools. The Navy and
Marine Corps have a disproportionately larger number of members living
in high cost areas.
Off-Base Housing
Question. How many families are living off-base?
Answer. The Navy has 175,000 families and the Marine Corps has
50,000 families living off-base in the community.
Question. What is the criteria for suitable off-base housing?
Answer. Off-base housing is considered suitable when it meets the
following OSD criteria:
Within 60 minute commute time from duty station during rush hour;
Not located in a neighborhood designated by installation commander
as ``not acceptable for health or safety reasons'' ;
Cost does not exceed the maximum acceptable monthly housing cost,
which is the total of BAQ plus Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) plus
the maximum out-of-pocket cost (50 percent of BAQ). Total monthly costs
include rent, utilities (except telephone and cable TW), and other
items of operating expense that are compensable by the VHA and Overseas
Housing Allowances;
Has a minimum square footage of 550 feet for a three bedroom, 750
feet for a two bedroom, 960 feet for a three bedroom, and 1,190 for 4
or more bedrooms;
Housing is well maintained, structurally sound and includes
adequate heat/air conditioning, hot and cold water, sewer and
electrical services, and laundry facilities.
``Suitability''
Question. How many families are unsuitably housed, and how is
``unsuitable'' defined?
Answer. Navy currently has 17,000 families and the Marine Corps has
10,500 unsuitably housed in the private sector. OSD defines all
military housing retained in the inventory as being suitable regardless
of condition. However, the Navy has over 36,000 and the Marine Corps
12,700 government-owned homes that require more than $15,000 per unit
for repairs and improvements. These numbers exclude homes at BRAC
locations that are eventually going to be disposed of.
Deferred Maintenance
Question. What is the current annual funding requirement for family
housing maintenance and repair?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 1998 annual maintenance funding requirement
as included in the President's Budget is approximately $400 million for
Navy and $62 million for Marine Corps.
Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?
Answer. The major repair improvement backlog is $2.5 billion for
Navy and $1.0 billion for Marine Corps.
Question. How much maintenance and repair work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what are the limiting factors?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps can execute all maintenance and
repair funds included in the Fiscal Year 1998 budget request. The
limiting factors for performing additional work include the design
status of the projects, the availability of additional design funds,
the workload capacity of agencies performing the design, and most
importantly, the availability of additional maintenance and repair
funds that can be spent.
Construction Improvements
Question. How much construction improvement work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what are the limiting factors?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps can execute all construction
improvement funds included in the Fiscal Year 1998 budget request. The
Navy could execute an additional $68.5 million and the Marine Corps
could execute an additional $130 million in construction improvement
work in Fiscal Year 1998.
The limiting factors to performing additional construction
improvements include the number of projects currently designed or in
the process of being designed, the availability of additional design
funds, the workload capacity of the agencies performing the designs,
and the number of available units that may go off-line at any time.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Question. What is the average operation and maintenance cost per
family housing unit?
Answer. The average operation and maintenance cost per family
housing unit budgeted in Fiscal Year 1998 is $10,850 for Navy homes and
$5,391 for Marine Corps homes.
Question. How does the average cost compare with the requirement--
assuming ``no growth'' in deferred maintenance?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 operations and maintenance average
cost allows us to meet annual requirements without any growth in the
backlog and includes an amount to reduce the backlog.
Currency Fluctuations
Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for your
overseas housing programs during Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997?
Answer. The Navy experienced $218,000 and the Marine Corps $50,000
in gains from the foreign currency fluctuation account in FY 1996.
Based on foreign currency rates in effect at the beginning of Fiscal
Year 1997, projections are for an anticipated Navy loss of $250,000 for
the rest of the Fiscal Year 1997, due to the fall in the value of the
United States currency at some locations. The Navy and Marine Corps
will review the Fiscal Year 1998 projects at the beginning of the
fiscal year to assess whether there will be gains or losses depending
on the foreign currency rate in effect at the time.
Officer Quarters
Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a) how
many general/flag officer quarters you have, separately identifying
CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these quarters exceed the
statutory space limitations, and (c) the average O&M cost per unit.
Answer. Table showing Navy and Marine Corps general and flag
officer quarters data follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONUS OCONUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navy:
(a) Total flag officers quarters.......... 107 39
(b) Quarters exceed statutory space
limitations.............................. 85 38
(c) Average O&M cost per unit ($000)...... $39.4 $49.1
Marine Corps:
(a) Total Flag officers quarters.......... 31 1
(b) Quarters exceed statutory space
limitations.............................. 28 1
(c) Average O&M cost per unit ($000)...... $21.8 $29.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Pages 587 - 591--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Program Execution Rates
Question. What is being done to improve execution rates and
to avoid large unobligated balance?
Answer. There are no large unobligated balances except
those associated with PPV candidate projects. Recent execution
of the Department of the Navy family housing (new and
replacement) construction and improvements programs has been
commendable.
For construction, 100 percent of the FY 1993 and 1994
programs are executed. Seventy-four percent of the FY 1995
program was awarded in the first year (99 percent of the
projects included in the FY-95 President's budget, 57 percent
of the Congressional inserts). The one remaining FY 1995
project will be executed by the end of FY 1997. Sixty-eight
percent of the FY-96 program was awarded in the first year (73
percent of the projects included in the FY-96 President's
budget, 50 percent of the Congressional inserts. All remaining
FY-96 projects will be awarded in FY-97, with the exception of
those projects that are candidates for public private ventures.
If the PPV candidate projects prove unfeasible, the projects
will be executed as MILCON in FY-98. Finally, for FY 1997
program, we are projecting a 93% execution rate for budgeted
projects and 71% of the overall program including Congressional
inserts. However, similar to FY-96, PPV candidate projects that
prove unfeasible in FY-97 may delay execution as MILCON until
FY-98 or FY-99.
For improvements, 98 percent of the FY-96 improvement
projects were executed by the end of the fiscal year. There are
two remaining fiscal year 1996 projects unexecuted. One will be
awarded in the Spring 1997 and the other as a PPV project. We
anticipate award of 100 percent of our fiscal year 1997
improvements projects in the first year that are not being
reviewed for public/private ventures. If improvement projects
that are being considered for PPV are not feasible, execution
may slip to the second year.
Ford Island Causeway, Hawaii
Question. What is the current status of the Ford Island Causeway?
Answer. Construction is on track for May 1998 completion. The
contract was awarded in September 1995. The contractor mobilized in
October 1995, groundbreaking was held in January 1996 and the Ford
Island Embankment constructed in July 1996.
Major milestones still to be completed are: Bridge Structure
Construction, May 1996-May 1998; Halawa Roadwork, June 1996-April 1998;
Pontoon Installation, May-June 1997; Ford Island Roadwork, October
1996-April 1998; Transition Span Installation, March-June 1997;
Kamehameha Highway Intersection Improvement Construction, July 1997-
April 1998.
Naval Submarine Base, New London Connecticut Controlled Industrial
Facility ($18,300,000)
Question. Where is the maintenance and repair services for nuclear-
powered submarines currently performed?
Answer. Intermediate-level maintenance and radiological support
services on nuclear-powered submarines are performed in their homeport.
At Submarine Base New London, this intermediate-level work is performed
by the Naval Submarine Support Facility (NSSF). Currently, NSSF
performs nuclear work out of a 52 year old converted ammunition barge.
This barge was intended to supply NSSF with an interim radiological
support facility until a more permanent facility could be provided. The
proposed Controlled Industrial Facility replaces this barge.
Question. Why wasn't standardize design used for this project based
on recently constructed and planned Controlled Industrial facilities?
Answer. The New London Controlled Industrial Facility (CIF) is the
same basic design as the Norfolk CIF. The only differences are in the
layout of equipment and room changes due to the smaller size and shape
of the construction site in New London.
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida Ordnance Loading Apron
($1,330,000)
Question. How long has the existing ordnance loading operations
been performed under Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) waiver?
Answer. The waiver has been in effect since 15 March 1989.
Question. Prior to construction, do any environmental or safety
permits/waivers need to be acquired?
Answer. No. These permits/waivers are not required for this type of
construction work.
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida Tactical Support Center
($2,150,000)
Question. Where does the maritime surveillance aircraft resources
being consolidated into the new facility currently reside?
Answer. At NAS Cecil Field.
Question. What has directed the consolidation of the Tactical
Support Centers (TSCs) and Mobile Operation Command Centers (MOCCs)?
Answer. The consolidation of MOCC into the TSC (formerly ASWOC)
program was directed by the CNO in November 1992 via Operational
Document Serial Number 373-88/6-94. This document consolidated and
updated two previously validated and approved OR's: Antisubmarine
Warfare Operations Center (ASWOC) Command, Control and Communications
(C3) Upgrade and Mobil Operations Control Center.
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia Deperming Piers ($12,750,000)
Question. What other deperming piers are located in the Norfolk
area?
Answer. There are only two deperming piers on the East Coast. One
is at Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay. It is specifically designed to
deperm submarines and cannot accommodate other classes of ships. The
existing deperming pier at Naval Station Norfolk was the only East
Coast facility capable of deperming surface ships; however, it is no
longer usable due to its deteriorated condition.
Question. Where are the Atlantic Fleet surface ships that are too
large for the slip between the current piers homeported?
Answer. Those specific ships (CV's and CVN's) are homeported at
Naval Station, Norfolk and Naval Station, Mayport.
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia Consolidated Support Center
($6,500,000)
Question. What is the cost for demolition of the six buildings
scheduled for demolition at the Naval Base? Will this be funded within
this project, or elsewhere?
Answer. The cost to demolish these facilities is estimated at $1.7
million. Demolition of these facilities will be funded elsewhere.
Question. Will this project consolidate any of the current
operations at the Naval Air Station, St. Juliens Creek Annex, and GSA
leased space? If so, what is the plan for reuse or demolition of those
facilities?
Answer. The buildings FTSC will vacate as a result of this project
are located on the Naval Air Station, Norfolk and the Naval Station,
Norfolk. Those vacated buildings will be demolished. FTSC space at St.
Juliens Creek Annex and GSA leased space is not affected by this
MILCON.
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia Oily Waste Collection
System ($9,500,000)
Question. Is this Phase III of the Fiscal Year 1996 and 1997
projects totaling almost $21,000,000? If so, is this the final phase of
the project?
Answer. This project will construct an oily waste collection system
complete with collection, transfer and pre-treatment facilities at
Norfolk Naval Shipyard. This project is the first and final phase. The
projects in FY 1996 and 1997 totaling $21 million were constructed at
the Naval Station Norfolk located several miles away from Norfolk Naval
Shipyard.
Question. What is the building to be demolished as part of the
project: Why is it being demolished?
Answer. Building 1440, Storage Facility, consisting of 186 SM (2000
SF), is in disrepair and will be demolished as part of the project.
This facility is located in the area of the new pre-treatment facility
and new storage tanks being constructed for the Oily Waste project. The
new pre-treatment facility, 770 SM (8288 SF), will also have special
requirements such as containment.
Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
Replacement ($20,900,000)
Question. Describe in some detail the ``Special Construction
Features'' included in the cost of this project?
Answer. The ``Special Construction Features'' planned for the
project referred to the number of concrete pilings that are typically
required to support buildings over three stories high. However, in this
case, the additional pilings are no longer required since the Navy has
decided instead to build a 2 to 3 story garden-style apartment
structure. This modified project will deliver the same number of 1+1
configured barracks spaces at the same cost.
Question. This project constructs bachelor enlisted quarters in
compliance with the ``1+1'' barracks standard. Why wasn't standardized
design used for this project?
Answer. We are using a standard design concept for this BEQ. It is
being constructed as multi-story 1+1 ``Garden Style'' apartments in
accordance with the requirements of MIL-HDBK 1036, Bachelor Quarters.
The latest quality of life improvements are described in this criteria
handbook as standardized design ``elements'' or apartment modules which
are arranged into the overall building plan. The 1+1 ``Garden Style''
apartment module used in the design of the FY 1996 MCON project, P-026
BEQ at Cheatham Annex, will be used again in this project.
Question. What is the cost difference between site specific design
and standardize design for this project? How do you justify the use of
site specific design?
Answer. There is no previously designed BEQ project, or site
specific design, at Oceana that is available for site adaptation. The
subject project, however, will use the standards module design for
``Garden Style'' apartment units previously used in the FY 1996 MCON
BEQ project at Cheatham Annex.
Question. Is this project a one-for-one replacement for 460
barracks spaces?
Answer. The project provides 460 spaces to ultimately replace 466
spaces. This is not an immediate one-for-one replacement because of the
need to delay the demolition of the existing barracks to temporarily
provide BEQ space to mitigate the BQ deficit. In the future, as Oceana
upgrades and/or replaces more of its substandard BEQs to the new 1+1
standard, the substandard BEQs will be demolished.
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia Torpedo Magazine ($5,857,000)
Question. How long have existing operations been conducted under a
safety waiver as directed by the Department of Defense Explosive Safety
Board?
Answer. Safety Waiver W1-94 was issued by the Chief of Naval
Operations on 1 December 1994. It permits the explosive limit of the MK
48 maintenance facility to be increased from 15,000 pounds to 30,000
pounds. The specific safety criteria which defines intraline separation
distances between the MK 48 maintenance facility and an adjacent
facility not associated with the MK 48 maintenance function cannot be
met a this increased explosive weight. By definition, safety waivers
are issued contingent upon a satisfactory method for ultimate
compliance to safety criteria being identified. In this case, the
construction of the two magazines to accommodate the current and
projected workload will alleviate the need to handle larger than normal
quantities of torpedoes at the maintenance facility compound.
Elimination of safety waivers is endorsed by the Department of Defense
Explosives Safety Board and CNO because it ensures that mandated
explosives safety criteria will be met.
Question. What are the cost savings that can be associated with the
consolidation of intermediate level maintenance operations at Yorktown?
Answer. Overall, the IMA consolidation efforts have resulted in an
annual saving of $11.72 million. The Heavyweight Torpedo Program is
consolidating East Coast IMA's from three facilities to one site, the
Naval Submarine Torpedo Facility located at Naval Weapons Station (NWS)
Yorktown, VA in accordance with the Torpedo MK 48/ADCAP IMA
Consolidation Plan dated October 1993. These actions were a result of
downsizing the submarine fleet and submarine torpedo inventory. The
Charleston, SC and New London, CT IMA facilities were closed as of the
end of FY 1995 and in line with this plan, military construction
projects to build additional magazines at Charleston, SC and New
London, CT were canceled. MILCON P-501 at Yorktown, VA is required to
support submarine torpedo storage for the East Coast due to the IMA
consolidation efforts and the reduction of submarine tenders being
decommissioned further reducing torpedo storage capacity.
Question. What are the current plans for reuse or demolition of the
facilities from which MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes are being transferred?
Answer. Implementation of the consolidated Intermediate Maintenance
Activity initiative at Yorktown was finalized in FY 1995. Since that
time, the various facilities at Charleston, SC and New London, CT have
either been reassigned for other mission uses or have been closed and
identified for demolition. For instance, at Charleston the maintenance
facility was reassigned to a tenant (Mobile Mine Maintenance Group)
that had previously been leasing space off-station. The magazine at
Charleston in which torpedoes were stored while awaiting maintenance
has since had its storage rack system removed to accommodate other
weapons systems. The facilities utilized for maintenance associated
with the torpedo mounted dispensers at Charleston are closed awaiting
demolition. A similar scenario has occurred at New London, which was
primarily associated with maintenance of the torpedo mounted dispenser
system.
Question. Demolition of the current gymnasium is $1,700,000, or
31%, of the total project cost. Why?
Answer. The project includes the demolition of the existing
antiquated gymnasium as well as three other vacant structures (an
indoor handball court facility, theater and package store. The cost of
demolition includes provisions for properly disposing of asbestos and
lead paint contaminated materials. The $1.7 million cost identified
includes:
(1) Demolition of utilities--$14,000
(2) Demolition of paving and slabs--$10,000
(3) Structures--$146,000
(4) Removal of asbestos removal/lead paint--$1,500,000
This gymnasium project will complete a phased plan in which 13
personnel support facilities were pregressively removed from a
geographic area encumbered by the Activity's pier explosive arc.
Demolition of these facilities ensures that infrastructure reduction
initiatives are met thus resulting in reduced operations and
maintenance cost for the Activity.
Question. This project was designed using standard or definitive
design. Where was this design most recently used?
Answer. The original Project Engineering Phase, in 1995, was
developed from past design concepts from the Gym and Fitness Centers at
the Naval Hospital in Portsmouth, VA and New River, NC. The scope of
MCON P-708 is similar, but the actual floor plan and elevations have
changed. The basic features from Naval Hospital & New River Centers are
similar and serve as a guide to MCON P-708. A ``standard or definitive
design'' has not been established for Gymnasium/Fitness Center because
the recreational needs vary from location to location. Our 35% design
includes, as much as possible, the latest requirements within the
Military Handbook 1037/8, Indoor Fitness/Recreational Facilities.
Question. Has the timing of this project been coordinated with the
initial delivery of the electronic combat trainer (NA/FSQ-T22)?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are the current cost savings associated with this
project?
Answer. The annual cost savings are approximately $3 million.
Question. What are the current plans for the reuse or demolition of
the facilities where the TRIDENT missile motors are currently stored at
the Polaris Missile Facility, Atlantic (POMFLANT), Charleston, South
Carolina?
Answer. The facilities will be utilized by the Naval Weapons
Station Charleston for storage of Fleet containerized munitions.
Question. What follow-on projects, and at what cost, are necessary
for this relocation?
Answer. There are no follow-on projects.
Question. Briefly describe the facilities currently used for
ordnance operations at the installation?
Answer. Three 24 40 ft non-standard earth covered
magazines, constructed in 1942, are currently utilized for storage of
aviation ordnance. One of these magazines is within the airfield safety
clearance zone and is operating under an explosive safety wavier.
One 13 bay earth covered magazine, constructed in 1965, is used for
storage of Hazard Class Division 1.2(04)/1.3(04)/1.4(04) munitions.
One above ground magazine, constructed in 1942, is used for storage
of fuses, boosters and detonators. This magazine is unsuitable for
continued use per Explosive Safety Instruction (ESI) inspection.
One 10 ft 14 ft earth covered magazine, constructed in
1942, is used for rocket storage.
Two bunkers, constructed in 1951, are used for the storage of
sensitive munitions, Hazard Class Division 1.1/1.3(04).
Two 70 SF portable ready service lockers placed on two 1942
demolished magazine foundations are utilized for small arms storage.
Two explosive operating buildings (Bomb and Rocket Assembly) are
utilized for explosive assembly operations. These facilities were not
built to satisfy current safety requirements such as lightning
protection, secondary grounding, personnel limitations and fire
protection. Distance between the Bomb and Rocket Assembly buildings
does not comply the cognizant ordnance operations instruction. NAVSEA
OP-5 regarding safe distance requirements. This condition restricts
bomb and rocket assembly operations from being conducted concurrently.
This restriction results in an unrealistic slowdown or interruption in
training sorties for the pilots and crews that are trying to maintain
operational readiness.
Bomb Assembly. In this facility ordnance components are assembled
to create usable ordnance. Bomb bodies and components are brought to
the building from the magazines by truck. The bomb components are built
in assembly line fashion and then transported to a ``ready service
staging area.'' A fabric canopy on the west side of the facility
provides protection for personnel from the extreme desert sun and wind
which is characteristic year around. There are no comfort stations
inside the building.
Rocket Assembly. In this facility rocket warheads are assembled to
rocket motors. Currently, there are no overhead hoists or assembly
tables for construction of components. Therefore, component
construction is conducted on the weapons trailers. Once the ordnance is
complete the trailers are towed by truck to the ``ready service staging
area.''
Inert Storage: An on-site metal shed provides storage of smaller
inert assembly components. This shed currently serves both the rocket
and bomb assembly buildings. The remaining 92% inert assets are stored
outside.
Question. Why are the current facilities considered undersized and
inadequate? Will all of the current facilities be demolished? If no,
what are the plans for reuse?
Answer. (a) The current magazines are considered undersized and
inadequate due to modernized weapons configurations and container
sizes. The existing magazines do not meet the minimum square footage
requirements specified in the Navy Ordnance Handling Instruction--
NAVSEA OP-5.
The Bomb and Rocket Assembly facilities are inadequate, constructed
in the 1960s. Due to their age and the extreme temperature conditions,
the building materials are decaying. Additionally, these
facilities do not meet current NAVSEA OP-5 Standards regarding
personnel square footage allotments, thus requiring personnel to work
outside in the environment. All the operation facilities will be
demolished as part of this military constructing project.
Additonally, several incompatibilities exist in or near the site
designated for ordnance operations. The existing site is located within
current air operation clearance zones. Ammunition Hazard Board (AMHAZ)
provided a waiver and exemption for these areas, contingent upon the
completion of P-202.
(b) Facilities to be demolished: Buildings 104, 105, 114; Magazines
148, 151, 152, 153, 168, 169 and 181 and loading dock 177.
(c) Two of the remaining magazines will be re-utilized in their
current state along with one small building. Utilization of the
existing facilities allows a variety of ammunition compatibility which
P-202 does not address (i.e., Military Working Dog program, White/Red
Phosphorus ammunition, and fire bomb components). P-202, will provide
larger magazines incorporating the necessary door dimensions for the
larger containerized ammunitions (Rockeye, Walleye, Harm, Maverick, MK-
84 bombs, joint stand-off weapons, and joint defense attack munitions)
which are currently restricted from storage due to the inadquate size
of storage space and door way dimensions. The ordnance is utilized as
they are delivered to NAF EL Centro due to inadquate storage space.
Facilities to be reused are Magazines 149 and 150, and Building 182.
Question. What is the current status of the existing fitness
centers and how many enlisted personnel currently go without a
gymnasium?
Answer. The former Officers Club is being used as the weight room
and the former Enlisted Men's Club is being used as an aerobics area.
The existing gymnasium is both inadequate and undersized, and has no
showers; the closest showers are located four blocks away. In addition,
the existing facility is only sized to accommodate 550 of the more than
800 eligible patrons, approximately 80% of whom are enlisted. This
results in an overcroweded situation in which patrons either avoid
using the gymnasium, or use it less than they would otherwise do so.
Question. Design for this project was completed in September of
1992. Why is there such a large time lag between design and the request
for construction funds for this project?
Answer. The timing for the project is driven by the procurement of
the training device. The design for the device has been modified
several times since September 1992 (all due to improvements in the
technology and Fleet operational requirements), but the enclosure for
the trainer (i.e., the military construction project) has remained
substantially the same awaiting a firm schedule of delivery for the
trainer. That firm schedule shows the facility is required by March
1999.
[Pages 598 - 602--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. For the fiscal year budget request, what percent
of the total Marine Corps budget is devoted to programs under
the jurisdiciton of this Subcommittee (please show separate
percentages for military construction, family housing
construction and construction improvements, family housing O&M,
and Base Realignment and Closure.
Answer. The following portions of the Marine Corps budget
are devoted to programs under the jurisdiciton of the Military
Construction Subcommittee. Base Closure is not included since
it is not part of the total Marine Corps budget. Base
Realignment and Closure is part of the Navy portion of the
Department of the Navy budget.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Marine Corps
Category Total program Fiscal Year
1998 TOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family housing O&M...................... 145.4 1.45
Family housing (New construction)....... 75.3 0.75
Family housing (Design & improvements).. 4.2 0.04
Milcon.................................. 125.8 1.26
Milcon reserve.......................... 6.5 0.07
Total subcommittee:................. 357.2 3.56
Total Marine Corps budget....... 10,008.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okinawa--Marine Corps
Question. Bring us up to date with various proposals that
are under discussion regarding the possible realignment of
Marine Corps facilities on Okinawa.
Answer. On 2 December 1996, the Security Consultive
Committee approved the Special Action Committee on Okinawa
recommendation to pursue the Sea Based Facility option. This is
viewed to be the best option in terms of enhanced safety and
quality of life for the Okinawan people while maintaining the
operational capability of U.S. forces. Additionally, the Sea
Based Facility can function as a fixed facility during its use
and can also be removed when no longer necessary. The KC130s
will be transferred to MCAS Iwakuni. New facilities will be
constructed there for the aircraft.
The Sea Based Facility will be approximately 1,500 meters
long and designed to support basing of helicopters and short
field aircraft operations. Additional facilities will be
developed at Kadena or other existing U.S. facilities when they
cannot be provided on the Sea Based Facility.
Three Sea Based Facility proposals have been presented to
the Facilities Implementation Group. They are: a pile supported
platform, floating method (Megafloat) and the Semi-Submersible.
The designs must incorporate adequate measures to ensure the
survivability of personnel, aircraft, and equipment against
severe weather. The facility will be constructed off the east
coast of the main island of Okinawa and is expected to be
connected to land by a pier or causeway.
Question. Will all facilities requirements be financed
under the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program--fully
financed by the host nation?
Answer. The facilities required to implement the Special
Action Committee in Okinawa (SACO) final report are to be fully
financed by the host nation under a program that is unique from
the Japanese Facilities Improvement Program (JFIP).
Question. Do you have any preliminary estimates of total
costs?
Answer. No, the planning efforts are not far enough along
to determine what permanent facilities will be required in
addition to the $2 to $13 billion estimated cost of the Sea
Based Facility.
Question. Does the Marine Corps have any objection to any
of the proposals under discussion?
Answer. At this time, the proposals are very preliminary.
The Marine Corps recognizes that significant ongoing planning
and oversight is necessary to ensure that all U.S. Military
operational and quality of life issues are adequately
addressed.
Question. What is the timetable, and what are the
milestones for finalizing decisions on Okinawa stationing?
Answer. The Facilities Implementing Group will recommend a
candidate Shore Based Facility no later than December 1997.
Family Housing Inventory and Deficit--Marine Corps
Question. Is it correct that the current inventory of
Marine Corps family housing totals 25,123 housing units, and
that the current deficit totals 10,177 units?
Answer. Yes. As of 30 September 1996, the Marine Corps
family housing inventory totals 25,123 housing units. The
10,177 units is the projected 1999 deficit, based on Family
Housing Justifications (DD Form 1523) which consider housing
appropriated but not yet constructed.
Question. The budget places heavy emphasis on
revitalization and replacement of existing units rather than on
reduction of the deficit. The Fiscal Year 1998 budget includes
$75,290,000 for the construction of 469 units, and the Fiscal
Year 1999 budget would provide no new units. Has the Corps
decided that it can live with its housing deficit indefinitely?
Answer. No, the Marine Corps has not decided to live
indefinitely with its current housing deficit. However, in view
of the aging and substandard housing in its inventory, the
Marine Corps has targeted the majority of its family housing
resources towards the top family housing priority of
maintaining, repairing and modernizing (or replacing) the
current housing infrastructure.
The Marine Corps views an improved housing allowance system
as the key to erasing the deficit of affordable and available
housing. Additionally, the Corps plans to leverage its family
housing construction capability by utilizing--where feasible--
the new Public-Private Venture Authorities enacted in FY 1996.
This reliance on privatization, coupled with the anticipated
benefits of an improved housing allowance system, will be used
to address the deficit.
Whole House Revitalization--Quantico, Virginia
Question. Please describe in some detail the whole house
revitalization project that is budgeted at Quantico.
Answer. Quarters 1 is being revitalized in 2 phases with the
exterior work being accomplished in FY97 and the interior work budgeted
in FY98. The work included in Phase II follows:
a. Repair and paint interior surfaces
b. Repair/replacement of windows
c. Repair/replacement of interior doors
d. Renovation of kitchen and pantry
e. Repairs to laundry
f. Repairs to bathrooms (3\1/2\)
g. Repair/replacement of flue liners/insulation
h. Repairs to crawl space
i. Installation of fire protection systems
j. Repairs to interior electrical system
k. Renovation/replacement of boiler system
The project is required because site erosion threatens the
structural stability of the quarters; the site drainage system has
deteriorated; all elements of the existing electrical system are
deteriorated; the useful life of the heating system has been exceeded;
the majority of the surfaces are lead based paint; and there is no
residential sprinkler system.
Question. To what extent was the total cost of this project driven
by historic considerations?
Answer. The extent of historic considerations on total project cost
was negligible. Although Qtrs 1 has been nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places, it has not been placed on the list and is
not required to comply with historic guidelines. As a result, historic
considerations only account for four percent of total project cost.
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California--Aircraft
Maintenance Training Facility ($4,300,000)
Question. How will the classroom space freed up by the
consolidation of aircraft maintenance training facilities be utilized?
Answer. Prior to the consolidation of this training at MCAS Camp
Pendleton some of the training was conducted at NAS Memphis. The
classroom space vacated at NAS Memphis is planned to be used by the
Navy's Bureau of Personnel.
Question. Briefly describe the one building to be demolished as
part of this project.
Answer. The building to be demolished is a 395 square meter
``temporary wooden structure constructed in 1945. The structure was
originally designed and used as a parachute loft and low level
maintenance shop. The building served many tenants and was re-
configured many times during the past 52 years. The building is badly
deteriorated and is in the footprint of this project.
Question. The DD Form 1391 states that ``this facility is needed to
ensure that helicopter maintenance crews are trained in a cost-
effective manner.'' What are the cost savings associated with this
project?
Answer. The cost savings are difficult to enumerate because many of
the benefits are intangible. This project consolidates aircraft
maintenance training at Camp Pendleton as part of the Fleet Readiness
Enlisted Skills Training (FREST) concept. Prior to FREST, each
component of training was conducted at different locations. Classroom
instruction at one location, hands on instruction at another location,
and then once the student arrived at the Fleet Squadron more training
was provided. Efficiency of the training under the FREST concept is
increased by reducing time spent in transit and related Temporary
Assigned Duty expenses, reducing duplication of training material, and
enhancing the development of unit identity and unit integrity.
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California--Highbay Warehouse
($6,880,000)
Question. Are there any demolition costs associated with this
project?
Answer. The project does not demolish any buildings. Some minor
utilities will be relocated as part of the project. The planned
construction site is currently a gravel parking lot.
Question. What is the plan for re-use or demolition of the existing
warehouses?
Answer. When the current occupants move out of the existing
warehouses, one warehouse will be back-filled by another unit and the
other warehouse will either be torn down or back-filled if the
warehouse is found to be structurally sound. Overall, MCB Camp
Pendleton is deficient of warehouse storage space.
Question. Does a highbay warehouse lend itself to a standardize
design? If so, why wasn't it used for this project?
Answer. There is not a standard design for warehouses. Warehouses
are designed based on the quantities and types of materials to be
stored and based on operational requirements (i.e. requirement for
rapid deployment). In addition, site specific concerns must be
addressed in design: soil conditions, weather/climate, seismic, wind,
topographic site constraints, local construction codes, and the type of
construction materials used.
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California Emergency Spill
Control ($2,840,000)
Question. Are there any follow-on projects associated with this
environmental compliance effort?
Answer. There are no follow-on projects required to bring into
compliance the emergency spill detention system connected to the
aircraft maintenance hangars. This project will meet all the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act as
determined by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Question. Are there any environmental clean-up costs for the two
earth ponds where hazardous waste liquid is currently discharged? If
so, are they included in the cost of this project?
Answer. There are environmental clean-up costs for the two ponds
and it is included in the project cost. The ponds are tested on a
regular basis and the extent and types of contamination are known. The
removal of some contaminated soil is required as a part of this
project's scope.
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California Bachelor Enlisted
Quarters ($12,000,000)
Question. This project constructs 160 two-person rooms for a total
of 320 barracks spaces. Why is it only intended for use by only 233
enlisted personnel?
Answer. The intended use of this building by 233 personnel vice 320
is due to the projected grade mix. Personnel in the grade of E1-E3 are
assigned one space per person and E4-E5 are assigned two spaces per
person. A maximum utilization by 320 personnel is possible only if E1-
E3's are assigned to the building.
Question. Is this project a one-for-one replacement of 320 barracks
spaces?
Answer. This project is not a straight one-for-one replacement of
320 spaces. A portion of the scope will allow assignment of two people
per room vice three in existing barracks space. The associated
demolition plan include demolition of inadequate wooden open bay
barracks.
Question. Why doesn't this project incorporate the ``1+1'' barracks
standard?
Answer. The Marine Corps has over 10,000 inadequate bachelor
quarters spaces. In order to eliminate these inadequate spaces as soon
as possible, we have chosen to construct two person room configured
bachelor quarters. The less expensive 20 BQ design does
provide a quality of life increase over the previous (22)
standard.
Reserve Environmental Compliance
Question. How large is the backlog of requirements for
environmental compliance projects, and how long will it take to buyout
this backlog?
Answer. There is no backlog of environmental compliance projects.
It is Department of the Navy policy to fund all Class I (currently out
of compliance with statutory requirements or executive orders) and
Class II (currently not out of compliance, but which will become out of
compliance during the current funding year--also known as ``just in
time'') projects. These projects are fully funded each year with no
backlog. Class II projects that can be deferred and still meet a
regulatory date, and Class III projects which provide some
environmental benefit, but are not required to meet federal, state or
local standards, and not funded due to fiscal constraints. However,
these projects are not considered to be a backlog.
Reserve Expiring Authorizations
Question. For projects that have been previously appropriated but
not yet executed, list any authorizations that will expire in 1997,
1998, or 1999, if any, identifying the year of expirations.
Answer. The following project authorizations would expire in FY
1997, 1998, or 1999. However, all projects are scheduled for contract
award prior to expiration of authorization, with the single exception
of P-330, Marine Corps Reserve Training Building at Marietta, Georgia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expires
FY PNO Location/Description Auth ($000) (30 Sep)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
95... 330 Marietta, GA, Reserve Training
Bldg........................... 2,650 97
95... 142 NMCRC Tacoma, WA RESCEN
Alteration..................... 4,200 97
96... 508 MCRTC Camp Edward, MA Training
Building....................... 3,130 98
96... 440 NAS New Orleans, LA BEQ......... 5,035 98
96... 086 NSA New Orleans, LA BEQ......... 6,100 98
97... 029 NAF Andrews WA, Training Bldg
Addn........................... 1,465 99
97... 032 NAF Andrews WA, Hangar Addition. 640 99
97... 519 MCRC Camp Williams, UT Training
Center......................... 1,994 99
97... 168 AFRC Jacksonville, FL REDCOM
Addn........................... 770 99
97... 343 NAS Atlanta, GA BEQ Renovation.. 3,250 99
97... 105 NSA New Orleans, LA Instruction
Bldg........................... 3,650 99
97... 091 NSA New Orleans, LA Child Dev
Ctr............................ 1,330 99
97... 087 NSA New Orleans, LA BEQ......... 8,956 99
97... 099 AFB Dyess, TX, MCRTC............ 3,100 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Excess Prior Year Authorization
Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization, if any?
Answer. The MCNR appropriation has no excess prior year
authorization. However, there is a $4,800,000 FY 1997 Appropriation
(Naval Reserve Military Construction Project P-438, Construct, BEQ
(Phase I) at NAS New Orleans, LA) for which there is not corresponding
authorization. The project is included in the FY 1998 Budget request
for authorization only.
Reserve End-Strength
Question. What is the authorized end-strength for 1996 and 1997,
and the projected end-strength for 1997?
Answer. Naval and Marine Corps Reserve end-strengths are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USNR USMCR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1996 Authorized............................ 98,894 42,274
FY 1997 Authorized............................ 96,304 42,000
FY 1997 Projected............................. 95,898 42,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Base Closure
Question. For the record, list the locations where facilities were
transferred to the Reserve components under Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC).
Answer. Facilities were or will be transferred to the Naval Reserve
at: Carswell AFB Fort Worth, TX; Moffett Federal Airfield Santa Clara,
CA; Fort Dix, NJ; Warminster, PA; and March AFB, CA. The Marine Corps
Reserve had no facilities transferred to it under BRAC.
Question. What increases in facility requirements have resulted
from such transfers?
Answer. The Plant Replacement Value of Naval Reserve facilities
will increase approximately 25 percent (from $3.2 to $4.0 billion) as a
result of BRAC. The Marine Corps Reserve had no facilities transferred
to it under BRAC.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the Reserve
components under Base Realignment and Closure, are the BRAC accounts
fully meeting the construction requirements at those locations?
Answer. The Naval Reserve BRAC construction requirements for FY
1998 are fully funded. The Marine Corps Reserve had no facilities
transferred to it under BRAC.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the Reserve
components under Base Realignment and Closure, are the BRAC accounts
fully meeting the construction requirements at those locations?
Answer. The Naval Reserve BRAC construction requirements for FY
1998 are fully funded. The Marine Corps Reserve had no facilities
transferred to it under BRAC.
Question. How far have such transfers gone toward resolving
facilities shortages for the Reserve components?
Answer. The transfers, together with associated BRAC construction,
have met the Naval Reserve's requirements at BRAC locations. The Naval
Reserve continues to have requirements for military construction at
non-BRAC locations. The Marine Corps Reserve had no facilities
transferred to it under BRAC.
Reserve Inventory
Question. What is the value of the current physical plant, and the
types, numbers, and average age of facilities?
Answer. The Replacement Plant Value (RPV) of facilities is:
Billion
Naval Reserve................................................. $3.540
Marine Corps Reserve.......................................... 0.173
Total..................................................... 3.713
174 Reserve Center.
10 Reserve Readiness Commands.
1 Naval Support Activity.
5 Naval Air Stations.
1 Naval Air Facility.
13 Other Naval Air Activities.
The average age of Naval Reserve facilities is 43 years.
The types and numbers of Marine Corps Reserve facilities are as
follows:
21 Reserve Centers.
Marine Corps Reserve facilities average 28 years old.
Reserve Backlog
Question. What is the current backlog of facility requirements?
Answer. The current Military Construction Naval Reserve backlog is:
Million
Naval Reserve..................................................... $341
Marine Corps Reserve.............................................. 105
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 446
Question. How much would be required annually to keep even with
facilities needs?
Answer. A total of $35 million per year would be required to fully
fund the Naval Reserve Military Construction needs. Of this amount, $25
million would be for the Naval Reserve, and $10 million for Marine
Corps Reserve.
Reserve Family Housing
Question. List the locations and number of units of family housing
occupied by the reserve components.
Answer. The Naval Reserve has the following family housing units:
Activity: No. of units
NAS JRB New Orleans........................................... 216
NAS JRB Willow Grove.......................................... 213
NSA New Orleans............................................... 286
NAS JRB Ft Worth.............................................. 94
NAS Atlanta................................................... 10
NAS South Weymouth............................................ 300
NAR Minneapolis............................................... 6
Roosevelt Roads, PR \1\....................................... 7
\1\ Additionally, the Marine Corps Reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve Backlog of Maintenance and Repair
Question. What is the current backlog of maintenance and repair
funded under the operations and maintenance accounts, by component?
Answer. The current backlog of maintenance and repair, not
including activities to be closed by BRAC, is as follows:
Million
Naval Reserve..................................................... $148
Marine Corps Reserve.............................................. 45
Total....................................................... 193
Question. What is the annual funding requirement to avoid growth of
the backlog?
Answer. The annual funding requirement to halt the growth of the
backlog of maintenance and repair is:
Million
Naval Reserve..................................................... $74
Marine Corps Reserve.............................................. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________
Total....................................................... 81
Reserve Parametric Cost Estimates
Question. To what extent do you rely on parametric cost estimation
in the design of military construction projects?
Answer. Parametric cost estimates are used to develop, plan and
program all Naval Reserve military construction projects.
Question. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of
parametric design estimates?
Answer. The parametric costs are the accepted figures for audit and
are an extremely valuable tool. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
continuously updates the parametric costs and we have a great degree of
confidence in their accuracy.
Reserve Unspecified Minor Construction
Question. Provide for the record a list of unspecified minor
construction projects executed during Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996, and
obligations to date in Fiscal Year 1997, by location.
Answer.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location/ Funds
Fiscal Year PNO description obligated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............... 157................ NMCRC Spokane WA, $400
Add Air
Conditioning.
366................ NAS Fort Worth, 390
TX, Security
Group HQ
Renovation.
405................ MCRTC Orlando, 285
FL, Tactical
Vehicle Wash
Platform.
406................ NMCRC Greensboro, 140
NC, Tactical
Vehicle Wash.
940................ NMCRC Worcester, 305
MA, Wash Pad
Storage.
402................ MRTC Battle 395
Creek, MI,
Upgrade MC area.
1996............... 369................ NRC San Juan, PR, 400
Reserve Center
Alteration.
230................ NAS Willow Grove, 250
PA, Storage Bldg.
1997............... ................. None.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Has this appropriation met the needs over the last two
years?
Answer. The Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC) appropriation has
marginally met the needs of the Naval Reserve, only because of the
carry-over of funds from prior years. However, the Naval Reserve has
now completely expended its available Minor Construction funds.
Adequate funding for UMC will be an important priority for the MCNR
appropriation in FY 1998 and the out-years.
Question. What shortfalls, if any, have been encountered?
Answer. We have been able to award all of our critical UMC projects
up to this point. However, the UMC backlog is 39 projects estimated to
cost $12.1 million. Additionally, with the increase of the UMC funding
limit from $400 thousand to $1.5 million in FY 1997, greater UMC
funding will be required in the future.
Demolition of Unneeded Reserve Facilities
Question. How large is the inventory of unneeded facilities
awaiting demolition?
Answer. The Naval Reserve has a $6.4 million backlog of demolition
projects. The Marine Corps Reserve has no separate backlog of
demolition projects.
Question. Is the work funded exclusively under the operations and
maintenance account?
Answer. For the most part, demolition is funded through the
operations and maintenance, Naval Reserve account. Demolition can also
be funded through the CNO centralized demolition program, which is also
an O&M account.
Question. How will this work be tracked to ensure that funds are
used for demolition?
Answer. Naval Reserve demolition projects compete for funding with
all other maintenance and repair projects. Demolition projects are
funded when it is economically advantageous or when required upon
termination of a lease. Demolition projects are tracked as part of the
Special Projects program during execution.
Question. What is the level of effort for this work for Fiscal Year
1997?
Answer. The Naval Reserve plans to execute one demolition project
in FY 1997 at a cost of $167 thousand. Another project for $940
thousand has been proposed for funding by CNO under the Navy's
centralized demolition program.
Reserve Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation or in the prior years'
unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignment and closure, mission changes,
bilateral and multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include
on the list military construction projects, family housing construction
and construction improvement projects, and projects financed under the
base realignment and closure accounts?
Answer. There are no prior year Naval Reserve projects which are no
longer required.
Reserve Reprogramming
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by fiscal
year, the total amount approved by Congress for reprogramming for the
last five years.
Answer. The following table is submitted:
AMOUNT APPROVED BY CONGRESS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992....................................................... $0
1993....................................................... 0
1994....................................................... 10,075
1995....................................................... 3,550
1996....................................................... 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no Naval Reserve reprogramming pending in FY 1997.
Unobligated Balances
Question. What is being done to improve execution rates and to
avoid large unobligated balances?
Answer. As detailed in Question Number 151, the MCNR appropriation
does not have large unobligated balances. The Naval Reserve continually
seeks to improve Military Construction, Naval Reserve execution rates.
Now that the BRAC process is concluded, it is possible to analyze
construction requirements in a more stable environment, which will
allow even more effective planning and programming.
Question. For the record, submit a list of all projects for which
funds were previously appropriated, but which have not yet been
executed. This list should include, at a minimum, the year in which
funds were appropriated and the estimated contract award date.
Answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
(dollars
FY PNO Location Description in Est Award Date
thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................ 330 Marietta, GA....... Reserve Training 2,650 Oct 1997
Bldg.
1996............................ 508 MCRTC Camp Edward, Reserve Training 3,130 Oct 1997
MA. Building.
1996............................ 440 NAS New Orleans, LA BEQ................ 5,035 Apr 1997
1996............................ 086 NAS New Orleans, LA BEQ................ 6,100 May 1997
1997............................ 519 MCRC Camp Williams, RTC................ 1,994 May 1997
UT.
1997............................ 168 AFRC Jacksonville, READCOM Addn....... 770 Aug 1997
FL.
1997............................ 438 NAS New Orleans, LA BEQ................ 4,800 Apr 1997
1997............................ 343 NAS Atlanta, GA.... BEQ Renovation..... 3,250 Sep 1997
1997............................ 105 NAS New Orleans, LA Instruction Bldg... 3,650 Sep 1997
1997............................ 091 NAS New Orleans, LA Child Dev Ctr...... 1,330 Sep 1997
1997............................ 087 NAS New Orleans, LA BEQ................ 8,956 Sep 1997
1997............................ 099 AFB Dyess, TX...... MCRTC.............. 3,100 Jun 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Facility Andrews AFB, Washington, DC Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
($4,640,000)
Question. This project constructs bachelor enlisted quarters in
compliance with the ``1+1'' barracks standard. Why wasn't standardize
design used for this project?
Answer. The design for this project was initiated using a typical
interior corridor ``1+1'' modular floor layout. This was redirected by
the Air Force to use an exterior balcony garden style ``1+1'' quarters
consistent with the design utilized on Andrews Air Force Base since
Naval Air Facility is a tenant activity. The Andrews Air Force Base
standard will be used for this project through a design-build contract.
Question. What is the cost difference between site specific design
and standardize design for this project? How do you justify the use of
site specific design?
Answer. The Navy policy is to use design standardization to the
maximum extent achieveable, consistent with customer's mission
requirements. Throughout the years, various levels of standardization
have been applied to magazines, engine test cells, firefighter
trainers, brigs, child development center, and other facilities as
conditions warrant.
For this project we have determined that reusing module design data
previously developed is consistent with customer's requirement, and is
cost-effective. The project will use the standard module design for
``garden style'' apartment units previously used at Andrews Air Force
Base.
Question. What are the plans for reuse or demolition of the
existing building?
Answer. The existing building is substandard and would be
uneconomical to renovate to 1+1 criteria. The building will be
demolished and the new foundation will be extended beyond the current
footprint.
Question. Briefly describe the ``Special Construction Features''
included in the cost of this project.
Answer. Since the original foundation cannot be used for the new BQ
due to footprint differences, the special construction features are the
deep excavation (approximately 10,) and removal of the existing
foundation, and the sheeting, shoring and backfill to prepare the site
to receive the new construction.
Naval Air Station, New Orleans, Louisiana Bachelor Enlisted Quarters
($4,800,000)
Question. This project constructs bachelor enlisted quarters in
compliance with the ``1+1'' barracks standard. Why wasn't standardized
design used for this project?
Answer: This project is a site adapt of P-440 BEQ, NSA New Orleans
that was authorized in the FY 1996 program. This design is a three
story garden style BEQ utilizing the ``1+1'' standard module floor
layout.
Question. What is the cost difference between site specific design
and standardize design for this project? How do you justify the use of
site specific design?
Answer. The subject project does, in effect, use a standard design
inasmuch as it is site adaption of FY 1996 MCNR project P-440, BEQ,
also at NAS New Orleans. The Navy policy is to use design
standardization to the maximum extent achievable, consistent with
customer's mission requirements. Throughout the years, various levels
of standardization have been applied to magazines, engine test cells,
firefighter trainers, brigs, child development center, and other
facilities as conditions warrant.
For this project we have determined that reusing module design data
previously developed is consistent with customer's requirement, and is
cost-effective.
Question. What is the estimated contract award date and the
estimated construction start date for this project? Also, how many
other phases are needed to complete this project?
Answer. This project was designed as an option to FY 1996 P-440,
BEQ, NSA New Orleans which is currently being advertised. Award of P-
440 is planned for 30 April, with groundbreaking approximately 60 days
following. Since this project, P-438, is designed as an option to P-
440, it can be executed immediately upon receipt of authorization.
One additional phase of $4,520,000 is required to complete the
project.
Seal Beach California Marine Corps Reserve Training Center ($6,104,000)
Question. In January of 1994, the Northridge earthquake rendered
the existing Stadium Way center unusable. Describe in some detail the
leased trailers that are currently being used at Seal Beach as a
temporary measure.
Answer. Modular trailers are connected together to be used as
office space. Each are 12,54, forming a total space of 9,072
SF of office space. Two additional trailers are used as male/female
head facilities. The male head is 12,60, with 5 showers,
lockers, 3 sinks and 4 toilets. The female head is 8,20, with
1 sink, 1 toilet and 1 shower. Hot water is available, water fountains
are not. With the exception of the heads, all spaces are carpeted.
There are four exterior entrances/exits. Three have emergency use only
alarm locks. The main entrance has a handicap ramp. Six exterior lights
are mounted along the top of the outside walls to provide lighting at
night. All office lighting is fluorescent. Three emergency lighting
units are installed. Telephone and computer network jacks are located
throughout the office space area. Electrical power is provided through
a central junction at the center of the trailers.
Question. What is the cost of these commercial leased facilities?
Answer. The costs associated with the commercial leased facilities
are as follows:
Delivery to and from, set-up and tear-down, placement, first year's
rental and miscellaneous costs: $98,833. Second year, $72,000 ($6,000/
mo). Third year, $42,000 ($3,500/mo). Fourth year, $20,400 ($1,700/mo)
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Packard.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Congresswoman Northup.]
Privatization of Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky
The nation's first effort at privatization is occurring in
the Third District of Kentucky at what used to be the Naval
Ordnance Station in Louisville, KY. The U.S. Navy committed
$41.5 million in FY 1997 in contracts to United Defense, which
took over that facility. Later this figure was reduced to $35.2
million. While I understand that the Navy is attempting to
improve this figure, I am concerned about the message this
reduction sends to businesses who are contemplating
participation in other privatization projects. I am here to
urge you to give privatization a legitimate chance in
Louisville and establish a precedent for the entire nation to
follow. The privatization efforts in Louisville will support
itself, but only if the Navy continue to commit their resources
to this effort.
Question. Is the Navy truly committed to see privatization
succeed in Louisville?
Answer. The Navy is committed to giving the privatization
in Louisville every opportunity to succeed. Success is not
based solely on the Navy though. Industry and the Louisville/
Jefferson County Redevelopment Authority are the critical
components in making privatization succeed. They, together,
must make the tough business decisions that will keep costs
down, attract new business, and diversify the site. The Navy is
committed to keeping its business in Louisville as long as
there is work to be done, the quality of work is acceptable,
and the cost of the work is competitive.
Question. If so, what level of funding will you commit to
United Defense and does this level meet your original
obligation?
Answer. During negotiations of the contract option, last
summer, the Navy and United Defense agreed on an option to
exceed $44.9 million. Not to exceed levels allow for growth
during a contract period and are generally greater than the
amount currently on hand. When the budgets became finalized and
approved by both houses of Congress, the Navy and United
Defense definitized the FY 1997 contract option at $35.2
million. This amount included more than $7 million for foreign
military sales efforts and more than $1 million from other
services. To date Navy has placed $14M on the contract and has
identified another $8M expected to be added before the end of
the fiscal year. An additional $5M in FY 96 funding was also
added to what was originally agreed to by both the Navy and
United Defense. Navy will continue to review requirements and
available funding through the rest of FY-97.
Question. And, what are the plans for FY 1998 and the
succeeding years?
Answer. Early this summer the Navy with United Defense will
scope the FY 1998 effort and sign another not to exceed option.
After the budget is approved the Navy will definitize the
option with the amount provided by Congress to perform the
Louisville type of work.
Conveyance To the Louisville Redevelopment Authority
The long-term success of this first ever Department of
Defense privatization is contingent upon no-cost economic
development conveyance in a quick and timely fashion, much like
a plan the Louisville Redevelopment Authority approached the
Department of Navy in early summer of 1996. This is a concern
to some companies wishing to relocate to the Naval Ordnance
because the Navy is still in control of the land.
Question. Is the United States Navy prepared to negotiate
for this conveyance to the Louisville Redevelopment Authority?
Answer. The Navy has been prepared to negotiate with the
Louisville/Jefferson County Redevelopment Authority since early
last summer. The Navy has been encouraging the redevelopment
authority to begin the negotiation process, as with all BRAC
closure sites, with the submittal of their Economic Development
Conveyance application. The Navy has offered to help the
redevelopment authority with that effort but has not been
requested to do so by the redevelopment authority. The Navy
would like to bring this portion of the closure process to a
close, but must wait on the redevelopment authority to submit
their application.
Dioxin Traces at Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville Kentucky
Trace amounts of dioxin compounds were recently detected at
the Naval Ordnance Station in Louisville in conjunction with
base closure an realignment actions.
Question. What is the Navy's responsibility to fully clean
up the environmental waste?
Answer. The navy is committed to remediate environmental
contaminations as required by state and Federal laws in
conjunction with the transfer of the former Naval Ordnance
Station to the City of Louisville.
Question. At what level of funding will the Navy commit to
this clean-up?
Answer. Funding requirements will be identified following
the completion of the evaluation of test results. The Navy is
committed to comply with all state and Federal requirements to
remediate environmental contamination and protect human health
and the environment.
Question. Is there an established timetable for this clean-
up, and if so, what is the agenda?
Answer. Testing is in progress to determine if harmful
dioxin compounds are present at the former Naval Ordnance
Station at Louisville. Once that determination is made, an
evaluation will be performed to ascertain clean up requirements
and establish remediation schedules.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Congresswoman Northup.]
Tuesday, March 11, 1997.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WITNESS
RODNEY A. COLEMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (MANPOWER,
RESERVE AFFAIRS, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. This afternoon we're very privileged to have
with us Mr. Rodney Coleman who is the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and
Environment. I've had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Coleman
in my office and I'm impressed with his leadership and I'm
grateful that he's here.
We'll focus this hearing on constructions programs of the
Air Force and, of course, that will include the Air Guard and
the Reserve. And we're very pleased to have your support team
with you and we'll have you introduce them, perhaps as your
first order of business. But before that, I would like to
simply tell you how pleased I was to find in your testimony
that you are seriously addressing overseas dormitories and
facilities at our bases overseas. I was pleased to see that. We
certainly believe that our military men and women, when they
are deployed overseas, need to have adequate housing
facilities. I know that that creates a different set of
problems than domestic bases, but you have addressed it, I
think, over the years and certainly you do it in this budget
proposal.
I see in your prepared statement that you're sending
precautionary prefinancing statements to the NATO
Infrastructure Committee for all of the European projects
instead of for just a few. The opportunity for you to recoup
those funds is much better if we submit for all of them, and I
think that that's a step in the right direction. I compliment
you on that.
As you know, we're emphasizing, of course, the quality of
life issues, the housing for our men and women in the Air
Force, and we will be concentrating on that as we get to the
question and answer period. But I think most of us, certainly
I, have read your testimony completely through and I have some
questions that I will ask later, but I prefer that you don't
read the testimony. It took me a long time last night to read
it all the way through.
Mr. Coleman. I wouldn't think of it, sir.
Mr. Packard. But we would like you to summarize, to
emphasize those areas that you think are very important for
this committee to hear and to have emphasized. And before we go
to your statement, Mr. Coleman, and your introductions of your
team, I'd like to ask Mr. Hefner if he has an opening
statement.
Mr. Hefner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening
statement. We're just happy to have you before the Committee
and we're going to be looking forward to working with you to do
what we can to get involved in quality of life issues for our
military folk.
And I would like to apologize in advance to you, Mr.
Chairman. I've got another hearing with the Military Events
Subcommittee and I'll have to slip out shortly. It's been our
focus when I was chairman and when Mrs. Vucanovich was
chairman, our main focus was on quality of life for our, for
our people in the service. And if we can't afford them that, it
hurts our retention and it really handicaps us to ask these
young men to operate the most sophisticated systems the world's
ever known and live in World War II barracks. So, we're looking
forward to your--some of your innovations and looking forward
to a relationship with you, and we appreciate you getting
before the Committee.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, Congressman Hefner.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Wicker, do you have a statement?
Mr. Wicker. No, thank you.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Wicker needs to leave also, so it may be
just you and me, and that's all right with me if it's all right
with you.
And so with that, if you'd please introduce at least your
key team here to help you, and then proceed as you wish with
your testimony.
statement of hon. rodney a. coleman
Mr. Coleman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me
today, Mr. Chairman, are members of the Total Air Force Team:
Maj.Gen. Gene Lupia, the civil engineer of the Air Force; BG
John Bradley, the deputy to the chief of the Air Force Reserve;
and BG Paul Weaver, the deputy director of the Air National
Guard. And we're pleased to have this opportunity to discuss
with you the $1.68 billion MILCON submittal for FY 98.
Over the past 18 months, as you're very well aware, the Air
Force has crafted a strategy that spells out the role of Air
and Space Force power for the nation in the core mission
capabilities critical to that strategy. Our responsibility is
to skillfully forge a supporting facility and infrastructure
approach to that strategy, and that approach includes the
emphasis on supporting new mission beddowns, quality of life
initiatives and reinvesting in our few remaining bases
overseas.
We developed an integrated priority list based on the most
urgent needs of the total Air Force integrating new mission,
current mission, and environmental projects for the active
Guard and Reserve. We are on target to demolish our worn-out
and obsolete facilities and infrastructure in order to reduce
operations and maintenance costs. We're also looking very hard
at maintaining only those facilities that we need to meet core
mission requirements. We are proceeding to effectively
determine what we need and to look for opportunities to
consolidate functions in retained facilities.
But even our best management, Mr. Chairman, of
decliningresources will not be enough. We have to stretch our dollars
and use every means available to protect our hard fought-for position
as the world's most respected and Air and Space Force. Last year's rule
making that enabled us to pursue privatization of military family
housing and dormitories hits the mark. We also welcome the opportunity
to privatize other assets of our physical plant where it makes
economical and operational sense. We can optimize our resources using
better business practices, such as privatization or what we call
corporate asset management. We must think outside of the box, Mr.
Chairman, and embrace innovations which are not a part of our current
paradigms. An example is privatization of military family housing and
dormitories. Right now we have 10 privatization projects at 10 separate
installations which could produce as many as 4,000 new or renovated
housing units for our Air Force families.
Well, you might ask, so what? Can't we do that with our own
regular MILCON funds? And the answer, of course, is yes. The
difference is that with privatization we are leveraging our
resources for about a three-to-one return on our tax dollar,
getting three times as many units for the same dollars. Our
people are the foundation of our strength and we must recruit,
train, and retain the highest quality forces possible. In this
light, we need to take the needs of our people very seriously.
Privacy remains the number one concern among our airmen. We
have focused on the buy out of all remaining permanent party
central latrine dormitories. With your continued support, we
will be able to fully achieve this improvement in quality
living conditions with the FY 99 MILCON program, and then we
will focus on depleting our 14,000-room dormitory deficit. Our
'98 quality of life MILCON request includes 10 dormitory
projects valued at $128 million and 2 fitness centers valued at
$6.5 million.
Military family housing is one of our most important
programs. We're requesting $139 million for FY 98 new
construction projects at 16 CONUS bases that will construct 70
new homes, replace 899 existing houses, and replace 1 housing
support facility. The replacement units will take the place of
existing homes that are no longer economical to maintain. Our
housing budget request reflects our long-standing commitment to
provide our Air Force families with homes in communities that
are as comparable to private sector housing as we can make
them.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Committee for
its strong support or our military construction program in the
past and with its resulting benefits in Air Force readiness,
recruiting, training, and retention. We'll be happy to respond
to your questions.
[Prepared statement of the Honorable Rodney A. Coleman
follows:]
[Pages 618 - 651--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Coleman, for that
brief and very well done statement. Because you may not be able
to be here for the full time, do you have anything you'd like
to ask, Mr. Hefner?
family housing improvement fund
Mr. Hefner. I just have a couple of questions. In the past
2 years, there's been $45 million appropriated in the housing
improvement fund. And what rationale does the Department use
for the distribution of these funds? Is it going to be allotted
to the services or held centrally to allow each project to
compete?
Mr. Coleman. Well, we're working with the HRSO, the housing
office at OSD, on this pilot initiative that we're doing. We're
seeking all the funds that we can get. We believe that we
would--we hoped to have had our own prerogative to, to use
those funds without going through OSD, but that didn't come
about, so we're going to work as hard as we can to get as many
funds as we can for our projects.
I was just notified that for our housing project at
Lackland we got $4 million of that money from HRSO, to use in
our Lackland initiative where we're going to do 420 houses.
Mr. Hefner. But how did you go about doing that?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we have 10 projects, as Mr. Coleman
mentioned, and as we go through each of these projects we have
some financial performa that we apply to determine if the
project is economically feasible and how smart it is to do
really.
We sometimes come up with some military construction line
item as seed money. When we have that seed money, we can add to
it money that comes out of the pot at the OSD level that's
mentioned. So, when we brought our Lackland privatization
project to them, as we went through the financial performa, it
looked like we would need to add some more government money.
And if that was the case, they're willing to put up to $4
million into that project.
We don't know how much we'll need, actually need yet
because we don't have the responses to our request for
proposal. They're due this Friday. So, I don't know the exact
amount to tell you yet, but we do have a commitment that we
could withdraw from that pot.
Our second project is one in Alaska which when I brought to
the OSD staff they committed again to add resources to the
amount of money that the Air Force has in order for us to carry
out that project as well. So, we have been getting very good
support from Mr. Goodman's office in terms of financial
assistance for our projects.
Mr. Hefner. On page 15 of your statement, you say ``We need
housing MILCON to meld with funds from the Family Housing
Improvement Fund to act as seed money for potential
privatization initiatives. Without the MILCON funding base,
privatization as we know it today would not be possible.'' Why
not? Why couldn't all of your construction of family housing
units be financed under the Family Housing Improvement Fund?
Mr. Coleman. If you make a contribution to the fund that is
substantial enough to take care of the Army, Air Force, and
Navy, I suppose you could have a redirect to use the funds from
the fund and not MILCON, but you don't have enough money in
there. Therefore, you have to use the MILCON funds.
Mr. Hefner. Okay. I have some other--probably some other
questions for the record, but we have other members here. I'll
yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Then we'll have Mr.
Wicker but he had to leave already. Welcome, Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you. I don't have very many questions. I
do have a concern that I'm trying to find a solution for.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
assistance with buying a home
Mr. Tiahrt. We have the volunteer services we're all
familiar with, and some of the things that may be drawing away
from that voluntary service is the inability to build up equity
in a home. Many of your officers and enlisted men and women are
transferred from time to time and they have a difficult time
purchasing a home as manyAmericans do, and I'm looking for an
innovative way to help them make a down payment available or some way
of helping people in the military buy their own home when they're
stationed. I don't know whether it's stability in assignment or what we
can do, but last year I lived down in Springfield, Virginia, and many
of my neighbors in the military had to lease a house at a very
expensive rate, and they didn't have either the down payment or access
to a down payment, and I think that's a drawback.
In fact, one of my neighbors left as a Major in the Air
Force to go to work for a private firm because he was
frustrated in that he was facing another tour of duty elsewhere
and, and he was unable to buy a home. And I think that
privatization is a good direction to go. One way we could do
that is find a way that we could get military personnel into
their own home that they buy. It's part of the American dream.
And I don't know how to do that yet, but I'd like somebody to
sit down with a group of officers and enlisted men and women
come up with some ideas, maybe determine what are the obstacles
and what can help them achieve home ownership. Is it lack of a
down payment? Maybe they can borrow against future retirement.
Or is it instability in assignment? They're looking at too
short of a tour to feel confident that they can buy a home. And
some kind of protection if they do get moved prematurely so
they don't lose money.
If I work in the private sector and my company says
tomorrow you're going to be in L.A. or Seattle or somewhere
else they will quite often buy the house and then allow the
employee to go ahead. Do you have any idea?
Mr. Coleman. I'm really pleased to hear you talk out of the
box like that. What I said in my opening remarks is we have to
keep on thinking out of the box, stretching the envelope,
looking at new and creative and innovative ideas to, to give
the Force what it is due, Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine, Coast
Guard.
Such a proposal--I came here from General Motors and they
bought my house here when I left in 1980 and bought it again
when I left Detroit to come here. It's a fine program. Again,
it takes money. I would like to personally commit to you that
my office will look at that with a group of airmen and officers
to see if it makes economical and operational sense.
Sir, I will tell you that the assignment policies of the
U.S. military, one of the things that we don't want is
homesteading. We don't want a person staying in a place too
long. Usually, the assignment is about three or four years and
then that, that skill that that person has is required
someplace else. So, you may have a concern there which is
juxtaposed to me in the private sector where you're there for a
goodly length of time, even though you could be prone to go to
the plant in Indiana or something like that. You're still there
more so than a military person is. But it's creative, it's a
challenge to us and I'll look into it and report back to you.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Coleman, I know that Burlington Northern,
for example--I've never worked for them but I have a cousin who
did as a chief engineer and about every five years they plan on
moving their headquarters and they leave behind their dead
wood. That's how they cull their dead wood. I you don't get a
move order, then you're in trouble and it's time to go looking
for a job. So, there are corporations that do plan on keeping
their executive mobile to some degree, and I think everyone in
the Air Force understands that.
But when they vacate a house, it makes it available for
another officer coming in or another enlisted man or woman
coming in. It's something that I'd like to see you consider.
Mr. Coleman. I'll look at it, sir.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Before we go to you, Mr. Olver, did
you complete your statement?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, I did.
Mr. Packard. I thought you had. I didn't want to cut you
short at all. Mr. Olver.
project design
Mr. Olver. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
being here today. Mr. Coleman, is--does the implication--is
there an implication to the complete design of projects as to
if a design is completed is that something that is phased into
gear to then appear on actual construction lists, or is there
no real relationship there?
Mr. Coleman. Once--we don't commit to design unless it's in
a, it's in a program that can be in the FYDP, we can design it,
put it on the shelf until it's in the appropriations bin. We
don't necessarily have to go like on the outside where you've
already committed an appropriation to build the house and
that's how you've engaged your contractor. We have some things
on the shelf awaiting appropriations.
You want to add to that? The civil engineer will--is the
one who takes care of that, so----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we have, we have a very specific
formula that we apply to a project that basically says it costs
us about 9 percent of the value of the project to, to design
it. We start two years out. So, right now with the money that
the Congress will give us in this fiscal year, we will complete
the design of the '99 program and we will begin the design of
the 00 program.
Mr. Olver. Wait a minute. This is--are you saying with
Fiscal 97 monies you'll complete the design of the '99 program?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. With Fiscal 98 money, sir.
Mr. Olver. With Fiscal 98----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Dollars will design the Fiscal 99?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir. We will try to execute this
year's program as soon as we get a signed bill for '98. So, we
would have to have finished designing it in '97 in order to be
able to execute it in '98. So, the $49.5 million of design
money that the Congress would give us in the '98 bill we will
complete designing the '99 program and kick off the 00 program.
westover air reserve base
Mr. Olver. Okay. Well, I'm not sure--we'll see--let me--
there was a reason for asking that and it probably will become
obvious after a while here, but I wanted to get that one kind
of laid out. I'm from New England and it's--Massachusetts. New
England has been one of those areas that in the various BRAC
commissions has, has been just topsy turvy in, in its base
structures and so forth. There are no active bases left.
There's one Reserve base at Westover, it doesn't happen to be
in my district, and there's a series of Guard bases, of course,
at which Guard units are--Air Guard units are. And so that just
to indicate--so that you would indicate where I might be coming
from, I notice thatin the Administration's request for the
Fiscal 98 budget submission, in the '98 budget submission there's a jet
fuel storage complex for--at the Reserve base in Westover and there's a
fire training facility. Good--it sounds like good environmental and
good safety issues, both of them in the request, and I certainly
support that request.
I understand those are fully designed, so they would have
been fully designed in--what year would those have been fully
designed?
Mr. Coleman. To be ready to go now, sir?
Mr. Olver. Well, they are supposedly fully designed and
they're in for Fiscal 98 construction, so they must have been
designed--but I was curious if you would know whether they had
been designed in--when the completion of the design occurred.
Mr. Coleman. Sir, I would not know off hand.
Lt. Col. Green. The fuel pits project or the--project is
actually sited after the Air Force standard design and that's
what's----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Mr. Congressman, we have these fire
training pits for our fire fighters to train on at every Air
Force base. And so, rather than paying an architect/engineer
firm to design one, we just took the standard design and we put
it down in Westover.
Mr. Olver. Okay, that's the problem. What about the fuel
jet storage complex, would that have been designed
individually?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. That would have been designed--when would--you
may not know this but I would just ask the question for my
information. I haven't gathered this information, serving for
the first time on this committee, to, to know what context
we're working with. I'd like to know----
Mr. Coleman. We'd be happy to go over that in detail with
you, sir. However, as the gentleman explained a little while
ago, it's about a year or so, depending on the complexity of
the project----
Mr. Olver. Okay.
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. That you would go before you
wanted to build that project. At least a year, with all the
approvals and et cetera, et cetera.
BG Bradley. Sir, that fuel storage is actually not an Air
Force project. It's a Defense Logistics Agency fuels project.
You were right about the fire training, that is an Air Force
project. But we will be glad to----
Mr. Olver. Provides you with----
BG Bradley. But it would be no different, sir.
Mr. Olver. So that they would have designed it different--
--
BG Bradley. Correct.
Mr. Olver. Fine. Let me take another Westover project which
is here, which I know of. There is a UH-1 flight simulator
renovation planned there that I understand is also fully
designed. It was--I'd asked this of the Army people because
the, the unit is actually an Army helicopter unit and I--this
is an instance to, to know. Does that renovation of a building
that's on the Reserve base, is that something that comes out of
the Army's----
Mr. Coleman. Army's, yes, yes, sir.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Monies and you wouldn't know
anything about that? But if it's fully designed, then
presumably it's----
Mr. Coleman. Ready to go.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. It's ready to go.
Mr. Coleman. With an appropriate appropriation.
Mr. Olver. And should be--or could be or should be,
whatever, in this construction. Let me then follow--there has
been a proposal for some time for a control tower. The control
tower at that Reserve base, which, of course, was the number
two SAC base back in the late--in the sixties and on through
the seventies. It was the chief eastern base, to go along with
Offutt in Omaha.
That control tower there was built in 1962. In 1992, the
report in regard to that, and I'm reading from the report, says
that the current facility was constructed in '62. This was in
their request for $3 million for a control tower. The location
of the tower creates an accessibility problem. Hangar lighting
and future improved ramp lighting does have an adverse effect
on the controller's vision. There are movement areas that due
to the parking of C-5 aircraft are no longer visible from the
tower. The height of the building is not sufficient to, to see
movement areas.
It goes on and says it's 130 feet high with no elevators.
Therefore, supplies and equipment have to be carried up 10
flights of stairs, and so on and so forth. It sounds as if it's
a rather--the final, final words here, ``failure to replace
existing tower will force continued operation from an unsafe,
undersize, antiquated control tower which is a safety hazard
and will increasingly add to the chance of aircraft mishaps.''
I don't see it yet as having been designed. It was on that
request five years ago already. Where are we on it?
BG Bradley. Sir, we have it on our Air Force Reserve
priority list, but it's outside the five-year Defense plan.
It's a $3 million project, like we talk about. It is an old
tower but it's not unlike many other towers that we have, very
tall. Hardly any of them have elevators. That's just the
standard they were always built to.
Mr. Olver. It's good exercise.
BG Bradley. Yes, sir, it's great exercise. I've been up and
down many of them. And we would like to get it replaced at some
point, but it's just--it's too far down right now. But it's
certainly adequate to do the job and it's not unlike many other
control towers we have around the system.
Mr. Olver. Is design done out of a general contract for
design? Do you--or is that done on specific projects? For
instance, well----
BG Bradley. On specific--a very specific project, yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Very--so, the design which is 10 percent of--on
average, of these kinds of projects, if the whole project is a
$13 million project, at some point you've got to bring forward
a design. Would we see that as a design and request from the
Administration in one fiscal year and then, and then follow
after it's done with a request for the actual construction
monies at a later time?
Mr. Coleman. As you might know in my----
Mr. Olver. Or does it appear all in the same----
Mr. Coleman. In this submittal, sir, I've asked for $41
million for design money.
Mr. Olver. Oh. And does that list exactly which ones are to
be designed? Is this project in that group?
Mr. Coleman. No, sir. No, sir.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we have a requirement to get--make
Congressional notification for projects which require
over$300,000 in design costs, and only those projects do we submit by
line item to the Congress for approval. As a notification, I really
should say.
Mr. Olver. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll continue as
long as you'll allow me.
Mr. Packard. Go ahead.
base realignment and closure
Mr. Olver. Okay. The--it's my understanding that as part of
the BRAC closure arrangements that there is a unit which has
been brought from the--already brought from, from the Weymouth
Naval Air Station a Marine Air Reserve unit which is now housed
at the Westover Air Force Reserve base. And I--it seems to me
to reflect on what you've said about co-locations and
cooperative efforts to try to be efficient and cost-effective
in the, in the process.
How--that unit has come--I understand that they would like
a Marine Reserve center on, on the grounds of the Westover
base. The unit's been moved from the Naval Air Station which is
under the--in the '95 BRAC closure and it's cited for, for
final--that base is cited for final closure a couple years down
the road, but the unit has already moved to Westover. Is that
one that, that would be--this is one--if it's cooperative, it's
going to either be funded by Air Reserve or funded by Naval
Reserve, or else it's going to fall between the----
Mr. Coleman. Marine Reserve.
Mr. Olver. Marine Reserve?
Mr. Coleman. Yeah.
Mr. Olver. Well, that comes out of the Navy, I think, and
it's going to fall between the cracks because it really is--
it's not a specific kind of fish here.
Mr. Coleman. We hope it doesn't fall through the cracks.
We, as the executive agent of a base, of course, would accept a
fellow service but they would have to appropriate their own
funds for their facilities. There are, there are differing
arrangements that can be made, but with regard to Westover,
Gen. Bradley, if you'd like to amplify----
BG Bradley. Sir, you're exactly right. We would have an
agreement between the Department of the Navy and the Department
of the Air Force to bed the unit down there and we will assist
them with that beddown, we'll assist them with the project. But
the Navy Department would fund that military construction
project out of the BRAC account. It would be paid out of the
BRAC account, I'm sorry. But we would provide the civil
engineering support as the host at Westover for that Marine
Reserve unit.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Do you know if that has been--that
agreement has been reached?
BG Bradley. Sir, I don't, but--sir, I----
Mr. Olver. Could you----
BG Bradley. I would imagine----
Mr. Olver. Would you check on that for me?
BG Bradley. Yes, sir, I will find out and we will report
back to the committee on that. Take that for the record.
[The information follows:]
The Marine reserve unit was moved to Westover ARB as a
result of BRAC 95. The unit is currently working out of interim
facilities on Westover. The interim facilities are eight excess
Military family housing units controlled by the Navy. The
permanent fix for their facility needs is to renovate building
1900, a 46,827 square foot concrete building. A permit has been
issued allowing the Marines to use the family housing and an
agreement for use of the Building 1900 has been drafted. The
building 1900 renovation project will cost $4.1M and is
currently in Navy/Marine FY-99 program in the Military
Construction, Naval Reserve Account.
BG Bradley. The Air Force and the Navy, of course, will
abide by the BRAC decision to bed the unit down there. So,
there's no issue between the departments on it. I don't know
the status on it but I'll find that out and we will report that
to you.
Mr. Olver. I'd like to know the status of--I take it there
would be some sort of an agreement that would be reached before
the other agency would--since they're going to spend the money
on it, would start the rehabilitation or remodeling design.
BG Bradley. Yes, sir. I'll go back this afternoon and I'll
be able to find out the status, where we are in that process
and I'll be able to get it.
meps: springfield, massachusetts
Mr. Olver. Well, also, since we're on that Reserve base,
there is a, there's a military entrance processing station
that--because that is the Reserve base, there's a military--a
MEPS station in Springfield which is, you know, 10 miles, is 10
miles away. But it has then required--I'm told the belief of
the people at--with the Westover base is that there's a
considerable cost associated, and inconvenience, but
particularly cost of, of housing people who come in for that
entrance processing that they believe could be very, very much
reduced, as well as the efficiency, if the one--if the major
Reserve base also had the MEPSstation on that base. Do you know
anything about where that would lie in the plan?
Mr. Coleman. Sir, this is the first I've heard of that.
Brad.
BG Bradley. Sir, I am not familiar with any proposal. I
have been to Westover within the last year and I am not
familiar with any proposal to move the MEPS station to the
base.
Mr. Olver. The station itself is in rental space.
BG Bradley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Therefore, there's a cost associated with that
because we do have, we do have extensive barracks at the
Westover base. It also involves--that's the administrative
station. It also involves the housing of people in hotel rates
in--rather than at--using barracks that we already own and
operate.
BG Bradley. Well, we have some limited billeting there,
sir, but we really don't have a great--what I would call an
excess of billeting there. Our C-5----
Mr. Olver. An excess ability?
BG Bradley [continuing]. Reserve flying wing there is a
very large outfit, and when we have our reservists there for
training we don't have enough billeting on the base. So, I
would have to look at the numbers we're talking about for the
MEPS processing to see if what we have there might be able to
help offset some of those hotel costs. But we'd have to look at
that, and I've not heard any proposal. We'd certainly entertain
it and look at anything that would help save money for DoD, no
doubt. But I am not sure that we have what it would take, but
I'll find out. I will look at it. I've not heard any proposal
on it.
[The information follows:]
The proposal to relocate the Military Entrance Processing
Station from leased space in Springfield to Westover ARB is in
the planning stages. MEPS projects are funded through the Army
MCA program. Currently the MEPS is in space in the federal
building in downtown Springfield, Mass. The GSA rental cost is
$473,000 per year. Building a facility at Westover would
provide adequate space with physical security and services
needed for in-processing new recruits. The cost for the
23,120SF facility is $3.7 million and would pay for itself in
7.7 years. Additional savings would accrue by using billeting
facilities available during the week at Westover.
Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) has a
definitive design which could be site adapted (minimal design
required) to Westover. MEPCOM has been unsuccessful at
obtaining additional funds for this facility over the past five
years. The point of contact for Headquarters US MEPCOM
facilities is Major Gregory Tuite at 847-688-3680 ext 7251.
Mr. Olver. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, do I continue or not?
Mr. Packard. Why don't we come back?
Mr. Olver. We've got other people.
Mr. Packard. Why don't we come back to you? And before we
go on to Mr. Edwards, let both you and Mr. Kingston catch your
breath, let me start asking some of the questions that I have.
military construction integrated process team
I was very intrigued by your--what I perceive to be a new
policy of your program overview and how that you have a team, a
process team that literally prioritized your projects. Frankly,
I'm impressed with that concept and I think that it's something
that has good merit, not only for the Air Force but could
possibly be used in other branches of the services. Are you
aware of other branches of the services using that technique
yet?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. No, sir.
Mr. Packard. One of the reasons that I'm intrigued by it is
because I think one of the areas where I have, in my
observations and research, have felt that the Guard has been
given--and in some instances perhaps the Reserve--has been a
stepchild to the active duty operations of some of our branches
of the services. Under this procedure, it appears that you will
evaluate Guard projects on an equal basis with all of the
others? I'd like you to review the process for me and just
exactly how it works, and then I may have some specific
questions on it.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir. Your questions goes to a number of
other things. I would ask you to permit me to ask Gen. Lupia to
go into some brief detail of the process. I will tell you that,
as you have discussed with the Chief, we have used our MILCON
this year to pay some bills in modernization. I will have you
know that the process that you're about to hear from Gen. Lupia
has involved the Guard and Reserve from its inception to its
conclusion, and the rack and stacking of projects that show
that the Guard and Reserve receive less in this submittal than
last year, less than the active, is a conscious decision by the
leadership of the Air Force because we had bills to pay.
We also have said to you on other occasions that--and the
Committee that we're going to do this for this year and next,
and then we're going to ramp up and we're going to take care of
some things that we haven't taken care of during the '98 and
'99 MILCON submittal.
Mr. Packard. In your response, Gen. Lupia, I'd like you to
address two or three points then. Number one, who makes up the
team, or how's it structured. Number two, do you operate or
does this team operate on a 5-year plan or 6-year plan,
whichever you're under. As you know, I've asked for 5-year
planning and apparently you're doing that now, and I'd like to
see how this evaluation process works as a project moves up the
ladder in terms of priorities and in terms of timing, 50 or--on
up to the first--to this current year.
Is your budget being, being developed on that long-term
plan and the prioritization process? And again, are you
requesting and receiving from the Guard and the Reserve their
priority lists, or are you doing that, or are you leaving that
to the Committee to do?
Those are some of the things I'd like you to address as
you, as you amplify on this new structure.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, let me first explain that the Air
Force corporate structure is made up to deal with every
problem, every process, resource allocation, and that in every
step along the way the active force plays equal role with Air
National Guard and the Reserves. They are players on the entire
process.
This Air Force corporate structure, as we call it, starts
at the lowest level, made up primarily of action officers. As
you mentioned earlier, the captains and the majors in the room
that do the work and our civilian colleagues. They are on
teams. The team that we're specifically homing in on here is
the Military Construction Integrated Process Team. That is one
of seven teams that reports to the Installation Support Panel.
So, we have a team looking at housing, we have one looking at
military construction, we have one looking at the environmental
business, we have one looking at the BRAC business, et cetera.
The panel, in essence, works for me. It is headed by a GS-
15, a colonel equivalent. There are about 12 panels across the
air staff. The panels report to the Air Force Group, Air Force
Group primarily made up of colonels. The Air Force Group
reports to the Air Force Board, made up of general officers,
usually at the one- and two-star level, and senior executive
service civilians. The board reports to the council. I am a
council member. Mr. Coleman is a council member. The council is
chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. So, every
decision that is made starts at that level and works its way
all the way up through the corporate process in terms of
practically every resource decision.
To get into the specifics of your question about military
construction, 1998 program is the first time we used this
process. The tasking, to me as the Installation Support Panel
chairman, the chairman works for me, was to make sure that
every dollar that the Air Force spent, active, Guard or
Reserve, was spent on our highest priorities. And so, we
established a system where each project that was submitted by
our major commands, by the Guard and Reserve, was, in effect,
given a numerical rating, given points for different things.
We had a submission of $1.4 billion worth of requirements
for FY 98. We had to get those $1.4 billion into a sack that
only held $595 million worth of military construction that's in
front of you today. If you could kind of picture a matrix, and
we have five categories across the top of the matrix and four
categories down the side that have to do with how critical the
project was to the mission--for example, you get the highest
grade in this category if it happened to be a counterterrorism
project or a counterproliferation project--then essential to
the mission, then part of mission accomplishment, and then an
enhancement to today's mission.
On the vertical axis, so to speak, we have a fact of life
that is required by law, an environmental project that is
required by an environmental law, for example, would score the
highest. Fact of life, something being directed by the chief of
staff or the Secretary of the Air Force. Other categories,
corps modernization, readiness sustainability, quality of life,
and then sort of another--sort of where other projects didn't
fit, sort of another category.
We gave additional sort of bonus points for projects that
included some demolition, where we would remove some square
footage. We give a little bonus point for that. We gave extra
points if it was a CINC's integrated priority list supporting
maybe CINC South or CINCPAC. We, we took into account the
timing of a project. For example, when we were prioritizing a
project maybe we couldn't afford to have a facility torn down
at that time or, on the other hand, maybe we would have had
expensive work arounds in the O and M account if we didn't do
this project.
All of that was scored by all of the members of this
Integrated Process Team so that each project eventually came
out with a very specific score of, to three decimal points,
9.856.
Mr. Packard. And are you prioritizing your request for
money based strictly upon that point system?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Absolutely, sir. The $595 million in front
of you comes from that system. We had the $1.4 billion then
with the highest score at the top, the lowest score at the
bottom. We drew a line where we ran out of money, which was
$595 million. If a Guard project was above that line, it was
funded; if it was below that line, it was not. If an active
project was above that line, it was funded.
Mr. Packard. Are you operating on a 5- or a 6-year plan?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Five-year plans.
Mr. Packard. Five-year plan?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Have you projected that down on a 5-year plan?
You mentioned to Mr. Olver that a project he referred to had
not reached the level where it entered into your 5-year plan.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Exactly, sir. And we take the projects that
did not get funded in the '98 budget and we roll them into the
'99 budget. But we did reach for them because there are
different criteria. The major command, four stars, have an
opportunity that they have as many points to give to a project
as we did at the Air Staff, so we were sure that we weren't
trying to second-guess the commanders in the field.
So, before we just took the list and moved it to '99, we
regraded the projects, in essence, to make sure that priorities
hadn't changed for one reason or another. But basically, the
bottom of the '98 list, the first projects that didn't make it,
went to the top of the '99 list, to the 00 list, to the 01
list, et cetera.
Mr. Packard. What accommodations do you have for changing
your plan or amending it?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we have an opportunity to take down to
OSD a change twice a year if we need to.
Mr. Packard. Well, by that I mean, supposing circumstances
would affect one of those that was high on your list, maybe to
be done next year, not this year's budget but maybe '99, and
then for a variety of reasons it was no longer either necessary
or would be listed lower in terms of priority?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. We have----
Mr. Packard. Do you have the ability to make changes?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, we have a final look at
the '99 program, for example. About the end of April we'll have
our final look at it to prepare it to go to OSD in June, mid-
June. So, yes, we keep fine tuning the list.
Mr. Packard. Now, with the Guard and the Reserve as an
integral part of your whole mission, I read that throughout
your whole statement, Mr. Coleman, and I think that's
noteworthy. As their missions, the Guard, for example, or your
Reserve particularly, they are mission-oriented, are they not?
The units are mission-oriented?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Absolutely, yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. And as that particular unit's mission really
emerges as a top priority, then their projects would be
evaluated on an equalbasis with your active duty projects?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Are you satisfied with this system that's new?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, after we used it for the '98 program
we brought in each of the major commands, brought our
representative into the Pentagon. All the staff functions at
the Pentagon met for about three days. We tweaked the system a
little but we came to the conclusion we had a good system.
Mr. Packard. It's working.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. We tweaked it a little bit and it's
working, and we would continue to use it, and we therefore used
it to rack and stack our '99 program.
Mr. Coleman. It's a peer system. I mean, it's got input at
every juncture by those who are supporting the projects, and
it's as fair a system as you can given as complex a nature of
our business as we have.
Mr. Packard. Now, are each of your units, Guard units, and
Reserve units, and Active Duty units, are they submitting,
then, to you under this plan a five-year projected plan, or
haven't you reached that point yet?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir, MAJCOM's.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Through their Major Command headquarters,
yes, sir. The Major Command headquarters actually does an
integration first at their level for their bases, and then we
and their staff do the integration of eight or nine lists that
we wind up getting.
Mr. Packard. I'll be very interested in following the
tracking, how that proceeds, because that certainly conforms to
my idea of long-term planning and making certain that all units
receive equal weighting in terms of prioritizing. One of my
concerns, and I believe the concern of this Committee, is that
some units may be left as stepchildren that were never really
brought into the loop and weighted alongside of the Active Duty
or Reserve, and I'm particularly talking now about the National
Guard. Thank you very much for that rather extensive review.
Mr. Edwards, let's call you next.
Mr. Edwards. Chairman, I will pass to allow the members to
continue with this. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Kingston.
family housing improvement fund
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let
me ask you a couple of basic questions coming from a new member
of this Committee. I understand you've put emphasis on family
housing privatization.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kingston. But there's no appropriation request for the
Family Housing Improvement Fund for FY 98?
Mr. Coleman. We took $4 million from the fund that was
given to HRSO. Those funds were given directly to OSD.
Mr. Kingston. That's the transfer authority.
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
Mr. Kingston. And why do you do it that way? Because I
understand there's $45 million that's been appropriated for the
Family Housing Improvement Fund.
Mr. Coleman. I'm going to let General Lupia pipe in. We
didn't want it to go there in the first place, but that's not
the response that you want.
Mr. Kingston. I'm new at this.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kingston. I don't know, I wish I was smart enough to--
--
Mr. Coleman. We wanted it to come direct to the Air Force
and to be managed by the Air Force leadership, but it didn't
work out that way so we're working on the process with OSD.
It's adding a little time, I think, to the whole process but--
Gene, if you want to----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Mr. Congressman----
Mr. Kingston. Let me ask you one----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. I'm sorry.
Mr. Kingston [continuing]. Question along----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sure.
Mr. Kingston [continuing]. Is this fund being a substitute
for the construction account or is it going with the original--
--
Mr. Coleman. It complements the construction.
Mr. Kingston. Because I know it was supposed to be a
supplement
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, to answer the easiest part of your
question, the fund complements what we're doing through the
Military Construction Program. It does not substitute for it.
As a matter of fact, that's the whole reason we got started
down this path.
In the Military Construction Program, we wound up trying to
take care of houses that averaged 34 years old. We have 110,000
of them in the Air Force and 58,000 of them need major work,
and so as we looked at the investment in today's Military
Construction Program we figured out it would take us 26 years
before we'd get through those 58,000 houses. And, oh, by the
way, while we got through those the good ones today would have
26 more years of wear and tear on them. So we're almost in a
spiral that wouldn't work.
So we looked to our authorities in privatization to help us
solve this problem, to complement the Military Construction
Account. When offered the opportunity to contribute some Air
Force money, family housing money, into this larger kitty, we
decided it would be better for us to keep a grip of our own
money and have the flexibility to use it to seed a
privatization effort, or in some places where a privatization
effort would not work, we would still have the flexibility to
improve our houses using the Military Construction line item.
For example, the one project that the Air Force has on the
street today for Lackland Air Force Base gets seed money from
the FY 96 and FY 97 Military Construction Program. Our project
at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia gets seed money from the
'96 and the '97 programs. We have a big project we'd like to do
at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, and in the '98 program in
front of you we have $12.8 million which we think we could use
for seed money to help along with this privatization effort.
We try to get back about $3.00 for every one we invest of
government money. We would like private industry to match us on
the 3-for-1 ratio.
So we believe that by not putting this money into the
bigger account we have more flexibility to use it to the best
interests of our family housing account.
Mr. Kingston. Okay, let me ask you this, and I think you're
already--you're clarifying it for me, but on page 15, the
statement Mr. Coleman has is ``we need Housing MILCON to meld
with funds from the Family Housing Improvement Fund to act as
seed money for potential privatization''--
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
Mr. Kingston [continuing]. ``Initiatives, and without the
funding privatization as we know it today it would not be
possible.''Are you saying the money is needed to be kind of a
jump start?
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
privatization
Mr. Kingston. All right. Let me ask you a couple cats and
dogs: if you have a project that's already fully funded, if it
had been funded under privatization authorities, wouldn't it
have gone quicker? Right now you've got something that's on the
books, being worked, but it's not going through privatization.
Isn't it going to take longer to work down that 58,000?
Mr. Coleman. Not necessarily. This--nobody has much
experience in this. This is a test. We're hoping that lessons
learned from this can be expediting the next one. We would like
to have the ability right now to go out and have four, five,
six, or seven, whatever the civil engineer defines as needed to
be done. If we could contract with private-sector developers
who are interested in looking at the deal that we would present
with regard to a ready market there for their housing using the
BAQ as a payment, we would be all over the map at places that
are needing housing right now to complete that stuff. So we've
got to wait, based on the rules of HRSO and the privatization
authorities.
Mr. Kingston. Is there anything this Committee or Congress
can do to speed that up?
Mr. Coleman. Keep on supporting us for innovative, creative
ideas like getting rid of scoring and some other things that we
need from OMB, and----
Mr. Kingston. Do we have a list of that?
Mr. Coleman. I believe it is in our record as saying what
has been--what we feel is necessary. I would be happy to look
at supplying that again to the Committee.
[The information follows:]
In relation to scoring, OSD is working with OMB to
determine appropriate procedures. One improvement would be to
broaden the applicability of the authorities. The housing
privatization legislation should be amended to allow the
Services to transfer base realignment and closure (BRAC) funds
into the Family Housing Improvement Fund to enable use of these
authorities at bases that receive new/augmented missions as a
result of BRAC actions. The authorities should also be expanded
to include all facilities and utilities rather than only
housing.
Mr. Kingston. But right now you have a family housing
deficit of 58,000----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. No, sir, not a deficit. Of the 110,000
houses that I am the landlord of 58,000 of them need major
work, major repairs.
Mr. Kingston. All right, do you have a privatization goal,
an initiative, a mission? Is that broken down somewhere?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Well----
Mr. Coleman. Yes. Yeah, we have a goal that's definitive.
The overall--the over-arching goal is to provide safe,
affordable housing for our troops in the next new Air Force.
We're doing work now, sir, in order for the next new Air Force,
which is in the next millennium, to not have to come before a
committee of this sort yelling for monies to take care of the
troops, that has a morale problem with the troops, that the
people-first philosophy goes on and becomes a permanent part of
the Air Force way of life, which has always been high for us,
that we take care of our troops; but now we are getting to the
point where our housing is so dilapidated and so small, ill-
planned, shoddily erected in some cases, that it's costing
major, major amounts of money just to put Airman and Mrs. Jones
into that house.
moffett federal airport, california
Mr. Kingston. Well, let me ask you about this at Moffett,
the federal airport in California. You have 711 family housing
units.
Mr. Coleman. Um-hum.
Mr. Kingston. And all but 20 of them you planned to declare
surplus--120, excuse me.
Mr. Coleman. Where, sir? Where? Moffett's Navy. We don't
have anything----
Mr. Kingston. You're not operating them?
Mr. Coleman. A National Guard unit at Moffett but----
[The information follows:]
The Air Force operates and maintains 804 family housing
units near Moffett Federal Airport, California; 693 of these
are on Onizuka Air Force Base and the remaining 111 are on
Moffett Field. With closure of the Air Force Space Command's
750th Space Group, the 693 family housing units at Onizuka will
be excess to Air Force needs. The Air Force intends to retain
only those housing units in direct support of the remaining
missions at Onizuka. These missions should be completed within
10 years at which time the remaining 111 units will be declared
excess to Air Force requirements.
Once declared excess, facilities can be transferred to
another service or government agency that has a valid
requirement for the facilities. The Navy has not, at this time,
requested the excess units. If requested, there is no Air Force
impediment to the transfer.
Mr. Kingston. Well, then that's an easy question for you.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have? I have some other--
because I don't want to, if Mr. Edwards is ready----
Mr. Packard. Let's catch you on the next cycle. Is that all
right? Let me ask one or two more questions.
Mr. Kingston. Sure.
c-17 bed-down
Mr. Packard. And then we'll go to Mr. Olver. A couple of
little points I noticed as I read through your testimony.
Thompson Field at Jackson, Mississippi is designated as your
Air National Guard operating location, and yet I noticed that
the bed-down requirements have not been yet determined. Why is
that? Is that because, again, it hasn't reached priority or is
it because you haven't gotten to it yet?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, I presume your question is about the
C-17 bed-down----
Mr. Packard. C-17 beddown, yes.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Charleston, then McChord, training at
Altus, and the first C-17 would not arrive at Thompson until
2004-2005.
Mr. Packard. So that's the reason.
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
troop housing--``1 plus 1'' barracks standard
Mr. Packard. Okay--the One-Plus-One barracks standard,
you've already started that process, and that's the high
priority for the Air Force----
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. More so than some of the other
branches of the services, I detect. How are you proceeding on
that and are you on target, and how do you plan to get to your
goal?
Mr. Coleman. We're--I'll let Gene pipe in here, too. One-
Plus-One is our absolute mission to get the young troops into a
one-plus-one configuration. If--again for the next new Air
Force, to get them out of the 90 square feet per person that
they've got now and the two-plus arrangement. Give each person
about 118 square feet, bring them up to modern standards, give
them what they're used to at home, and incentivize (sic) them
by saying ``we take care of our troops.''
When we're going to build out of that, if we had the money,
we would be building dorms in every cycle every place we could
to get to--to get rid of some of what we deem to be very, very
poor housing.
Mr. Packard. Does your plan include privatization--will
that accelerate your efforts to get----
Mr. Coleman. Right now we don't have a fix on exactly what
we can do in the private sector with dormitories. That's all
being discussed now with the private sector to look at what
could they do, how could we do it, and how could it be
maintained and operated.
Gene, do you want to add to that?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir, I believe that's being done in
the other branches of the service now.
I'll do the easy part first, Mr. Chairman. On the dormitory
piece, we have selected--we had eight nominations from our
major commands. We have selected two bases that we are going to
do a--again, a financial performance to determine if
dormitories being built by the private sector will work; and we
expect a report back. We promised the staffers of this
Committee that we'd report back in May. We should have our
report from the contractor in April to tell us whether this
looks financially feasible.
The real issue is you build a building with, say, 200 rooms
in it. Each airman assigned there gets a housing allowance
somewhere between $300.00 and $400.00 if he were to live
downtown. So instead of him paying rent downtown, he would pay
rent to this person who would build the dormitory for us, and
really the question is will the cash flow take care of it?
Mr. Packard. We'll pencil that in.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir. And so we hoped to report to you
in May on our progress there.
Mr. Packard. But you----
Mr. Kingston. Chairman, would you yield for a second?
Mr. Packard. Of course.
Mr. Kingston. Have you looked at the U.S. Post Office
model? Is that applicable at all?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir, as a matter of fact, in the
privatization we've been working with the NIH Initiative and
with the U.S. Post Office. They've done some great things in
privatization, and we've partnered with them, we've been
together with them to get sort of lessons learned from there.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. But you're on target on your efforts towards
One-Plus-One right now.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Beginning with the FY 96 program, we're not
building a dormitory in the Air Force for a permanent party
that's not the One-Plus-One standards. So we've got----
Mr. Packard. What about refurbishings?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Same thing, sir.
Mr. Packard. Same thing?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. To invest--our investment to renovate, we
convert it at the same time we renovate it. Unless it's a roof
leak we're working or something of that nature.
Mr. Packard. Fine. Let's go ahead with Mr. Olver.
joint force management
Mr. Olver. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Just to complete
where I was before, I'm particularly interested, especially
with BRAC closures and the possibility--there are several of
these that I've explored over the last several hearings with
Army and the Navy, of the--the co-locations, it seemed to make
some sense over time, and this one that I mentioned of that
unit that has come from the--with the naval stations already on
the grounds at the Westover Reserve Base, your Reserve base,
that that runs smooth, and so I'm particularly interested in
how the arrangements happen between two services. I--is it you
who will talk with me further on that?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Who are you assigning to do that?
Mr. Coleman. We can all talk to you further on that because
consolidation will be a wave, again, into the next millennium.
We have some prime examples of where we can co-locate and
operate to the defense of the nation. At Dobbins Air Force Base
in Atlanta, Georgia, is the consummate example of joint force
management where you have Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force all on
one base. Of course, it's all Reserve, but it's all on one
base. They're there on some weekends where there's about 10,000
people on that base, and they're flying, they're operating,
they're training, they're doing everything. There are a lot of
examples, in my estimation, around the horn where there could
be some co-location depending on the job that that particular
unit is doing. To--flying operations on a base, I would not
know. I could not venture a guess because I don't have that
abilityright now but----
Mr. Packard. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Olver. Sure.
Mr. Packard. Is there a coordination between the branches
of the services in their training activities or do they do
their own thing?
Mr. Coleman. We're--no, we are talking at my level, the
assistant secretaries that come before you, Robert Pirie, and
Mike Walker, and myself, are talking about that, about what
could happen, where could it happen. We haven't come to any
conclusions as yet.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
Mr. Coleman. Brad, do you want to add to that?
BG Bradley. Well, sir, you're exactly right. There's been
great cooperation among the services. He had mentioned Dobbins
Air Reserve Base in Atlanta. We've got one in Fort Worth,
Texas, that through the two rounds of base closure lost
Carswell Air Force Base. It's now Naval Air Station/Fort Worth.
It's a joint reserve base that has Navy Reserve, Army Guard,
Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve all at
the same place, and there's more flying there now, all reserve
components, than there was before when it was a large Strategic
Air Command base.
March Air Force Base has Guard and Reserve both there.
Naval Air Station/New Orleans is another great example. It's an
active naval installation that has Air Guard, Air Force
Reserve, and Navy Reserve, along with Coast Guard Reserve and
Marine Corps Reserve.
So there are several examples, and I think, you know, it's
possible that we could see more in the future, but at the unit
level, at the base level, the services work very well together,
I'd say. They plan their training so we avoid as much in the
way of conflicts through the flying as well as through
billeting of personnel and so forth.
So I think the commanders of the units get together
regularly to plan their training through the year so that we
don't have conflicts. It's worked very well and it's a good--it
saves money for the taxpayers.
Mr. Olver. And your name is? I'm sorry----
BG Bradley. I'm Brigadier General John Bradley. I'm the
Deputy to the Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
Mr. Olver. I had----
BG Bradley. And----
Mr. Olver. I'm sorry, General. Go ahead.
BG Bradley. That's all right, excuse me, sir.
Mr. Olver. Go ahead.
BG Bradley. General Lupia and I had talked earlier. I would
be very glad to come--since Westover, of course, is a large Air
Force Reserve base in your area, we'd be glad to come visit
with you to talk to you about Westover's specific issues, and
tell you what's going on there, what we have operating there,
and let you discuss with us your ideas.
Mr. Olver. Let me go on to a slightly different thing. You
also have the Barnes Air Guard base. I think that's also
subject to discussion today.
Mr. Packard. Yes, sir.
Project Design
Mr. Olver. And there, my understanding is there is a 100
percent designed dining facility that is for that location. Is
that on the--is that--that's not apparently part of the request
for this year's budget.
BG Weaver. No, sir, it's in the year 2000.
Mr. Olver. That's somewhat outside the guidelines that we
were discussing earlier about when design is completed and when
one moves forward with those things.
Mr. Coleman. But if it came up on the priority list, and
when we develop '99, it could get prioritized and it could be--
it could be placed in there for design.
Mr. Olver. Well, maybe if it goes to the corporate
structure, an efficient design process that allows it to be
brought forward.
BG Weaver [continuing]. Reserve are the same all the way
through, sir. Very little design requirements.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. It could be executed in '98.
Mr. Olver. Pardon?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. It could be executed in '98 if it's
designed now and ready to go.
Mr. Olver. If it's fully designed it could be executed,
then, in '98.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. But it's not been requested.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. No, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay, there is another one related to Barnes
which has another one of these co-location aspects. I'm not
sure whether it takes--whether it adds to or takes from the
previous conversation, but it is a co-location proposal for an
Army Guard with an Air Guard unit.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. It happens to be an Army Guard helicopter unit,
which is----
Mr. Coleman. The--complex?
Mr. Olver. Yes, that sort of stuff, but I understand that--
nearly completely designed, also. What year are you about to
tell me that that's in?
BG Weaver. 2003, sir.
Mr. Olver. Okay, that's good. Isn't that lovely. It says--
Prioritization of Projects
Mr. Packard. If the gentleman would yield. If the process
that we went into has rather significant detail of determining
which projects should be funded in which year, and is adhered
to, speaking only as the Chairman of the Committee, I will use
whatever influence I can to adhere to that process, it will
eliminate bumping better projects to fund worse projects. Now,
that's the concept and I applaud that concept.
I will resist, and would hope that the process that you are
using would resist, having the political process--members come
to this Committee and say ``we want this project moved up ahead
of 2003, or 2000, whatever it's under your long-term plan.'' I
can't promise that we will always win in that resistance
because political pressures are a reality here.
Mr. Coleman. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. But the fact is I will try to be committed to
the process of determining priorities on a legitimate,
meritorious basis that I will do all I can to help hold to that
process. It may be at the expense of some members who really
would like to see their project moved up, and, again, I may
have to acquiesce in some instances, but overall I like what
I've heard. I like the fact that we're prioritizing projects
based upon merit, not upon who is putting the pressure on you.
And so we will do what we can to hold to that process, but
obviously there may be exceptions. If some powerful senator in
a conference committee says ``this is going to go first,'' I
may not be able to offset that.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. But the fact is I want the agencies, you men
and women----
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. To submit to me an honest
priority----
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. List. I don't want it to be based
upon the pressures that are coming from external forces.
You have, I think, a responsibility to make certain that
this committee gets a list of your priorities that you would
like to have funded in given fiscal years based upon what you
genuinely feel for your mission, to fulfill your mission, are
the most critical; and then you'll have to leave it to us to do
what we do with that, but overall I'm committing to you to try
to defend the process as best I can.
Mr. Coleman. We thank you.
Mr. Packard. With that in mind, I'll yield back to you.
Project Design
Mr. Olver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly sympathize with what you've said and agree in
general. The interesting thing here and the one that I just got
which tendered that clarification is that I don't know whether
there was something earlier that went on but we've got a
program which is virtually complete in its design, ready to go,
here we are at Fiscal 98 and your construction is scheduled for
2003. It would appear--so I don't know how it came up so
quickly on design and whether that merely means that the next
stage has not moved from where it was at some earlier time up
to a more forward position.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir. Nor do we. That's why we'd like to
get back to you. Because we don't know whether that word
``design'' means that it was a modification of an existing
facility at--in another base which took very little work to do
to modify the building to be effected on that particular base.
Mr. Olver. I see.
Mr. Coleman. Or whether----
Mr. Olver. So it might be, again, a cookie-cutter or shelf
design----
Mr. Coleman. Absolutely.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. As opposed--although, in a thing
like this, this is not a small and simple thing like--as the
fire training facility----
Mr. Coleman. Correct.
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Was before. This is something
that's somewhat larger, but I think historically, and I'm sure
the Chairman knows this far better than I being new as I am,
that normally these things are not moved into the request stage
until they're already partially designed.
Mr. Coleman. That is correct. That's correct.
Mr. Olver. And this one is far beyond the level where they
go into the--where they normally go into the request stage.
BG Weaver. I'm wrong, Mr. Olver. That--it is not 2003. The
particular project that you're talking about is an Army
National Guard MILCON project which--it's a $19 million project
of which we will occupy a small facility, part of that
facility, and it's for a '98 project.
Mr. Olver. Okay.
BG Weaver. It's for an Army Guard '98 project.
Mr. Olver. As a matter of fact, I should be talking with
the Army about this one.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Olver. Again----
Mr. Coleman. It is not an Air Guard facility.
Mr. Olver. Okay, all right. Well, keeping these straight,
especially when you begin to have different services----
Mr. Coleman. There's another----
Mr. Olver [continuing]. Your base, others doing things, it
becomes a little bit complicated.
Mr. Coleman. However, whenever you want to talk to the Air
Force, don't hesitate.
Mr. Olver. Oh, I'm quite ready.
Mr. Coleman. We would like to, and I would like to amplify
what General Bradley said. We would like to, at your
convenience, arrange to brief you on our involvement in
Westover. We've got some large environmental work going on
there, so at your convenience we would be happy to do that, and
also for the new members of the Committee, if we could arrange
with your schedules and your staffs to do any type of inside
briefing we'd be most honored to do that.
Mr. Olver. I don't know why I'm doing this, Mr. Chairman.
It's not in my district, and besides which, throughout the
1960's on 7:00 on Sunday morning those B-52's went out over,
right over, my house.
Mr. Packard. Let me clarify something, if I may, before we
go to Mr. Edwards. As we've reviewed the prioritizing system,
your program review--what is it called? Well, anyway, the one
that we reviewed, your method of prioritizing with your teams,
that is not locked into a schedule of design. The design
activity isn't necessarily tied to the selection of your
priority list for each given fiscal year, is it?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we don't distribute any design money
to any of our major commands until that project is above the
funded line. So, for example, the commands now will give us a
new look at--'99 is already prioritized; they're on the design.
The commands will give us a new look at their Zero-Zero
Program. It's due to us on--at the end of June. We'll do this
prioritization process. You'll give us a bill in October, we
hope, and we'll take some of that $41 million design money then
and begin to spend it on the projects in Zero-Zero that were
prioritized above the line. So design is not started.
Mr. Packard. So your design is triggered as a result of
your priorities, not----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. And not affecting the process.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Mr. Edwards.
Prioritization of Project
Mr. Edwards. I, Mr. Secretary, just want to add my thoughts
to the Chairman's comments. I like the idea of making as
objective as possible the prioritization system, although I am
sure I would agree with the Chairman, I am not willing to go so
far to give up our Constitutional right or responsibility to
review the military budget. In hindsight, despite my great
deference to those in uniform, I think Congress has added
programs, not only in military construction but weapons
programs, that in hindsight turned out to be very good
decisions. I am going to ask you a question. I will try not to
be too specific, because my intent is not to put anybody on the
spot, but if we are going to put added emphasis on this
priority system then I have to ask if any of you in this room
at any time, in any discussion as part of the request for
military construction projects, thediscussion was made of whose
member of Congress, whose congressional district that project would be
in, and whether the discussion either to fund it or not was because it
was a powerful member of Congress? I do not think it is any great
secret that there have been discussions where some more powerful
members, or members who are on the appropriate committees, have found
their military construction projects funded. Is it the assumption that
they will be able to get an add-on? Can everyone in this room honestly
say that you have never been in any discussion where that issue was
ever brought up?
Mr. Coleman. Nor have I ever made a phone call. I know from
my venue with the Secretary, being on the Air Force Council,
being the person in charge with the oversight responsibility on
facilities, that in my work we have never discussed a project
based on what district with what Senator it's in, or a district
containing what Senator might be interested.
Mr. Edwards. Never have? How about the people in uniform?
Can you say you have never heard any discussion of that in all
of your years of----
Mr. Coleman. Oh, no, sir. Can't say that. No, no, you have
just changed your statement. I have heard discussion. You said
was I party to any decision making that resulted in a list
being prioritized because of----
Mr. Edwards. But if I change the question and put it have
you been in meetings where that has been brought up or
discussed, the answer is that that has been discussed?
Mr. Coleman. Oh, yes.
Mr. Edwards. And I'm not saying that is----
Mr. Coleman. Oh, no. No.
Mr. Edwards [continuing]. Wrong and I am not being
critical, but just as we review this system, I think we will
have to look at all aspects of----
Mr. Packard. Well, if the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Edwards. I would be glad to yield to the Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Again, I noted that this is a system that they
just inaugurated or just started this year, and so it's a
system that hopefully will lend itself to avoiding that more
than in the past.
Mr. Edwards. Very good, and I appreciate the Chair's
comments that these decisions should be basically driven by
objective criteria and what is best for our families in uniform
and not necessarily to be decided on a political basis. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Kingston.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coleman, I've
taken notice down at Moffett. How far is Moffett from Onizuka?
Mr. Coleman. I know where it is but I----
Mr. Kingston. Very close, like 50 miles, 25?
Mr. Coleman. I would say about 100. I'm giving you a ball
park here, sir.
Mr. Kingston. That's the question, I think. There is an
opportunity for the Air Force to use some of that surplus and
let the Navy use it.
Mr. Coleman. Onizuka----
Mr. Kingston. Or--say, that's just an example, but
hypothetical.
Mr. Coleman. You're asking me a hypothetical of what--
whether or not it could have a co-location?
Mr. Kingston. Right.
Mr. Coleman. Without knowing----
Mr. Kingston. What obstacles would keep that from being
used with another branch?
Mr. Coleman. Mission requirements, aircraft type. I don't
know what are the----
Mr. Kingston. No, I'm just talking generally----
Mr. Coleman [continuing]. The dynamics.
Mr. Kingston. I'm just talking in general.
Mr. Coleman. Sure. Gene, do you want----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Mr. Congressman, I'm not sure if I'm on the
exact same wavelength with you but----
Mr. Kingston. This is how I understand it, and I'll submit
this to you in writing, but there are 711 family housing units
there that perhaps the Navy could use at Onizuka, that it's
close enough to Moffett, and there are probably certain
obstacles that may keep that from happening, and yet those
obstacles are, presumably, artificial and not really
substantive. They're red tape type obstacles, and what I would
like to get from you for the record, not right now necessarily
unless you want to talk about it, is what can we do to
eliminate some of those obstacles.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. I would only--I'm not familiar with the
Moffett situation. I would tell you that when the Navy moved
out of Charleston, we took 500 units of Navy housing. Air Force
now occupies them. We occupied 500 houses, almost 500 houses,
on Fort Dix outside of McGuire Air Force Base. There are many
examples where Air Force people live on former Army
installations, et cetera, back and forth. I don't know the
specifics of Moffett, but if Air Force people at Onizuka have a
requirement, if there is a deficit of housing there and there's
housing available at Moffett, there's nothing that stops us
from doing that.
Mr. Kingston. I understand that certain government
buildings, when an agency doesn't need them, they can't turn it
in and get credit. They have to sit and get it to the General
Service Administration, I believe. Is that clear, Mr. Chairman?
And because of that, they don't want to give up anything
because they won't get credit for it, and I was just wondering
if you had something like that that was hampering your----
Mr. Coleman. I--without really getting into the specifics
of the two bases--I can say we'll get back to you on that, but
the commute would be horrendous if you're over about--what do
we use now as a radius?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. About one hour.
Mr. Coleman. One hour driving time would be about the max
that we would allow, or we would say that ``this housing is
sufficient for you.''
[The information follows:]
Moffet Field and Onizuka Air Force Base are basically co-
located on opposite sides of the runway. The distance is about
1\1/2\ miles and commuting time is about 5 minutes.
air force academy, colorado
Mr. Kingston. I notice you have about a $5.3 million in the
fitness center request for Colorado, for the Air Force Academy.
Now, has that had a lot of, in the last 10 years, a lot of
updates? Is it not a fitness center but military construction
at the Air Force Academy?
Mr. Coleman. At the Air Force Academy?
Mr. Kingston. Are we pampering there? Are we kind of
keeping up with the Joneses?
Mr. Coleman. No, not in any sense of--I'm an architect.
I've been to the Academy. I've seen the deplorable condition.
Some of the buildings have been put in because of the lack of
maintenance money. There's an aggressive program to get that
pristine site back to its greatness, so I would say we're not
squandering any money out there. There's a definite need to do
a lot of things at the Air Force Academy.
Mr. Kingston. Do you know how old the pool is that you're
replacing?
Mr. Coleman. No.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. The athletic facility supports the people
who are on the Air Force Academy, not the cadets on the Air
Force Academy, not in support of cadet wing but the actual
people who provide the everyday support of the Academy complex.
robins afb, georgia
Mr. Kingston. All right, coming to Georgia at Robins, the
B-1 Composite Operations Complex? What are the plans for reuse
or demolition of the temporary facility when the new facility
is completed? This is for the record, too.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, we'll provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Until the new facility is constructed, the B-1 squadron
operations and security police operations occupy space in two
interim facilities. The squadron operations function is in the
former B-12 Alert Crew Quarters. Due to live ammunition being
loaded on a nearby aircraft parking ramp, this facility must be
vacated permanently. The host base will ``mothball'' the
facility because it is a State Historical Preservation Site.
The security police unit occupies a facility that will be
returned to the host base. No demolition funds are needed for
either building.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, sir.
infrastructure requirements
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. Let me go through a
few quick questions and then if there's another go-round
necessary, we will do it. We're finding on different bases that
the underground infrastructure has been neglected for just
literally decades. Much of it is 30, 40, 50--some--not so much
Air Force, perhaps, but Army and Navy, some of them are 50 and
60 years old. That's your underground piping system and so
forth.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Packard. We're building new buildings, we're putting in
new facilities, and hooking onto that old infrastructure, an
underground infrastructure. Often turn on a brand new faucet
and still get brackish-brown water through it because of
piping.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Mr. Packard. Are you addressing the underground unseen
infrastructure on a methodical basis?
Mr. Coleman. Yes. Every project, every new project, to
effect a building on an Air Force installation includes a look
at the infrastructure. We don't connect it to bad pipes. We
take care of the infrastructure in that immediate area. Many of
the bases are doing infrastructure reviews where they're
looking at the entire systems. We have some bad systems around
the Air Force, utility lines, water plants, sewer ejectors. We
have to expend a lot of money on RPM on our buildings and we're
trying to do a good job of looking underneath the ground,
because if you put a brand new building on top of a failed
infrastructure you're not doing anything but looking for
trouble. That's going to be a nightmare.
Mr. Packard. Are you looking at the private sector as an
alternative on that, also?
Mr. Coleman. We're looking for authorities, sir, to have
the ability to sell our utilities to the private sector.
environmental clean-up
Mr. Packard. Thank you. By nature of your operations on Air
Force bases, contamination and clean up problems may be more
acute in the Air Force than most of the other branches of the
service. I may be wrong in that analysis, but that would be my
general observation. Are we on schedule on clean up, and how--
and what is happening in that area?
Mr. Coleman. We're on a schedule that will get us taking
care of all of our Level One areas in the Air Force. We do have
a unique situation where we have a flying operation because we
have the fuel that causes some leaks and someground
contamination that we have found in BRAC is costing us a lot of money.
We have----
Mr. Packard. Is BRAC more serious than your operating
bases?
Mr. Coleman. Well, BRAC is----
Mr. Packard. In terms of clean up requirements.
Mr. Coleman. We've already spent about a billion dollars
cleaning up BRAC, and we have about $900 million to go on 31
bases thus far. But we're finding that the degree of
degradation on the BRAC bases has primarily been because we
haven't had a responsible program like we have now. We now have
a very concerted HAZMAT program and a fuel control program. If
we had had that years ago, we wouldn't have been spending all
this money.
Mr. Packard. Well, if we have another series of BRAC in,
say, 20 years from now, would you fully expect that the clean
up requirements would be far less than they are now?
Mr. Coleman. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Packard. I was impressed that the 82 percent of the
funding for clean up and environmental restoration is going for
clean up activities----
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Rather than for design and
limited work.
Mr. Coleman. We've started--yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. What projects would that include?
Mr. Coleman. For BRAC?
Mr. Packard. No, for clean up. For where this 82 percent is
going to go.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. Yes.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Sir, we have a relative risk management
process that basically takes the projects that are the highest
risk to human health, and we work those with EPA regions and
state and federal regulators. We do this through a restoration
advisory board on each of our bases which invites the local
community to participate and help us prioritize; and at the
level of funding we're at today, which is roughly about $400
million, we've stabilized around the $400 million mark, we're
right on target to carry out our highest risk projects in line
with the Defense standards.
Mr. Packard. Are those projects prioritized much the same
way as we've just discussed earlier?
Maj.Gen. Lupia. They're prioritized in a different way
because the local community participates, the state and federal
regulators participate, and they're done on a base-by-base
basis, and they're all fed up to us at the Pentagon, and then
we, again, prioritize them based on risk to human health.
Mr. Packard. And once they're at the top of the list,
they're on the earlier years' funding.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir, oh, absolutely. Yes, sir.
family housing inventory
Mr. Packard. I noticed that you indicated in your
testimony, Mr. Coleman, that the family housing inventory is an
average of 34 years old, and that about 58,000 of the 110,000
about half, is requiring some kind of improvement.
Mr. Coleman. Right.
Mr. Packard. And that it would take 26 years to get there
to improve those 58,000.
Mr. Coleman. If we use our current string of MILCON----
Mr. Packard. And obviously that's going nowhere because by
that time you've still got about 34----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. The other 42,000 are coming apart on you.
Mr. Packard. The ones you've done are 26 years old when
some of them----
Maj.Gen. Lupia. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coleman. Right.
Mr. Packard. Because it would take you that long to get to
them. So we would not be making any progress whatsoever. We may
actually be falling further and further behind. Now, that's the
Air Force's standard. I know that the Navy and the Army may--
and the Marines may have a different standard of housing that
they're judging their needs and requirements from. Has there
ever been an attempt to make a standardized approach to this,
number one, from one branch of the service to the other, and
number two, in terms of the need for the funding? And, now, I
notice that in succeeding paragraphs you've indicated, and I
think rightly so, that privatization may hasten this and speed
up that schedule so it wouldn't be 26 years.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. But I sense in the hearings that we've held
thus far that the Army's and the Navy's approach to substandard
housing is different than the Air Force's. Is there a single
standard upon--obviously there's not.
Mr. Coleman. No, sir.
Maj.Gen. Lupia. There is for the Air Force, sir. We have
published a housing excellence guide for the Air Force to
follow.
Mr. Packard. In other words, the 34-year-old housing
average in the Air Force might be something that the Army is
still looking forward to get to at some point in the future. I
won't belabor that.
Mr. Coleman. No comment.
guard training facilities
Mr. Packard. No comment, right. I think you've treated your
people over the years pretty well. You've worked hard for it
and I think you've done quite well, and I applaud you for that.
What percentage of the Guard activities, in terms of training,
and all your activities in the Guard, are done at Guard
facilities, Guard-only facilities or Guard and Reserve
facilities, versus what percentage would be done at Active Duty
bases? Is very much done at Active Duty bases?
BG Weaver. In today's--today, we--we're all over the world.
Most of our localized training is done at our 89 locations, at
our Air National Guard units. We will go to exercise training
at Nellis and they have Red Flags in two other locations
throughout the world, but for the most part our training is
located right at our Air National Guard units.
Mr. Packard. But the vast majority is done at your Air
Guard facilities?
BG Weaver. Yes, sir.
marsh task force
Mr. Packard. I'll only ask one or two other questions and
then we'll wrap it up with whatever the rest of the Committee
members would like. Last year, the DOD task force, the Marsh
Task Force on Quality of Life Issues, reported its findings to
this Committee, and they cited five major issues affecting the
standard of living for single and unaccompanied personnel. What
steps have you taken at the Air Force level in the past year to
address these issues, and how do you envision your plan
working, and what type of a commitment for the future?
Mr. Coleman. We feel that we have done a responsible job in
addressing what the Marsh Commission brought out, which is some
things that we believed all along, that privacy and treating
the people as men and women, that we want them to have good,
safe, affordable housing on and around the base, good
recreational facilities, pay, and--the compensation issue is
the one which still we hear a lot about from the troops, that,
you know, we've got to work on the pay and compensation. ``It's
good to give me a nice home but don't make me poor in the
home.'' Health care and all of those things are important to
the families.
We are addressing as forthrightly as we can.
Mr. Packard. Just a comment on Mr. Kingston's issue about
Moffett and the distance and so forth. I was going to mention
it when he's here but the fact is, and I think you certainly
understand that, our personnel when seeking housing have to
weigh their housing allowance versus the commute costs, the
time, and a variety of other factors, and it actually may be if
they have to commute more than a half an hour or so, it may be
a wash or even a loser for them to get base housing 100 miles
away or 80 miles away; and I think that that's a point that
sometimes we overlook. I found when I went out and visited some
of the bases in California recently, that the commute costs
often override and maybe offset completely any savings of being
able to locate, and that doesn't take into account the time
lost. It's simply the cost of gasoline and the cost of the
commute. Mr. Edwards, do you have any questions?
Mr. Edwards. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. I--if we have other questions, if you would be
kind enough to respond for the record's sake, we'd appreciate
that.
Mr. Coleman. We will be happy to.
Mr. Packard. Just for the benefit of you, Mr. Edwards, we
have another hearing tomorrow morning at 9:30, and that will be
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Affairs
and Installations, Mr. John Goodnan, and we will be discussing
primarily privatization issues. So with that in mind I
certainly want to thank you very much, Mr. Coleman----
Mr. Coleman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. For your generosity with time and
all of the team of support people you have with us. It's been a
good hearing and I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Coleman. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. And this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Coleman. Appreciate it.
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by
Chairman Packard:]
Planning Process
Question. Mr. Coleman, what can we do, and what needs to be done
about the lack of support and funding requested by the Department to
have each component place a strong emphasis on the need for long term
plans and the need to adhere to them?
Answer. You can continue to support our MILCON program which, in
turn, supports our long range plan. The Air Force responded to the end
of the Cold War with our Global Reach-Global Power approach. This has
guided the restructuring and modernization and the Air Force for the
past six years. The Air Force for the past six years. The Air Force
recently launched its new vision entitled ``Global Engagement: A Vision
for the 21st Century Air Force,'' and is in the process of implementing
a new comprehensive long range plan. Both of these initiatives fully
support the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Vision 2010
approach for meeting post-Cold War requirements. Using the
aforementioned visions and plan as a foundation, the Air Force will
continue to use its corporate process to review and prioritize our
MILCON requirements to meet the most urgent needs of the active and
reserve components.
Troop Housing: ``1 Plus 1''
Question. What impact has the ``1 plus 1'' barracks standard had on
the Air Force military construction budget?
Answer. The ``1 plus 1'' barracks construction standard has not had
a major impact on the Air Force military construction budget. With
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force leadership emphasis on
improving quality of life, we naturally have focused a larger
percentage of our military construction resources on improving the
living conditions for our unaccompanied airmen.
Question. Has the Air Force adequately programmed in fiscal year
1998 to meet their established ``1 plus 1'' standard deficit reduction
targets?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force investment strategy for dormitories
calls for the buyout of all remaining permanent party central latrine
dorms by Fiscal Year 1999. Our Fiscal Year 1998 budget is focused
primarily on that priority first, but does include several deficit
reduction projects, too.
Family Housing Construction
Question. What is the rationale for a $64 million, or 20 percent,
reduction to the family housing construction account?
Answer. The Air Force requested $231 million for the FY97 family
housing construction program. With strong support from Congress, the
program was increased by $86 million (Congress appropriated $317
million for the program). Due to current budget constraints and the
need to balance the requirements for both modernization and quality of
life, the Air Force requests $253 million in the FY98 budget. Although
it is $64 million less than the FY97 appropriated amount, it is an
increase of $22 million, or 9.5 percent, to the FY97 budget request.
Private Sector Initiatives
Question. Please bring us up to date with the current status of the
Air Force's efforts to promote private sector ventures for family
housing and barracks.
Answer. In family housing we have an aggressive program with 10
active projects. The request for proposal on our lead privatization
project at Lackland AFB was advertised on 11 Feb 97. The project calls
for a developer to design, construct, maintain, own, and manage a
housing development of 420 units on 96 acres of outleased base
property. The units will be rented to E-3 through E-7 personnel from
the Lackland community. Award is anticipated in late 1997. We are
continuing to work the remaining projects and will notify you as we
approach release of the request for proposal on each project. For
unaccompanied housing, we are studying the application of the housing
privatization authorities in order to determine how to best integrate
the privatization tools into our dorm investment plan. We plan to
complete that study by late Apr 97.
Question. What other private sector initiatives is the Department
pursuing?
Answer. In addition to family and unaccompanied housing, we are
also pursuing privatization of utility systems. Our long term goal is
to turn these systems over to private/public ownership where there is
no readiness impact and it makes economic sense. OSD is currently
working with OMB to finalize legislation that would permit
privatization of these systems.
Child Care Facilities
Question. We all understand the importance of child care
facilities, and this committee has always placed a high priority on
child care facilities. What is the current Air Force deficiency
worldwide?
Answer. At the end of FY 97 the Air Force is scheduled to meet 58%
of the child care demand. When the centers we currently have funded are
completed and other initiatives are implemented, the Air Force will
achieve the DoD short-term goal of meeting 65% of the child care
demand. To achieve the DoD long-term goal of meeting 80% of child care
demand, about 17,000 additional spaces are needed. DoD does not have a
goal to meet 100% of the need; we expect some children will be provided
care through alternate means.
Question. What priority does the Air Force put on child development
centers and why are no centers in the air Forces's budget request
Answer. Child development centers are a high priority for the Air
Force. Child development centers were deferred in the FY98 program due
to higher priority facility requirements in the FY98 budget request.
Demolition of Excess Facilities
Question. Last year this committee added a total of $30 million for
the purpose of demolishing excess facilities. Unfortunately, this
initiative did not make it through conference. Is the Air Force placing
enough emphasis on eliminating excess facilities, and what can this
committee do to help correct the deficiencies?
Answer. The Air Force has had an aggressive demolition program
emphasizing the necessity to eliminate excess facilities to reduce the
physical plant inventory and associated O&M costs. In FY96, the Air
Force demolished approximately 5M square feet at a total cost of $52M
and has an unfunded demolition requirement of $66M in FY97. The
committee could help the air force eliminate excess facilities by
increasing the Air Force Real Property Maintenance account and
providing financial incentives to encourage demolition.
[Clerk's note.--Testimony in the Budget Overview hearing
indicates the Air Force has programmed no O&M funds for
demolition in FY 98.]
Program Level
Question. On page 8 of your prepared statement, you say that ``this
year the integrated prioritization process funded 62 percent of known
[New Mission Beddown] mission requirements.'' What price is being paid
for deferring the remaining 38 percent of known requirements beyond
fiscal year 1998? Please separately address the impact on the active
Air Force, on the guard, and on the Reserve.
Answer. The most urgent and compelling new mission beddown needs of
the Active Air Force and Air National Guard have been funded. Unfunded
requirements will be met with less efficient and more expensive work
arounds utilizing Operations and Maintenance funds until the
Requirements can be accommodated in the future years MILCON program.
All required Air Force Reserve new mission beddown projects were
funded.
Military Family Housing
Question. On page 20 of your prepared statement, you say that over
58,000 of the current 110,000 housing units do not measure up to
contemporary standards. How do these 58,000 units break down by
different levels of deficiencies?
Answer. The Air Force uses a condition assessment process to
stratify our revitalization efforts to ensure we are addressing our
worst units first. Utility systems, structural components, room
standards, and amenities are rated and a score of 1,2, or 3 assigned.
Due to funding constraints, only Level 1 units are currently submitted
in the budget. However, units scoring levels 1 or 2 do not meet
contemporary standards. Of the 58,000 units, 37,000 units are Level 1
and 21,000 units are Level 2.
Question. Are any of them so deficient that they are uninhabitable?
Answer. No, none are so deficient that they are uninhabitable.
Family Housing Improvement Fund
Question. For previously appropriated family housing projects,
let's take a hypothetical example. Assume the project has already been
fully funded to provide 300 family housing units. If this project were
executed under privatization authorities, wouldn't it be possible to
acquire the same 300 units at about one-third the cost, and transfer
the excess into the Family Housing Improvement Fund in order to provide
additional units elsewhere?
Answer. The leveraging we obtain on a particular project is the
result of a complex structuring of various economic and market factors.
To date, the projects we have developed have used all available funds
at our project bases to allow us to accelerate the reduction of the
housing revitalization backlog and, in some limited cases, buy down
some of the deficit.
Child Care Facilities
Question. Does the Air Force meet the Department of Defense goal of
providing for 65 percent of the child care requirement?
Answer. The Air Force does not currently meet the Department of
Defense short-term goal to provide for 65 percent of child care
requirements. At the end of FY 97 we are scheduled to meet 58% of the
child care need. When the FY 97 and prior year facilities that have
been funded are completed, and other initiatives are implemented, we
will be able to meet 65% of the need.
Question. What is the current plan for reducing or eliminating
current deficiencies?
Answer. We plan to request funding for nine additional facilities
in future budget requests. If funded, these centers will add 2,500 of
the 17,000 needed child care spaces. We also plan to gain additional
spaces through expansion of existing family day care and school age
child care programs.
Question. Provide a listing, in priority order, of the location and
anticipated cost of all child development center construction necessary
to eliminate this backlog.
Answer. The following is a list, in priority order, of the location
and anticipated cost of all child development center construction that
the Air Force has programmed in the outyear (FY99-03) MILCON program.
It does not represent our total unmet requirement.
Andrews--$5.0M.
Bolling--$1.64M.
Eglin--$3.5M.
Luke--$3.1M.
MacDill--$3.5M.
Wright-Patterson--$8.7M (two centers).
Scott--$4.0M.
Falcon--$3.6M.
Environmental Compliance
Question. What is the total amount requested to meet environmental
needs?
Answer. The total amount requested for environmental needs in FY98
is $889M. Included in this request is $48M for MILCON. An additional
$236M is programmed in FY98 for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
installations.
Question. For the record, provide a listing of the individual
projects and associated costs?
Answer. Air Force environmental MILCON listing attached.
[Page 683--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Environmental Program
Question. On page 17 of your prepared statement, you say that you
were able to decrease the number of open notices of violations from 262
in fiscal year 1992 to 35 in fiscal year 1998. For the record, list the
35 open notice and describe the action programmed to correct these
notices.
Answer. We had 35 open notices of violation at the end of Dec 96.
The programmed actions to correct the remaining open notices of
violation are attached.
[Pages 685 - 686--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. How much is budgeted for fiscal year 1998 for
environmental work outside the Military Construction bill?
Answer. $841M is budgeted for fiscal year 1998 for environmental
work outside the Military Construction bill. This figure is for the
total force (Active Air Force, Air National Guard and Air Force
Reserve) and includes all appropriations except MILCON.
Question. Summarize for us what efforts are funded under MILCON and
what efforts are funded elsewhere?
Answer. MILCON funds a small portion of the environmental program
and is only used to support those environmental compliance construction
requirements which exceed the $500,000 statutory limit for Operations
and Maintenance (O&M) construction. All remaining environmental
requirements are funded from other appropriations, primarily O&M. Non-
MILCON funding is essential to support recurring costs associated with
managing environmental programs to meet applicable compliance
requirements and support the military mission. Activities funded in the
environmental program include compliance, pollution prevention,
conservation and restoration.
Barracks Standard
Question. Please comment on how the Air Force has incorporated the
DoD ``1+1'' barracks standard in this year's budget request.
Answer. Of the ten Air Force dormitory projects in the Fiscal Year
1998 military construction budget, nine are designated for permanent
party enlisted personnel and will be built to the ``1+1'' construction
standard. The tenth dormitory project is for enlisted ``pipeline''
students and does not qualify for ``1+1'' construction criteria. Air
Force enlisted student dormitories are built to house two students per
room sharing one bathroom.
Question. Has the Air Force budgeted for a balanced program, one
which provides improved troop housing yet still meets the growing
infrastructure improvement needs?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force budgeted for a balanced program, which
provides improved troop housing yet still meets the growing
infrastructure improvement needs.
Question. Has the Air Force developed a plan to use privatization
in meeting the ``1+1'' standard? If a plan has been developed, how is
the effort working?
Answer. For unaccompanied housing, we are studying the application
of the housing privatization authorities in order to determine how to
best integrate the privatization tools into our dorm investment plan.
We plan to complete that study by late Apr 97.
Barracks Planning and Design
Question. As a result of the DoD-wide barracks standard, has the
Air Force reduced the amount of planning and design required for these
projects, through the use of standardized designs?
Answer. Yes, on average, the Air Force has moderately reduced the
amount of planning and design required for 1+1 dormitories through the
use of standard designs and other cost saving measures. We continue to
work with our design and construction agents (US Army Corps of
Engineers and Naval Facilities Engineering Command) to deliver this
program for the lowest cost.
Question. Has the Air Force developed a single standard design for
barracks, or a very limited number of standard designs?
Answer. The Air Force is developing a limited number of standard
designs. We do not intend to establish a single standard design for the
entire Air Force to allow sufficient flexibility to meet local
conditions.
Question. How does the Air Force evaluate whether the architectural
plan or appearance of an area or installation is important enough to
warrant significant additional architectural design costs, rather than
requiring a standard design?
Answer. Our standard designs allow flexibility for the exterior of
the facility to meet local base architectural compatibility standards.
This normally does not involve significant additional design costs.
Barracks Backlog
Question. What is the total current troop housing deficit for the
Air Force?
Air Force Answer. Once the Air Force completes its Dormitory Master
Plan in July 1997, we will have the information to accurately determine
the size of the dormitory deficit.
Barracks Program Execution
Question. Have you run into difficulties in executing the fiscal
year 1997 barracks program?
Answer. No, the Air Force has not run into difficulties in
executing the fiscal year 1997 barracks program.
Question. Are there practical limits to the number of barracks
projects that can be executed in a given year, and if so, what is the
level of those annual limits?
Answer. At a specific location, there may be a practical limit on
the number of dormitory projects that can be executed simultaneously
due to construction site constraints and the inability to adequately
house displaced occupants during construction. These limitations are
considered during the development of our MILCOM program, however, and
there are no present annual limits.
Inadequate or Unacceptable Barracks
Question. Is it the Air Force's intention to execute the 1997 and
1998 barracks projects as conventional military construction items or
to exercise new authorities?
Answer. The Air Force intents to execute the 1997 dormitory
projects as conventional military construction items. At this time, we
intend to execute the 1998 dormitory projects as conventional military
construction items; however, the Air Force is studying the application
of the housing privatization authorities in order to determine how to
best integrate the privatization tool into our dormitory investment
plan.
Question. How much of your current barracks inventory is deemed
inadequate to permit permanent party assignment?
Answer. At a very limited number of bases, installation commanders
have declared some dormitories inadequate due to facility condition and
will not allow unaccompanied permanent party personnel to be assigned.
This is the rare exception. The Air Force considers central latrine
dormitories inadequate; however, we continue to assign unaccompanied
people to these dormitories until they can be renovated or replaced.
Question. How much of your off-base bachelor housing is deemed
unacceptable?
Answer. The Air Force does not collect data on off-base inadequate
housing units. Our housing market analysis process determines market
availability of off-base housing for unaccompanied personnel in grades
E-5s and above, using general suitability criteria prescribed in the
Department of Defense Housing Management Manual. Numbers of
unacceptable housing units are not captured.
Question. How do you define ``inadequate'' or ``unsuitable'' or
``unacceptable'', both for on-base unaccompanied enlisted housing and
for off-base bachelor housing?
Answer. The Air Force considers dormitories with central latrines/
showers as inadequate, unsuitable or unacceptable for on-base
unaccompanied enlisted housing; however, we may continue to use these
facilities when no alternative is available. For off-base unaccompanied
enlisted housing, we use the Department of Defense Housing Management
Manual which takes into consideration: price and size of the units,
physical condition, certain location factors related to health and
safety, and type of housing.
Real Property Maintenance (RPM)
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show the amounts
appropriated for the Real Property Maintenance Account in the National
Security Appropriations bill for each of the last ten years, adjusted
for inflation.
Answer. The following table shows the amounts appropriated for the
Air Force Real Property Maintenance (RPM) program starting in FY90. For
FY88 and FY89 we are unable to obtain the appropriated amounts. During
these years, the program element codes assigned a combined effort for
Environmental Support, Real Property Maintenance, and Real Property
Services. This accounting structure did not capture appropriated
amounts for Real Property Maintenance. The table below does not include
RDT&E Real Property Maintenance data.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998PB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active.................................. 2,249 2,028 1,386 1,404 1,422 1,499 1,762 1,462 1,191
Guard................................... 60 60 67 64 76 84 106 127 78
Reserve................................. 29 28 30 42 43 62 58 48 60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 2,338 2,116 1,483 1,510 1,541 1,645 1,926 1,637 1,329
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above totals include the Defense Appropriation, Real Property
Maintenance, Defense Account (RPMDA) in FY92 and FY93 and the Defense
Quality of Life Enhancement Appropriation in FY97. FY96 includes the
$151M Real Property Maintenance Congressional increase.
The appropriated amount includes all Congressional adjustments
specific to RPM but does not include general reduction (i.e., civilian
pay repricings, inflation, fuel repricings).
Question. For the record, describe how you make the difficult
decision of what levels to budget for RPMA versus MILCON
Answer. The Air Force Investment Strategy balances Military
Construction (MILCON) and Real Property Maintenance Activities (RPMA)
based on available funding and Air Force priorities. The Air Force
follows the Defense Planning Guidance to maintain the cost of ownership
of our physical plant. The Air Force funded the Real Property
Maintenance account at the Preservation Maintenance Level which is the
level necessary to accomplish periodic maintenance requirements. The
MILCON program is funded to meet mission and quality of life
requirements.
Real Property Maintenance Account (RPMA)
Question. What amount did the Air Force receive for barracks
renovation under the Real Property Maintenance Account in the National
Security Appropriations Bill last year? Provide for the record a list
of projects that will be funded by this initiative and the status of
each project.
Answer. The Air Force received $108M in quality of life enhancement
funds which we are using for dormitory renovation. A list of the
projects is attached. All projects on the list are either already
awarded or pending award. These projects and amounts are part of an
ongoing O&M execution program and are subject to change until final
contract award of all projects. The Air Force expects to award all
projects by 31 March 1997.
[Pages 690 - 694--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Privatization
Question. Describe for us what the Air Force plans to accomplish
through its various privatization efforts.
Answer. Our overall goal in regards to privatization is to optimize
the use of public and private resources in the execution of our
facility investment strategy. In support of this goal we are currently
focusing on three areas for implementation of privatization: family
housing, unaccompanied housing (dorms), and utility systems.
In family housing we have an aggressive program with 10 active
projects. The request for proposal on our lead privatization project at
Lackland AFB was advertised on 11 Feb 97. The project calls for a
developer to design, construct, maintain, own, and manage a housing
development of 420 units on 96 acres of outleased base property. The
units will be rented to E-3 through E-7 personnel from the Lackland
community. Award is anticipated in late 1997. We are continuing to work
the remaining projects and will notify you as we approach release of
the request for proposal on each project.
For unaccompanied housing, we are studying the application of the
housing privatization authorities in order to determine how to best
integrate the privatization tools into our dorm investment plan. We
plan to complete that study by late Apr 97.
In addition to family and unaccompanied housing, we are also
pursuing privatization of utility systems. Our long term goal is to
turn these systems over to private/public ownership where there is no
readiness impact and it makes economic sense. OSD is currently working
with OMB to finalize legislation that would permit privatization of
these systems.
C-17 Beddown
Question. What is the timetable and what are the milestones for
determining the C-17 beddown requirements at Thompson Field?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) plans to schedule a site
survey at Thompson Field, MS, in late 1997. During the site survey
facility requirements, project costs, and programming milestones
(including project design schedule) will be determined. Functional
experts (operations, maintenance, and engineering) from the Active Air
Force and ANG comprise the site survey team.
Question. Summarize for us the current reprogramming and scoping
issues related to the C-17 beddown program.
Answer. Due to changes in environmental laws and the concept of
operations for corrosion control and engine maintenance of the C-17,
the Air Force intends to modify two fiscal year 1997 projects
supporting the C-17 beddown at McChord AFB WA. The $11.6M Corrosion
Control Facility will be reprogrammed to $21.0M and the $16.5M Modular
Replacement Center (MRC) will be downscoped to a $4.0M engine storage
facility. The savings generated from downscoping the MRC will be used
to offset the increased cost of the Corrosion Control Facility. The
change in engine maintenance operations also eliminates the need for
the fiscal year 1998 project to construct the $3.2M Engine Test Cell at
McChord AFB.
Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
Question. What is the timetable for announcement of the locations
for the unmanned relay stations for the Space Based Infrared System in
Australia and in Europe?
Answer. The SBIRS classification guide has not yet been developed;
therefore the release of the locations within the United States is
unknown. The Australian Office of the Minister for Defense produced a
media release on 26 July 96 which announced the agreement to establish
a Relay Ground Station in Australia for the Space Based Infrared system
and to close the Joint Defense Facility at Nurrungar (Woomera). The
Australian media release also stated the site of the new facility
within Australia. A draft press release for the European location is
being reviewed jointly by the United States and the host country. Until
the SBIRS classification guide is developed, the timetable for the
announcement of the locations is unknown at this time. A separate
classified briefing can be arranged to provide you this information.
War Reserve Material (WRM)
Question. Last year we were assured that the location of war
reserve material projects had been declassified, but the Army's budget
request line lists its project this year as ``Overseas, Various
Locations'' and the Air Force lists its projects as ``Worldwide,
Classified Locations''. Can you clarify the current classification
status of these projects?
Answer. Specific Air Force locations concerning prepositioning of
WRM assets are currently classified. We anticipate the classifying
authority, USCENTCOM, will declassify this in the near future.
Overseas Construction
Question. Why is the dormitory project at Spangdahlem not funded
under the Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program?
Answer. This is an urgent Quality of Life project. We expect to
receive $8M from the next PIK allocation against an approved list of
mission related PIK eligible projects totaling over $100M.
Question. Why are the three projects at Kunsan and Osan not funded
under one of the two Korean host nation programs?
Answer. We are asking our allies to support our facility
requirements in overseas areas to the maximum extent possible and they
are contributing significantly. These urgent Quality of Life and
Environmental projects cannot wait for limited host nation funding.
Question. Why are the two projects at Aviano not funded under the
NATO Security Investment Program?
Answer. The Roads & Utilities project is currently not NATO
eligible. A precautionary prefinancing statement has been filed to
allow us to recoup funds if eligibility is established in the future.
The Waste Water Disposal System project is a conjunctively funded U.S./
NATO undertaking. The approved NATO share is $5.3M of the $13.2M total.
A precautionary prefinancing statement has not been filed.
Question. Why are the projects at Lajes and Lakenheath not funded
under the NATO Security Investment Program.
Answer. The Lajes and Lakenheath projects are not NATO eligible.
Only infrastructure and operational facility projects are supported by
NATO, as specified in established criteria.
Aviano AB, Italy
Question. Two projects have been requested for Aviano AB in Italy.
Are they NATO eligible and have precautionary prefinancing statements
been filed for those projects?
Answer. The Roads & Utilities project is currently not NATO
eligible. A precautionary prefinancing statement has been filed to
allow us to recoup funds if eligibility is established in the future.
The Waste Water Disposal System project is not NATO eligible. It
represents the U.S. share of a conjunctively funded U.S./NATO
undertaking. The approved NATO share is $5.3M of the $13.2M total. A
precautionary prefinancing statement has not been filed.
[Pages 697 - 706--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Okinawa
Question. The Marine Corps is considering various
restationing alternatives on Okinawa. Do you foresee any change
to the current operations of Kadena Air Base, either as a
result of Marine Corps decisions or otherwise?
Answer. Until a final plan for replacing MCAS Futenma is
completed, the Air Staff cannot with any accuracy foresee the
overall effects on current operations at Kadena Air Base.
Otherwise, any Air Force answer would be strictly speculative.
However, the U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee (SCC)
approved the final Special Action Committee on Facilities and
Areas in Okinawa (SACO) recommendation that in 5-7 years the
MCAS Futenma be closed and its replacement be moved to a Sea-
Based Facility (SBF). The final design plan for this facility
has not yet been approved, therefore, the effects in its
entirety on Kadena AB cannot be addressed at this time. These
changes are projected to include infrastructure improvements
(Aircraft Hangars) to support the transfer of Marine Corps C-
12/CT-39 aircraft and Contingency Operations. It should be
noted that USFJ asserts that consolidating Futenma onto Kadena
is not a tenable option. Reasons include additional flight
safety risks, increase of aircraft noise; diminished training
opportunities; reduced ability to meet high demands of
contingency operations, and significant disruption to Kadena AB
over the five to seven year transition period.
Onizuka/Moffett
Question. The Air Force is reducing its personnel at
Onizuka Air Force Station, while the Navy plans to increase its
permanent personnel at Moffett Airport. What is the commuting
time and distance between these installations?
Answer. Onizuka and Moffett are basically co-located on
opposite sides of the runway. The distance is about 1\1/2\
miles and commuting time is about 5 minutes.
Question. Is it correct that the Air Force operates and
maintains over 700 family housing units at Moffett Federal
Airport, California?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force operates and maintains 804
family housing units, 693 on Onizuka Air Force Base and 111 on
Moffett Field.
Question. Is it correct that the Air Force plans to declare almost
all of these units surplus?
Answer. Yes, as described by the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission's (DBCRC) 1995 Closure Report, activities and
facilities associated with Air Force Space Command's 750th Space Group,
including family housing and the clinic, will close. 693 family housing
units will be excess to Air Force needs. Other remaining missions will
require the retention of 111 family housing units.
Question. If so, why does the Air Force want to declare nearly 600
units surplus when the Navy can use these units?
Answer. As a result of 1995 Base Realignment and Closure actions,
the Air Force has identified 693 housing units as excess to Air Force
needs. Once declared excess, facilities can be transferred to another
service or government agency that has a valid requirement for the
facilities.
Question. Does the Air Force want to limit the use of the retained
units to only Air Force personnel?
Answer. Yes, the Air Force intends to retain only housing units in
direct support of the remaining missions at Onizuka. These missions
should be completed within 10 years at which time the remaining 111
units will be declared excess to Air Force requirements.
Question. Has the Navy formally requested the transfer of any
surplus units from the Air Force to the Navy?
Answer. No. The Navy has not formally requested the transfer of any
surplus units from the Air Force to the Navy.
Question. Are there any impediments to such a transfer?
Answer. There are no Air Force impediments to such a transfer.
Kurdish Refugees
Question. Summarize for us the Air Force efforts involved in the
housing of Kurdish refugees at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.
Answer. USAF and Joint Task Force (JTF) efforts in housing Kurdish
evacuees at Andersen AFB centered around using the 360 housing units at
Andersen South (a formerly active USAF housing area located seven miles
south of main base). Andersen South currently houses approximately
2,700 evacuees and housed 6,500 Kurdish evacuees over the course of the
operation. Kurdish evacuees are treated as guests, provided adequate,
safe, secure and humane living conditions. A friendly and stable
atmosphere was established to ensure efficient processing and
transition which included respect for Kurdish customs and courtesies,
religious needs, recreation needs, and health and welfare items. Food
preparation is provided by an evacuee self-feeding plan whereby DoD-
purchased food is provided to the evacuees for preparation in
individual kitchens which were already available in each housing unit.
It should be noted that self-feeding significantly reduced U.S. forces
efforts required to provide this service. In addition, the Air Force
and JTF have supported the deployed forces providing engineering,
services, medical, and security services to the Kurdish evacuees.
Question. In particular, what is the cost of this operation, and
how long is it expected to last?
Answer. As of 7 March 1997, Operation Pacific Haven has cost
approximately $15.2 million. The operation is expected to continue
through the end of April 1997.
Question. Are there any military construction for family housing
costs, particularly family housing O&M?
Answer. No military construction has been accomplished in support
of Operation Pacific Haven and no military family housing operations
and maintenance (O&M) funds have been expended to support the evacuees.
Question. Are Air Force costs being reimbursed from other sources,
perhaps from the Department of State?
Answer. The State Department and Health and Human Services have
made funds available for Operation Pacific Haven.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show the entire
construction program required for beddown of the Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle.
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Description Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................ UAV Ops/AMU/Hangar................. 4.7
1999........................ UAV Ops/AMU/Hangar................. 6.9
1999........................ UAV Logistics/Supply............... 4.4
1999........................ UAV Comm Maint/Infrastructure...... 4.5
XX.......................... Dining Hall........................ 3.5
XX.......................... Dormitory.......................... 10.8
-------------------------------------------
Total........................ 34.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demolition
Question. What is the total funding requirement for the demolition
of excess facilities?
Answer. The Air Force currently has an unfunded FY97 operation and
maintenance demolition requirement of $66M. The Major Commands have
identified similar unfunded demolition requirements in FY98.
Question. Why were no funds requested under military construction
or family housing for this effort?
Answer. Demolition cost associated with military construction
(MILCON) or military family housing (MFH) projects is included in the
programmed amount. Most other demolition is done using normal O&M funds
or MFH O&M funds, as appropriate.
Question. Have you done an analysis to determine, dollar for
dollar, how much is saved in infrastructure costs for each dollar
invested in demolition?
Answer. The Air Force has no FY98 for demolition and has not done a
detailed dollar for dollar analysis to determine how much could be
saved in infrastructure costs for each dollar invested in demolition.
Question. Describe for us the ``building eating machines'' that the
Air Force is using.
Answer. The ``building eating machines'' are large machines used to
grind debris into small pieces. One command has used the grinders to
reduce the cost of demolishing wooden buildings. After environmental
clearances are secured, wooden buildings are dismantled and the rubble
reduced to ``mulch.'' This process reduces the volume of material and
the cost of disposal. The grinders are also used at some bases to help
dispose of storm damage debris and compost landscaping waste. The cost
of these machines ranges from $160K to $300K. The Air Force finds these
machines very valuable and anticipates purchasing three more.
New Versus Current Mission
Question. What is the breakout of total construction funding
related to new missions, current missions, environmental, planning and
design and unspecified minor construction?
Answer. The breakout follows ($M):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Guard Reserve Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mission......................... 270.6 36.7 5.2 312.5
Current Mission..................... 167.7 0 0 167.7
Environmental....................... 31.9 12.3 3.3 47.5
Planning & Design................... 40.9 7.0 1.5 49.4
Unsp Minor Const.................... 8.5 4.2 4.6 17.3
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 519.6 60.2 14.6 594.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation or in the prior years'
unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignment and closure, mission changes,
bilateral and multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include
on the list military construction projects, family housing construction
and construction improvement projects, and projects financed under the
base realignment and closure accounts.
Answer. The project list follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars
Approp. Fiscal Base Project title in
year millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILCON........... 1996 Charleston....... C-17 Flight 1.3
Simulator.
MILCON........... 1996 Barksdale........ B-52 Training 2.5
Complex.
BRAC............. 1994 Grissom.......... Alter Utilities 2.0
BRAC............. 1994 Grissom.......... Alter Heat 1.8
Plant.
BRAC............. 1994 Vandenberg....... Vehicle 0.7
Maintenance
Facility.
BRAC............. 1997 Beale............ Add/Alter 0.3
Support
Facility.
BRAC............. 1997 Rickenbacker..... Fuels Systems 1.2
Maintenance
Facility.
BRAC............. 1996 Travis........... Combat Camera 9.9
Facility.
MFH-Cons......... 1994 Langley.......... Housing 0.4
Management
Office.
MFH-Imp.......... 1993 Kirtland......... Replace MFH.... 6.7
MFH-Imp.......... 1994 Kirtland......... Replace MFH.... 6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All unobligated balances are required for reprogrammings or have been
expensed against valid Air Force requirements.
Program and Financing Statement
Question. The Program and Financing Statement shows an unobligated
balance of $23,858,000 available at the end of Fiscal years 1996 and
1997, to be reprogrammed into fiscal year 1998. Why does this amount
not appear in the ``Construction Program'' [C-1] for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The ``Construction Program [C-1]'' is a DoD prepared
document. ``It does not reflect transfer of budget authority or
unobligated balances, nor proposed program supplements/deferrals.''
Question. Does the Air Force or the Office of the Secretary of
Defense regard this Program and Financing Statement entry to be a
formal reprogramming request?
Answer. No, the Air Force does not consider this to be the official
reprogramming request for the identified unobligated balances. Air
Force will identify specific projects from which the identified amount
is to be taken.
Unobligated Balances
Question. The budget proposes to finance a total of $23.9 million
from unobligated prior year appropriations for the Military
Construction, Air Force account. Why was it formulated in this manner
and why didn't the Department request a traditional rescission of these
funds? Provide for the record the individual sources which derive the
$23.9 million.
Answer. The Department of Defense determined that $23.86M of prior
year funds were available to offset the Air Force's FY98 request due to
past bid savings and project cancellations, therefore no rescission was
required. Currently, however, there are no significant savings
available for FY98 requirements and, if required to pay this bill with
FY97 and prior year funds, the Air Force would have to curtail valid
projects listed below which have the latest estimated award dates.
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year State Project PA Remarks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996......................... Oklahoma...... Tinker........ Corrosion Control $6.0 Evaluating
Facility. privatization
alternative as
directed by
House Report
104-863.
1997......................... Oklahoma...... Tinker........ Corrosion Control $5.4 Evaluating
Facility. privatization
alternative as
directed by
House Report
104-863.
1997......................... Kansas........ McConnell..... Consolidated $6.7 Appropriated but
Education Center. not authorized.
FY98
Authorization
Bill requests
FY97
authorization.
1997......................... Ohio.......... Wright Engineering Research $7.4 On hold due to
Patterson. Lab. Air Force
Institute of
Technology
Graduate School
closure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of Facilities
Question.What is the average age of Air Force facilities?
Answer. The average age of Air Force facilities is approximately 27
years. This does not include Military Family Housing.
Plant Replacement Value
Question. What is the current replacement value of the Air Force's
physical plant?
Answer. The Air Force total plant replacement value is $204B. The
military construction value is $129B.
Backlog
Question. What is the Air Force construction backlog and how many
years would it take to eliminate the backlog at current funding levels?
Answer. The Air Force does not currently use a metric that could be
used to answer this question. However, the state of the FY98 MILCON
program is an indication of the magnitude of the problem. The Major
Commands submitted over $850M in Current Mission projects in the FY98
program. The current funding level will fulfill less than a quarter of
the Current Mission requirements in FY98. The remaining requirements
will be slipped to future years. The Major Commands have submitted a
similar magnitude of requirements for FY99. The cumulative effects of
deferring valid MILCON requirements to future years is producing a
backlog which we cannot eliminate at current funding levels.
Planning and Design
Question. Does the Air Force have sufficient planning and design
funds to execute the entire fiscal year 1999 program.
Answer. The Air Force will have sufficient planning and design
(P&D) funds to execute the entire fiscal year 1999 program if the Air
Force request for fiscal year 1998 P&D funds is fully authorized and
appropriated.
Minor Construction
Question. Provide for the record all minor construction projects
funded in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and the current status of fiscal
year 1997 appropriation.
Answer. The requested listing is attached.
UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funded
Base Projects amt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995:
Eielson AFB, AK.................. Ready Munitions Facility 1.1
Eielson AFB, AK.................. Add/Alter Squadron 1.0
Operations.
Vandenberg AFB, CA............... Technical Training 0.7
Classrooms.
Air Force Academy, CO............ Field Engineering 1.1
Readiness Lab.
Dyess AFB, TX.................... Munitions Maintenance 1.4
Facility.
Charleston AFB, SC............... Widen Hill Boulevard.... 1.0
Peterson AFB, CO................. Band Practice Facility.. 1.5
Various Upward Scope Adjustments. ........................ 0.2
----------------------------------
Total............. \1\ 8.0
==================================
Fiscal year 1996:
Bolling AFB, DC.................. Perimeter Security...... 1.4
Air Force Academy, CO............ Sailplane Runway........ 0.9
Bolling AFB, DC.................. Honor Guard Support 1.3
Facility.
McChord AFB, WA.................. Vehicle Maintenance 1.5
Facility.
Buckley ANGB, CO................. Personnel Support 1.3
Facility.
Aviano AB, IT.................... Comm Maint and Support 1.3
Fac.
Altus AFB, OK.................... Flight Training Facility 1.3
----------------------------------
Total............. 9.0
==================================
Fiscal year 1997 (obligated to date):
Mildenhall AFB, GB............... Munitions Storage 1.2
Complex.
Tyndall AFB, FL.................. Communications 1.0
Maintenance Fac.
Kadena AB, JA.................... Ammo Storage Maint & 0.8
Insp Fac.
Kadena AB, JA.................... Ammo Loading/Storage Fac 1.2
Columbus AFB, MS................. Ground Approach Trans/ 1.0
Rcvr Fac.
Mt Home AFB, ID.................. ADAL Gen Purp Acft Maint 1.3
Fac.
Laughlin AFB, TX................. Replace Perimeter Fence. 1.1
----------------------------------
Total............. 7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $0.8M reprogrammed into this account.
Question. What shortfalls have you found in this account in the
last two years?
Answer. The appropriation has been sufficient to meet our most
urgent needs. Minor shortfalls have been accommodated through
reprogramming actions.
Reprogrammings
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by fiscal
year, the total amounts Congress has approved for reprogramming actions
in the ``Military Construction, Air Force'' and ``Family Housing, Air
Force'' accounts over the last five years.
Answer. There were no amounts approved for reprogramming by
Congress for the ``Family Housing, Air Force'' accounts over the last
five years. The table listing approved reprogrammings for ``Military
Construction, Air Force'' is attached.
[Pages 712 - 717--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Base Realignment and Closure Accounts
Question. For the record, describe ``the President's five-part
program'' to which you refer on page 29 on your prepared statement.
Answer. This refers to the President's 1993 ``Plan for Revitalizing
Base Closure Communities'' and consists of five Presidential
initiatives:
(1) A jobs-centered property disposal at closure bases that puts
local economic redevelopment first.
(2) Fast-track environmental cleanup at closure bases that removes
needless delays while protecting human health and the environment.
(3) Establishment of base transition coordinators at major bases
slated for closure that act as ombudsmen for the community in their
redevelopment efforts.
(4) Providing easy access to transition and redevelopment help for
workers and communities at closure locations.
(5) Quick economic development planning grants to base closure
communities.
Question. Are there any schedule slippages in ongoing realignments
and closures?
Answer. There are no schedule slippages planned or foreseen in the
remaining closure and realignment locations.
Question. After the completion of all actions, is there a
possibility that excess installation inventory will remain, which would
justify another round of realignments and closures? If so, how soon?
Answer. The need for another round of BRAC and its timing depends
on the results of the QDR, currently underway, and naturally,
appropriate legislation.
Korean Host Program
Question. What funding has the Air Force received in the last three
years under the two Korean Host Nation Funding programs?
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -----------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDIP\1\................................... 11 13 10
RFCP\1\................................... 16 14 15
-----------------------------
Totals.............................. 27 27 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note.--CDIP stands for Combined Defense Improvement Projects. RFCP
stands for Republic of Korea Funded Construction Program.
Payment-In-Kind/Germany
Question. To date, how much has the Air Force received under the
Payment-In-Kind (PIK) program and what future benefits does the Air
Force anticipate?
Answer. To date, the Air Force has received $19.1M in PIK funds. We
expect to receive $8M from the next PIK allocation against an approved
list of PIK eligible projects totaling over $100M.
Japanese Facilities Investment Program
Question. What funding has the Air Force received in the last three
years under the Japanese Facilities Investment Program.
Answer.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -----------------------------
1995 1996 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFIP...................................... 305 363 311
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Academy
Question. Provide for the record a listing of all military
construction (including minor construction) and family housing at the
Air Force Academy over the last ten years.
Answer.
MILCON
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Title PA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988........................ Auxiliary Airfield.............. 1,700
1988........................ Cadet Chapel Elevator (Minor 595
Construction).
1988........................ Airfield Fire Station........... 980
1989........................ Alter Cadet Housing (Sijan Hall) 4,000
1989........................ Airman Dormitory................ 3,500
1989........................ Add to Community Center Gym..... 1,750
1989........................ Add/Alter Base Civil Engineering 990
Facility.
1991........................ Consolidated Education and 15,000
Training Facility.
1991........................ Renovate Cadet Dining Facility 949
(Minor Construction
Appropriated over FY91, FY92,
and FY93.
1992........................ Consolidated Education and 21,000
Training Facility.
1992........................ Upgrade Dormitories............. 3,000
1992........................ Resistance Training Lab (Minor 540
Construction).
1993........................ Underground Storage Tanks PH 1.. 960
1993........................ Upgrade Energy Management 1,650
Control System.
1993........................ Base Operations................. 1,650
1994........................ Upgrade Wastewater Treatment 7,100
Plant.
1994........................ Underground Storage Tanks Phase 780
II.
1994........................ Enhanced Flight Screener Hangers 3,800
1995........................ Field Engineering and Readiness 1,103
Lab (Minor Construction).
1996........................ Child Development Center........ 4,200
1996........................ Sailplane Hanger................ 3,724
1996........................ Replace Heating Facilities...... 4,950
1996........................ Sailplane Runway and Taxiway 1,162
(Minor Construction).
1997........................ Family Support Center........... 2,100
1997........................ Upgrade Academic Facility....... 10,065
1998........................ Upgrade Academic Facility....... 9,854
1998........................ Add to and Alter Fitness Center. 5,375
Military Family Housing:
1988.................... Improvement Capehart Housing.... 2,469
1988.................... Improve SOQ..................... 37
1989.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 1,930
1989.................... Improve Rectory................. 38
1990.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 1,875
1990.................... Replace Roof Quarters 9038...... 45
1990.................... Improve Rectory................. 19
1991.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 1,840
1992.................... Improve Capehart Housing........ 2,600
1992.................... Construct Storage Sheds, Senior 93
Officer Quarter's.
1993.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 3,574
1994.................... Improve Capehart Housing........ 3,686
1994.................... Improve Indigenous House........ 52
1996.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 4,029
1997.................... Improve Family Housing.......... 3,911
1997.................... Improve MFH Maintenance Facility 323
1998.................... Improve Capehart Family Housing. 6,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vandenberg AFB, CA
Question. What is the current status of Space Launch Complex 6
(SLC-6)?
Answer. SLC-6 is fully operational as of June 1994 and is operated
and maintained by Lockheed Martin. SLC-6 was declared excess by the Air
Force; therefore, the Air Force does not provide any funding for its
operation.
Question. Is the budgeted Launch Operations Control Center projects
related in any way to SLC-6?
Answer. There is no direct link between the SLC-6 and this
facility. This facility will serve as the Western Range Launch
Operations Control Center (OCC) for all users.
USAF Academy Fitness Center
Question. The form 1391 states that the fitness center project at
the Academy is a ``Level 1 Commander's Facility Assessment
requirement.'' What does that mean?
Answer. A Commander's Facility Assessment (CFA) Level 1 requirement
is defined as a facility having a condition that directly inhibits
mission readiness and contributes to a substandard quality of life
atmosphere. The unit commander determined substandard size, inadequate
facility configuration, deteriorated and unreliable building systems
all created conditions justifying a CFA Level 1, Unsatisfactory rating.
This project will replace a substandard facility, over 2000 square
meters smaller than authorized, upgrade the building's aged utility
systems, eliminate environmental hazards and reconfigure the layout.
The revitalized facility will now have the capability to offer a
complete array of physical fitness programs, limited due to existing
facility size, and better serve permanently assigned base personnel
including the prep and leadership schools. This swimming pool does not
support the cadet wing.
Question. To what extent is the scope and priority of this project
driven by any outside pressures such as NCAA standards?
Answer. Neither NCAA standards nor other outside pressures had any
influence on this project.
Question. By what percent will this project enlarge the existing
fitness center?
Answer. The existing building is 3750 SM; the addition is 2050 SM,
a 55% increase.
Question. How large is the existing pool, and how large will the
replacement pool be?
Answer. The existing pool has exceeded its life expectancy.
Examination of the pool and infrastructure shows that the cost to
replace the existing pool is about the same as repair. The existing
pool is a 75 fool pool, (75 feet long by 42 feet wide with a 6 foot
depth). The replacement pool will be a 25 meter pool (82 feet long),
12.5 meters wide (42 feet wide) with a graduated depth.
Lackland AFB, TX
Question. Under the Kelly AFB closure package in the Base
Realignment and Closure, Part IV account, there is a project to
construct three general officer's quarters. Explain the need for this
project in some detail.
Answer. Six general officer and eight senior officer's quarters at
Kelly AFB, TX located in the industrial area, which are old and
operationally expensive to maintain, have been declared surplus and
will be turned over to the local reuse authority. Three key and
essential general officer's quarters (Commander of Wilford Hall Medical
Center, Air Intelligence Agency (AIA) Commander and AIA Vice Commander)
will transfer to Lackland due to the realignment of Kelly AFB. Lackland
AFB does not have any additional general officer quarters. With the
necessary general officer quarter transfers and lack of existing
facilities at Lackland, construction of three general officer units at
Lackland is required.
Question. The direct cost for replacing these family housing units
is $398,000, according to the form 1391. Why shouldn't this project be
funded at that level?
Answer. The $398,000 direct cost reflected in the DD Form 1391 is
for the family housing structure itself. The remainder of the cost
reflects all work outside of the ``five foot boundary,'' specifically;
costs for the driveway, utility connections, earth work on site,
landscaping, and supervision costs for inspection of the construction.
Question. Why aren't there three units being included in other on-
going privatization efforts at Lackland AFB?
Answer. Qualification packages have already been received for the
on-going effort to obtain 420 family housing units at Lackland AFB
through the privatization methodology. Actual award of a firm contract
and construction start is expected late this summer. Because the
existing privatization effort has progressed this far, another bid
amendment to the already submitted bid bonds and written proposals
would only confuse the potential contractors. Thus, this matter
proposed project will be constructed through the normal bidding
process.
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (Renovate Acquisition Support Facility,
$10,750,000)
Question. When were the modifications made to the current facility
to accommodate the current mission? Briefly describe the modifications
that were made.
Answer. The building was constructed in 1930 as an administrative
facility. No major modifications have been made to change the function
of this facility.
Question. Can you quantify the savings or economics that this
renovation will provide compared with current operations?
Answer. An Economic Analysis was accomplished for this facility.
Life Cycle Cost for doing nothing, renovation, new construction, and
leased space were considered. The do nothing alternative was $3M less
than the renovation alternative. Leasing or constructing new proved to
be significantly more expensive than renovating. The do nothing
alternative is unacceptable due to Life Safety (asbestos, lead based
paint, and fire) hazards. Also this facility is on an historic site and
must be preserved. The renovation alternative meets all the qualitative
and life safety requirements.
Maxwell AFB, AL (OTS Physical Fitness Center, $1,095,000)
Question. Describe in some detail why Officer Training School (OTS)
students must have a separate facility, and why the base gymnasium is
not an option.
Answer. The base gymnasium is too small to support the base
population and the officer trainee student load. The officer trainees
would compete with the other gymnasium patrons to utilize the limited
training resources of the existing facility. A controlled training
environment cannot be maintained when officer trainees use the existing
gymnasium. This separate facility, located in the Officers' Training
School campus area, satisfies all of these training requirements.
Clear Air Station, Alaska (Alter Dormitories, $20,285,000)
Question. This project includes $1,400,000 for a temporary lease of
modular units during construction. Why is this necessary, rather than
work-arounds or less costly temporary arrangements?
Answer. This requirement is driven by a combination of very limited
living accommodations at this remote site; the high transient load on
the site during the short construction season; and the reduction in on-
site billeting capacity as dormitories are taken out of service for
renovation. We are continuing to look for work-arounds which could
reduce the number of modular facilities required.
Question. What is the scope and duration of this lease, and what is
the basis for the estimated cost?
Answer. The lease is for a 100 person modular camp for a period of
approximately 30 months consistent with the construction duration. The
cost was estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers, based on prices
supplied by local vendors.
Question. Was this project 35 percent design complete as of January
1997 or will it reach 35 percent design complete on March 18, 1997?
Answer. Yes. Extensive planning, requirements identification, site
investigation, and a parametric cost estimate equivalent to a 35
percent design were completed in November 1996.
Master Plan--Family Housing Requirements
Question. Describe for us in some detail the steps that are being
taken to develop a master plan that will define and prioritize family
housing requirements for the Air Force.
Answer. The housing master plan will outline a corporate Air Force
strategy to integrate housing investment, housing operations and
maintenance, and housing privatization programs into a single
investment ``road map.''' The final product will be a business plan
that addresses physical planning, cost, and alternative investment
considerations. The plan will consolidate existing planning and
programming tools and enable Air Force decision-makers to corporately
prioritize housing revitalization requirements using the execution
method (MILCON, privatization, or O&M) that will provide the greatest
``return-on-investment.''
Question. What is the timetable for awarding this contract?
Answer. The Air Force plans to award a contract by 1 Jun 97.
Question. Will this contractual effort be funded under the family
housing O&M account?
Answer. Yes, the contractual effort to complete the housing master
plan will be funded under the family housing O&M account.
Question. How much will this contract cost, how long will it last,
and what milestones will be specified?
Answer. The current contract estimate is approximately $50,000 per
installation with completion scheduled for Dec. 1998. Major milestones
include:
Define corporate Air Force strategies for the future.
Integrate strategies with current planning and programming tools.
Develop investment models.
Prioritize corporate requirements.
Publish plan.
The Air Force is considering a two-step approach starting with a
prototype task order for five to seven installations followed by a
second task order for the remainder of our installations.
Temporary Lodging Requirements for Families in Transit
Question. Is it correct that temporary lodging requirements for
families in transit will be addressed under the nonappropriated
accounts, rather than the family housing accounts? If so, why?
Answer. Yes. Congress has approved guidance that recognizes NAF as
the primary fund source for constructing TLFs.
Question. How much will this effort cost, and how long will it
last?
Answer. Program currently identifies 420 of the Air Force's most
critical TLF needs ($74M). Anticipated construction period will be over
a two year time period.
Family Housing Inventory
Question. How many family housing units do you have in the United
States, and how many do you have overseas, excluding Sections 801 and
802, and excluding leases?
Answer. The Air Force has about 110,000 housing units worldwide;
85,000 in the United States and 25,000 overseas.
Question. How many Section 801, Section 802, and leased units do
you have in the United States, and how many do you have overseas?
Answer. The Air Force has 3,828 Section 801 leased units, no
Section 802 leased units, and 250 other leased units in the United
States. The Air Force has 4,125 leased units overseas.
Age of Housing Inventory
Question. What is the average age of the family housing inventory?
Answer. The average age of the Air Force family housing inventory
is 34 years.
Question. What percentage of the family housing inventory is over
30 years old?
Answer. About 74 percent of the inventory is over 30 years old.
Question. What percentage of the family housing inventory is over
40 years old?
Answer. About 30 percent of the inventory is over 40 years old.
Question. What is your current worldwide family housing deficit?
Answer. The total worldwide deficit is about 17,900 units.
Housing Deficit
Question. What are your three largest deficits, and how large are
they?
Answer. The three largest deficit locations and their deficit are:
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, 1,837 units; Elmendorf AFB, Alaska,
1097 units; Maxwell AFB Alabama, 875 units.
Question. What are your three most expensive deficit locations,
based on actual payments of housing allowances?
Answer. The Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) is structured so as to
equalize median out-of-pocket costs for each pay grade across all duty
locations in the United States. The intent is that members in high
housing cost locations be no worse off than members in low housing cost
locations. However, members assigned to very low cost locations that do
not warrant VHA may actually not incur any out-of-pocket cost.
Conversely, members assigned to very high cost locations may pay
slightly more out-of-pocket than the established median absorption rate
because of the cap on the VHA program. The three locations where
members receive the most Variable Housing Allowance (higher cost
housing locations) are (from highest to lowest VHA allowance): Hickam
AFB, HI; Elmendorf AFB, AK; and Los Angeles, CA.
Waiting Lists
Question. How many families are on waiting lists for government-
provided family housing, and what is the average waiting time?
Answer. There are 41,000 families on waiting lists for government-
provided family housing and the average waiting time is from 12 to 24
months.
Off-Base Housing
Question. How many families are living off-base?
Answer. There are approximately 160,000 families living off-base.
Question. What is the criteria for suitable off-base housing?
Answer. The criteria for suitable off-base housing includes: (1)
location--within a 1-hour commute during peak periods or other limits
to satisfy mission requirements; (2) cost--maximum acceptable monthly
cost is the sum of basic housing allowance (BAQ), variable housing
allowance, and maximum out-of-pocket cost of 50 percent of BAQ; (3)
size--based on grade and dependency ensuring no more than two persons
share a bedroom, (4) condition--structurally sound, private entrance,
appropriate bathroom and kitchen, and utilities, and (5) safety--secure
and safe environment.
``Suitability''
Question. How many families are unsuitably housed, and how is
``unsuitable'' defined?
Answer. More than 75,900 families are unsuitably housed: 17,900
off-base and 58,000 on-base. For on-base housing, ``unsuitable'' is
defined as not meeting contemporary design and amenities equivalent to
housing built in the local community, and having a condition that
warrants major improvement or replacement of the housing. For off-base
housing, ``unsuitable'' is defined as not meeting criteria for
location, cost, size, condition, and safety.
Deferred Maintenance
Question. What is the current annual funding requirement for family
housing maintenance and repair?
Answer. Current requirement is $526 M for maintenance and repair.
Question. What is the current backlog of deferred maintenance?
Answer. Current backlog is $959M.
Question. How much maintenance and repair work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what are the limiting factors?
Answer. The Air Force can execute $650M in maintenance and repair
projects. We welcome the opportunity to reduce our $1B backlog of
deferred maintenance and repair; the only limiting factor to executing
projects is lead time for design.
Construction Improvements
Question. How much construction improvement work can be performed
during a single fiscal year, and what are the limiting factors?
Answer. There is not pre-determined limit on the construction
improvement work that can be performed during a single fiscal year. At
a specific location, there may be a practical limit on the number of
projects that can be executed simultaneously due to construction site
constraints and the inability to adequately displace facility occupants
during construction.
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Question. What is the average operation and maintenance cost per
family housing unit?
Answer. The average operations and maintenance per unit is $6,512.
Question. How does the average cost compare with the requirement--
assuming ``no growth'' in deferred maintenance?
Answer. The $6,512 average per unit operations and maintenance cost
does not address the total requirement. We would need $7,367 per unit
to address our requirement assuming ``no growth'' in deferred
maintenance.
Currency Fluctuations
Question. What currency gains or losses are projected for your
overseas housing programs during fiscal year 1997 and 1998?
Answer. Currency gains and losses are funded through the centrally
managed Foreign Currency Fluctuation Construction Defense Account. The
Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account for Fiscal Year 1997 has $15M to
satisfy requirements as needed. Projection for Fiscal Year 1998 will be
determined by the remaining disbursements and the prevailing Foreign
Currency Fluctuation rate as of August 1997.
Officer Quarters
Question. Please submit for the record a table showing: (a) how
many general/flag officer quarters you have, separately identifying
CONUS and OCONUS locations, (b) how many of these quarters exceed the
statutory space limitations, and (c) the average O&M cost per unit.
Answer. (a) There are ``238'' permanent general officer quarters--
190 in the CONUS and 49 OCONUS. Add to this the units that temporarily
housed (change of occupancy, redesignation of general officer quarters,
down for maintenance etc.) general officers and you get 284. We capture
the cost and statutory space limitations for all 284 units (OSD
guidance requires the Services to identify all units occupied by a
general officer at any time for during the years).
(b) 213 of the 284 units exceed the 2,100 nsf limitation
(c) Average O&M cost for the 284 units is $15,421
Homeowners Assistance Program
Question. Please provide a list of installations from which
Homeowners Assistance claims are currently pending.
Answer. The following Air Force installations have claims against
the Homeowners Assistance Program that are currently being processed:
March AFB, CA; Griffiss AFB, NY; Lajes Field, AZORES, Portugal;
Plattsburg AFB, NY; Cannon AFB, NM; Carswell AFB, TX; Castle AFB, CA;
McClellan AFB, CA; Homestead AFB, FL.
Question. Is the program meeting the needs at all locations?
Answer. Yes, the program is meeting the needs at all locations
currently supported by the program. On-going studies at other locations
announced for closures or realignments will determine the need for
implementation at those locations.
Family Housing Improvement Fund
Question. Section 2883 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 1996 established the Department of Defense Family
Housing Improvement Fund. Briefly, how does your Service intend to
exercise this authority in the coming year?
Answer. The Air Force will use the authority to support privatized
housing project development and fund project awards, in fiscal years
1997 and 1998. We will transfer appropriated family housing
construction funds to meld with funds appropriated directly into the
account to support our initiatives.
Program Execution Rates
Question. Please provide for the record a list of all construction
and construction improvement projects for which funds were previously
appropriated, but which have not been executed. This list should
include, at a minimum, the year in which funds were appropriated and
the estimated contract award date.
Answer. The requested list is attached.
[Pages 725 - 728--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. What is being done to improve execution rates and
to avoid large unobligated balances.
Answer. The execution rate for Air Force Military
Construction projects has significantly improved over the past
seven years. In fiscal year 1990, 27 percent of the program was
awarded in the year of appropriation. That rate has increased
steadily to 91 percent in fiscal year 1996. This increase is
due primarily to improved requirements identification and cost
estimating during the programming phase, and a stronger
partnership with our design and construction agents. The Air
Force plans to continue emphasizing these areas.
Privatization--Maintain Home AFB
Question. Describe for us the background of your decision
to attempt to privatize all 1,525 family housing units at
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho.
Answer. Our decision is based on a combination of the
command and installation willingness to test privatizing on an
entire base inventory at Mountain Home, the condition of the
units and funds available to support the initiative, and the
location of the housing area(s) relative to the base perimeter.
The project is currently in the initial development stages and
ongoing investigations will determine if all factors will
combine to successfully follow through with plans to privatize
the entire inventory.
Question. Does this include all housing--enlisted and officer
housing?
Answer. Yes this includes all housing--enlisted and officer
housing.
Question. What response have you received to date?
Answer. A joint Air Force and OSD site investigation was conducted
17-22 Feb. 97. The local community was very responsive to the
installation's approach to satisfying it's housing requirements. While
we'll use the privatization initiatives to revitalize the existing base
inventory, the local community has and will continue to address deficit
reduction requirements.
Question. Are there any other similar whole-installation proposals
being worked?
Answer. We are investigating the potential to privatize the housing
inventory at Kirtland AFB. We will continue to look at other Air Force
projects for whole base privatization candidates.
Family Housing Construction--Los Angeles AFB, CA
Question. Describe for us the current status of the execution of
the previously appropriated fiscal year 1995 and fiscal 1997 projects
to provide new family housing units at the Navy's former White Point
site near San Pedro, California.
Answer. Both the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1997 projects at
the Navy's White Point site near San Pedro, California received
favorable bids on 7 March 97. The Air Force has transferred funds to
base contracting and an award is expected to be made by 17 March 97.
Question. Are there any remaining impediments to contract award,
such as scope or cost variation?
Answer. No, the project received good bids and is ready to be
awarded. The project will be awarded for a reduced scope of 71 units
based on a negotiated compromise between Los Angeles AFB and the Local
Homeowner's Association with regards to the development of the White
Point site.
Question. What is the estimated date of contract award?
Answer. Estimated date of contract award is 17 March 97.
Question. This location will house personnel working about 20 miles
away at Los Angeles AFB in El Segundo. What criteria does the Air Force
use for commuting time and distance for assignment to government-owned
housing?
Answer. The Air Force uses a 1-hour commute by a private-owned
vehicle during normal commuting hours, or within other limits to
satisfy mission requirements. Other limits will be used only by written
approval of the major command commander. The commuting time is measured
from the installation's headquarters building.
Bolling AFB, Washington DC (Replace Family Housing (46 Units),
$5,100,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 46 housing units
for $5,100,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing surplus of 591 units, and a projected housing surplus
of 171 units?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
1219 units at Bolling AFB, only 40% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy.
Edwards AFB, CA (Replace Family Housing (51 Units), $8,500,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 51 housing units
for $8,500,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing surplus of 419 units, and a projected housing surplus
of 138 units?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
1989 units at Edwards AFB, only 24% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy.
Vandenberg AFB, CA (Replace Family Housing (108 Units), $17,100,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 108 housing units
for $17,100,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing surplus of 10 units, and a projected housing deficit
of only [1] unit?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
2076 units at Vandenberg AFB, only 27% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy.
Columbus AFB, MS (Replace Family Housing (50 Units), $6,200,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 50 housing units
for $6,200,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing surplus of 375 units, and a projected housing surplus
of 153 units?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
733 units at Columbus AFB, none have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy.
Keesler AFB, MS (Replace Family Housing (40 Units), $5,000,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 40 housing units
for $5,000,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing surplus of 20 units, and a projected housing surplus
of 25 units and plans to replace an additional 104 units in the next
four years?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
1951 units at Keesler AFB, only 24% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy. In addition,
Keesler is one of the Air Force's privatization candidates.
Kirtland AFB, NM (Replacement Family Housing (180 Units), $20,900,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace housing units for
$20,900,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed, a
current housing surplus of 115 units, and a projected housing surplus
of 112 units?
Answer. While the budget detail does not currently identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
2121 units at Kirtland AFB, only 20% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy. In addition,
Kirtland is one of the Air Force's privatization candidates.
Grand Forks AFB, ND (Replace Family Housing (42 Units), $7,936,000)
Question. How do you justify a project to replace 42 housing units
for $7,936,000 at an installation that has nobody unacceptably housed,
a current housing deficit of 47 units, but a projected housing surplus
of 494 units?
Answer. While the budget detail does not correctly identify
unsuitable units, the requirement for revitalization does exist. Of the
2271 units at Grand Forks AFB, only 10% have been revitalized to meet
suitability standards. Regarding surplus units, Air Force policy is
consistent with GAO and DoD direction to ``continue to occupy and
operate surplus units until no longer economical to maintain and
repair.'' The current project complies with this policy.
Environmental Compliance--Air National Guard
Question. How large is the backlog of requirements for
environmental compliance projects, and how long will it take to buy-out
this backlog?
Answer. The Air National Guard can fully meet the currently
identified requirements for environmental compliance projects. While
there is no military construction backlog, only one Level I (not in
compliance) project ($1.5 million) is not included in this budget
request. That project, a fire training facility, will be programmed as
soon as land issues are resolved.
Expiring Authorization--Air National Guard
Question. For projects that have been previously appropriated but
not yet executed, list any authorizations that will expire in 1997,
1998, or 1999, if any, identifying the year of expiration.
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) has no project authorizations
expiring in 1997, 1998, or 1999. The Air Force General Counsel has
interpreted that the fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995 Defense
Authorization Acts provide the ANG with lump sum authorization. As
such, no authorization expires once a project is awarded in the
authorized fiscal year.
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Air National Guard
Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization, if any?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) has $33.08 million of excess
prior year authorization. In fiscal year 1997, the ANG applied $1.35
million of this excess to meet an authorization shortfall for the
Aircraft Arresting System project at Des Moines International Airport,
IA. A January 27, 1997 letter notified the respective committees of the
ANG's intent.
Air National Guard--End Strength
Question. What is the authorized end-strength for 1996 and 1997,
and the projected end-strength for 1998?
Answer. The Air National Guard's assigned military end strength for
Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 was 110,484. The authorized military end strength
for FY 1997 is 109,278 and the projected military end strength for FY
1998 is 107,377.
Base Closure--Air National Guard
Question. For the record, list the locations where facilities were
transferred to the Reserve components under base realignment and
closure.
Answer. A portion of Griffiss AFB, NY, was transferred to the Air
national Guard (ANG). The ANG will operate the Minimum Essential
airfield (MEA) and the Northeast Air Defense Sector. The MEA provides
interim support for U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division deployments
until permanent facilities are constructed at Fort Drum, NY.
Question. What increases in facility requirements have resulted
from such transfers?
Answer. The increases in facility requirements to the Air National
Guard at the Griffiss Minimum Essential Airfield (MEA) and the
Northeast Air Defense Sector are minimal. Upon completion of the
permanent airfield facilities at Fort Drum, NY, in fiscal year 1999,
the Griffiss MEA will be closed.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the Reserve
components under base realignment and closure, are the BRAC accounts
fully meeting the construction requirements at those locations?
Answer. There are no construction requirements at Griffiss Minimum
Essential Airfield, NY, but a $1.2 million alteration project is
planned for the Northeast Air Defense Sector. At Pease ANGB, NH, and
Rickenbacker ANGB, OH, Base Realignment and Closure accounts are fully
meeting construction requirements resulting from facility additions to
the Air National Guard cantonment areas.
Question. How far have such transfers gone toward resolving
facilities shortages for the Reserve components?
Answer. No facilities shortages exist at Griffiss Minimum Essential
Airfield, NY, or the Northeast Air Defense Sector. At Pease ANGB, NH,
and Rickenbacker ANGB, OH, the facility transfers and Base Realignment
and Closure-funded alteration projects have alleviated space
deficiencies and antiquated conditions.
Air National Guard Inventory
Question. What is the value of the current physical plant, and the
types, numbers, and average age of facilities?
Answer. The value of the Air National Guard physical plant is
$10.08 billion. The inventory of 5,521 buildings consists of various
types of facilities: operations, training, communications, aircraft
maintenance, supply, fuel storage, munitions storage, civil
engineering, administrative, vehicle maintenance, medical training, and
fire protection. The average age of these facilities is 37 years.
Air National Guard Backlog
Question. What is the current backlog of facility requirements?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) has identified and validated
$1.5 billion of military construction requirements. While the ANG
budget request addresses the most critical of these requirements, the
majority of projects had to be slipped beyond the Future Years Defense
Plan (FYDP). The FYDP includes funding for $449 million of facility
requirements. The ANG does not have sufficient funding in the FYDP to
address $375 million of other requirements.
Question. How much would be required annually to keep even with
facilities needs?
Answer. Although current military construction (MILCON) funding
levels are constrained to meet higher budget priorities, the most
critical facility projects are being funded. If these funding levels
were to increase, an average of $190 million per year would keep even
with Air National Guard facility needs. This figure would account for
new mission MILCON requirements and a viable recapitalization strategy
to eliminate numerous current mission facility deficiencies.
Air National Guard Family Housing
Question. List the locations and number of units of family housing
occupied by the Reserve components.
Answer. Air National Guard (ANG) personnel on extended active duty
are eligible and do occupy military family housing (MFH). The ANG does
not keep an accounting of how many personnel are actually occupying MFH
units or at what locations because the data is subject to change very
frequently as personnel move into and out of available MFH units. In
addition, the ANG does not own, operate, or maintain the MFH units that
ANG personnel do use.
Air National Guard Backlog of Maintenance and Repair
Question. What is the current backlog of maintenance and repair
funded under the operations and maintenance accounts, by component?
Answer. The Air National Guard backlog of maintenance and repair
(BMAR) at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1996 was $528 million. At the
present level of funding (which includes the $44 million added by
Congress in FY 1997 for Quality of Life), the BMAR is expected to be
$518 million at the end of FY 1997 and rise to $593 million at the end
of FY 1998.
Question. What is the annual funding requirement to avoid growth of
the backlog?
Answer. The annual funding requirement for the Air National Guard
to avoid growth of the backlog of maintenance and repair is $130
million.
Parametric Cost Estimates--Air National Guard
Question. To what extent do you rely on parametric cost estimation
in the design of military construction projects?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) primarily uses parametric cost
estimates for projects when there is inadequate lead-time to design a
project to 35 percent prior to the prior to the budget submission.
Parametric estimates are also used to help stretch limited planning and
design funds. Overall, less than 25 percent of ANG projects have had
parametric estimates.
Question. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of
parametric design estimates?
Answer. Parametric cost estimates are found to be equally accurate
in predicting the final cost of projects as those cost estimates
developed at the 35 percent project design phase by the design
architect-engineer.
Air National Guard Unspecified Minor Construction
Question. Provide for the record a list of unspecified minor
construction projects executed during fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and
obligations to date in fiscal year 1997, by location.
Answer. The attached chart identifies the Air National Guard
unspecified minor construction projects executed in fiscal years (FY)
1995 and 1996, and the FY 1997 obligations to date.
[Page 734--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Question. Has the appropriation met the needs over the last
two years?
Answer. The appropriation was sufficient to meet our most
urgent needs over the last two years. Given the number of
short-notice mission conversions requiring facility projects,
the Air National Guard historically has had to judiciously
balance these urgent requirements against he limited funding
availability.
Question. What shortfalls, if any, have been encountered?
Answer. As the Air Force has downsize, numerous missions
have been transferred to the Air National Guard (ANG). Since
inclusion in the military construction program is often late-
to-need, unspecified minor construction is used to satisfy the
most urgent facility needs. While available funding has been
able to meet these needs, in some cases, additional funding
would prevent ANG units from having to operate in inefficient
workarounds for longer periods of time. The following $3
million in requirements could not be funded in fiscal year
1997:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost in
Base/Sate Project millions of
dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camp Murray, WA.................... Add/alter .550
communications
training facility.
Stanly County, NC.................. Infrastructure 1.100
improvements.
Selfridge, MI...................... Beddown air traffic .790
control flights.
Kulis, AK.......................... Relocate aircraft .560
inspection shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Air National Guard
Question. How large is the inventory of unneeded facilities
awaiting demolition?
Answer. The inventory of unneeded facilities awaiting
demolition is 565,000 square feet. This represents 1.43 percent
of the Air National Guard facility inventory.
Question. Is the work funded exclusively under the
operations and maintenance account?
Answer. A majority of Air National Guard demolition work is
funded under the operations and maintenance account. In cases
where the facility to be demolished is in the way of new
construction, the demolition is funded within the military
construction project.
Question. How will this work be tracked to ensure that funds are
used for demolition?
Answer. A project is established for every Air National Guard
facility to be demolished, and obligations are tracked in our
accounting system. This allows requirements to be measured, and funds
to be allocated and tracked.
Question. What is the level of effort for this work for fiscal year
1997?
Answer. For fiscal year (FY) 1997, the Air National Guard has
identified $2 million of demolition projects to be accomplished with
operations and maintenance funds. In addition, $0.9 million of
demolition will be accomplished as part of the FY 1997 military
construction program.
Air National Guard Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation or in the prior years'
unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignment and closure, mission changes,
bilateral and multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include
on the list military construction projects, family housing construction
and construction improvement projects, and projects financed under the
base realignment and closure accounts?
Answer. The Air National Guard no longer requires the three
military construction projects identified below. In each case, the
funds were applied to prior year unspecified reductions, thereby
allowing effective management of the military construction program
deficit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Base Project Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995................. Buckley ANGB, CO............................ Aircraft wash and Deicing $400,000
apron--Reason for
cancellation: Using equipment
to recycle the deicing fluid
has provided a more cost
effective alternative.
1995................. Worcester ANGS, MA.......................... Add to and Alter Vehicle 350,000
Maintenance Facility--Reason
for cancellation: Unit
relocated and installation
closed as part of ANG
consolidation initiative.
1995................. Sepulveda ANGS, CA.......................... Replace Underground Storage 320,000
Tanks--Reason for
cancellation: A real property
maintenance project ($68,000)
eliminated the environmental
compliance deficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprogramming--Air National Guard
Question. Submit for the record a table which will show, by fiscal
year, the total amount approved by Congress for reprogrammings for the
last five years.
Answer. The attached table identifies all the reprogrammings
approved by Congress for the Air National Guard since fiscal year 1992.
The table groups the projects by the related reprogramming actions.
[Page 737--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Air National Guard Unobligated Balances
Question. What is being done to improve execution rates and
to avoid large unobligated balances?
Answer. The Air National Guard (ANG) execution rate has
been improving for the past three years. The large number of
small environmental compliance projects in the programs
required extensive coordination which delayed project
execution. Increased emphasis has been placed on early
execution at all levels within the ANG. Additional new tracking
procedures highlight those projects which require increased
management attention to ensure timely execution.
Question. For the record, submit a list of all projects for which
funds were previously appropriated, but which have not yet been
executed. This list should include, at a minimum, the year in which
funds were appropriated and the estimated contract award date.
Answer. The attached table lists all Air National Guard projects
for which funds were previously appropriated, but which have not yet
been executed. The estimated contact award date for each project is
provided.
[Pages 739 - 740--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Buckley Air National Guard Base, CO (Upgrade Base Infrastructure
Systems, $12,800,000)
Question. Is this an environmental compliance project? Are there
any environmental concerns or reviews which could impact this project?
Answer. No, it is not an environmental compliance project. As a
result of new mission beddowns and antiquated utilities and pavements
systems, the project also corrects sanitary sewer and storm drainage
deficiencies. If left unchecked these deficiencies could result in
degradation to the environment. As with all military construction
projects, an environmental assessment (EA) will be accomplished and
will begin in late March, 1997. While significant impacts for this
project are not anticipated, the Air National Guard must complete the
9-month assessment to comply with federal law.
Question. Can you quantify the operations and maintenance savings
or economies associated with upgrading the base infrastructure systems?
Answer. The ANG prepared an economic analysis July 1996 which
identified the following savings and economies:
Road/Streets: Reduced traffic delays and automobile accidents would
generate $2.7 million in savings over 20 years. In addition, a total of
$2.0 million in maintenance and repair costs would be avoided over 20
years.
Electrical Distribution System: Elimination of power outages would
save $1.0 million (lost time and equipment damage) over 20 years.
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, NC (Alter Fuel Systems
Maintenance and Corrosion Control Facility $2,550,000)
Question. Briefly describe the seven buildings to be demolished as
part of this project.
Answer. Each of the seven buildings to be demolished as part of
this project are economically unfeasible to upgrade. They contain
numerous deficiencies such as leaking roofs, deteriorated siding, water
intrusion, power fluctuations, and numerous health and safety hazards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year
Building No. Function SM built
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17...................... Operations and Training...... 280 1959
18...................... Disaster Preparedness........ 400 1967
20...................... Organizational Maintenance 270 1960
Shop.
22...................... Fuel Systems Maintenance Dock 670 1965
23...................... Aeromedical Evacuation 810 1965
Training.
24...................... General Purpose Shop......... 55 1968
37...................... Aircraft Corrosion Control *. 45 1978
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In the way of new construction.
Status of Funds
Question. Does the Air National Guard have sufficient funds to
fully execute all existing authorized projects?
Answer. Currently the Air National Guard (ANG) does not have
sufficient funds to fully execute all existing authorized projects. The
deficit is due to unspecified reductions in prior years and having to
reprogram project funding into planning and design to fund the design
to fund the design of congressional add-on projects. Through
cancellation of some projects no longer required and judicious
management of the military construction program, the ANG has been able
to reduce its program deficit to approximately $6 million. It is
anticipated that through continued close management of the program the
remaining deficit can be eliminated over time. However, with the
extremely small programs being submitted in fiscal years 1998 and 1999
it will become more difficult to absorb this deficit without having to
cut the scope of some projects or deferring appropriated projects.
Question. If all current working estimates are tallied, are there
excess funds?
Answer. No, the Air National Guard military construction program
has a deficit of $6 million.
Environmental Compliance--Air Force Reserve
Question. How large is the backlog or requirements for
environmental compliance projects, and how long will it take to buy-out
this backlog?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has a total environmental
compliance MILCON requirement of $8.15 million. With our current
funding levels, we should be able to buy-out this backlog by our FY
2001 program.
Expiring Authorizations--Air Force Reserve
Question. For projects that have been previously appropriated but
not yet executed, list any authorizations that will expire in 1997,
1998, or 1999, if any, identifying the year of expiration.
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has no project with
authorization that will expire in 1997, 1998, or 1999.
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Air Force Reserve
Question. For the record, what is the amount of excess prior year
authorization, if any?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has no excess prior year
authorization.
Air Force Reserve End-Strength
Question. What is the authorized end-strength for 1996 and 1997,
and the projected end-strength for 1998?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's authorized and projected
end-strength is tabulated below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-strength Military Civilians Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Authorization..................... 73,668 6,119 79,787
1997 Authorization..................... 73,311 5,617 78,928
1998 Projection........................ 73,431 5,413 78,844
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Closure--Air Force Reserve
Question. For the record, list the locations where facilities were
transferred to the Reserve components under base realignment and
closure.
Answer. Facilities were transferred to the Air Force Reserve
Command at Bergstrom AFT, TX; Carswell AFB, TX; Grissom AFB, IN;
Homestead AFB, FL; and March AFB, CA. However, with the redirect of the
1995 realignment and closure law, our facilities at Bergstrom were
transferred to the city of Austin, TX and the 10th Numbered Air Force
moved from Bergstrom to Carswell.
Question. What increases in facility requirements have resulted
from such transfers?
Answer. With the four rounds of base closure and realignments (ie.,
BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995), the Air Force Reserve Command has
experienced a net gain of two (2) installations. This transfer has
increased the number and square footage of Air Force Reserve Command
facilities by 21 percent. This increase in facilities includes airfield
pavements, control towers, and other base operating support facilities
that are not normally associated with Air Force Reserve Command
installations. Typically, the Air Force Reserve Command is tenanted at
an Active Air Force installation or metropolitan airport where these
airfield facilities are owned and maintained by the host organization.
When the decision has been made to realign an active base to a
reserve installation, the facilities and the funding to maintain and
operate these facilities, is transferred from the losing command to the
Air Force Reserve Command. However, nearly two years pass from the
realignment decision to when the Air Force Reserve Command actually
becomes host of the installation. During this period, the losing
command often reprioritizes its maintenance and repair fund to its
other installations, so when the Air Force Reserve Command accepts its
new installation, the facilities may need work to bring them to an
acceptable condition. We have spent as much as $4 million in
maintenance and repair work on transferred facilities at a newly gained
installation.
Question. For facilities that have been transferred to the Reserve
components under base realignment and closure, are the BRAC accounts
fully meeting the construction requirements at those locations?
Answer. No. BRAC funding is so limited that any cost increases on
awarded projects jeopardizes award of other valid projects. For
example, funding for seven FY 1996 BRAC projects totals $7,530,000.
This funding level was based on the original estimates for five Active
Air Force projects ($5,330,000) and two Air Force Reserve Command
projects ($2,200,000). However, the five Active Air Force projects were
awarded at $5,648,000 and one Air Force Reserve Command was awarded at
$1,370,000, leaving only $512,000 of the final FY 1996 Air Force
Reserve Command BRAC requirement. Unfortunately, the final project is
estimated at $1,050,000. The result is a shortfall of $538,000 that is
jeopardizing award of a valid squadron operations facility at General
Billy Mitchell ARS, WI.
Question. How far have such transfers gone toward resolving
facilities shortages for the Reserve components?
Answer. Base realignments and closures have not resolved Air Force
Reserve Command facility shortages because BRAC rules prohibit use of
BRAC funding to ``get well.'' Any action to resolve facility shortages
is funded via the Current Mission MILCON budget request process.
Air Force Reserve Inventory
Question. What is the value of the current physical plant, and the
types, numbers, and average age of facilities?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's current physical plant is
valued at $5.5 billion. It is comprised of 1,246 buildings with 12.6
million square feet of space and an average age of 29 years.
Air Force Reserve Backlog
Question. What is the current backlog of facility requirements?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's current MILCON backlog is
$513.5 million, of which $8.6 million is included in our FY 1998 Budget
Request.
Question. How much would be required annually to keep even with
facilities needs?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command would require an annual
MILCON investment of $86 million to keep even with its facilities
needs. This is based on a current plant valued at $5.5 billion, and a
plant replacement cycle of 75 years (25 years longer than the industry
standard). Dividing $5.5 billion by 75 years gives an annual MILCON
project requirement of $73 million. Another $5 million is required
annually for unspecified minor construction (approximately the current
level of funding). Planning and design would be another $8 million
(i.e., 10 percent of the annual MILCON and unspecified minor
construction project requirement).
Air Force Reserve Family Housing
Question. List the locations and number of units of family housing
occupied by the Reserve components.
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has no family housing units.
Air Force Reserve Backlog of Maintenance and Repair
Question. What is the current backlog of maintenance and repair
funded under the questions and maintenance accounts, by component?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has a $200 million backlog in
maintenance and repair.
Question. What is the annual funding requirement to avoid growth of
the backlog?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command's FY 1997 RPM program totals
$32.2 million. An annual RPM investment of $73.3 million (in FY 1997
dollars) is needed to avoid growth in the backlog. This is an increase
of $41.1 million to the RPM funding level in FY 1997. Typically, the
Air Force Reserve Command's annual RPM funding level is $60 million,
and an annual increase of $13 million would halt growth in the backlog.
Parametric Cost Estimates--Air Force Reserve
Question. To what extend do you rely on parametric cost estimation
in the design of military construction projects?
Answer. All of the programming documents for Air Force Reserve
Command MILCON projects are estimated using the parametric method.
Question. What degree of confidence do you have in the accuracy of
parametric design estimates?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command feels the parametric estimate
is the most accurate method of estimating construction costs during the
programming stages of a project (i.e., for DD Forms 1391 submitals to
Congress). The accuracy of the parametric estimate is due to the fact
that it is based on a historic record of actual construction costs for
similar facilities.
[Pages 744 - 745--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Air Force Reserve
Question. How large is the inventory of unneeded facilities
awaiting demolition?
Answer. The Air Force Reserve Command has 67 buildings (180,998
SF), 4 storage tanks, 1 firing range, and 2 utility systems awaiting
demolition. Total cost for demolition is $2.72 million.
Question. Is the work funded exclusively under the operations and
maintenance account?
Answer. Yes, but severe O&M underfunding has resulted in no funds
being available to accomplish demolition.
Question. How will this work be tracked to ensure funds are used
for demolition?
Answer. Requirements are consolidated by Headquarters Air Force
Reserve Command and as O&M funds become available they will be issued
to bases on a project by project basis. Completed demolition actions
are reported to HQ Air Force on a quarterly basis.
Question. What is the level of effort for this work for fiscal year
1997?
Answer. Planned demolition for fiscal year 1997 was 37 buildings, 3
storage tanks, and 2 utility systems at a cost of $1.1 million. Due to
constrained funding and unanticipated rate increases in the AFRC O&M
appropriation, none of this work will be accomplished in fiscal year
1997.
Air Force Reserve Projects No Longer Required
Question. Please provide for the record a list of any projects,
either in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation or in prior years'
unobligated balances, that are no longer required due to force
structure changes, base realignment and closure, mission changes,
bilateral and multilateral agreements, or other reasons. Please include
on the list military construction projects, family housing construction
and construction improvement projects, and projects financed under the
base realignment and closure accounts.
Answer. The Air Force Reserve has one project that is no longer
required. The Fiscal Year 1997 Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station
Deicing Facility (PA $340K). The project is no longer required because
of a recently completed agreement to joint use an Air National Guard
deicing facility at Niagara. Funds released from this project will be
used to cover high bids received on other fiscal year 1997 projects.
[Pages 747 - 748--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Westcover ARB, MA (Fire Training Facility, $1,800,000)
Question. Where has training been conducted since the existing
training facility closed due to Clean Water Act violations in 1994?
Answer. Firefighter live fire training has not been accomplished
since the closure of the existing facility. Certification of Air Force
reserve firefighters has expired. This is a DoD wide problem.
Firefighters must train on-station, but most training facilities have
been closed due to environmental problems. For this reason, the Air
Force Reserve has committed a large portion of its limited MILCON
resources to construct environmentally safe fire training facilities at
all its installations, as have the other air components. This project
completes the Air Force Reserve Fire Pit replacement program.
Question. Why isn't the facility that has been used since 1994 an
option?
Answer. The use of nearby DoD fire training facilities was not
feasible since AFRC locations are not sufficiently manned to allow
protection of the installation while simultaneously deploying teams to
off-base training sites. Current guidelines require firefighters be
able to respond to base emergencies within 5 minutes. Similarly, no
other DoD training is available that satisfies the stringent response
time. Phase training is also unacceptable because fire crews must train
as a team to obtain the full benefit of live-fire training. Failure to
provide adequate response capability would result in a cessation of
flying operations.
Minneapolis-St Paul ARS, (Add/Alter Aircraft Corrosion Facility,
$1,550,000)
Question. Are there any reviews or concerns which could impact this
project?
Answer. This project has been reviewed for compliance with all
existing and pending environmental regulations. There are no
environmental concerns regarding this project. Failure to accomplish
this project will keep us out of compliance of new air quality
regulations.
Question. Describe the communication support included in the cost
of this project ($100,000).
Answer. The $100K consists of $20K for communications wiring and
support in the facility and $80K utility trenching.
Youngstown-Warren IAP-ARS, Ohio (Add/Alter Base Supply, $2,800,000)
Question. Has the timing of this project been coordinated with the
initial delivery of the additional C-130 aircraft?
Answer. With the completion of the additional ramp space (funded in
the FY96 program) and the new C-130 hangar (project funded in the FY93
program), all eight additional C-130s have been delivered to Youngstown
ARS.
Question. Briefly describe the facilities to be vacated from this
consolidation effort, and the plans for re-use or demolition of these
facilities.
Answer. Building 504 will utilized by Contracting and the Reserve
Civil Engineer Squadron. Building 503 will be utilized to store Base
Civil Engineer work order and job order materials and CES training
assets.
Status of Funds
Question. Does the Air Force Reserve have sufficient funds to fully
execute all existing authorized projects?
Answer. No. The difference between appropriated amounts and the
current working estimates for all Air Force Reserve Command MILCON
projects from FY 1993 through FY 1997 is only $251,000. Low bids for
most FY 1997 projects are coming in higher than the current working
estimate, although none are 25 percent over the programmed amount
(i.e., the threshold for formal reprogramming action). It appears the
Air Force Reserve Command's FY 1997 appropriations is nearly $1 million
short. The Air Force Reserve Command is considering canceling one of
its FY 1997 projects, completing it with unspecified minor construction
funds, and using the resulting MILCON savings to execute its remaining
FY 1997 projects.
Question. If all current working estimates are tallied, are there
excess funds?
Answer. As the following chart shows, the difference between
appropriated amounts and the current working estimates (based on 100
percent project designs) for all Air Force Reserve Command MILCON
projects from FY 1993 through FY 1997 is only $251,000. This excess
will not cover the high bids now coming in for most FY 1997 projects.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Appropriated CWE Excess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997................................ 42.579 42.554 0.025
1996................................ 29.363 29.137 0.226
1995................................ 49.502 49.502 0.000
1994................................ 65.320 65.320 0.000
1993................................ 20.900 20.900 0.000
-----------------------------------
Totals........................ 207.664 207.413 0.251
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Clerk's note.--End of questions for the record submitted
by Chairman Packard.]
[Clerk's note.--Questions for the record submitted by Mrs.
Meek.]
Barracks at Homestead ARB
Question. I understand that there are two barracks buildings on the
Homestead Air Reserve base that currently are far below standard. Why
should ``bigger'' taxpayer dollars continually be spent to house
reserve aircrews and mission support personnel off base when a one-time
expenditure can correct that situation permanently for less?
Answer. In the long run, a one-time MILCON expenditure is a more
economical solution than off base contract quarters. However, with the
current scarcity of MILCON funding, contract quarters is often the only
viable alternative. The Air Force Reserve Command's entire MILCON
project allocation within the FYDP (i.e., the FY 1998 through 2003
program) totals only $116.3 million. In spite of this limited
allocation, the Air Force Reserve Command has programmed a $4.6 million
lodging project for Homestead ARB in the FY 2003 program. The second
project, and numerous others, fall outside the FYDP due to the limited
MILCON allocation.
Question. Why should recruitment and retention of reserve
personnel, whose presence helps to stimulate a still recovering South
Dade economy, be degraded through forced use of inadequate facilities?
Answer. We agree that inadequate facilities can adversely affect
recruitment and retention of reserve personnel. That is why the Air
Force Reserve Command considers its people's working and training
facilities part of its Quality of Life program. However, with the
reduced DoD budgets, MILCON funding has been diverted to help fund the
force modernization effort. What little MILCON funding remains is
allocated toward the most critical needs. The Air Force has developed a
MILCON allocation process which prioritizes Active, Guard and Reserve
MILCON projects in one integrated list. MILCON funding is then
allocated to the projects at the top of that list. Unfortunately, after
funding is allocated toward projects supporting new mission beddowns
and specifically defined quality of life requirements, very little is
available for the type of projects you mention. That is why the Air
Force Reserve Command has no current mission MILCON projects in its FY
1998 budget request.
Question. When DoD itself has vowed to address the inadequacy of
housing for enlistees, why should facilities for the 482nd Fighter
Wing, which already suffered serious damage from Hurricane Andrew, be
allowed to deteriorate beyond renovations capability when minimal
dollars with maximal benefits could upgrade the facilities to current
Air Force lodging standards?
Answer. DoD has addressed the inadequacy of housing for the
enlisted by fencing $70 million in MILCON funding from FY 1996 through
FY 1998 to improve Air Force dorms. The Air Force decided to spend the
$70 million on its most critical enlisted housing need (i.e., to
replace permanent party dorms with gang latrines). Unfortunately for
reservists, we have no permanent party dorms. Even though many of our
lodging facilities have gang latrines, they are not permanent party
facilities for they only house reservists during drill weekends. With
the current level of funding, we will not see any fenced DoD dollars
for temporary quarters until well after the FYDP. However, because we
recognize that temporary quarters are critical to reservists, we have
programmed $4.6 million in the FY 2003 program to alter the lodge at
Homestead ARB to current standards.
[Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mrs. Meek.]
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE
WITNESS
HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
IDAHO
Statement of the Chairman
Mr. Packard. We'll open the hearing. This hearing is for
outside witnesses. That includes Members of Congress, of
course, and they will be heard as they arrive and as they are
scheduled. Then we will hear from some of the different
organizations, primarily that relate and represent different
branches, the National Guard and other Quality of Life groups
that are interested in, of course, what this Subcommittee does.
We're extremely pleased to have Mr. Crapo from Idaho as our
first witness, and we'll hear from you, as you wish. We have
your statement. And if you'd like to summarize, that's fine, or
if you'd like to read it, that's fine.
Statement of Hon. Michael D. Crapo
Mr. Crapo. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
giving me the opportunity to discuss some of the Idaho projects
in this year's budget, and I will quickly summarize the
statement.
In recent years there's been a very significant change in
the political and geographic climate worldwide that resulted in
significant restructuring of our defense policy, as you know;
and along with that has been the recognition that we need to
focus our priorities.
And, to me, one of those big priorities is the military
Quality of Life issues. And the President's budget includes
several projects in Idaho that will raise the quality of life
for our service men and women and their families.
At the Mountain Home Air Force Base in our district, we
should ideally operate with a total of 2,224 family housing
units and currently the base is attempting to manage with only
1,525 units. And of those, 218 are at a substandard level with
1,004 needing minor renovations. And this has been an issue
that our entire delegation has been working on in different
ways for the last couple of years, but we are hopeful that we
can make some significant progress in this year's budget.
There's been $11 million requested in the 1998 budget
proposal, which will replace 60 of those units and make a big
contribution toward improving the quality of life in other ways
at the other facilities.
Also, as you know, Mountain Home Air Force Base is the home
to one of our premiere composite wings. And the Air Force
continues to upgrade this wing at its complex, and the upgrade
that's the key upgrade this year is the beddown of the B-1
bomber, which will be one of the final and significant parts of
completing that composite wing.
And in order to do that, we are seeking the--a total of
$17.8 million in the form of three projects: That's the B-1B
armament shop for $2.7 million, the B-1B dormitory for $9
million, and the B-1B squadron operations/aircraft maintenance
unit at $6.1 million. And those are very critical to make sure
that we can finalize the beddown, andnot only of the B-1, but
the, but the final operations to make that composite wing operational.
Those guys are the first ones when we are in a conflict who
go out and we need to have them in top condition.
And, lastly, I would ask your support of a C-130 composite
hangar and shops, which is a $12 million request, for the Air
National Guard located at Gowen Field near Boise. That project
directly supports the Guard's new mission of the beddown of
seventeen A-10's and four C-130 aircraft.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know you're very familiar with these
issues already, and so I won't belabor the point. I just would
appreciate your serious consideration of these issues, because
we've tried to narrow it down to the ones that are critical,
knowing that you've got a tough job, and these are the ones
we'd like you to focus on, if you could.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Crapo. I am familiar
with that. I grew up in that area, as you may know. I know
Mountain Home quite well. And it's just a relatively small
community with a fairly large base.
Are there units of housing available in that small town to
make up the difference or is it mostly apt to be on base?
Mr. Crapo. We do have units in the town. In fact, one of,
one of the--I told you our delegation has been working on this
for several years, and one of the things we have tried to do is
to get the commitment for financing from the private sector to
try to build some units in the town, or even as far away as
Boise, 40 miles away. And there are efforts underway to do
that, and there are some--there is some progress being made
there. But we still find that even with that private sector
effort that we are helping to facilitate that we still need to
have the upgrades of the base units that we've identified here.
Mr. Packard. Is Gowen Field a joint-use base, or airport,
now?
Mr. Crapo. When you say ``joint-use,'' you mean between the
Air Force and the----
Mr. Packard. And a commercial airport, yes.
Mr. Crapo. Commercial. Yes, it is at--it is located right
next to the commercial airport and is a part of it, but I
believe that their airstrip is separate. I'm not sure on that.
I may be giving you bad information.
Mr. Packard. When I lived in that area, grew up in that
area. there was no military component at Gowen Field. It was
just Gowen Field.
Mr. Crapo. So, you know, you're probably right then. It
probably does have some----
Mr. Packard. I just didn't know.
Mr. Crapo [continuing]. Private sector utilization.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Crapo. All right.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Hefner is here.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Hefner, did you have any statement you'd
like to make?
Mr. Hefner. No, I do not.
Mr. Packard. If you have no questions of Mr. Crapo, then
we'll have him----
Mr. Hefner. No.
Mr. Packard. He's completed his statement and we have a
copy.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Michael D. Crapo follows:]
[Pages 754 - 757--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
NEBRASKA NATIONAL GUARD
WITNESS
HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA
Mr. Packard. Mr. Bereuter, you just walked in at the right
time. Come right on up.
We're delighted to have Mr. Bereuter from Nebraska with us
and he is second on our agenda and we'd like to not waste your
time a bit, let you come and sit down and give your statement.
We have a copy of your statement. You might wish to summarize,
but do as you wish.
Statement of Honorable Doug Bereuter
Mr. Bereuter. Thank you very much, Chairman Packard, Mr.
Hefner. Nice to see you this morning. It's a very rare occasion
for me to come before this Subcommittee. I think it's been once
in 19 years. In fact, I didn't know where the hearing room was.
But I do come before you today to express my support for
two projects that are not included in the Administration's
Military Construction Appropriation Request for the upcoming
fiscal year.
The first of these is a ``Joint Air-Army National Guard
Medical Training Facility'' to replace the utterly inadequate
Korean War relic now on the National Guard base in the Lincoln
Municipal Airport in Lincoln, Nebraska. The existing clinic is
inaccessible, antiquated, undersized, housed in a converted
warehouse with high-lead-content water and asbestos problems.
It's only 44% of the required size for such a facility,
comprising only 7,300 square feet to meet the
minimumrequirement for such a facility of 16,600 square feet.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the existing center
is ill-suited to the Army and Air National Guard's training
needs in fundamental physical and dental and lab work. There
are not--there is not enough examination room space and the
clinic lab is little more than a small apartment-sized kitchen.
The National Guard units are unable to utilize additional basic
diagnostic equipment as treadmills, panographic dental x-ray
machines, because there is simply no room for any machines in
the existing clinic.
Finally, the current facility has seen no renovation in its
forty-three-year history.
Frankly, I'm concerned about the health hazard the existing
clinic itself poses to our National Guard personnel. Unless a
new facility is constructed, training of Army and Air National
Guard units will continue to suffer, a loss that will
inevitably affect the quality of care of military personnel
receiving treatment in existing structure. Of the two projects
that I am going to speak about, the joint clinic is certainly
the most immediate need.
I'm also--I would suggest that the American taxpayers
received their money's worth from the cobbled-together facility
that's being used many times over.
The funding requirements for the new facility are unique in
that both the Army and the Air National Guard are to provide
resources in accordance with the square footage assigned to
each. And as you will see in the testimony on page four, the
amount would be $1,616,500 for the Air National Guard (53% of
the total) and $1,433,500 for the Army National Guard (47% of
the total cost) for a total of $3,050,000.
The second project I would like to bring to the
Subcommittee's attention is proposed construction of a modern
outdoor rifle and pistol qualification range at Camp Ashland,
Nebraska to replace the limited facility that's been shut down
because it's deemed to be a danger to civilian populations in
the area.
There are no alternative ranges for National Guard training
anywhere within acceptable travel distance. National Guard
units from all over eastern Nebraska would have to travel from
Lincoln to Fort Riley, Kansas--100 miles away--or Hastings
Training area--90 miles distance. Other units in eastern
Nebraska would have double that travel, depending on the
location.
Reliance on these distant ranges eats up scarce training
time in unproductive transit, which in turn reduces the
readiness of such units.
This new range would support all units of the Nebraska
National--Army National Guard to accomplish necessary combat
weapons training and qualification.
Summarizing and getting to the final point, the total
project cost for the 40-lane 25-meter rifle and pistol
qualification range, which includes side walls, covered firing
lines, overhead baffles, safety berms, target sites, and
necessary supporting facilities, including target storage and
repair buildings, range lighting, and security fencing, is
$1,141,500.
I recognize you have lots of budget constraints and the
projects I have mentioned are important, however, to the
health, morale, and readiness of thousands of National Guard
personnel in our state, so I would ask for your favorable
consideration in the difficult task that you have in trying to
accommodate all the needs of the country.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. Do you have
some questions, Mr. Hefner?
Mr. Hefner. Outside of all the reasons you've listed, it's
in pretty good shape other than that, isn't it?
Mr. Bereuter. We actually have some Polaroid shots, if
you'd like to have a first-hand look.
Mr. Hefner. Oh, no. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. On the medical training facility, how far away
is the next medical training--is this the Army's only medical
training center for the National Guard?
Mr. Bereuter. Yes, it is.
Mr. Packard. It is?
Mr. Bereuter. I'm absolutely certain. It's the Air Guard.
Because that's the only location for the Air Guard in the State
of Nebraska.
Mr. Packard. And it trains all of your medical and
auxiliary medical personnel?
Mr. Bereuter. Yes. Mostly----
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Dental----
Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. For the service----
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Dental and physicians----
Mr. Bereuter. Correct.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. As well? On the second one, your
firing range, do you have no firing range there now? This would
be a new range?
Mr. Bereuter. We have an outdoor firing range, but it's
been shut down for reasons of civilian safety. They were fired
from across the Platte River. There were too many concerns that
in fact civilians on the other side would beaffected by stray
bullets, and so they shut it down about a year or two ago.
Mr. Packard. So they are now using Fort Riley or Hastings?
Mr. Bereuter. Correct.
Mr. Packard. I see. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hefner. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more?
Mr. Packard. Yes, of course.
Mr. Hefner. On this combination of the medical facility and
an armory--is an armory in here?
Mr. Bereuter. No.
Mr. Hefner. Okay.
Mr. Bereuter. No armory.
Mr. Hefner. Where are you on design on this facility?
Mr. Bereuter. The architectural--the preliminary
architectural work has been done by the Guard with state funds.
We have----
Mr. Hefner. Well, are there some state matching funds that
go along with these projects? I know in North Carolina we
have----
Mr. Bereuter. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Hefner. Okay.
Mr. Bereuter. This is not an armory, but simply a medical
facility. There is a major Army National Guard facility side by
side with the Air National Guard facility on Lincoln Municipal
Airport. It is the largest single location for the Army
National Guard in the State of Nebraska and it's the only one
for the Air Guard in the State.
Mr. Packard. Is it close--excuse me.
Mr. Hefner. Now, I was just curious about that.
Mr. Packard. Is it close to a hospital?
Mr. Bereuter. It is, it is close to Lincoln private medical
facilities, yes. It would be about seven or eight miles to the
closest hospital in Lincoln.
Mr. Packard. Do they coordinate activities or training
there and use local hospitals in their training, or do they do
it all at the clinic?
Mr. Bereuter. I think they do it all at the clinic, but I'd
like to get back to you and give----
[The information follows:]
[Pages 761 - 764--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Okay.
Mr. Bereuter [continuing]. You a certain answer to your
question.
Mr. Packard. And you say neither of these have been in the
President's budget?
Mr. Bereuter. Neither are.
Mr. Packard. Do you know whether the Guard has submitted
these as priorities in their budget requests?
Mr. Bereuter. They have. That's my understanding.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bereuter. You're welcome. My material comes at the
request of the Guard.
Mr. Packard. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Doug Bereuter follows:]
[Pages 766 - 767--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
FORT CAMPBELL
WITNESSES
HON. ED BRYANT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
KENTUCKY
Joint Statement of the Honorable Ed Bryant and the Honorable Ed
Whitfield
Mr. Packard. Mr. Bryant and Mr. Whitfield? We're glad to
have you here. And, again, we have your written statements, and
you may summarize or whatever your pleasure is. We appreciate
you being here.
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Packard and Mr. Hefner, Congressman
Bryant and I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today
in support of the FY 98 Military Construction Request for the
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell,
Kentucky. As you know, the 101st is the third largest Army
Division and the home of nearly 24,000 soldiers. It is a
Division rich in history and strongly supported by the
surrounding civilian communities in Kentucky and Tennessee.
In fact, over the last four years, AUSA has designated the
support group, the AUSA Group at the Fort Campbell, as, really,
the best in the country. This year, the President's budget
request includes $50.6 million for two projects at Fort
Campbell--$37 million to complete construction of the barracks
complex for the 3rd Brigade and $13.6 million to build a
consolidated medical/dental clinic. Congressman Bryant and I
fully support both of those projects.
But in addition to the requested projects, we are seeking
your support for several other priority projects we feel are
critical to fully support the infrastructure requirements of
the Division and improve the quality of life for the
soldiersand families at Fort Campbell.
Fort Campbell has the largest--well, our number-one
priority is completion of Phase II of the consolidated
Education Center. The Congress authorized and appropriated $8.1
million for Phase I of the Ed Center in Fiscal Year 1995 and
the first phase will be completed this summer. We're requesting
your support for an additional $6.6 million to complete the
project.
Fort Campbell has the largest educational program of any
Division-level installation in Forces Command. College
enrollment in the education program is 50 students per 100
military personnel--as I said, the highest in Forces Command.
Phase I of the Education Center includes 21 classrooms, an
auditorium, five science labs, three computer labs; and Phase
II will provide 28 additional classrooms for a total of 49, a
vocational technology center, and additional parking
facilities.
And I would like to, Mr. Chairman, show you some pictures
here. These are the ``before'' pictures of the Ed Center and
this is ``after'' completion of Phase I.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 769 - 781--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Whitfield. Now, my second request is for $9.9 million
to construct two standard-size vehicle maintenance shops with
7.5 ton cranes, deployment storage, oil storage, sentry
stations, concrete hardstand, and parking to accommodate the
626th Forward Support Battalion and the 86th Combat Support
Hospital unit. A specialized materiel storage warehouse will be
provided for the hospital unit.
I have taken additional photos at the existing maintenance
shop that we would like to request and would like for you to
look at those.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 783 - 787--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Whitfield. The soldiers who work at these shops tell us
that conditions are deplorable and that a decent work
environment is important for both safety and morale. They are
proud of their work, but it could be done more efficiently and
effectively with the right equipment and facilities. And these
existing maintenance shops have been there for many, many, many
years.
So, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
talk about this and I would now like to recognize Congressman
Bryant to conclude our testimony.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hefner. Last year,
with the support of this Subcommittee, Congress authorized and
appropriated an additional $9.9 million to upgrade the 104
company-grade family housing units at Werner Park--at Fort
Campbell, of course. Our third request is for $8.8 million to
upgrade and renovate an additional 86 units. This is Phase IV
and this is request--this request will complete the entire
Werner Park project for a total of 508 units, which, again, are
company-grade units.
Work at these units includes increasing the net square
footage, replacing the heating and air conditioning conditions,
redesign the kitchen and bathrooms, and the additional of a
family room and laundry room. Carports, exterior storage,
driveways, parking areas and patio areas will all be replaced,
and funds will repair or replace utilities and replace or
upgrade all gutters, sidewalks, and streets. Common area
recreational facilities will also be constructed.
I personally have visited these. They are wonderful
additions. As a six-year veteran of the Army who has lived in
housing, I know how important it is and, again, this is a good
work for our soldiers.
Finally, knowing of the Subcommittee's strong interest in
addressing the Army's housing crisis, we are asking the
Subcommittee's support for an additional $38 million for Phase
I construction of a 336-person barracks complex for the 101st
Support Command (DISCOM). This would be the first phase of a
three-phase project to construct a 1,008-person barracks and
administrative complex for DISCOM and is virtually identical to
the barracks replacement project that Congress has approved in
the past for the 3rd Brigade.
This last set of photos, and I'll simply pass these to you,
do give you a better understanding of the conditions of the
barracks at Fort Campbell and why it's important to be
replaced. But, basically, outside, interior views of some of
the leakage and some of the exposed wiring and so forth, and
just the overall run-down condition of some of the remaining
barracks.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hefner, we want to thank you for the
hard work that you have done for--on behalf of the men and
women in our Armed Forces who rely on your efforts to focus on
the Quality of Life issues that are often overlooked by the
Pentagon. Upgrading and replacing weapon systems and equipment
is very important but, in our judgment, giving soldiers a
decent and safe place to work and live is equally important. It
is the work of this Subcommittee that recognizes that fact, and
it is your work that helps our soldiers fulfill their missions.
Mr. Packard, I want to congratulate you on your selection
as the new Chairman of this very important Subcommittee, and we
look forward to working with you to insure continued
Congressional support for our 101st Division (Air Assault) and
Fort Campbell.
[Prepared Joint Statement of Hon. Ed Bryant and Hon. Ed
Whitfield follows:]
[Pages 790 - 792--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
GUARD PROJECTS AT HENDERSON AND CENTERVILLE
WITNESS
HON. ED BRYANT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Statement of the Honorable Ed Bryant
Mr. Bryant. I ask the Subcommittee's continued indulgence
as I bring to your attention two other projects of special
importance to me and my constituents in the 7th District of
Tennessee.
However, before I move on to my other request, I just want
to reiterate my strong support, and it is strong support,
because we had our Fort Campbell people up yesterday from the
communities on either side of the border in Kentucky and
Tennessee, and they're very strong for this completing Phase II
of the Education Center there at Fort Campbell. We have a
wonderful university there that is doing a tremendous job with
these extension type courses there at Fort Campbell.
As I'm sure you're aware, opportunities for higher
education have become a prime factor in our ability to attract
young soldiers as volunteers, and we're seeing that even more
today as some quotas--we're having difficulty meeting some
quotas, quite frankly. It's been a successful recruiting
incentive and it has enhanced our enlistment success both at
Fort Campbell and elsewhere throughout the nation. Many
universities, including Austin Peay State University in
Clarksville, the university I referred to, have provided this
invaluable opportunity on post. Completion of the Education
Center is a part of the Army's five-year plan, and this
Subcommittee's support in FY 98 would allow the Army to
complete this two-phase project.
Mr. Chairman, with the remaining few minutes of my time, a
few seconds, I should say, I would also like to express my
support for funding of two National Guard armories at Henderson
and Centerville, Tennessee.
The Tennessee Army National Guard provided many units in
support of the U.S. Army in the Desert Shield/Desert Storm
operations. The Tennessee National Guard has always been ready
for combat when called upon and has a long proud history of
support to our nation's defense of our--to the national defense
of our nation. I might add that we did come out of North
Carolina in the beginning. We trace our heritage back today.
The present armory in Centerville was constructed in 1973
and has only 65% of the space authorized for the unit. Storage
and training space is a major problem as well as kitchen space,
administrative area, and maintenance training work bays. An
assessment of the present facility has been made by the
Nashville Headquarters and it has been determined that the
construction of a new facility is the most cost effective
alternative. The construction of a new armory is estimated to
cost approximately $2,340,000 in Federal funds, which is 75%
Federally funded.
The present armory in Henderson, which is where my home
town is, was constructed in 1976. The facilities are antiquated
and do not conform with the current National Guard criteria and
were not designed to support an artillery battalion. Storage
and training space is a major problem, as well as kitchen
space, administrative area, and maintenance and storage at the
operation--or at the Organizational Maintenance Shop.
An assessment of the present facility has shown that the
construction of a new facility is the most cost effective
alternative. The construction of the new 43,118 square foot
armory is estimated to cost approximately $3.8 million in
Federal funds, which is 75% Federally funded.
In the case of both armories, the hosting cities have
agreed to provide the real estate for the construction, and the
transfer of this property to the State will be at no cost to
the State or Federal governments. The city will further provide
12\1/2\ percent of the construction cost of the new facility
and the State will provide the remaining 12\1/2\ percent.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of this
Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
As one who has served in the Army, the commitment this
Subcommittee has made to the well-being of our troops does not
go unnoticed nor is it unappreciated by the men and women who
live and work on our military installations.
Representative Whitfield and I would be more than happy to
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Hefner. Fayetteville is not in your district, is it?
Mr. Bryant. No, sir, but I spent a long time in
Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Mr. Hefner. Oh. But Fayetteville----
Mr. Bryant. Right. But Fayetteville is not in my district.
Mr. Hefner. You know, I still have family in Tennessee. I
was born in Tennessee. But they're going to build a log cabin
where I was born.
Mr. Whitfield. So that you can say you were born in a log
cabin.
Mr. Bryant. Did you kill a bear when you were only three?
Mr. Hefner. No. I'm strictly an environmentalist.
Mr. Bryant. Well, Mr. Crockett also served in Congress.
Mr. Hefner. We certainly appreciate and I'm glad that you
did the explanation--especially on the armories that will give
us the matching funds. And the locals are going to put up----
Mr. Bryant. The land and 12\1/2\ percent and the State
12\1/2\ percent.
Mr. Hefner. Has that already been appropriated?
Mr. Bryant. I----
Mr. Hefner. In the State legislature?
Mr. Bryant. Yes, as far as I know. They have----
Mr. Hefner. How about----
Mr. Bryant. Commitments have been made.
Mr. Hefner. Of course, Mr Chairman--we've always had around
here 35 percent designed before we even talk about funding. I
don't know if that's going to be the criteria we have anymore.
Mr. Bryant. I don't, I don't anticipate any changes in----
Mr. Hefner. Do you know whether the design----
Mr. Bryant. I don't know, but we certainly will find that
out and----
Mr. Hefner. Yes.
Mr. Bryant [continuing]. And late file that with this
committee.
Mr. Hefner. Since it's for Tennessee, we'll certainly look
on it kindly. If you can get Wamp to go along with it.
Mr. Packard. On your medical/dental clinic, is this a new
facility or are there existing medical and dental facilities
there?
Mr. Whitfield. There are six existing medical clinics at
Fort Campbell and they are located in 40-year-old structures.
In fact, there's one dental clinic at Fort Campbell right now
that's over 30 years old.
Mr. Packard. This is to service the active duty members at
Fort Campbell?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Packard. So it's an old facility, you're looking for
new facilities?
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much gentlemen.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Yes? Oh, excuse me, Mr. Wamp. Did you have
some questions?
Mr. Wamp. Just one, and that is the authorization for all
of this, I'll have those questions for you'all as well as
Representative Gordon, who comes next. Are all of the
authorizations for these projects in place? I just wanted to
check on that.
Mr. Whitfield. We'll be seeking authorization.
Mr. Wamp. Okay. Simultaneously you're going to try to catch
the authorization up with the appropriations--
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Wamp. That's what--whether it's Guard Bureau, or
whoever, the first thing I hear now is: where's the
authorization and has this gone up the chain of command through
Guard Bureau for any of the Guard facilities to make sure that
the authorization is not too far behind the appropriations, or
hopefully it's right side by side with the appropriations
efforts. Because I don't want too much pressure on me until the
authorization is connected to it. So, let's try to keep it as
close to tandem as possible.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Appreciate it.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Bryant follows:]
[Pages 796 - 797--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
SMYRNA NATIONAL GUARD, TENNESSEE
WITNESS
HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE
Mr. Packard. Mr. Gordon, would you like to come forward,
please?
I should have said at the beginning. I won't apply it to
Mr. Bryant, but your chance of getting funding is directly
related to the amount of time you take here.
Not really, but please--we have your testimony, Mr. Gordon,
and if you'd like to summarize we'd appreciate it.
Statement of the Honorable Bart Gordon
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Former Chairman
and Mr. Wamp. I feel like a piker here after listening to all
these big figures that have been thrown out. I will put my full
testimony in, as you say, in the record and try to summarize.
I'm here requesting $2,881,000 in the Military Construction
Reserve Components Budget for the Department of Defense for the
reconstruction of barracks at the Tennessee National Guard
facility in Smyrna.
In 1970 this is the location of the old Sewart Air Force
Base. It was the last base to be closed in the normal course of
things in 1970. Through a various chain of ownership, now a
portion of the old Sewart Air Force Base is the--a major
location for the Tennessee National Guard. The only barracks
facilities they have there are barracks that were originally
built in 1942 with a five-year life expectancy with the old
Sewart Air Force Base.
I want to show you some photographs here. Let's see. Iguess
we can--Mr. Chairman, I'll let you see these and you can--well, I guess
we can just share them when there are so many. And I think you'll get a
pretty good idea of what we've got here.
Mr. Gordon. I mean, they are completely deteriorated.
You've got a situation--I say they are 50 years old. The
flooring is tile made of asbestos. Eighty percent of the wood
is termite-infested. The utilities are 35 years old. It is
absolutely the only facilities they have there for barracks.
The facility will also be used, when it's not being used
directly for the Guard, for the Tennessee Military Academy and
also for M.T.S.U. aerospace program there. Those--they will in
turn pay fees that will help to offset the utilities. So, I
think that makes it a much better, a much better deal.
And also in terms of dollars for the Guard, as I say,
because there is no location on--to house these people, they--
they're having to--we're having to pay, taxpayers are paying,
to put them in motels. Last year alone there were 9,900
Guardsmen that trained at Smyrna. Because there was no
facility, there were 2,000 of them that had hotel rooms that
were reimbursed at over $100,000.
And, unfortunately, the others--to get--what you have to do
is you have to get a hotel room, pay for it yourself, and then
be reimbursed. Many of the folks couldn't afford to pay for it
themselves, so they wound up, you know, driving long distances,
staying with friends, or whatever, because they couldn't, they
couldn't, you know, they couldn't afford to be out that money
for a few months. If they had all used a hotel, that would be
over $500,000.
And, finally, I don't know whether this is going to help or
hurt, but Congressmen John Tanner and Bob Clement trained
there. They have firsthand knowledge that those are the dorms
they tried to use----
Mr. Hefner. That might help.
Mr. Gordon [continuing]. And they have sent in a--signed a
letter, again, with seriously firsthand knowledge that this is
where they trained, this is facilities that they had to stay
in, and really a deplorable situation.
It is--it's a shame that we put our military personnel in
these kinds of conditions. It ought not happen. And I hope to
get your help to rectify that. And, Mr. Chairman, I will make
this a part of the record also.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
Mr. Gordon. Let's see. Here's a copy of that letter with
all these photographs together.
[The information follows:]
[Pages 800 - 810--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Gordon. In terms of priorities, the Tennessee National
Guard has reviewed this. They are more than 35 percent along
with their design. It is one of their top five projects for
Tennessee and I--we will simultaneous be working through the
authorization committee as we go through this project.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Hefner?
Mr. Hefner. Has the money been appropriated at the State
level yet? Has there been matching money--or is there matching
money or----
Mr. Gordon. There--I guess--I don't know whether it is--I
know this is, this is one of their top five priorities they've
asked me to do, and so I'm sure that they are prepared to make
whatever requests that they need to do.
Mr. Hefner. But you don't know if it's been appropriated at
the State level yet?
Mr. Gordon. No. I honestly do not.
Mr. Wamp. Gentlemen, Adjutant General Wood of the Army
Guard in the State of Tennessee did send this to me as one of
the top five priorities. I can only assume that it is priority
for the state.
Mr. Gordon. Then they must have.
Mr. Wamp. Yeah.
Mr. Gordon. But this is a legitimate question that needs to
be--we need to know what the answer is.
Mr. Hefner. Yes, and you can find that out.
Mr. Packard. Would you get that for the record?
Mr. Gordon. Okay. I sure will.
Mr. Hefner. In most cases the states do that before they
make the request.
Mr. Gordon. What we need to do is see whether--the State is
in the process of going through their budget right now and I
need to see whether it's in the budget. And with--showing my
ignorance, what is--is there a percentage match that the state
are required----
Mr. Hefner. Well----
Mr. Gordon. What's the----
Mr. Hefner [continuing]. It's, it's usually 25 percent
state money. In the case of Mr. Bryant, it's going to be more
than that because the locals are going to give the land and the
city is going to put up 12\1/2\ percent, so the state is only
going to have to put up 12\1/2\ percent. But there is----
Mr. Gordon. Well, the locals--I'm sure the--this area is
owned by a--Smyrna Airport Authority, that I'm sure is putting
up--you know, I mean, they are the ones putting up the land, so
that has been done. But I will check on the rest of that.
Mr. Wamp. Mr. Chairman, just one point of clarification. Is
this a combined Air Guard/Army Guard facility?
Mr. Gordon. Yeah. And even more than that. I mean, it's a--
it's Air Guard, Army, and it will also be used for the
Tennessee Military Academy and ROTC. I mean, it's going to be a
facility there that, I guess, the appropriate agencies will use
free. Those that are collateral, ROTC, Military Academy, will
pay an appropriate fee, but then that will go back into the
utilities and lease--oh, just the utilities and running the
barracks.
Mr. Wamp. And also, just one point for the record, and that
is that the Representative Gordon is the dean of the Tennessee
Congressional Delegation.
Mr. Gordon. And I've got, I've got the gray hair to prove
it.
Mr. Hefner. You proved that end with Tanner and Clement----
Mr. Gordon. That's a lot of pressure. We've got a lot of
baggage----
Mr. Hefner. It's a lot of power.
Mr. Packard. If Mr. Tanner and Mr. Clement lived in these
deplorable conditions, it must have gotten them ready for
Congress.
Mr. Hefner. It depends on what they were used to at home.
Mr. Packard. Or even here. Or even here. Sleeping in their
rooms, you know.
Well, we appreciate, Mr. Gordon----
Mr. Gordon. Thank you.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Your testimony.
Mr. Gordon. I'll get back to you on the state's.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Bart Gordon follows:]
[Pages 813 - 816--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
FORT MONMOUTH
WITNESSES
HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
HON. MICHAEL PAPPAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY
Mr. Packard. Congressman Pallone, please? And also, I
believe, Mr. Pappas is here as well.
Joint Statement of Honorable Frank Pallone and Honorable Michael Pappas
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Hefner
and other Members of the Subcommittee. The two of us jointly
share Fort Monmouth, which is the Army Communications and
Electronics Command, and also Naval Weapons Station Earle,
which is a weapons depot. And basically what we're asking for
today, I'm going to summarize it if I could just----
Mr. Packard. Please, please do.
Mr. Pallone [continuing]. Include my whole testimony,
because it's long and I want to summarize it as quickly as I
can.
Basically, support projects for those facilities that are,
as I said, in both of our districts.
Last December the Department of the Navy announced it was
changing the homeport assignment of two AOE Class ships now
stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, the U.S.S. Supply and the
U.S.S. Arctic, to Naval Weapons Station Earle, and as a result
of that Navy decision it's become apparent that three modest
structural upgrades to Earle's Pier Complex need to be
undertaken.
If I could just describe those, the first project needed is
an upgrade to the electrical service to the Pier Complex.
Currently, the electrical power capacity on the piers is not
sufficient to support the AOE-6 Class ships with total shore
power when in homeport status. The cost of that, Mr. Chairman,
is $1.5 million.
The second unprogrammed project I'm seeking funding for at
Earle also pertains to electrical power. Specifically, the
system that provides shore power to ships in homeport status is
in dire need of repair due to a number of reasons, chief among
them is the harsh sea environment and unfunded maintenance, and
that's $500,000.
And then the third unprogrammed project for Earle, again,
this allows for badly needed bearing pier repair on Piers 2 and
Trestle 2, and this is for $1 million.
Now, obviously the details of this are summarized in the
testimony, so I didn't want to go through it with you.
There are two more matters I would like to discuss
concerning Earle.
The Department of the Navy has been considering plans to
expand and enhance Weapons Station Earle's homeport capability
by extending Pier 4 of its pier/trestle complex, and this is
something that the Committee has expressed its opinion on
before. We basically are asking that the Committee indicate its
support for this project, the pier extension, by pushing up the
construction date, as it did last year, by including language
in the Appropriations Bill that reaffirms the Committee's
understanding of the need for this project. We--you had some
language like that last year, report language, and I'm hoping
that we can get that in again.
And then the last matter pertaining to Earle is, again,
some help, if we could, with the construction of an Explosive
Truck Holding Yard along the waterfront and mainside parking
facilities. Last year the Committee included language in the
Bill that approved a reprogramming request and indicated its
support for the construction of these holding yards.
So, again, that's not a specific funding request, but some
language that would be in the Appropriations Bill.
I wanted to turn now very briefly to Fort Monmouth which,
as I said, is the Communications and Electronics Command, an
Army facility. We have two requests there.
One is that the Fort Monmouth Fire and Emergency Service is
in need of immediate construction of a new Charles Wood Area
Fire Station that is currently programmed for construction
sometime in the future. The existing fire station is a World
War II vintage structure that was severely damaged by a fire in
December 1994. And there, in terms of the cost, we are seeking
$2.2 million in this coming fiscal year for construction of
that fire station.
And the second request is a proposal that was included in
this year's budget program to renovate 48 senior NCO quarters
along Fort Monmouth's Main Post. Other than roof and window
replacements, the quarters have had no major modernization
improvements since their construction about 50 years ago. That
is a $5.1 million request. That was included in the Army's
budget program for Fiscal 98 because of the renovations really
being sorely needed.
I know that my colleague from New Jersey, Mike Pappas, is
here with me and I'm pleased to see----
Mr. Packard. Mr. Pappas. I notice that your testimony
addresses, I think, the same--essentially the same projects. If
you would like to make any brief comments, it would be welcome.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hefner, for
your time and thank you for your indulgence by your staff.
You've been very kind.
I can only reiterate what Mr. Pallone has said and in a
bipartisan fashion we're approaching this, because it's
important not just for what we believe to be important national
security reasons but important for the region of New Jersey
that we represent. Both of these facilities, as he indicated,
are in both of our districts and it's been my pleasure to work
with him in regard to both of them.
Just to reiterate what he's spoken about in reference to
the piers, the kind of hardware that will be berthed there is
very expensive and something that the taxpayers of our country
have spent a lot on, and to make what I believe to be minimal
improvements to those piers I think makes a lot of sense.
And with regard to Fort Monmouth, with the BRAC efforts
that have been undertaken over the last five or ten years, that
facility has actually grown whereas many, as you know, have
either shrunk or been closed. So, I'm very confident that any
investment that would be made in that facility, as well as
Earle, would be money well-spent.
And I certainly appreciate any consideration that you folks
can provide.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, both of you. Comments or
questions?
Mr. Hefner. I'm assuming that Chris is supporting you on
this, Chris Smith?
Mr. Pallone. Oh, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Hefner. Is this the same thing, if he were here, he
would be talking about?
Mr. Pallone. Yeah. He--I don't know that he actually
represents--he used to, he used to--you know, we've had,
because of redistricting----
Mr. Hefner. I know.
Mr. Pallone. All of us have been going back and forth. He
would certainly support the request because he also represents
a part of Monmouth County, which is where these facilities are.
Mr. Hefner. Okay.
Mr. Pappas. He may be here to speak about other--but he----
Mr. Hefner. Other----
Mr. Pappas. Yeah, he has other facilities that he'll
probably mention.
Mr. Packard. Okay. I have no questions. Thank you very
much.
[Prepared statements of Hon. Frank Pallone and Hon. Michael
Pappas follow:]
[Pages 820 - 828--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
INDIANA NATIONAL GUARD; CAMP ATTERBURY; NAVAL SURFACE WEAPONS CENTER
CRANE; INDIANA AIR NATIONAL GUARD TERRE HAUTE; ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
ARMORY MARION; FORT WAYNE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
WITNESS
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Mr. Packard. Mr. Visclosky, would you like to please come
forward? We have your testimony, Mr. Visclosky, and if you
would summarize--we're running a little behind schedule.
Statement of Hon. Peter J. Visclosky
Mr. Visclosky. I'd appreciate that very much. Mr. Chairman,
I want to thank you and Mr. Hefner for the opportunity to
appear, and I essentially just want to raise three points with
the Subcommittee.
But, first, I am here to support the Administration request
of $10 million for a fully-capable combined arms multi-purpose
training ground in Camp Atterbury in the State of Indiana as
well as $7.7 million for an ammunition containerization complex
at the Naval Surface Weapons Center in Crane, Indiana. I do
fully support these Administration requests.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hefner, I have a number of
other projects and, as you mentioned, my testimony is entered
into the record. In addition to the President's request, they
are very important to me and would look forward to working with
members of the Committee as well as the staff as we proceed.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, earlier this year I met with the
Indiana National Guard to discuss an issue of great importance
to me in Lake County, Indiana. As you may know, the Governor of
Indiana under the provisions of our State's Counterdrug Support
Plan has authorized the Indiana National Guard to provide
administrative and engineering support to assist in the
demolition of crack houses throughout the State. The Guard is
eager to conduct this mission and has offered to serve as a
lead agency if funds are provided by the Congress to demolish
abandoned crack houses. I am requesting of the Subcommittee
$2,308,500 to the Indiana National Guard for crack house
demolition in Lake County. Our area desperately needs a
solution to the terrible problem.
Lake County, Indiana, is located along the drug trade route
between Chicago and Detroit and it is increasingly being used
as a hub for drug activities. Part of the problem that we have
is the number of abandoned properties in Lake County that are
being used as distribution centers for local drug dealers. The
open existence of these so-called ``crack houses'' is extremely
discouraging and one of my top goals.
Earlier this week the Gary Police Department provided me
with a list of addresses and descriptions of 112 homes in that
community. The Chicago Police Department provided me with a
list with 53 known crack houses, 18 of which are already in
default on that city property tax liabilities. Although a
number of East Chicago and Gary properties are subject to
seizure and demolition, these cities are in severe financial
distress and cannot afford to divert resources from their
police departments to demolish and remove these abandoned
properties.
And again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hefner, I appreciate very
much your consideration in allowing me to testify today and to
consider my request.
Mr. Packard. We appreciate very much you being here and
presenting your written statement. Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Hefner. I have no further questions.
Mr. Packard. Nor do I, Mr. Visclosky, as well.
Mr. Visclosky. Thank you very much.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Peter J. Viscloskey follows:]
[Pages 831 - 833--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
GUAM ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
WITNESS
HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
TERRITORY OF GUAM
Mr. Packard. We have with us also--I didn't see Chris Smith
come in, so we will--we'll go on to Mr. Underwood--the Delegate
from Guam. We appreciate you being here. We have your written
testimony. It is one we might ask you to read rather than
summarize.
Mr. Underwood. I was hoping that that would do the trick.
Mr. Packard. It may do the trick, we don't know, but it's a
nice short statement. But proceed as you wish.
Statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood
Mr. Underwood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Hefner, for this opportunity to talk about an issue that has
been ongoing on Guam for a number of years, and that is
concerning a potential Army Readiness Center on Guam.
The Guam Army National Guard is located at Fort Juan Muna
in Tamuning, Guam. It is a Federally operated training site
consisting of 15 acres. And previously--the history of this
particular facility is that it's really just barracks for a
construction company, actually, from the Philippines, and which
it housed foreign workers for a number of years, and it
consists of prefabricated metal barracks, warehouse, and dining
area--a remodelled dining area, and community shower
facilities. And most of this old structure requires thousands
of dollars to maintain on a yearly basis.
The lack of all of these facilities affects the training of
the units, and in an adverse manner, and a facility to house
the unit is required. There are currently no Army National
Guard facilities available to adequately house and support
these units in Guam.
The Guam National Guard is the most forward deployed Guard.
It stands ready to go into battle in case something happens in
Korea and it also served in Desert Storm. We are the--we have
the only Guard unit that doesn't have an armory. The
construction of an Armory is a major priority for the people of
Guam. And, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I ask for
funding at the level of $7.5 million be appropriated to--for
construction to bring the Guam National Guard into the total
force community.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Do you
have questions or comments, Mr. Hefner?.
Thank you very much for being here to make your testimony.
We appreciate it a lot.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood follows:]
[Page 835--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997
QUALITY OF LIFE
WITNESS
SYDNEY HICKEY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL
MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Packard. And that brings us back on the schedule. Now,
we're very pleased to have with us a representative from the
National Military Families Association, Sydney Hickey. We're
not only delighted to welcome you to this hearing, but you've
been to almost every hearing, as I've observed, and which we're
delighted to have you here. We're looking forward to your
testimony.
We do have your written testimony, Ms. Hickey, and so you
may wish to summarize it.
Statement of Sydney Hickey
Ms. Hickey. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Hefner, we again this year, for about the 14th year in a
row, bring the thanks of military families. This Subcommittee--
the leadership of this Subcommittee is without peer, we
believe, in improving the quality of life for service members
and their families.
We are pleased with the President's budget for 1998, FY 98,
in the sense that it includes some significant improvements for
single family--single service member housing, particularly
those in Korea and in Germany, and those barracks are
desperately in need of renovation.
We are not so happy, obviously, with the lack of request
for family housing and for child development centers.
In our written testimony we had pictures of the housing out
in Hawaii, which I think pretty closely shows that we
desperately need what is in the President's request for housing
there.
Attachment number two, I found it very interesting with the
Congressmen this morning who is from Mountain Home.
Essentially, it's a letter to a service member who has orders
and it says (a) don't bring your family and (b) incidentally--
because we have no housing here, and (b) incidentally, when you
get here, we can only promise you 15 days worth of housing. I'm
not quite too sure where the service member who is now
stationed in Mountain Home is supposed to live.
Of as much importance as construction of new family
housing, however, is the underlying infrastructure at
installations that detrimentally affect the quality of life of
military families. We believe that families should not live
with raw sewers in their front yard. We also believe that they
ought to use a modicum of the modern--be able to use a modicum
of the modern electrical appliances that are found in most
homes without blowing fuses.
NMFA is supportive of the Privatization Initiatives.
However, we are concerned that the full ramifications of where
this housing is going to be located and what support services
will be available to make such housing a community and not just
a bunch of brick and mortar pieces put up are not being given
due consideration. We do not want to move into brand-new
housing areas in the civilian community only to find that we
are unwelcome by our neighbors because we are creating
hardships for local community resources and schools.
And after the testimony that was presented before you
yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we have significant
questions about whether or not this housing is actually going
to be affordable to our junior enlisted, and those are the ones
most in need of housing, I think as we all know. The other
thing I have a question about is if we're going to ask for
MILCON money, which would, in essence, in most cases go at
least to a few quarters for junior enlisted, be switched to
privatization funds that are being built to the standards of
senior enlisted mid-grade officers, then what have we done for
our juniors?
We also see not only is that--community in the civilian
sector not going to be a community if it doesn't have the
support services. But then we question what are--where are we
going with this? Are we going to leave those quarters that are
falling down on the base and assume that at some point when we
have enough in the civilian community that our junior enlisted
will take whatever is left? And what kind of community will we
build--be building then?
And I'm afraid it's also very confused about this practice
of continually placing construction projects in a particular
fiscal year's request during the POMs and then as that year
approaches we move it forward three or four or five years. We
don't understand if it was a necessary project in one year why
all of a sudden simply because one or two years have gone by
it's no longer necessary.
And in that vein, we bring two particular projects to your
attention. One is a CDC at Camp Pendleton that was originally
in the FY 98 construction. It's got a waiting--space for 100
children. It's a lease project. A waiting list of 60 children.
The lease is up this year. The life expectancy of the building
is only to the year 2000. So, do we lease it again for five
years with, I assume, it falling down in three or do we buy and
spend a lot of money doing repair and maintenance? That
facility has now been pushed out to the year 2002, and I would
suspect, if normal things go, next year we will see it in 2004.
And we believe that it needs to be built now.
The second one is a community building at the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard out in Washington State. It was in the POMs for
FY 97, FY 98, and FY 99, and it seems to have this year gone
into never-never land somewhere.
There are 870 families in Jackson Park, which is an
isolated housing area, primarily enlisted, and they are served,
and there's a picture in our testimony, by a Family Service
Center of two temporary trailers. Usually they are broken down,
so usually they're closed. They can't have any predeployment
briefings. They can't have any postdeployment briefings. They
can't have any during-deployment workshop. The Navy Ombudsman
have no place to meet. Very few youth programs, very few family
programs. It also would include the building of a chapel; so,
this facility would be used seven days a week. It's also a
cost-saver because it's going to be co-located with one of the
CDCs that's in this year's request. So, we could save money if
we brought it up this year in site preparation, utility
hookups, and the parking lot, which they will share.
Lastly, we noted that last year the Subcommittee noted a
concern that we have shared for a long period of time, and that
is our domestic schools, DoD-owned domestic schools, and the
language asks for DoD to submit a request. And we noticed that
there was no request in this year's budget. So, we would like
to bring to your attention to Brewster Middle School at Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, which we understand to be one of the
top priorities of the Department of Defense, and our families
there can tell you why.
There is raw sewage in the bathrooms and the locker rooms
of this school where our children are. The water has leaked so
much in the roof that a good many of the light fixtures and the
wall sockets are useless. Not only that, the ceilings are
falling down and the walls are crumbling on the side. Whenever
there's a heavy rain there are sinkholes all the way around the
school, so we have to put a----
Mr. Packard. Where is this, again?
Ms. Hickey. Camp Lejeune. It's the Brewster Middle--all the
schools at Camp Lejeune need help. This one is in the worst
shape. There's no lab tables in the science room. One of the
art classes is actually sitting in a place that's supposed to
be a warehouse loading area.
The safety, the safety standards--minimal state safety
standards are not met in this school and the Department of
Defense tells us they're going to put a lot of O&M money in it
next year simply to bring it up to minimal standards. For
instance, the fire alarm system doesn't work. So, we would
believe, sir, if there is any way, that this school would
certainly bear your attention.
We appreciate your listening to our views.
Mr. Packard. We appreciate your interest, your concern,
your constant vigilance on military housing, particularly
family housing, and, of course, your detailed statement.
Mr. Hefner, do you have questions or comments?
Mr. Hefner. I have a question. It's good to see you again,
the friend that's always here standing up for our military
folk. It's good to have you back.
Ms. Hickey. Thank you, Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Tiahrt, you just came in. We've had a good
statement from Ms. Hickey, who represents the National Military
Families Association.
Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Packard. Yes, sir?
Mr. Tiahrt. If I could ask one question? A question I posed
yesterday to the Air Force, was there obstacles for enlisted
troops and officers, from obtaining their own housing as far as
buying their own home. Quite often they move. Maybe it's just a
down payment. Maybe it's something else. I'm not sure. But one
of the things that I've heard from people at McConnell Air
Force Base and at Fort Riley in Kansas, is that they would like
the opportunity to build-up a little equity in a home. And if
you or your organization has any ideas, I would like to hear
what they are and find out what the obstacles are so we can
address the problem.
Ms. Hickey. Yeah. I think there are a couple obstacles,
sir. One, one, of course, is the mobility. It used to be that
we were told by realtors that you--if you, if you could plant
yourself for three years, it might be worthwhile buying. Most
of them now will talk to five years, and that's, for most
people, longer than we can count on being stationed anywhere.
The other one is, obviously, the amount of money for a down
payment. But I will say very honestly that because most of us
are eligible for VA home loans that do not require down
payments, that that is frequently not as much of the problem
as: is that house going to retain the same value in the three
years or five years we're there? Can we afford to sell it and
pay the realty costs and still come out at least equal?
Certainly: these days are we vulnerable to a possible
another BRAC? We have had a lot of people who have lost their
shirts on the BRAC. I mean, there is a program to help them,
but I can guarantee you that by the time you pay the taxes on
that, help is in the minimal category.
A lot of people wonder: should I keep this home when I move
somewhere else? And if I move--that somewhere else is overseas
and then I go someplace else and I go into Government quarters
and my four years gets up, then I'm going to have to pay
capital gains on this house if I sell it--if I don't get back
to McConnell Air Force Base.
So, I think there are a variety of things. I don't think
that any one of them are necessarily out of the realm of
overcoming.
I think one of the pieces is to perhaps be able to delay
the capital gains as long as you're in Government quarters as
well as being overseas. Right now that's not possible. The
overseas piece stops the four years, but not the living in
Government quarters.
Certainly I would think the Air Force is probably head and
shoulders of the other services and keeping people stationed in
one place long enough that owning a home is a possibility. The
Navy is supposedly moving to that with their homeport concept.
We have not seen movements in the Marine Corps or in the Army
in that direction yet and are really not in a position to say
whether or not they can or not. I mean, readiness and training
are not our areas of expertise and we don't move into them. So,
maybe that's impossible for those two services.
Mr. Packard. I might mention, on our visit to some of the
facilities out in the San Diego County area, we visited the
child development center that you referred to in your testimony
and in your remarks. And in spite of the fact that they are
perhaps in substandard buildings, they are doing a superb job.
We were very impressed with the qualityof the care and the, and
the activities that were taking place there with that child development
center. True, that the facilities need to be upgraded.
Ms. Hickey. We are very blessed, Mr. Chairman, with very,
very loving caregivers in our child development centers, no
matter what the facility.
Mr. Packard. They are doing a good job, from our
observation.
We deeply appreciate your testimony. Thank you so much for
remaining with us. I understand you had a plane to catch. So,
hopefully you'll be able to stay on schedule.
[Prepared statement of Sydney Hickey follows:]
[Pages 840 - --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
QUALITY OF LIFE
WITNESS
CHARLES CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Packard. And we're very pleased to have with us Mr.
Calkins, who is representing the Fleet Reserve Association. We
have your detailed statement. Obviously we would prefer that
you wouldn't read the whole statement. I don't think----
Mr. Calkins. I'll try not to.
Mr. Packard [continuing]. Your five minutes would certainly
exceed that. So, if you would summarize, we would appreciate it
and we are very grateful to have you with us and appreciate
your willingness to participate in this hearing.
Statement of Charles Calkins
Mr. Calkins. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Hefner and Mr. Tiahrt, I
really appreciate the opportunity to present my statement and
I'll brief it as much as I possibly can here.
The Fleet Reserve Association represents--representing over
162,000 members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard,
extends grateful acknowledgment for the interest and concern
this Subcommittee has offered military personnel over the
years--consistently over the past years, and we thank you so
very much.
Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve Association is concerned
that the FY 1998 Military Construction Budget Request is
inadequate for the Navy and the Marine Corps. My written
statement addresses the Association's concerns and seeks
additions to the construction request without deleting any of
the current programs existing in the budget.
We are particularly supportive of the request made by the
Master Chief of the Navy and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps
presented before this Subcommittee last March 4th last. Their
recommendation to consider funding for single sailor and
bachelor marine initiatives are, in the opinion of the Fleet
Reserve Association, a priority of the highest order. There is
a perception amongst the bachelor service members that the
majority of attention by DoD and Congress is targeted toward
married personnel, and in many cases such is the truth.
The OPTEMPO appears not to be less--any less than that
reported in late 1995, and by the Quality of Life Task Force.
In fact, the Sergeant Major of the First Marine Regiment told
the House National Security Committee that OPTEMPO seems to be
increasing.
In another vein, the Fleet Reserve Association believes
that OPTEMPO will get worse, not better. As the Services head
toward more privatization and further downsizing, more and more
pressure will be placed on our sailors to spend longer sea duty
tours because there will not be enough shore duty billets to
swap. And most recently, I think within two weeks ago, The Navy
Times had an article in there that they've already started to
adjust these rotation periods, spending more time at sea and
less time at--on shore duty, so to speak, because of their
downsizing and because of the, the fewer billets ashore. And
some of those seagoing rates are really seeing that already.
For the Marines, it will be more and longer deployments.
And needless to say, Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve
Association respectfully cautions this Subcommittee to go slow
in funding private initiatives that will replace uniformed
personnel.
Although we endorse privatization of family housing
wherever feasible and to the advantage of our sailors and
marines, the Association is concerned with how rental costs to
troops will be determined: by the developer or the Department
of Defense or the service? If the young married sailor or
marine cannot afford to live in private housing being
constructed, for instance, at Corpus Christi or Everett,
Washington, then the Fleet Reserve Association would withdraw
its support for the initiative.
And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Fleet Reserve
Association urges this distinguished Subcommittee to consider
adding more family housing, the Navy's request, increasing BEQs
for the Navy and Marine Corps, funding additional physical
fitness centers. And that's a pretty good shopping list. And
giving priority to the single sailor initiatives while looking
at the family support and MWR facilities that will enhance the
morale and readiness of our Navy and MarineCorps families.
I'm aware that this is a heavy load on the Subcommittee,
but the condition of our current forces demand our attention.
We already see some deterioration in personnel recruiting
efforts and a staggering loss in attrition amongst first-
termers. The coupling of downsizing with increased OPTEMPO and
the hurry-up approach to privatization leads the Fleet Reserve
Association to believe that to do otherwise will return the
forces to the early 1970 days of the all-volunteer force, a
hollow army and Navy, unable to get its ships to sea.
Again, thank you for giving us this valuable time and I
will be now pleased to entertain any questions that you may
have.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much. Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Hefner. I have no questions.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. You have expressed, I think, in
your statement some of the same concerns that the Committee has
had, and you've heard, I think, if you've been here in previous
hearings. We certainly hope that privatization will work and
that it will provide the kind of housing--speed up the housing
for those that we're targeting. So, we're watching that
closely. But you expressed some of the same concerns I think
the Members of the Committee have.
Mr. Calkins. If I might add a response? In the response to
your question earlier on: how could the services help members
find homes? And we'll--I think--the Navy has a--it's not unique
in anything whatsoever, but a lot of places where their
homeports are, the facilities outside those bases are really
exorbitant. It's kind of tough for a--even a senior sailor to
afford some of those houses.
Mr. Packard. That's true. We visited that process and how
it's done in San Diego, which is a pretty good Navy town, and I
was extremely impressed, though, with the quality of effort
that went into helping these young families find housing.
They've got an excellent program. They work with them very
closely. We actually watched them do this with families. They
were computerized. And even though it is expensive sometimes to
go off base into community housing, they are very, very
sensitive to the amount of money that these young families have
and the kind of housing they can afford. And they've done a
very good job, I must say.
[Prepared statement of Charles Calkins follows:]
[Pages 861 - 874--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, LAKEHURST, NJ
WITNESS
HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Packard. Thank you so much, Mr. Calkins. We have Mr.
Smith, who has arrived, and we've received your testimony,
Chris. We're delighted to have you here. We'd prefer that you
summarize, if you could----
Mr. Smith. It's very brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Packard. That's fine.
Statement of the Honorable Chris Smith
Mr. Smith. Thank you, and I do hope you look at the full
statement. But I'm again appearing before your Subcommittee
asking for help in securing money for a military construction
project for the Naval Air Warfare Center at Lakehurst, New
Jersey.
This particular MILCON would provide--it's number three on
the list that NAVAIR has put out. It is a $16.3 million
appropriation. And the importance of it is that, and the reason
why it has not been done before, was that it was originally
slated to be done in 1995 and we had a BRAC. It was on the
first close Lakehurst scenario, then radically realign
Lakehurst. And it got caught up in all of that. But, finally,
when the BRAC commissioners looked at this very important Naval
Air Warfare Center where all of the launch and recovery work
for our aircraft carriers is done, there isn't a single
catapult in operation that has not in some way been affected by
Naval--Navy Lakehurst, and I say this with real pride.
My brother is a former carrier pilot and he flew A-7s
offthe Enterprise. My brother is a--other brother is a helicopter
pilot, although he's Army.
We don't have Naval aviation without Lakehurst. And I think
when BRAC looked at this and when the BRAC commissioners looked
at it, they said: we have to keep this very important crown
jewel in effect. Now it's a matter of making it absolute state-
of-the-art, and that's why this MILCON is necessary.
There are a number of rather old laboratories scattered
throughout the base that would be consolidated under this plan,
and we--again, we have a good letter which hopefully we have
submitted for the record--if not, from the head of NAVAIR--
testifying to the need for--and, again, on their list it is
number three.
Now, you have it slated here for the year 2000, but our
argument is that this has been pushed back so many times going
back to 1991 when it was slated for 1995, that the time has
come to get this underway. And we do hope you look at it very
carefully and favorably.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Hefner.
Mr. Hefner. No questions.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Hefner asked a question earlier of your
colleagues from New Jersey. Do you support their projects that
they, that they were asking for?
Mr. Smith. I am supportive of those, but I think----
Mr. Packard. They were in your district, I understand, at
one time?
Mr. Smith. NAVAIR is so important, though. And the whole
idea is the ability to project power.
Mr. Hefner. We support those.
Mr. Smith. It's--I've been supportive of this one for
years, even when it wasn't--which it wasn't for 14 years.
Mr. Packard. Do you know whether the President has included
this one on his budget?
Mr. Smith. Apparently not, not for this fiscal year.
Mr. Packard. It's been pushed back by the Administration as
well?
Mr. Smith. Right.
Mr. Packard. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. I just want to express my concern, Mr.
Chairman. We've had three members of Congress in here. I'm
afraid it's going to fall off and we're going to do something
for New Jersey. So, I want to support Rep. Chris Smith same
way.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate you
coming.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Hon. Chris Smith follows:]
[Pages 877 - --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
ROLE OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
WITNESS
ROGER SANDLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Packard. We'll now return to the associations, the
Reserve Officers Association, Mr. Roger Sandler. And we
appreciate you being here. I've had a lot of connections and
relationships with the Reserve Officers Association in the past
and we're delighted to have you here. We appreciate your
statement. It's a lengthy statement and obviously we would ask
you not to read it, but if you could summarize within the five-
minute period?
Prepared Statement of Roger W. Sandler
Mr. Sandler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do indeed
intend to summarize for you. On behalf of our almost 100,000
members, we're delighted to have the opportunity to testify
before this Committee before you and Mr. Hefner and Mr. Tiahrt.
Thank you very much for inviting us.
I just might preface my remarks by saying that I think you
all know that the Reserve components today are more important
than ever and they are being mobilized involuntarily,
particularly to Bosnia, and they've been in other places as
well. And so what I'm about to refer to you is a series of
requests for all of the services in the, in the Reserve to
support the kinds of things they are doing in support of the
country.
I'll cut to the quick immediately by getting into the
construction backlogs. Base closures and force realignments
have generated requirements for new construction to support new
missions. Much of the appropriated funding for
MilitaryConstruction for the Guard and Reserve has been for new
construction while the needs for repair and renovation have grown. Even
in the eighties when Defense spending was on the rise, Reserve
component military construction backlogs continued to grow. And Reserve
components--if the Reserve components are to continue to make
significant contributions, as they have in the past to national
security, they must be provided adequate facilities to meet unique
requirements, including the location of facilities where the persons
and skills needed to meet Reserve component needs are located.
And this gets into the next subject, which is demographics,
and this is very important to the Reserve components.
Demographics are so critical to Reserve components because,
unlike the active counterparts who can readily move to new
locations, Reservists are tied to their civilian employments
and are often unable to relocate for Reserve assignments. And
for this reason, we must, we must provide the best training
facilities possible to put them where the Reservists are
located.
I'm going to get into the Army Reserve first. Today, your
United States Army Reserve has a $1.9 billion backlog of known
construction requirements. Now, this is current. The facility
shortage is further complicated by numerous base closings and
the loss of support facilities, many of which were
geographically proximate to Army Reserve units. All of these
factors contribute to an average utilization rate of over 200
percent in existing facilities.
For half of the Army Reserves 2,800 facilities, which
average 32 years old, are inadequate to meet recognized
training, maintenance, and storage requirements. Many fail to
meet Army standards. This situation has created a training
environment that is increasingly unsafe, environmentally
unacceptable, and damaging to readiness. To further compound
the situation, the Army Reserve has taken over management of
several Army installations formerly operated by the active
Army, and as a result the Army Reserve has an additional 2,600
buildings in its inventory, averaging 47 years old.
We urge the Congress to authorize and fully fund the
Reserve's $47 million budget request for major construction, as
well as the $240 million required to eliminate the growing
backlog of maintenance and repair and $25 million to support
environmental compliance requirements.
We further urge the Congress to authorize and appropriate
additional funding to move essential construction projects back
into the FY 98 budget.
In the case of the Air Force Reserve, military construction
program for the Air Reserve is divided into three categories:
environmental compliance, new mission, and current mission
military construction. The total Air Force Reserve Military
Construction Request for FY 98 is only $14.5 million, including
$5.2 million for new mission, no funds for the current mission,
and $3.3 million for environmental compliance, $4.5 million for
minor construction and $1.5 million for architectural and
engineering services.
Air Force Reserve current mission military construction
funding levels are inadequate to support the existing
infrastructure. $551 million current mission backlog equals 31
years of existing funding levels. Funding is requested for
current mission military construction to provide adequate
facility support to the Air Force Reserve mission.
In the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve, the budget requests
for Military Construction for Fiscal 98 is for $13.9 million.
This request will support only three relatively small projects.
It does not include any funds for minor construction. It
includes only limited funding for planning and design for
future projects. This year's budget request contrasts sharply
with the more than $25 million appropriated for Fiscal 94,
$22.8 million for Fiscal 95, and $19.1 million for FY96.
So, funding for the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction at these relatively modest levels has occurred
only because this Subcommittee and the Congress has made
significant additions to the requests that were submitted from
the Pentagon.
So, in the case of the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve,
their backlog of military construction still remains. It's
critical. They have essential maintenance and repair of Naval
and Marine Corps Reserve facilities and still approaches $340
million. Once again, Military Construction of Naval Reserve for
Fiscal 98 will not keep pace with the requirements at hand.
So, we request that the ROA, Mr. Chairman, that this
Committee look closely at--I already submitted a copy for the
record--and see what you can do to improve the facilities for
the training and maintenance and the continuing support
required for our reserve forces around the country.
And with that, sir, thank you very much for allowing us to
be here.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Sandler. Mr. Tiahrt.
Mr. Tiahrt. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Sandler.
Mr. Packard. You have a very comprehensive statement for us
which you've prepared and I have no questions. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Sandler. All right. Thank you. And this is--
parenthetically, I'm very familiar with your 89th's Reserve
Command out there. They're doing a great job out in Kansas.
They've taken on an enormous amount of responsibility, taking
over several new state responsibilities in the Army Reserve and
you should be proud of them.
Mr. Tiahrt. And we're breaking ground--this year. They have
done a very good job of taking what was a pig's ear and making
a silk purse out of it. Very proud of them.
Mr. Sandler. Thank you.
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you.
Mr. Packard. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Roger W. Sandler follows:]
[Pages 886 - 911--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
----------
Thursday, March 13, 1997.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION
WITNESSES
RICHARD NETTLER, CHAIRMAN, PRESERVATION ACTION
NELLIE LONGSWORTH, PRESIDENT, PRESERVATION ACTION
Mr. Packard. We're pleased to have with us the Preservation
Action group. Richard Nettler is the Chairman. Nellie
Longsworth is the President. We are delighted to have you with
us. Thank you. And we'll proceed as you wish.
Ms. Longsworth. We were going to share testimony.
Mr. Packard. That's fine. Thank you. If you will, have you
go first.
Joint Statements of Richard B. Nettler and Nellie Longsworth
Ms. Longsworth. I'm Nellie Longsworth. I'm President of
Preservation Action. And we're sort of the new kids in front of
this Committee. We're the national citizens' lobby for historic
preservation and neighborhood conservation. Our organization
represents grassroots preservationists--professionals and
volunteers--who really are the heart and soul of protecting our
nation's heritage in our own communities.
Normally, Preservation Action has testified before the
Appropriations Committee for two decades, but usually it's down
the hall on the Subcommittees of Interior. And we--we've been
working to ensure funding for the states, the tribes, National
Trust for Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council, and
cultural resources within the Park Service.
Our goal has been to develop a cost-effective
intergovernmental program that protects historic structures in
both the public and private sector. Since 1966 and the
enactment of the Historic Preservation Law, our program has
matured into, I think, one of the finest examples of
intergovernmental cooperation.
Day to day, we see several government agencies, states,
local governments, and the private sector working on issues
from transportation issues to tax incentive issues to issues of
nominating properties to the National Register, and of course
now we're interested in the historic quarters on military
reservations.
It is not a program besieged by delays and inefficiencies.
We've worked with Congress to create incentives that make
preservation competitive in the marketplace. And with some
creative restructuring, we believe that some of these
incentives would work for military housing.
Our success includes the enactment of state and Federal tax
credits for commercial revitalization and a credit that works
for residential rental as well. Commercial credit has attracted
$17 billion in private investment into the rehabilitation of
historic structures throughout the nation. You can see it in
downtowns. You can see it in main streets. In other words,
there's been a great deal that's happened.
And the public-private partnership approach we have found
to be a good one, and we believe it has the potential to work
for military housing by offering inducements for private
financing. Now, I will say that this will require some changes
in procedures, guidelines, leasing policies, but it might
decrease the reliance on Federal appropriations.
And I will also share with you that before the Congress
this week, Representative Clay Shaw is going to introduce a
Federal tax credit for owners--homeowners of historic
properties. And we've had a lot of support. Last year we had 85
co-sponsors for that. Another thing which may be of interest.
I further want to call your attention to a recent Executive
Order that requires the General Services Administration to look
at downtown historic areas to find structures that would meet
Federal Government office needs. Again, there may be
opportunities to integrate the Executive Order requirements
with utilization of underused structures on military
installations by Government agencies other than the military.
Much that we've learned during the past 20 years is
relevant to your concerns about the military and about
maintenance of its historic quarters. This is not a new issue
for preservationists. However, it took center stage a year ago
with the language that was included in the 1997Appropriations
for Military Construction, saying that housing quarters maintained by
the military are overwhelming the housing accounts and directing each
service to review current inventories of historic quarters and provide
a report to the Appropriation committees on specific plans to remove
all but the most significant historic homes.
Well, we really got quite excited about that ``remove'' and
it was something of great concern to us. And we know that the
language was a direct response to the Marsh Panel conclusions
in 1995.
This is not, however, the only action that was a response
to the conclusions and recommendations of the Marsh Panel. The
other was the Housing Privatization Initiative. This Act
authorizes DoD to use a variety of tools to obtain privately
managed, owned, and financed military housing. Over the past
year we've seen DoD through the Housing Support and
Revitalization Office. And with the cooperation of the
services, select a number of military bases for implementation
of the Housing Privatization Initiative. And recently, they had
their first Request for Proposal, RFPs, for proposals.
I'm going to conclude my piece of the testimony--and I
timed this, because I know how military people are; I wanted to
give Richard his chance--by suggesting that the two
Congressional responses to the Marsh Panel should not be
treated as separate tracks but should be viewed as
complementary actions addressing preservation. And we believe
some of the things we know from our experience over the past--
since 1966 also might be helpful.
And that we look forward to the reports that this Committee
will be receiving and we think they will contain information
relevant to the work of DoD's Housing Privatization Project.
Mr. Packard. Thank you, Ms. Longsworth.
Mr. Nettler. Well, let me just add a few additional
comments. This is not the first time that Congress and the
preservation community have been concerned about military
housing and the costs, O&M, and other costs associated with
the--with military housing.
In the mid-nineteen-eighties, Congress asked the Department
of the Army to do a study, which it did, and it took quite a
few years, and produced some results which we think were very
valuable and which we've been sharing with the Army. Those
results suggested that the costs, the O&M costs related to
military housing, historic housing, were not as much as the
Marsh Panel had suggested but were indeed similar to the costs
associated with the other construction efforts.
Given the concerns that Congress had last year and the 1997
Act, we determined to work with the Department of Defense on
this issue and set up with a meeting with the Department of
Defense and the housing revitalization and support office with
members, representatives from the General Services
Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
Preservation Action, and the American Institute of Architects
to discuss ways in which each of us could provide assistance
with regard to the Housing Privatization effort.
The major problem that we've seen from the Housing
Privatization effort as it goes forward, even with the RFPs
that have been issued, is from a financing perspective. The
private industry has concerns about being able to finance the
RFPs that have been issued, and that is, that is something that
DoD is, as you very well know, is struggling with. We believe
that the tax credits that are available to the private industry
can be utilized for military housing that is privatized and the
military housing that is of historic nature.
Lastly, we would like to correct some of the assumptions
that are part of the FY 97 Appropriations language in reference
to historic preservation requirements.
The Marsh Panel was clearly concerned about increased costs
of repair and maintenance, as Nellie has alluded to, of
historic military housing, compared to the repair and
maintenance of newer structures. As I said, in the studies that
were done by the Army in the 1980s, it was found that those
differences in costs were not real, were not real. The language
in the, in the conference report stated that the overburdening
of the housing accounts would only worsen as the number of
homes eligible for placement on the register continues to grow.
To comply with the Historic Preservation Act, substantive
work must receive prior approval from the various historic
boards. The fact is that the listing of properties as historic
in the Federal agencies' inventory does not preclude cost-
effective changes in the property or its use. Section 106 of
the Historic Preservation Act requires a Federal agency to take
into account the effect that an undertaking may have on a
property that is listed on or eligible for the National
Register. The agency must then provide the Advisory Council
with a reasonable opportunity to comment.
The process does not preclude--does not mandate a
Preservation Act outcome and accommodates a wide range of
mission-driven solutions. Furthermore, Section 110 of the Act
requires a Federal Agency to adopt measures for maintaining
historic structures. The Department of Defense has done so, has
adopted regulations for doing so, and the privatization of such
housing is consistent with this aspect of the Act.
Therefore, we ask the Committee and we encourage the
Committee to ask the DoD to pursue together cost-effective
alternatives to the removal of all but the most significant
historic homes. Those of us with preservation experience
outside the military believe there are cost-effective solutions
to the maintenance and active use of both historic quarters and
commercial structures on military installations that go beyond
the reliance on Federal appropriations and that are consistent
with the Privatization effort. Webelieve that Privatization,
with a variety of tools, is a good springboard and that it holds the
promise and answers that work together. We're better than mothballing,
putting off maintenance, or demolition. We look forward to working with
the Department of Defense and with you on these measures.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very much. Mr. Tiahrt?
Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have a list of
historical buildings that are currently--on military bases, and
how do we determine which ones are worthwhile preserving?
For example, I've been at Fort Riley in Kansas and they
have the home of the infamous or famous, however you view
George Armstrong Custer. He lived there for awhile and they
have one house that supposedly he lived in. And I don't know
how they verified that. I'm sure you guys know how to do that.
I don't. But--do you have a list of buildings?
Mr. Nettler. Well, actually, the military has a list
itself. Each base is required to have prepared a master plan
for future development of the base, future construction, taking
into account what is existing on the base. Each base under
regulations the Department of Defense has adopted is required
to adopt a cultural resource management plan, which is aimed at
identifying those resources of historic value or other value
that much have--must have some program for, whether it is
maintenance or even demolition, but some program for.
And, in fact, as I alluded to, the Army has done a study in
the mid-1980s, a very comprehensive study, of all of its bases
and the historic properties on those bases and addressing
Congressional concern regarding the cost of maintenance and--of
maintenance and----
Mr. Tiahrt. Have you seen this study?
Mr. Nettler [continuing]. Operations of those houses.
Mr. Tiahrt. Have you seen this list? Do you know what's in
the study?
Mr. Nettler. The irony is we have, we have probably more of
a list than the Department of Defense has. When we met with the
Department of Defense and had alluded to this fact that this
information that was available prior to the meeting, they had
tried to locate the information. We had the information with us
at the meeting and were--and did provide it to Department of
Defense. So, the information does exist. It may very well be
that we had better access to it, and we are certainly willing
to share that with the Department of Defense and the different
branches and work on financing mechanisms and other types of
mechanisms that would ensure less cost to the Department of
Defense and I think reasonable privatization efforts.
Mr. Packard. I think generally, and I'd be interested if
you concur, DoD has done a fairly responsible job of
preservation. They're aware of these on their bases and they're
quite proud of them, at least my observation is that. And they
generally are quite responsible in their maintenance and upkeep
and restoration, where necessary. Do you agree?
Ms. Longsworth. We do agree. I had the pleasure of a
wonderful tour of Fort Sam Houston. I was able to see, you
know, in perspective a lot of the aspects of this. And I was
impressed with what they had done.
I still think there's a big job to be done, and I think
that's where we would like to, you know, share with you some of
our expertise.
Mr. Packard. Thank you very, very much for being here, both
you, Mrs. Longsworth, and Mr. Nettler. We appreciate your
testimony, your interest in this area, and your willingness to
come before the Committee.
Ms. Longsworth. Thank you very much.
[Joint prepared statement of Richard B. Nettler and Nellie
Longsworth follow:]
[Pages 917 - 924--The official Committee record contains additional material here.]
Mr. Packard. Thank you. All testimonies, or all written
statements, will be entered in the record just for your
information. And with that, we'll adjourn the hearing.
This concludes the hearing and we will adjourn.
W I T N E S S E S
__________
Page
Alley, J.T., Jr.................................................. 231
Benken, E.W...................................................... 273
Bereuter, Hon. Doug.............................................. 758
Brown, Alan...................................................... 923
Bryant, Hon. Ed................................................768, 793
Calkins, Charles................................................. 858
Coleman, Hon. R.A................................................ 615
Crapo, Hon. M.D.................................................. 751
Goodman, Hon. J.B................................................ 175
Gordon, Hon. Bart................................................ 798
Hagan, John...................................................... 241
Hamre, Hon. J.J.................................................. 1
Hickey, Sydney................................................... 836
Lee, Lewis....................................................... 257
Longsworth, Nellie............................................... 912
Nettler, Richard................................................. 912
Pallone, Hon. Frank.............................................. 817
Pappas, Hon. Michael............................................. 817
Pirie, Hon. R.B., Jr............................................. 521
Sandler, Roger................................................... 883
Smith, Hon. C.H.................................................. 875
Sodano, Henry.................................................... 1
Underwood, Hon. R.A.............................................. 834
Visclosky, Hon. P.J.............................................. 829
Walker, Hon. R.M................................................. 337
Whitfield, Hon. Ed............................................... 768
I N D E X
----------
OVERVIEW
Page
Base Realignment and Closure Savings............................. 19
Base Realignment and Closure--Environmental Cleanup.............. 27
Base Realignment and Closure--Funding History.................... 111
Base Realignment and Closure--Unobligated Balances............... 60
Bosnia Supplemental.............................................. 25
Breakage and Deferred Design..................................... 101
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 1
Chemical Demilitarization........................................ 30
Child Development Centers........................................58, 70
Contingency Construction......................................... 112
Davis Bacon.....................................................21, 102
Defense Energy Deficiency Act.................................... 18
Demolition of Excess Facilities.................................. 54
DOD Environmental Compliance Project List........................ 103
DOD Life Safety/Health Project List.............................. 108
Environmental Levels............................................. 106
Execution Rates.................................................. 110
Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................. 61
Family Housing Maintenance Costs................................. 112
Family Housing...................................................20, 31
Family Housing--Annual Maintenance and Repair.................... 65
Family Housing--Average Age of Units............................. 65
Family Housing--Deficit.......................................... 65
Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request.................................. 24
Foreign Currency Exchange Rates.................................. 99
Full Compliance Long Term Plan................................... 107
Guard and Reserve Components--Decrease in Military Personnel..... 27
Guard and Reserve Funding Levels................................. 16
Hamre, Prepared Statement of the Honorable John J................ 9
Hamre, Statement of the Honorable John J......................... 6
Housing Privatization, OMB Scoring of............................ 20
Housing Revitalization Support Office............................ 62
Inflation........................................................ 80
Lost Design...................................................... 101
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund.................. 56
NATO Security Investment Program--Construction vs. Procurement... 73
NATO--Capability Packages........................................ 77
NATO--Funded Construction........................................ 73
NATO--Funding for CONUS Projects................................. 78
NATO--IAU Rate................................................... 80
NATO--New Initiatives............................................ 76
NATO--Recoupment................................................. 77
NATO--Restoration Backlog........................................ 76
NATO--U.S. Contractors........................................... 77
Non-Appropriated Funds........................................... 80
Overall Funding Level............................................ 31
Overseas Construction............................................ 57
Overseas Housing................................................. 20
Permanent Party Unaccompanied Personnel Housing.................. 72
Phase Funding.................................................... 102
Planning and Design........................................85, 101, 122
Portsmouth Naval Hospital........................................ 24
Prior Year Savings............................................... 64
Private Sector Initiatives......................................36, 122
Quality of Life.................................................. 33
Real Property Maintenance........................................ 122
Transfer Authority............................................... 32
Troop Housing Inadequacies....................................... 67
Troop Housing--``One Plus One''..................................34, 55
Troop Housing--Budget Request.................................... 69
Troop Housing--Cost of Buy-Out Troop Deficit..................... 69
Troop Housing--Deficit........................................... 66
Unspecified Minor Construction.................................109, 113
Wright-Patterson AFB: Simulator.................................. 18
DEFENSE-WIDE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Anniston Army Depot, Alabama..................................... 157
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.......................... 136
Chemical Demilitarization........................................ 151
Child Care Facilities............................................ 142
CINCLANTFLT Norfolk, Virginia.................................... 130
Columbus Center.................................................. 128
Craney Island Norfolk, Virginia.................................. 140
Defense Commissary Agency Headquarters Addition.................. 123
Defense Finance and Accounting Service........................... 125
Defense Logistics Agency......................................... 137
Department of Defense Dependent Education........................ 163
DMFO Backlog of Facilities....................................... 146
DMFO Hospitals................................................... 145
DMFO Overall Funding Level....................................... 144
DMFO Phase Funding............................................... 145
DMFO Service Priorities.......................................... 145
DMFO Unobligated Balances........................................ 145
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska................................. 139
Energy Conservation Improvement Program.......................... 158
Family Housing................................................... 169
Ford Island...................................................... 129
Fort Detrick, Maryland........................................... 146
Fort Meade, Maryland............................................. 148
Future Program................................................... 129
Government and Performance and Results Act....................... 171
Hill Air Force Base, Utah........................................ 147
Kwajalein Atoll--American Preference............................. 170
Lawton/Fort Sill................................................. 130
Leases........................................................... 169
Millington Naval Air Station, Tennessee.......................... 130
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida......................... 139
Naval Air Station North Island, California....................... 150
Norfolk, Virginia................................................ 140
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama........................................ 131
Richmond, Virginia............................................... 142
Robins Air Force Base, Georgia................................... 147
San Diego Naval Station, California.............................. 146
Truax Field, Wisconsion.......................................... 143
United States Special Operations Command......................... 149
HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Account Balances/Allocations..................................... 227
Area Cost Factors................................................ 208
Balance, Proper.................................................. 197
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 204
Base Realignment and Closure--Use of Funds....................... 228
Budget Appendix Material......................................... 225
Budget Tool...................................................... 227
Bureaucracy...................................................... 209
Camp Pendleton, California....................................... 227
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 175
Corpus Christi, Limited Partnership Agreements................... 225
Davis-Bacon...................................................... 206
Delayed Regular Construction Projects............................ 210
Economic Analysis................................................ 218
Energy Saving.................................................... 198
Expiration of Authority.......................................... 219
Family Housing Improvement Fund................................221, 206
Federal Acquisition Regulation................................... 206
Fort Carson, Colorado............................................ 226
Funding Mechanism................................................ 224
Funding Sources.................................................. 202
Funding, Overall................................................. 191
Goodman, Prepared Statement of the Honorable John B.............. 178
Goodman, Statement of the Honorable John B....................... 176
Housing Units, Number for 1997 and 1998.......................... 201
HRSO Administrative Expenses..................................... 217
HRSO Jurisdiction................................................ 218
HRSO Workload Measurement........................................ 221
Impact Aid....................................................... 219
Installation Involvement......................................... 212
Installation Reluctance.......................................... 228
Legislative Proposals............................................ 224
Limited Partnership Agreement.................................... 208
Limits of Federal Liability for Costs............................ 221
Maintenance...................................................... 221
Naval Station Everett, Washington................................ 226
Non-Appropriated Funds........................................... 220
Non-Performing Contractors....................................... 220
O&M Account....................................................212, 224
OMB Scoring....................................................195, 220
Privatization as a Supplement.................................... 194
Privatization vs. 801 Housing..................................199, 211
Privatized Housing, Intended Purpose of.......................... 216
Project Data..................................................... 224
Property Taxes................................................... 220
Section 801 Program.............................................. 223
Site Selection................................................... 196
Transfer of Funds................................................ 219
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund........................... 201
Unit Size........................................................ 221
User Involvement................................................. 213
Utilities........................................................ 215
Variable Housing Allowance....................................... 194
Voluntary Assignment............................................. 220
QUALITY OF LIFE
Alley, Jr., Prepared Statement of Sergeant Major Jerry T......... 235
Alley, Jr., Statement of Sergeant Major Jerry T.................. 223
Bachelor Housing...............................................316, 323
Benken, Prepared Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Major........ 274
Benken, Statement of Chief Master Sergeant Major................. 273
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 231
Child Care Needs................................................. 321
Downsizing....................................................... 289
Education........................................................ 335
Family Advocacy.................................................. 330
Family Housing................................................... 316
Family Housing vs. Bachelor Housing.............................. 313
Family Separation................................................ 313
Family Violence Cases............................................ 329
Gangs............................................................ 304
Hagan, Prepared Statement of Chief Petty Officer John............ 243
Hagan, Statement of Chief Petty Officer John..................... 241
Housing Allowance................................................ 317
Housing Referral Offices......................................... 318
Housing........................................................298, 302
Impact of Terrorism on Personnel................................. 307
Job Satisfaction................................................. 320
Lee, Prepared Statement of Major Lewis G......................... 260
Lee, Statement of Sergeant Major Lewis G......................... 257
Marsh Task Force................................................. 304
Medical Care..................................................... 290
Medical Program, Assessment of................................... 324
Morale and Welfare.............................................285, 289
Navy Personnel at Crystal City................................... 288
One Plus One Barracks Standard................................... 301
Overseas Installations........................................... 309
Physical Fitness Centers......................................... 312
Quality of Life Funding Levels................................... 300
Reasons for Leaving the Service.................................. 329
Recruitment/Training/Re-Enlistment............................... 327
Retention........................................................ 286
Retirement....................................................... 296
Spousal Employment............................................... 332
Stabilization Force (IFOR) Deployment............................ 311
Women, Infants and Children Program Overseas..................... 334
ARMY
Age of Housing Inventory......................................... 425
Army Guard Budget................................................ 381
Army National Guard--End Strength................................ 439
Army National Guard Inventory.................................... 439
Army National Guard Training..................................... 394
Army Reserve Centers............................................. 398
Army Reserve Training............................................ 395
Atlantic Side transfers.......................................... 411
Backlog of Maintenance and Repair--Army Reserve.................. 490
Backlog, Army National Guard..................................... 439
Backlog--Army Reserve............................................ 489
Barracks Priorities.............................................. 407
Barracks Program Execution....................................... 408
Barracks Projects in Europe...................................... 379
Barracks Real Property Maintenance Account....................... 408
Barracks Renovation.............................................. 392
Barracks Standard................................................ 407
Barracks/Balanced Program........................................ 499
Barstow-Daggett.................................................. 431
Base Closure--Army National Guard................................ 439
Base Closure--Army Reserve....................................... 489
Base Realignment and Closure--Environmental...................... 385
Budget Planning Process.......................................... 376
Budget Request, History of Army National Guard................... 470
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 337
Chemical Demilitarization Program................................ 422
Child Development Centers......................................403, 424
Concord Naval Weapons Station, California........................ 438
Construction Improvements........................................ 427
Conversion Tables................................................ 421
Cost-Sharing--Army National Guard................................ 487
Crane Army Ammunition Activity, Indiana.......................... 437
Currency Fluctuation............................................. 427
Davis-Bacon...................................................... 390
Defense Intelligence Agency/Missile Space Intelligence Center.... 431
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 427
Demolition of Excess Facilities.................................. 499
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Army National Guard........... 473
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Army Reserve.................. 492
Demolition....................................................... 404
Directed Minor Construction Projects............................. 384
End Strength--Army Reserve....................................... 489
Environmental Compliance......................................... 438
Environmental Compliance--Army Reserve........................... 488
Excess Prior Year Authorization.................................. 438
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Army Reserve.................... 488
Expiring Authorizations--Army National Guard..................... 438
Expiring Authorizations--Army Reserve............................ 488
Facilities Privatization Initiatives............................. 405
Facilities Returned to States--Army National Guard............... 477
Facility Definition--Army National Guard......................... 488
Family Housing Improvement Fund.................................. 405
Family Housing Maintenance....................................... 499
Family Housing Privatization and Housing Authority............... 425
Family Housing--Army National Guard.............................. 470
Family Housing--Army Reserve..................................... 490
Fort Carson, Colorado............................................ 437
Fort Gordon, Georgia............................................. 437
Fort Huachuca, Arizona........................................... 437
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas--U.S. Disciplinary Barracks............. 435
Fort McCoy, Wisconsin............................................ 498
Fort Riley, Kansas............................................... 438
Fort Sam Houston, Texas.......................................... 438
Fort Stewart Barracks Projects................................... 383
Guard and Reserve Components..................................... 380
Guard and Reserve Training....................................... 393
Historic Preservation............................................ 413
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 428
Host Nation Support.............................................. 415
Housing Deficits................................................. 425
Infrastructure Requirements....................................377, 499
Installation Status Report....................................... 412
Inventory........................................................ 425
Inventory--Army Reserve.......................................... 489
Korea............................................................ 412
Marsh Task Force................................................. 406
Massachusetts Army Guard Facilities.............................. 402
Military Construction Needs of the National Guard................ 500
Minor Construction............................................... 420
Mississippi-Bed-Down of Avenger Air-Defense-System Units......... 518
National Guard Backlog of Maintenance Repair..................... 470
Off-Base Housing................................................. 426
Officer Quarters................................................. 427
Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................. 427
Operation and Maintenance for Army Guard Facilities.............. 400
Pacific Side Transfers........................................... 411
Panama Relocation................................................ 411
Parametric Cost Estimates--Army National Guard................... 470
Parametric Cost Estimates--Army Reserve.......................... 490
Planning Process................................................. 498
Power Projection Platforms.....................................386, 397
Private Sector Initiatives....................................... 404
Privatization..................................................378, 499
Program Execution Rates.......................................... 430
Projects No Longer Required...................................... 414
Projects No Longer Required--Army National Guard................. 474
Projects No Longer Required--Army Reserve........................ 492
Recruiting....................................................... 391
Reprogrammings................................................... 418
Reprogrammings--Army National Guard.............................. 474
Reprogrammings--Army Reserve..................................... 492
Sacramento, California........................................... 493
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii....................................... 437
SOUTHCOM Headquarters Relocation................................. 518
Southwest Asia................................................... 413
State Master Plans--Army National Guard.......................... 488
Suitability...................................................... 426
Total Army School System......................................... 413
Total Army....................................................... 500
Troop Housing--``1 Plus 1''...................................... 403
Unneeded Infrastructure.......................................... 403
Unobligated Balances............................................. 414
Unobligated Balances--Army National Guard........................ 475
Unobligated Balances--Army Reserve............................... 492
Unspecified Minor Construction--Army National Guard.............. 471
Unspecified Minor Construction--Army Reserve..................... 491
Unspecified Minor Project--Massachusetts ARNG.................... 384
USAR Facilities Profile.......................................... 400
Utilities Privatization.......................................... 377
Waiting Lists.................................................... 426
Walker, the Honorable Robert M.--Opening Statement............... 338
Walker, the Honorable Robert M.--Prepared Statement.............. 343
NAVY
Age of Facilities................................................ 579
Air Facilities Andrews AFB, Maryland............................. 610
Backlog of Maintenance and Repair, Reserve....................... 608
Backlog.......................................................... 579
Backlog, Reserve................................................. 607
Barracks Backlog................................................. 575
Barracks Planning and Design..................................... 574
Barracks Program Execution....................................... 575
Barracks Standard..............................................556, 574
Barracks......................................................... 576
Barracks/Balanced Program........................................ 570
Base Closure, Reserve............................................ 607
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 587
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 521
Child Care Facilities............................................ 572
Construction Improvements........................................ 585
Conversion Tables................................................ 580
Currency Fluctuation............................................. 585
Davis-Bacon...................................................... 553
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 585
Demolition of Excess Facilities.................................. 562
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities................................ 609
Dormitories...................................................... 576
Elimination of Explosive Safety Waivers.......................... 573
End-Strength, Reserve............................................ 607
Environmental Compliance......................................... 573
Environmental Compliance, Reserve................................ 606
Excess Prior Year Authorization, Reserve......................... 606
Expiring Authorizations, Reserve................................. 606
Family Housing Improvement Fund...........................552, 570, 589
Family Housing Inventory and Deficit............................. 604
Family Housing Maintenance....................................... 570
Family Housing................................................... 557
Family Housing, Reserve.......................................... 608
Five-Year Plan................................................... 555
Ford Island Causeway, Hawaii..................................... 592
Funding Levels................................................... 550
Home Schooled Individuals, Hiring................................ 567
Housing Deficits................................................. 584
Housing Inventory, Age of........................................ 583
Housing Privatization............................................ 549
Infrastructure Requirements...................................... 555
Inventory........................................................ 583
Inventory, Reserve............................................... 607
Limited Partnerships............................................. 552
Louisville, Kentucky............................................. 563
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, California............. 604
Marsh Task Force................................................. 562
Massachusetts Base Realignment and Closure....................... 547
Minor Construction............................................... 579
Naples Support Complex, Italy.................................... 578
Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida......................... 592
Naval Air Station, New Orleans, Louisiana........................ 611
Naval Air Station, Oceana, Virginia.............................. 593
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky..................... 612
Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia................................. 593
Naval Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut.................... 592
Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia........................ 594
Navy Force Levels................................................ 548
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Virginia................................. 593
Off-Base Housing................................................. 584
Officer Quarters................................................. 585
Okinawa.......................................................... 603
Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................. 585
Overseas Construction............................................ 558
Parametric Cost Estimates, Reserve............................... 608
Pier Modernization............................................... 560
Pirie, Jr, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert B.......... 525
Pirie, Jr, Statement of the Honorable Robert B................... 523
Planning and Design.............................................. 579
Plant Replacement Value.......................................... 579
Program Execution Rates........................................588, 592
Program Level.................................................... 598
Projects No Longer Required...................................... 583
Projects No Longer Required, Reserve............................. 609
Real Property Maintenance Account................................ 577
Regional Maintenance Centers..................................... 559
Regional Planning................................................ 557
Reprogramming, Reserve........................................... 609
Reprogrammings................................................... 583
Ritalin.......................................................... 568
Seal Beach....................................................... 611
Sigonella, Italy................................................. 570
Suitability...................................................... 584
Third Party Contracting for Child Care Services................561, 572
Unobligated Balances...........................................571, 610
Unspecified Minor Construction, Reserve.......................... 608
Waiting Lists.................................................... 584
Whole House Revitalization, Quantico............................. 604
AIR FORCE
Age of Facilities................................................ 710
Age of Housing Inventory......................................... 722
Air Force Academy, Colorado...............................675, 718, 719
Aviano, Italy.................................................... 696
Backlog of Maintenance and Repair--Air National Guard............ 732
Backlog.......................................................... 710
Backlog, Air Force Reserve....................................... 743
Backlog, Air National Guard...................................... 732
Barracks Backlog................................................. 687
Barracks Planning and Design..................................... 687
Barracks Program Execution....................................... 688
Barracks Standard................................................ 687
Base Realignment and Closure Accounts............................ 718
Base Realignment and Closure..................................... 657
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force Reserve.................. 742
Base Realignment and Closure--Air National Guard................. 731
Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C..................................... 729
Buckley Air National Guard Base, Colorado........................ 741
C-17 Beddown...................................................666, 695
Chairman, Statement of the....................................... 615
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, North Carolina.......... 741
Child Development Centers......................................681, 682
Clear Air Station, Alaska........................................ 721
Coleman, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Rodney A............ 618
Coleman, Statement of the Honorable Rodney A..................... 616
Columbus AFB, Mississippi........................................ 730
Construction Improvements........................................ 723
Conversion Tables................................................ 713
Currency Fluctuations............................................ 723
Deferred Maintenance............................................. 723
Demolition of Excess Facilities.................................. 681
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Air Force Reserve............. 746
Demolition of Unneeded Facilities--Air National Guard............ 735
Demolition....................................................... 708
Edwards AFB, California.......................................... 730
End Strength--Air National Guard................................. 731
Environmental Cleanup............................................ 676
Environmental Compliance......................................... 682
Environmental Compliance--Air Force Reserve...................... 741
Environmental Compliance--Air National Guard..................... 731
Environmental Program............................................ 684
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Air Force Reserve............... 742
Excess Prior Year Authorization--Air National Guard.............. 731
Expiring Authorizations--Air Force Reserve....................... 742
Expiring Authorization--Air National Guard....................... 731
Family Housing Construction...................................... 680
Family Housing Improvement Fund......................652, 663, 682, 724
Family Housing Inventory.......................................678, 722
Family Housing Requirements--Master Plan......................... 721
Family Housing................................................... 681
Family Housing--Air Force Reserve................................ 743
Family Housing--Air National Guard............................... 73
Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota.................................... 731
Guard Training Facilities........................................ 678
Home, Assistance with Buying a................................... 653
Homeowners Assistance Program.................................... 724
Homestead ARB, Florida--Barracks................................. 750
Housing Deficit.................................................. 722
Inadequate or Unacceptable Barracks.............................. 688
Infrastructure Requirements...................................... 676
Inventory--Air Force Reserve..................................... 743
Inventory--Air National Guard.................................... 732
Japanese Facilities Investment Program........................... 718
Joint Force Management........................................... 668
Keesler AFB, Mississippi......................................... 730
Kirtland AFB, New Mexico......................................... 730
Korean Host Program.............................................. 718
Kurdish Refugees................................................. 707
Lackland AFB, Texas.............................................. 720
Los Angeles AFB, California--Family Housing Construction......... 729
Maintenance and Repair, Backlog of--Air Force Reserve............ 743
Marsh Task Force................................................. 678
Maxwell AFB, Alabama............................................. 721
MEPS, Springfield, Massachusetts................................. 658
Military Construction Integrated Process Team.................... 659
Minneapolis-St. Paul ARB......................................... 749
Minor Construction............................................... 710
Minor Construction--Air Force Reserve............................ 744
Moffett Federal Airport, California.............................. 666
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho--Privatization.......................... 729
New vs. Current Mission.......................................... 709
Off-Base Housing................................................. 722
Officer Quarters................................................. 723
Okinawa.......................................................... 707
Onizuka/Moffett.................................................. 707
Operation and Maintenance Costs.................................. 723
Overseas Construction............................................ 696
Parametric Cost Estimates--Air Force Reserve..................... 743
Parametric Cost Estimates--Air National Guard.................... 732
Payment-in-Kind--Germany......................................... 718
Planning and Design.............................................. 710
Planning Process................................................. 678
Plant Replacement Value.......................................... 710
Prioritization of Projects.....................................670, 673
Private Sector Initiatives....................................... 680
Privatization..................................................665, 695
Program and Financing Statement.................................. 709
Program Execution Rates.......................................... 724
Program Level.................................................... 681
Project Design............................................654, 670, 671
Projects No Longer Required...................................... 709
Projects No Longer Required--Air Force Reserve................... 746
Projects No Longer Required--Air National Guard.................. 735
Projects Not Yet Executed--Air National Guard.................... 739
Real Property Maintenance Account................................ 688
Reprogramming--Air Force Reserve................................. 747
Reprogramming--Air National Guard................................ 736
Reprogrammings................................................... 711
Robins AFB, Georgia.............................................. 676
Space Based Infrared System...................................... 695
Status of Funds................................................741, 749
Suitability...................................................... 723
Temporary Lodging Requirements for Families in Transit........... 722
Troop Housing--One Plus One Barracks Standard..................667, 680
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.......................................... 708
Unobligated Balances............................................. 709
Unobligated Balances--Air Force Reserve.......................... 748
Unobligated Balances--Air National Guard......................... 738
Unspecified Minor Construction, Air National Guard............... 733
Vandenberg AFB, California.....................................719, 730
Waiting Lists.................................................... 722
War Reserve Material............................................. 695
Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts.......................655, 749
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio....................................... 720
Youngstown-Warren IAP-ARS, Ohio.................................. 749
MEMBERS AND PUBLIC WITNESSES
Bereuter, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Doug............... 766
Bereuter, Statement of the Honorable Doug........................ 758
Brown, Statement Submitted for the Record by the Honorable Alan.. 922
Bryant, Statement of the Honorable Ed..........................768, 793
Bryant, the Honorable Ed, Prepared Joint Statement (with the
Honorable Ed Whitfield)........................................ 790
Bryant, the Honorable Ed, Prepared Statement..................... 796
Calkins, Prepared Statement of Charles........................... 861
Calkins, Statement of Charles.................................... 858
Chairman, Statement of........................................... 751
Crapo, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael D............. 754
Crapo, Statement of the Honorable Michael D...................... 751
Gordon, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bart................. 813
Gordon, Statement of the Honorable Bart.......................... 798
Hickey, Prepared Statement of Sydney T........................... 840
Hickey, Statement of Sydney T.................................... 836
Longsworth, Joint Statement of Nellie (with Richard B)........... 912
Longsworth, Prepared Joint Statement of Nellie (with Richard B).. 917
Nettler, Joint Statement of Richard B. (with Nellie Longsworth).. 912
Nettler, Prepared Joint Statement of Richard B (with Nellie
Longsworth).................................................... 917
Pallone, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Frank............... 820
Pallone, the Honorable Frank, Joint Statement (with the Honorable
Michael Pappas)................................................ 817
Pappas, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Michael.............. 825
Pappas, the Honorable Michael, Joint Statement (with the
Honorable Frank Pallone)....................................... 817
Sandler, Prepared Statement of Roger W........................... 886
Sandler, Statement of Roger W.................................... 883
Smith, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Christopher........... 877
Smith, the Honorable Christopher Smith........................... 875
Underwood, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert A.......... 835
Underwood, Statement of the Honorable Robert A................... 834
Visclosky, Prepared Statement of the Honorable Peter J........... 831
Visclosky, Statement of the Honorable Peter J.................... 829
Whitfield, Statement of the Honorable Ed......................... 768
Whitfield, the Honorable Ed. Prepared Joint Statement (with the
Honorable Ed Bryant)........................................... 790