[Senate Hearing 108-129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-129
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2559/S. 1357
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
85-938 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
James W. Morhard, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Military Construction
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Dennis Ward
Christina Evans (Minority)
B.G. Wright (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Page
Department of Defense:
Office of the Secretary...................................... 1
Department of the Navy....................................... 47
Department of the Army....................................... 59
Department of the Air Force.................................. 71
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 113
Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary................... 137
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Department of Defense............................................ 195
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Feinstein, and
Johnson.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. DOV S. ZAKHEIM, UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)
ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND F. DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Good afternoon. I am pleased to call to
order this hearing to review the President's fiscal year 2004
budget for Military Construction. I welcome all of you, and
look forward to serving this year with Senator Feinstein again.
We have worked on the committee together. We have now gone both
ways, and I think that we certainly work together well as a
team, and I'm looking forward to that.
We will hear testimony this afternoon on Military
Construction, family housing, BRAC, and Guard and Reserve
programs for the Department of Defense. We have two panels with
us today. The first panel will have representatives from the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dr. Zakheim, the Department
of Defense Comptroller, and Mr. Ray DuBois, the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment. The
second panel consists of the Assistant Secretaries of the Army,
Navy, and Air Force. I am going to ask you to summarize your
statements, although we certainly want the whole thing for the
record.
We have reviewed the 2004 budget request, and I note that
the budget request is down again from the amount appropriated
in 2003 almost 14 percent from the enacted level and 6.5
percent from last year's budget request. This is a downward
trend that is of concern to us, and certainly we would like to
explore how we are going to revitalize our infrastructure,
which has been an early goal, with this downward spiral.
Of more concern is the amount allocated for overseas bases
in the budget request. The overall number continues to increase
every year. Last year, it constituted 16 percent of the
proposed budget for military construction. For 2004 it
comprises approximately 19 percent of the total amount
requested, and that is $1.74 billion. Meanwhile, funding
directed to modernize and revitalize our domestic bases is
decreasing. We would like to talk about those two numbers.
We understand that there are major review efforts currently
underway to assess force structure and base infrastructure in
Europe and Korea. It may be premature to move forward with some
of the funding requested in the budget until those reviews are
complete. We will take a hard look at the specific projects
over the next several months.
The committee is still waiting for the overseas basing
master plan which was due to Congress last April. It has been
almost a year, and we still do not have that report. That
report was requested in the 2003 bill.
So I look forward to exploring some of these issues with
you, and looking forward to hearing from you, and now I would
like to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Senator, thank you very much. I very
much share your comments and think you are right on. I find
this a somewhat puzzling budget. It keeps going down when our
military activity is going up, and this budget probably is more
closely related to military quality of life than virtually
anything else.
I cannot help but note that for the active components, the
MILCON cut is 16 percent, or $850 million, and for the reserve
components the aggregate cut is 46 percent, or $368 million. If
I recall, although we added back last year, it was a 45 percent
cut last year, and the BRAC cleanup account--and I really
think, in looking over some of the bases that need cleanup,
that Texas and California can use the whole account itself,
that there are so many bases that need cleanup, and this is
down 34 percent. And family housing, which is the
Administration's flagship MILCON program, has slipped almost 5
percent, so I am very interested, Madam Chairman, and I hope
that the distinguished people before us today will indicate
what the thinking is for the continued decline of the MILCON
account, whether we are going to see this again next year and
the year after, because then at some point we are going to have
real problems as to how we provide adequate housing and other
facilities for our military, so thank you, and I look forward
to it.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator. Senator Stevens, any
opening statement?
Senator Stevens. I have no opening statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Madame Chairwoman, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member
Feinstein for calling today's hearing. I would also like to thank you
for your continued leadership on this subcommittee and for your
outstanding commitment to the men and women serving in the U.S. Armed
Forces.
In addition, I would like to thank today's witnesses for taking the
time to appear before this subcommittee. Your professionalism and
dedicated service to our Nation is greatly appreciated. As I have said
in the past, the military construction budget does not fund flashy
projects like the latest high-tech weapons, aircraft carriers, or
tanks.
The results of prudent investments in military construction are not
always evident. However, to think that the work of this subcommittee is
not important to the overall strength of our military is a mistake.
This subcommittee funds the training facilities that help keep our
service members the best-trained force in the world. This subcommittee
funds the maintenance shops that keep our military hardware ready for
use at a moments notice. And this subcommittee funds the construction
of the medical facilities that care for our military personnel and
their families. Simply put, the military construction budget is a vital
part of maintaining our military's readiness.
I would like to take a moment to express my personal gratitude to
our servicemen and women for all they do to keep our Nation safe. In
South Dakota, we are particularly proud of all those who serve our
Nation in uniform. South Dakota is home to one active duty
installation, Ellsworth Air Force Base. As a Lead Wing for the
Aerospace Expeditionary Force, the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air
Force Base has played a leading role in the war on terrorism. In fact,
the B-1s and their crews from Ellsworth have recently been deployed for
possible action in the Middle East. I am very thankful for the men and
women who are stationed at Ellsworth, and was pleased to have the
opportunity recently to tour the facility and get a first-hand look at
their operations and housing needs. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to address these issues.
I am also extremely grateful for the work of the men and women
serving in the South Dakota National Guard, they are playing an
increasingly important role in defending our Nation. South Dakota's
Guard and Reserve units consistently rank in the highest percentile of
readiness and quality of its recruits. This is demonstrated by the fact
that 21 percent of the state's Guard and Reserve units have been called
to active duty. The nation-wide average is only 16 percent, which
places South Dakota as 11th in the Nation in the percentage of call-
ups. As we look to our Guard and Reserve components to supplement our
active duty forces, we must also make corresponding investments in the
infrastructure needed for their training and support.
Given the strain we are putting on our military personnel--both
active duty and reserve--and their families, I was surprised that the
President's fiscal year 2004 budget request included a $1.5 billion cut
for military construction activities. I am particularly concerned about
the effect this cut will have on family housing. Madame Chairwoman, as
a father with a son serving in the Army, I understand the importance of
quality of life issues. All of the best weapons and all the best
facilities in the world will be rendered useless if our military
personnel and their families are not afforded a good quality of life.
When asked, our military personnel consistently say good family
housing is one the most important quality of life issues they face.
Attempts to improve family housing are being made. For example,
Congress is working with the Department of Defense to provide funding
for a project to eliminate 163,000 inadequate family housing units by
fiscal year 2007. As a part of this effort, the budget includes $16.24
million to replace 75 family housing units at Ellsworth in fiscal year
2004. However, improving family housing is in jeopardy if we do not
provide the necessary funding. I was disappointed that the President's
budget includes a $200 million cut in family housing spending. This is
simply unacceptable. At a time in which we are asking our military to
make even greater sacrifices, we should not be cutting funds for family
housing.
It is my hope that we will work together to restore this vital
funding and recommit ourselves to ensuring quality housing for all of
our military personnel. As we begin to work on the fiscal year 2004
Military Construction Appropriation bill, I look forward to working
with the members of this subcommittee to address the construction and
infrastructure needs of our military. Once again, Madame Chairwoman,
thank you for calling today's hearing. I look forward to working with
you and to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Hutchison. If not, then I would ask Dr. Zakheim for
his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOV S. ZAKHEIM
Dr. Zakheim. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I
have a much longer statement. I would like to submit that for
the record, please.
Senator Hutchison. Without objection.
Dr. Zakheim. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Feinstein, Senator
Stevens, I am honored to present the military construction
appropriations component of President Bush's fiscal year 2004
defense budget request. I am joined today by my colleague, Ray
DuBois, who will have a statement right after I make one.
The new Department of Defense budget balances three
competing demands; winning the war on terrorism, sustaining
high quality people and forces, and transforming the American
military and defense establishment. It funds the most pressing
military construction and family housing requirements and keeps
us on track to achieve the Department's ambitious facilities
goals in the coming years.
It will improve the quality of life for our military
through better working and living conditions. It will support
strong sustainment and modernization for existing facilities,
fund critical new construction, replace facilities that are no
longer economical to repair, address environmental compliance
requirements, and continue caretaker efforts at closing bases.
As you know, our military construction appropriations
request totals $9 billion in budget authority, and it includes
the funding for military construction, family housing, and base
realignment and closure accounts. Our program funds 299
construction projects at 195 locations. Complementing this $9
billion request is $1 billion for restoration and modernization
funded from the operations and maintenance, military personnel,
and working capital funds accounts.
The Department is also requesting $6.4 billion for
facilities sustainment. Although we had to make some really
difficult choices because of escalating demands resulting from
the war on terrorism, especially within the operations and
maintenance title, we were able to fund 94 percent of the
Services' facilities maintenance requirements. That is slightly
higher than our 93 percent achievement last year, and it is
significantly higher than in fiscal year 2000, when the
Department met only 78 percent of the Services' requirements.
It is arguable that 94 percent is reaching up to where one
would ideally wish to be.
Fiscal year 2004 funding is sufficient to construct new
facilities that are absolutely critical, most notably for new
weapons systems being fielded. Our new construction funding and
emphasis on sustainment, restoration, and modernization, which
we call SRM, reflects a multiyear management plan to revitalize
DOD facilities.
A critical component of our plan is the congressionally
approved 2005 BRAC round, which we hope will achieve a needed
20 to 25 percent reduction in DOD infrastructure. With a
successful BRAC round, our plan funding through fiscal year
2008 should be sufficient to achieve by that date Secretary
Rumsfeld's strong goals for facilities recapitalization. We
remain at our objective of 67 years, on average, as that goal.
The fiscal year 2004 request keeps the Department on track
to eliminate inadequate family housing by 2007, except for the
Air Force, which will not reach that goal at four stateside
installations until 2008, and at its overseas bases until 2009.
The Department's brightest housing story, which is not
reflected in our raw budget numbers, is the ongoing and very
substantial privatization of family housing units.
As of February 2003, 18 privatization projects have been
awarded. Last year, we estimated a DOD investment in
privatization projects was leveraged at about 8 to 1. That is
to say, for every dollar we spent, we would have had to spend
$8 in order to achieve the same facility that we got through
the privatization program. This year, based on our most recent
analysis of awarded projects, we estimate that leverage factor
to be 10 to 1. Applying a 10 to 1 leverage factor, this year's
$346 million investment should yield nearly $3.5 billion in top
quality housing.
Let me summarize our privatization progress as projected
through fiscal year 2004. Prior to fiscal year 2003, we
provided 26,166 privatized units to our military families. That
was based on an investment of $276 million. For fiscal year
2003, we are on track to provide at least 30,200 privatized
units, and my colleague Ray DuBois' office estimates that it
could be more than 38,000 units, based on an investment of $240
million.
For fiscal year 2004, we expect to provide at a minimum an
additional 36,262 privatized units at 22 military bases based
on an investment of $346 million, almost all of it coming from
prior year funding. Again, my colleagues consider this to be a
conservative estimate. So by the end of fiscal year 2004, we
expect to have provided at least 92,600 high quality privatized
units based on a total investment of $862 million.
I have to repeat that the projections I am giving you are
conservative projections. The Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, namely
Ray DuBois's office, believes--is convinced, I should say;
believes is probably too soft a word--is convinced that the
Department can and will do more, and my staff will certainly
support efforts to do so.
Looking ahead, our fiscal year 2004 budget request for
privatization totals $174.9 million for 10 new privatization
projects, totalling another 12,204 units. We plan to execute
these projects in fiscal year 2004. However, if there are
delays, we will carry the funds into our next fiscal year, when
more privatization opportunities will become available.
So to sum up, privatization is enabling the Department to
multiply the benefits of its budget dollars and get more
military families into top quality accommodations far more
quickly than would otherwise have been the case. This is
therefore no longer some side project, or merely an incremental
project, as I think was originally envisaged, or somehow an
add-on to what we were doing. This is now central to our entire
effort.
Let me turn next to a subject that I know all of you are
terribly concerned about, and that is overseas construction. In
keeping with congressional direction, new construction in
overseas areas is being requested only where construction
requirements are of high priority, when absolutely essential to
U.S. overseas basing needs, and after all burden-sharing
opportunities have been explored and found to be unworkable.
We are currently conducting a critical review of fiscal
year 2003 and 2004 projects in the European Command and Korea,
and we have asked the new combatant commanders in those
theaters to determine if projects previously requested continue
to be supportable. At the appropriate time, we will brief you
on the outcome of this review, and I may say that this will be
sooner rather than later. We may request a budget amendment to
address the fiscal year 2003 projects and reprioritize the
fiscal year 2004 projects.
Regarding construction for our chemical demilitarization
program, the Department continues to make steady progress. The
2004 budget includes $119.8 million for the construction of
chemical demilitarization facilities. This funding is not in
the $5 billion military construction request because the
Department has consolidated all funding for the chemical
demilitarization program, including construction, into a single
account, and this is in conformity with the fiscal year 2003
National Defense Authorization Act. The single account is
called Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, which
is the DOD appropriations request under the ``Other DOD
Programs'' title.
In closing, I thank you for this opportunity to describe
Department of Defense plans to sustain and revitalize its
facilities. I thank you also for the ongoing support that we
know we have been getting from you in the past and continue to
get from you on some of the key and not uncontroversial issues
that we have to face in this changing world environment.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget will enhance the
quality of life of our Service members and our families, it
will strongly support current requirements and missions, and it
will enable the needed long term streamlining and
recapitalization of DOD facilities. I urge your approval of our
request. Our Department and I are ready to provide whatever
details you may need to make these important decisions and
again, I repeat, we want to work with you as we review some of
the decisions we have already made.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dov S. Zakheim
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Feinstein, members of the committee, I am
honored to present the Military Construction Appropriations component
of President Bush's fiscal year 2004 defense budget request.
The new Department of Defense (DOD) budget balances three competing
demands: winning the war on terrorism, sustaining high quality people
and forces, and transforming the U.S. military and defense
establishment. It funds the most pressing military construction and
family housing requirements and keeps us on track to achieve the
Department's ambitious facilities goals in the coming years. It will
improve the quality of life for our military through better working and
living conditions. And it will support strong sustainment and
modernization for existing facilities, fund critical new construction,
replace facilities that are no longer economical to repair, address
environmental compliance requirements, and continue caretaker efforts
at closed bases.
FUNDING AND PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
The Military Construction Appropriations request totals $9.0
billion in budget authority and includes funding for Military
Construction, Family Housing, and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
accounts. Our program funds 299 construction projects at 195 locations.
The following table summarizes funding (budget authority in billions)
in fiscal year 2003 and in our fiscal year 2004 request:
[Billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2003 requested Fiscal year Change Fiscal year
\1\ 2003 enacted 2004 requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction........................... 4.2 5.7 -1.1 4.6
BRAC............................................ 0.6 0.6 -0.2 0.4
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................. 4.8 6.3 -1.3 5.0
===============================================================
Family Housing.................................. 4.2 4.2 -0.2 4.0
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 9.0 \2\ 10.5 -1.5 9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $565 million requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF). Of this request, $540
million was appropriated in Military Construction accounts, partly accounting for the high fiscal year 2003
enacted total.
\2\ Includes $157.6 million for Chemical Demilitarization construction. The fiscal year 2004 request of $119.8
million for this construction is funded in the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army account, which
is in the DOD Appropriations request under the Other DOD Programs title.
Complementing this $9.0 billion request is $1.0 billion for
restoration and modernization (R&M) funded from Operation and
Maintenance (O&M), Military Personnel, and Working Capital Funds
accounts. The Department is also requesting $6.4 billion for facilities
sustainment. Although we had to make difficult choices because of
escalating demands resulting from the war on terrorism, especially
within the O&M title, we were able to fund 94 percent of the Military
Services' facilities maintenance requirements. That is slightly higher
than our 93 percent achievement last year and significantly higher than
in fiscal year 2000, when the Department met only 78 percent of the
Services' requirements.
Fiscal year 2004 funding is sufficient to construct new facilities
that are absolutely critical, most notably for new weapon systems being
fielded. Our new construction funding--and emphasis on Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)--reflects a multiyear management
plan to revitalize DOD facilities. A critical component of our plan is
the congressionally approved 2005 BRAC round, which we hope will
achieve a needed 20-25 percent reduction in DOD infrastructure. With a
successful BRAC round, our planned funding through fiscal year 2008
should be sufficient to achieve--by that date--Secretary Rumsfeld's
strong goals for facilities recapitalization.
The fiscal year 2004 request keeps the Department on track to
eliminate inadequate family housing by 2007--except that the Air Force
will not reach that goal at four stateside installations until 2008 and
at its overseas bases until 2009.
The Department's brightest housing story--not reflected in our raw
budget numbers--is the ongoing, substantial privatization of family
housing units. As of February 2003, 18 privatization projects have been
awarded. Last year we estimated that DOD investment in privatization
projects was leveraged at about eight to one. This year, based on our
most recent analysis of awarded projects, we estimate that leverage
factor to be ten-to-one. Applying this 10:1 leverage factor, this
year's $346 million investment should yield nearly $3.5 billion in top-
quality housing.
Let me summarize our privatization progress, as projected through
fiscal year 2004:
--Prior to fiscal year 2003, we provided 26,166 privatized units to
our military families--based on an investment of $276 million.
--For fiscal year 2003, we are on track to provide at least 30,200
privatized units--based on an investment of $240 million--and
perhaps more than 38,000 units.
--For fiscal year 2004, we expect to provide at a minimum an
additional 36,262 privatized units at 22 military bases--based
on an investment of $346 million, almost all of it from prior-
year funding. Again, my colleagues view this as a conservative
estimate.
--Thus by the end of fiscal year 2004, we expected to have provided
at least 92,600 high quality privatized units--based on a total
investment of $862 million.
Let me repeat, these projections for fiscal year 2003 and 2004
privatization are conservative. In fact, the office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) believes the
Department can do more, and my staff will support efforts to do so.
Looking ahead, our fiscal year 2004 budget request for
privatization totals $174.9 million for 10 new privatization projects
totaling 12,204 units. We plan to execute these projects in fiscal year
2004. However, if there are delays we will carry funds into the next
fiscal year, when more privatization opportunities will become
available.
In sum, privatization is enabling the Department to multiply the
benefits of its budget dollars and get more military families into top
quality accommodations much sooner than would otherwise be possible.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNTS
The following are key elements of our $5.0 billion fiscal year 2004
request for Military Construction accounts:
Active Forces and Defense-Wide.--The $4.1 billion budgeted for
Active Forces and Defense-Wide programs is targeted towards improving
readiness, quality-of-life, DOD work places; restoring the most
seriously degraded facilities; and providing facilities to support new
weapons systems. The request includes $1.2 billion for barracks
projects; $1.1 billion for operational and training facilities; $518.9
million for maintenance and production facilities; $229.7 million for
community facilities; $161.7 million for medical facilities; $99.4
million for utility facilities; $86.2 million for supply facilities;
$82.2 million for administrative facilities, and $73.0 million for
research and development facilities.
Guard and Reserve Facilities.--The $369.6 million requested in
fiscal year 2004 for the Reserve Components is balanced both to provide
the necessary facilities to support current and new missions and to
replace aging facilities that are no longer economical to repair. The
request is $318.3 million less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level,
but $72.3 million higher than the fiscal year 2003 request of $297.3
million. The fiscal year 2004 program includes 53 major construction
projects as well as planning and design work and minor construction.
Most projects are training centers, maintenance facilities, and
operational facilities in support of the Reserve Components' mission.
Quality-of-Life.--A significant portion of the military
construction program--$1.2 billion--will be for new or improved
barracks for unaccompanied military personnel. This will fund 46
projects to construct or modernize barracks and to provide
approximately 13,000 new or improved living spaces. The Army, Navy and
Air Force are continuing to build to the ``1+1'' design (one soldier to
a room with a shared bathroom) for personnel permanently assigned to a
base. The Marine Corps is building to the ``2+0'' design (two EI-E3s to
a room, each room with its own bathroom) in an effort to improve living
conditions of Marines sooner than if they followed the 1+1 design
standard. In addition, the fiscal year 2004 program will allow the
Department to construct or modernize six schools for dependents, seven
physical fitness centers, one child development center, and one
community support center.
Overseas Construction.--In keeping with congressional direction,
new construction in overseas areas is being requested only where
construction requirements are of high priority, when absolutely
essential to U.S. overseas basing needs, and after all burden-sharing
opportunities have been explored and found to be unworkable. The fiscal
year 2004 program provides $703.7 million for specific overseas
projects that meet these criteria. Of the $703.7 million, $128.7
million is for Korea, $288.1 million for Germany, $155.0 million for
Italy, $55.6 million for other European sites, and $76.3 million for
various locations overseas. We are currently conducting a critical
review of fiscal year 2003 and 2004 projects in the European Command
and Korea and have asked the new Combatant Commanders in those theaters
to determine if projects previously requested continue to be
supportable. At the appropriate time, we will brief you on the outcome
of this review and may request a budget amendment to address the fiscal
year 2003 projects and reprioritize the fiscal year 2004 projects.
Medical Projects.--Consistent with the Department's emphasis on
quality-of-life improvements and readiness, the fiscal year 2004 budget
reflects the high priority placed on health care. It requests $161.7
million for seven medical projects, including $71.6 million for the
fifth phase of a $215 million replacement hospital at Ft. Wainwright,
Alaska; $21.5 million for a hospital addition at the U.S. Air Force
Academy, Colorado; $6.4 million for a dental clinic replacement in
Connecticut; $15.7 million for a medical/dental clinic renovation in
Washington, D.C.; $9.0 million for a hospital energy plant addition at
Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C.; $12.6 million for a
dental clinic addition in Grafenwohr, Germany; and $24.9 million for a
dental clinic replacement at Anderson AFB, Guam.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction.--The Department continues
to make steady progress in its chemical demilitarization efforts. To
that end, the fiscal year 2004 budget includes $119.8 million for the
construction of chemical demilitarization facilities. This funding is
not in the $5 billion Military Construction request because the
Department has consolidated all funding for the chemical
demilitarization program, including construction, into a single
account--comforming with the fiscal year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act. The single account is Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction, Army--which is in the DOD Appropriations request under the
Other DOD Programs title.
Energy Programs.--This Administration is committed to energy
conservation. Reflecting that commitment, the budget includes
approximately $70 million in fiscal year 2004 for projects that will
result in energy savings and support long-standing goals to reduce
energy demand. Last year the Congress appropriated $34.5 million.
Minor Construction/Planning and Design.--The request contains $75.5
million in fiscal year 2004 for minor construction, alterations, and
modifications to existing facilities. These funds are essential to meet
unforeseen construction requirements that can impair the health,
safety, and readiness of our forces. In addition, we are requesting
$386.6 million for planning and design. These funds are urgently needed
to complete the design of fiscal year 2005 projects and initiate design
of fiscal year 2006 projects, and we seek your support for this request
so we can proceed with these construction requirements.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
In the past, the BRAC process has been a major tool for reducing
our domestic base structure. Between 1988 and 1995, four BRAC
Commissions proposed the closure or realignment of 152 major
installations and 235 smaller ones. Implementation of the last round of
the four approved BRACs was completed on July 13, 2001. Once all
funding is complete, the Department will have invested about $22.2
billion and realized savings of about $37.7 billion for total net
savings of about $15.5 billion (about $17 billion when inflated) over
the implementation period from fiscal year 1990 to fiscal year 2001.
Total annual savings after fiscal year 2002 are projected to be about
$6 billion. For fiscal year 2003, the BRAC request was $545.1 million--
for environmental restoration and caretaker costs for bases closed
under these previous rounds. The fiscal year 2004 request is $370.4
million, a decrease of $173.7 million. This funding decrease indicates
that bases continue to be cleaned efficiently to environmental
standards, thereby speeding the transfer of property to redevelopment
authorities.
The fiscal year 2004 budget assumes that the additional round of
base closures and realignment in 2005 will occur, as authorized in the
fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department
hopes that the round will achieve at least a 20-25 percent reduction in
military infrastructure and savings of approximately $6.5 billion per
year. Funds to begin implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations
are currently programmed for fiscal year 2006.
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM
The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) request totals $169.3
million in fiscal year 2004. This is the U.S. share (approximately 24.7
percent) of the acquisition of NATO common use systems and equipment;
construction, upgrade, and restoration of operational facilities; and
other related programs and projects required in support of agreed NATO
strategic concepts and military strategy. Anticipated recoupments from
previously financed U.S. projects and available prior year funds of
$14.4 million results in a total fiscal year 2004 program of $183.7
million. This request is the minimum essential U.S. contribution for
NATO's efforts. It will support both our strategic security and our
economic interest in the European Theater.
FAMILY HOUSING
Budget authority for fiscal year 2004 Family Housing totals $4.0
billion--down from $4.2 billion requested in fiscal year 2003. This
decrease is partly a result of our shrinking inventory of government-
owned housing due to privatization. This budget will enable us to
construct, improve, privatize, operate, maintain, and lease family
housing units. It will enable the Department to continue its aggressive
effort begun last year to eliminate inadequate housing. The government-
owned units average about 35 years in age. These DOD-owned and leased
units house approximately one-third of our military families.
Our proposed increases in the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
will result in improved quality of housing for our personnel. Through
BAH increases, the fiscal year 2004 budget will reduce out-of-pocket
costs for personnel living off-base from 7.5 percent now to 3.5 percent
in fiscal year 2004, and funding will phase out these costs completely
by 2005. Prior to fiscal year 2001, service members had to absorb 18.8
percent of these housing costs.
Family Housing Construction.--The major emphasis of the Family
Housing Construction Program is to replace units that are uneconomical
to repair or renovate and to upgrade the remaining units. We are
requesting $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 to build, replace, improve,
or privatize 19,950 family housing units. This fiscal year 2004 request
is $85.7 million lower than the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003,
due to the President's initiative to privatize housing for our troops
and families.
Family Housing Operations.--The Department's fiscal year 2004
family housing operation and maintenance request totals $2.3 billion,
and the leasing request amounts to $526 million. Our family housing
operations budget will ensure that houses in our inventory are in
adequate condition for occupancy by our military families. The family
housing portion of the operation and maintenance account funds a range
of services and expenses necessary to support the DoD-owned and leased
housing units. For example, the operation account funds items such as
housing administration and management, basic support services, referral
services, furnishings, and utilities, while the maintenance account
funds routine maintenance and major repairs. The family housing leasing
account provides housing at both domestic and foreign locations when
the local economy cannot provide adequate support and when additional
assets are needed to satisfy a housing shortfall.
Family Housing Privatization.--The fiscal year 1996 National
Defense Authorization Act provided innovative authorities that enable
the Department to partner with the private sector to revitalize our
housing inventory. These tools--loan and rental guarantees, direct
loans and investments, differential lease payments, and the conveyance
or leasing of land and facilities--have enabled the Department to tap
private sector expertise and capital to provide quality housing more
quickly than would be possible through traditional construction
methods. Using the funds Congress appropriated directly into the Family
Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) or funds for construction projects that
were later transferred into the FHIF, the Department is continuing its
vigorous privatization program, as detailed earlier in this statement.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I thank you for this opportunity to describe Department
of Defense plans to sustain and revitalize its facilities. The
President's fiscal year 2004 budget will enhance the quality of life of
our service members and their families, strongly support current
requirements and missions, and enable the needed long-term streamlining
and recapitalization of DOD facilities. I urge your approval of our
request. Our department and I are ready to provide whatever details you
may need to make these important decisions. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. I am very pleased to hear you say that,
Dr. Zakheim, because I think we need to have a more current
assessment, and if then following a strategic plan you would be
coming for reprogramming, I would certainly be pleased that you
are more current for sure, so we will explore that a little
more.
Mr. DuBois.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DUBOIS
Mr. DuBois. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein,
Senator Stevens, Senator Johnson--Madam Chairman, Senator
Feinstein, Senator Johnson.
I am honored to be here today again with my good friend Dov
Zakheim to support him. He is the numbers guy. I will try to
answer the programmatic and policy questions as best I can, and
I will generously turn for the numbers questions to Dr.
Zakheim.
But the opportunity to discuss the President's 2004 budget
in the military construction arena is extremely important to
the two of us, as well as it is to Secretary Rumsfeld. Some of
you have heard his testimony here on the Hill in the prior
weeks, and he has addressed the issue of transforming our force
structure; he has addressed the issue of transforming the way
we do business to meet the new security challenges in the 21st
Century.
He also has made it clear that in order to achieve the
transformation of both force structure and business operations
in the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, we also have to
pay attention to transforming our infrastructure.
Now, similarly to the Department writ large, transforming
the infrastructure is not an easy task. It is a very large
portfolio, 620,000 facilities valued at over $600 billion,
46,000 square miles of real estate, in excess of the size of
the State of Pennsylvania, I might add. We have managed in that
enormous real estate, over--we do manage over 300 threatened
and endangered species, many, many important cultural
resources, including 68 registered national historic landmarks
and over 14,000 properties currently listed on, or eligible
for, the National Register of Historic Places.
Now, since Secretary Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon
after 25 years, he and I and others have adopted a different
view of how we manage our portfolio, our installation and
environment portfolio. It is, after all, more than just
military construction, albeit--I know we are testifying in
front of the Military Construction Subcommittee. I think it is
important to understand the context within which we operate and
how we try to manage this portfolio.
Besides, of course, family housing, you have utilities and
energy management, you have safety and occupational health
funding, you have environmental funding, both cleanup and
conservation and research and development. We have
contributions from other appropriations accounts, such as the
military personnel account, host nation support,
nonappropriated funds, working capital fund, the operation and
maintenance accounts and, as I mentioned, the R&D accounts.
All of these budget requests are in support of the total
portfolio, which is in excess of $20 billion, and if one were
to add the base operations accounts, you are closer to $40
billion. In short, as I suggested, one should not judge quality
of life investments that the President is asking for solely on
the basis of military construction requests.
Now, the President and Secretary Rumsfeld at the outset of
this Administration identified quite publicly military housing
as a top priority. Sustaining that quality of life element is
crucial, as we have found out, as has been proven time and time
again, to recruitment and retention and the readiness of our
military and, to that end, we are committed to providing
quality housing. But quality housing, again, is not just
military construction, albeit it is very important to sustain
that particular appropriation, but one must always include how
we are appropriating to increase our basic allowance for
housing and also, again a MILCON-related issue, as Dr. Zakheim
referred, how we are supporting the leverage factor in housing
privatization.
Now, just as a quick aside, the BAH, or basic allowance for
housing, is an important fiscal year 2004 budget request
because it continues to lower out of pocket expenses, out of
pocket housing costs for members living off base from 7.5
percent in 2003 to 3.5 percent in 2004, and by 2005, the
typical member living in the private sector will have zero out
of pocket housing expenses.
Now, we believe our housing privatization efforts have
gained traction. The calculus here, if you will, is the curve,
the level of the curve is increasing. This is very important.
As Dr. Zakheim implied, with the privatization awards through
fiscal 2003 and by the end of fiscal 2004, the cumulative total
within the Department will be in excess of 100,000 units
privatized.
Now, as I indicated, military construction is a critical
tool to resolving our large inadequate housing problem, and in
this budget we are requesting $4 billion in new budget
authority for family housing construction and O&M. This funding
will enable us to continue O&M and modernizing our family
housing, helping us to meet the goal which the Secretary and
the President moved up 3 years to 2007.
But family housing is only one aspect of our housing
requirement. Bachelor housing, or unaccompanied housing, also
deserves our attention. In the 2004 budget, we have included a
request to fund, fund to build or renovate over 12,000 what we
call bed spaces, self-explanatory. The Services are making
significant progress toward meeting, or have already met that
other nasty issue pertaining to old housing in the bachelor
environment, that was gang latrines.
The Services in addition are currently preparing barracks
master plans similar to the family housing master plan which
the Congress required for managing their inventory, and I
encourage you to ask the succeeding panel, the three Assistant
Service Secretaries, for their views in this regard. We
strongly, at the OSD level, the Defense Department level,
support barracks privatization, and we are encouraging the
Services to consider privatization as an alternative to improve
unaccompanied housing.
The sustainment and recapitalization accounts are also
crucial. We have focused on improving the work environment
through the proper sustainment of our facilities and
recapitalizing them. We have seen through the installations
readiness report, similar to unit readiness reports, that the
quality of the infrastructure directly affects those units'
readiness.
Full or near full sustainment, as Dr. Zakheim indicated,
improves performance and reduces life cycle cost. We must
maximize the return on capital investments, new construction,
and therefore repairing and replacing facilities once they have
deteriorated becomes for us, and for you in the Congress, a
much more expensive proposition.
Sustainment alone, however, is not enough. Even well
sustained facilities eventually wear out or become obsolete,
and yes, Madam Chairman, we have a number of facilities in that
condition, so in addition to sustainment we must restore and
modernize. Some of this recapitalization is critical and cannot
wait. Our request for $3.4 billion for restoration and
modernization maintains our commitment to improving the work
environment while weighing the requirements against other
departmental priorities.
In closing, I think it is important that we recognize that
the defense facilities strategic plan and our installation
management approach we believe provides a framework that
enables us to focus on our overreaching goal, which is taking
care of our folks, taking care of our facilities, and enhancing
our business processes. Members of this subcommittee, under the
chairmanship of both Senator Feinstein and now Senator
Hutchison again, have been absolutely instrumental in
refocusing attention on appropriate funding for recapitalizing
our infrastructure and sustaining our quality of life
improvements.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Zakheim and I appreciate,
sincerely appreciate the strong support from this Military
Construction Subcommittee, and we look forward to working with
you as we transform that infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond F. DuBois
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to discuss the President's Budget request
for fiscal year 2004 and the plan of the Department of Defense for
improving its facilities. The Department is transforming its force
structure to meet new security challenges and transforming the way it
does business. In Installations and Environment, this translates into a
renewed emphasis on taking care of our people, providing facilities to
support the warfighter by eliminating facilities we no longer need and
improving those that we do, and modernizing our business practices--all
while protecting the environment and those assets for which we have
stewardship responsibility.
To prevail in the Global War on Terrorism and to prepare for future
threats to American security, the Secretary of Defense has argued
forcefully that we must transform the military. Our military
capabilities must become more lethal, agile, and prepared for surprise.
This transformation was under way before the attacks on September 11th.
But, let us be clear, transformation is about more than new weapon
systems, doctrinal innovation, and the employment of technology; it
also is about changing our approach to the fundamental business
practices and infrastructure of the Department of Defense.
The Department currently manages more than 620,000 facilities,
valued at around $600 billion, and over 46,000 square miles of real
estate. Within that portfolio of real estate and facilities, we manage
threatened and endangered species, diverse geological features, and
important historical resources, including 68 registered National
Historic Landmarks and over 14,000 properties currently listed on, or
eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places.
The Defense Facilities Strategic Plan is our roadmap for managing
this portfolio and outlines our long-term plan--healthy, productive
installations and facilities that are available when and where needed
with capabilities to support current and future military requirements.
In recent years, we have developed models to more accurately determine
our requirements and a sound management plan for getting our facilities
back on track.
Today, I will address our accomplishments and future plans for
restoring readiness to our facilities by taking care of our people,
taking care of what we own, improving our business practices, and
transforming our bases and infrastructure.
THE ROAD TO RECOVERY
Military installations and facilities are an integral component of
readiness. Installations are the ``platforms'' from which our forces
successfully deploy to execute their diverse missions. Over many years,
these ``platforms'' have deteriorated. For instance, each year the
Major Commands of the Military Services rate the readiness of their
facilities by category. In the 2001 Installations' Readiness Report
(IRR), the Component Commanders--the force providers--collectively
rated 68 percent of facilities categories C-3 (have serious
deficiencies) or C-4 (do not support mission requirements), a slight
improvement from the 69 percent rate in 2000. The 2002 IRR is roughly
the same as 2001. Investments made since fiscal year 2002 will take
several years before the affects are apparent. We are in the process of
reversing the decay, but much remains to be done. From fiscal years
2002 to 2004, we will have put over $28 billion in the sustainment and
revitalization of our facilities, and we are beginning to see the
results.
The installations management approach of the Department led us to a
different way to view our installations and environmental portfolio.
This portfolio is more than simply military construction and family
housing. It also includes environmental funding and other contributions
from appropriations such as military personnel, host nation support,
non-appropriated funds and working capital funds, in addition to
operations and maintenance (O&M). This funding sustains our facilities
through day-to-day maintenance and contributes to our restoration and
modernization program. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
over $19 billion in fiscal year 2004 to support our entire portfolio.
The Facilities Sustainment program funds the normal and scheduled
maintenance and repairs for the inventory, using operations and
maintenance funds primarily, supplemented by other sources. Sustainment
preserves the inventory and allows it to reach its expected service
life. For the O&M-funded sustainment requirement, we are sustaining our
facilities at 94 percent of commercial benchmarks, slightly over the 93
percent requested last year. We plan to achieve full sustainment not
later than fiscal year 2008.
Our Facilities Restoration and Modernization program repairs or
replaces damaged or obsolete facilities and implements new or higher
standards where necessary. The Restoration and Modernization program
applies both military construction and operations and maintenance
appropriations to recapitalize our facilities and housing.
Our fiscal year 2004 funding request allows us to achieve a
recapitalization rate of 148 years for the Military Departments, down
from 149 years in fiscal year 2003, meaning the Department renovates or
replaces its facilities an average of every 148 years. We now include
the Defense Logistics Agency, DOD Education Activity and Tricare
Medical Activity in the calculations, resulting in a corporate rate of
136 years for fiscal year 2004. Our goal remains a 67-year
recapitalization rate, consistent with commercial practices, and our
current program would achieve that level in fiscal year 2008.
In the near term, obsolete facilities pose risks to mission
effectiveness, safety, quality of life, productivity of the workforce,
and cost efficiencies, but these risks are mitigated to some degree by
eliminating facilities through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC),
facilities demolition programs, and an aggressive acceleration of
recapitalization rates in the future years defense program.
Facilities revitalization will take time. However, the indicators
are trending in the right direction, showing that we are indeed making
progress. With continuing attention to our Defense Facilities Strategic
Plan and current planning guidance, we can achieve our goal.
COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS
[President's budget in millions of dollars--budget authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------
2003 request 2004 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Construction................. $4,054 $4,480
NATO Security Investment Program...... 168 169
Base Realignment and Closure.......... 545 370
Family Housing Construction/ 1,341 1,237
Improvements.........................
Family Housing Operations & 2,877 2,780
Maintenance..........................
Homeowners Assistance................. 0 0
Family Housing Improvement Fund....... 2 0.3
---------------------------------
Total........................... 8,987 9,036
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKING CARE OF OUR PEOPLE
Our priority is to support the warfighter, ensure superior living
and working conditions and enhance the safety of the force and quality
of the environment. At the outset of this Administration, the President
and Secretary Rumsfeld identified military housing as a top priority
for the Department. Sustaining the quality of life of our people is
crucial to recruiting, retention and readiness. To that end, the
Department is committed to providing quality housing using the
established three prong approach--increased basic allowance for housing
(BAH), increased housing privatization, and sustained military
construction for housing.
In January 2001, the Department had about 180,000 inadequate family
housing units. Today, through housing privatization and our military
construction program, we have reduced that number to roughly 163,000.
This number will continue to come down as we pursue the Secretary's
goal of eliminating inadequate housing by 2007.
We remain committed to reducing--and then eliminating--the out-of-
pocket housing costs for the average military member through changes in
the basic allowance for housing, a key component of the Department's
approach to quality housing. The fiscal year 2004 budget request
includes necessary funding to continue lowering out-of-pocket housing
costs for members living off-base from 7.5 percent in 2003 to 3.5
percent in 2004. By 2005, the typical member living in the private
sector will have zero out-of-pocket housing expenses. Eliminating out-
of-pocket expenses is good for military personnel, but also serves to
strengthen the financial profile of the housing privatization program
by providing members the ability to pay appropriate market rents.
Privatizing military housing is a priority for the President and
the Secretary and is an integral part of the Administration's
Management Plan. Our housing privatization program is crucial to
providing a decent quality of life for our service members.
We believe our housing privatization efforts have gained
``traction'' and are achieving success. As of February 2003, we have
awarded 17 projects, which include 26,100 military family housing
units. We also have two awards in the final stages--Marine Corps Air
Station Beaufort/Marine Corps Recruitment Deport Parris Island, South
Carolina; and Kirtland AFB, New Mexico--which we expect to award next
month. We project more than 20 more privatization awards each in fiscal
years 2003 and 2004--bringing our cumulative total to about 102,000
units privatized.
Projects at five installations have their renovations and
construction completed: Naval Air Station Corpus Christi/Naval Air
Station Kingsville, Texas, Naval Station Everett Phases I and II,
Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and
Dyess Air Force Base, Texas. During fiscal year 2004, we expect several
other bases to have their renovations and construction completed or
close to completion, including those at Fort Carson, Colorado and Naval
Complex New Orleans, Louisiana.
Our policy requires that privatization projects yield at least
three times the amount of housing as traditional military construction
for the same amount of appropriated dollars. Recent projects have
demonstrated that leveraging is normally much higher. The 17 projects
awarded thus far reflect an average leverage ratio of over 10 to 1.
Tapping this demonstrated leveraging potential through housing
privatization has permitted the Department, in partnership with the
private sector, to provide housing for about $264 million of military
construction funding that would otherwise have required over $2.7
billion for those 17 projects if the traditional military construction
approach was utilized.
More important than the raw numbers is the reaction of uniformed
personnel and their families to the housing developed under the
initiative. It is overwhelmingly positive based on the high quality
product produced by the projects.
Military construction is another tool for resolving inadequate
military housing. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $4.0 billion
in new budget authority for family housing construction and operations
and maintenance. This funding will enable us to continue operating and
maintaining the Department's family housing as well as meeting the goal
to eliminate inadequate housing by 2007--3 years earlier than
previously planned.
We also are improving housing for our unaccompanied service members
through increases in bachelor housing funding. The Department's fiscal
year 2004 budget request includes funding that would build or renovate
over 12,000 bed spaces. The Services are making significant progress
toward meeting, or have already met, the Department's previous goal for
eliminating gang latrine conditions for permanent party unaccompanied
members. Additionally, the Services are currently preparing Barracks
Master Plans, similar to the Family Housing Master Plan, for managing
their inventory and outlining their plans for eliminating inadequate
permanent party barracks by 2007.
As we gain momentum in privatizing family housing, we also are
exploring and encouraging the possibility of privatizing barracks that
support our unaccompanied service members. The Department strongly
supports barracks privatization and has attempted to overcome barriers
that impede our ability to execute a program.
The Secretary of the Navy was authorized by the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 to execute a pilot program for
barracks privatization that includes authority for the payment of
partial basic allowance for housing. The Navy considers barracks
privatization a key part of their ``Homeport Ashore Initiative''. We
have discussed with the Navy some of their plans in this area, and we
expect to review a pilot proposal later this year.
We recognize that a key element in maintaining the support of the
Congress and of the private sector is the ability to define adequately
the housing requirement. The Department's longstanding policy is to
rely primarily on the private sector for its housing needs. Currently,
two-thirds of military families reside in private sector housing, and
that number will increase as we privatize the existing inventory of
housing units owned by the Military Departments. Only when the private
market demonstrates that it cannot provide sufficient levels or quality
of housing should we consider the construction, operation, and
maintenance of government-owned housing.
An improved housing requirements determination process, recently
approved by the Deputy Secretary, combined with increased
privatization, is allowing us to focus resources on maintaining the
housing for which we have a verified need rather than wasting those
resources duplicating private sector capabilities. The improved housing
requirement process is being used by the Department to better determine
the number of family housing units needed on installations to
accommodate military families. It provides a solid basis for investing
in housing for which there is a verified need--whether through direct
investment with appropriated funds or through a privatization project.
By aligning the housing requirements determination process more
closely with the analysis utilized to determine basic allowance for
housing rates, the Department is better positioned to make sound
investment decisions necessary to meet the Secretary's goal to
eliminate inadequate housing by 2007. Further, as more military
families opt to reside in the private sector as housing out-of-pocket
expenses decrease for the average member, the Services on-base housing
requirement should generally also decline. This migration should permit
the Services to better apply scarce resources to those housing units
they truly need to retain.
TAKING CARE OF WHAT WE OWN
Sustaining, Restoring and Modernizing Facilities
The Department's program for modernizing military housing is well
underway. We are also focused upon improving the work environment
through proper facilities sustainment and recapitalization. As we have
seen through the Installations' Readiness Report, the quality of our
infrastructure directly affects readiness. Our first priority is to
fully sustain our facilities, and we have made significant progress in
this area. Full sustainment improves performance and reduces life cycle
costs, maximizing the return on our capital investments. Repairing and
replacing facilities once they have deteriorated is more expensive. Our
recent investments in sustainment and recapitalization, along with
continued investment over time, will restore readiness, stabilize and
reduce the average age of our physical plant, reduce operating costs
and maximize our return on investment.
Despite the challenges, we have preserved funding for facilities
sustainment and restoration and modernization. The Department is
requesting $6.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 for sustainment. The budget
funds sustainment at 94 percent of standard benchmarks. That is not an
average of the Military Departments--it is the floor we established for
all the Military Departments, an improvement over last year, and we
have a plan to achieve full sustainment by 2008.
But sustainment alone is not enough. Even well-sustained facilities
eventually wear out or become obsolete, and we have a lot of facilities
in that condition now. So, in addition to sustainment, we must also
restore and modernize facilities. Some of this recapitalization is
critical and cannot wait. Our fiscal year 2004 funding request of $3.4
billion for restoration and modernization maintains our commitment to
improving the work environment while weighing the requirements against
other Departmental priorities.
We measure the rate of restoring and modernizing against an average
expected service life of our inventories, which we calculate at 67
years. The fiscal year 2004 Military Department recapitalization rate
is about 148 years, compared with 149 years for fiscal year 2003. With
the Defense Agencies included, our corporate rate for fiscal year 2004
is down to 136 years, an improvement over last year's request. Our
program funds the 67-year rate in fiscal year 2008, and between now and
then we plan to follow a smooth glide path to that level. This past
year, we thoroughly reviewed and standardized our Facilities
Recapitalization Metric, so we can track and report on our progress
toward the goal with confidence.
Improved Facilities Footprint Management
We continue to explore methods for reducing our footprint and
better utilizing existing facilities. Demolition is a valuable tool for
eliminating excess and obsolete facilities. From fiscal years 1998
through 2002, the Services demolished and disposed of over 75 million
square feet of unnecessary, deteriorated facilities, resulting in
significant cost avoidance in sustainment and restoration and
modernization expenses to the Department. We expect to exceed our goal
of demolishing 80.1 million square feet by the end of 2003, and we are
requesting about $80 million in fiscal year 2004 to carry on this
successful program.
While we use demolition for excess facilities, the enhanced-use
leasing program enables us to make better use of underutilized
facilities. As we transform the way we do business, the Department
remains committed to promoting enhanced-use leasing where viable. This
type of lease activity allows us to transform underutilized buildings
and facilities, with private sector participation, into productive
facilities. Examples of these opportunities include, but are not
limited to, the creation of new or joint-use opportunities for office
space, warehouses, hotels/temporary quarters, vehicle test tracks, wind
tunnels, energy generation plants, recreational playgrounds, and sports
venues. Additional benefits can accrue by accepting base operating
support or demolition services as in-kind consideration; thereby,
reducing the appropriations needed to fund those activities. Finally,
enhanced-use leasing provides opportunities to make better use of
historic facilities and improve their preservation as both cash and in-
kind consideration may be used for those purposes. The Army is a leader
in this regard, with pilot projects being discussed at Fort Sam Houston
and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Improving Energy Management
As we sustain, restore and modernize facilities, part of our focus
is to reduce our energy consumption and associated costs. To accomplish
this, the Department is developing a comprehensive energy strategy that
will continue to optimize utility management by conserving energy and
water usage, improve energy flexibility by increasing renewable energy
usage and taking advantage of restructured energy commodity markets as
opportunities present themselves and modernize our infrastructure by
privatizing our deteriorated and outdated utilities infrastructure
where economically feasible.
With approximately 2.2 billion square feet of facilities, the
Department is the single largest energy user in the Nation. Conserving
energy will save the Department funds that can be better invested in
readiness, facilities sustainment, and quality of life.
Our efforts to conserve energy are paying off. In fiscal year 2002,
military installations reduced consumption by 3.1 percent, resulting in
a 6 percent decrease in the cost of energy commodities from the
previous year. With a 25.5 percent reduction in fiscal year 2002 from a
1985 baseline, the Department is on track to achieve the 2010 energy
reduction goal for buildings of 35 percent per square foot.
The Department has a balanced program for energy conservation--
installing energy savings measures using appropriated funding and
private-sector investment--combined with using the principles of
sustainable design to reduce the resources used in our new
construction. Energy conservation projects make business sense,
historically obtaining about $4 in life-cycle savings for every dollar
invested. The fiscal year 2004 budget contains $69.5 million for the
Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) to implement energy
saving measures at our facilities. This is a 39 percent increase from
fiscal year 2003 budget request of $50 million.
The Department will also continue to pursue renewable energy
technologies such as fuel cells, geothermal, wind, solar, and purchase
electricity from these environmentally-friendly renewable sources when
it is life-cycle cost-effective. In fiscal year 2002, military
installations used 4.5 trillion British Thermal Units of renewable
energy, doubling the amount from the previous year. The pursuit of
renewable energy technologies is critical to the Department's and
Nation's efforts in achieving energy flexibility.
A key part of our energy program is our utilities management
efforts, focused on modernizing systems through utilities
privatization. By incorporating lessons learned and industry feedback,
the Department has strengthened efforts to take advantage of private
sector innovations, efficiencies and financing. We have over 2,600
systems with a plant replacement value of approximately $50 billion.
Thirty-eight (38) systems have been privatized using the utilities
privatization authority in current law. Another 337 systems were
privatized using other authorities, and privatization solicitations are
ongoing for over 850 utility systems.
The Services plan to request privatization proposals for the
remaining 450 systems over the next 2 years. We are on track to
complete privatization decisions on all the available water, sewage,
electric and gas utility systems by September 2005. Congressional
support for this effort in fiscal year 2004 is essential to maintain
the procurement momentum and industry interest, as well as maximize the
benefits of modernizing the Department's utility infrastructure.
Improving Environmental Management
The Department continues to be leaders in environmental management.
We are proud of our environmental program at our military installations
throughout the world, and we are committed to pursuing a comprehensive
environmental program.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM--SUMMARY OF REQUEST
[President's budget in millions of dollars--budget authority]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2003 request 2004 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup................................. $1,278 $1,273
BRAC Environmental \1\.................. 519 412
Compliance.............................. 1,701 1,603
Pollution Prevention.................... 247 173
Conservation............................ 152 153
Technology.............................. 205 191
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,102 3,805
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding levels reflect total requirement (TOA).
In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $3.8 billion for
environmental programs. This includes $1.3 billion for cleanup, $0.4
billion for BRAC environmental, $1.6 billion for compliance; about $0.2
billion for pollution prevention, and about $0.2 billion for
conservation.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, we reduced new environmental
violations by 77 percent from the 1992 baseline. The Department
continues to reduce the percent of enforcement actions received per
inspection, with roughly one enforcement action per 12.5 inspections,
down from one for every three inspections in 1994. We have also
improved our treatment of wastewater and the provision of drinking
water for those systems we control.
We reduced the amount of hazardous waste we generate by over 64
percent since 1992, and we are avoiding disposal costs by diverting
non-hazardous solid waste from landfills by recycling and other
approved methods. These pollution prevention techniques continue to
save the Department needed funds as well as reduce pollution. As an
example, the Department saved about $95 million in disposal costs in
2001. We have increased the number of alternative fueled vehicles that
we use in order to reduce the demand for petroleum, and we continue to
reduce the number and amount of toxic chemicals we release through our
industrial processes and training operations.
The Department's commitment to its restoration program remains
strong as we reduce risk and restore property for future generations.
We are exploring ways to improve and accelerate cleanup with our
regulatory and community partners. Achieving site closure and ensuring
long-term remedies are challenges we face. Conducting environmental
restoration activities at each site of the installations in the program
requires accurate planning, funding, and execution of plan. The
Department must plan its activities years in advance to ensure that
adequate funding is available and used efficiently.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program goals assist the
Components in planning their programs and achieving funding for
activities. We achieved our goal to reduce 50 percent of high risk
sites at active installations by the end of fiscal year 2002 and are on
track to achieve 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2007. At BRAC
installations, final remedy for 90 percent of the sites was in place by
the end of fiscal year 2001, and we anticipate completion by the end of
fiscal year 2005.
We also are working to mitigate unexploded ordnance (UXO) on our
military ranges. Our operational ranges are designed to train and make
combat-ready our Nation's warfighters and prepare them as best as we
can for combat. UXO on ranges is a result of our military preparedness
training activities. However, we are actively seeking ways to minimize
the amount of UXO on our operational test and training ranges. The
Department is developing policies on the periodic clearance of UXO for
personnel safety and to ensure chemical constituents do not contaminate
groundwater.
For the areas other than operational ranges which have a UXO
challenge--our Formerly Used Defense Sites, BRAC installations, and
closed ranges on active installations--we are currently developing the
reports requested by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2002. We will have an inventory of our munitions
response sites, cost estimates, a comprehensive plan, and will define
the current technology baseline with a roadmap for future action.
In addition, we are developing new technologies and procedures
through the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program and
the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. These,
along with the Army and Navy's Environmental Quality Technology
Program, have enabled us to make tremendous strides for realizing our
goals of reducing cost, completing projects sooner and sustaining the
safety of our communities.
As you may know, the Defense Science Board (DSB) assessed the UXO
issue in 1998. Last year, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics commissioned a new DSB Task Force
to look at this entire issue. Their report is due for completion this
summer, and we look forward to acting on their recommendations.
Beyond the dollars, we have implemented a new environmental
management systems (EMS) policy as a part of the Administration's
emphasis that enables us to train and operate more effectively and
efficiently, while reducing our impact on the environment. Through this
``systematic approach,'' we can continually improve both our mission
performance and our environmental management. We are implementing this
across all military missions, activities and functions to modernize the
way we manage the environment entrusted us by the American people, and
we are on-track to achieve the EMS goal established in Executive Order
13148. We hope to reach the level where our mission activities are so
well managed from an environmental perspective that our environmental
impacts would be virtually eliminated and remove our liabilities from
long-term compliance bills. EMS is the systematic approach to achieve
this goal and resolve the perceived conflict between mission and
environmental stewardship.
We also look to our stakeholders and government agencies to help us
better identify our environmental management issues. On February 5th,
we hosted a defense environmental forum at the National Defense
University. At the meeting, recognized leaders from Federal, tribal,
state and local governments, the private sector, academia, the
scientific and research community, and other non-governmental
organizations exchanged insights on pressing environmental issues
facing the Department. Our objective was to identify and diagnose the
major issues associated with the twin imperatives of military readiness
and environmental protection. This new initiative will improve our
communication with stakeholders and enable us to more effectively
manage our mission and environmental challenges.
Another significant environmental accomplishment is in the area of
natural resources. The Department has been managing natural resources
for a long time--we currently manage more than 25 million acres. In
October of 2002, we issued a new policy for ``Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans'', or ``INRMPS'', used by the Department to
protect natural resources on our installations. Previous guidance
emphasized early coordination with all stakeholders, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and appropriate state agencies to ensure that we meet
the conservation requirements of the Sikes Act and focus on the
preservation and maintenance of healthy and fully functional
ecosystems. The new guidance emphasizes coordination requirements,
reporting requirements, implementation requirements, and other
miscellaneous requirements. The miscellaneous requirements highlight
the need to ensure that we manage our assets in accordance with the
INRMPs to ensure that there is no net loss in the capability of
military installation lands to support the military mission of the
installation, in this case test and training opportunities, as well as
preserving the natural resources entrusted to us.
We have completed integrated natural resource management plans at
the vast majority of bases. We also are pursuing the completion of
integrated cultural resource management plans at our installations to
ensure that we identify and preserve historical treasures. This will
allow us to test and train to maintain a ready military force without
fear of endangering our heritage. We acknowledge there are still some
very complex and difficult challenges, but we are making progress.
PRESERVING RANGES AND TRAINING AREAS
The Department takes seriously the fact that an important part of
our national defense mission is to defend and preserve the natural
environment entrusted to us. Our personnel take understandable pride in
their environmental record--a record with documented examples of
impressive management of critical habitats and endangered species.
However, the impacts on readiness must be considered when applying
environmental regulations to military-unique training and testing
activities. The ever-growing problem of ``encroachment'' on our
military training ranges is an issue for us here at home, as well at
our overseas training locations.
We are addressing the effects that encroachment pose to our ability
to ``train as we fight.'' This effort, known as the Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative, is the Department's broad-based effort to find
solutions to a variety of pressures on our test and training lands.
This past year, Congress enacted two legislative provisions that
allow us to cooperate more effectively with local and state
governments, as well as private entities, to plan for smart growth
surrounding our training ranges. These provisions allow us to work
toward preserving habitat for imperiled species and to limit
development to land uses that are compatible with our training and
testing activities. Congress also provided the Department a temporary
exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for the incidental taking
of migratory birds during military readiness activities. These were
three of the eight provisions the Department sought approval on as part
of our Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative in the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003.
Today, we are developing a long-term process to address
encroachment by creating a multi-year, comprehensive program to sustain
training and testing. This program will pursue not only legislative
clarification but also regulatory and administrative changes, internal
policy and procedure adjustments, and an active stakeholder engagement
strategy.
The Administration will seek legislative clarification where laws
are being applied beyond their original legislative intent. We believe
that modest legislative reforms are needed to ensure the preparedness
of this Nation's Armed Forces, and we will continue to work with
Congress to seek enactment of legislation to address these concerns.
We are in the process of evaluating all of the circumstances that
create problems for our test and training ranges. Some of these may be
solved with administrative or regulatory changes. We are working with
the Military Services, other Federal agencies, tribes, states and local
communities to find ways to better balance military, community and
environmental needs.
The Department also is developing a suite of internal policy and
procedure adjustments, the capstone of which is a new Department of
Defense Directive recently signed by the Deputy Secretary to ensure
long-range, sustainable approaches to range management. In addition, we
intend to strengthen and empower management structures to deal with
range issues. We also have taken a pro-active role to protect bases
from urbanization effects by working with local planning and zoning
organizations and other stakeholders.
The actions taken by Congress last year will greatly assist in this
process by allowing us to work toward preserving habitat for imperiled
species and to limit development to land uses that are compatible with
our training and testing activities. The Services will identify
opportunities to utilize these new authorities. We plan to convene a
workshop early this year with key land conservation organizations and
representatives from state and local communities to develop an
implementing Memorandum of Understanding and sample cooperative
agreements that can be utilized under the new authorities.
The Department also is planning to address the long-term
sustainment process by reaching out to and involving other
stakeholders. We need to improve the understanding of readiness needs
among affected groups such as state and local governments, and non-
governmental organizations. We must establish dialogue and form
partnerships with these groups to reach our common goals by focusing on
areas of common interest. This will enable us to take a proactive
stance against encroachment and protect our bases into the future.
IMPROVING BUSINESS PRACTICES
Adopting a Common Approach to Managing Real Property
We are undertaking an aggressive initiative to make management of
our real property more efficient and effective. This project is called
the Real Property Enterprise Solution (RPES), and is part of the larger
Financial Management Modernization Program.
Our vision is to improve the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, and
usefulness of real property information necessary by all levels of
decision-making to support the Department's overall mission, resources,
accounting, accountability and reporting requirements. We will
accomplish our vision through development and implementation of a
standard, Defense-wide real property enterprise architecture resulting
in: standard business practices and processes, standard categorization,
definitions and terminology and a standard system (or systems).
We are teaming with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to develop and update our plans. We are 80 percent
finished with our enterprise architecture for real property. An
enterprise architecture catalogs the current real property activities
and leads to identification of the optimal business processes and
technical standards, with a transition plan showing how to get from the
current to the optimal state, recognizing any business constraints. By
the end of this calendar year, we plan to complete the market research
and solution assessment and expect field a pilot system or systems in
calendar year 2005 for a significant portion of the real property
business area.
As part of the reform of the Department's business practices, we
developed the Facilities Sustainment Model (FSM) and the Facilities
Recapitalization Metric (FRM). The Facilities Sustainment Model and the
Facilities Recapitalization Metric, based on standard commercial
processes, improve the way we inventory and account for facilities and
more clearly defines our facilities sustainment and recapitalization
requirements. The Services have used FSM to define their sustainment
requirements since fiscal year 2003, and the Defense Agencies were
included for fiscal year 2004.
This past summer we thoroughly reviewed and standardized the FRM,
so we can track and report on our progress toward our recapitalization
goals with confidence. The revised metric is now used throughout the
Department to calibrate the rate at which we restore and modernize
facilities and to ensure that all elements of the Department are moving
forward toward our corporate goals. With these two new tools, we have
finally established a common requirements generation process and a
sound method for forecasting funding requirements.
In developing these models, we also changed the program element
(PE) structure for fiscal year 2002 budget execution, doing away with
the real property maintenance PEs, and creating sustainment and
restoration/modernization (recapitalization) PEs. These newly defined
program elements align our financial management and accounting cost
elements with this new, transformed management structure and permit
tying dollars and budgets to performance.
Reducing Cycle Time
An imperative within the acquisition community is to reduce cycle
time while also reducing total ownership costs. In the Installations
and Environment community, we viewed this as a challenge to improve
business processes, enabling resources--both money and people--to be
better used elsewhere.
We established an integrated product team (IPT), with the Services
and Defense Agencies, to identify alternatives to reduce cycle time for
military construction. Facility construction typically takes about 5 to
8 years from requirements determination to beneficial occupancy. We
researched and adapted private sector practices, where possible, but in
some cases we may need legislative change. We will urge your
consideration of such proposals should they be necessary.
Focusing on Core Competencies
As we consider approaches to better utilize our personnel,
competitive sourcing provides a methodology for focusing on our core
capabilities. The Department will obtain needed products or services
from the private sector where it makes sense. We support the
Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's Management Agenda.
To meet the target initiated by the Office of Management and Budget,
the Department has initiated six pioneer projects as alternatives to A-
76. The Army's ``Third Wave'' is an example of our new aggressive
approach to identify the best way to do business. We will also announce
an additional 10,000 traditional A-76 initiatives this fiscal year. The
Services will submit their plans to meet the President's management
initiative objectives through the use of A-76 and alternatives in their
fiscal year 2005 Program Objectives Memoranda submissions.
Consistent with our approach of focusing on our core competencies,
the Department believes our security guard functions could be better
accomplished by contractors, freeing our military and civilians to
focus on other tasks that will enable us to fight and win wars. We
remain supportive of repealing the restriction in 10 U.S.C. 2465 that
prohibits the Department from contracting for security guards. The
current provision inhibits the Department's ability to quickly increase
or decrease the number of security guards, as threat conditions
warrant. This provision would provide increased flexibility as the
Department continues to enhance anti-terrorism/force protection
measures.
TRANSFORMING BASES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
One of the most effective tools we have to transform the military
is through the BRAC process. From 1988 through 1995, approximately 387
closure or realignment actions were approved, and the Department has
completed each action within its respective statutory deadline. We have
rationalized much of our infrastructure through the previous BRACs--but
much more needs to be done. We believe the Department has anywhere from
20 to 25 percent excess capacity in its facilities. By removing that
excess capacity we hope to save several billion dollars annually. For
instance, prior BRAC actions have resulted in net savings to the
Department--to the taxpayer--of approximately $17 billion, with annual
recurring savings of approximately $6 billion.
Continuing to operate and maintain facilities we no longer need
diverts scarce resources that could be better applied to higher
priority programs--like improving readiness, modernization and quality
of life for our Service members. We must utilize every efficiency in
the application of available resources to ensure we maintain just what
we need to accomplish our missions. In the wake of the attacks of
September 11, 2001, the imperative to convert excess base capacity into
warfighting ability is enhanced, not diminished.
However, achieving savings is not the only reason to realign and
close bases. The more important reason is to enable us to attain the
right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy as we
transform the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st
century. Transformation requires rationalizing our base structure to
better match the force structure for the new ways of doing business.
Congress authorized a Base Realignment and Closure in 2005 to
accomplish this ``base transformation''. BRAC 2005 should be the means
by which we reconfigure our current infrastructure into one in which
operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and
efficiency. Through BRAC, we will eliminate excess capacity that drains
our scarce resources from defense capability.
The process will not be simply a process to reduce capacity in a
status-quo configuration, but rather, as the foundation to
transformation, it will allow us the opportunity to examine a wide
range of options for stationing and supporting forces and functions to
make transformation what it truly should be--a ``re-tooling'' of the
base structure to advance our combat effectiveness and make efficient
use of our resources. A primary objective of BRAC 2005 process is to
examine and implement opportunities for greater joint activity.
Our installations transformation is not limited to the United
States. We also are assessing our facilities overseas to determine the
proper size and mix. Since 1990, the Department of Defense has returned
or reduced operations at about 1,000 overseas sites, resulting in a 60
percent reduction in our overseas infrastructure and a 66 percent
reduction in Europe, in particular, and we continue to review overseas
basing requirements of the Combatant Commanders and examine
opportunities for joint use of facilities and land by the Services,
consolidation of infrastructure, and enhanced training.
CONCLUSION
Our facilities continue to recover, and we are seeing the results
of investments made over the last several years. The Defense Facilities
Strategic Plan and our installations management approach has provided a
framework that enables us to focus on our overarching goals: taking
care of our people, taking care of our facilities and enhancing our
business processes. We have made significant progress toward providing
quality housing for our service members, and we are now focused on
improving the work environment.
BRAC 2005 is our most important initiative to help us accomplish
this. By consolidating, realigning and reducing unneeded
infrastructure, the Department can focus investments on maintaining and
recapitalizing what we actually require, resulting in ready facilities
for the warfighters while more prudently using the taxpayer's money.
As we prepare to rationalize our base structure, we also are
addressing encroachment issues that impact our ability to effectively
utilize our test and training ranges. The Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative is identifying solutions to these challenges.
We have developed a plan of action and are proceeding with
implementation. A key element of the plan is our proposed legislation
that combines military readiness with environmental stewardship.
Our Real Property Enterprise System (RPES) efforts will result in
much improved and standardized business practices while enhancing our
financial stewardship. Market research and solution assessment should
be complete by the end of this fiscal year with pilot fielding of a new
system(s) or modification to existing systems to follow.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to outline our successes in military facilities and review
our plans for the future. We appreciate your strong support of our
military construction program, and I look forward to working with you
as we transform our infrastructure.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. As noted before, our domestic
MILCON budget is decreasing, our overseas MILCON is increasing,
and I would particularly note that much has changed since the
previous long range planning for our overseas basing, and in
particular I would say the timing of the large increase in this
budget for overseas construction in Germany and Korea is
questionable, based on the changes just in the last 6 months in
our strategic needs.
In this budget you are asking for $288 million for Germany
alone, out of a total of $532 million for Europe, and for Korea
$173 million at the same time we are certainly in a questioning
mode on the number of troops we would have in Korea for the
long term, and with General Jones, the Supreme Commander of
NATO, actually having a proposal in public that we would be
lessening the number of troops that we would have in Germany in
favor of some more eastern countries. So my question is, why do
you have all of this for Germany, Europe, Korea, when we do not
have a clear understanding of a master plan?
Dr. Zakheim. Let me start, and then Ray can add to that.
In the first place, we have got a situation where we are
really--we are already modernizing in Germany and Korea. There
are sufficient bases in Germany. There is a plan that is a
legacy of the previous commander in Korea. We also have a
further complication, and here this is something I personally
was involved in. I led the negotiation with the Koreans to get
them to contribute 50 percent of, in effect, host nation costs.
We got a 35 percent increase in that negotiation, and it was
very tough, I can tell you.
So what we have, therefore, is a situation where we have
not yet heard the details of what General Jones has outlined
the framework of, and I think what he has done is reflect the
Secretary's views, and the views that many of the senior
leadership in the Department have that the changing strategic
environment clearly calls for a changed infrastructure
footprint in Europe. But until such time as we have got the
plan, as we have evaluated, as we have discussed it with you,
we do not have it yet, and we are moving ahead with
modernization.
Now, we have done one thing. We have put a freeze on 2003
construction projects in Europe, other than Ramstein, because I
think there is a consensus, and I think General Jones may have
actually said this in one of the articles that he was quoted
in, that Ramstein was central no matter how you sliced this
one, given what we do there and its strategic location and so
on. But beyond that, we have actually currently put a freeze
until we hear back from both General Jones and General LaPorte
and Admiral Fargo, the Pacific Commander, as to where they are
headed. So we have, in fact, anticipated your concern. You are
looking at 2004. We have already put freeze on for 2003.
Senator Hutchison. That just begs the question, how would
you feel about a freeze in 2004 so you know the long range
commitments would be in place before we would start spending
hundreds of millions of dollars?
Dr. Zakheim. I would hope we would have some answers to you
from the combatant commanders before you actually put the
freeze on. I mean, picture it this way. Suppose you put a
freeze on in 2004 and it turns out there are some things that
General Jones, even in this review, General Jones, General
LaPorte feel they do need, then we find ourselves sort of
twisted in a new kind of knot.
Senator Hutchison. So what is the timetable, then?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, we have asked them in effect to come
back to us in, I guess it was a total of 90 days, and we put
this request out to them about one-half a month ago, so we are
about 2\1/2\ months away, and I think Ray DuBois and I are
committed, I know we are committed to discussing this with you
once we have heard from them and reviewed it with the
Secretary.
We know that you have an appropriations timetable, and you
have to meet your timetable. We are going to do everything we
can to ensure that there is consistency between what you are
trying to do and what we are trying to do, because I do not
think there is much disagreement here.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I have to say I am pleased that
there seems to be a bit of a turn toward looking at what we are
doing overseas, and also relating it to what we are going to
need in America in 2005 so you do not close a base you are
going to need to bring troops from overseas back home to; so it
seems we are on a course, but I do think the timing is going to
be important, because I do not want to mark up a bill that is
obsolete the day we mark it up.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, we certainly understand that, but I
think in fairness I have to point out that I started discussing
the need for a relook at our European facilities with then
Secretary-designate Rumsfeld. On September 11, 2001 Ray DuBois
and I were in Germany, having been sent there by Secretary
Rumsfeld to examine this issue. As you can imagine, things
changed when we were forced to come home, and a lot has gone on
since then. But the Secretary has for quite some time prior to
September 11 felt that there was something that needed to be
done about our overseas footprint, and so we are acting on it.
As I said, we will do everything we can not to leave you out on
some limb marking something up and then discovering that it is
OBE. I do not think that is fair to you and, frankly, it is not
fair to us, either.
Senator Hutchison. I think that is right. Let me add, I
have visited bases overseas just as you have, and I hear
constantly about the limiting effects of not being able to have
sufficient flying space to stay in training, not having an
artillery range to stay in training, and so I hope that is a
consideration when you are doing the big picture, that if you
are going to have training constraints in some of these
countries, that would be a factor in your decision, not the
only factor, but a factor, so that if you are going to have to
bring people home to train--Vieques would be another example
where we build up a base, we have an agreement with the host
country, and then all of a sudden that blows up and we are
going to have to find another place to train our people coming
in sea landings.
So I hope that is part of the discussion in the Department
of Defense as you are going to make these recommendations both
for BRAC in America and BRAC overseas.
Dr. Zakheim. It is certainly a factor. I would like to ask
Ray DuBois to add to that, although I think I have to point out
that the host nation for Vieques is us.
Senator Hutchison. Well, it is but it is not.
Dr. Zakheim. Of course. Of course.
Senator Hutchison. I mean, it is not us who is protesting.
Dr. Zakheim. It was complex. Anyway, Ray, would you like
to----
Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairman, notwithstanding my remark about
being reticent to discuss numbers, I think it is important to
recognize relative numbers insofar as our MILCON request in
2004 shows an increase for the U.S. MILCON and a decrease, year
over year request, for overseas. So in a sense we are making
certain adjustments, but I also think we have to look at the
legacy of underfunding for our overseas facilities that we
inherited, quite frankly, when we came on board in January of
2001.
The other issue that I think it is important to recognize,
with respect in particular to your suggestion of a moratorium
on overseas construction, and that is, the Secretary of
Defense, as Dr. Zakheim has indicated, has asked the combatant
commanders for their views to reprioritize and recommend where
reprioritizations make most sense, because the 2003
construction projects currently in the pipeline were in point
of fact planned for 2, 2\1/2\ years ago, and may not reflect
the realities and the requirements of today.
In addition, we would think that if reprioritization is a
good thing to do, based on the combatant commanders'
recommendations, the service Secretary and Service Chiefs'
concurrences, that reprogramming those dollars into other areas
is very important. That would be applicable not only to 2003,
but 2004, and therefore by placing a moratorium on 2004, you
would prevent an appropriate reprogramming, with Congress'
approval, to those, today's immediate requirements, vice those
requirements that may have looked very attractive in the
planning stages 2\1/2\ years ago.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say that certainly we
want to work in the best possible way for our congressional
responsibility and oversight, but we need a lot more of a
strategic plan before we pass a 2004 budget than just to pass
something in a big vacuum and then come in with a huge
reprogramming request. I just do not think that is the proper
way to go.
And secondly I would just say, and then I am going to
stop--I do have some more questions, but I want to give my
colleagues a chance, but I do want to say I do not think just
depending on the CINCs' combatant commander views is the job of
the Department of Defense, because a CINC may be looking at
their sphere, but they may not be looking at the big picture
for the strategy of where our troops are going to be needed for
the future. So I do hope that there is an overview that will be
put forward that does not just say the commander in Korea
believes that you need this in Korea, without thinking about
what is needed in the Middle East, or in Turkey, or in Italy,
or Spain, or wherever. I just hope that just talking to the
commanders----
Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairman, if we were to look at an area
of operational responsibility by a combatant commander in
isolation, that would be a mistake. The Secretary has discussed
at some length with the combatant commanders and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff as recently as 2\1/2\ weeks ago here in
Washington at the Combatant Commanders Conference the
importance of an integrated global presence and basing
strategy, and there was considerable discussion around that,
but there was not any disagreement that, in point of fact,
needed to happen.
Dr. Zakheim. Let me add to that. Let me add to that, Madam
Chairman. First of all, as somebody who has known Jim Jones for
about 28 years, I can tell you he is about the least narrowly
focused person I have ever met, but his command, as you know,
now extends into Central Asia, and it extends into Africa, and
so this is a man whose command is global, and what we are
talking about, of course----
Senator Hutchison. And NATO is a little different, too.
Dr. Zakheim. But again, he is the European Commander, and
for instance, Israel and Lebanon are part of his command, and
Turkey, of course, is part of his command within NATO, and so
his concern is as someone who has to focus, as he is as we
speak, on a massive crisis in his southeast sector. He is fully
aware of the implications of the new States that have come out
from under the Soviet shadow and so on, and their potential,
and as a Marine, quite frankly, he is also aware of the
importance of littoral capabilities.
As to General LaPorte, I do not know him as well, but this
man is a really creative fellow, and he has brought a very
different look to what is needed in Korea. In addition, he is
working with Admiral Fargo, again someone I have known for a
couple of decades, and Admiral Fargo's scope basically touches
up against Admiral Jones'.
I mean, literally, when Admiral Fargo is responsible for
India and Admiral Jones is--and Zari, and then--well, I guess
they do not touch exactly, but Central Asia and India, they
come pretty close, and China, actually--no, so they do. So you
have got two combatant commanders with huge areas of
responsibility. You therefore can understand the exact kind of
concern you have got, and a very creative combatant commander
in Korea.
Now, add that to what Ray just told you, that the Secretary
has made it very, very clear that we have to have the exact
kind of strategic perspective you are talking about, and I
think you can be very, very confident in their recommendations.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to follow up along the lines--let me begin with my
bottom line. I think it really is necessary that we sit down
and have some kind of strategic conversations on where this is
all going, and over what period of time, and how much the cost
is estimated to be, and I will tell you why.
Before last year's hearing General Meigs came in and talked
to me about Efficient Basing South, so I went to Vicenza, and
went to Camp Ederle, and went with him and saw his plans for
Efficient Basing South.
Now, this year we have gotten another plan, efficient
basing in another direction. We put $34.8 million into
Efficient Basing South last year. You might make a note,
because I am going to go on for a bit. I want to know
essentially whether this Efficient Basing South plan is going
to be continued to be carried out.
Secondly, I guess if they are going to leave Germany we do
not have to worry about whether we build a new commander's
house or remodel the old house, so we might save some money
there. We should know about that.
The second thing is, in December, Senator Hutchison has had
some interest, and I have had a longstanding interest in the
Korean situation, so I was fortunate enough to spend the day
with General LaPorte. I saw Yongsan. I saw his desire to move
out of Yongsan. Yongsan is a strategic piece of property in the
heart of Seoul. It was also Japanese headquarters, which makes
it a piece of land with some distinct sensitivity to South
Koreans, and, was there in early December, just before the
election, and there was a great deal of anti-American sentiment
about our military there.
And we put substantial moneys into the budget to do some
renewal, and I saw some of the privately contracted housing and
the facilities that we helped fund, which was wonderful to see,
something really coming out of what we do here.
Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has recently expressed support for
reducing the United States footprint in Korea, and specifically
mentioned moving U.S. forces away from the Seoul area and the
DMZ. Now, the total MilCon request this year for Korea, as I
understand it, is $173 million, of which $45 million is for
family housing at Osan.
Now, this is $63 million less than last year's level, but
again, Korea's outyears construction needs approach $1 billion,
so I think that this subcommittee really needs to know what the
long term thinking is so that we can feel that this is not
going to change with every change of command, that there is
going to be something that everybody has bought into and is
going to continue to fund in the years to come.
I must tell you, I feel very uncertain about this,
particularly from the Efficient Basing South, and you know,
going to Northern Italy, and meeting the people, and seeing
what they want to do, and buying into it, so the first part of
my question, is Efficient Basing South going to go ahead?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, again, we have been discussing Germany
and Efficient Basing South is far more consistent with what I
think is the overall direction of where we are likely to head.
I have not heard, and either Ray can kick me, alongside me, or
my staff can kick me from behind, I have not heard anyone
questioning what we are trying to do in Italy. In fact, it is
highly consistent.
Senator Feinstein. No, do not mistake, I did not say
anybody was questioning it. I am a supporter of it. Nobody is
questioning it. I worry that it will change next year.
Dr. Zakheim. I have no indication of that. Look, I cannot
speak for what General Jones is going to do. I cannot prejudge
it, but on its face it seems to me, and I think this is why it
was undertaken in the first place, was because it was
consistent with this redirection and relook at where we are
likely to be.
Senator Feinstein. But bottom line, we do not know whether
Efficient Basing South is going to continue.
Dr. Zakheim. Bottom line, right now, it is continuing, and
we cannot prejudge what General Jones is going to do, but let
me say, I would be highly surprised if he were to question that
particular program.
Senator Feinstein. He is coming in, so I will have a chance
to ask him that. I will, and perhaps we can all share.
Dr. Zakheim. I have no indications that that is the
direction he is going, to somehow chop and change on that one.
Now, on Korea, you make two points that I otherwise would
have made. One is, General LaPorte is concerned about Yongsan.
I was there a few months before you were, and I had the same
reaction you did, which, one reaction that I always have when I
am there is, we are stuck in the middle of Seoul. The other
reaction, which was a good one, was, at least we are taking
care of the folks who are living there.
Now, as long as there are folks living there, we have got
to do something for them, and whatever the plan General LaPorte
comes up with, I would be very surprised if we just uprooted
ourselves and left immediately.
Senator Feinstein. My understanding is that what there
would be is a land trade.
Dr. Zakheim. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And I guess what I am asking is, could
you give us the status of that land trade?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, I will get you some more for the record.
Again, General LaPorte is coming back to us, as General Jones
is, within the next couple of months, and so we will probably
have a much firmer answer by then, but I can get you something
before then.
[The information follows:]
The Republic of Korea (ROK) desires the return of lands in Seoul
and in 1990 signed an Agreement-In-Principle and Memorandum of
Understanding for relocation of U.S. forces from Seoul including the
majority of Yongsan Main and South Posts. ROK agreed to grant U.S.
Forces, Korea (USFK) new land in the Osan-Pyongtaek area and completely
fund the move. On June 12, 1993, ROK informed USFK that ROK had decided
to cancel the plan to purchase real estate near Osan Air Base due to
strong local opposition thus halting the relocation efforts. ROK is now
showing renewed interest in the relocation.
The relocation of U.S. forces from Seoul is currently on hold due
to ROK opposition of the details of the relocation plan, and there is
no anticipated Yongsan land trade in the near future, although long-
term planning for the relocation continues. USFK conducted a Yongsan
relocation requirements survey in summer of 2002. An initial master
plan to relocate the U.S. forces from Yongsan is under development and
will be completed by May 2003.
Senator Feinstein. If we are going to leave the base there
is no sense in putting a lot into it.
Mr. DuBois. Senator Feinstein, just to look at Korea first,
and then I will go back to Italy, the fact that the symbolism,
as you have pointed out, of Yongsan headquarters far exceeds
its square footage, its footprint, if you will, has not escaped
the Secretary of Defense in this context, and as you have
correctly referred, he has made comments about that. The speed
with which one could reconfigure our presence--presence equals
end strength as well as positioning--in South Korea is not
something you do in a year.
The Secretary did send to Korea recently Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless to talk to General
LaPorte--and I encourage you to talk to General LaPorte when he
is here next week. He is going to see me on Monday--in this
regard. I am interested in what he has learned, because the
long term thinking is exactly what the Secretary of Defense has
insisted that LaPorte and Fargo put on the table, not just 2003
and 2004, but 10 years plus out.
As far as Efficient Basing South is concerned, and what we
are really talking about here, of course, is Vicenza and
Aviano, and also Naples and the naval stations that we have
now, and this is important to note, because it was significant
military construction that went into Sigonella, significant
military construction appropriated by this subcommittee that
went into the building of that new housing area for the Navy
near Naples, and I encourage you to visit it. If you have not,
it is fantastic.
In fact, when I visited, the wonderful comment made to me
was, the assignments folks in the Pentagon who always used to
be prevailed upon, do not assign me to Naples, now the
assignments people want to go to Naples. This is a positive
thing, and yes, it does reflect where I think the Secretary is
going in the longer term.
Now, should we or should we not repair a four star general
officer's house in Stuttgart? I will defer that for the moment.
Dr. Zakheim. I did not even address it.
Senator Feinstein. We will defer it, then.
You know, I think what the General in charge at Vicenza has
done, and I really want to say this to you, is really quite
remarkable. He said when 9/11 happened the carabinieri just
automatically came and surrounded the base to offer protection,
and this General had established such good contacts, and this
base is right in the town, such good connections with the
leadership, with the community, that there was just solid
support for the base, and that really made me feel good, and
obviously very concerned about the men and women serving at
that base and their opportunities, and it was really a very
heartwarming thing to see.
Now, it was also clear to me that General LaPorte--I mean,
I think he is a 10. He is a great human being, and I suspect a
very good tactical commander. At the same time, the problems
there are really problems that take some serious, I think, long
term thinking. And because we are putting so much money into
Korea, particularly in the outyears, I think that both of us
really need to know what that long term thinking is and how
what we do can best serve it, because I think everybody wants
the same thing, to do the land trade, to get out of Central
Seoul, to have less of a footprint, but still be available for
any protection that might be necessary, and I would suspect
that that might be agreeable on everybody's part.
But how we do this I think is going to be very difficult,
because the costs are going to be quite substantial, and so I
am eager, and I saw Osan, and I saw some of the housing that we
had done, the new housing and the recreational center, and I
was really very proud.
Mr. DuBois. Senator, I think it may be less difficult than
we think, and I am speaking for myself now, but as Deputy Under
Secretary for Installations and Environment, having been to
Korea a number of times since I became Deputy Under Secretary,
the tough negotiations that Dov Zakheim entered into and was
successful in accomplishing with the South Korean Government
for host nation support must be part of our calculus here,
because we do not want to damage that relationship, especially
in terms of their commitment to co-invest with us on behalf of
our military forces. We want to make sure, however, as you
pointed out, that it is done in the right place.
Dr. Zakheim. That is exactly right. We have to be sure that
the agreement we got--let us be honest here, the Japanese pay a
substantial portion of host nation support. The Europeans do
not. The Koreans were closer to the bottom of the table. We
have moved them up to 50 percent. We do not want to lose that,
and so that is another factor in this, and Leon LaPorte is a
really bright guy; he's----
Senator Hutchison. Are you talking about Korea moving up to
50, or are you talking about Europe moving up to 50?
Dr. Zakheim. Well, let me tell you, if I had my druthers
Europe is going to move up to 50. It is going to be harder to
do. Meanwhile, I have got Korea.
Senator Feinstein. You are at 35 now, right?
Dr. Zakheim. Not even that high. I think if you look
closely at the European numbers, it is less than that, and that
is a major concern. We have got to wait for the time when we
renegotiate. How do you renegotiate until you know what your
plan is? I mean, what is the point, for example, to go back to
the Germans, who do not kick in anything like the Koreans do,
and say, well, let us renegotiate, when we do not even know
what it is going to be like in Germany.
So we have got to be careful. We have got different
external factors here, in addition to just the actual
facilities.
Senator Feinstein. I was just going to make one last point
so I could turn it back to the chairman. Environmental
remediation, and maybe I have a bias, because we have 30 closed
bases, and maybe I have a bias because McClellan Air Force Base
had a nuclear reactor on it and we have to clean it up, and I
was really struck by the hit that environmental remediation
took.
At the same time, I do want to say to you that I understand
considerable progress is being made at Bayview-Hunters Point,
and I want to thank you for that. I think I reported at last
year's hearing that they had a fire that burned underground for
2 weeks before anybody knew it was burning underground, and I
am very pleased that the Navy has done what they said they were
going to do, and I gather things are on schedule and on target
there. However, I have just a list from the Air Force of what
they could use to clean up just Kelly and McClellan, and one
other base, and it is $64 million additional dollars this year.
The military has an obligation to remove the contamination
from these bases.
Dr. Zakheim. Well, let me first say that I remember your
concern last year and I am glad that we took care of that one
facility. That is important. Now I do want to turn it over to
probably the guy who knows more about this than anybody else in
the Department, Ray DuBois.
Mr. DuBois. The environmental remediation of BRAC'd
property from the four prior BRAC's has been and continues to
be a challenge, but it is a challenge in several ways, Senator.
Number 1, we still have significant BRAC'd properties yet to be
disposed of, and those BRAC'd properties are not disposed of in
no small measure because of competing local environmental
interests and competing local economic interests. One side may
want to use the property for one use, the other faction may
want to use it for another use.
One of the reasons that we have been unable, and have not
asked for in many cases money for X or Y, has been--and granted
this does not apply necessarily to McClellan and Kelly, but
even if we had the money we could not execute it because the
locals have not decided what the land use will be. It is just
an aspect of it.
We have spent, since the first BRAC in 1988 and the BRACs
in 1991, 1993, and 1995, up to about 40 percent of all BRAC
environmental remediation, and this is not surprising, given
the number of bases which were impacted in the State of
California, in the State of California. It is not as if the
State of California has been pro rata less than other places.
Now, we also have, I think, an issue, and you will have to
address this specifically to the three Service Secretaries who
will follow us, and I thank you for raising and noticing what
the Navy has done not just in terms of disposing of property in
California also, but also in terms of meeting their
environmental obligations, but all three Military Departments
recognize their environmental obligations.
You may, either in this forum or another forum, ask the
question, then why would we necessarily ask for less in terms
of BRAC environmental remediation funding this year than last?
Two factors apply. One factor is, we have less environmental
remediation to do, because we have been able to--not in terms
of cost to complete, but in terms of what we have accomplished
just in the past 2 fiscal years.
I think the other issue is, and again I encourage you to
ask Secretary Johnson, as he is a witness today. He is also
Acting Secretary of the Navy, so he has got a few jobs, but as
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and
Environment, he has been a tremendous asset to the total DOD
disposal philosophy, because he has worked hard with local
communities to actually auction off properties that heretofore
have been held from disposal.
As you may know, under the law, those dollars go into the
so-called BRAC account, and they can only be used for
environmental remediation, so in the case of the Navy, they
have asked for less dollars this year than last, but they now,
if they get the receipts that are under contract, they will
have a considerable amount of money in that BRAC account to
spend, and those dollars do not need to be reappropriated.
It is an interesting kind of inside the beltway, if you
will----
Senator Feinstein. We will check those accounts.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. I just have a few more
questions. I wanted to finish on the--I had a few questions on
the host nation support issue. I am under the impression that
Europe pays less than 10 percent.
Dr. Zakheim. No. The numbers are closer to the mid 20s to
low 30s. I do not know where you get that number from.
Senator Hutchison. I am not talking NATO. We have 25
percent in NATO, but in Europe itself, I am told under 10
percent. Host nation.
[The information follows:]
The Land Partnership Program (LPP) was signed in March 2002 and
ratified by the Korean government in November 2002. It is now being
executed though no land has been exchanged. However, host nation funded
projects have been started at enduring locations associated with LPP.
The location of U.S. Forces Korea installations in the LPP are
currently under review based on the requirement by the Secretary of
Defense that geographic combatant commanders prepare an integrated
presence and basing strategy by July 1, 2003. The LPP has a provision
to modify the installations specified if needed. THE PACOM Commander
must also evaluate the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 Military Construction
programs for Korea and provide the Secretary of Defense with his
requirement by April 19, 2003.
Dr. Zakheim. Host nations? That does not ring a bell. I
have seen one or two countries, but actually not in Europe,
that for a variety of reasons give, I think one gives 8 percent
or something. That is a Middle Eastern country, and there are
all kinds of reasons for that.
[The information follows:]
The Percentage Europe Pays in Host Nation Support
For the purposes of this response, ``host nation support'' is
defined as bilateral cost sharing contributions, in which the cost
sharing is ``between the United States and an ally or partner nation
that either hosts U.S. troops and/or prepositioned equipment, or plans
to do so in a time of crisis''. According to the June 2002 ``Report on
Allied Contributions to the Common Defense''--A Report to the United
States Congress by the Secretary of Defense, research revealed that our
European allies--on average--contributed over 23 percent of the costs
associated with the stationing of U.S. forces during the year 2000
(most recent collection of data).
The following European countries were considered in the collection
of bilateral cost sharing contributors (listed in order from greatest
U.S. cost offset percentage to least): Norway (67 percent), Luxembourg
(51 percent), Spain (50 percent), Italy (37 percent), Belgium (35
percent), Greece (29 percent), Germany (21 percent), United Kingdom (17
percent), Hungary (10 percent), and Turkey (3 percent). In monetary
terms, Germany was the largest contributor ($1,211 million) and Italy
ranked as the second largest contributor ($364 million).
Dr. Zakheim. I would love to see those numbers, and we will
get you an answer for the record, because my recollection
country by country is, that it is somewhere between 25 and 35
for each of those.
[The information follows:]
The information provided below represents bilateral cost sharing
between the United States and our European allies that host U.S. troops
and/or prepositioned equipment.
The Department of Defense distinguishes between two different types
of cost sharing: the direct payment of certain U.S. stationing costs by
the host nation (i.e., on-budget host nation country expenditures), and
indirect cost deferrals or waivers of taxes, fees, rents, and other
charges (i.e., off-budget, forgone revenues).
The most recent year for which data are available is 2001, which is
also what will be reported in the 2003 Report to Congress on Allied
Contributions to the Common Defense.
[U.S. dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/(A(+B)
B U.S. A+B Total Percentage
Direct Indirect A Total stationing stationing cost
costs costs sharing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denmark........................... $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $66.2 $66.3 0.1
Germany........................... 8.2 853.4 861.7 3,197.2 4,058.9 21.2
Greece............................ 0.5 17.3 17.7 24.4 42.2 42.1
Italy............................. 2.9 356.4 359.3 554.1 913.4 39.3
Luxembourg........................ 1.1 18.7 19.8 6.0 25.8 76.8
Norway............................ 10.3 0.0 10.3 0.6 10.9 94.5
Portugal.......................... 1.7 2.4 4.1 72.1 76.2 5.4
Spain............................. 0.0 119.6 119.6 99.0 218.6 54.7
Turkey............................ 0.0 13.6 13.6 112.1 125.7 10.8
United Kingdom.................... 20.1 113.8 133.9 733.1 867.0 15.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 44.8 1,495.2 1,540.0 4,864.9 6,405.0 24.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Belgium has not been included as complete and accurate stationing cost information is not currently
available. Hungary is also not included; however, it does provide support to U.S. troops temporarily stationed
there for operations in the Balkans.
Senator Hutchison. But you do intend to renegotiate once we
determine what our long term strategy is?
Dr. Zakheim. As each agreement comes up for review,
absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. Are they going to come up for review
this year?
Dr. Zakheim. I do not know if the German one comes up this
year, but obviously once there is a decision to make any
changes at all, then all of these issues have to be addressed,
and this would be an opportunity for us to revisit with the
Germans exactly who is paying for what.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think you and I are on the same
wavelength here, but certainly if we are going to--I am still
looking at the right way to approach a new strategy coming
forward in the very near future, and I certainly think that
would be the opportunity to see how committed a country is to
our being there for their economy and their protection.
Dr. Zakheim. Let me be very clear, Madam Chairman, without
Congress's help on Korea, and Congress articulated--there was I
believe a Sense of the Congress Resolution about how much they
thought Korea should be paying, without that kind of pressure,
it would have been much harder for us to get what we got, and I
encourage you to continue to push this line. It is very
important to us, too.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. We will.
A couple of other things. It is my understanding from your
testimony that you will come back to us for anything you think
you are not going to need for the 2003 appropriations for
reprogramming requests.
Dr. Zakheim. Yes.
Senator Hutchison. That is important, of course, to our
committee, that we stay in the loop when we are talking about
this.
Dr. Zakheim. Absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. And I applaud your looking at 2003, as
well as our working together on 2004.
The programming this year was less for the Guard and
Reserve components than the amount that we enacted last year.
My question is, with our dependence on Guard and Reserves, why
is that the case?
Dr. Zakheim. I am probably going to give you the same
answer that I gave you last year when you asked a similar
question. That is, we have to look at all our priorities, and
we have to come up with some kind of balance. So the metric we
have used is, ``are the moneys that we are spending on Guard
and Reserve facilities roughly--is it roughly the same
percentage of the overall account.'' We have been at about the
same percentage for the last 6 years.
Senator Hutchison. Do you feel that we are basically fully
utilizing the facilities and upgrading them as needed for our
bigger dependence on them?
Dr. Zakheim. There is no doubt that we could do better.
There is no doubt that we could do better, and there is also no
doubt that the Reserves and the Guard are making a phenomenal
contribution.
You have traveled overseas. Particularly, go to the Middle
East, and my goodness--I have friends that are out there, and I
have got one friend around the corner from me with three
children who just spent the year serving, and then a second
year, so we all know how difficult it is for Guard and Reserve.
But again, it is always a balance, and we try to come up with
the best possible number under the circumstances and, as I say,
we use that metric of a percentage rate.
Ray, would you like to add to that?
Mr. DuBois. Well, just to embellish, if I might, briefly,
fiscal year 2003 requests--requests--$297.3 million. Fiscal
year 2004 requests $369 million, and that is a significant jump
in the requests, not in terms of what was enacted.
The issue, though that I think that is important is the
percentage issue. In terms of total milcon vice Guard and
Reserve, we went from 3 percent total MILCON to 4 percent. Now,
mathematically that is a 33 percent increase, quote-quote.
Senator Hutchison. Yes. MILCON is coming down----
Mr. DuBois. But I know what you are going to say, and I can
understand why you are going to say it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, just--point made. Watch out for
the Guard and Reserves and make sure that what we are asking
them to do is commensurate with what we are doing in the
budget.
A last question. This is a fine point, but the funding to
construct the chem demil facilities has always been in the past
in the military construction portion of the budget. However,
this year you are asking that this go in the defense budget,
and I would like to ask why.
Dr. Zakheim. The reason is straightforward. The law, which
came with the Homeland Security Act, instructed us, and I in
fact--I can even give you the section, chapter and verse.
Section 1511(d) of the Homeland Security Act says, upon the
transfer of an agency to the Department of Homeland Security,
the personnel, assets and obligations held by or available in
connection with the agency shall be transferred to the
Secretary for appropriate allocation.
What basically we were told, we were told first of all to
transfer money out, and second of all we were also told that we
were supposed to certify that the--and the Congress told us
this, that we were supposed to certify that the money for chem
demil would be put in an OSD-wide account, and what we have got
is the Army as executive agent, and it is being called chemical
demilitarization, comma, Army, as a separate account.
And I think I was reading off of the wrong sheet of music
on the homeland security. I see a lot of people looking
puzzled, but the $119 million was, we were told by the Congress
to do that as well.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. You were told by Congress to do that?
Dr. Zakheim. Yes. I believe so.
Senator Hutchison. Well, we will check into that, because
it is our position that that should continue to be in military
construction for the continuity of oversight.
Dr. Zakheim. That was the fiscal year 2003 authorization
Act.
Senator Hutchison. Okay. We will look at that again.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Dov S. Zakheim
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Question. I applaud your efforts with regards to family housing
privatization. I noticed in your statement that the privatization
leverage--that is the ratio of what we put into the deal versus what we
get out--is 10 to 1. How did you calculate that ratio?
Answer. The leverage is determined by dividing traditional
construction cost by the scored cost of the privatization project. For
example, if we were to build houses using the traditional method, it
would cost us say $200 million. However, by privatizing those houses,
it would cost us only $20 million. Therefore, we would get a 10 to 1
leverage.
Question. How many units do you plan to privatize in fiscal year
2003 and 2004?
Answer. We plan to privatize approximately 30,000 units in fiscal
year 2003 and 36,000 units in fiscal year 2004. However, the Services
are much more aggressive/optimistic in their projections. Their
estimates show privatizing over 38,000 units in fiscal year 2003,
compared to our more conservative estimate of 30,000. In fiscal year
2004, our estimates are similar, about 36,000 units.
ADEQUACY OF BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Two years ago you both testified that after many years of
neglect, the department intended to start investing in infrastructure.
Your proposed budget barely funds new mission initiatives, let alone
replacing aging facilities. What is the DOD position on revitalizing
facilities?
Answer. We have three investment priorities. Our first priority is
to sustain our existing facilities, our second priority is to
recapitalize (both restore and modernize) our existing facilities and
the third priority is to acquire new footprint and dispose of old
facilities as appropriate. The fiscal year 2004 budget funds facilities
sustainment at 94 percent of our requirement. The fiscal year 2004
recapitalization rate was held at about the same rate as fiscal year
2003, but is on track to meet our 67 year recapitalization goal by
fiscal year 2008.
Question. Why is the 2004 military construction request lower than
the amount enacted for military construction last year?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request for
military construction is slightly higher than the 2003 enacted amount
when the Defense Emergency Response Fund projects and congressional
adds are excluded.
The 2004 request funds our highest priorities for improving quality
of life and resolving critical readiness shortfalls. For quality of
life, the military construction request sustains funding for family and
bachelor housing and increases the number of housing units privatized.
We also preserved funding for recapitalization. We increased funding
for facilities sustainment, raising the corporate sustainment rate from
93 to 94 percent, which will help to preserve our facilities and reduce
the need for future, more costly revitalizations.
Question. What is the backlog of department of defense projects for
military construction?
Answer. The Department of Defense does not maintain a list of
backlog projects.
Question. With the proposed funding in the 2004 budget for MILCON,
how does that impact the department's overall recapitalization rate?
How does that compare to the last 2 years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 recapitalization rate is 148 years for
the four Services and 136 years for the combination of the four
Services and three of the Defense Agencies. This is about the same as
the fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate and higher than the fiscal
year 2002 recapitalization rate. Prior to fiscal year 2002, the
Department's requests to Congress kept the recap rates hovering around
200 years. The Department is currently on track to meet our 67 year
recapitalization goal by fiscal year 2008.
Question. What is the department's strategy to reach the
secretary's proposed recapitalization rate of 67 years? When will that
happen?
Answer. In the near term, it is our strategy to fund only the most
critical restoration and modernization projects. The Department will
achieve its goal of a 67 year recapitalization rate by fiscal year
2008; however, through the disposition of facilities in the BRAC 2005
process, we may achieve the 67 year target sooner.
Question. Why have you programmed less for the Guard and Reserve
components than the amount that was enacted last year?
Answer. The most urgent MILCON requirements of the Department are
included in the President's Budget without prejudice to Active nor
Guard components. The Guard and Reserve compete equally with the Active
Components according to their Facilities Investment Plans and overall
Service priorities. While the MilCon amount in the President's budget
this year is less than was enacted in fiscal year 2003, including
congressionally added projects, the Department increased MILCON funding
for the Army National Guard by 65.7 percent over the fiscal year 2003
President's Budget, and it increased the Air National Guard funding by
13.0 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
BRAC
Question. I understand the department is already getting organized
to begin the BRAC process for the 2005 round. What have you done to
date and how are you approaching this differently than past rounds of
BRAC?
Answer. Reducing the Department's excess capacity in a single 2005
round will require extraordinary effort, given that the goal is true
infrastructure rationalization rather than the simple reduction of
excess in a status quo configuration typical of prior BRAC efforts. The
Secretary signed out a BRAC ``kickoff'' memorandum in November 2002
that provides the analytical construct for conducting the 2005 BRAC
analyses. In this memorandum the Secretary established two senior
groups to oversee and operate the BRAC 2005 process. The Infrastructure
Executive Committee (IEC) chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense
and composed of the Secretaries of the Military Departments and their
Chiefs of Services, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is
the policy making and oversight body for the entire BRAC 2005 process.
The subordinate Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG), chaired by the
USD(AT&L) and composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Military Department Assistant Secretaries for installations
and environment, the Service Vice Chiefs, and the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), will oversee joint
cross-service analyses of common business oriented functions and ensure
the integration of that process with the Military Department and
Defense Agency specific analyses of all other functions. The Secretary
went on to indicate that a primary objective of BRAC 2005 is to examine
and implement opportunities for greater joint activity. Accordingly, he
divided the BRAC 2005 analysis into two categories of functions. Joint
cross-service teams will analyze the common business-oriented support
functions and report their results through the ISG to the IEC. The
Military Departments will analyze all service unique functions and
report their results directly to the IEC. The Military Departments are
responsible for ensuring that their recommendations are fully
consistent with the joint cross-service teams' recommendations.
The BRAC process outlined in the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, that governed
the three previous BRAC rounds also governs the 2005 round, although
Congress did amend that statute when it comes to the 2005 round.
The first such amendment concerns the role of military value in the
selection process. In previous rounds, as DOD policy, the military
value criteria took priority over the other criteria. However, in BRAC
2005, there is now a statutory requirement that military value be the
primary consideration, reflecting the special emphasis military value
should have during all analyses. Additionally, the authorizing
legislation provides some other special considerations that the
Department must address when developing its selection criteria.
Congress also amended the BRAC statute to require the Secretary to
provide Congress with a separate report prior to the Secretary's
recommendations on closures and realignments. In this report, which is
due to Congress along with the budget documents for fiscal year 2005
(about February 2004), the Secretary must include, among other things,
the 20 year force structure plan of probable threats, a comprehensive
inventory of installations, a discussion of excess capacity categories,
and a certification by the Secretary that a BRAC round in 2005 is
necessary.
In addition to statutory changes, there are BRAC process changes
which the Secretary directed in his kickoff memorandum. As discussed
above, rather than considering all functions on a service-centric
basis, the Secretary directed that all common business oriented support
functions will be analyzed by Joint Cross-Service Groups, under the
supervision of the ISG. The ISG will recommend to the IEC the specific
functions to receive joint analysis and the metrics for that analysis
for the Secretary's approval. Outputs from the Joint Cross Service
Groups, after being endorsed by the management oversight groups, will
be considered as recommendations for review and approval by the
Secretary. During previous BRAC rounds, Joint Cross-Service Groups
developed ``alternatives'' for consideration by the Services.
Question. What lesson will you learn in the next round?
Answer. After the Department submitted its closure and realignment
recommendations to the BRAC Commission in 1995, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) provided a thorough review of the Department's BRAC 1995
process. In its report, the GAO acknowledged that ``DOD's 1995 BRAC
process was generally sound and well documented and should result in
substantial savings.'' However, there were areas that GAO found could
be improved upon. For instance, while the GAO found that ``OSD
attempted to play a stronger role in BRAC 1995,'' there was ``limited
success in Cross-Servicing.'' We agree with the GAOs assessment with
respect to the cross-service group outcomes. The Secretary's November
15, 2002, ``kick-off'' memorandum to the Department strengthened the
Joint Cross-Service Groups by empowering them to develop
recommendations for the Secretary. In BRAC 1995, these groups were only
empowered to develop ``alternatives'' for consideration by the
Services.
Question. What do you estimate the cost will be to conduct BRAC
beginning in 2006 through 2008?
Answer. In the April 1998 ``Report of the Department of Defense on
Base Realignment and Closure,'' the Department estimated that it has
about 23 percent excess base capacity. That report also noted that its
analysis was not appropriate for selecting individual bases for
realignment or closure, and to do so, the Department would need to use
the detailed base-by-base analyses of a BRAC process.
The Department assumes that the historical costs and savings from
BRAC rounds 1993 and 1995 would serve as a good baseline upon which to
plan for BRAC 2005 costs and savings. These rounds collectively reduced
the base infrastructure by approximately 12 percent. If BRAC 2005 is to
approach a notional 20 percent reduction in base infrastructure, then
the associated costs and savings over its 6 year implementation period
can be inflated and interpolated from the BRAC 1993/1995 baseline.
Based on this analysis, we believe that between fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2008, a reasonable estimate for implementing a BRAC round
that eliminates approximately 20 percent excess capacity is about $19
billion. These costs are offset by estimated savings of almost $9
billion. Our estimates have also projected that this investment in
reshaping our infrastructure should result in approximately $8 billion
in annual recurring savings after 2011.
OVERALL MILCON BUDGET
Question. Why does the amount allocated for overseas MILCON
projects continue to grow every year, while the amount proposed for
domestic bases decrease?
Answer. We are not putting inordinate emphasis on overseas areas.
However, the Services have been making some large investments in
certain areas over the last several years. For instance the Navy is
recapitalizing facilities at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy. The
Navy is also building up the Navy Central Command in Bahrain, which is
the command center for all Naval operations in the CENTCOM AOR and
several joint force units. The Army is investing in the Efficient
Basing East initiative, which will consolidate troops in Grafenwoehr,
Germany. The Army is also improving family housing and barracks in
Korea. Further, a large part of our overseas costs are must-pay family
housing operation and maintenance bills.
Question. What is the status of your review to look at the overseas
bases?
Answer. The Department is working on a global study to see if the
Department can close/realign bases overseas. The Department has to
provide the study to the Secretary by mid-June.
Question. When will that information be provided to the congress?
Answer. We will submit the study to the Secretary by mid-June. If
he approves the study, and if he releases it, we will provide it to the
Congress shortly thereafter.
Question. Will it potentially change the budget request for Germany
and Korea? What about the projects that were appropriated in 2003?
Answer. If the Department moves projects in Germany and Korea, we
will probably do a Budget Amendment prior to markup. For fiscal year
2003, we will either use section 2803 of 10 U.S.C. if the projects are
below the $30 million threshold. If they are above the $30 million
threshold, we will request rescission of the projects in question and
will request that the Congress reappropriate them at a different
location.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
EUROPE
Question. Given the freeze on military construction in Europe--how
will this hold effect the Efficient-Basing South Initiative?
Answer. It really depends on the outcome of the study but I believe
the Efficient Basing South will not be affected.
Question. Would your office provide the Committee with the level of
host nation funding provided for construction projects, by country,
over the last several years? And, could you give examples of where we
are, and are not, getting a fair shake?
Answer. We renegotiated the Special Measures Agreement with the
Republic of Korea (ROK). As a result, ROK-funded construction for
United States forces in Korea increased by over 35 percent. The
Government of Japan provides us with about $680 million per year in
construction under the Japanese Facility Improvement Program (JFIP).
--The Korean Host Nation Funded Construction program is comprised of
2 parts:
--The ROK Funded Construction program (ROKFC) supports quality-of-
life and other non-readiness type construction
--The Combined Defense Improvement Program (CDIP) constructs combat
readiness facilities.
--The programs are funded on a calendar year (CY) basis as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calender Year
---------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKFC........................................... 95.0 138.4 156.1 170.0
CDIP............................................ 47.0 54.2 59.8 66.6
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... 142.0 192.6 215.9 236.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The Japanese Facility Improvement Program is funded at 80 billion
yen per year (approximately $680 million at the current
exchange rate of 117 yen/dollar) and constructs both readiness
and non-readiness facilities.
--We also have the Land Partnership Program with the Koreans where we
return land and facilities at one location and they provide us
land where we are consolidating and provide us increased use of
ROK training ranges.
--We also have a host nation support agreements with various NATO
countries where we turn back facilities and get either a
monetary return or payment in kind (PIK). For instance, we
received $181.6 Million in cash and $852.8 Million in PIK from
the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).
--Lastly, we have an agreement with NATO where we contribute
approximately 24 percent of war time facilities being
constructed. While this seems to be a large percentage, the
other countries contribute a larger portion of their GNP than
we do.
BRAC
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for BRAC
environmental cleanup represents a 34 percent reduction from fiscal
year 2003. The Navy BRAC account took a 62 percent hit, and the Army
BRAC account took a 57 percent hit. Yet the outstanding bill for
environmental cleanup at closed or realigned bases exceeds $3.5
billion.
In your prepared testimony, you cite efficiencies in base clean up
and speedier transfers of property as the reasons for the decrease in
the BRAC budget request. But cutting the budget is not helping to
reduce the $3.5 billion dollar backlog, and we will be able to complete
the program if the Defense Department keeps squeezing the BRAC cleanup
budget. What are your projections for the out years--are you planning
increases or further decreases in the BRAC environmental remediation
budget?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the total fiscal
year 2004 BRAC program (including environmental and caretaker costs)
represents a 34 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. When
considering BRAC environmental costs only, the planned value of the
fiscal year 2004 program ($412.0 million) represents a 24 percent
reduction from fiscal year 2003 ($540.2 million). A significant portion
of the difference is attributed to revenues anticipated from land sales
of base closure properties, thus reducing the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
The President's Budget includes $275.7 million to address the
Department's known BRAC environmental requirements in fiscal year 2005.
This level could increase as we approach the budget year and
requirements are better defined. A substantial level of total BRAC
environmental requirements will remain beyond the current FYDP due to
the fact that many of the BRAC sites are still in the study phase and
that a greater range of contaminants may be considered in the cleanup
process leading to transfer of properties to communities. The
Department recognizes the inherent advantages of transferring
properties as soon as possible and fully funds cleanup of all
properties with identified schedules for transfer.
KOREA
Question. I traveled to Korea this past December and had some good
discussions with General LaPorte. I was impressed with the Land
Partnership Plan, although I recognize that it is a very ambitious
initiative that requires a great deal of support and cooperation from
the South Korean government.
What is the status of the Yongsan land swap?
Answer. The Land Partnership Program (LPP) was signed in March 2002
and ratified by the Korean government in November 2002. It is now being
executed though no land has been exchanged. However, host nation funded
projects have been started at locations associated with LPP. The
location of U.S. Forces Korea installations in the LPP are currently
under review based on the requirement by the Secretary of Defense that
geographic combatant commanders prepare an integrated presence and
basing strategy by July 1, 2003. The LPP has a provision to modify the
installations specified if needed. THE PACOM Commander must also
evaluate the fiscal year 2003 and 2004 Military Construction programs
for Korea and provide the Secretary of Defense with his assessment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
EUROPE
Question. All the best weapons in the world will be rendered
useless if our military personnel and their families are not afforded a
good quality of life. When asked, our military personnel consistently
say that family housing is one of the most important quality of life
issues that they face. I understand that the Department of Defense is
in the middle of a multi-year effort to replace 163,00 inadequate
family housing units. If this is a top priority, why does the
President's budget include a $200 million cut for family housing? Could
the services use additional funds to speed-up the timeline for
replacing inadequate housing units?
Answer. The Department did not cut the budget for family housing.
The family housing request decreased by $200 million because a large
portion of family housing is being privatized. Since family housing is
privatized, it is private housing owned by the developer and as such,
Congress does not appropriate money into the family housing accounts.
Instead, the Department requests, and the Congress appropriates, funds
into the military personnel accounts.
The Services are privatizing units as fast as they can. In answer
to your question, I do not think the Services can use any additional
funds to privatize units since they are on a timeline to eliminate
inadequate housing by fiscal year 2007
Question. The National Guard and Reserve are being asked to play an
increasingly important role in our national security. In South Dakota,
21 percent of our National Guard and Reserve units have been called to
active duty in support of the war on terrorism. As we rely on these
units more, I believe we need to provide a corresponding investment in
their facilities and infrastructure. With this in mind, I was surprised
that the President's budget did not include any funds for the South
Dakota Army or Air National Guard. Why did the President's budget
include a cut in military construction funding for the Army and Air
National Guard? Would increased military construction funding for the
Army and Air National Guard improve their readiness and ability to
contribute to the war on terrorism?
Answer. There are four Guard projects in the fiscal year 2004-
fiscal year 2009 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for South Dakota;
although, the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget does not include any
MilCon projects for the South Dakota Guard and Reserve. More than $36
million was appropriated for South Dakota Guard and Reserve MilCon
between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003. The most urgent MilCon
requirements of the Department are included in the President's Budget,
and the Guard and Reserve compete equally with the Active Components.
While the MilCon amount in the President's budget this year is less
than was enacted in fiscal year 2003, including congressionally added
projects, the Department increased MilCon funding for the Army National
Guard by 65.7 percent over the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget, and
it increased the Air National Guard funding by 13.0 percent.
Question. Recent reports in the media indicate the Department of
Defense has begun to look at downsizing the U.S. military presence in
Germany, including U.S. bases. There have also been reports that
Secretary Rumsfeld has ordered all construction projects to be re-
examined in order to avoid making upgrades at facilities that may be
closed. Has the Department of Defense done any analysis on the cost of
closing U.S. bases in Germany? Has the Department of Defense done any
analysis on the cost of moving these bases to Central or Eastern
Europe?
Answer. Yes. As I mentioned previously, the Department is
conducting a study that will be completed by mid-June on moving bases
out of Germany.
______
Questions Submitted to Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Question. I applaud your efforts with regards to family housing
privatization. I noticed in your statement that the privatization
leverage--that is the ratio of what we put into the deal versus what we
get out--is 10 to 1. How did you calculate that ratio?
Answer. Our policy requires that privatization yield at least three
times the amount of housing that would be provided using traditional
military construction. The projects awarded thus far leverage upfront
appropriations by a ratio of 10:1. This ratio is derived by dividing
the estimated cumulative cost of an identical MILCON projects ($2.9
billion) by the actual cost in appropriated dollars of the awarded
privatization projects ($290 million). This financial calculation
reflects the program's short-term effectiveness in fixing our
inadequate housing. We also calculate and compare the long-term (50-
year) costs of MILCON and privatization, taking into account the
members' housing allowances. The long-term economic analysis indicates
that privatization is 5-10 percent less expensive than MILCON.
Question. How many units do you plan to privatize in fiscal year
2003 and 2004?
Answer. Our current projections are that the Services will
privatize over 38,000 family housing units during fiscal year 2003 and
over 36,000 family housing units during fiscal year 2004. As of March
2003, we have awarded 18 projects with 27,884 family housing units
privatized. We plan to privatize about 102,000 family housing units by
the end of fiscal year 2004. This large increase is primarily due to
the Services gaining traction in their housing privatization efforts,
and the Army's whole base projects planned for award in fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2004.
ADEQUACY OF THE BUDGET REQUEST
Question. Two years ago you both testified that after many years of
neglect, the Department intended to start investigating the
infrastructure. Your proposed budget barely funds new mission
initiatives, let alone replacing aging facilities. What is the DOD
position on revitalizing facilities?
Answer. We have three investment priorities. Our first priority is
to sustain our existing facilities, our second priority is to
recapitalize (both restore and modernize) our existing facilities and
the third priority is to acquire new footprint and dispose of old
facilities as appropriate. The fiscal year 2004 budget funds facilities
sustainment at 94 percent of our requirement. The fiscal year 2004
recapitalization rate was held at about the same rate as fiscal year
2003, but is on track to meet our 67-year recapitalization goal by
fiscal year 2008.
Question. Why is the 2004 military construction request lower than
the amount enacted for military construction last year?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 President's Budget request for
military construction is slightly higher than the 2003 enacted amount
when the Defense Emergency Response Fund projects and congressional
adds are excluded.
The 2004 request funds our highest priorities for improving quality
of life and resolving critical readiness shortfalls. For quality of
life, the military construction request sustains funding for family and
bachelor housing and increases the number of housing units privatized.
We also preserved funding for recapitalization. We increased funding
for facilities sustainment, raising the corporate sustainment rate from
93 to 94 percent, which will help to preserve our facilities and reduce
the need for future, more costly revitalizations.
Question. What is the backlog of Department of Defense projects for
military construction?
Answer. The Department of Defense does not maintain a list of
backlog projects.
Question. With the proposed funding in the 2004 budget for MILCON,
how does that impact the Department's overall recapitalization rate?
How does that compare to the last 2 years?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 recapitalization rate is 148 years for
the four Services and 136 years for the combination of the four
Services and three of the Defense Agencies. This is about the same as
the fiscal year 2003 recapitalization rate and higher than the fiscal
year 2002 recapitalization rate. Prior to fiscal year 2002, the
Department's requests to Congress kept the recap rates hovering around
200 years. The Department is currently on track to meet our 67-year
recapitalization goal by fiscal year 2008.
Question. What is the Department's strategy to reach the
Secretary's proposed recapitalization rate of 67 years? When will that
happen?
Answer. In the near term, it is our strategy to fund only the most
critical restoration and modernization projects. The Department will
achieve its goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year
2008.
Question. Why have you programmed less for the Guard and Reserve
components than the amount that was enacted last year?
Answer. The most urgent MilCon requirements of the Department are
included in the President's Budget with prejudice to Active or Reserve
components. The Guard and Reserve compete equally with the Active
Components according to their Facilities Investment Plans and overall
Service priorities. While the MilCon amount in the President's budget
this year is less than was enacted in fiscal year 2003, including
congressionally added projects, the Department increased MilCon funding
for the Army National Guard by 65.7 percent over the fiscal year 2003
President's Budget, and it increased the Air National Guard funding by
13.0 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. I understand the Department is already getting organized
to begin the BRAC process for the 2005 round. What have you done to
date and how are you approaching this differently than the past rounds
of BRAC?
Answer. Reducing the Department's excess capacity in a single 2005
round will require extraordinary effort, given that the goal is true
infrastructure rationalization rather than the simple reduction of
excess in a status quo configuration typical of prior BRAC efforts. The
Secretary signed out a BRAC ``kickoff'' memorandum in November 2002
that provides the analytical construct for conducting the 2005 BRAC
analyses. In this memorandum the Secretary established two senior
groups to oversee and operate the BRAC 2005 process. The Infrastructure
Executive Committee (IEC) chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense
and composed of the Secretaries of the Military Departments and their
Chiefs of Services, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff and the
Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is
the policy making and oversight body for the entire BRAC 2005 process.
The subordinate Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG), chaired by the
USD(AT&L) and composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Military Department Assistant Secretaries for installations
and environment, the Service Vice Chiefs, and the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), will oversee joint
cross-service analyses of common business oriented functions and ensure
the integration of that process with the Military Department and
Defense Agency specific analyses of all other functions. The Secretary
went on to indicate that a primary objective of BRAC 2005 is to examine
and implement opportunities for greater joint activity. Accordingly, he
divided the BRAC 2005 analysis into two categories of functions. Joint
cross-service teams will analyze the common business-oriented support
functions and report their results through the ISG to the IEC. The
Military Departments will analyze all service unique functions and
report their results directly to the IEC. The Military Departments are
responsible for ensuring that their recommendations are fully
consistent with the joint cross-service teams' recommendations.
The BRAC process outlined in the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, that governed
the three previous BRAC rounds also governs the 2005 round, although
Congress did amend that statute when it comes to the 2005 round.
The first such amendment concerns the role of military value in the
selection process. In previous rounds, as DOD policy, the military
value criteria took priority over the other criteria. However, in BRAC
2005, there is now a statutory requirement that military value be the
primary consideration, reflecting the special emphasis military value
should have during all analyses. Additionally, the authorizing
legislation provides some other special considerations that the
Department must address when developing its selection criteria.
Congress also amended the BRAC statute to require the Secretary to
provide Congress with a separate report prior to the Secretary's
recommendations on closures and realignments. In this report, which is
due to Congress along with the budget documents for fiscal year 2005
(about February 2004), the Secretary must include, among other things,
the 20 year force structure plan of probable threats, a comprehensive
inventory of installations, a discussion of excess capacity categories,
and a certification by the Secretary that a BRAC round in 2005 is
necessary.
In addition to statutory changes, there are BRAC process changes
which the Secretary directed in his kickoff memorandum. As discussed
above, rather than considering all functions on a service-centric
basis, the Secretary directed that all common business oriented support
functions will be analyzed by Joint Cross-Service Groups, under the
supervision of the ISG. The ISG will recommend to the IEC the specific
functions to receive joint analysis and the metrics for that analysis
for the Secretary's approval. Outputs from the Joint Cross Service
Groups, after being endorsed by the management oversight groups, will
be considered as recommendations for review and approval by the
Secretary. During previous BRAC rounds, Joint Cross-Service Groups
developed ``alternatives'' for consideration by the Services.
Question. What lessons learned will you apply in the next round?
Answer. After the Department submitted its closure and realignment
recommendations to the BRAC Commission in 1995, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) provided a thorough review of the Department's BRAC 95
process. In its report, the GAO acknowledged that ``DOD's 1995 BRAC
process was generally sound and well documented and should result in
substantial savings.'' However, there were areas that GAO found could
be improved upon. For instance, while the GAO found that ``OSD
attempted to play a stronger role in BRAC 1995,'' there was ``limited
success in Cross-Servicing.'' We agree with the GAO's assessment with
respect to the cross-service group outcomes. The Secretary's November
15, 2002, ``kick-off'' memorandum to the Department strengthened the
Joint Cross-Service Groups by empowering them to develop
recommendations for the Secretary. In BRAC 1995, these groups were only
empowered to develop ``alternatives'' for consideration by the
Services.
Question. What do you estimate the cost to be to conduct BRAC
beginning in 2006 through 2008?
Answer. In the April 1998 ``Report of the Department of Defense on
Base Realignment and Closure,'' the Department estimated that it has
about 23 percent excess base capacity. That report also noted that its
analysis was not appropriate for selecting individual bases for
realignment or closure, and to do so, the Department would need to use
the detailed base-by-base analyses of a BRAC process.
The Department assumes that the historical costs and savings from
BRAC rounds 1993 and 1995 would serve as a good baseline upon which to
plan for BRAC 2005 costs and savings. These rounds collectively reduced
the base infrastructure by approximately 12 percent. If BRAC 2005 is to
approach a notional 20 percent reduction in base infrastructure, then
the associated costs and savings over its 6 year implementation period
can be inflated and interpolated from the BRAC 1993/1995 baseline.
Based on this analysis, we believe that between fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2008, a reasonable estimate for implementing a BRAC round
that eliminates approximately 20 percent excess capacity is about $19
billion. These costs are offset by estimated savings of almost $9
billion. Our estimates have also projected that this investment in
reshaping our infrastructure should result in approximately $8 billion
in annual recurring savings after 2011.
OVERALL MILCON REQUEST
Question. Why does the amount allocated for overseas MILCON
projects continue to grow every year, while the amount proposed for
domestic bases decreases?
Answer. Approximately 25 percent of our forces are stationed
overseas. The fiscal year 2004 MilCon bill requests $754 million for
overseas areas and $3.6 billion for U.S./territories, reflecting a 17
percent foreign and 83 percent U.S./territories split. This is actually
a reduction in overseas investment from fiscal year 2003, when our
request reflected a 21 percent foreign and 79 percent U.S./territories
split.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. What is the status of your review to look at overseas
bases?
Answer. The Secretary asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to direct geographic combatant commanders to develop overseas
basing master plans in Aug 2001. The Deputy Secretary notified Congress
in April 2002 that additional time was needed to review/consolidate the
Joint Staff's input with other ongoing overseas studies. He indicated
that a response would result in early 2003. Currently, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff are studying
various aspects of overseas presence. Once these studies are complete,
it will provide the foundation upon which we can then determine what
infrastructure is needed (and where) to support these forces.
Note: In his March 20, 2003, memorandum, ``Integrated global
Presence and Basing Strategy,'' the Secretary provided additional
direction on overseas programs. He directed the geographic Combatant
Commanders to provide, within 30 days, their priorities regarding the
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 military construction programs.
The Secretary also directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a comprehensive and
integrated presence and basing strategy that looks out 10 years.
Question. When will that information be provided to Congress?
Answer. I will be working with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and Joint Staff to compile and assess these various overseas
studies, including the overseas basing study. A comprehensive review of
all efforts is anticipated to be completed by the end of the summer
with a report to Congress in the fall. The Department will keep you
informed of unforeseen obstacles that would delay this effort.
Question. Will it potentially change the budget request for Germany
and Korea? What abut the projects that were appropriated in 2003?
Answer. The Department has not made any decisions regarding closing
or relocating bases in Germany or Korea. We are still awaiting the
results of several studies that will help us determine what forces are
needed overseas and what infrastructure is required to support these
forces. The Secretary asked the Combatant Commanders to evaluate
projects that are in the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budget
requests and get back to us as to which projects they need and do not
need. For the projects that are determined unnecessary at this time,
the funds will either be reprogrammed using the emergency authority, or
will seek an adjustment to the authorization and appropriation bill.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
EUROPE
Question. Given the freeze on military construction in Europe--how
will this hold affect the Efficient-Basing South Initiative?
Answer. I cannot prejudge General Jones's review. However,
Efficient Basing South, which adds a second airborne battalion to the
173rd Airborne Brigade in Vicenza, Italy, will provide U.S. European
Command with enhanced forced entry capabilities and increased
flexibility. These capabilities are not inconsistent with the precepts
underpinning this overseas base structure review.
The final company of the battalion, C Company, was activated on 16
March 2003, 6 months ahead of the original timeline. In support of this
initiative, Congress approved fiscal year 2003 military construction
funding of $31 million for a barracks complex and $3.7 million for a
Child Development Center.
Question. Would your office provide the Committee with the level of
host nation funding provided for construction projects, by country,
over the last several years? And, could you give examples of where we
are, and are not, getting a fair shake?
Answer. Host nation funding is accomplished through the NATO
Security Investment Program as well as payment-in-kind construction
provided as compensation for U.S.-funded improvements at facilities
being returned to the host nation.
The NATO Security Investment Program has funded about $1.7 billion
in projects since 1989 for runway improvements, utilities, missile
maintenance, hanger doors, piers, ammunition facilities, roads and
pavements, and support to the Balkans. About $532 million is being
provided for projects currently in progress:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviano Beddown.......................................... 166
Ramstein Upgrades....................................... 150
Mildenhall Upgrades..................................... 49
Spangdahlem Upgrades.................................... 16
Fairford Upgrades....................................... 99
Lakenheath Upgrades..................................... 46
Patriot Site Upgrades................................... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host nation funding is also provided through payment-in-kind
construction, given in lieu of cash payments for U.S. capital
investments at facilities being returned to host nations. To date, the
United States has received payment-in-kind worth $36 million from the
United Kingdom, $240,000 from Iceland, and about $316 million from
Germany, which is expected to provide another $34 million in the
future. In addition, in exchange for returning Rhein-Main Air Base to
Germany, the German Government provided $425 million worth of
construction projects to replicate and enhance Air Force mission
capabilities at Ramstein and Spangdahlem Air Bases.
We are generally satisfied with our progress in obtaining payment-
in-kind commitments from our NATO allies.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
HOUSING
Question. All the best weapons in the world will be rendered
useless if our military personnel and their families are not afforded a
good quality of life. When asked, our military personnel consistently
say that family housing is one of the most important quality of life
issues that they face. I understand that the Department of Defense is
in the middle of a multi-year effort to replace the 163,000 inadequate
family housing units. If this is a top priority, why does the
President's budget include a $200 million cut for family housing? Could
the services use additional funds to speed-up the timeline for
replacing inadequate housing units?
Answer. The Department remains committed to improving the living
conditions of our military personnel and their families. As we continue
to increase housing privatization, coupled with the increased Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH), the Department's requirement for on-base
housing decreases. This, in turn, reduces the need for direct
investment to maintain inadequate housing. Both initiatives enhance the
Department's efforts to eliminate inadequate housing by 2007 and
provide military families the opportunities to secure suitable and
affordable housing in the community.
ADEQUACY OF THE BUDGET REQUEST
Question. The National Guard and Reserve are being asked to play an
increasingly important role in our national security. In South Dakota,
21 percent of our National Guard and Reserve units have been called to
active duty in support of the war on terrorism. As we rely on these
units more, I believe we need to provide a corresponding investment in
their facilities and infrastructure. With this in mind, I was surprised
that the President's budget did not include any funds for the South
Dakota Army or Air National Guard. Why did the President's budget
include a cut in military construction funding for the Army and Air
National Guard? Would increased military construction funding for the
Army and Air National Guard improve their readiness and ability to
contribute to the war on terrorism?
Answer. MilCon requirements of the Department included in the
President's Budget reflect important priorities in infrastructure
improvements to meet current mission. The Guard and Reserve compete
equally with the Active Components in this regard. While military
construction funding in the President's Budget this year is less than
was enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2003, the Department increased
MilCon funding for the Army National Guard by 65.7 percent over the
fiscal year 2003 President's Budget, and increased the Air National
Guard funding by 13.0 percent.
EUROPE
Question. Recent reports in the media indicate the Department of
Defense has begun to look at downsizing the U.S. military presence in
Germany, including U.S. bases. There have also been reports that
Secretary Rumsfeld has ordered all construction projects to be re-
examined in order to avoid making upgrades at facilities that may be
closed. Has the Department of Defense done any analysis on the cost of
closing U.S. bases in Germany? Has the Department of Defense done any
analysis on the cost of moving these bases to Central or Eastern
Europe?
Answer. In August 2001, the Secretary of Defense directed all
combatant commanders to review overseas basing requirements and examine
opportunities for joint use of facilities and land by the Services,
consolidation of infrastructure, and enhanced training. While that
particular task is completed, the Department is continuing to examine
our overseas basing and presence within the context of a global
strategy. Specifically, combatant commanders have been asked to provide
priorities regarding their fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004
military construction programs by April 20. To complement that effort,
the Department is developing a comprehensive and integrated presence
and basing strategy looking out 10 years. We anticipate that effort to
be completed by July 1, 2003.
While no decisions have been made on our future base structure in
Germany, the Department is in the process of analyzing all aspects of
potential basing changes. These would include the cost of any base
closures as well as the cost of moving bases to other forward
locations.
Department of the Navy
STATEMENT OF HON. H.T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
(ALSO ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY)
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, and we would just
call the next panel to come forward, please. Dr. Mario Fiori,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and
Environment: Mr. H.T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy and
Assistant Secretary for Installations and Environment, and Mr.
Nelson Gibbs, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Installations, Environment, and Logistics, and I am going to
take a 2-minute break and be right back.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Hutchison asked if we could keep
going, so Mr. Johnson, since you were so nice with Bayview-
Hunters Point, I will call on you first to make any remarks you
may care to make to the subcommittee.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, and you are very
gracious. We have a long ways to go on Hunters Point, but we
are as committed as you are.
I am H.T. Johnson. As you mentioned, I am appearing this
afternoon as Assistant Secretary for Installations and
Environment. We have some comments, if you will put those in
the record.
All of our services are faced with difficult financial
decisions and a difficult environment with terrorism. We need
very badly to keep up our readiness of our facilities and our
ships, the acquisition accounts and everything, and we are
trying our best to find the right balance.
This afternoon, as we talk, you will see that some areas in
the MILCON and the other activities are lower than we would
like, but we are trying to find the correct balance. Housing is
still a very high priority for us. Bachelors in the Navy and
Marine Corps have a higher need than the family housing. We
have been very successful with family housing, and we would
like to take that success over to the bachelor housing.
We have committed $269 million to bachelor quarters. We
have been trying for the last couple of years to bring our
sailors who are on board ships ashore when they are in their
home port. To do that, we are building bachelor quarters at San
Diego and also at Norfolk. We will build these at the agreed-to
standards, one plus one, but initially we will have two sailors
in each room. It is certainly better accommodations than they
would have on board the ships.
The family housing is on track. We are doing very, very
well in family housing. The Navy has doubled its privatization
effort, and the Marine Corps will approach 95 percent of the
housing being public-private venture type operations.
The basic allowance for housing increase has made it easier
for military families to find housing in the local economy. We
have also found in some of our early surveys that there is less
demand for on-base housing. We are very pleased to have
announced just last week a new PPV at Beaufort and Parris
Island for 1,700 units. This is a very large one, second only
to San Diego, where we had a much larger one. We now have 8,300
homes in the public-private venture, and we plan over 17,000 at
10 Navy and Marine Corps bases.
We have urged the Members to focus on the goal of
eliminating inadequate housing, and not necessarily on the
money. I have a handout, if you would pass it to the Senators,
that shows--it is this one. When you look at our family
housing, you need to look at the top line. You will notice a
difference between the dark blue and the lighter blue. The
lighter blue is the public-private venture.
As we go to the right, you will see that, as I mentioned
earlier, the Marine Corps will be 95 percent public-private, so
once we go into the public-private, we will not require
additional military construction. That becomes a self-
fulfilling entitlement. At various times during the agreed-to
period we will refurbish the housing, we will rebuild it at
certain times, but all that comes from the housing allowances.
In other words, that goes in to pay for that, so as you look
towards the off-side there, our military construction for
family housing will go down almost to nothing. If we were to
privatize all of it, it would go to zero.
In our milcon we have $1.2 billion, and we have an
unusually large amount on bachelor housing. I talked about
counterterrorism. We also plan to buy Blount Island down in
Jacksonville. This has long been the home port for our Marine
Corps prepositioning ships. We have looked at the explosive arc
and find that we need to buy that as well as get agreements
from the other tenants in that area.
We are also supporting new weapons systems, the F/A-18 E&F
outlying field, the JSF joint strike fighter test facility, and
the test facilities for the next generation fighters. We have
worked hard to maintain a high level of funding for our
sustainment. Sustainment, of course, is the first line of
taking care of our new facilities and our old.
We have not been as successful in funding the proper levels
for restoration and modernization. The goal is to do 67 years.
In the Marine Corps we have decreased this year from 156 to 88.
The Navy has actually gone up a little bit from 116 to 140
years in the budget year. By the end of the FYDP we do get down
to the 67. This is an area where we would like to do very much
more, but we will manage the risk there in taking care of the
quality of life facilities for our sailors and marines.
We appreciate the specific interest of you and Mrs.
Feinstein also on prior BRAC cleanups. As Ray DuBois mentioned,
we are working very, very hard to clean up the bases and also
to get them off of our rolls. We have had difficulty in doing
the cleanup and passing them back to the communities. As Mr.
DuBois mentioned, we in the Navy have been very successful in
selling property, and those funds go into the BRAC cleanup and
will help us accelerate. That is a very good news story for us,
but also for the communities in which we are selling the
property.
The Navy is consolidating shore infrastructure management
leadership, if you will, under one level, one leader. This will
eliminate successive levels, where these funds often are used
for other things. The whole purpose was to ensure that funds
that you provide for us for facilities are in fact used for
that purpose.
I would also like to talk just briefly about environmental
programs. I recognize that is not necessarily the focus of this
hearing, but it is very much a part of all that we do. We are
making a good effort on our environmental activities. Last
year, the Congress gave us a Migratory Bird Treaty Act change.
We are working with the Department of Interior to implement
that act as you gave it to us.
We are also this year going to come back with activities
that we came with last year. One is the Endangered Species Act,
using the INRMP's, integrated natural resources management
plan, as opposed to having individual endangered specie
considerations.
Another area that is very important to our services is the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and we have gained agreement with
Department of Commerce to come forward on the proper
definitions, and we will bring that to you a little bit later.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We always look for the proper balance, not only between
environmental stewardship but also what is best to serve our
sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, and Coast Guardsmen. We are
as dedicated to that as you are, and we thank you for your
strong support of all of these men and women who serve our
Nation.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of H.T. Johnson
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am H.T. Johnson.
While I have recently been designated as the Acting Secretary of the
Navy, I am also the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and
Environment), and it is in this latter capacity that I appear before
you today to provide an overview of the Department of the Navy's shore
infrastructure programs and environmental efforts.
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Overview
Before his recent departure to the Department of Homeland Security,
Secretary of the Navy Gordon England articulated several overarching
Department of Navy goals for the fiscal year 2004 budget:
--Successfully prosecuting the global war on terrorism while
sustaining our current readiness;
--Recapitalizing and transforming our Navy and Marine Corps to meet
the challenges of the future;
--Fully networking our forces at sea and ashore to operate seamlessly
in a joint environment;
--Continuing to invest in our Sailors and Marines; and
--Sustaining the quality of our operational training.
I believe the fiscal year 2004 Department of Navy's budget request
meets all of these goals and represents a successful balance between
funds needed to operate, recapitalize and transform our fleet assets
with funds needed to do the same for our shore installations. Allow me
to provide you with an overview of our budget, with further details to
follow later in this statement.
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Overview
Our fiscal year 2004 Military Construction, Family Housing, and
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) request of $4.2
billion is $764 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted amount, but
generally on par with our fiscal year 2003 budget request. Looking at
the individual components, the fiscal year 2004 Military Construction,
(MCON) Navy (active + reserve) request is a very robust $1.16 billion,
similar to the fiscal year 2003 request. I note that the fiscal year
2003 enacted amount includes $236M in one-time combating terrorism
projects that were part of the fiscal year 2003 Supplemental request.
These projects met the criteria for military construction and were
included in the fiscal year 2003 MCON appropriation.
We have reduced our fiscal year 2004 Family Housing, Navy request
by 17 percent compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted amount or 16
percent compared to our fiscal year 2003 request. However, expanded use
of our housing privatization authorities, and increases to the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH), which makes housing in the community more
affordable, allow us to still meet the Department of Defense goal of
eliminating inadequate homes by fiscal year 2007. Sustainment,
Restoration and Modernization (SRM) funding \1\ is down 15 percent
compared to the enacted level, a reflection of overall affordability
within the Secretary's priorities. Compared to our fiscal year 2003
request, the fiscal year 2004 request represents a 1.5 percent
reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refers only to the Operations and Maintenance portion of SRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our fiscal year 2004 request for environmental programs totals $1.0
billion, a reduction of about $200 million from the fiscal year 2003
enacted level and a 12 percent reduction from our fiscal year 2003
request. Much of the reduction is due to the completion of cleanup on
the island of Kaho'olawe, a former Naval bombing range in Hawaii. Title
X required the Navy to conduct a 10-year cleanup, which will end on 11
November 2003. We are working to transition full control of the island
to the State of Hawaii.
The decline in Technology investments is due to the completion of
environmental research to retrofit non-ozone depleting equipment. This
equipment is now being installed on ships. Our must-fund environmental
cleanup requirements for bases closed under the Bases Realignment and
Closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, which I will refer to as
Prior BRAC \2\, are less in fiscal year 2004 than in fiscal year 2003,
while cleanup at active bases is unchanged from fiscal year 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Prior BRAC amounts shown in the graphic are only for
environmental cost, and exclude $12 million in fiscal year 2003 and $11
million in fiscal year 2004 for caretaker costs. These caretaker costs
are a portion of the Prior BRAC budget request. The fiscal year 2004
budget request includes $68 million in expected land sale revenue to be
applied to cleanup Prior-BRAC locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Quality (EQ) includes funds for compliance with
existing environmental standards, pollution prevention, and
conservation of natural and historic resources on Navy and Marine Corps
Bases. Approximately half of these funds are for routine functions such
as personnel salaries, environmental permits and fees, environmental
sampling and laboratory analyses, and hazardous waste disposal costs,
while the rest are for one-time projects. The decline in environmental
quality funds is due to the completion of one-time pollution prevention
projects and a reduction in equipment purchases.
HOUSING
We have made a special effort in this budget to maintain progress
on improving the quality of housing for our Sailors and Marines.
Family Housing
Our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad:
Reliance on the Private Sector.--In accordance with longstanding
Department of Defense and DoN policy, we rely first on the local
community to provide housing for our Sailors, Marines, and their
families. Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine Corps
families receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and own or rent
homes in the community. Our bases have housing referral offices to help
newly arriving families find suitable homes in the community.
Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).--With the strong support from this
Committee and others, we have successfully used statutory PPV
authorities enacted in 1996 to partner with the private sector and meet
our housing needs, in part, through the use of private sector capital.
These authorities, which I like to think of in terms of public/private
partnerships, allow us to leverage our own resources and provide better
housing faster to our families.
Military Construction.--Military construction will continue to be
used where PPV authorities don't apply (such as overseas), or where a
business case analysis shows that a PPV project is not financially
sound.
The Department remains on track to eliminate the inadequate family
housing units we own by fiscal year 2007, in large measure because we
have increased our emphasis on privatization. We will be able to
eliminate almost two-thirds of our inadequate inventory through the use
of public/private ventures. As of 1 February, we have awarded eight
projects totaling almost 6,600 units. During fiscal years 2003 and
2004, we plan to award projects totaling over 17,000 homes at ten Navy
and Marine Corps locations. This will allow us to improve our housing
stock and provide more homes to Sailors, Marines and their families
much faster than if we relied solely on traditional military
construction.
Another important factor is the continuing initiative to improve
the basic allowance for housing (BAH). With higher BAH, our members are
finding suitable, affordable housing in the private sector. This, in
turn, reduces the need for military housing, thus allowing us to divest
ourselves of excess, inadequate units in our inventory.
Bachelor Housing
Our budget request of $269 million for Bachelor Quarters
construction projects continues the emphasis on improving living
conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. There are three
challenges:
Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.--There are
approximately 18,100 Sailors worldwide who are required to live aboard
ship even while in homeport. This requirement is less than reported
last year because of a recent change to Navy policy allowing
unaccompanied E4s to live off base. This new policy is tied to the
fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act that authorized the
payment of BAH to E4s without dependents who are assigned to sea duty.
The Navy continues to project that it will be able to achieve its
``homeport ashore'' initiative by fiscal year 2008 by housing two
members per room. Our fiscal year 2004 budget includes two ``homeport
ashore'' projects. One represents the second increment of a Norfolk, VA
project that will provide a total of 500 spaces. The second project
would construct 500 spaces for shipboard Sailors at San Diego, CA.
Ensure our Barracks Meet Today's Standards for Privacy.--We are
continuing our efforts to construct new and modernize existing barracks
to provide increased privacy to our single Sailors and Marines. The
Navy applies the ``1+1'' standard for permanent party barracks. Under
this standard, each single junior Sailor has his or her own sleeping
area and shares a bathroom and common area with another member. To
promote unit cohesion and team building, the Marine Corps was granted a
waiver to adopt a ``2+0'' configuration where two junior Marines share
a room with a bath. The Navy will achieve these barracks construction
standards by fiscal year 2013; the Marine Corps by fiscal year 2012.
Eliminate gang heads.--The Navy and Marine Corps remain on track to
eliminate inadequate barracks with gang heads \3\ for permanent party
personnel. The Navy will achieve this goal by fiscal year 2007; the
Marines by fiscal year 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the support from the Congress in our efforts to
extend the principles of privatization to our critical bachelor housing
needs. We envision that privatization will prove to be as successful in
accelerating improvements in living conditions for our single Sailors
and Marines as it has been for family housing. We are developing pilot
unaccompanied housing privatization projects for Hampton Roads, Camp
Pendleton, and San Diego. We hope to be able to brief you on our
concepts for these projects before the end of this fiscal year.
Military Construction Projects
In addition to the $269 million in Bachelor Housing projects, our
fiscal year 2004 military construction program includes $361 million in
Operational and Training facilities such as waterfront and airfield
projects, and $44 million in compliance projects. There is $32 million
for counter-terrorism (CT) projects; additional CT costs are included
as a portion of the total project where appropriate.
This budget includes $473 million in ``new footprint'' projects,
representing an unusually large 41 percent of the military construction
program. While many barracks and CT projects are new-footprint, there
are several other important projects that will support the
transformation to new weapon systems of the future.
--$116 million to complete the purchase of the Blount Island facility
and safety buffer in Jacksonville, Florida. Blount Island is
the maintenance site for the Marine Corps' Maritime Pre-
positioning Force. The purchase of this site, along with a
surrounding safety buffer, will ensure the long-term viability
of this strategic national asset.
--$28 million to support the first phase of an outlying field for
East-Coast basing of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. Selection of
a specific basing of this aircraft is pending completion of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS is scheduled for
completion this summer.
--$24 million to construct a Joint Strike Fighter test facility.
--$21 million to construct a facility to develop the next generation
shipboard aircraft launching system to be used on the new
aircraft carrier CVN21.
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)
The Department of Defense uses models to calculate life cycle
facility maintenance and repair costs. These models use industry wide
standard costs for various types of buildings. Sustainment funds in the
Operations and Maintenance accounts maintain shore facilities and
infrastructure in good working order and preclude its premature
degradation. Both the Navy and Marine Corps increased sustainment
funding in fiscal year 2004, with the Navy improving to 93 percent of
the full sustainment requirement, and the Marine Corps staying at or
very near the Department of Defense goal of full sustainment.
Restoration and Modernization provides for the major
recapitalization of our facilities using Military Construction and
Operations and Maintenance funds. While both the Navy and Marine Corps
achieve the Department of Defense goal of a 67 year recapitalization
rate by fiscal year 2008, one year later than expressed last year, the
fiscal year 2004 recap rate increases to 140 years for Navy while
improving to 88 years for the Marine Corps. The Navy will manage the
near term investment in facilities recapitalization to limit
degradation of operational and quality of life facilities.
While additional funds would certainly improve the situation, it is
unrealistic to believe that we will simply ``buy'' our way to attain
these facility goals. We must seek and implement greater efficiency in
our infrastructure
INFRASTRUCTURE EFFICIENCIES
Prior BRAC
The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 have been a major tool
in reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The
Department closed and must dispose a total of ninety (90) bases, and
has achieved a steady state savings of $2.7 billion per year. All that
remains is to complete the environmental cleanup, with an estimated
cost of $785 million, and property disposal.
We have completed disposal of sixty-four bases to date; eight more
bases are planned in fiscal year 2003, five in fiscal year 2004.
Legislation was enacted last year that will allow the Navy to transfer
nearly all of the former Naval Air Station Adak, Alaska to the
Department of Interior, who will in turn exchange this property for
other wildlife refuge property owned by The Aleut Corporation. The
United States will then retain title to wildlife refuge property
previously designated for transfer to the Aleuts under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act. We are working the final details for the
transfer and hope to complete the property exchange later this year.
That transfer, along with the planned disposals this fiscal year,
should leave us with less than 12,000 acres still to dispose.
I am proud of the hard work and innovation that the Navy and Marine
Corps team have displayed in working with environmental regulators to
expedite property cleanup and support local redevelopment efforts to
speed reuse. Congress provided the necessary legislative authority to
allow the Navy to pursue early transfer opportunities. With the
concurrence of environmental regulators and the State Governor, we
transfer the deed to the property while environmental cleanup
continues, or pass mutually agreed cleanup funds to the developer who
becomes responsible for doing the cleanup. We have used this authority
many times, including the transfer of 1,300 acres at Mare Island Naval
Shipyard last year.
The spirit of innovation continues. Taking a cue from the popular
commercial uses of the Internet, we worked closely with General
Services Administration (GSA) to use its web site to auction two
hundred thirty-five (235) acres of highly desirable property at the
former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin in California. We have deposited
$51 million from this sale, with settlement for the balance this
spring. Existing statutes require that all BRAC leasing and land sale
revenue be deposited into the Prior BRAC account to meet caretaker and
environmental cleanup needs. We will increasingly rely on BRAC land
sale revenue to accelerate the remaining BRAC cleanup efforts. I am
very pleased with using the GSA web site to auction real estate. It can
attract a very wide audience of potential bidders, ensure that the
government receives the maximum value for the property, and can help
the community quickly resolve reuse needs. We will pursue more BRAC
property sales using the GSA web site.
BRAC 2005
The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act amended the
1990 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act to authorize another
round of BRAC in 2005. We will apply the BRAC process to examine and
implement opportunities for greater joint use of facilities, thus
eliminating excess physical capacity, and to integrate DoN
infrastructure with defense strategy. Continuing to operate and
maintain facilities we simply no longer need is unfair to the taxpayer
and diverts resources that would be better applied to recapitalize the
operating forces (ships, aircraft and equipment) for the future.
The BRAC statute sets out a very fair process.
--All bases are treated equally;
--All recommendations based on 20 year force structure plan,
infrastructure inventory and published selection criteria;
--Statutory selection criteria include:
--Preserve training areas for maneuver by ground, naval, or air
forces;
--Preserve military installations in the United States as staging
areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense
missions;
--Preserve military installations throughout a diversity of climate
and terrain in the United States for training purposes;
--Consider the impact on joint war fighting, training, readiness,
contingency, mobilization, and future total force
requirements at both existing and potential receiving
locations to support operations and training.
--All data certified as accurate and complete and provided to the
Commission and Congress.
We are working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the other Military Departments to develop opportunities for joint
basing that would further eliminate excess infrastructure among the
Services.
Commander, Navy Installation Command
The Navy will consolidate the management of its shore establishment
on 1 October 2003 from eight installation claimants across sixteen (16)
regional commanders to a single Navy Installation Command. This
consolidation will achieve economies of scale, increase efficiency, and
reduce headquarters staffs while also standardizing policies,
procedures, and service levels across all Navy installations, much as
the Marine Corps now enjoys. We estimate that the benefits of this
streamlining will save the Navy $1.6 billion over the FYDP.
There is still much work to be done to implement this change. The
Navy must still define the personnel impacts, finalize the reporting
relationships, and identify the appropriate funding transfers. I
believe this effort will result in a more focused, leaner organization
that will improve services to the Fleet.
Utility Privatization
We are proceeding with plans to privatize utility systems (water,
wastewater, gas, electric) where it is economically feasible and does
not pose a security threat. Utility privatization is an integral part
of our efforts to improve our utility infrastructure. The Secretary of
Defense issued new utility privatization guidance last fall that
requires the Services to complete a source selection decision on each
system by September 2005. We are on track to do so for the 662 Navy and
Marine Corps systems under consideration for privatization.
Strategic Sourcing
Strategic sourcing uses commercial business practices such as
process re-engineering, divestiture of non-core functions, elimination
of obsolete services, and public/private competitions under Office of
Management and Budget A-76 guidelines to improve efficiency. We expect
to achieve $1.6 billion in annual steady State savings in fiscal year
2005 from strategic sourcing initiatives.
Our fiscal year 2004 budget includes A-76 competitions for 2,000
positions. OMB has been trying to bring about much needed process
changes for conducting these competitions. We will incorporate these
process changes, as well as some of our own initiatives, to speed the
process while still ensuring a fair playing field between in-house and
private sector interests. We are also supporting the Secretary of
Defense's Business Investment Council efforts to identify non-core
functions for divestiture. The Navy has identified the manufacturing of
eyewear for military personnel as a pioneer project for divestiture.
Naval Safety Program
Although safety is foremost a personnel program to avoid accidental
human injury or death, the private sector has also recognized safety
programs for their contribution to the bottom line in avoiding damage
to expensive equipment or facilities, inadvertent loss of highly
skilled personnel, and long-term injury compensation costs. We have
established a senior executive in my office, the first in Department of
Defense, to help foster a new Naval safety vision for the future. A
Safety Task Force has been meeting to consider the relationships
between safety staffs and funding mechanisms. We have engaged Navy and
Marine Corps installation commanders to recognize and work to reduce
the incidence of civilian man-hours lost due to injury even as we
participate in a Department of Defense-sponsored Employee Work Safety
Demonstration project at four bases. We plan to provide basic
Operational Risk Management training to all new Sailors and Marines,
with more advanced training to senior personnel.
We are also pursuing safety improvements for the more visible
aviation mishaps, for which past experience shows that 85 percent are
in part attributable to human errors. We plan to try a new technique
that would store critical flight performance data and allow the pilot
to later replay a realistic animation of the flight.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Encroachment
The military readiness of our forces is the highest priority of the
Department of the Navy. Unfortunately, sustaining military readiness is
becoming increasingly difficult because over time a host of factors,
including urban sprawl, increasing regulation, litigation, and our own
accommodations, although reasonable when viewed in isolation, have
cumulatively diminished the Department of the Navy's ability to train
and test systems effectively. Military bases and ranges represent some
of the few remaining undeveloped large tracts, and are being looked at
more and more by Federal and State regulators as a solution for
difficult and costly conservation efforts. For example, initial
proposals for critical habitat designations would have included about
56 percent of Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California. The Marine
Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked together in an
effort to devise an approach that would satisfy the needs of both
agencies. As a result of these efforts, the Secretary of the Interior
determined that the speculative benefits of critical habitat
designation were outweighed by military training needs at Camp
Pendleton. This determination led to the designation of only 5 percent
of Camp Pendleton's lands as critical habitat. However, a lawsuit
challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service final rule quickly
followed. As a result, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew the
designation. A new critical habitat designation is still pending.
We--the Congress, Federal and State regulators, and the military
services--must identify a reasonable balance between the competing
national priorities of military readiness and environmental
stewardship. The Department of the Navy, in conjunction with the
Department of Defense, has begun working with some regulatory agencies
to identify changes in regulations and agency policies that can help
restore the appropriate balance. However, many environmental laws do
not always lend themselves to such changes because when enacted, no one
considered their applicability to the military readiness activities of
today.
The need for legislative change was demonstrated again recently
when the use of a new defensive sensor known as SURTASS LFA, which was
developed to deal with the threat of quiet diesel submarines now being
deployed by potential adversaries, was recently restricted by a court
order. The Navy had undertaken an unprecedented research program to
ensure that marine mammals would not be injured, and worked closely
with the National Marine Fisheries Service to develop mitigation
measures so that marine mammals would not be injured. The Navy
concluded that based on tests and analysis conducted by an independent
panel of scientists, which was subjected to peer review and approved
through a public rule making process by the National Marine Fisheries
Service--the Federal regulatory agency tasked with protection and
preservation of marine mammals, the system would have little impact
upon marine mammals. Yet a Federal judge determined that the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) would not allow the Navy to deploy the
defensive sensor in question in the manner the Navy had determined was
needed. In the court's view, there were serious issues raised with
regard to whether National Marine Fisheries Service had used a proper
mechanism to identify the ``specified geographic region'' required
under the MMPA to issue a ``small take'' authorization for the Navy's
deployment of the sensors. The court ordered the Navy to confer with
plaintiffs over possible restrictions on deployment of SURTASS LFA
until the final hearing on the merits of the case currently scheduled
for June 2003. Following these discussions, the court issued a
preliminary injunction restricting the Navy's use to an area in the
western Pacific between Japan and Guam.
The military services have been criticized by some for seeking
legislative relief without first using national defense exemptions or
Presidential waivers built into environmental laws. Although many of
the laws contain some provision for the President to waive compliance
with a specific requirement, these waivers are of limited scope and
duration. Some laws have no provision for an exemption or require an
adverse decision by a court before the exemption can be pursued. For
example, the MMPA contains no waiver provision, even for actions that
are absolutely necessary for national defense. Many environmental laws,
when enacted, did not consider their impact on military readiness
activities. The exemptions or waivers that do exist were not intended
to serve as routine management tools; they were designed to provide
short term fixes for unanticipated or emergency situations.
Last year, the Department of Defense recommended legislative
changes to address specific areas of environmental laws that had the
greatest adverse impact on sustaining military readiness. Congress
provided some relief in one critical area--the applicability of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to military readiness activities. We
are working with the Department of Interior to craft a mutually
acceptable proposed rule consistent with report language accompanying
the fiscal year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act authorizing
take of migratory birds for military readiness activities, and a
Memorandum of Understanding to promote migratory bird conservation, as
required by executive Order 13186, for non-readiness related military
actions.
The other five involved proposed changes to the MMPA, Endangered
Species Act (ESA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery (RCRA) Act were not made. The Department of
the Navy is particularly concerned with MMPA and ESA, and the need
remains for a legislative solution. For example, the Department of Navy
uses special management plans called Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans (INRMPs), pursuant to the Sikes Act, to protect
habitat on military installations. A Federal district court in Arizona,
however, recently decided the substitution of special management plans
for critical habitat designation is impermissible under the ESA. In
this case, which involved forest management plans, the court determined
that the special management considerations could not substitute for the
designation of critical habitat. The Department of Navy is concerned
this reasoning could be relied upon by other Federal courts when
reviewing INRMPs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is using other
administrative options in an attempt to exclude installations with
approved INRMPs from critical habitat designations, but more certainty
would be provided by legislative actions.
In addition to the decision concerning restricting deployment of
the SURTASS LFA system I mentioned earlier, two other recent decisions
by different Federal district courts stopped scientific research after
the court determined that the National Marine Fisheries Service had
improperly authorized harassment of marine mammals during research by
the National Science Foundation off the coast of Mexico and a Navy
funded project to study the effects of underwater sound on Grey Whales
off the coast of California.
We recognize the importance of resource preservation. We are not
looking for wholesale suspension of environmental laws as they apply to
military readiness. We are not attempting to avoid the issues that
American industries and businesses face regarding environmental
compliance. We are not abandoning the outstanding stewardship over the
lands entrusted to us or shrinking from environmental protection
requirements. We are merely trying to restore balance where
environmental requirements adversely affect uniquely military
activities--activities that are necessary to prepare Sailors and
Marines to engage in combat and win.
Shipboard Environmental
The U.S. Navy is a recognized world leader in environmental
stewardship at sea. In recent years the Navy has completed installation
of pulpers, shredders and plastic waste processors on its surface
ships. This ensures no plastic discharge to the world's oceans and
provides environmentally benign disposal of other solid wastes, such as
food, paper, cardboard, metal and glass. The Navy expects to have its
submarine fleet fully outfitted with solid waste equipment by the end
of 2005, well in advance of the 31 December 2008 Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships deadline. Next year, the Navy will begin to
upgrade the solid waste equipment in the surface fleet. These upgrades
will mean shipboard personnel will expend less time, energy and
resources in processing solid waste.
The Navy continues to convert shipboard air-conditioning and
refrigeration plants to ones that use non-ozone depleting,
environmentally friendly refrigerants. As of today, over 75 percent of
the fleet is CFC-free. Additionally, the Navy continues to upgrade the
fleet's ability to safely and effectively handle hazardous materials by
installing pollution prevention equipment on all our surface ships. We
continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to set
Uniform National Discharge Standards for all Armed Forces vessels, and
in developing best management practices for preparing vessels for use
as artificial reefs. These programs, along with others in the shipboard
environmental program, reap enormous environmental and public relations
benefits while maintaining the primary goal of allowing our ships to
operate anywhere in the world in a manner that complies with or exceeds
domestic and international environmental laws and agreements.
Cleanup Program at Active Bases
For the second year in a row, the number of cleanups completed at
active bases exceeded the planning target. While we still have work to
do, almost seventy (70) percent of all sites now have remedies in place
or responses complete. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 2,225 of the
3,668 sites at active installations have responses complete. We plan to
continue this pace. By the end of fiscal year 2004 we plan to have
about 2,500 sites completed at active bases.
Vieques Cleanup
On January 10, 2003, the Secretary of the Navy signed the letter of
certification to Congress confirming that the U.S. Navy and Marine
Corps will cease military training on the Vieques Inner Range by May 1,
2003. The Department of the Navy has identified training alternatives
that will collectively provide equivalent or superior training to the
options provided on the island of Vieques. The law requires the Navy to
transfer Vieques to the Department of Interior. We have been working
with Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency to do so.
We plan to conduct munitions clearance and any necessary cleanup in
accordance with applicable laws. The clearance and cleanup will be done
in a manner that is consistent with land use designated in the
governing statute and where appropriate, minimizes disturbance of the
natural environment. The designated land uses, once transferred to the
Department of Interior, are wilderness area for the live impact area
and a wildlife refuge for the remaining portions. We will be
considering the need for land use controls to ensure long-term
protectiveness as part of the remedial actions, including consideration
of future land use plans. We have identified $2 million in fiscal year
2004 funds from our Munitions Response Program line within the
Environmental Restoration, Navy (ER, N) appropriation to begin
munitions clearance efforts.
Environmental Range Management
The Navy and Marine Corps have initiated efforts to better
understand and manage the environmental concerns on its ranges. The
Navy has $15.8 million in fiscal year 2004 to begin this effort at the
Southern California, Fallon, Key West, and Gulf of Mexico range
complexes. This environmental program addresses three major areas:
--Conduct living marine resource assessments, including ocean surveys
of marine mammal population densities;
--Assess groundwater, surface water, soils conditions, natural
resources and the environmental compliance status for each of
the complex's land-based ranges and associated airspace;
--Integrate this information into complex-wide environmental planning
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which
will in turn drive Navy range complex management plans.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
I would like to call your attention to several legislative
proposals of particular importance to the Department of Navy.
Readiness & Range Preservation Initiative
This legislative proposal is a top Department of Defense priority.
It would provide legislative relief for military readiness activities
under various environmental statutes. Of particular interest to the
Department of the Navy are:
--Modifications to MMPA that would clarify the MMPA's definition of
``harassment'' as a biologically significant response, and
resolve other procedural issues related to the MMPA.
--Modify the ESA to allow use of Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans now required under the Sikes Act to provide
the special management considerations in lieu of the need to
designate critical habitat on military lands.
Property Conveyance for Housing
We propose to extend to barracks existing authority that allows the
transfer of land at locations closed under prior year BRAC actions for
family housing. The Administration's request also includes a similar
proposal that would allow the Services to transfer land at locations
not related to BRAC for either housing, land suitable for siting
housing, cash, or some combination of these. These proposals would
provide additional tools that we could use to obtain housing for our
Sailors and Marines and their families faster.
MILCON Streamlining
We propose several initiatives to streamline the administrative
aspects of the military construction process. It typically takes 5 to 8
years from inception to completion for a military construction project.
That's too long. Our proposal would increase the minor construction
threshold to permit faster execution of smaller projects, and allow the
use of the planning and design sub account to initiate early project
design on design build projects. Such projects now include most of the
design funds as part of the project cost, and thus must await line item
authorization and appropriation of the project by the Congress to begin
design work in earnest.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I would ask the members of this committee to not
judge the merits of the Department of the Navy's installations and
environmental program solely through a single lens comparison of this
year's budget request vs. last year's enacted level. We continue
progress on most fronts, and the decline in funding is generally due to
reduced requirements or less costly alternatives.
We remain steadfast in resolving inadequate housing concerns.
Consistent with Department of Defense and our own priorities, we will
eliminate inadequate family housing by fiscal year 2007 through
increased reliance on our privatization efforts and the help of BAH
increases that it more likely for our members to find good, affordable
housing in the community. We have maintained momentum to fix housing
for our single Sailors and Marines, particularly with respect to
getting our shipboard sailors a place ashore they can call home when
their ship is in homeport. We hope to extend the benefits of family
housing privatization to barracks with three pilot projects that are
being developed. The very robust $1.2 billion military construction
request will revitalize existing facilities while acquiring those to
support future weapon systems and readiness needs. We will apply the
proceeds from selling Prior BRAC property to accelerate cleanup of
remaining BRAC property. Facilities sustainment, restoration and
modernization trends are positive, with the exception of the Navy
recapitalization rate; regrettably, affordability required that we
defer near term progress in using Operations and Maintenance, Navy
funds to revitalize facilities.
We have fully funded all environmental commitments. The decline in
environmental funds is tied to finishing the cleanup on Kaho'olawe, and
the completion of several research and development projects and
pollution prevention initiatives. Encroachment remains the primary
environmental issue we must deal with. We will work with the Department
of Interior to craft mutually acceptable solutions under MBTS. However,
other environmental statutes, with ESA and MMPA of particular interest
to the Department of Navy, remain to be resolved. We need to craft an
appropriate balance between environmental stewardship and military
readiness.
That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support of each
member of this committee, and will try to respond to any comments or
concerns you may have.
Department of the Army
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO P. FIORI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Fiori.
Mr. Fiori. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to appear before
you to review our fiscal year 2004 military construction
program. We have provided a detailed written statement for the
record. I would just like to briefly comment on the highlights
of our program.
The Army's overall budget request for fiscal year 2004
supports the Army Vision, Transformation, Readiness, and
People. It implements the strategic guidance to transform to a
full spectrum force, while ensuring war-fighting readiness. It
reflects a balanced base program that will allow the Army to
remain trained and ready throughout fiscal 2004 while ensuring
we fulfill our critical role in the global war on terrorism.
Our military construction budget request is $3.2 billion,
and will fund our highest priority facilities and family
housing requirements. When we developed this year's budget,
difficult decisions were made to optimize our resources in
response to the global situation. The Army budget provides the
best balance among all of our programs, including military
construction.
Transformation is one facet of the Army Vision. The Army is
fundamentally changing the way we fight and creating a force
more responsive to the strategic requirements of the Nation.
Our fiscal year 2004 budget includes facilities to support both
the Active and Reserve components in this transition.
First, I would like to briefly tell you how we are
transforming installation management. Recognizing the
requirement to enhance support to the commanders and buttress
Army transformation, the Secretary of the Army directed the
reorganization of the Army's installation management structure.
On October 1, 2002, the Army placed the management of Army
installations under the Installation Management Agency. It is a
new field operating agency reporting to the Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management, who in turn reports to me
and to the Chief of Staff of the Army. A top down, regional
alignment creates a corporate structure with the sole focus on
efficient and effective management of all our installations. It
frees up our mission commanders to concentrate on
transformation and readiness. They will still have an influence
on important installation decisions, but not the day-to-day
headaches.
Second, in support of Army transformation, our budget
contains $329 million for 17 projects at four Active
installations and an additional $85 million for 31 Army
National Guard projects.
Facilities requested cover the spectrum needed for
effective operations and training, including ammunition supply
point upgrades, mobilization facilities, training land
acquisition, maintenance facilities, ranges, information system
facilities, barracks, and family housing. The Army National
Guard Army Division Redesign Study facilities include readiness
centers, maintenance shops, and training fire stations.
A second facet of the Army's Vision is Readiness. Army
installations are our Nation's power projection platforms, and
they provide critical support for the Army and joint
operations. We have requested funding for key projects that
specifically focus on readiness. These include live fire
ranges, maintenance, test, deployment facilities, Army National
Guard Readiness, and Army Reserve Centers. These critically
needed projects constitute about $266 million of our budget.
The third facet of the Army Vision is People. The Army
continues its major campaign to modernize barracks to provide
enlisted permanent party soldiers with quality living
environments. The new complexes provide increased personal
privacy and larger rooms with new furnishings. With the
approval of our budget, 79 percent of our barracks requirements
for permanent party soldiers will be funded. Additionally, we
are including physical fitness centers and dining facilities to
support soldier fitness and well being.
According to our surveys, adequate and affordable housing
continues to be the major concern to soldiers and their
families. We have waiting lists at all our major posts. With
approval of the fiscal year 2004 budget, out of pocket expenses
for soldiers living off post will be reduced to 3\1/2\ percent,
as was previously mentioned by Messrs. Zakheim and DuBois. And
by 2005, average out of pocket expenses should be reduced to
zero.
This year's budget expands family housing privatization and
increases improvements to existing housing to support our goal
to provide adequate housing to all military families by 2007.
Our privatization effort has been particularly successful. The
current program of 28 projects will transition to privatized
operations by the end of fiscal year 2006. These projects
include almost 72,000 homes, more than 80 percent of our
inventory in the United States. We have already transitioned
four installations to developers.
At Fort Carson, for example, 1,823 existing homes were
privatized in November 1999, and our partner developer will
construct 840 more. So far, we have 618 homes, new homes, and
943 have been renovated. Families have moved into those homes,
and the process has been very positive to date.
PREPARED STATEMENT
In closing, Madam Chairman, I sincerely thank you for the
opportunity to outline our program. As I have visited Army
installations, I have witnessed the progress that has already
been made, and I attribute much of this success directly to the
longstanding support of this Committee and your staff. We look
forward to working with you as we transform our Army
installations.
Thank you, ma'am.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mario P. Fiori
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss the Active Army and Reserve Components'
military construction budget request for fiscal year 2004. This request
includes initiatives of considerable importance to The Army, as well as
this Committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to report on them to
you.
Our budget provides resources in our construction and family
housing programs essential to support The Army's role in our National
Military Strategy and our role in the Global War on Terrorism. The
budget supports The Army's Vision and our Transformation strategy.
The program presented herein requests fiscal year 2004
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $1,536,010,000
for Military Construction, Army (MCA); $1,399,917,000 for Army Family
Housing (AFH); $168,298,000 for Military Construction, Army National
Guard (MCNG); and $68,478,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve
(MCAR).
The Army has begun one of the most profound periods of
transformation in its 227-year history. In 1999, we published The Army
Vision--People, Readiness, and Transformation--that defined how we meet
the Nation's military requirements today and into the future. After 3
years, we are on the road to implement the self-transformation that
will allow us to continue to dominate conventional battlefields, but
also provide the ability to deter and defeat adversaries who rely on
surprise, deception and asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives.
The attacks against our Nation and the ongoing Global War on
Terrorism validated The Army's Vision and our Transformation. To meet
the challenges of Army Transformation and to carry out today's missions
at home and abroad, The Army must sustain a force of high quality,
well-trained people; acquire and maintain the right mix of weapons and
equipment; and maintain effective infrastructure and power projection
platforms to generate the capabilities necessary to meet our missions.
Taking care of soldiers and families is a readiness issue and will
ensure that a trained and qualified soldier and civilian force will be
in place to support the Objective Force and the transformed Army.
Installations are a key component in all three tenets of The Army
Vision. They are the operational and service support centers where our
soldiers and civilians work, live, and train; and from which we deploy,
launch, and accomplish our missions. Our worldwide installations
structure is inextricably linked to the Transformation of The Army and
the successful fielding of the Objective Force.
Army installations, both Active and Reserve Component, must fully
support our war fighting needs, while at the same time provide soldiers
and their families with a quality of life that equals that of their
peers in civilian communities. The Army Vision begins and ends talking
about the well-being of people. Our installations are the hometowns to
many of our people. To improve our installations, we realized we had to
transform installation management to improve the way we operate and
manage this important resource.
In support of the Transformation of Army installations, on October
1, 2002, The Army activated the Installation Management Agency (IMA).
This activation symbolized a radical transformation in how The Army
manages installations. Through the IMA, The Army has created a
corporate structure for managing its installations. By shifting that
responsibility from the 14 formerly land-holding major commands, the
IMA seeks to enhance effectiveness in installation management, achieve
regional efficiencies, eliminate the migration of installation support
dollars, and provide consistent and equitable services and support.
Major Commanders can now focus solely on their primary missions.
Though the major commands no longer have a primary responsibility for
installation management, the support they receive from installations is
a paramount mission of the IMA. The IMA exists to support and enable
mission commanders. The senior mission commander on each installation
is part of the rating chain for the garrison commander of that
installation. The most senior commanders of the major commands, as well
as the Director of the Army National Guard and the Chief of the Army
Reserve, also sit on an Installation Management Board of Directors,
providing oversight and guidance to the operations of the IMA.
The Army's transformation of installation management represents a
significant paradigm shift in the way The Army manages installations.
It represents a new commitment to installation management as a key
component of Army Transformation. Mission readiness no longer competes
with installation management tasks; and the soldier's well-being and
quality of life on the installations does not compete with the mission.
It will allow us to provide for our soldiers and their families and to
permit us to implement our facilities strategy.
FACILITIES STRATEGY
The Army's Facilities Strategy (AFS) is the centerpiece of our
efforts to fix the current state of Army facilities over 20 years. It
addresses our long-term need to sustain and modernize Army-funded
facilities in both Active and Reserve Components by framing our
requirements for sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM) using
operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MILCON)
funding. The AFS addresses sustainment, recapitalization, quality, and
quantity improvements so that The Army will have adequate facilities to
support Transformation and our 21st Century missions.
The first objective of the strategy requires us to halt further
deterioration of our facilities. Our sustainment funding, which comes
from the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) SRM accounts, has improved.
Our budget request funds 93 percent of our requirements in fiscal year
2004. This level of funding may be sufficient to slow further
deterioration of Army facilities. We use the Installation Status Report
(ISR) to rate the condition of our facilities. A C-1 quality rating
indicates facilities support mission accomplishment; a C-2 quality
rating indicates facilities support the majority of assigned missions;
a C-3 quality rating indicates facilities impair mission performance;
and a C-4 rating indicates facilities that significantly impair mission
performance. Currently, The Army's overall quality rating is C-3
(impairs mission performance). We must have sufficient O&M SRM
resources to sustain our facilities and prevent facilities from
deteriorating further, or we put our MILCON investments at risk.
The second objective of our strategy addresses improving
recapitalization of our facilities to a 67-year cycle. This will ensure
we have adequate facilities to keep pace with future force structure
changes and weapons modernization programs. The focus is on The Army's
most obsolete infrastructure, such as vehicle maintenance facilities,
Army National Guard Readiness Centers, and Army Reserve Centers.
Unfortunately, our budget resources limit our recapitalization rate to
144 years for fiscal year 2004.
The third objective is to raise The Army facilities from the
current C-3 quality rating (impairs mission performance) to an overall
C-2 quality rating (supports majority of assigned missions) by the end
of 2010. This will be accomplished by bringing a focused set of
facilities to C-1 (supports mission performance) during that timeframe.
Since we cannot afford a quick fix to buy down the SRM backlog, we will
centrally manage resources towards focused investments. This capital
investment requirement will primarily require MILCON funding,
supplemented by O&M SRM project funding.
The fourth objective is to reduce facility shortfalls where they
exist over the entire 20-year strategy. These shortfalls are a result
of facilities modernization not keeping pace with our weapons
modernization and supporting force structure. Ranges and training
facilities are an example.
Modest MILCON investment will be made in fiscal year 2004 for these
objectives. These four objectives will enable us to improve the health
of Army real property and the ability to successfully support our
worldwide missions and our soldiers. This year, our highest priority
went to sustainment to achieve a 93 percent funding level.
In addition to implementing our facilities strategy, we continue
our policy of eliminating excess facilities throughout the entire Army
to allow us to use our limited resources where they have the most
impact. During fiscal years 1988-2003, our footprint reduction program,
along with the base realignment and closure process (including overseas
reductions), resulted in the disposal of over 400 million square feet
worldwide from our fiscal year 1990 peak of 1,157,700,000 square feet.
In fiscal year 2004, we plan to reduce an additional 2.7 million square
feet. We continue our policy of demolishing at least one square foot
for every square foot constructed.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)
This year's MCA program focuses on The Army's Vision and four major
categories of projects: people, readiness, transformation, and other
worldwide support. I will explain each category in turn.
PEOPLE
Fifty percent of our MCA budget is dedicated to providing for the
well-being of our soldiers, their families, and civilians. We are
requesting 23 barracks (plus an additional one for transformation), a
dining facility and 2 physical fitness centers. These projects will
improve not only the well-being of our soldiers and families, but also
the readiness of The Army. We are requesting $776.2 million for these
projects.
Whole Barracks Renewal Program.--The Army continues its major
campaign to modernize barracks to provide enlisted permanent party
soldiers with quality living environments. The new complexes provide
increased personal privacy, larger rooms, closets, new furnishings,
adequate parking, and landscaping. In addition, administrative offices
are separated from the barracks. With the approval of our budget,
$737.9 million, as requested, 79 percent of our barracks requirement
(including the transformation barracks), will be funded at the new
standard for our permanent party soldiers. Between fiscal years 2005
and 2009, we plan to invest an additional $3.5 billion in MCA and host
nation funds. While we are making considerable progress at
installations in the United States, we will request increased funding
for Germany and Korea in future budgets to compensate for the fact that
these areas have been historically funded at lower levels than
installations in the United States. A large portion of the remaining
modernization effort--37 percent--is in overseas areas.
In fiscal year 2004, we are planning 23 barracks projects as part
of our barracks modernization program, including 7 projects in Europe
(one of which supports our Efficient Basing East initiative) and 3
projects in Korea. This will provide new or improved housing for at
least 5,500 soldiers. The installations with the largest investment are
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with $102 million (3 projects), and
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, with $98 million (2 projects). At these
installations, large soldier populations and inadequate barracks
require sustained high investment to provide quality housing. Barracks
projects are also requested for Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Riley, Kansas;
Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Fort Lewis, Washington; Fort Richardson,
Alaska; Fort Drum, New York; and Fort Stewart, Georgia. A barracks
project supporting Transformation is also requested at Fort Wainwright,
Alaska. Although we are requesting authorization for all phases of a
multi-phase barracks complex at Fort Drum and Fort Bragg, we are only
requesting the appropriation needed for the fiscal year 2004 phase. Our
plan is to award each complex, subject to subsequent appropriations, as
a single contract to gain cost efficiencies, expedite construction, and
provide uniformity in building systems.
Community Facilities.--Our budget request includes a dining
facility at Fort Meade, Maryland, for $9.6 million. Also included are
two physical fitness centers at Hohenfels, Germany ($13.2 million) and
Fort Stewart, Georgia ($15.5 million) to improve soldier fitness and
community wellness. The physical fitness center at Fort Stewart has
been selected as a pilot project for the demonstration program for the
reduction of long-term facility maintenance costs. We believe this
demonstration program will decrease our maintenance expenses and
increase the quality of our facilities. This project is one of three
included in fiscal year 2004. An Army Reserve and a National Guard
demonstration project are also included in the budget.
READINESS
In fiscal year 2004, there are 11 projects, $153 million, to ensure
The Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet its
national security mission. The projects provide enhanced training and
readiness via live fire ranges and simulators, maintenance and test
facilities, and a deployment facility.
To improve soldier training, we are requesting $45.8 million to
construct five training and readiness projects. Our request includes
Modified Record Fire Ranges at Schweinfurt, Germany; Fort Knox,
Kentucky; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma; an instrumented Multipurpose
Training Range Complex at Fort Benning, Georgia; and a live fire urban
operations Shoot House at Fort Lewis, Washington. All five ranges will
provide our soldiers with realistic, state-of-the-art live fire
training.
A project to construct troop support facilities, including a
physical fitness center and dining facility, and to renovate a
headquarters facility and a postal facility at a cost of $46 million
will support the Efficient Basing, East, initiative at Grafenwoehr,
Germany.
We are requesting three maintenance facilities for $41 million to
support Army missions.
Our request also includes $5.5 million for a Vibration Dynamic Test
facility at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. This facility will enable The
Army to test small rocket systems and components for reliability to
ensure that equipment can withstand the rigors of military operations.
To support deployment of an airborne battalion ready task force,
our request includes $15.5 million for a Joint Deployment Facility in
Aviano, Italy. This facility will be constructed on an Air Force Base
and will provide support for deployments of the 173rd Airborne Brigade
stationed in Vicenza, Italy. In addition, the facility will support
other United States and NATO forces deploying through Aviano Air Base.
TRANSFORMATION
Our budget contains $285.3 million for 16 projects at 4
installations that will support the deployment, training, unit
operations, and equipment maintenance for Army Transformation. The
projects include one barracks, one multi-purpose training range
complex, one live fire urban operations Shoot House, upgrades to an
existing Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) facility, two
Mission Support Training Facilities (and the acquisition of additional
lands in Hawaii to ensure our forces are properly trained), two Alert
Holding Areas, expansion of a Deployment Staging Facility, an upgrade
to an existing Ammunition Supply Point, a Pallet Processing Facility,
an Information Systems Facility, Arms Storage, and an Aircraft
Maintenance Hangar. The proposed projects in Hawaii will support the
legacy force requirements that are currently not being met and future
combat systems.
Following the Persian Gulf War, Congress charged the Department of
Defense to determine strategic mobility requirements to support the
revised national strategy of greater reliance on CONUS-based
contingency forces and power projection capabilities. The Army
established the Army Strategic Mobility Program (ASMP) in fiscal year
1994 that centered on the capability to deploy a five division
contingency force with its associated support structure anywhere in the
world within 75 days. We will successfully complete funding the program
in fiscal year 2003. Over the 10-year period we funded approximately
$800 million in projects to support our strategic mobility.
The Army has reviewed the lessons learned from the successful ASMP
and has analyzed current and future strategic environment; multiple,
astute, and dynamic adversaries; and identified the need to deploy a
brigade combat team anywhere in the world in 96 hours after liftoff, a
division on the ground in 120 hours, and five divisions in theater in
30 days. To meet these goals, The Army has developed The Army Power
Projection Program (AP3) beginning in fiscal year 2004. Five of the
Transformation projects listed above support our new deployment
requirements for a transformed Army and initiate the start of the AP3
program.
OTHER WORLDWIDE SUPPORT PROGRAMS
The fiscal year 2004 MCA budget includes $100.7 million for
planning and design (P&D). The fiscal year 2004 P&D request is a
function of the construction programs for two fiscal years: 2005 and
2006. The requested amount will be used to complete design of fiscal
year 2005 projects and initiate design of fiscal year 2006 projects.
Without this level of funding, our ability to design future year
projects will be impaired and this will ultimately impact delivery of
critically needed facilities to our soldiers.
Host Nation Support (HNS) P&D: The Army, as Executive Agent,
provides HNS P&D for oversight of host nation funded design and
construction projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees design
and construction to ensure facilities meet The Army's requirements and
standards. Lack of oversight may result in an increase in design errors
and construction deficiencies that might require United States dollars
to rectify. Maintaining the funding level for this mission results in a
payback where $1 of United States funding gains $44 worth of host
nation construction. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for $22
million will provide oversight for over $950 million of construction in
Japan, Korea, and Europe.
The fiscal year 2004 budget also contains $20 million for
unspecified minor construction. This funding level will allow us to
address unforeseen, critical needs that cannot wait for the normal
programming cycle.
ARMY FAMILY HOUSING
According to the Military Family Housing Standards Study done in
April 2001, adequate and affordable housing continues to be a major
concern to soldiers and their families. We have waiting lists at all of
our major posts. Out-of-pocket expenses for soldiers living off post,
though less than in prior years due to increases in Basic Allowance for
Housing, will be reduced to 3.5 percent of the total cost of their
housing with the approval of the Army fiscal year 2004 budget. By
fiscal year 2005, we will meet our OSD goal to reduce our out-of-pocket
expenses to zero. Maintaining and sustaining safe, attractive, and
convenient housing for our soldiers and families is one of our
continuing challenges. This year's budget expands privatization and
increases improvements to existing housing. It supports the Secretary
of Defense's goal to provide adequate housing to all military families
by 2007.
Our fiscal year 2004 request for Army Family Housing is
$1,399,917,000. Table 1 summarizes each of the categories of the Army
Family Housing program.
TABLE 1.--ARMY FAMILY HOUSING--FISCAL YEAR 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Category Dollars Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Construction.................................. $126,600 9
Post Acquisition Construction..................... 197,803 14
Planning and Design............................... 32,488 2
Operations........................................ 179,031 13
Utilities......................................... 167,332 12
Maintenance....................................... 432,605 31
Leasing........................................... 234,471 17
Privatization..................................... 29,587 2
---------------------
Total....................................... 1,399,917 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
The Army continues to implement the Residential Communities
Initiative (RCI) to create modern residential communities in the United
States, using the military housing privatization authorities granted by
the Congress. We are leveraging appropriated funds and government
assets by entering into long-term partnerships with private sector real
estate development and management firms to obtain financing and
management expertise to construct, repair, maintain, and operate family
housing communities.
The current program of 28 projects will transition to privatized
operations by the end of fiscal year 2006. These projects include over
71,000 homes, more than 80 percent of our family housing inventory in
the United States. We already have transitioned 4 installations to
privatized operations: Forts Carson, Hood, Lewis and Meade. These
projects include over 15,700 housing units. Families have moved into
new and renovated housing at those locations and our experience to date
has been very positive.
We have selected development partners and are currently negotiating
Community Development and Management Plans (50-year construction,
operations, and financing plan) at 8 additional locations with over
23,000 units. Five of these projects (Fort Bragg, Fort Campbell,
Presidio of Monterey, Fort Irwin/Moffett Army Airfield/Camp Parks, and
Fort Hamilton) will transition to privatized operations in fiscal year
2003 and the remaining three (Fort Belvoir, Forts Eustis/Story/Monroe
and Fort Stewart) will transition in fiscal year 2004. In addition to
these projects, four other projects are in various stages of the
procurement process (Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Fort Shafter/
Schofield Barracks, Fort Polk and Fort Detrick). Twelve more projects
are scheduled for the future (Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Sam Houston, Fort
Bliss, Fort Drum, Fort Benning, Fort Rucker, Fort Gordon, Fort Knox,
Fort Leonard Wood, Picatinny Arsenal, Carlisle Barracks, and Redstone
Arsenal).
Our development partners expertise, experience, and resources are
resulting in significant improvements in our family housing
communities. The fiscal year 2004 budget request is necessary to
support continued implementation of this quality of life program.
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The total fiscal year 2004 request for construction is $356.9
million. It continues the Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative
approved by Congress in fiscal year 1992, and supported consistently
since that time, and our Residential Communities Initiative program.
These projects are based on life-cycle economic analyses and support
the Department of Defense's goal funding the elimination of inadequate
housing by 2007.
New Construction.--The fiscal year 2004 new construction program
provides Whole Neighborhood Revitalization projects at 4 locations, 496
units for $126.6 million. Replacement construction provides adequate
facilities, built to local standards, where there is a continuing
requirement for the housing and it is not economical to renovate the
current housing. New (deficit elimination) construction provides
additional housing to meet requirements. All of these projects are
supported by housing surveys, which show that adequate and affordable
units are not available in the local community.
Construction Improvements.--The Construction Improvements Program
is an integral part of our housing revitalization program. In fiscal
year 2004, we are requesting $197.8 million for improvements to 6,883
existing units at 6 locations in the United States and 5 locations in
Europe. Included within the scope of these projects are efforts to
improve supporting infrastructure and energy conservation.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The operations, utilities, maintenance, and leasing programs
comprise the majority of the fiscal year 2004 request. The requested
amount of $1.043 billion for fiscal year 2004 is approximately 74
percent of the total family housing budget. This budget provides for
annual operations, municipal-type services, furnishings, maintenance
and repair, utilities, leased family housing, demolition of surplus/
uneconomical housing and funds supporting management of the Military
Housing Privatization Initiative.
FAMILY HOUSING LEASING
The leasing program provides another way of adequately housing our
military families. We are requesting $234.5 million in fiscal year 2004
to fund over 14,300 housing units including existing Section 2835
(formerly known as 801 leases) project requirements, temporary domestic
leases in the United States, and approximately 7,800 units overseas.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)
Focused on The Army's Vision, the Army National Guard's military
construction program for fiscal year 2004 is giving special attention
to People, Readiness and Transformation. The fiscal year 2004 Army
National Guard program supports these elements.
TRANSFORMATION
This year we have concentrated on Army Division Redesign Study
(ADRS) projects. ADRS addresses a long-standing Army problem of lack of
Combat Support and Combat Service Support Force. The Army National
Guard, in support of the National Military Strategy and wartime
requirement shortfalls, is reorganizing selected units toward this end,
i.e., Chemical, Medical, and Military Police units.
We are requesting $84.9 million for 31 ADRS projects. These funds
will support the construction of Readiness Centers, Organizational
Maintenance Shops, Training Fire Stations, an Armed Forces Reserve
Center, and a Working Animal Building.
The ADRS transformation, which began in fiscal year 2001, is
scheduled to be completed by fiscal year 2009.
Readiness Centers/Armed Forces Reserve Center.--To accommodate the
force structure change, the Army National Guard will make additions or
alterations to 14 readiness centers in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York and North Dakota. Six new
Readiness Centers are planned for California, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska and North Carolina.
We will also construct an Armed Forces Reserve Center in Mobile,
Alabama. This facility will house all elements of a Support Group,
Chemical Company, Medical Battalion, and Special Forces Detachment, as
well as the Marine Reserves Reconnaissance Company, Intelligence
Company, and the Marine Corps Inspector and Instructor staff.
Training Fire Stations.--Six training fire stations are scheduled
for Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, North Carolina (2), and Nebraska.
These training fire stations will provide the necessary administrative,
training, maintenance and storage areas required for the units to
achieve proficiency in their required training tasks.
Organizational Maintenance Shops.--The Army National Guard has
three Organizational Maintenance Shops requested in fiscal year 2004.
These facilities require additional space and upgrades to support the
ADRS initiative. They are located in Montana (two) and New York.
Working Animal Building.--As a result of ADRS, there will be two
Military Police Working Dog Teams assigned to the Connecticut Army
Nation Guard. These facilities will provide for all phases of dog
training for patrol and protection.
MISSION
In fiscal year 2004, the Army National Guard has requested $55.3
million for the revitalization of four mission projects. They include a
Readiness Center, a Consolidated Maintenance Facility (Phase I), an
Army Aviation Support Facility and a Military Education Facility (Phase
III)
Readiness.--A new Readiness Center at Lenoir, North Carolina, will
replace the current 48-year old facility that was built in a flood
plain. The State will provide 41 acres of State land to relocate the
new Readiness Center. This project has been selected as the Army
National Guard fiscal year 2004 candidate for the demonstration program
for the reduction of long-term facility maintenance cost.
Maintenance.--The Consolidated Maintenance Facility at Pineville,
Louisiana, will consist of a Combined Support Maintenance Facility, a
Maneuver and Training Equipment Site, and two Organizational
Maintenance Shops. These facilities will provide direct support,
general support, and limited depot maintenance for all vehicles and
equipment in Louisiana and full-time organizational maintenance support
to selected units. This facility will permit Army National Guard
personnel to work in a safe and efficient environment.
An Army Aviation Support Facility in South Burlington, Vermont,
will replace the current facility that was built in 1954. The new
facility will provide the additional 80,650 square feet required to
support three aviation units with 18 aircraft.
Training.--The Military Education Facility (Phase III) at Camp
Shelby, Mississippi, is the last and final phase of this Regional
School Project. This Regional Training Center, a Category A Training
Site, supports units from Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. The school conducts
leadership training, maintenance training, and armor crewman training.
WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED FUNDING
The Army National Guard's fiscal year 2004 budget request contains
$26.6 million for planning and design of future projects and $1.5
million in unspecified minor construction to address unplanned health
or safety issues that may arise during fiscal year 2004.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE (MCAR)
This year's MCAR program focuses on the Army Reserve's highest
priority--Readiness. Army Reserve Centers are the key component to the
readiness of units and provide support to soldiers and their families.
In fiscal year 2004, the Army Reserve has requested $57.9 million to
construct three Army Reserve Centers and a Maintenance and Storage
facility.
MISSION FACILITIES
Army Reserve Centers.--Three Army Reserve Centers will be built in
Fort Meade, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; and Nashville, Tennessee. The
Fort Meade Army Reserve Center will replace 50 World War II wood
buildings, which will be returned to the installation for demolition.
This project has been selected as the Army Reserve fiscal year 2004
candidate for the demonstration program for the reduction of long-term
facility maintenance cost. The Cleveland Army Reserve Center will
replace two 1950s era facilities and three leased facilities. The
Nashville Army Reserve Center will replace a high-cost leased facility.
Maintenance.--An Organizational Maintenance Shop/Direct Support
Maintenance Shop and Storage facility will be built on Fort Gillem,
Georgia.
PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The fiscal year 2004 MCAR budget includes $7.712 million for
planning and design (P&D), which provides essential planning and design
capability in order to properly execute the MCAR program. The fiscal
year 2004 budget also contains $2.886 million for unspecified minor
construction to satisfy critical and emergent mission requirements.
SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION (SRM)
In addition to MCA and AFH, the third area in the facilities arena
is the O&M portion of the Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization
(SRM) program. Sustainment is the primary account in installation base
support funding responsible to maintain the infrastructure to achieve a
successful readiness posture for The Army's fighting force.
Installation facilities are the power projection platforms of America's
Army and must be properly maintained to be ready to support current
Army missions and any future deployments.
O&M SRM consists of two major functional areas: (1) facilities
sustainment of real property and (2) restoration and modernization.
Facilities sustainment provides resources for maintenance costs and
contracts necessary to keep an inventory of facilities in good working
order. It also includes major repairs or replacement of facility
components, usually accomplished by contract, that are expected to
occur periodically throughout the life cycle of facilities. Restoration
includes repair and restoration of facilities damaged by inadequate
sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident or other
causes. Modernization includes alteration or modernization of
facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, including
regulatory changes, to accommodate new functions, or to replace
building components that typically last more than 50 years, such as
foundations and structural members. The Active Army's OMA Sustainment
funding request in fiscal year 2004 is $1.8 billion. The Army National
Guard is requesting $380 million and the Army Reserve is requesting
$182 million.
In fiscal year 2004, The Army's top O&M priority in SRM is to fully
sustain its facilities. This prevents further deterioration of the
facilities we own and allows the facilities to support The Army's
mission. The basic maintenance and repair of all Army facilities is
funded at 93 percent of the OMA requirement. At the current funding
levels, facilities will be properly maintained and deterioration will
be minimal. Restoration and modernization initiatives supplement MILCON
funding and meet recapitalization requirements. The Army has used the
O&M R&M for barracks, strategic mobility, and other needs. The Army's
demolition program will eliminate unneeded facilities. In fiscal year
2004, we plan to eliminate approximately 2.7 million square feet of
facilities worldwide.
The Army's privatization or outsourcing of utilities is the first
part of our Long Range Utilities Strategy within the SRM program to
provide reliable and efficient utility services at our installations.
All Army-owned electrical, natural gas, water, and waste water systems
are being evaluated to determine the feasibility of privatization. When
privatization appears economical, we use competitive contracting
procedures as much as possible. The Army is on track and continues to
seek ways to privatize as many systems as possible by September 30,
2003. OMA restoration and modernization resources will be programmed
for systems we are not able to privatize so that all systems are
brought to a C2 (quality) status by 2010. To date, 18 percent (64 of
351 systems) of all CONUS systems and 23 percent (250 of 1,068) of
systems worldwide have been privatized. During fiscal year 2003, the
negotiation and evaluation process for an additional 103 CONUS systems
will be completed. Recent successes include privatization of the
natural gas system at Fort Campbell, Presidio of Monterey and Fort
Benning; electrical systems at Fort AP Hill, Picatinny Arsenal,
Presidio of Monterey, Red River Army Depot, and Fort Bliss; and water
and waste water systems at Red River Army Depot and Presidio of
Monterey.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Our facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support The
Army of the 21st Century. For BRAC in fiscal year 2004, we are
requesting $67 million. This budget represents the Army's requirement
to continue unexploded ordnance (UXO) removal, environmental
restoration, and property management of those facilities not yet
disposed from the first four rounds of BRAC. In fiscal year 2001, The
Army began saving $924 million annually upon completion of the first
four rounds of BRAC. Although these savings are substantial, we need to
achieve even more, and bring our infrastructure assets in line with
projected needs. The Army supports the need to close and realign
additional facilities and we appreciate the Congress' authority to have
an additional round in fiscal year 2005.
The Army is now in the second year of exclusively caretaking and
completing the remaining environmental restoration activities at BRAC
installations. We request $67,067,000 in fiscal year 2004 to continue
this important work. These funds allow us to properly caretake these
properties and to continue environmental and ordnance removal efforts
that will facilitate economic revitalization and will render these
properties safe. This budget includes the resources required to support
projected reuse in the near term and to continue with current projects
to protect human health and the environment. The Army implemented
innovative approaches to environmental restoration at BRAC sites in
fiscal year 2002, which supported the early transfer of several
properties. The Army will continue to support early property transfers
in fiscal year 2003 and beyond.
Although the extensive overseas closures do not receive the same
level of public attention as those in the United States, they represent
the fundamental shift from a forward-deployed force to one relying upon
overseas presence and power projection. Without the need for a
Commission, we are continuing to reduce the number of installations
overseas. The total number of Army overseas sites announced for closure
or partial closure since January 1990 is 685. Additional announcements
and efficient basing initiatives will occur until the base structure
matches the force identified to meet U.S. commitments.
The significant challenges posed by the removal of unexploded
ordnance, the remediation of groundwater, and the interface of a
variety of regulatory authorities continue to hinder the disposal of
property. A number of innovative approaches for environmental
restoration were recently developed in an effort by The Army to
expedite the transfer of property, while ensuring the protection of
human health and the environment. Two innovative mechanisms are being
utilized to complete environmental restoration efforts: Guaranteed/
Fixed Price Remediation (G/FPR) Contracts and Environmental Services
Cooperative Agreements (ESCA). A G/FPR Contract obligates BRAC funds
necessary for regulatory closure of specified restoration activities.
The Army retains responsibility for completion of the environmental
restoration, overseeing the contractor and ensuring that regulatory
closure of the property is obtained. An ESCA is a different mechanism,
authorized under the environmental restoration program that obligates
Army BRAC funds and apportions some amount of liability to a
governmental entity representing the reuse interests of the particular
BRAC installation, in exchange for specific environmental restoration
services outlined in the ESCA.
The Army used a G/FPR to accelerate regulatory closure from 2003 to
2002 at Fort Pickett, Virginia, at a cost that will not escalate over
the course of the work. We estimate that this $2.9 million contract
saved us $0.8 million based on our initial estimates. An ESCA allows
The Army to transfer property and associated cleanup responsibilities
to a local reuse authority or developer. This allows the developer to
integrate cleanup with their redevelopment plans. An ESCA completed in
2001 was used in conjunction with early transfer authority at Military
Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, saving The Army an estimated $5
million. An ESCA will facilitate the early transfer in fiscal year 2003
of property at Oakland Army Base, California. The benefits of the G/FPR
and ESCA initiatives are that they limit Army environmental remediation
cost growth liability and facilitate property disposal.
We remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We are supporting early reuse of properties through
economic development conveyances, as well as the early transfer of
properties along with cooperative agreements to accelerate the
completion of remaining environmental remediation. The Army is also
making use of leasing options approved by Congress and awarding
guaranteed fixed price remediation contracts to complete environmental
cleanup and make properties available earlier. Real property assets are
being conveyed to local communities, permitting them to quickly enter
into business arrangements with the private sector. Local communities,
with The Army's support and encouragement, are working to develop
business opportunities that result in jobs and tax revenues. The
successful conversion of former Army installations to productive use in
the private sector benefits The Army and ultimately the local
community.
SUMMARY
Madam Chairman, our fiscal year 2004 budget is a balanced program
that permits us to execute our essential construction programs;
provides for the military construction required to improve our
readiness posture; provides for family housing leasing, operations and
maintenance of the non-privatized inventory; and initiates
privatization at four additional installations. This request is part of
the total Army budget request that is strategically balanced to support
the current war effort, the readiness of the force and the well-being
of our personnel.
Over the past few years with your support, we have successfully
improved our infrastructure posture and postured ourselves for further
improvements as The Army moves to the Objective force and The Army of
the future. We implemented a revolutionary management system with the
establishment of the Installation Management Agency. We have reduced
our infrastructure by a third. In addition, we have initiated efforts
to privatize family housing and utilities systems where it makes
economic sense and supports our military mission. We have the resources
to improve the living conditions of 106,000 single soldiers and will be
79 percent complete with approval of this budget. We have expedited the
process to turn over closed facilities and save the taxpayers money.
Our long-term strategy can only be accomplished through sustained,
balanced funding, divestiture of excess capacity, and improvements in
management and technology. With your support, we will continue to
streamline, consolidate, and establish community partnerships that
generate effective relationships and resources for infrastructure
improvement, continuance of services, and improved quality of life for
soldiers, their families, and the local communities of which we are a
part.
The fiscal year 2004 request for the Active Army is for
appropriations and authorization of appropriations of $2,935,927,000
for Military Construction, Army, and Army Family Housing.
The request for appropriations and authorization of appropriations
is $168,298,000 for Military Construction, Army National Guard, and
$68,478,000 for the Military Construction, Army Reserve.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Department of the Air Force
STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT
AND LOGISTICS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2004 budget
request for military construction, military family housing, and
dormitories. I have submitted a statement for the record, and I
would like to summarize it now.
The Air Force total military construction and military
family housing programs play a vital role supporting Air Force
operational needs, workplace productivity, and the quality of
life. This committee's support for those programs has remained
steadfast over the years. The Secretary of Defense has made a
commitment to transform the Department of Defense--this
includes installations and facilities--into those that are
required for our 21st Century military. Given the ever-present
competing priorities, the Air Force has developed an executable
and fiscally responsible plan for getting its facilities on a
path to recovery.
The Air Force top priority within this year's President's
budget are to sustain the facilities that already exist,
enhance the quality of life by improving housing for both
single and married members, complying with existing
environmental statutes and supporting new missions and weapons
systems.
AIR FORCE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
For fiscal year 2004, the Air Force is requesting over $4.4
billion to invest in Air Force facilities and infrastructure,
an increase of approximately $200 million over its request for
fiscal year 2003. This includes nearly $2 billion for
sustainment, restoration, and modernization to maintain our
existing infrastructure and facilities, up slightly from our
fiscal year 2003 request.
This budget request also reflects the Air Force's
continuing commitment to taking care of its people and their
families. Their welfare is a critical factor to overall Air
Force combat readiness, and the family housing program,
dormitory program, and other quality of life initiatives
reflect a commitment by the Air Force to provide its people
with the facilities that they deserve. The Air Force is
requesting $1.5 billion for military family housing,
approximately the same as it requested last year.
QUALITY OF LIFE
To improve the quality of life for the Air Force unmarried
junior enlisted members, the Air Force is requesting $200
million for its fiscal year 2004 dormitory program, which
consists of 10 enlisted dormitories in stateside bases and two
at overseas bases.
Our fiscal year 2004 request also includes over $750
million for active force military construction, $60 million to
the Air National Guard, and $40 million for the Air Force
Reserves, all a slight increase over the request for 2003.
MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
In conclusion, I want to thank the committee for its
continuing strong support of Air Force military construction,
military family housing, and dormitory programs. With the
committee's assistance and support, the Air Force will meet the
most urgent need of commanders in the field, while providing
quality facilities for the men and women who serve in and are
the backbone of the most respected Air and Space Force in the
world.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson F. Gibbs
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, good afternoon. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and present the
Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2004 military construction
program. Today, I will present to the committee the Air Force
investment strategies for facilities, housing, and environmental
programs.
OVERVIEW
Our Total Force military construction and military family housing
programs (MFH) play vital roles supporting Air Force operational needs,
work place productivity, and quality of life. Today, when our Nation
needs its Air Force more than ever before, our installations are the
platforms from which we project the global air and space power so
important to combat operations overseas. During Operation ENDURING
FREEDOM, we flew the longest bomber combat mission in history . . . 44
hours traveling more than 16,000 miles . . . from Whiteman Air Force
Base, Missouri, against targets in Afghanistan. Our military
construction program is a direct enabler of this kind of dominant
combat capability. In that same vein, as we send tens of thousands of
airmen overseas to prepare for possible conflict with Iraq, the peace-
of-mind they enjoy, knowing their families are safe and secure, living
in adequate housing with state-of-the-art quality of life facilities,
has direct impact on their ability to focus on the task at hand.
While the Air Force has always acknowledged the importance of
robust funding for facility sustainment and recapitalization, in the
past we have found that higher competing priorities have not permitted
us to address all the problems we face with our aging infrastructure.
We turned a corner with our fiscal year 2002 and 2003 military
construction and family housing budget requests, both well in excess of
$2 billion. You supported those requests and increased them to nearly
$3 billion, making the last 2 years' infrastructure investment programs
the two largest in more than a decade. We sincerely appreciate your
support.
We're continuing this positive trend in fiscal year 2004 . . . we
are requesting more than $2.4 billion for Total Force military
construction and Military Family Housing, a $160 million increase over
last year's request. The request includes more than $770 million for
Active military construction, $60 million for Air National Guard
military construction, more than $40 million for Air Force Reserve
military construction, and more than $1.5 billion for Military Family
Housing. In addition, we have maintained our focus on Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM)
funding. Last year's O&M SRM request was nearly $400 million more than
in fiscal year 2002. This year, we protected and actually increased
that program growth. With the fiscal year 2004 budget request, we will
invest more than $2 billion in critical infrastructure maintenance and
repair through our O&M program.
When one considers our level of effort across the entire
infrastructure spectrum (military construction, MFH, and O&M SRM), we
plan to invest more than $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2004.
These Air Force programs were developed using a facility investment
strategy with the following objectives:
--Accommodate new missions
--Invest in quality of life improvements
--Continue environmental leadership
--Sustain, restore, and modernize our infrastructure
--Optimize use of public and private resources
--Continue demolition of excess, uneconomical-to-maintain facilities,
and
--Base realignment and closure
Madam Chairman, Air Force missions and people around the world
clearly depend upon this committee's understanding of and support for
our infrastructure programs. That support has never wavered, and for
that we are most grateful.
With this background, I will discuss in more detail our military
construction budget request for fiscal year 2004.
ACCOMMODATE NEW MISSIONS
New weapon systems will provide the rapid, precise, global
capability that enables our combat commanders to respond quickly to
conflicts in support of national security objectives. Our fiscal year
2004 Total Force new mission military construction program consists of
43 projects, totaling more than $273 million. These projects support a
number of weapons system beddowns; two of special significance are the
F/A-22 Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster III.
The F/A-22 Raptor is the Air Force's next generation air
superiority fighter. Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, will house the F/
A-22 flying training program. Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, will be
the location for F/A-22 Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation.
Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, will be home for the first
operational squadrons. The fiscal year 2004 military construction
request includes one F/A-22 project at Tyndall for $6 million, and
three F/A-22 projects at Langley totaling $25 million.
The C-17 Globemaster III aircraft is replacing our fleet of C-141
Starlifters. The C-17 provides rapid global mobility by combining the
C-141 speed and long-range transport capabilities; the C-5 capability
to carry outsized cargo; and the C-130 capability to land on short,
forward-located airstrips. We are planning to bed down C-17s at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; Travis Air Force Base and March Air
Reserve Base in California; Dover Air Force Base, Delaware; Hickam Air
Force Base, Hawaii; Jackson Air National Guard Base, Mississippi;
McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey; Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma;
Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina; and McChord Air Force Base,
Washington. Thanks to your support, construction requirements for
Charleston and McChord were all funded in prior-year military
construction programs. Our request for fiscal year 2004 includes a $1
million facility project at Altus, an $8 million assault runway at Camp
Shelby (near Jackson, Mississippi), two facility projects for $12
million at McGuire, and six facility projects for $63 million at
Hickam. Other new mission requirements in fiscal year 2004 include the
Global Hawk beddown at Beale Air Force Base, California; Combat Search
and Rescue aircraft beddown at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona;
C-130J beddown at Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, and Little Rock
Air Force Base, Arkansas; and Joint Strike Fighter facilities at
Edwards Air Force Base, California.
INVEST IN QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS
The Air Force is committed to taking care of our people and their
families. Quality of life initiatives acknowledge the increasing
sacrifices our airmen make in support of the Nation and are pivotal to
recruiting and retaining our best. When our members deploy, they want
to know that their families are stable, safe, and secure. Their welfare
is a critical factor to our overall combat readiness. Our family
housing and dormitory programs, and other quality of life initiatives
reflect our commitment to provide facilities they deserve.
Family Housing
Our Air Force Family Housing Master Plan provides the road map for
our Housing military construction, O&M, and privatization efforts, to
meet the goal of providing safe, affordable, and adequate housing for
our members. Our fiscal year 2003 budget request reflected an increase
of more than $140 million over the prior year--we have built on that
increase with our fiscal year 2004 request and in the programmed
budgets for the next 3 years. With the exception of four northern-tier
locations, we will eliminate our inadequate housing units in the United
States by 2007. The inadequate units at those four northern-tier
locations will be eliminated by 2008, and the inadequate units at our
overseas installations will be eliminated by 2009.
For fiscal year 2004, the $700 million we have requested for
housing investment constructs nearly 2,100 units at 18 bases, improves
more than 1,500 units at eight bases, and supports privatization of
nearly 7,000 units at seven bases. I'll discuss our housing
privatization program in more detail later. Our fiscal year 2004
housing operations and maintenance program totals nearly $835 million.
Dormitories
Just as we are committed to provide adequate housing for families,
we have an ambitious program to house our unaccompanied junior enlisted
personnel. The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan is a comprehensive,
requirements-based plan, which identifies and prioritizes our dormitory
military construction requirements. The plan includes a three-phased
dormitory investment strategy. The three phases are: (1) fund the
replacement or conversion of all permanent party central latrine
dormitories; (2) construct new facilities to eliminate the deficit of
dormitory rooms; and (3) convert or replace existing dormitories at the
end of their useful life using a new, Air Force-designed private room
standard to improve airman quality of life. Phase 1 is complete, and we
are now concentrating on the final two phases of the investment
strategy.
Our total requirement is 79,400 Air Force dormitory rooms. We
currently have a deficit of 11,400 rooms, and the existing inventory
includes 3,700 inadequate rooms. It will cost approximately $1 billion
to execute the Air Force Dormitory Master Plan and achieve Office of
the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) fiscal year 2007 goal to replace all
of our inadequate dormitory rooms. This fiscal year 2004 budget request
moves us closer to that goal.
The fiscal year 2004 dormitory program consists of 12 dormitory
projects at nine U.S. bases and two overseas bases, for a total of $203
million. On behalf of all the airmen affected by this important quality
of life initiative, I want to thank the committee. We could never have
made it this far without your tremendous support.
Fitness Centers
Other traditional quality of life investments include community
facilities, such as fitness centers, vital in our efforts to attract
and retain high-quality people and their families. A strong sense of
community is an important element of the Air Force way of life, and
these facilities are important to that sense of community as well as to
the physical and psychological well being of our airmen. The fiscal
year 2004 military construction program includes fitness centers at
Lajes Air Base, Azores; Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho;
Spangdahlem and Ramstein Air Bases, Germany; and Royal Air Force Bases
Lakenheath and Mildendall in the United Kingdom.
CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
The Air Force continues to ensure operational readiness and sustain
the public trust through prudent environmental stewardship. We are
meeting our environmental cleanup commitments and Department of Defense
goals through effective outreach and partnering with Federal and State
regulators and team building with stakeholders and communities. Meeting
our legal obligations remains a primary objective of the Air Force
environmental quality program. Our record of environmental stewardship
illustrates our environmental ethic, both here in the United States and
overseas.
In addition to ensuring our operations comply with all
environmental regulations and laws, we are dedicated to enhancing our
already open relationships with both the regulatory community and the
neighborhoods around our installations. We continue to seek
partnerships with local regulatory and commercial sector counterparts
to share ideas and create an atmosphere of better understanding and
trust. By focusing on our principles of ensuring operational readiness,
partnering with stakeholders, and protecting human health and the
environment, we remain leaders in environmental compliance, cleanup,
conservation, and pollution prevention. We have reduced our open
enforcement actions from 263 in 1992 to just 22 at the end of 2002.
We have one project ($7 million) in our fiscal year 2004
environmental compliance military construction program. With it, we
will install arsenic treatment systems on water wells at Kirtland Air
Force Base, New Mexico, to ensure the base is in full compliance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new standard for
maximum arsenic levels allowed in drinking water. Failure to install
these treatment systems could result in fines from the EPA, shutdown of
water wells at Kirtland, and the increased cost of purchasing and
distributing potable water on the base.
SUSTAIN, RESTORE, AND MODERNIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE
Overseas Military Construction
The quality of our installations overseas continues to be a
priority to us. Even though the majority of our Air Force personnel are
assigned in the United States, 16 percent of our forces are permanently
assigned overseas, including 29,000 Air Force families. The Air Force
overseas base structure has stabilized after years of closures and
force structure realignments. At this level, our overseas
infrastructure still represents 11 percent of our Air Force physical
plant. Now, old and progressively deteriorating infrastructure at these
bases requires increased investment. Our fiscal year 2004 military
construction request for European and Pacific installations is $171
million totaling 22 projects. The program consists of infrastructure
and quality of life projects in the United Kingdom, Germany, the
Azores, Italy, Turkey, and Korea, as well as critical facilities on
Wake Island. We ask for your support of these operational and quality
of life projects.
Planning and Design/Unspecified Minor Construction
We are also requesting planning and design and unspecified minor
construction funding. Our request for fiscal year 2004 planning and
design is $102 million. These funds are required to complete design of
the fiscal year 2005 construction program, and to start design of our
fiscal year 2006 projects. We have requested $23 million in fiscal year
2004 for our total force unspecified minor construction program, which
is our primary means of funding small, unforeseen projects that cannot
wait for the normal military construction process.
Operations and Maintenance Investment
To sustain, restore, and modernize what we own, we must achieve a
balance between our military construction and O&M programs. Military
construction allows us to restore and recapitalize our facilities. O&M
funding allows us to perform facility sustainment activities necessary
to prevent facilities from failing prematurely. Without proper
sustainment, facilities and infrastructure wear out sooner. We also
rely on O&M funding to directly address many of our critical
restoration and less-expensive recapitalization needs. These funds
enable commanders in the field to address the facility requirements
that impact their near-term readiness.
Since the early nineties, constrained defense budgets resulted in
reduced military construction funding. For a few years, adequate O&M
funding partially offset this military construction decline. However,
between fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 2001, competing priorities
forced the Air Force to cut sharply into both military construction and
O&M funding. Our effort to sustain and operate what we own was strained
by minimally funded O&M, which forced us to defer much-needed
sustainment and restoration requirements. Thankfully, along with the
robust military construction programs provided in the last two years,
we have been able to restore our O&M balance for the second year in a
row. In fiscal year 2004, our sustainment, restoration, and
modernization share of the Air Force O&M funding is more than $2
billion--allowing us to properly invest in facility sustainment (to
keep our good facilities good) and invest some O&M funding in
restoration and modernization work compared to fiscal year 2003. Our
known restoration and modernization O&M backlog has grown to nearly $8
billion, so it will be important for us to continue this precedent of
higher O&M facility investment in the future.
OPTIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES
In order for the Air Force to accelerate the rate at which we
revitalize our inadequate housing inventory, we have taken a measured
approach to housing privatization. We started with a few select
projects, looking for some successes and ``lessons learned'' to guide
our follow-on initiatives. We awarded our first housing privatization
project at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, in August of 1998, and all
420 of those housing units were constructed and are occupied by
military families. Since then, we have completed two more projects (at
Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, and Dyess Air Force Base, Texas) and
have two more under construction (at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska,
and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio). Once these two projects are
complete, our privatized unit total will exceed 3,800. We are on-track
to award another eight projects in the next 12 months. Looking at 2005
and beyond, we are targeting an end-state of privatizing 60 percent of
the U.S.-based housing inventory. Our fiscal year 2004 budget request
includes $44 million to support the privatization of nearly 7,000 units
at seven bases: Luke Air Force Base, Arizona; Altus and Tinker Air
Force Bases in Oklahoma; Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina; Sheppard
Air Force Base, Texas; McChord Air Force Base, Washington; and F.E.
Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming.
We continue to pursue privatization of utility systems at Air Force
installations. Our goal is to privatize utility systems where it makes
economic sense and does not negatively impact national security. The
Air Force has identified 420 of our 650 systems as potential
privatization candidates. We expect to release approximately 190
requests for proposal over the next 24 months.
CONTINUE DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, UNECONOMICAL-TO-MAINTAIN FACILITIES
For the past 7 years, we have pursued an aggressive effort to
demolish or dispose of facilities that are not economical to sustain or
restore. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, we demolished
more than 12 million square feet of non-housing building space. We
expect to demolish an additional 2 million square feet in fiscal year
2003, for a total reduction of 14 million square feet. This is
equivalent to demolishing six Air Force bases equal to the combined
square footage of Whiteman, Goodfellow, Moody, Brooks, Vance, and Pope
Air Force Bases. Looking at fiscal year 2004 and beyond, we will
continue to identify opportunities for Air Force demolition through
facility consolidation. In general, we consider our facility demolition
program a success story enabling us to reduce the strain on our
infrastructure funding by getting rid of facilities we don't need and
can't afford to maintain.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
The Air Force views the fiscal year 2005 Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process as a unique opportunity to reshape our
infrastructure to optimize military readiness and to ensure we are most
efficiently postured to meet new security challenges. In January of
this year, we created a Basing and Infrastructure Analysis group within
Headquarters Air Force. This office will serve as the Air Force focal
point for the fiscal year 2005 BRAC process. Our major commands are
following suit with creating their own analysis structures to support
the BRAC process. As in previous rounds of base closures, we are
establishing a Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG) composed of general
officers and senior civilians representing a variety of functional
areas, including those with range and airspace operational expertise.
We continue to participate in joint BRAC forums with our sister
services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense to meet the
Secretary of Defense guidance and develop the required processes and
procedures.
The Air Force leadership is committed to meeting the BRAC fiscal
year 2005 statutory deadlines and ensuring our analytical processes are
unbiased and defensible.
The Air Force continues to work with the local reuse authority at
each base closed under previous rounds of BRAC to minimize the impact
on the local community from the closure. This effort has led to the
creation of over 48,000 jobs with 86 percent of the property
transitioned for reuse.
While these facilities are being returned to their respective
communities, the Air Force has a continuing responsibility for
environmental cleanup from past industrial activities. The Air Force
approaches this responsibility at our BRAC bases with the same prudent
environmental stewardship as at our active bases. We have spent $2.2
billion since fiscal year 1991 in environmental cleanup at closing
bases, and for fiscal year 2004, the Air Force is requesting $176
million to continue the cleanup.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for its strong
support of Air Force military construction and family housing. With
your help, we will ensure we meet the most urgent needs of commanders
in the field while providing quality facilities for the men and women
who serve in and are the backbone of the most respected aerospace force
in the world. I will be happy to address any questions.
Senator Hutchison. I want to thank all three of you, and
say I appreciate all that you are doing, and I want to ask a
couple of general questions. The issue of environmental cleanup
has come up in our committee since I have been on it, and I
would ask two questions of each of you.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Number 1, the numbers are staggering in these environmental
cleanups. Has anyone actually assessed these costs to know that
they are absolutely efficient and necessary? Are we doing this
in the best possible way to get the result that we want, or are
we just throwing these huge numbers out there and accepting it
at face value?
Then secondly, I would like to just go ahead and have the
second question for each of you as well, and that is, when you
are looking at the bases that you are going to put on the BRAC
list for 2005, are you going to put environmental cleanup on
the list of factors, which does not seem to have been done in
the past, although obviously, Mr. Johnson, you are the expert
here, and maybe you did consider these things. But it
certainly--let me say that the costs that we are now dealing
with were not the costs that were brought up when these bases
were closed, so with that, let me start with you.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, ma'am. Two questions. Obviously, we look
and try to find the most efficient way to clean up bases. There
are many factors that affect it. Number 1 is the intended use,
and the receiving agency often will use an intended use for
cleanup purposes that requires more than if you used a
different use, so some of it is driven by the receiving agency,
normally the community.
And the techniques are evolving. We look very carefully to
use the most efficient ones, but quite frankly, environmental
cleanup techniques each year get a little better, or a little
different. We have our challenges with the local regulatory
organizations, as well as the national EPA, but our services
have worked very closely with them and have a good
relationship.
The second question came up when in another life I was on a
BRAC, and I understand what you are saying, that we should
consider the environmental cleanup. The thought in those days
and my continuing thoughts are that the property should be
cleaned whether it is kept in the active inventory or
transferred, so environmental aspects should not be a decision
in any BRAC decisions. That is my personal view.
We have not considered any bases for BRAC, and we intend
to, in our service anyway, not to select any bases until we
look at all of the functions across the bases and then, if you
have too many functions, a base will be selected, but we will
start from what we need as opposed to looking at individual
bases.
Senator Hutchison. I hear what you are saying. It is just,
I think, a difference when you are closing a base than when the
base is ongoing in its usage. I am not sure you could clean up
a base that was ongoing in certain respects.
Mr. Johnson. We can certainly do a better job of estimating
what the costs are to clean bases, but we really do not know
until you go through the process, and also go through the
intended use.
Senator Hutchison. It just seems to me that it should be a
factor to be considered when that comes up in 2005.
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. I would agree with my colleague, generally just
a couple of points to add to his. The first question, are we
doing it in the most effective manner, we believe we are as we
go along, and I will split it into two pieces, those that are
closed bases, and those that are continuing ones.
We do have significant activities and costs for cleanup on
our existing bases, and we pursue those in a manner that is a
little more straightforward and a little easier to do because
we know the intended use when we start out, and we can be more
consistent over time.
For the bases that have been closed, in some cases it takes
quite a while to find out exactly how the community wants to
use the land that they are going to get back, so we are a
little hesitant in proceeding on the cleanup activities. In
other cases, it changes over time, so we may have to change
from one level of cleanup to another.
As I said, I agree with Secretary Johnson, the costs should
be the same whether we are going to stay or whether we are
going to leave. It is just the time period over which the costs
are going to be incurred. At the final date, whenever that is,
all of the facilities, continually owned or returned to the
local communities, will be put back in the state that they were
when the Air Force received them, so it is a method of timing.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
In terms of the determination for consideration for BRAC, I
basically believe the only determination there would be on the
speed with which it is going to be done, and if an economic
analysis is placed on that, the net present value of the cost
should be the same whether we do it sooner or later, so it
really should not, in my view, make a substantive difference in
terms of the utilization of the facilities.
Senator Hutchison. Dr. Fiori.
Mr. Fiori. I certainly agree with you, Madam Chairman, that
the costs are staggering when we look at all of our
environmental mortgage. That goes just beyond the BRAC
mortgage. We have our UXO, unexploded ordnance throughout the
country, and that is not funded very high, so we are estimating
100 years to clean it up. So to solve that problem and to get
the speed, to bring it in a little closer than 100 years from
now, we have to look at various technologies that are
transportable that we could bring to the scene to explode this
ordnance, we have to find the ordnance, so there is a good
technology program available to try to speed up the UXO issues
that are both on BRAC and off BRAC, so that is one way.
We are also looking at more innovative business ways of the
BRAC properties, in transferring them and sharing the
responsibility, or again the end use is key to the whole thing.
If I have to make it pristine clean, it is going to cost us a
fortune. If we are going to use it forever as a habitat, I may
not have to do much of anything to it. It just depends.
As my counterparts have said, a lot has to do with the
local regulatory issues, and some could be extreme. In one case
I note that I am going to take 14 years at least to clean up
7,000 acres. It almost by definition is going to take that
long, and that is a regulatory local issue that you have to
resolve.
These issues are different throughout the country, but by
business and by technology we can assist this. It is still
going to be very expensive.
Our bases to BRAC, of course, we have not put any bases
online. Our process is to examine all our bases, and that is
what we are going to do, and I cannot really add much to what
my counterparts have said, because we work very closely
together on the BRAC issues.
We need and we will have some new tools to get rid of the
property faster. I still have 140,000 acres I am getting from
the first four BRAC's that I am trying to eliminate, and it is
a slow process. Even when the recipient is anxious and you are
anxious to give and he is to take, and we agree on the price
and everything else, the regulatory issues can really bog you
down.
Senator Hutchison. I agree with you. I do think there is a
difference, by the way, on environmental cleanup for an ongoing
use versus turning it over for a different use. I think you
have to make those assessments, and it should be a factor in a
BRAC, in my opinion.
But secondly, all of the savings that BRACs are supposed to
bring would, I think, be curtailed by the fact that so many of
these bases are not yet completely turned back, and I just hope
these factors are considered in the next BRAC. I mean,
certainly we should have learned from these past BRACs what the
problems are, and I would hope it would be factored in what the
environmental cleanup costs would be, and what the problems in
turning it back would be, as well as all the other factors that
would be relevant. And so I am hoping that we are going to
learn from past mistakes and past problems that have arisen
that were not expected.
OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Along that line, I assume that you heard what we were
talking about in the previous panel. Are you dealing with the
new strategies, are you keeping in mind that things are
changing in Europe and perhaps in other places, and are you
taking that into consideration as you begin to spend the 2003
dollars, and also as you are coming to us with your 2004
requests?
Once again I say, we have got $288 million now being
requested for MILCON in Germany at a time when our own
commander in Europe is saying that there will be a significant
drawdown from Germany, and then $173 million or so in South
Korea. Are you taking these things, all of these issues into
consideration before you even spend the dollars that have been
allocated in the 2003 cycle, and is it going to be a part of
what we are going to be looking at in 2004?
Mr. Fiori. Perhaps I should answer, since most of it is
mine.
Senator Hutchison. A lot of it is yours, right. There is
some Air Force, of course.
Mr. Fiori. The Secretary of Defense has asked our major
commanders to review everything in 2003 and to see if there is
any flexibility to either not build or do it somewhere else, or
do it smarter, whichever, so we have halted all the
construction, and it must be reviewed by either General LaPorte
or General Jones prior to our starting construction in the 2003
time frame.
For the 2004 budgets, we are supporting the Army program
pretty much as it is, and I really cannot add much to what Mr.
DuBois and Dr. Zakheim said. We have put the program together
clearly looking at the facilities that we will probably need in
most cases, and we will obviously do a review as soon as these
policy decisions are made.
We had to submit a budget to you, and I did hear the
comment made that it would be nice to get it done before the
budgeting process, but the way the timing is of these things,
sometimes a reprogramming might be the only alternative we have
to make sense of this, and all these things, we do not do them
overnight. I think that was the point made, and I would
certainly agree to it.
A lot of these facilities we will be using for 2, 3 years,
particularly in the housing area, which I am concerned with
overseas quite a bit. We will still have our soldiers there for
quite a while, so it is going to have to be a balance, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Gibbs.
GERMANY
Mr. Gibbs. Being second in line for the amount, as you
heard Dr. Zakheim say, the hold that is occurring in Germany
has excluded Ramstein, the major Air Force facility in Germany,
actually one of only two that we are going to end up with. The
reason for that is, we have an agreement with the German
Government to vacate the Rhein-Main facility, which has been
heretofore the major transshipment point from the United States
through Europe and into points east from there.
Various levels of the German Government, from the Federal
Government and on down through the local governments, have
committed in excess of $400 million to facilitate that move
that is going on out there. They are paying the bulk of the
cost. However, there are some aspects of it that we are
responsible for, and we are continuing with that program, so it
should remain intact both in 2003 and in the request for 2004.
There has been, I believe, a determination that we will
need a major transshipment hub through Europe, and that is the
only place that it basically can be, so Ramstein is pretty much
different than the other ones.
KOREA
In the case of Korea, we are in need, dire need of some of
the housing facilities, and we have a request in to General
LaPorte to review those specifically, because if we lose the
window on a dormitory for the people then we lose it for a
year, so he has I believe agreed to take a look at those and
see whether they should go on an individual basis or not.
PRIVATIZATION
Senator Hutchison. My last question is--in fact, we have
several questions that we may submit to you in writing that are
on the details. But one is the issue of privatizing military
barracks and dorms. We have all seen the privatized housing for
married families, but the issue of privatizing barracks and
dorms, to what extent do you think this could work, and do you
think you can save money doing it, and do you think you can
protect the troops with that type of privatization?
Mr. Johnson. I think we have the most in the Department of
the Navy. We plan and have submitted three pilots. One is at
San Diego, one at Norfolk, and one at Camp Pendleton. When we
do that, we have to look at things a little bit differently if
we are going to privatize a dormitory, and when you privatize
things you have to have alternative uses. In other words, if
the military moved out, it has to be in a location that other
people can use, so we will be building those more on the edge
of bases rather than in the middle.
We believe we worked out all of the concerns. We believe
that we can get three times the number of sailors and marines
housed for the same amount of money, and overall it is much
cheaper, but it is something that we are working with your
staff very carefully to make sure we do it just right, and we
do the pilots.
Fortunately, San Diego and Norfolk work very, very well.
Pendleton will work well, but it is not quite as severable. In
other words, you cannot build it quite on the edge of the base,
but we are confident we can, number 1, assure our private
partners that it will be filled, and number 2, that it will
really serve our Nation much better, and number 3, and perhaps
it should be number 1, is that we provide much better quarters
for our bachelors, and it becomes a self-sustaining
entitlement.
In other words, the private partnership will continue to
upgrade the dormitories and rebuild them at certain cycles so
we think that we can take the same lessons we have learned from
the family housing and transform it into barracks, but there
are new issues which we are working very carefully with your
staff.
Senator Hutchison. Okay, thank you very much. We may have a
few more submissions. I am sorry, were you going to comment on
this? Do you have this in the works as well?
ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, we do. The Air Force fortunately has been
working on its dormitory program for a number of years, and it
is in relatively good shape. All of the gang type latrines were
eliminated about 2 years ago, but we still have requirements,
and we are always looking for ways to make the most effective
use of the resources we have. So we have a pilot program that
we are trying to work through up at Elmendorf to do the
privatization of one of the dormitories there. We think that we
may be successful there, and to the extent that we learn from
that, then we may be able to move it on out to other locations.
Mr. Fiori. I would like to comment, ma'am.
As I pointed out, we have about 79 percent of our permanent
party barracks that we have rehabilitated in one way or another
to meet the standards of today, but we are still looking at,
and we have two for permanent party barracks in the Presidio
and Fort Lewis, but I have a massive amount of training
barracks that are really in less than good shape--that would be
a charitable statement to make--so we are looking at ways to
consider privatizing them because they serve much more like a
hotel, with transients coming and going on a constant basis.
So we are looking at several places, but there are some
serious issues, not the least of which is scoring, funding. If
I am going to get scored the same amount as military
construction I might as well build it, because we have done
such a detailed job. And execution with deployments is an issue
that we have not yet totally resolved.
So we are looking at it, but we are not charging off
massively to do it. I have a request to do defense logistics--
excuse me, the language school in California, in Monterey, and
that might be--you know, it is one of these hotels you have to
stay for 4 or 5 months type thing, and we are looking at seeing
how we could transfer that into private industry.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. All right. Unless there is anything
else--yes, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Ma'am, I would like to take the opportunity to
tell you and your committee what great staff you have. It is a
great pleasure to work with Sid Ashworth and Alycia Farrell,
Christina Evans, I think, just left, and also B.G. Wright. You
and we are well served by this strong team of professionals.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to H.T. Johnson
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BARRACKS/DORMITORIES
Question. I understand that all three services are working toward
the elimination of inadequate permanent party barracks by 2007. The
success of that program will be largely dependent on significant
funding increases that the Army, Navy and Air Force have programmed for
military construction beginning in 2005 and into the future. Past
experience has shown that those increases in the out years seem to
disappear, as it gets closer to the submission of the budget.
Is the DOD goal of 2007 realistic and achievable?
Answer. Yes. In developing the fiscal year 2004 program to meet the
DOD goal, the Department of the Navy defined inadequate permanent party
barracks as those barracks containing gang heads. Using O&M and MILCON-
funded projects, the Navy will eliminate their inadequate barracks by
fiscal year 2007; the Marine Corps will eliminate their inadequate
barracks by fiscal year 2005.
Question. Would you also comment on the likelihood of realizing
future funding increases for MILCON?
Answer. The Department of the Navy is pursuing the use of
privatization authorities to house our bachelors. This will determine
the amount of traditional military construction necessary to achieve
our goals.
Question. Several of you are assessing the issue of privatizing
military barracks and dormitories.
Have you worked out the financial issues associated with this
proposal and how would the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) score
these proposals?
Answer. We are currently developing concepts for pilot projects at
Hampton Roads, Camp Pendleton (Del Mar), and San Diego. Financial
issues, including OMB scoring, will be resolved as these concepts are
finalized.
Question. Has the OSD provided the services guidance on
privatization?
Answer. OSD has provided general guidance to the Services on family
housing privatization. Some of the guidance is likely to be applicable
to bachelor housing as well. OSD has not provided specific guidance to
the Services on bachelor housing privatization. The Department of the
Navy will work with OSD during the development of the bachelor housing
privatization pilot projects to document proposed guidance for future
projects.
Question. What are the major cost concerns that will potentially
impact this initiative?
Answer. Major factors that will impact the costs of barracks
privatization include: (1) the private sector's assessment of financial
risk (i.e. no assignment of sailors, impact of deployment, secondary
market, etc.); (2) the project concept (i.e. number and type of units);
(3) income stream (i.e. intended demographics, rent set at full vs.
partial BAH); (4) available assets (Government investment, inclusion of
existing units and land availability); and, (5) construction
requirement (supporting facilities requirement, applicability of
Antiterrorism/Force Protection modifications, site costs and/or land
cost, etc.). These issues are being addressed as the bachelor housing
privatization pilot project concepts are being developed.
RECAPITALIZATION RATE
Question. With the funding proposed in the 2004 budget for MILCON,
how does that impact your recapitalization rate?
Answer. Based upon the funding budgeted in fiscal year 2004 for
those appropriations used for restoration and modernization projects,
the facility recapitalization rate in fiscal year 2004 is 140 years for
the Navy and 88 years for the Marine Corps.
Question. How does that compare to last year's rate?
Answer. The recapitalization rate for the President's fiscal year
2003 budget submission was 116 years for the Navy and 156 years for the
Marine Corps.
Question. Gentlemen, there have been a lot of promises made over
the past 2 years regarding revitalizing our defense facilities. Are we
back to business as usual neglecting our facilities?
Answer. The Department of Defense has established two specific
installation infrastructure performance goals and associated metrics to
improve readiness over the long term: (1) fully sustain facilities; and
(2) recapitalize the existing infrastructure at a 67 year rate by
fiscal year 2008. These metrics provide important credibility and
visibility to facility funding levels that did not exist in the past.
Question. What are your long-term plans to reach the Department's
proposed recapitalization rate of 67 years?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps plan to reach the 67 year
recapitalization rate through a combination of (1) restoration and
modernization funding, (2) reduction in excess infrastructure, and (3)
efficiencies in managing and maintaining our infrastructure.
Question. When will that happen?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 President's FYDP indicates that both
the Navy and the Marine Corps will achieve the 67-year rate
recapitalization goal in fiscal year 2008.
Question. I worry about the message we send our young soldiers,
airmen, and sailors as well as their families, about the condition of
the facilities in which they live, work and train, especially as we try
to retain them. How does the condition of your infrastructure relate to
the services' goal of recruitment and retention?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps are meeting its recruitment goals
and currently finds no correlation between recruitment and facilities
condition. However, facilities condition is very important to
retention. It is critical that we provide adequate, comfortable housing
for our families and bachelors as well as safe, modern working
facilities for our highly trained military and civilian workforce.
INSTALLATION READINESS
Question. I understand that all three services rate the readiness
of their infrastructure on a scale of C-1 to C-4. It appears that C-1
indicates only minor deficiencies with negligible impact on capability
to support missions. I was disturbed to find out that such a large
percentage of your overall facilities are rated C-3 or worse.
How does that impact mission readiness?
Answer. The readiness ratings of our installations are based on
condition assessments of the individual facilities at the base. These
ratings are then aggregated into eight major facility types for our
four major commands. The inspection-based ratings are verified and
adjusted by our force commanders to ensure they match the readiness
condition. The way facility conditions affect readiness is both direct
and indirect. The direct affect, for example, might be where we have to
close a runway because of pavement issues. These problems are rare and
are quickly corrected. The most common readiness issue is indirect,
caused by years of underfunding, that impact on the quality of life of
installation tenants, or causes temporary interruptions of daily
operations.
Question. What would be the bill to bring all of your C-3 and C-4
facilities to at least C-2?
Answer. The total unfunded bill to bring all current facilities in
fiscal year 2004 to at least C-2 is $17.7B for the Navy and $4.1B for
the Marine Corps. This amount includes those funds to satisfy both
quality and quantity deficiencies.
Question. What is the associated timeline?
Answer. The Department of Defense goal is to improve our existing
facilities to C-2 by fiscal year 2010. Current funding levels indicate
that the Navy will not attain that goal until fiscal year 2021 and the
Marine Corps by fiscal year 2013.
Question. I note that the services have goals to improve your
facilities to C-1 by the end of the decade. Is that realistic based on
current funding projections?
Answer. Simply adding more money cannot realistically solve this
problem. We need to resolve C-3/C-4 deficiencies through a combination
of (1) funding, (2) reduction in excess infrastructure, and (3)
efficiencies in managing and maintaining our infrastructure.
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Question. I want to compliment the military departments for
improving military family housing for our service members. Through
buying down the military member's out-of-pocket expenses for housing
costs as well as eliminating inadequate housing units through military
construction and privatization-you are making great progress. I am
particularly proud of the fact that our state is leading the way with
more housing privatization projects awarded at Texas military
installations than any other state with six private-public partnerships
(NAS Corpus Christi, Lackland Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, NAS
Kingsville, Fort Hood and NC South Texas) or 33 percent of the total
projects awarded within the Department of Defense.
While housing revitalization is a good news story for our military
families, I am concerned with the message being sent to our service
members with the budget proposal to cut impact aid funding for the
education of soldier's, sailors', airmen and marines' children, and
I've spoken to the administration about my concerns. A total of 1,300
school districts across the nation receive impact aid funding to pay
the salaries of teachers, purchase textbooks and computers and pay for
advanced placement classes among other things. Cutting this funding
sends a negative message at a time when we are promoting quality
education for all children and sending their mothers and fathers into
harm's way in the Persian Gulf region and around the world.
With regards to privatization, I understand that some of these
contracts are for 50 years and beyond. What happens when one of our
family housing contractors goes out-of-business or does not fulfill its
commitments?
Answer. The business agreements the Department of the Navy enters
into for housing privatization are crafted to preserve the financial
viability of the company and protect the interests of the government.
In the event of a default by our managing partner the Department of the
Navy may remove the partner and designate a new partner to manage the
company or cause the sale of the managing partner's interest in the
company and admit the transferee to the company as the new managing
partner.
Question. There seems to be a growing emphasis on privatizing more
housing in a shorter period of time. Are there concerns that moving too
quickly on such major procurement contracts could lead to future
problems?
Answer. No. The Department of the Navy carefully considered the
variables and possible uncertainties, over the long term, in crafting
its approach to housing privatization. The Department has structured
its business agreements to include provisions that protect the
Government's interests while providing flexibility to adapt to future
changes. Lessons learned on the first nine privatization efforts, and
the use of document templates allow the Department to pursue family
housing privatization efficiently without compromising the integrity of
the process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
NAVY
Question. The fiscal year 2004 Navy request for BRAC cleanup is
$101.9 million, a 62 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level. How much money above the budget request could the Navy execute
in fiscal year 2004 to expedite its BRAC cleanup programs?
Answer. The Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget consists of an
appropriation request for $101.9 million plus a conservative estimate
of $68 million from land sales and a $10.7 million adjustment from the
DOD Comptroller providing a total of $180.6 million in spending
authority. The Navy has substantial contract execution capacity in
place and could readily obligate as much as about $500 million in
fiscal year 2004 for BRAC cleanup under normal BRAC outlay rates. Other
factors that impact expediting BRAC cleanup programs include regulator
support for additional workload, timing when funds become available,
and making sure that we get real cleanup and property disposal progress
for the investment.
Question. Did you request a higher level of funding from the
Defense Department?
Answer. No. The fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget request fully funds
all legally enforceable agreements with environmental regulators and
other must-fund agreements with communities. The Navy believes that the
budget request and land sales receipts will be sufficient to meet BRAC
cleanup requirements in fiscal year 2004.
Question. Also, please provide a list of those BRAC properties that
were sold publicly and give an analysis of where those dollars were
directed within the BRAC accounts.
Answer. Below is the list of Navy BRAC property that has been sold
by public sale, negotiated sale, or where reimbursement was received
under a public benefit conveyance through 13 March 2003. Total sales
are $257.6 million, of which $208.5 million is from the recent sale of
three parcels totaling 235 acres at the former Marine Corps Air Station
Tustin, CA. The other $49.1M, which spans nearly 13 years since
implementation of BRAC 1988, were previously spent on BRAC
environmental and caretaker needs. The Department of the Navy has
complied with the law, which requires that all land sale revenue from
BRAC actions be used for environmental cleanup and caretaker costs at
BRAC locations. An analysis of where those dollars were directed within
the BRAC accounts is not available, as all BRAC land sale revenue is
commingled with appropriated funds, recovery of prior year unobligated
or unexpended funds, and additional BRAC funding allocations
occasionally provided by the DOD comptroller. With the normal execution
vagaries of some cleanup projects cost more, some cost less, some must
be delayed due to regulator or other concerns, while others must be
advanced for similar reasons, it is impracticable and would serve
little purpose to maintain an audit trail of where any particular
dollar is applied.
[In dollar amount]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Property Cost Type of sale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS Chase Field, TX............... $168,000 Economic Development
Conveyance
NTC Orlando, FL................... 1,850,000 Economic Development
Conveyance
NAS Chase Field, TX............... 623,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTC Orlando, FL................... 235,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTC Orlando, FL................... 10,300 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTC Orlando, FL................... 158,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTC Orlando, FL................... 9,300 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTC San Diego, CA................. 80,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NAS Moffett Field, CA............. 6,250,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NCBC Davisville, RI............... 62,500 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NTB Salton Sea, CA................ 13,617 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NAWC Trenton, NJ.................. 651,622 Public Sale (GSA)
DOD Fam Hsg Niagara, NY........... 1,125,000 Public Sale (GSA)
NAWC Warminster, PA............... 62,500 50 percent PBC
NTC Orlando, FL................... 3,849,000 Economic Development
Conveyance
NS Philadelphia, PA............... 2,000,000 Economic Development
Conveyance
NAS Cecil Field, FL............... 48,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NAS Dallas, TX.................... 1,500 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NRL Orlando, FL................... 2,500 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NH Philadelphia, PA............... 25 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NRL Orlando, FL................... 79,000 Public Sale (GSA)
NRC Coconut Grove, FL............. 7,134,173 Public Sale (GSA)
NRC Pittsfield, MA................ 52,000 Public Sale (GSA)
NS Staten Island, NY.............. 601,842 Public Sale (GSA)
NRC Jamestown, NY................. 53,280 Public Sale (GSA)
NH Long Beach, CA................. 10,968,409 Economic Development
Conveyance
PWC SanFranBay (Novato), CA....... 8,130,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NRC Perth Amboy, NJ............... 1,000,000 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
PWC SanFranBay (Novato), CA....... 1,300,000 Public Sale (GSA)
NTC Orlando, FL................... 415,000 Public Sale (GSA)
NAS Key West, FL.................. 600,000 Fed-to-Fed (DOI)
NH Oakland, CA.................... 453,500 Negotiated Sale
(GSA)
NAWC Trenton, NJ.................. 1,160,000 Public Sale (GSA)
MCAS Tustin, CA................... 157,500,000 Public Sale (GSA)
MCAS Tustin, CA................... 51,000,000 Public Sale (GSA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the 2004 request include anticipated revenue from
sales? If so, how much, and from where?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes anticipated
revenue in the amount of $68 million from property sales at 4 locations
Naval Hospital Long Beach, CA; Naval Hospital Oakland, CA; Marine Corps
Air Station Tustin, CA; Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, CA. This
differs from the $208 million received from the recent sale of Tustin
because the Department of the Navy used very conservative estimates,
including the expectation that in some cases, the actual receipt of
funds would be spread across several fiscal years. While Tustin sold
for far more than expected, the sale of Naval Hospital Oakland was
terminated after the winner bidder defaulted and litigation ensued, and
the sale of El Toro is still in the formative stage. We did not want to
unduly raise community expectations for environmental cleanup if the
revenue proved to be less than expected, or that funds arrived later
than initially expected. The law requires that all BRAC land sale
revenue be deposited into the BRAC account and be used only for
environmental cleanup and caretaker costs at BRAC locations. To the
extent that actual revenue exceeds budgeted estimates, the Department
of the Navy will use the additional land sale revenue to further
accelerated cleanup and property disposals at BRAC locations.
ALAMEDA POINT NAVAL AIR STATION FUNDING
Question. I am aware that the former Alameda Point Naval Air
Station is currently being considered as a candidate for early transfer
based on the recent agreement between the Navy and the community of
Alameda for reuse, development, and preservation of the property. Early
transfer of this land and associated facilities would serve as a model
for all the military services of base conversion in an urban
environment.
It is critical for the community that this early transfer be
completed by October 2004 for cleanup and redevelopment to occur in
line with community plans. As I understand it, the Navy is full
supportive of that goal and intends to meet the October 2004 deadline.
Is that correct?
Answer. Yes. The Navy is in full support of the requested Early
Transfer at the Former NAS Alameda and has been working closely with
the Local Redevelopment Agency to expedite the proposed Early Transfer
of approximately 1,000 acres. Our most notable challenge will be
obtaining regulator concurrence from both the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and California's Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC). Both agencies have presented requirements that pose a challenge
to the 2004 anticipated conveyance.
HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD
Question. What is the Navy's estimated cost to complete the cleanup
of Hunters Point Shipyard? What is the budget for the current fiscal
year and each of the next 2 fiscal years?
Answer. Cost to complete for fiscal year 2004 and out is $103.9
million. Budgets for current and next 2 fiscal years are $40.2 million
in fiscal year 2003, $21.6 million in fiscal year 2004, and $1.9
million in fiscal year 2005. Budget estimates for fiscal year 2004 and
fiscal year 2005 assume the receipt of land sale revenue to finance
cleanup costs.
Question. Given the Navy's recent discovery of more than 100 boxes
of previously unknown Shipyard radiological documents, will the new
radiological review and survey work come at the expense of other
important, and budgeted, cleanup activities or will the Navy find other
funds to pay for it?
Answer. Funding to pay for the expanded Historical Radiological
Assessment (HRA) will not be taken from funds budgeted for cleanup at
Hunters Point.
Question. Does the Navy see any remaining hurdles to moving forward
with the Conveyance Agreement in the next 1-2 months?
Answer. The Navy is working diligently with the City of San
Francisco to reach agreement on the Hunters Point Conveyance Agreement.
The Navy's goal is to achieve a mutually agreeable solution to the
remaining two significant issues (utilities transition plan and
finalization of the deeds) within the next 1 or 2 months.
NATO
Question. Last year, at the request of the Navy, the Committee
approved a $6.6 million barracks quarter's complex in Larissa, Greece,
to support a NATO headquarters. With the proposed headquarters
structure changes in NATO Allied Command Operation, Larissa is on a
list to be dropped as a headquarters site. With this change, is the
barracks complex still needed for U.S. troops?
Answer. If NATO determines that Larissa will no longer be required
as a headquarters site as a result of their ongoing military structure
review, scheduled to be completed during the summer of 2003, and that
U.S. troops will not be needed at Larissa, it is a reasonable
assumption that the barracks complex for U.S. troops would no longer be
required.
Question. Would each of you provide the committee with a copy of
your service's current FYDP and unfunded priorities by March 31?
Answer. Attached are (1) MCON FYDP, (2) MCNR FYDP, and (3) CNO &
CMC unfunded priorities.
MCON POM04 FYDP CONGRESSIONAL SUBMIT
[In dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST ACTIVITY PNO TITLE PRG COST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PY 2004
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 442 A/C MAINTENANCE $14,250
HANGAR.
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 484 STATION ORDNANCE 7,980
AREA.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 02 TERTIARY SWG TRTMNT 24,960
MCB (INCI).
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 98B BACHELOR ENLISTED 22,930
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 521 AIRFIELD PAVEMENT 12,890
NAWCWPNSDIV UPGRADE.
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 217 MAINT HANGAR--O/H 24,610
SPACE.
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 271 OPERATIONAL TRAINER. 9,900
CA MIRAMAR CA MCAS 95 A/C FIRE/RESCUE 4,740
STATION.
CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 198 BACHELOR OFFICER 35,550
QTRS REPL.
CA SAN CLEMENTE IL CA 493 OPERATIONAL ACCESS-- 18,940
NAF SHOBA.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 748 TAXIWAY/TOWER....... 13,650
NORTH IS
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 751 SQUADRON OPERATIONS 35,590
NORTH IS FAC.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 501 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE. 42,710
CA SAN NICOLAS ISLAND 268 BACH ENL QTRS--TRANS 6,150
CA E1/E4.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 426 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 2,290
MAGCC OPS.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 605 BACHELOR ENLISTED 26,100
MAGCC QUARTERS.
DC WASH DC MCBKS 901 MOTOR TRANSPORT FAC 1,550
ADDN.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 268 AIRFLD PERIM SECURTY 3,190
ENHAN.
FL JAX FL BLOUNT ISLAND 01 LAND ACQUISITION.... 115,711
FL PANAMA CITY FL 376 LITTORAL WARFARE 9,550
NSWCCSTSYS RESRH CPL.
FL WHITING FLD FL NAS 243 CLEAR ZONE ACQ (OLF 4,830
BARIN).
GA KINGS BAY GA SWFLANT 588 RIFLE RANGE......... 8,170
GA KINGS BAY GA SWFLANT 589 SFF ADDN & HMMWV 3,340
GARAGE.
HI LUALUALEI HI NM 172 ORDNANCE HOLDING 6,320
AREAS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 193 WATERFRONT 32,180
IMPROVEMENTS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 905 PERIMETER/SECURITY 7,010
LIGHTNG.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 736 RECRUIT BARRACKS.... 31,600
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 737 RECRUIT BARRACKS.... 34,130
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 745 BATTLE STA TRNG FAC 13,200
INC I.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 160 WATER SYSTEM 14,850
NSWCTRDIV IMPROVEMENTS.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 129 JSF TEST FACILITY... 24,370
AWCACDV
MS MERIDIAN MS NAS 295 FIRE & RESCUE 4,570
STATION.
NJ EARLE NJ NWS 32 GENL PURP/BERTHING 26,740
PIER.
NJ LAKEHURST NJ NAWC 252 EMALS FACILITY...... 20,681
ACFTDIV
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1093 US JOINT MARITIME 6,300
INST FAC.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1094 JOINT MARITIME OPS & 12,880
TRNG.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 227 CONSOLIDATED ARMORY. 10,270
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 647 WATER TREATMENT 6,240
FACILITY.
RI NEWPORT RI NS 454 BEQ REPLACMENT 16,140
(NAPS).
RI NEWPORT RI NUSWCTR 11 UNDERWATER WEAPON 10,890
DIV SYS LAB.
VA ARLINGTON VA HQMC 01A PHYSICAL FITNESS 1,970
CENTER.
VA DAHLGREN VA 292 NAVAL NETWORKS OPS 20,520
NAVSPACECOM CTR ADN.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 535 GATE 1 IMPROVEMENTS. 3,810
NAVPHIBSE
VA NORFOLK VA NS 94 PIER 11 REPLACEMENT 27,610
INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 293A BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 46,730
INCII.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 526 A/C MAINTENANCE 36,460
HANGARS.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 514 CRANE/WGHT HNDLG EQP 17,770
NORFOLK NSY SHOP.
VA QUANTICO VA 549 WTBN LOAD & TEST 3,700
MCCOMBDEV CMD FACILITY.
WA BANGOR WA NAVSUBASE 395 SVC PIER UPGD/MOD 33,820
BLD 7111.
WA BANGOR WA NAVSUBASE 971 WTRFRNT SECURITY 6,530
FORCE FAC.
WA INDIAN ISLAND WA 334 ORDNANCE TRANSFER 2,240
NAVMAG FAC.
BA NAVSUPPACT BAHRAIN 927 OPS CONTROL CENTER.. 18,030
IT LAMADDALENA IT NSO 995 CONSOL SANTO STEFANO 39,020
FACS.
IT SIGONELLA ITALY NAS 635 BASE OPS SUPPORT I.. 34,070
UK ST MAWGAN 115 BACHELOR ENLISTED 7,070
QUARTERS.
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 204 MCON DESIGN FUNDS 55,558
(N4).
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 504 MCON DSGN FNDS-- 10,054
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 204 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 12,334
CONST CONSTR.
VAR Z/VARLOCS MILCON 689 OLF FACS (INC I).... 27,610
--------------
FISCAL 2004 ......... .................... 1,132,858
TOTAL
==============
PY 2005
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 440 BACHELOR ENLISTED 25,636
QUARTERS.
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 485 STATION ORDNANCE 6,518
AREA.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 32 CONSOL OPERATIONS 5,454
MCAS CENTER.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 38 WEIGHT HANDLING SHOP 7,177
MCAS
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 02A TERTIARY SWG TRTMNT 24,843
MCB (INCII).
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 13 ASSAULT BREACHER VEH 4,256
MCB FAC.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 14 BACHELOR ENLISTED 19,293
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 608 PHYSICAL FITNESS 7,070
MCB CENTER.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 613 CLOSE COMBAT PISTOL 1,951
MCB COURSE.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 453D PROPELLANT/EXP LAB 13,609
NAWCWPNSDIV (03 ADD).
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 201 BEQ TRANSIENT....... 25,085
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 207 APRON & HANGAR RECAP 45,249
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 404 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 52,840
ASHORE.
CA SEAL BEACH CA 222 LAND PURCHASE....... 754
NAVWPNSTA
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 463 RBUILD PIER 6....... 27,464
DC WASHINGTON DC NRL 10 ADVANCED COMPUTING 12,862
FAC.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 185 EXPAND FLIGHT 1,393
TRAINER.
GA KINGS BAY GA SWFLANT 586 LA UTILITIES & SITE 1,896
IMPVS.
GA KINGS BAY GA SWFLANT 590 MISSILE MAGAZINE.... 90,021
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 801 RUNWAY PERIMETER 2,060
ROAD.
HI LUALUALEI HI NM 177 PASS OFC & SECURITY 3,877
UPGRD.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 616 PERIMETER/SECURITY 1,508
LIGHTNG.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 624 SECURTY/PERIMTR 8,330
FENCE/WALL.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 738 RTC BARRACKS........ 35,859
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 745A BATTLE STATIONS TRNG 45,548
FAC.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 748 RTC INFRASTRUCTURE 6,614
UPGRADE.
ME BRUNSWICK ME NAS 191 RELOCATE BASE 7,301
ENTRANCE.
ME KITTERY ME 280 GATE 2 IMPROVEMENTS. 2,275
PORTSMOUTH NSY
MS GULFPORT MS 800 PASS RD AT/FP 2,325
NAVCONSTRACEN SECURITY IMP.
NJ EARLE NJ NWS 32A UPGRADE PIER CMPLX 47,579
(INC II).
NJ EARLE NJ NWS 34 SECURTY/PERIMTR 4,465
FENCE/WALL.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1025 ASSUALT BREACHER VEH 3,665
FAC.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1041 ARMORY CAMP GEIGER.. 3,375
NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 122 UAV OPERATIONS/ 9,752
MAINTENANCE.
NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 124 AICUZ LAND 2,931
ACQUISITION.
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 617 ADD TO SIMULATOR 2,804
BUILDING.
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 630 BACHELOR ENLISTED 18,253
QUARTERS.
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 648 CONSTRUCT FREST 7,281
FACILITY.
PA MECHANICSBURG 573 OXFORD GATE SECRTY 3,926
NAVSUPPACT IMPROVS.
PA MECHANICSBURG 575 SECURTY/PERIMTR 2,669
NAVSUPPACT FENCE/WALL.
RI NEWPORT RI NAVSTA 457 SECURTY/PERIMTR 2,364
FENCE/WALL.
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 428 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 1,238
FAC.
SC CHASN NAVAL WPN 76 SOUTH ANNEX GATE 4.. 2,275
STATION
VA CAMP ELMORE VA MCCD 820 COMMAND OPERATIONS 10,464
FAC.
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 287 MISSILE SUPPORT FAC 14,870
DIV REPL.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 376 PERIMETER SECURITY 2,611
NAVPHIBSE FENCE.
VA NORFOLK VA 830 CLF/TYCOM HDQTRS FAC 59,051
LANTFLTHQSPACT INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 94A PIER 11 REPLACEMENT 45,065
INC II.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 295 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 28,363
ASHORE INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 463 SUSPECT CARGO 1,422
HANDLING FAC.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 994 TRUCK INSPECTION FAC 3,781
VA OCEANA VA NAS 467 SUSPECT CARGO HOLDNG 1,422
FAC.
VA QUANTICO VA MCAF 449 GREEN SIDE HANGAR 11,779
COMPLEX.
VA QUANTICO VA MCAF 495 AIRCRAFT PARKING 9,981
APRON.
VA QUANTICO VA 152 H&S BN HEADQUARTERS, 3,791
MCCOMBDEV CMD TBS.
VA QUANTICO VA 531 BACHELOR ENLISTED 11,789
MCCOMBDEV CMD QUARTERS.
VA QUANTICO VA 539 TBS ARMORY.......... 4,217
MCCOMBDEV CMD
VA QUANTICO VA 667 HERITAGE CENTER ROAD 947
MCCOMBDEV CMD IMPVS.
VA YORKTOWN VA 617 MAIN GATE SECURITY 2,529
IMPROVS.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 518 ORD HNDLNG VEH MAINT 7,002
SHOP.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 534 EXPLOSIVES TRUCK 1,769
HOLDG YD.
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 968 LA U&SI EMERG 1,896
GENERATOR.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 346 CVN MAINTENANCE 17,590
NAVSHIPYD COMPLEX.
CU GUANTANAMO BAY CUBA 502 BASEWIDE WSTWTR 6,179
NS TRTNT FAC.
GU GUAM MI 451 KILO WHARF 11,906
COMNAVMARIANAS IMPROVEMENTS.
IC KEFLAVIK ICELAND NAS 832 SEWER CONNECTION 3,782
CHARGE.
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 211 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE. 27,320
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 205 MCON DESIGN FUNDS 96,876
(N4).
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 505 MCON DSGN FNDS-- 11,913
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 205 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 12,842
CONST CONSTR.
VAR Z/VARLOCS MILCON 689A OLF FACS (INC II)... 27,803
--------------
FISCAL YEAR ......... .................... 1,040,605
2005 TOTAL
==============
PY 2006
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 364 PHYSICAL FITNESS CTR 3,706
ADD.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 15 BACHELOR ENLISTED 22,003
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 73 BACHELOR ENLISTED 21,110
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 330 PHYSICAL FITNESS CTR 9,681
MCB HORNO.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 725 REG MAINT SUPPORT 9,789
MCB COMPLEX.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 513 ELECTRONIC WAR TRNG 17,405
NAWCWPNSDIV RANGE.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 515 COMBINED BOS 17,220
NAWCWPNSDIV FACILITY.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 529 BACHELOR QUARTERS... 14,455
NAWCWPNSDIV
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 59 CORROSION CNTL 13,125
HANGAR.
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 216 EXPAND AIR TRAFFIC 2,473
CTL TWR.
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 242 GALLEY REPLACEMENT.. 1,572
CA PORT HUENEME CA CBC 491 OPER VEH MAINT FAC.. 15,978
CA PORT HUENEME CA 13 COMBAT SYS/BATTLEGRP 15,250
NSWCDIV INTGR.
CA SAN DIEGO CA 740 BACHELOR ENLISTED 15,978
AUXLNDFLD QUARTERS.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 731 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 38,146
NORTH IS ASHORE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA 07 BACHELOR ENLISTED 25,399
NAVMEDCEN QUARTERS.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 406 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 43,473
ASHORE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB 118 PIER 5002 SUB FNDR 7,916
INSTALL.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB 119 TACTICAL TRNG FAC 14,601
ADDN.
CA SEAL BEACH CA 221 REPLACE FIRE STATION 1,892
NAVWPNSTA
CA SEAL BEACH CA 223 VLS MISSILE MAGAZINE 8,160
NAVWPNSTA
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 556 ENLISTED DINING FAC. 10,934
MAGCC
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 617 WASTE HNDLNG & 5,132
MAGCC RECOVRY FAC.
DC WASHINGTON DC 50 ATOMIC CLOCK VAULT.. 3,425
NAVOBSY
FL CAPE CANAVERAL FL 988 ENGINEERING SERVICES 23,526
NOTU BLDG.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL 246 AIRCRAFT PARTS STGNG 1,330
NADEP FAC.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 204 CONSOLIDATED OPER 11,574
SUPT FAC.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 265 AIRCRAFT PARKING 11,535
APRON.
FL KEY WEST FL NAF 678 STRUCT ACFT FIRE & 6,830
RESCUE.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 189 AIRFIELD CONTROL 4,822
TOWER.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 253 SHIP MAINTENANCE 4,531
CONSOL.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 774 SECURITY BLDG....... 1,717
FL ORLANDO FL NAWCTSD 03 FORCE PROTECTION 2,280
IMPVS.
FL PANAMA CITY FL 315 JNT AQUATIC CMBT DVR 6,743
DIVSALTRAC TRNG.
FL PENSACOLA FL NAS 711 BEQ A SCHOOL (NATTC) 17,511
FL WHITING FLD FL NAS 245 INSTL/RELOCATE PERIM 2,949
FENCE.
HI CAMP HM SMITH HI 113 PACIFIC WARFIGHTING 27,872
CINCPAC CENTER.
HI LUALUALEI HI NM 166 SECURITY LIGHTING... 5,095
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 194 SECURITY FENCING.... 1,901
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NB 02 SEC UPGRADES ADMIN/ 11,317
OPS FAC.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 132 RECONSTRUCT WHARF 29,202
S20.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 137 WHARF RECONSTRUCTION 27,775
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 400A OILY WASTE COLL 11,894
TRTMT FAC.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 619 SEC UPGRADES ADMIN/ 34,436
OPS FAC.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 634 GENL PURP/BERTHING 24,728
WHARF.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 266 SHORE POWER IMPVS 3,803
DD4.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 667 RTC DRILL HALL RPL.. 12,913
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 739 RTC BARRACKS........ 36,827
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 740 RTC BARRACKS........ 36,827
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 741 RTC BARRACKS........ 39,038
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 771 REPLACE PERIMETER 3,521
FENCE.
MD BETHESDA MD 188 ENGR MNGMT & 12,370
NSWCCARDEROCK LOGISTICS FAC.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 161 AGILE CHEMICAL 11,894
NSWCTRDIV FACILITY.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 558 AIRCRAFT PROTOTYPE 34,556
AWCACDV FAC.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 560 MARITIME T&E SUPPORT 11,166
AWCACDV LAB.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 977 LANDING SYS TEST FAC 5,152
AWCACDV ADDN.
MS GULFPORT MS 781 STLWRKRS APPLIED 8,683
NAVCONSTRACEN INST FAC.
NV FALLON NV NAS 342 WEAPONS MAGAZINE.... 3,813
NV FALLON NV NAS 361 RANGE IMPROVEMENTS 8,168
TGTB-20.
NJ EARLE NJ NWS 32B UPGRADE PIER 32,704
CMPLX(IN III).
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1011 BACHELOR ENLISTED 20,471
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1092 US JOINT MARITIME 16,608
BEQ.
NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 720 ORDNANCE MAGAZINES.. 4,221
NC CHERRY POINT NC 973 HAZ WASTE STOR/XFER 5,491
NADEP FAC.
NC CHERRY POINT NC 974 ENGNR PROD SUP FAC.. 8,207
NADEP
PA MECHANICSBURG 10 NAVSUPSYSCOM HQ FACS 32,383
NAVSUPPACT INC I.
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 420 PHYSICAL FITNESS 9,789
CENTER.
SC PARRIS ISLAND SC 350 INDOOR PISTOL RANGE. 1,165
MCRD
TX CORPUS CHRISTI TX 356 RUNWAY EXTENSION.... 4,657
NAS
TX INGLESIDE TX NS 73 MINE WARFARE COMMAND 5,666
HQTRS.
TX KINGSVILLE TX NAS 271 AIRFIELD LIGHTING 5,035
(NALFOG).
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 281 WEAPONS DYNAMICS 3,231
DIV RDT&E CTR.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 283 REPLACE PIERS & 44,119
NAVPHIBSE QUAYWALL.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 406 POLICE & SEC OPRS 4,754
NAVPHIBSE FAC.
VA NORFOLK VA 830A CLF/TYCOM HDQTRS FAC 47,565
LANTFLTHQSPACT (INII).
VA NORFOLK VA NS 94B PIER 11 REPLACEMENT 40,116
INC III.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 295A BEQ SHIPBOARD ASHORE 31,510
INCII.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 395 OPERATIONAL STORAGE 13,320
(MISC).
VA OCEANA VA NAS 714 BEQ................. 22,168
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 239 BEQ TRANSIENT INC I. 28,541
NORFOLK NSY
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 515 SHIP SVCS SHOP 16,764
NORFOLK NSY CONSOLID.
VA QUANTICO VA 519 SNCO ACADEMIC 8,265
MCCOMBDEV CMD FACILITY.
VA QUANTICO VA 552 NETWORK OPERATIONS 13,677
MCCOMBDEV CMD CENTER.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 211 RECAP IGLOO 7,711
MAGAZINES.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 387 NORTH TRESTLE&PIER 38,048
REPL I.
WA BANGOR WA NAVSUBASE 124A SMALL ARMS TRN CTR 14,184
(O3 ADD).
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 964 EXPLOSIVES SHIP/TRAN 2,823
DEP.
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 969 MSL TRANSPORTER 5,664
SAFEHAVENS.
WA INDIAN ISLAND WA 333 MISSILE MAGAZINES... 11,516
NAVMAG
WA KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV 381B USW SYSTEMS CTR (03 2,685
ADD).
WA KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV 386 U/S VEH MAINT & ENGR 12,370
CTR.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 359 SHIP REPAIR PIER 3 10,468
NAVSHIPYD IMPVS.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 372 DRYDOCK #4 CAISSON 11,321
NAVSHIPYD REPLACE.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 373 DRYDOCK #5 CAISSON 9,129
NAVSHIPYD REPLACE.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 41 STRUC ACFT/FIRE STA 3,328
ADDN.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 164 ADMINISTRATIVE 16,687
OFFICE.
BA NAVSUPPACT BAHRAIN 908 OPERATIONS & SUPPORT 25,953
FACS.
BF ANDROS IS BF NUWC 200 BACHELOR ENLISTED 19,278
DET QUARTERS.
CU GUANTANAMO BAY CUBA 343 FIRE STATIONS....... 5,084
NS
CU GUANTANAMO BAY CUBA 503 PERIMETER ROAD 1,427
NS LIGHTING.
DG DIEGO GARCIA 146 SANITARY/CUT FIL 6,956
NAVSUPPFAC DISP AREA.
GU GUAM MI 431 GENL PURP/BERTHING 5,045
COMNAVMARIANAS PIER.
GU GUAM MI 432 DELTA/ECHO WHARVES 4,754
COMNAVMARIANAS IMPVS.
GU GUAM MI 433 ROMEO/SIERRA WHARVES 5,423
COMNAVMARIANAS IMPVS.
GU GUAM MI 439 VICTOR WHARF 9,129
COMNAVMARIANAS IMPROVEMENT.
GU GUAM MI 440 VICTOR WHARF FENDER 3,997
COMNAVMARIANAS SYSTEM.
GU GUAM MI 457 SINGLE SAILOR SUPT/ 7,334
COMNAVMARIANAS GALLEY.
GU GUAM PWC 256 WATER TREATMENT PLT 12,010
UPG.
IT LAMADDALENA IT NSO 991 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE. 21,822
IT LAMADDALENA IT NSO 999 ADMINISTRATIVE 52,721
OFFICE.
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 213 BEQ/NEX LAGO PATRIA. 13,243
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 921 AFSOUTH NATIONAL 7,730
ELEM FAC.
IT SIGONELLA ITALY NAS 640 BASE OPERATIONS 38,505
SUPPORT II.
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 206 MCON DESIGN FUNDS 118,176
(N4).
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 506 MCON DSGN FNDS-- 12,915
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 206 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 13,771
CONST CONSTR.
VAR Z/VARLOCS MILCON 998 WHARF UPGRADE....... 38,048
--------------
FISCAL YEAR ......... .................... 1,487,981
2006 TOTAL
==============
PY 2007
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 41 AVTB/DEL MAR BOAT 3,177
MCB BASN FAC.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 42 AAAV MAINTENANCE 10,647
MCB FACILITY.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 51 BACHELOR ENLISTED 19,071
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 52 BACHELOR ENLISTED 19,466
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 97 BACHELOR ENLISTED 18,967
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 112 WASTEWATER 20,547
MCB CONVEYANCE (PH3).
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 563 FIRE STATION DEL MAR 2,227
MCB
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 780 FSSG HQ CHAPPO...... 13,684
MCB
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 991 BACHELOR ENLISTED 13,684
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 527 MISSILE MAGAZINES... 3,032
NAWCWPNSDIV
CA CHINA LAKE CA 528 RANGE RESIDUE 2,685
NAWCWPNSDIV FACILITY.
CA CORONADO CA 739 WATERFRONT CMD/CTL 14,064
NAVPHIBASE FAC.
CA CORONADO CA 742 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 16,345
NAVPHIBASE ASHORE.
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 04 COMBINED FIRE/RESCUE 4,669
STA.
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 206 ORDNANCE LOAD PADS.. 9,741
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 244 APRON & HANGAR RECAP 12,645
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 215 AVIATION WAREHOUSE.. 1,024
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 233 COLLEGE CAMPUS...... 3,789
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 234 BEQ TRANSIENT....... 5,345
CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 188 EDUCATIONAL FAC REPL 8,894
I.
CA NAS PT MUGU CA 276 TACTICAL SUPPORT 6,443
NAVAIRWARC CENTER.
CA POINT MUGU CA 773 READY MISSILE 3,041
NAVBASE MAGAZINE.
CA PORT HUENEME CA CBC 537 APPLIED INSTRUCTION 3,789
BLDG.
CA PORT HUENEME CA CBC 543 OPER BATTALION 5,289
FACILITY.
CA PORT HUENEME CA 14 CMBT SYS/BATTLEGRP 10,990
NSWCDIV INT FAC.
CA SAN DIEGO CA MCRD 293 RECRUIT SUPPORT 14,271
BARRACKS.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 503 CHILD DEVELOP CTR 9,023
NORTH IS CONSOL.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 835 ORDNANCE HANDLING 2,388
NORTH IS PAD.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 840 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 31,296
NORTH IS ASHORE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 327 REPLACE BERTHING 66,331
PIER.
CA SAN DIEGO CA 96 C4I SYSTEM 10,507
SPAWARSYSCEN INTEGRATION.
CA SEAL BEACH CA 224 AMMO WHARF & TURNING 54,528
NAVWPNSTA BASIN.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 604 STUDENT INDEPENDENT 2,331
MAGCC STUDY.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 614 OPERATIONAL TRAINING 11,729
MAGCC CTR.
CT NEW LONDON CT 462 MK-10 SUB ESCAPE 13,386
NAVSUBSCH TRNG FAC.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 465 PIER 2 REPLACEMENT.. 18,176
CT NEW LONDON CT 430 TOMAHAWK MISSILE 2,331
SUBSUPPFAC MAGAZINE.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL 244 PRODUCT SUPPORT BLDG 3,677
NADEP
FL JACKSONVILLE FL 245 WAREHOUSE 3,362
NADEP REPLACEMENT.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL 250 ORDNANCE OPERATIONS 2,846
NADEP FAC.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 773 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 27,659
ASHORE INC I.
FL PANAMA CITY FL 380 BACHELOR QTRS 6,419
NSWCCSTSYS TRANSIENT.
FL PENSACOLA FL NAS 721 PIER 302 8,137
RECAPITALIZATION.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 06 PHYSICAL FITNESS 8,725
CENTER.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 604 HANGAR 102 FIRE 3,709
PROTECTION.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 751 BACHELOR ENLISTED 17,987
QUARTERS.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 809 PARKING STRUCTURE... 11,770
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 582 ADMINISTRATIVE 6,008
OFFICE.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 587 DEPERMING PIER SEE 24,498
159-30.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 621 BRAVO DOCK 7,902
IMPROVEMENTS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 625 BQ/CMD BLDGS 13,829
SECURITY SYS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 629 RECONSTRUCT WHARF 31,610
(FI).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 704 RELIEF SEWER LINE 4,113
SO. AVE.
ID BAYVIEW ID 207 PIER & BOATHOUSES... 3,515
NSURFWARCENDET
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 664 EXTEND RECRUIT 2,854
SUPPORT CTR.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 742 RTC BARRACKS........ 32,433
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 743 RTC BARRACKS........ 34,166
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 744 RTC BARRACKS........ 33,441
IN CRANE IN 310 PROD ASSURANCE MGMT 9,798
NAVSURFWARCENDIV FAC.
IN CRANE IN 318 ORDNANCE T&E COMPLEX 9,136
NAVSURFWARCENDIV
IN CRANE IN 321 WATER DIST SYS REPL. 5,927
NAVSURFWARCENDIV
IN CRANE IN 322 SEWER SYSTEM 1,072
NAVSURFWARCENDIV REPLACEMENT.
IN CRANE IN 327 JOINT ORD ENG&LOG 9,838
NAVSURFWARCENDIV MGMT FAC.
ME KITTERY ME 264 ENGINEERING MGMT 1,064
PORTSMOUTH NSY BLDG IMPV.
ME KITTERY ME 266 STRUCTURAL SHOP 14,224
PORTSMOUTH NSY CONSOL.
ME KITTERY ME 267 TRANSDUCER TEST & 7,507
PORTSMOUTH NSY CALB FAC.
ME KITTERY ME 269 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 4,580
PORTSMOUTH NSY FAC.
MD BETHESDA MD 102 SHIP PROTECT 8,693
NSWCCARDEROCK DYNAMICS LAB.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 120 JOINT CAD/PAD TEST 14,305
NSWCTRDIV FAC.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 144 CONFINED BURN 16,200
NSWCTRDIV FACILITY.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 536 AIRCRAFT SYS LAB 3,362
AWCACDV ADDN.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 729 ATC & LS INTEGRATION 5,846
AWCACDV LAB.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 966 AIR OPS CONTROL 5,855
AWCACDV TOWER.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 978 ID SYSTEM 16,483
AWCACDV ENGINEERING LAB.
MS MERIDIAN MS NAS 293 STUDENT UN/SNGL 3,435
SAILOR FAC.
MS PASCAGOULA MS NS 120A BEQ--SHIPBD ASHR (03 9,117
ADD).
MS PASCAGOULA MS NS 122 WEAPONS WHARF....... 10,273
NV FALLON NV NAS 362 RANGE IMPROVEMENTS 3,081
TGTB-20.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1030 ENLISTED DINING 9,410
FACILITY.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1047 BACHELOR ENLISTED 14,781
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1086 4TH MEB COMMAND 7,345
CENTER.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1089 4TH MEB OPERATIONS 13,039
COMPLEX.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 882 ENLISTED DINING 9,483
FACILITY.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 945 EOD OPERATIONAL 4,060
FACILITY.
NC CHERRY POINT NC 985 V22 GEAR BX REP & 9,064
NADEP TEST FAC.
NC CHERRY POINT NC 986 V22 ROTOR BLADE REPL 3,895
NADEP FAC.
PA MECHANICSBURG 10A NAVSUPSYSCOMHQ FACS 16,886
NAVSUPPACT INC II.
PA NSY NORFOLK DET 610 INSIDE MACHINE SHOP 13,668
PHILA PA IMPVS.
PA PHILADELPHIA PA 205 FS ELECTRIC DRIVE 9,879
NSWCSSES TEST FAC.
RI NEWPORT RI NAVSTA 452 CBQ................. 31,756
RI NEWPORT RI NAVWARCOL 10 NATIONAL SECURITY 35,142
RES CTR.
RI NEWPORT RI NS 451 BEQ REPLACMENT 22,659
(BOOST).
RI NEWPORT RI NS 454A BEQ REPLACMENT 4,435
(NAPS).
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 414 F/A-18 SUPPORT FAC 6,604
(PH II).
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 425 CONSOLIDATED COMM 6,322
FACILITY.
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 427 GROUND SUPPORT EQUIP 3,378
SHOP.
SP ROTA SP NCB CB 690 BACHELOR ENLISTED 15,202
CPMITCHELL QUARTERS.
TN MILLINGTON TN 357 BLDG 750 ALT/EMPRIS/ 4,266
SUPPACT DPRIS.
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 274 FITNESS CENTER 3,766
DIV ADDITION.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 203 PIER 18 & 19 21,498
NAVPHIBSE REPLACEMENT.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 223 REPLACE PIERS 58 & 19,756
NAVPHIBSE 59.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 386 MOB DIVING SALVGE 4,781
NAVPHIBSE UNT OPS.
VA NORFOLK VA 830B CLF/TYCOM HQ FACS 35,562
LANTFLTHQSPACT INC III.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 154 STRENGTHEN ACFT 3,952
PARKG APRN.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 155 RECONSTRUCT TAXIWAY 4,741
D.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 297 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 28,449
ASHORE INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 303 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 28,449
ASHORE INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 399 CARGO TERMINAL FAC 33,191
INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 495 CHAMBERS FIELD 4,234
MAGAZINE.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 527 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 31,627
INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 701 FIRE STATION........ 3,491
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 239A BEQ TRANSIENT INC II 24,530
NORFOLK NSY
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 382 DRYDOCK #8 EXTENSION 21,982
NORFOLK NSY
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 391 SHIP REPAIR PIER 13,668
NORFOLK NSY REPL.
VA YORKTOWN VA 34 CONSOL CARGO 3,871
HANDLING AREA.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 215 RECAP IGLOO 6,008
MAGAZINES.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 387A NORTH TRES&PIER REPL 14,443
(II).
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 397 FAMILY SERVICES 1,580
CENTER.
WA BANGOR WA NAVSUBASE 379 ELEC DIST UPGRADES.. 2,532
WA BANGOR WA NAVSUBASE 380 STEAM DIST 4,959
MODERNIZATION.
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 813 SPECIAL WEAPONS 2,451
MAGAZINES.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 305 BEQ HOMPORT ASHORE 19,595
PH I.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 307 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 20,224
ASHORE.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 311 CONSOLIDATE FUEL 4,266
FACILITY.
WA EVERETT WA NAVSTA 155 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 28,224
(PH I).
WA KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV 382 UNDERSEA VEH SHIP/ 5,451
RCV FAC.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 347 PRODUCTION SHOP 22,127
NAVSHIPYD CNSLDTN.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 356 CVN MAINT PIER 60,799
NAVSHIPYD REPLACEMENT.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 360 ADMINISTRATIVE 10,693
NAVSHIPYD OFFICE.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 367 SEISMIC IMPROVEMENTS 7,669
NAVSHIPYD
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 129 JP-8 TRUCK LOADING 2,307
FAC.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 155 CORROSION CONTROL 11,378
HANGAR.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 156 COMBAT A/C LOADING 16,758
AREA.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 159 ACADEMIC INSTR 669
BUILDING.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 160 WASHRACK (INDOOR)... 7,194
BA NAVSUPPACT BAHRAIN 906 AVIATION FACILITIES. 33,254
DG DIEGO GARCIA 113 HAZARDOUS WASTE 629
NAVSUPPFAC FACILITY.
DG DIEGO GARCIA 124 WATER SYSTEM 7,902
NAVSUPPFAC IMPROVES.
GR SOUDA BAY CRETE 744 QOL UPGRADES........ 11,736
NAVSUPACT
GU GUAM MI 436 DRDGING ROMEO/SIERRA/ 15,572
COMNAVMARIANAS BRAVO.
IT LAMADDALENA IT NSO 992 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE. 18,968
IT SIGONELLA ITALY NAS 641 ADMINISTRATIVE 20,517
OFFICE.
UK LONDON UK NAVACTS 701 HQ MODERNIZATION I.. 11,935
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 217 MCON DESIGN FUNDS 111,710
(N4).
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 507 MCON DSGN FNDS-- 17,831
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 207 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 13,164
CONST CONSTR.
--------------
FISCAL YEAR ......... .................... 1,959,375
2007 TOTAL
==============
PY 2008
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 520 FIXED WING FUELING 4,042
APRON.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 608 BUILDING 25,368
MODERNIZATION.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 930 FLD MAINT SHOP...... 9,264
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 09 ISR CAMP INTEL 11,312
MCB BATTALION.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 43 BACHELOR ENLISTED 22,608
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 90 BACHELOR ENLISTED 11,183
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 110 RECL FOR MARG BASIN 17,115
MCB (PH4).
CA CHINA LAKE CA 61 SURFACE TARGETS DEV 4,649
NAWCWPNDIV LAB.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 102 SHIPS/MAR SYS 6,966
NAWCWPNDIV INTERGR LAB.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 126 WAREHOUSE (SNI)..... 7,378
NAWCWPNDIV
CA CHINA LAKE CA 253 MULTI-PURPOSE REC 14,310
NAWCWPNDIV CEN SNI.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 104 CONSOLID A/F ADMIN 11,002
NAWCWPNSDIV FAC.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 105 RECONSTRUCT RUNWAY/ 6,887
NAWCWPNSDIV TAXIWAY.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 359 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 2,273
NAWCWPNSDIV TOWER.
CA CORONA CA 08 GUIDED MISSILE LAB.. 10,623
NAVSURFWARCENDI
CA CORONADO CA 142 OPERATIONS FACILITY. 4,434
NAVPHIBASE
CA MIRAMAR CA MCAS 110 INSTALL HVAC TO BLDG 3,289
9277.
CA MONTEREY CA NPGS 188A EDUCATIONAL FAC REPL 33,119
II.
CA NORTH ISL CA 729 SUPPORT EQUIP MAT 2,393
NAVAIRDEPOT STAGING.
CA POINT MUGU CA 85 JET ENGINE TEST CELL 8,610
NAVBASE
CA PORT HUENEME CA CBC 479 FITNESS CENTER REPL. 7,722
CA PORT HUENEME CA CBC 542 MILITRY READINESS 6,044
TRNG FAC.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 180 ENVIRONMENTAL 2,583
NORTH IS LABORATORY.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 657 REPLACE TAXIWAY..... 9,479
NORTH IS
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 745 APPLIED INSTRUCTION 12,062
NORTH IS BLDG.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 767 REPLACE MWR COMPLEX. 12,483
NORTH IS
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 841 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 33,413
NORTH IS ASHORE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 842 BEQ--SHIPBOARD 33,413
NORTH IS ASHORE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 864 AUTO VEHICLE MAINT 8,747
NORTH IS SHOP.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 407 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE. 38,562
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 410 LEGAL SERVICES 7,128
FACILITY.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB 144 FIRE PROTECTION..... 2,066
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 175 FIRE STA/PROVOST 4,563
MAGCC MARSHALL.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 686 BACHELOR ENLISTED 21,514
MAGCC QUARTERS.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 906 BEQ & POV PARKING 25,368
MAGCC STRUCT.
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 908 BACHELOR ENLISTED 17,046
MAGCC QUARTERS.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 404 SWIMMING POOL 6,715
REPLACEMENT.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 464 PIER 31 REPLACEMENT. 20,421
DC WASHINGTON DC 22 CONVERT BUILDING W- 6,793
COMNAVDIST 101.
DC WASHINGTON DC 351 REG INTRUSION DETECT 4,555
COMNAVDIST SYS.
DC WASHINGTON DC 357 PERIMETER WALL-- 3,711
COMNAVDIST ANACOS/BELV.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 269 LAND PURCHASE....... 1,790
FL KEY WEST FL NAF 579 POST OFFICE......... 3,038
FL KEY WEST FL NAF 901 AT/FP............... 1,790
FL KEY WEST FL NAF 903 CVQ & GALLEY AT/FP 4,279
UPGRADE.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 192 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION 1,024
BLDG.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 773A BEQ--SHIPBOARD 22,040
ASHORE INCII.
FL MAYPORT FL NS 888 UPGRADE WHARF B..... 21,851
FL PENSACOLA FL NAS 720 CARRIER DREDGING.... 50,821
GA ATHENS GA NSCS 998 POUND HALL 6,182
RENOVATIONS.
GA KINGS BAY GA SWFLANT 587 MSL TRNSPORTER 3,797
SAFEHAVENS.
HI BARKING SANDS HI 410 CONSOL RANGE CTL 13,500
PMRF CENTER.
HI BARKING SANDS HI 413 SECURTY/PERIMTR 6,749
PMRF FENCE/WALL.
HI LUALUALEI HI NM 167 SECURITY LIGHTING... 4,890
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 156 CONSOL AUTOMATED 19,491
WAREHOUSE.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 189 SHORE PWR IMPVS 20,250
HOTEL/KILO.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 195 SECURTY/PERIMTR 8,858
FENCE/WALL.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 124 RECONSTRUCT WHARF S- 33,499
1.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 150 BERTHING WHARF 15,694
IMPROV.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 596 CONSOLIDATE TRNG 27,248
CAMPUS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 620 SECURITY UPGRADE 10,124
(MAKALAPA).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 622 MIKE IMPROVEMENTS... 4,218
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 98 CONSOLIDATE CRANE 5,063
DEPT.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 315 DRYDOCK............. 10,297
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 706 UTILITIES SECURITY 3,797
IMPVS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 709 CONSOL/SECTY IMPVS 16,874
(INCR I).
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 485 HVAC UPGRADE BLDG I. 7,232
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 629 RTC PASS/SECURITY 1,102
BUILDING.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 713 BEQ A SCHOOL 29,392
REPLACEMENT.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 714 BEQ A SCHOOL 29,943
REPLACEMENT.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 773 RELOCATE SECURITY 3,737
FACILITY.
IL GREAT LAKES IL PWC 533 PUBLIC WORKS SHOPS.. 11,915
IL GREAT LAKES IL PWC 753 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 5,192
FAC.
IN CRANE IN 906 ANTITERR/FORCE PROT 9,995
NAVSURFWARCENDIV IMPV.
ME BRUNSWICK ME NAS 175 WEAPONS MAGAZINES 3,185
REPL.
ME KITTERY ME 268 WATERFRONT SUPPORT 16,789
PORTSMOUTH NSY FAC.
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 165A CENTRAL CHILLER SYS 5,183
UPGRD.
MD BETHESDA MD 901 SECURITY FACILITY... 4,890
NSWCCARDEROCK
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 154 JOINT CAD/PAD 7,263
NSWCTRDIV TRANSFER FAC.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 166 WEAPONS ENGINEERING 8,377
NSWCTRDIV FAC.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 167 RESEARCH LAB COMPLEX 13,629
NSWCTRDIV
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 171 FORCE PROTECTION 11,812
NSWCTRDIV IMPVS.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 103 RDT&E COMMAND OPS 11,984
AWCACDV CENTER.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 107 ROTARY WING TEST 6,208
AWCACDV SUPT FAC.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 110 CONSOL A/C INTER 17,796
AWCACDV MAINT FAC.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 115 FINGER PIER REPL, 3,349
AWCACDV KEY WEST.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 123 SECURE MAIL FACILITY 1,722
AWCACDV
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 128 BATTLE FORCE SUPPORT 29,401
AWCACDV
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 960 ACFT APRON EXPAN & 8,815
AWCACDV IMPR.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 961 ROTARY WING TEST 6,346
AWCACDV FACILITY.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 981 HIGH EXPLOSIVE 3,591
AWCACDV MAGAZINES.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 986 FORCE PROT IMPV 11,303
AWCACDV GUARD HSE.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 987 RANGE THEODOLITE 3,340
AWCACDV TRACK STN.
MS GULFPORT MS 782 BUILDERS APPLIED 6,500
NAVCONSTRACEN INST FAC.
MS GULFPORT MS 784 CONSOLIDATED DRT 3,883
NAVCONSTRACEN FACILITY.
MS MERIDIAN MS NAS 296 RENOVATE BUILDING 1,636
100.
MS MERIDIAN MS NAS 299 PUBLIC SAFETY 1,541
FACILITY.
MS MERIDIAN MS NAS 310 AIRFIELD PERIMETER 4,727
FENCING.
NJ LAKEHURST NJ NAWC 999 PERIM & IS SECURITY 3,641
ACFTDIV IMPVS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1017 BACHELOR ENLISTED 15,247
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1033 CONSOL ACADEMIC BLDG 12,406
(PH2).
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1042 ARMORIES (2D MEF)... 4,063
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1372 BACHELOR ENLISTED 15,247
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1381 BACHELOR ENLISTED 17,718
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 920 MAINT SHOP/UTIL 3,953
PLATOON.
NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 130 MOTOR TRANSPORT & 7,806
COM SHOP.
NC CHERRY POINT NC 981 CENTRAL COMP AIR 6,939
NADEP FACILITY.
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 526 AIRCRAFT HANGAR..... 11,915
PA MECHANICSBURG 10B NAVSUP HQ FACS INCR 21,773
NAVSUPPACT III.
PA NSY NORFOLK DET 611 PRODUCTION SHOP 7,844
PHILA PA MODERN.
PA PHILADELPHIA PA 106 VIRT INTEG SHIP 6,122
NSWCSSES TSTNGFAC.
RI NEWPORT RI NAVSTA 370 TRAINING POOL 3,331
REPLACEMENT.
RI NEWPORT RI NAVSTA 453 REPL FUEL OIL STOR 2,859
TANKS.
RI NEWPORT RI NAVSTA 455 NAVAL JUSTICE SCHOOL 5,622
ALTS.
RI NEWPORT RI NUSWCTR 75 SUB PAYLOADS/INTEGR 8,385
DIV LAB.
RI NEWPORT RI NUSWCTR 76 U/S LAUNCHER/MISLE 8,351
DIV SYS LAB.
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 424 AICUZ LAND 13,611
ACQUISITION.
SC CHASN NAVAL WPN 53 ENGINEERNG FUNCTION 4,149
STATION CONSOL.
SC PARRIS ISLAND SC 336 SUPT BN BARRACKS & 4,218
MCRD OPS CTR.
TN MILLINGTON TN 352 ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION 3,340
SUPPACT BLDG.
TN MILLINGTON TN 359 HAZARDOUS WASTE STRG 757
SUPPACT FAC.
TX CORPUS CHRISTI TX 353 AVIATION TRAINER 5,838
NAS FACILITY.
TX CORPUS CHRISTI TX 435 CONTROL TOWER....... 8,438
NAS
TX INGLESIDE TX NS 72 COMMUNITY SUPPORT 5,209
FACILITY.
TX KINGSVILLE TX NAS 192 CRASH STRIP RUNWAY.. 16,995
VA DAHLGREN VA 17 PHYS SECTY ENHANCE 6,233
NAVSPACECOM (CENT).
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 295 MARITIME DIRECTED 11,812
DIV ENGY CTR.
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 300 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 4,218
DIV CTR.
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 305 INFRAST ASSURANCE 5,399
DIV FAC ADDN.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 205 SWDG SUPPORT 1,937
NAVPHIBSE FACILITY.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 227 REP/UPGR PIER & 17,546
NAVPHIBSE QUAYWALL.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 257 PIERS 14 & 15 19,741
NAVPHIBSE REPLACEMENT.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 261 BOAT REPAIR FACILITY 3,547
NAVPHIBSE
VA NORFOLK VA 830C CLT/TYCOM HQ FAC 32,836
LANTFLTHQSPACT (INCR IV).
VA NORFOLK VA NS 49 PIER 3 REPLACEMENT.. 41,996
VA NORFOLK VA NS 51 PIER 10 REPLACEMENT. 38,725
VA NORFOLK VA NS 297A BEQ--SHIPBOARD 25,311
ASHORE INCII.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 303A BEQ--SHIPBOARD 25,311
ASHORE INCII.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 311 BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 28,410
INC I.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 391 PIER 15 INCR I...... 33,748
VA NORFOLK VA NS 527A BEQ--SHIPBOARD 25,311
ASHORE INCII.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 668 FLEET OPERATIONS 30,881
CENTER.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 765 POLICE STATION...... 2,531
VA NORFOLK VA NS 977 BRIG RENOVATIONS.... 4,132
VA OCEANA VA NAS 401 HANGAR 200 UPGRADE.. 1,265
VA OCEANA VA NAS 936 MAGAZINE REPLACEMENT 1,076
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 353 FIRE DEPARTMENT 5,063
NORFOLK NSY BUILDING.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 377 PWC SUPPORT FACILITY 3,125
NORFOLK NSY ALTS.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 383 CONTROLLED 32,208
NORFOLK NSY INDUSTRIAL FAC.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 513 WTRFRNT PROD SUPPORT 18,562
NORFOLK NSY FAC.
VA QUANTICO VA 479 INFRASTRUCTURE 8,158
MCCOMBDEV CMD RUSSELL RD.
VA YORKTOWN VA 389 TRESTLE & PIER REPL 29,530
INC I.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 213 RECAP IGLOO 6,500
MAGAZINES.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 381 FELGATES CREEK 1,145
BRIDGE REPL.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 385 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 8,438
CENTER.
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 311 UTIL & SITE IMPVS 2,850
(PH IV).
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 973 LA PROCESSING & STG 45,560
CMPLX.
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 974 HARDENED MISSILE 71,716
MAGAZINE.
WA EVERETT WA NAVSTA 151 AEGIS TRAINING 4,391
FACILITY.
WA EVERETT WA NAVSTA 155A BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 30,132
(PH II).
WA INDIAN ISLAND WA 335 MISSILE MAGAZINES... 8,902
NAVMAG
WA INDIAN ISLAND WA 336 MISSILE MAGAZINES... 7,929
NAVMAG
WA KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV 392 EMERGENCY COMMAND 6,413
CENTER.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 366 PLANNING YARD&SHOP 8,858
NAVSHIPYD STG FAC.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 368 WELDER/SHOPFITTER 18,312
NAVSHIPYD SHOP IMP.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 374 DRYDOCK #6 CAISSON 12,002
NAVSHIPYD REPLMNT.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 119 YOUTH CENTER........ 3,814
DG DIEGO GARCIA 135 THEATER............. 7,258
NAVSUPPFAC
GU GUAM MI 425 HIGH PERFORMANCE 22,532
COMNAVMARIANAS MAGS.
GU GUAM MI 446 GYMNASIUM........... 9,109
COMNAVMARIANAS
GU GUAM MI 462 BEQ RENOVATIONS..... 8,351
COMNAVMARIANAS
IC KEFLAVIK ICELAND NAS 565 BASE PERIMETER SECTY 2,502
FENCE.
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 218 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 15,261
GAETA.
IT SIGONELLA ITALY NAS 650 BASE OPERATIONS 16,119
SUPPORT IV.
PR ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 143 CESE WAREHOUSE...... 4,089
PR ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 526 CONCRETE BARRIER/ 1,265
BOXER DR.
PR ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 620 TACTICAL SUPPORT 7,844
CENTER.
SP ROTA SPAIN NS 648 PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX 18,497
SP ROTA SPAIN NS 662 AIR OPERATIONS 4,625
UPGRADES.
UK LONDON UK NAVACTS 702 HQ MODERNIZATION II. 7,823
UK LONDON UK NAVACTS 703 UXBRIDGE RELOCATION 19,942
I.
UK LONDON UK NAVACTS 704 UXBRIDGE RELOCATION 20,574
II.
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 218 MCON DESIGN......... 125,174
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 508 MCON DSGN FNDS-- 28,641
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 208 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 15,797
CONST CONSTR.
VAR Z/VARLOCS MILCON 251 EARS LAND BASED SITE 10,969
--------------
FISCAL YEAR 2008 ......... .................... 2,377,878
TOTAL
==============
PY 2009
AZ YUMA AZ MCAS 378 SECURITY OPS 10,762
FACILITY.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 167 BACHELOR ENLISTED 10,228
QUARTERS.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 203 INDOOR PHYSICAL FIT 6,496
CTR.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 403 CONSOLIDATED SEC FAC 1,454
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 935 HQ BLDG FOR FLEET 2,889
SUPT CTR.
CA BARSTOW CA MCLB 939 ENGINE DYNAMOMETER 3,761
FAC.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 78 TACTICAL VAN PAD 2,734
MCAS EXPANSION.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 06 DEMO STP SOUTH SYS 5,507
MCB (PH 5).
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 25 BACHELOR ENLISTED 14,921
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 28 BACHELOR ENLISTED 12,449
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 32 MARDIV COMMAND 5,507
MCB HEADQUARTER.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 65 MESS HALL, DEL MAR.. 15,135
MCB
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 79 5 MILLION GALLON 7,523
MCB RESERVOIR.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 94 BACHELOR ENLISTED 24,229
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 101A BACHELOR ENLISTED 16,152
MCB QUARTERS.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 113 WATER/WW TDS RED FAC 30,685
MCB (B-PH3.
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 569A FIRE STATION, PULGAS 2,561
MCB
CA CAMP PENDLETON CA 604 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 7,825
MCB CENTER.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 106 CONSOLIDATE AIRFIELD 7,611
NAWCWPNDIV FAC.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 111 PUBLIC WORKS 15,580
NAWCWPNDIV COMPOUND.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 356 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 4,178
NAWCWPNDIV CENTER.
CA CHINA LAKE CA 133 BACHELOR QUARTERS... 16,841
NAWCWPNSDIV
CA CORONADO CA 148 MISSILE COMPT SLING 6,767
NAVPHIBASE TESTER.
CA CORONADO CA 765 LIBRARY/COMMUNITY 5,623
NAVPHIBASE BLDG.
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 232 AVIATION EASEMENTS.. 10,180
CA EL CENTRO CA NAF 242 SURVEILLANCE RADAR 1,182
INSTALL.
CA LEMOORE CA NAS 218 AIR COMBAT TRNG 3,781
FACILITY.
CA MIRAMAR CA MCAS 67 CONSTR RUNWAY 6L 15,580
OVERRUN.
CA MIRAMAR CA MCAS 124 GROUND COMBAT TRNG 3,335
RANGE.
CA MIRAMAR CA MCAS 126 POLICE STATION...... 3,335
CA NAS PT MUGU CA 255 LAND ACQ IN ESQD ARC 1,901
NAVAIRWARC
CA POINT MUGU CA 281 AIRCRAFT TEST STAND 689
NAVBASE PAD.
CA POINT MUGU CA 505 GENERAL WAREHOUSE, 9,046
NAVBASE NAVY.
CA SAN DIEGO CA FASWTC 387 GYMNASIUM........... 4,082
PAC
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 749 S-3/C-2 HANGAR...... 33,750
NORTH IS
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 759 THIRD ST EXTENSION/ 17,956
NORTH IS GATE.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAS 844 HANGAR MODERNIZATION 22,522
NORTH IS
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 105 BUILDING 12 20,932
CONVERSION.
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 300 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT.. 1,648
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 331 UPGRADE PIER 6...... 22,804
CA SAN DIEGO CA NAVSTA 415 BEQ TRANSIENT....... 43,426
CA SAN DIEGO CA NSB 138 BEQ UPGRADE......... 4,750
CA TWENTYNINE PALMS CA 904 BACHELOR ENLISTED 21,446
MAGCC QUARTERS.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 80 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,901
FAC.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 392 SUBMARINE BERTHING 7,223
IMPRVS.
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 466 REPLACE PIER 12..... 26,604
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 467 REPLACE PIER 10..... 23,753
CT NEW LONDON CT NSB 469 REPLACE PIER 33..... 25,654
DC WASHINGTON DC 332 ANACOSTIA SWIMMING 4,750
COMNAVDIST POOL.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 216 COMBINE NCF OPS 6,748
FACILITY.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL NAS 267 WHITEHOUSE OLF GUARD 4,750
HOUSE.
FL JACKSONVILLE FL 175 INDUSTRIAL MATRL 2,850
SUPSHIP COMPLEX.
FL KEY WEST FL NAF 677 HQS CONSOLIDATED FAC 8,930
FL MAYPORT FL NS 999 UPGRADE WHARF E..... 10,830
FL PENSACOLA FL NAS 727 HANGAR 1853 19,197
RECAPITALZTN.
FL PENSACOLA FL NAS 728 HANGAR 1854 22,804
RECAPITALZTN.
HI BANGOR WA SWF PAC 312 UTIL & SITE IMPVS 3,500
(PH V).
HI BARKING SANDS HI 407 CONSOL OPS ADMIN 13,496
PMRF CENTER.
HI BARKING SANDS HI 408 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY 7,223
PMRF COMPLX.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 703 HAZ MATL/WASTE 5,419
CONSOL FAC.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 749 BACHELOR ENLISTED 24,151
QUARTERS.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 750 BACHELOR ENLISTED 22,047
QUARTERS.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 758 BACHELOR ENLISTED 21,514
QUARTERS.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 770 BACHELOR ENLISTED 22,154
QUARTERS.
HI KANEOHE BAY HI MCB 774 PTA STORAGE 4,712
FACILITIES.
HI LUALUALEI HI NM 138 FIRE STATION........ 2,375
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 185 SECONDARY SUPPLY 9,879
WAREHOUSE.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI FISC 196 RECAP HOTEL 1-4..... 28,504
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 516 CONSTRUCT CVN HARBOR 35,727
DEPTH.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 578 PHYS READINESS TRNG 20,903
CTR.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 579 REGIONAL BEQ........ 28,699
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 586 BEQ MODERNIZATION... 3,994
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 590 BACH ENLISTED QTRS 20,330
MODERN.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 600 APPLIED INSTRUCTION 27,554
BLDG.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 605 DREDGE MAIN CHANNEL 40,856
(PH I).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 611 BEQ MODERNIZATION... 24,704
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 612 BEQ MODERNIZATION... 3,326
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 613 DREDGE NORTH CHANNEL 67,460
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NS 633 JICPAC RELOCATION 48,457
(INCR I).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSB 119 PIER & WATERFRONT 38,005
UTIL.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 210 STRUCTURAL SHOP 11,402
CONSOL.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 270 DD2 AFT WATERFRONT 6,651
FAC.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI NSY 271 DD1 WATERFRONT 6,651
FACILTY.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PAC 461 FIELD ENGINEERING 28,504
NFEC OPS CTR.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 442 ELEC DISTRIB SYSTEM 15,203
IMPRS.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 477 ELEC SYS UPGRADE.... 9,724
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 488 ELEC DIST SYS IMPV 23,753
(PUULUA).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 492 HALAWA WATERLINE 2,095
REPL.
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 493 WTR DISTRIB LINE 10,451
(WAIAWA).
HI PEARL HARBOR HI PWC 705 UTIL DIST SYS (FD 20,428
IS) INC I.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 507 CBU TRAINING 5,323
BUILDING.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 715 BEQ A SCHOOL 34,390
REPLACEMENT.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 716 BEQ A SCHOOL 35,475
REPLACEMENT.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 717 BEQ A SCHOOL 35,475
REPLACEMENT.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 751 PHYSICAL TRAINING 5,875
FACILITY.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 755 BEQ (NAVAL HOSPITAL) 12,942
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 767 RECRUIT PROCESSING 11,460
FAC ADD.
IL GREAT LAKES IL NTC 768 BEQ TPU............. 23,307
IL GREAT LAKES IL PWC 564 WATER PLANT UPGRADE. 6,651
IL GREAT LAKES IL PWC 565 AUTO VEHICLE MAINT 7,611
SHOP.
IL GREAT LAKES IL PWC 675 MODERNIZE 2.4KV SYS. 12,207
ME BRUNSWICK ME NAS 197 FIRE PROT SYS 10,200
UPGRADES.
ME KITTERY ME 217 PAINT AND BLASTING 15,299
PORTSMOUTH NSY SHOP.
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 208 SUPPLY WAREHOUSE.... 3,045
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 309 BOAT SHOP RENOV B/ 1,901
234.
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 312 MULTI-PURPOSE BLDG.. 1,997
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 316 PUBLIC WORKS SHOP... 1,522
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 320 APPLIED INSTRUCTION 32,809
BLDG.
MD ANNAPOLIS MD NAVACAD 334 FIELD HOUSE @ TURNER 30,724
FIELD.
MD BETHESDA MD 304 SHIP VIRTUAL 13,020
NSWCCARDEROCK PROTOTPNG LAB.
MD INDIAN HEAD MD 170 JOINT INTEROP CERT 7,194
NSWCTRDIV FAC.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 120 MARINE OPS FACILITY. 6,787
AWCACDV
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 127 AIRCRAFT EM T&E 21,145
AWCACDV CATAPULT.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 130 AIRCRAFT DEVELOP 27,137
AWCACDV SUPPT FAC.
MD PATUXENT RIVER MD 976 BOQ REPLACEMENT..... 11,188
AWCACDV
MS GULFPORT MS NCBC 791 REGMT/GROUP HQ 2,211
(MARCOR).
MS PASCAGOULA MS NS 101 ELEC DISTRIB LINES 4,266
REPL.
MS PASCAGOULA MS NS 128 HAZ/FLAM/CHRMP 747
WAREHOUSE.
MS STENNIS SPC CTR MS 10 OCEAN SCIENCE LAB... 19,313
NAVOCO
NV FALLON NV NAS 289 AIR NAVIGATION 3,704
BUILDING.
NJ LAKEHURST NJ NAWC 112 ENGINEERING SUPPORT 17,432
ACFTDIV FAC.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1016 BACHELOR ENLISTED 23,240
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1034 INTEL OPERATIONS 12,246
CENTER.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1035 MATERIAL 11,402
DISTRIBUTION CTR.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 1088 BACHELOR ENLISTED 33,352
QUARTERS.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 126 ASP UPGRADES PH II.. 5,506
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 417 ORGANIZATIONAL EQUIP 4,159
STRG.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 919 MAINT SHOP/BULK FUEL 7,300
CO.
NC CAMP LEJEUNE NC MCB 963 BEQ................. 17,102
NC CHERRY POINT NC MCAS 658 PHYSICAL FITNESS 6,834
CENTER.
NC CHERRY POINT NC 987 PROT A/C MAINT 11,092
NADEP STORAGE FAC.
NC NEW RIVER NC MCAS 632 BACHELOR ENLISTED 17,102
QUARTERS.
PA PHILADELPHIA PA 105 STEAM GENERATION 13,399
NSWCSSES FACILITY.
PA PHILADELPHIA PA 404 TANK FARM........... 7,795
NSWCSSES
RI NEWPORT RI NS 450 CBQ REPLACEMENT..... 20,263
SC BEAUFORT SC MCAS 419 ENLISTED DINING 10,451
FACILITY.
SC BEAUFORT SC NH 515 BACHELOR ENLISTED 6,961
QUARTERS.
SC CHASN NAVAL WPN 24 ENGINEERING MGMNT 23,753
STATION CENTER.
SC CHASN NAVAL WPN 56 SPAWAR CONSOLIDATION 15,203
STATION
SC PARRIS ISLAND SC 337 BACHELOR ENLISTED 15,057
MCRD QUARTERS.
SC PARRIS ISLAND SC 338 COMM CTR ADDN....... 5,284
MCRD
SC PARRIS ISLAND SC 351 BACHELOR ENLISTED 16,637
MCRD QUARTERS.
TN MILLINGTON TN 281 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE... 2,230
SUPPACT
TN MILLINGTON TN 358 PW TRANSPORT MAINT 4,159
SUPPACT FAC.
TN MILLINGTON TN 360 IMPV GATE/PERIMTR 5,895
SUPPACT SECURITY.
TX KINGSVILLE TX NAS 193 NALFOG CRASH STRIP 10,394
RUNWAY.
VA DAHLGREN VA NSWCTR 294 COLLAB MULTIWRFRE 11,402
DIV ENG CPLX.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 209 PIERS 12 & 13 27,554
NAVPHIBSE REPLACEMENT.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 219 UPGRADE ELECTRICAL 7,931
NAVPHIBSE DISTRIB.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 221 PIER 56 & 57 23,753
NAVPHIBSE REPLACEMENT.
VA LITTLE CREEK VA 354 EOD GRU2 FACILITY... 6,176
NAVPHIBSE
VA NORFOLK VA NS 48 PIER 1 REPLACEMENT.. 35,727
VA NORFOLK VA NS 52 PIER 9 REPLACEMENT.. 36,009
VA NORFOLK VA NS 95 PIER 4 REPLACEMENT.. 51,307
VA NORFOLK VA NS 96 PIER 5 REPLACEMENT.. 53,208
VA NORFOLK VA NS 253 RECONSTRUCT TAXIWAY. 11,402
VA NORFOLK VA NS 311A BEQ HOMEPORT ASHORE 29,086
INC II.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 336 INDOOR PHYSICAL FIT 9,502
FAC.
VA NORFOLK VA NS 391A PIER 15 INCR II..... 37,434
VA NORFOLK VA PWC 02 HEATING PLANT 5,149
BUILDING.
VA OCEANA VA NAS 263 AIR WARRIOR SQUAD 13,457
SPT FAC.
VA OCEANA VA NAS 697 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS... 11,692
VA OCEANA VA NAS 722 CHILD DEV CENTER.... 7,407
VA OCEANA VA NAS 906 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS... 2,636
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 333 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 6,196
NORFOLK NSY CENTER.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 337 ADMIN SUPT FAC 19,003
NORFOLK NSY RESTORATION.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 373 AUTO VEHICLE MAINT 34,205
NORFOLK NSY NONCOMB.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 520 DRYDOCK #2 CAISSON 8,551
NORFOLK NSY REPLACE.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 522 DRYDOCK #4 CAISSON 10,171
NORFOLK NSY REPLACE.
VA PORTSMOUTH VA 532 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS... 2,375
NORFOLK NSY
VA QUANTICO VA MCAF 448 WHITE SIDE COMPLEX.. 27,777
VA QUANTICO VA MCAF 517 CONSTRUCT TYPE II 12,091
HANGAR.
VA QUANTICO VA 489 RELIGIOUS/FAMILY 3,316
MCCOMBDEV CMD SVCS CTR.
VA YORKTOWN VA 389A TRESTLE & PIER REPL 24,888
INC II.
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 235 HVAC MAKE UP AIR.... 2,636
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 416 TOMAHAWK MAGAZINE... 3,161
VA YORKTOWN VA NWS 436 AMRAAM MAGAZINE..... 1,231
WA BANGOR WA SWF PAC 960 UTIL & SITE IMPVS 640
(PH III).
WA BREMERTON WA NS 304 INDUSTRIAL OPS 7,980
SUPPORT FAC.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 313 FLEET RECREATION 3,132
COMPLEX.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 315 PUBLIC WORKS 7,980
FACILITY.
WA BREMERTON WA NS 319 TRANSPORTATION 4,557
FACILITY.
WA INDIAN ISLAND WA 325 AMMUNITION WHARF 60,809
NAVMAG IMPRS.
WA KEYPORT WA NUWC DIV 390 MINE & U/S WARFARE 13,680
SPT FAC.
WA PUGET SOUND WA 355 POLLUTION PRVNT 14,727
NAVSHIPYD EQUIP FAC.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 68 DATA PROCESSING/SYS 4,072
MGMT.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 149 PERSONNEL SUPPORT 2,095
FACILITY.
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 158 ACADEMIC INST BLDG.. 1,047
WA WHIDBEY IS WA NAS 169 VAQ HANGAR RECAP.... 50,105
BA NAVSUPPACT BAHRAIN 920 WARTIME PREPOS EQP 13,415
STG FAC.
GU GUAM MI 434 SUPPLY WHARF........ 3,433
COMNAVMARIANAS
GU GUAM MI 445 AMPHIB LAND TIPALAO 6,457
COMNAVMARIANAS BEACH.
GU GUAM MI 450 BEQ RENOVATIONS..... 8,745
COMNAVMARIANAS
GU GUAM NCTAMS WESTPAC 236 SEISMIC MODS (VAR 4,178
BLDGS).
GU GUAM PWC 815 UNDERGRND PWR DIST 804
LNS.
DG DIEGO GARCIA 71 PW MAINT STORAGE 5,130
NAVSUPPFAC FACILITY.
DG DIEGO GARCIA 107 VEHICLE WASH STATION 476
NAVSUPPFAC
DG DIEGO GARCIA 139 AMMUNITION WHARF.... 58,908
NAVSUPPFAC
IC KEFLAVIK ICELAND NAS 08 HAZARDOUS/FLAMMABLE 4,105
STRHSE.
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 215 ADMINISTRATIVE 18,171
OFFICE.
IT NAPLES ITALY NSA 217 CHILD DEVELOPMENT 2,461
CENTER.
PR ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 611 CB BUILDING 5,603
HEADQUARTERS.
PR ROOSEVELT RDS PR NS 754 BEQ REPLACEMENT..... 15,880
SP ROTA SP NCB CB 613 UPGRADE MAINTENANCE 10,263
CPMITCHELL FAC.
SP ROTA SPAIN NS 645 COMMAND OPS 18,474
CONSOLIDATION.
UK LONDON UK NAVACTS 704A UXBRIDGE RELOCATION 1,857
II.
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 219 MCON DESIGN FUNDS... 143,845
VAR X/MCON DESIGN FUNDS 509 MCON DSGN FNDS- 32,595
MARCORPS.
VAR X/UNSPECIFIED MINOR 209 UNSPECIFIED MINOR 19,371
CONST CONSTR.
VAR Z/VARLOCS MILCON 604 PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX 2,753
--------------
FISCAL YEAR ......... .................... 3,118,962
2009 TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCNR POM04 FYDP CONGRESSIONAL SUBMIT
[In dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST IMC ACTIVITY PNO TITLE PRG COST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PY 2004
CA NVRESFOR SAN DIEGO CA NAVAIRES........ 737 C-40 HANGAR.................. $15,973
VA MARCORPS QUANTICO VA I&I STAFF........ 518 RESERVE CENTER............... 9,497
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 504 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 1,700
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 224 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 862
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ............................. ......... ............................. 28,032
TOTAL
============
PY 2005
FL MARCORPS JACKSONVILLE FL I&I STAFF.... 532 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 8,312
PA NVRESFOR WILLOW GROVE PA NAS.......... 237 FITNESS CENTER............... 7,141
VA MARCORPS NORFOLK VA NMCRC............. 41 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FAC...... 4,447
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 225 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 820
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 505 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 2,650
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ............................. ......... ............................. 23,370
TOTAL
============
PY 2006
AL MARCORPS MOBILE AL 4TH MARINE DIV..... 32 RES TRNG CTR&VEH MAINT FAC... 7,158
FL MARCORPS TALLAHASSEE FL NMCRC......... 13 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 8,018
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NSA........... 122 OVERHEAD U/G HI-VOLT SYS..... 9,576
NY NVRESFOR ALBANY NY NMCRC.............. 598 RESERVE CENTER............... 10,736
NC NVRESFOR ASHEVILLE NC NRC............. 596 RESERVE CENTER............... 3,289
PA NVRESFOR LEHIGH VALLEY PA NRC......... 565 RESERVE CENTER ADDITION...... 4,256
TN NVRESFOR NASHVILLE TN NRC............. 388 RESERVE CENTER............... 7,448
TX NVRESFOR FT WORTH TX NAS JRB.......... 28D AIMD PWR PLNT SHOP (03 ADD).. 8,589
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 226 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 826
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 506 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 2,900
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2006 ............................. ......... ............................. 62,796
TOTAL
============
PY 2007
GA NVRESFOR AUGUSTA GA NMCRC............. 382 RESERVE CENTER WITH LAND..... 6,702
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 353 SMALL ARMS RANGE--INDOOR..... 3,001
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 456 JOINT RESERVE HQ BLDG........ 6,897
MI MARCORPS DETROIT MI HQ & SERV CO 1ST 44 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 6,799
BN.
MS MARCORPS GULFPORT MS MCRESCEN......... 18 VEHICLE MAINT FACILITY....... 2,914
NC MARCORPS WILMINGTON NC MCRC........... 45 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 7,489
OK NVRESFOR TULSA OK NMCRC............... 76 RESCEN ADDN.................. 3,594
PA NVRESFOR WILLOW GROVE PA NAS.......... 232 DEICING FACILITY............. 1,457
PA NVRESFOR AVOCA PA NRTC................ 598 RESERVE CENTER............... 7,509
SC MARCORPS FORT JACKSON SC I&I.......... 21 RESERVE VEHICLE MAINT FAC.... 3,497
TX NVRESFOR FT WORTH TX NAS JRB.......... 26 COMBINED RATCC/PASS TERM..... 2,574
TX NVRESFOR FT WORTH TX NAS JRB.......... 27 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE........ 9,519
VA NVRESFOR NORFOLK VA NAVAIRES.......... 491 C-40 HANGAR MODS............. 5,828
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 227 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 1,211
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 507 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 3,530
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2007 ............................. ......... ............................. 72,521
TOTAL
============
PY 2008
DE NVRESFOR WILMINGTON DE NMCRC.......... 602 RESERVE CENTER............... 9,758
GA NVRESFOR ATLANTA GA NAS............... 349 PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX......... 4,879
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 405 RUNWAY TAXIWAY 14/32 EXT..... 6,245
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 408 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION BLDG..... 3,903
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 461D AFRC (PHASE III)(03 ADD)..... 9,758
MD MARCORPS BALTIMORE MD MCRTC........... 40 RES TRNG CTR&VEH MAINT FAC... 9,250
ME MARCORPS TOPSHAM ME MCRESCEN.......... 24 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 2,927
NE NVRESFOR OMAHA NE NMCRC............... 85 RELOCATE RESCEN TO OFFUTT.... 1,854
NJ NVRESFOR KEARNY NJ NAVRESCEN.......... 601 RESERVE CTR RELOC--FT DIX.... 4,450
OH MARCORPS DAYTON OH AFRC............... 09 RES TRNG CTR&VEH MAINT FAC... 8,001
OR NVRESFOR EUGENE OR NMCRC.............. 172 RESCEN W/LAND................ 9,270
TN MARCORPS MEMPHIS TN MCRESCEN.......... 30 RESERVE TRAINING CENTER...... 6,830
TX NVRESFOR EL PASO TX NMCRC............. 380 RESERVE CENTER ADDITION...... 3,415
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 228 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 1,354
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 508 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 3,980
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2008 ............................. ......... ............................. 85,874
TOTAL
============
PY 2009
AR NVRESFOR LITTLE ROCK AR NMCRC......... 362 RESCEN ADDN.................. 1,696
DC NVRESFOR WASH DC NAF ANDREWS AFB...... 43 HANGAR 13 ADDITION (C-130)... 3,041
FL MARCORPS TAMPA FL MCRTC............... 19 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FAC...... 7,520
GA NVRESFOR ATLANTA GA NAS............... 367 C-40 HANGAR ALTERATIONS...... 4,845
KY NVRESFOR LEXINGTON KY NMCRC........... 353 RESERVE CENTER ADDITION...... 4,167
LA MARCORPS NEW ORLEANS LA MCARTC........ 20 RES TRNG CTR&VEH MAINT FAC... 7,752
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 441 CORROSION CONTROL HANGAR..... 6,299
LA NVRESFOR NEW ORLEANS LA NAS JRB....... 464 AIRFRAME ASSEMBLY PLANT...... 1,260
MD MARCORPS FORT DETRICK MD I & I STF.... 547 LAV MAINTENANCE FACILITY..... 6,783
MS NVRESFOR PASCAGOULA MS NS............. 390 LITTORAL SURV SYS FAC........ 5,136
NM NVRESFOR ALBUQUERQUE NM NMCRC......... 378 RESERVE CENTER ADDITION...... 2,907
PA NVRESFOR WILLOW GROVE PA NAS.......... 217 WAREHOUSE.................... 581
PA NVRESFOR WILLOW GROVE PA NAS.......... 233 PW SUPPORT EQUIP SHED........ 678
PA NVRESFOR WILLOW GROVE PA NAS.......... 246 HANGAR 80 MODS FOR C-40...... 3,004
RI NVRESFOR NEWPORT RI NAVRESREDCOM...... 600 RESERVE & REDCOM............. 4,554
TX NVRESFOR FT WORTH TX NAS JRB.......... 19 POST OFFICE.................. 1,045
TX NVRESFOR FT WORTH TX NAS JRB.......... 25 COMBINED AIMD FAC............ 24,225
VA NVRESFOR ROANOKE VA NMCRC............. 325 RESERVE CENTER ADDITION...... 3,488
WA NVRESFOR WHIDBEY IS WA NAVAIRES....... 167 C-40 HANGAR MODS............. 4,845
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 229 USMC MCNR DESIGN FUNDS....... 1,354
VAR A&E SERV X/MCNR DESIGN FUNDS.......... 509 MCNR DESIGN FUNDS (N4)....... 3,980
------------
FISCAL YEAR 2009 ............................. ......... ............................. 99,160
TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BARRACKS/DORMITORIES
Question. I understand that all three services are working toward
the elimination of inadequate permanent party barracks by 2007. The
success of that program will be largely dependent on significant
funding increases that the Army, Navy and Air Force have programmed for
military construction beginning in 2005 and into the future. Past
experience has shown that those increases in the out years seem to
disappear as it gets closer to the submission of the budget. Is the DOD
goal of 2007 realistic and achievable?
Answer. Although current funding levels do not permit us to achieve
DOD's goal of 2007, we still foresee continuing with an extremely
robust military construction program each year until our barracks
modernization campaign is complete. Programmed outyear levels provide
funding for 91 percent of all barracks by fiscal year 2007 and 98
percent by fiscal year 2008.
Question. Would you also comment on the likelihood of realizing
future funding increases for MILCON?
Answer. The Army anticipates MILCON funding at the increasing
levels shown in the Future Years Defense Program.
Question. Several of you are assessing the issue of privatizing
military barracks and dormitories. Have you worked out the financial
issues associated with this proposal and how would the office of
management and budget (OMB) score these proposals?
Answer. The Army is currently studying the privatization of troop
barracks at a couple of locations. DOD has not yet worked out the
financial issues and we await a decision by OMB on whether mandatory
assignment to barracks is a ``scorable'' event.
Question. Has the OSD provided the services guidance on
privatization?
Answer. The authorities of the Military Housing Privatization
Initiative (MHPI) permit the inclusion of unaccompanied housing in the
Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) for The Army. As a result, we
have asked OSD to develop a Departmental position, coordinated with
OMB, for interpretation as to whether or not this mandatory assignment
policy is a ``scorable'' event. We are awaiting final guidance from OSD
on this issue.
Question. What are the major cost concerns that will potentially
impact this initiative?
Answer. In view of the substantial investment the Army has made in
modernizing barracks, the major concerns that impact this initiative
are securing adequate funding for the Basic Allowance for Housing/Basic
Allowance for Subsistence (BAH/BAS), potential scoring requirements,
and continuing with RCI without diverting attention from our family
housing effort.
RECAPITALIZATION RATE
Question. With the funding proposal in the 2004 budget for MILCON
how does that impact your recapitalization rate? How does that compare
to last year's rate?
Answer. The funding proposed in the 2004 budget provides a
recapitalization rate of 144 years. Last year's rate was 123 years. Our
fiscal year fiscal year 2004 recapitalization rate is higher than last
year, and is the best we could do given competing requirements.
Question. Gentlemen, there have been a lot of promises made over
the past 2 years regarding revitalizing our defense facilities. Are we
back to business as usual neglecting our facilities?
Answer. No. The Army was not able to meet all its objectives for
facilities in the fiscal year 2004 Budget. We will continue to
emphasize sustainment funding to halt the deterioration of our
facilities and to fund our facilities strategy in the fiscal year 2005
Budget. Additionally, we are exploring and implementing alternatives to
traditional funding, such as Residential Communities Initiative (RCI)
and the Army Reserve Real Property Exchange (RPX) program.
Question. What are your long-term plans to reach the department's
proposed recapitalization rate of 67 years? When will that happen? I
worry about the message we send our young soldiers, airmen, and sailors
as well as their families, about the condition of the facilities in
which they live, work and train--especially as we try to retain them.
How does the condition of your infrastructure relate to the services'
goal of recruitment and retention?
Answer. At current funding levels, we achieve 70 years in 2008.
Soldiers and families see the Army's commitment to barracks and family
housing improvements. The overall condition of our facilities is a C-3
quality rating, impairing mission performance. The potential impact of
infrastructure condition on our soldiers and their families has been
recognized and is included in the on-going development of the Army
Well-being Status Report to be completed September 2004.
INSTALLATION READINESS
Question. I understand that all three services rate the readiness
of their infrastructure on a scale of C-1 to C-4. It appears that C-1
indicates only minor deficiencies with negligible impact on capability
to support missions. I was disturbed to find out that such a large
percentage of your overall facilities are rated C-3 or worse. How does
that impact on mission readiness?
Answer. An installation and its facilities exist to support
training, power projection, and to provide community support to
soldiers, civilians and their families. Low quality and quantity of
facilities adversely impact the accomplishment of these missions.
The overall condition rating of C-3 for Army facilities worldwide
indicates significant facility deficiencies that prevent performing
some missions in the manner they should be executed. The Army will
complete its missions with facility workarounds, which result in
degraded operations and increased costs.
For example: Our motor pools have not kept pace with our equipment.
At many locations, maintenance on vehicles is performed outside in the
rain, mud and cold weather. Clearly, there are days where maintenance
cannot be performed. Overhead cranes are not available and another
tactical vehicle is used to hoist engines out of a vehicle under
maintenance.
Question. What would be the bill to bring all of your C-3 and C-4
facilities to at least C-2? What is the associated timeline?
Answer. The cost to bring all C-3 and C-4 facilities to an overall
C-2 condition across the Army is $10.2 billion. Realistically, it is
achievable in 2023.
Question. I note that the services have goals to improve your
facilities to C-1 by the end of the decade. Is this realistic based on
current funding projections?
Answer. The Army, under the Focused Facility Strategy (FFS), plans
to bring a focused group of facility types to a C-1 quality rating. By
focusing on selected facilities, we concentrate our efforts on the
worst facilities with the highest overall cost and impact on soldiers.
The focused facility types are: Vehicle Maintenance Shops and
Supporting Hardstand; Trainee Barracks and Complexes; Physical Fitness
Facilities; General Instruction Classrooms; National Guard Readiness
Centers; Army Reserve Centers; and Chapels. By raising these facilities
to a C-1 rating, the overall average rating across the Army would be C-
2. Realistically, it is achievable in 2023.
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Question. With regards to privatization, I understand that some of
these contracts are for 50 years and beyond. What happens when one of
our family housing contractors goes out-of-business or does not fulfill
its commitments?
Answer. Either the failure to fulfill contractual commitments or
bankruptcy by an entity that has contracted with the Army housing
privatization partnership is an event of default under the respective
agreements. One of the available remedies after default is the right to
terminate the agreement. Once terminated, the partnership can freely
contract for the services from another party. As to the developer
partner itself, insolvency triggers an option by the Army, and other
partners if any, to buy out the insolvent managing member's partnership
interest. There are also provisions for the Army to remove the managing
member for cause.
Question. There seems to be a growing emphasis on privatizing more
housing in a shorter period of time. Are there concerns that moving too
quickly on such major procurement contracts could lead to future
problems?
Answer. The Army's housing privatization process is designed to
partner with nationally recognized property development/management and
financial firms with the experience and capability to build, renovate,
maintain, and operate family housing, while minimizing the probability
of future problems. Additionally, the business agreements negotiated
with the private sector firms provide a framework for resolving issues
and problems, and are structured in a manner to protect the interests
of the government. The Army also is designing and implementing a
portfolio and asset management process that will ensure oversight of
the agreement to monitor operational compliance and financial health of
the partnership.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
TRANSFORMATION
Question. I understand that The Army is moving forward with the
fielding of the Stryker brigades. I also understand that there are
significant MILCON requirements associated with each of the six
brigades. Are all of those requirements funded or programmed for the
first four brigades?
Answer. Yes. When the fiscal year 2004 budget was developed, all
validated critical Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) requirements were
funded. Since that time, we have continued to refine military
construction requirements and are presently reviewing emerging
requirements that are in the validation process.
Question. What about the MILCON requirements for the Hawaii and
Pennsylvania brigades?
Answer. The proposed projects in Hawaii and Pennsylvania are
required to support both the legacy force requirements that are
currently not being met and transformation.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
ANTITERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION FUNDING PLAN
Question. It is my understanding that funding previously approved
by the Committee for Antiterrorism/Force Protection (ATFP) is not
finding its way to the reserve components. Could you provide the
Committee with your funding plan for ATFP?
Answer. As it pertains to military construction force protection
projects, the Army National Guard has validated requirements of $1.952
million in fiscal year 2004 for planning and design of future year
construction of antiterrorism/force protection related projects. In
addition, each military construction project routinely incorporates all
necessary antiterrorism/force protection features. These requirements
are funded as part of the military construction project. The Army
National Guard continues to work with the active Army to further
validate their increased force protection requirements.
The Army Reserve has not identified any requirement for military
construction projects that are exclusively for antiterrorism/force
protection. However, each military construction project incorporates
all necessary antiterrorism/force protection features. The Army Reserve
antiterrorism/force protection projects at existing facilities will be
funded with Operations and Maintenance, Army Reserve appropriations.
BRAC CLEANUP PROGRAM
Question. The Army's fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget request is $66.4
million, a 56 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. I will ask you
the same question I have asked your colleagues. How much money above
the budget request could the Army execute in fiscal year 2004 to
expedite its BRAC cleanup program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $66.4 million ($57.3
million for environmental cleanup) allows us to achieve our restoration
and disposal goals, within Army priorities, and in support of community
reuse of the remaining BRAC installations.
Question. Did you request a higher level of funding from the
Defense Department?
Answer. No. The Department of Defense supported the Army's. request
for BRAC funding in fiscal year 2004.
______
Questions Submitted to Nelson Gibbs
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BARRACKS/DORMITORIES
Question. I understand that all three services are working toward
the elimination of inadequate permanent party barracks by 2007. The
success of that program will be largely dependent on significant
funding increases that the Army, Navy and Air Force have programmed for
military construction beginning in 2005 and into the future. Past
experience has shown that those increases in the out years seem to
disappear as it gets closer to the submission of the budget. Is the DOD
goal of 2007 realistic and achievable? Would you also comment on the
likelihood of realizing future funding increases for MILCON?
Answer. With the Military Construction (MILCON) funding we have
programmed for 2006 and 2007, our plan to eliminate inadequate
permanent party dormitories by 2007 is a realistic and achievable goal.
This funding is subject to change, however, depending on overall Air
Force total obligation authority in those program years, balanced with
other, emerging Air Force requirements. The Air Force MILCON future
years defense plan shows funding streams currently anticipated for
facility restoration and modernization. In each budget cycle the Air
Force will use available MILCON dollars to fund the most urgent
requirements.
Of significant note, the military construction portions of the
budgets we submitted in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 were larger than
what we had programmed in prior-year forecasts. In the last 2 years, we
have done a good job protecting and building upon our projected MILCON
budgets. We are hoping to continue this trend as we build our programs
for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and beyond.
Question. Several of you are assessing the issue of privatizing
military barracks and dormitories. Have you worked out the financial
issues associated with this proposal and how would the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) score these proposals? Has the OSD provided
the services guidance on privatization?
Answer. The Air Force is still identifying and reviewing the
different financial issues involved with privatizing military
dormitories. We have identified key areas we feel will require an
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ruling, to ensure the projects
remain feasible as privatization projects. These key areas include
assignment of members to quarters, provision of basic allowance for
housing directly from the Air Force to the developer on behalf of the
member, and signing of individual leases (whether or not they are
necessary, and how the project would score if they are not required).
The Navy has already broached some of these questions to OSD for an OMB
ruling. The Air Force is waiting for this information back and will
frame new questions if required. OSD has not provided specific
dormitory privatization guidance at this time.
Question. What are the major cost concerns that will potentially
impact this initiative?
Answer. The Air Force has some cost concerns that could potentially
impact the initiative.
The full value of basic allowance for housing applied from all
dormitory tenants could bring too much cash flow to the project, making
it financially unattractive for the government. The Air Force is
looking into ways to counter this concern, possibly through payment of
only a partial amount of the occupants' basic allowance for housing, or
by drawing off excess funds from the project via the ground lease.
We are also concerned about the ability to obtain reasonable
financing, due to the potential risk inherent in dormitory
privatization projects. These risks include allowing access to
installations' interiors to non-military dorm residents, a limited list
of other eligible tenants, and a lack of strong secondary market for
these types of units.
RECAPITALIZATION RATE
Question. With the funding proposed in the 2004 budget for MILCON
how does that impact your recapitalization rate? How does that compare
to last year's rate?
Answer. MILCON funding levels in the fiscal year 2004 President's
Budget Request support a 180-year recapitalization rate. The fiscal
year 2003 recapitalization rate was 284 years, based on the fiscal year
2003 President's Budget Request, and 195 years based on the fiscal year
2003 enacted budget.
Question. Gentlemen, there have been a lot of promises made over
the past 2 years regarding revitalizing our defense facilities. Are we
back to business as usual neglecting our facilities?
Answer. We are not neglecting our facilities. The portion of the
Air Force fiscal year 2004 budget request dedicated to facility
investment (MILCON; Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility
sustainment, restoration, and modernization; and military family
housing construction, improvement, and O&M) is the largest in more than
a decade.
We still have much work to do. Reaching our 67-year
recapitalization rate goal and eliminating our critical restoration and
modernization backlog (developed over years of underfunding) will
require us to continue and increase this level of investment in the
future. We are doing that with the funding we have programmed in the
future years defense plan.
Question. What are your long-term plans to reach the department's
proposed recapitalization rate of 67 years? When will that happen?
Answer. The Air Force continues to program funding to meet the
Department's 67-year recapitalization rate goal. Over the long term,
the Air Force targets recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure
in the Military Construction and Operations & Maintenance (Restoration
& Modernization) programs. The Air Force fiscal year 2004-2009 future
years defense plan puts us on a trajectory to meet the 67-year
recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008.
Question. I worry about the message we send our young soldiers,
airmen, and sailors as well as their families, about the condition of
the facilities in which they live, work train--especially as we try to
retain them. How does the condition of your infrastructure relate to
the services' goal of recruitment and retention?
Answer. The quality of our facilities, infrastructure, and
communities sends a direct signal to our men and women regarding the
value we place on their service. Quality of life initiatives
acknowledge the increasing sacrifices our airmen make in support of the
Nation and are pivotal to recruiting and retaining our best. When our
members deploy, they want to know that their families are stable, safe,
and secure. Their welfare is a critical factor to our overall combat
readiness, and our family housing program, dormitory program, and other
quality of life initiatives reflect our commitment to provide them the
facilities they deserve.
INSTALLATION READINESS
Question. I understand that all three services rate the readiness
of their infrastructure on a scale of C-1 to C-4. It appears that C-1
indicates only minor deficiencies with negligible impact on capability
to support missions. I was disturbed to find out that such a large
percentage of your overall facilities are rated C-3 or worse. How does
that impact mission readiness?
Answer. Installations' Readiness Report ratings indicate how well
facilities are supporting the mission. C-3 and C-4 ratings can coincide
with the preclusion or shutdown of a mission, but are more of an
indicator of increased risk and potential for adverse mission impact.
For example, in our Operations and Training facility class,
degraded airfield pavements pose risk of aircraft engine and structural
damage from loose pavement pieces, impacting everything from basic
airfield operations to day-to-day aircraft maintenance. Inoperative
fuel hydrant systems force us to refuel by truck, increasing the
workload for maintenance and supply personnel. Other examples of
deficiencies that impact mission readiness include obsolete airfield
lighting systems, inadequate training facilities, and deteriorated/
inadequate drainage systems.
Question. What would be the bill to bring all of your C-3 and C-4
facilities to at least C-2? What is the associated timeline?
Answer. The cost to bring our facility classes to a C-2 status is
approximately $24 billion. This amount is comprised of $13 billion in
Military Construction requirements, $5 billion in military family
housing requirements, $3 billion in operations and maintenance
requirements, and $3 billion in requirements funded from other sources
(i.e., host nation funds, non-appropriated funds, Defense Logistics
Agency funds). Based on current funding projections we would eliminate
all C-3s and C-4s by 2014.
Question. I note that the services have goals to improve your
facilities to C-1 by the end of the decade. Is that realistic based on
current funding projections?
Answer. Our goal (based on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Planning
Guidance) is to restore the readiness of existing facilities to at
least C-2 status, on average, by the end of fiscal year 2010. Based on
current funding projections, it is realistic that we will meet this
goal.
We are concurrently targeting our investment to eliminate all C-3
and C-4 rated facility classes. Based on current funding projects (and
extending them beyond fiscal year 2009 . . . our farthest-reaching
funding projection), we expect to eliminate all C-3 and C-4 rated
facility classes by 2014.
FAMILY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
I want to compliment the military departments for improving
military family housing for our service members. Through buying down
the military member's out-of-pocket expenses for housing costs as well
as eliminating inadequate housing units through military construction
and privatization--you are making great progress. I am particularly
proud of the fact that our state is leading the way with more housing
privatization projects awarded at Texas military installations than any
other state with six private-public partnerships (Nas Corpus Christi,
Lackland Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, Nas Kingsville, Fort
Hood and NC South Texas) or 33 percent of the total projects awarded
within the Department of Defense.
While housing revitalization is a good news story for our military
families, I am concerned with the message being sent to our service
members with the budget proposal to cut impact aid funding for the
education of soldiers', sailors', airmen and marines' children and I've
spoken to the administration about my concerns. A total of 1,300 school
districts across the nation receive impact aid funding to pay the
salaries of teachers, purchase textbooks and computers and pay for
advanced placement classes among other things. Cutting this funding
sends a negative message at a time when we are promoting quality
education for all children and sending their mothers and fathers into
harm's way in the Persian Gulf region and around the world.
Question. With regards to privatization, I understand that some of
these contracts are for 50 years and beyond. What happens when one of
our family housing contractors goes out-of-business or does not fulfill
its commitments?
Answer. We exercise tight control over the project through
portfolio management after award, wherein we closely monitor the
financial health of the project throughout the 50 years. Any necessary
adjustments to factors, such as occupancy and debt coverage ratio, can
be made on a routine basis. In the event the developer defaults on the
project despite these controls, the lease and lockbox account
agreements will protect the government interest.
None of the project income goes directly to the developer, but is
collected in lockbox accounts controlled by a lockbox agent over whom
the Secretary has significant control. These monies are protected and
will be used to operate, maintain, and repair the property until
another lessee can be brought in to manage the property or the
government takes control over the project. The construction and
permanent lenders also exercise a great deal of control over the
project to ensure the success of the project and to protect their
investment.
I want to compliment the military departments for improving
military family housing for our service members. Through buying down
the military member's out-of-pocket expenses for housing costs as well
as eliminating inadequate housing units through military construction
and privatization--you are making great progress. I am particularly
proud of the fact that our state is leading the way with more housing
privatization projects awarded at Texas military installations than any
other state with six private-public partnerships (Nas Corpus Christi,
Lackland Air Force Base, Dyess Air Force Base, Nas Kingsville, Fort
Hood and NC South Texas) or 33 percent of the total projects awarded
within the Department of Defense.
While housing revitalization is a good news story for our military
families, I am concerned with the message being sent to our service
members with the budget proposal to cut impact aid funding for the
education of soldiers', sailors', airmen and marines' children and I've
spoken to the administration about my concerns. A total of 1,300 school
districts across the Nation receive impact aid funding to pay the
salaries of teachers, purchase textbooks and computers and pay for
advanced placement classes among other things. Cutting this funding
sends a negative message at a time when we are promoting quality
education for all children and sending their mothers and fathers into
harm's way in the Persian Gulf region and around the world.
Question. There seems to be a growing emphasis on privatizing more
housing in a shorter period of time. Are there concerns that moving too
quickly on such major procurement contracts could lead to future
problems?
Answer. We have developed a rigorous privatization project
schedule. Based on the lessons learned from the five projects we have
closed to date and the well-defined and well-refined process we have
developed, we are confident we are not moving too quickly.
The 27 privatization projects we have planned through fiscal year
2004 include six that are in active solicitation. We maintain
centralized control through our execution agent, the Air Force Center
for Environmental Excellence, and decentralized execution of the
projects through six major commands and their five privatization
support contractors. Our resources include a proven generic request for
proposals, well-defined source selection process, experienced
privatization support contractors, and definitive known housing
requirements, which will ensure success of our process.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
C-17 AIRCRAFT IN ALASKA AND HAWAII
Question. I understand that the Air Force is proceeding with their
mobility force structure plan which will station C-17s in Alaska and
Hawaii. Are all of the required military construction requirements in
either the budget or the Air Force's future year defense plan?
Answer. The Air Force is still reviewing and validating all future
Military Construction requirements to beddown C-17s at Elmendorf AFB,
Alaska, and Hickam AFB, Hawaii. Our fiscal year 2004 budget request
includes $63 million for C-17 beddown at Hickam AFB. The future years
defense plan includes $310 million in fiscal years 2005-2009 targeted
for C-17 beddown at several locations, including Elmendorf AFB and
Hickam AFB.
We have approximately $120 million in requirements not included in
the future years defense plan. Until our construction requirements
review is complete and we program specific projects in the future years
defense plan, we will not know what portion of the unfunded requirement
is for Hickam and Elmendorf. We expect to have our review complete
later this year.
Question. What is the timeline to field those aircraft in Alaska
and Hawaii?
Answer. C-17s will arrive at Elmendorf AFB, AK, beginning in the
3rd quarter of fiscal year 2007 and ending in the 4th quarter of fiscal
year 2007. Aircraft will arrive at Hickam AFB, HI, beginning in the 1st
quarter of fiscal year 2006 and ending in the 3rd quarter of fiscal
year 2006.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
CORPORATE ADJUSTMENT
Question. The Air Force uses a ``Corporate Adjustment'' model for
the allocation of the military construction funds. First, could you
briefly explain what ``Corporate Adjustment'' is and whether, in your
opinion, this model adequately meets the needs of the Air National
Guard and the Air Force Reserve?
Answer. The Air Force corporately prioritizes its Military
Construction (MILCON) requirements. We do this by integrating the
results of our MILCON scoring model (which includes Major Command
priorities) with must-pay requirements (i.e., environmental compliance
requirements and planning and design funds), projects necessary to
beddown new weapon systems, and crosscutting corporate priorities
(called ``Corporate Adjustments'' . . . e.g., dormitories and fitness
centers).
This results in a final integrated priority list (IPL) that
balances the Air Force's overall construction needs with available
resources to best meet overall Air Force needs (as well as the needs of
the Major Commands, the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve).
Question. Do you believe that the fiscal year 2004 request for the
Guard and Reserve, which represents respectively a 70 percent and a 34
percent decline from the enacted fiscal year 2003 level, adequately
funds the Air Force Guard and Reserve?
Answer. We believe the fiscal year 2004 request properly balances
construction requirements with available resources.
When compared to the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget request,
the Air Force Reserve fiscal year 2004 request of $44.3 million is 13
percent greater than the fiscal year 2003 request of $39.1 million.
Similarly, the Air National Guard fiscal year 2004 request of $60.4
million is 11 percent greater than the fiscal year 2003 request of
$54.2 million. Comparing the fiscal year 2004 President's Budget
Request to the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget skews the comparison to
something of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Congressional inserts
make the fiscal year 2004 request less than the fiscal year 2003
enacted amounts.
CORPORATE ADJUSTMENT
Question. And for the record, could you give us a breakout, by
number of projects and by total cost, of what each MAJOR COMMAND
received as a ``corporate adjustment?
Answer. The following table shows the number of ``corporate
adjustment'' projects, and total cost, each Major Command would receive
in fiscal year 2004.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Major Command Projects Project Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11th Wing (Bolling AFB)................. 1 $9.3
Air Combat Command (ACC)................ 6 26.2
Air Education and Training Command 5 104.8
(AETC).................................
Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)....... 3 55.3
Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC)........ 3 10.3
Air Force Special Operations Command 0 0.0
(AFSOC)................................
Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)......... 1 7.0
Air Mobility Command (AMC).............. 2 10.8
Air National Guard (ANG)................ 2 13.0
Pacific Air Forces (PACAF).............. 6 83.7
United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE). 16 102.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILCON RECAPITALIZATION RATE
Question. Based on the fiscal year 2004 budget only, and ignoring
for now the outyear funds which may or may not be there, what is the
MILCON recapitalization rate for the Active Duty Air Force, the Air
National Guard and the Air Force Reserves for fiscal year 2004?
Answer. The Air Force recapitalization rates based on the fiscal
year 2004 budget request are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active.................................................. 183
Air National Guard...................................... 170
Air Force Reserve....................................... 141
---------------
Total Force....................................... 180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAC
Question. Over the past 2 years, this committee has significantly
added to the amount requested by the services for environmental clean
up from the previous four rounds of BRAC. Now, we are faced with
another upcoming BRAC initiative, yet we still fail to fully address
the previous cleanup necessary. This year the Air Force request for
BRAC environmental remediation and caretaker costs is $198.7 million.
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Air Force BRAC environmental
remediation and caretaker cost is $200.7 million; the budget authority
request is $198.7 million and $2 million is from fiscal year 2002
inflation savings. The Air Force appreciates the subcommittee's support
to fund the environmental cleanup program.
Question. Did you seek a higher level of funding for BRAC
environmental remediation in your budget submission to the Office of
Secretary of Defense?
Answer. No. The Office of Secretary of Defense supported full
funding of our fiscal year 2004 budget submission for BRAC
environmental remediation.
Question. Would additional funding help to expedite the Air Force
BRAC environmental clean up program?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 request reflects our
requirements additional funding would allow us the opportunity to
expedite cleanup requirements currently planned for future years.
MC CLELLAN AFB
Question. As you are aware, the former McClellan Air Force Base in
Sacramento, CA, continues to be a high priority environmental
remediation activity for the Air Force. However, persistent funding
shortfalls have dramatically impacted the Air Force's own cleanup
schedule and scope of activities. I understand that the required
McClellan funding for fiscal year 2004 is nearly $42.0 million and that
the Air Force has communicated to the community a commitment of $30.0
to $40.0 million per year to be spent on remediation at McClellan over
the next 5 years. Is that, in fact, correct?
Answer. The Air Force's fiscal year 2004 budget request includes
$38.1 million for McClellan. Our current plans include approximately
$200 million for McClellan over the next 5 years.
Question. In addition to the larger cleanup effort, I am
particularly concerned with the dilapidated condition of the sewer line
at McClellan that continues to significantly impede economic
redevelopment at the base. As you know, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) prohibits
transfer of the sewer line and adjacent property from the Air Force to
the McClellan site developer until the contamination is evaluated and
remediated by the Air Force. The estimated cost of that effort is $20.0
million over 3 years. Currently, the community and developer are
investing $20.0 million of their own funds to install a new sewer line.
I understand that concurrent remediation and sewer installation
projects could reduce costs to both the Air Force and the site
developer. I would encourage the Air Force's support for a concurrent
effort and would request the Air Force's estimate of the funding needed
for the project in fiscal year 2004.
Answer. We understand the County's desire to replace the sewer
system in order to support redevelopment. This accelerates the need for
the Air Force to address contaminated soils that will be removed as
part of the project. We are currently working with the County to
establish a cooperative agreement for the Air Force cost share that
pertains to the handling and disposing of contaminated soils. The
County estimates the Air Force share for fiscal year 2004 is $7
million. Funds for the Air Force's share will come from those already
budgeted for McClellan's environmental cleanup unless additional funds
are provided for this effort.
AIR FORCE BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL FYDP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.................................................... 175.6
2005.................................................... 127.7
2006.................................................... 116.4
2007.................................................... 112.5
2008.................................................... 119.1
2009.................................................... 114.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Air Force is fully funded in fiscal year 2004, we have
requirements identified in fiscal year 2003 that currently would be
addressed in fiscal year 2005/2006. The Air Force could execute an
additional $65 million in fiscal year 2004.
FYDP AND UNFUNDED PRIORITIES
Question. Would each of you provide the committee with a copy of
your service's current FYDP and unfunded priorities by March 31?
Answer. The Air Force's fiscal year 2004 unfunded priority list and
fiscal year 2004 MILCON unfunded priority list were provided to the SAC
MILCON Subcommittee staff on March 13, 2003. The Air Force's MILCON and
MFH FYDP lists were provided to the SAC MILCON Subcommittee staffs on
April 8, 2003.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hutchison. I agree with you, and of course Senator
Feinstein and I work so well together, and we all work with
Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and we have wonderful
staff, so I thank you for pointing that out.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Burns, and Feinstein.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. BRYAN, CHAIRMAN, CHARLESTON NAVAL
COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. I am going to go ahead and call the
meeting to order even though our first witness is not here. I
want to go expeditiously forward, so what I think I will do is
go straight to the third panel of community witnesses. Since
only two of the three second panel members are here, I would
like to just go ahead and ask our third panel to come forward,
and I will make my opening statement as you are coming forward.
That would be: Paul Roberson, who I see; James Bryan from
Charleston, South Carolina; and Robert Leonard from Sacramento,
California; and of course, retired Air Force Brigadier General
Paul Roberson of San Antonio.
Good morning. I would like to call to order this hearing of
the Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations.
Today's hearing will examine the base realignment that resulted
in nearly 400 base closures or realignments. Congress has
authorized another round to begin in 2005.
BRAC has a worthy goal, to reduce the cost to the taxpayer
of maintaining infrastructure that our military no longer
needs. But achieving that goal is a complex and difficult
challenge. Determining future requirements for military
infrastructure is difficult at any time, but this is
particularly so today. New threats to our country have emerged.
Our military forces are undergoing an organizational and
technological transformation. Political relationships with some
of our traditional allies are changing while potential new
allies are emerging.
All of these factors have implications for the size of our
military force and where we put it. Making sensible decisions
about closing military facilities in the midst of this
uncertainty will be difficult, and I am concerned about our
ability to do it right.
Because of training constraints and changed geographic
priorities, it is possible that some of the forces we have
based overseas now could move home. It does not make sense to
close facilities in the United States if we are likely to have
to recreate them in a few years at a great expense.
BRAC also can be a wrenching process for local communities
that host military installations. Base closures can have
devastating effects on local economies. In some cases it can be
really devastating; In other cases, communities have recovered
well from the closures. The GAO noted in a report last year
that as of October 2001, 130,000 jobs at major installations
had been lost to BRAC, only 79,000 had been recreated. Whatever
the economic effect is, the process is disruptive.
We have three panels today to help us understand this
issue. The panel with which we will start is made up of people
who have had real life experience in the communities, taking a
closed base and turning it into something productive.
So with that, I want to ask my Ranking Member and friend
Senator Feinstein for her remarks, and then we would like to
hear from you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you, gentlemen, for
being here today. I would like to put my full statement in the
record, but I would like to make just a few comments.
On the assumption that we are going to have another BRAC
round in 2005, it is my hope that we, just as the chairman has
said, can avoid some of the pitfalls we experienced in the
past. So I hope that what this hearing accomplishes is the
elucidation of ways that we can minimize the economic upheaval
for local communities and maximize our efforts to expedite the
transfer of closed installations to local communities.
Now, the GAO calculates that the Defense Department has
already spent over $7 billion on BRAC environmental cleanup and
will have to spend another $3.5 billion to complete these
cleanups. McClellan--and I want to welcome Mr. Leonard--is a
case in point in California. Primarily because of delays due to
environmental cleanup, the Defense Department has yet to
transfer half of the total amount of excess base property. Half
of the total amount of excess base property has not been
transferred because of the need for environmental cleanup.
So cleanup from prior base closures is a very high priority
issue, as you know, for me, and I think it has got to become a
priority in evaluating the costs and reuse potential of future
closures.
Now, Madam Chairman, one of the things that is happening--
and this is a small diversion, but I think it is appropriate--
in your State, in my State, and in 20 other States is the
permeation of a chemical ingredient which was the primary
ingredient in rocket propellants in munitions and explosives
called perchlorate. Perchlorate has contaminated water supplies
in 22 States from California and Colorado to Massachusetts and
Maryland. It can impair thyroid function and may well affect
the physical and mental development of children.
The situation is particularly serious, gentlemen, in
California. State health officials so far have detected the
presence of perchlorate in 292 groundwater wells operated by 80
different water agencies. The problem is most severe in
southern California, where 267 of the contaminated wells are
located.
I have expressed my concerns in November of last year with
letters to Secretary Rumsfeld and Administrator Whitman,
Secretary Rumsfeld because the primary contractor and the
primary user was the Defense Department and is the Defense
Department. The Defense Department renounces any responsibility
and I gather is going to renounce any liability, and I
profoundly disagree.
I would like to introduce into the record three letters
that I have sent. Another one is on the way that Senator Reid
of Nevada and I will send to the Secretary, outlining the
history of the facility at Henderson, Nevada, which was
actually begun by the Department of Defense and then contracted
to Kerr McGee, and what that perchlorate infusion from that
facility has done in the State of California.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, November 27, 2002.
Hon. Secretary of Defense,
Department of Defense, Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301.
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: I am writing to bring your attention to
the growing problem of perchlorate contamination in Southern
California's groundwater supplies and to request that the Department of
Defense provide clean-up funding through the Formerly Used Defense
Sites program to eligible communities as soon as possible.
According to a recent report by the California Department of Health
Services, perchlorate has been detected in 284 groundwater wells
operated by 75 different water agencies throughout the State.
Collectively these agencies serve 24.8 million people, representing 71
percent of the State's population. The problem is most severe in
Southern California, where 267 of the contaminated wells are located.
The growing number of perchlorate contaminated wells is all the
more alarming in the context of California's efforts to reduce its
consumption of Colorado River water under the terms of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement. While California water districts
are working diligently to devise strategies to reduce the State's need
for imported water, perchlorate contamination is threatening the native
water supplies these agencies are relying upon to meet local needs. The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California estimates that in
its service area alone, lost well production due to Perchlorate
contamination could reach 57,000 acre feet annually.
The problem is particularly acute in the Inland Empire, where a
seven mile long plume was discovered earlier this year in an area
formerly occupied by the Army and several defense contractors involved
in munitions manufacturing and storage, The plume, which is moving 2 to
3 inches per day, has contaminated 22 drinking water wells in western
San Bernardino County, jeopardizing water supplies for approximately
500,000 local residents and businesses. Replacement water is generally
unavailable due to lack of infrastructure and up to eight times more
expensive than groundwater in the limited cases where it can be
imported. Local officials have informed my staff that the problem is so
severe that without Federal assistance, the region faces a very real
possibility of water rationing or of having to supply customers with
bottled water.
Because many of the contaminated sites in Southern California
involve former defense facilities, the Department of Defense bears a
special responsibility to help remedy the situation. I would appreciate
hearing from you whether you intend to make FUDS funding available to
assist in the clean-up of perchlorate contaminated wells in Southern
California.
Thank you for you very much for your immediate attention to this
important matter.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
______
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 7, 2003.
Ms. Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios
Building, Washington, DC 20460.
Dear Administrator Whitman: Thank you for your prompt response to
my letter of November 27, asking for the assistance of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in cleaning up perchlorate
contamination in California's water supply. While I appreciate the
steps that your agency has taken on this issue to date, I request that
the EPA accelerate clean up efforts to reduce perchlorate contamination
in local groundwater supplies and in Colorado River water.
I want to stress the enormity of this issue and its importance to
California. Perchlorate has already contaminated water supplies in more
than 22 States, including California, where State health officials
recently reported 294 groundwater wells have been impacted.
Additionally, perchlorate has seeped into the Colorado River, which
provides the drinking water for nearly 20 million people in Southern
California, Nevada and Arizona.
It is currently estimated that 450 pounds of perchlorate leech into
the groundwater near Henderson, Nevada each day, and that water then
enters Lake Mead and the Colorado River via the Las Vegas Wash. The
impact of this contamination is particularly devastating to
California's water supply.
To address this issue, I convened a roundtable meeting on
perchlorate contamination at the Metropolitan Water District
headquarters on December 19, 2002. At that meeting, I was briefed on
the scope and severity of the contamination from local, State, and
Federal officials including Keith Takata, Superfund Division Director
from U.S. EPA Region IX.
In my view, further efforts are needed to clean up perchlorate
contamination as quickly as possible to protect the 20 million water
users in Southern California and elsewhere who depend on the Colorado
River for their drinking water.
To help accelerate clean up efforts, I urge the EPA to take the
following actions:
Set a Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as
possible.--While I understand EPA is currently evaluating whether to
establish a drinking water standard, existing scientific research
already strongly suggests that perchlorate can pose serious health
risks, especially to pregnant women and children. Federal regulation is
clearly warranted, and promulgation of national standards should help
accelerate clean-up efforts.
Provide clearer guidance on goals for cleanup.--Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection currently requires a cleanup goal of 18 ppb
based on a memorandum from the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) to Regional Administrators dated June 18, 1999. U.S.
EPA's more recent risk assessment recommended a reference dose
equivalent to a drinking water concentration of 1 part per billion
(ppb). California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
revised the draft public health goal to a range of 2 to 6 ppb. Based on
these recommendations, ORD should revise its interim guidelines and
establish an appropriate standard goal more closely meeting the range
adopted by California. Nevada and other States should be directed to
immediately use the lower number adopted by California and other
States.
Closely oversee clean up efforts in Henderson, Nevada.--U.S. EPA
Region IX should ensure that all practicable steps are taken by Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection to reduce the perchlorate load in
Colorado River water supplies by intercepting the ground water as close
to the Las Vegas Wash as possible and intercepting perchlorate
contamination immediately adjacent to the La Vegas Wash.
Thank you very much for you consideration of this request. I
appreciate your attention to this issue and hope that EPA will continue
to work to reduce perchlorate contamination in the water supply.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Now, I believe that the Defense
Department is directly or indirectly responsible for the bulk
of perchlorate contamination, and unless the Federal Government
takes positive action we will be sticking many small
communities with a huge problem they did not create. Frankly,
this is not acceptable.
Madam Chairman, in your State a congressionally-mandated
study is underway to assess perchlorate contamination in the
Boss and Leon River watersheds from the Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant in Madrid. Nine western Texas counties
where the Department has tested rockets have recently found
perchlorate contamination in their groundwater. I have gotten
nothing but the most perfunctory responses. It's just not
acceptable.
The Department has a responsibility and I believe you have
a liability. So I do not intend to drop this subject. I intend
to do everything I can in various bills to see that the Defense
Department begins to deal with the problem that all of the
evidence points has been created by that Department.
So I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
With that, let me call first on Mr. James Bryan, the
chairman of the Charleston Naval Complex Development Authority.
Mr. Bryan. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
In April 1996, the Charleston Naval Base received its
honorable discharge.
Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask each of you if you would
limit your remarks to maybe 4 minutes and then just summarize
what you have and then we would like to ask some questions.
Mr. Bryan. Okay, I will start again. In April of 1996, our
naval base received its honorable discharge and embarked on a
whole new life appropriate to the 21st century. As the
organization charged with guiding the base in its new life, we
recognized that our first and most important task was the
creation of jobs. Today the facilities abandoned by the
military are being reborn as viable economic assets. New jobs
by the thousand are replacing those lost when the base was
closed and the property is again becoming a resource for the
benefit and enjoyment of South Carolina citizens.
Back in 1993 when base closure was announced, everyone was
pronouncing doom and gloom for Charleston. Now I can say we are
a success story because of the Government was not heavy-handed
with its disposal procedure. We benefited from the cooperation
of the U.S. Navy OEA and the fact that everything flowed
through a no-cost economic development conveyance to the
Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority.
There was no map to point the way to success. If property
had been disposed of through a public sale or, worse, land
banking, I am convinced that I would not be here today speaking
of our successes. Thanks to the cooperation and assistance from
Federal and State officials, I can currently report that we
host 74 commercial and 10 Federal tenants at the naval complex.
The important thing is that they make up our naval complex
family and contribute to the employment of 5,400 workers, a
$265 million annual payroll. Overall they pay more than $141
million that has been spent on renovations, infrastructure, and
improvements, and unemployment in the immediate three-county
area is actually lower than it was in 1993.
What I would like to do is just hit on some things that I
think worked for the reconversion of this type property,
starting with the no-cost economic development conveyance. We
are a success story because the Government was not heavy-handed
in its disposal procedure. We benefited from the cooperation of
the U.S. Navy OEA and the fact that everything flowed through a
no-cost economic development conveyance.
The no-cost economic development conveyance allowed us to
address the deteriorated utilities and infrastructure without
the additional burden of paying for the property that had been
donated 100 years before. Even with agreed-upon zoning in
place, a public sale to the highest offeror we believe is a
recipe for disaster.
Interim leasing: To my knowledge, we have the only shipyard
in America that has been successfully converted from public to
private use.
Supplemental funding: Like many other State boards and
agencies, our LRA was given no funding appropriation through
the State Government. Thankfully, OEA funding was available
initially to support the LRA office activities, and separate
State legislation provided some additional funds through fees
collected in the Charleston County area.
Federal grant assistance: Charleston has been successful in
securing approximately $38 million in grant funding from the
U.S. Economic Development Administration.
The lease evaluation criteria and process: As a State
agency, Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority was
required to establish a tenant selection and approval process.
Rather than going with the highest amount of rent offered, this
process allowed our LRA to consider the number, quality, and
type of jobs created.
Community effort: After the closure announced in 1993,
rather than engaging in a prolonged fight against the decision,
the citizens of Charleston took action and formed a regional
development alliance to attract business and industry to the
entire area.
I think, to touch on a few things that I think does not
work under these scenarios: fighting the closure decision.
Don't waste time, money, manpower trying to reverse the
decision to close the facility. Rather, spend time and efforts
on recovery.
I think a thing that does not work is allowing the Navy to
retain the lease income. The newly-formed organization needs
the moneys from the lease of these properties to operate and
improve the infrastructure.
Another slight hurdle was the Navy's standard lease of 5
years does not work for someone that is willing to invest
millions of dollars in a shipyard. So we were able to obtain
some long-term leases along the way, 30-year leases I think,
that helped with our success.
The McKinney Act was a tough one to deal with. Because of
the type property that we have, I think every nonprofit
organization that may touch the McKinney Act in one way or
another, we have to deal with them before you can move ahead
with the process of development or redevelopment.
prepared statement
The restoration advisory boards: We think that the LRA
should be the one, the voice of the community. The LRA should
be comprised of members of the community and the groups, not
being fragmented and trying to protect turf. We feel like that
was something that needs to be looked at in the future.
To save time, I will be willing to answer any questions
now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. Bryan
INTRODUCTION
For more than a hundred years, the North Charleston waterfront
property known today as ``the Navy Base'' has played a defining role in
our community. Through the 1800s it was the location of Chicora Park,
an idyllic setting where the ladies and gentlemen of Charleston would
arrive by trolley to picnic by the Cooper River. As the century turned,
the property's character changed, and its importance was magnified many
fold.
On August 12, 1901, the land was sold to the U.S. Government for
the construction of a Navy yard. The property soon became a strategic
keystone, and its docks the site of many an emotional farewell as young
sailors went to sea to protect and defend the American way of life.
In April of 1998, the Navy Base received its honorable discharge
and embarked on a whole new life appropriate to the 2lst Century. As
the organization charged with guiding the base into its new life, we
recognized that our first and most important task was the creation of
jobs. Today, facilities abandoned by the military are being reborn as
vital, thriving economic assets. New jobs--by the thousands--are
replacing those lost when the base was closed and the property is again
becoming a resource for the benefit and enjoyment of South Carolina's
citizens. Back in 1993 when base closure was announced, everyone was
pronouncing doom and gloom for Charleston. Now I can say what many
others are saying: closure of the Charleston Naval Complex will prove,
in the long run, to be a good thing for our community. We are a success
story because the government was not heavy-handed with its disposal
procedure. We benefited from cooperation with the U.S. Navy, the OEA,
and the fact that everything flowed through a no-cost Economic
Development Conveyance to the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment
Authority. There was no map to point the way to success, but we moved
ahead. Senator Fritz Hollings has been a true champion of the project,
helping to secure funding when it was most necessary. If this property
had been disposed of through a public sale or worse, land-banking, I am
convinced that I would not be here reporting on our success.
Thanks to cooperation and assistance from Federal and State
officials, I can report that we currently host 74 commercial and 10
Federal tenants at the naval complex. The important thing is that they
all make up our naval complex family and contribute to the employment
of 5,400 workers with a $265 million annual payroll. Overall today,
more than $141 million has gone into renovations and infrastructure
improvements and unemployment in the immediate three-county area is
actually lower than it was in 1993. Hopefully, you all have a copy of
our annual report that was produced last year. It contains all of the
statistics and some great success stories about our tenants. There are
many great stories to tell. Earlier this year, landmark legislation was
passed that opened the door for the much needed State Ports Authority
expansion at the naval complex. The RDA was directed by State law to
turn over the leased shipyard and residential areas to the City of
North Charleston and later transfer the southern end of the naval
complex to the State Ports Authority for its expansion. With the
continued cooperation and support from local governments and citizens,
we believe that this magnificent property will serve as an economic
engine for our State for many decades to come.
WHAT MADE US SUCCESSFUL
No-Cost Economic Development.--We are a success story because the
government was not heavy-handed with its disposal procedure. We
benefited from cooperation with the U.S. Navy, the OEA, and the fact
that everything flowed through a no-cost Economic Development
Conveyance to the Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment Authority. The
no-cost economic development conveyance allowed us to address the
deteriorated utilities and infrastructure without the additional burden
of paying for property that had been donated 100 years before. Even
with agreed-upon zoning in place, a public sale to the highest offeror,
we believe, is a recipe for disaster.
Interim Leasing.--To my knowledge, we have the only shipyard in
America that has been successfully converted from public to private
use. By ``playing the hand we were dealt'' and using the interim-
leasing option, we had an up and running shipyard 6 months prior to
official closure of the base. Revenues from these leases allowed our
LRA to gradually assume all of the Navy's operations and maintenance of
the Base.
Supplemental Funding.--Like many other State boards and agencies,
our LRA was given no funding appropriation through State government.
Thankfully, OEA funding was available initially to support LRA office
activities and separate State legislation provided some additional
funds through fees collected in Charleston County, but OEA funds
eventually expired. While leasing income helped, it could not solely
support operations and maintenance of the Base. Our LRA was successful
in approaching the State legislature for funding under S.C.'s Rural
Development Act, which provided us with the State's withholding tax for
each Federal activity payroll on the Base. This funding source expires
in 2012, but provides around $2 million annually.
Federal Grant Assistance.--Charleston has been successful in
securing approximately $38 million in grant funding from the U.S.
Economic Development Administration. This funding has allowed and will
allow our LRA to improve the dilapidated water, sewer and storm water
systems left behind by the Navy.
Lease Evalutation Criteria and Process.--As a State agency, the
Charleston Naval Complex RDA was required to establish a tenant
selection and approval process. Rather than going with the highest
amount of rent offered, this process allowed our LRA to consider the
number, quality and type of jobs created, proposed use of the property,
capital investment, and the financial strength of the proposal among
other items. This legal process has served us well.
Community Effort.--After the closure announcement in 1993, rather
than engaging in a prolonged fight against the decision, the citizens
of Charleston took action and formed the Regional Development Alliance
to attract business and industry to the entire area.
Create A Stewardship of the Entrusted Property.--Select capable
people, with no personal agendas, to serve on redevelopment boards and
authorities. Restrict public officials from serving. In every decision,
the overall benefit to the property and the LRA must take priority over
the desires and mandates of any particular voting precinct or political
subdivision.
Staff.--Base Realignment and Closure is essentially real estate
development with a healthy helping of politics and diplomacy. Hire an
LRA staff with a strong background in real estate and supplement it
with some congressional staff experience. An LRA staff member fluent in
envirospeak should participate in environmental decision-making and
attend every environmental clean-up team meeting.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK
Fighting the Closure Decision.--Don't waste time, money and
manpower trying to reverse the decision to close facility. Rather spend
your efforts on recovery.
Allowing the Navy to Retain Lease Income.--A newly formed LRA needs
the income from interim leasing to survive. Formulas that siphon lease
money from the LRAs are counterproductive.
The Navy's Standard Lease.--The standard lease itself wasn't
attractive to business and had to be renegotiated to allow some
security for the commercial tenant. The term of the lease was entirely
too short for substantial capital investment, and the Navy's retention
of lease income would have been an impediment to the LRA's assumption
of the operations and maintenance of the Base.
The McKinney Act.--This legislation has been changed, but it should
be eliminated and communities given the right to make decisions about
the presence of homeless or charitable agencies. Although this is a
noble cause, its goals may not be compatible with the highest and best
use of the property.
Resoration Advisory Boards.--The LRA should be the one voice of the
community.
OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
From the beginning, Federal and commercial tenants have been able
to operate and cooperate as neighbors at the naval complex. The
location of the Border Patrol to the naval complex was a clear winner.
The majority of the agency's $28 million annual budget is spent
locally. Since 1996, the Border Patrol has trained more than 8,000
agents at the academy.
One of only 14 in the nation, the passport office on the naval
complex occupies a completely renovated facility where about 160
employees, almost all hired locally, process about 5,000 passport
applications a day. This office alone represents an investment of $9
million and the payroll pumps another $7 million per year into the
local economy. The 65,000 square foot office complex also serves as a
training facility. A 92,000 square foot State Dept. financial services
building is now in the works. It will be the ``hub'' of the
department's financial systems and will employ an additional 250
workers bringing the State Dept. total to over 630 workers.
Other Federal tenants include DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting
Service--426 employees); NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration--125 employees); SPAWAR Systems Center--135 employees;
and the U.S. Coast Guard with 312 staff and crew members.
Our first industrial tenant, Charleston Marine Manufacturing
Company (CMMC) was in place literally within days. This company was
formed out of two well-established Charleston companies, Detyens
Shipyards and Metal Trades, Inc. CMMC officers signed a lease for one
of the yard's largest facilities and, within a week, Detyens had 300
employees working in ship repair in the giant No. 5 drydock. CMMC
President, Dick Gregory states that ``the RDA did things that no one
else had ever done. Companies had to prove viability and the condition
was that the facilities had to be used.'' We all had the same
objective: Put people back to work.
Almost immediately after the recovery of the H. L Hunley submarine
and its successful move to the unique freshwater tank in the Warren
Lasch Conservation Lab at the Naval Complex, the Center became a major
Charleston area tourist attraction. In just 3 months, the Center played
host to some 26,000 visitors--a figure made all the more astounding by
the fact that the visitors were only admitted on weekends. Many of the
world's most renowned conservationists and archeologists attended a
seminar held at the Center in 1999. Today, with a full-time staff of
21, including 11 respected international scientists, work continues to
attract attention from around the world.
Senator Hutchison. Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Bryan.
General Roberson, when the light is green that is 4
minutes, and then when it turns red that is the end and if you
could just summarize after that.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ROBERSON, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GREATER KELLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SAN
ANTONIO, TEXAS
General Roberson. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here, and it is a particularly
great opportunity just to get a chance to see you and talk with
you. Senator Hutchison has been a great advocate for all of our
issues in Texas.
Kelly is a large part of my experience. Just for your
background, it is a large maintenance depot, employed about
19,000 people, closed in the 1995 BRAC. I would tell you that
the Air Force did a great job in managing that closure, moving
all those very critical missions and caring with a lot of
compassion for the 19,000 people that were affected by that
closure.
But I would also tell you that redevelopment is hard work.
For those of you who do not know, in 1995 I was two inches
taller and had a full head of black curly hair. You can see
what has happened to me in that time.
But we have learned some lessons from the Kelly experience.
I was intrigued when Senator Hutchison said that only half the
property has been transferred. In all the BRAC closures, it is
certainly clear to me that transfer of the property as soon as
possible is in the interest of the DOD to get it off its rolls
and in the interest of the community so that redevelopment can
continue.
We did an interesting thing at Kelly. We did a hot
turnover, where even though they took 6 years to close the
base, as they vacated specific premises we went ahead and had
them turn it over. So we actually began redevelopment a year
after the closure and it has been successful so far.
I think one of the reasons for success is the no-cost EDC.
That was very important to us and had a big impact on our long-
term business plan and it had a big impact on trying to
negotiate loans for line of credits and capital projects from
local banks. Not having that burden really helped us in those
negotiations.
Facilities are a major problem for every community and what
we find is that most military installations, the facilities are
not in very good condition. In fact, at Kelly we had 5 million
square feet of facilities that we have got to demolish. They
are just basically not commercially reusable, and that is a big
financial burden. It would be very helpful if there were a
supplement to the BRAC fund to assist with demolition of
facilities that are clearly unusable.
Utilities can be a nightmare, and I think that has been the
case for most communities. They do not meet codes, there is no
utility corridors, major upgrades are needed. Additionally,
some special utilities that we had at Kelly like steam and
compressed air were operated out of a central plant and that
simply does not work when you have got individual tenants,
maybe not all the facilities occupied. We are going to have to
decommission that and set up individual systems in each
facility. MILCON funds to address those kinds of issues would
be very helpful.
The environmental issues are probably the most contentious.
I personally have come to believe that negotiating a turnover
of the cleanup to communities with the funding to go with it
may be the most appropriate action, that it allows them to set
priorities and schedules.
Access to capital is a major problem and it would be very
helpful if DOD could or the Congress could implement a program
like the small business loan program, where federally
guaranteed loans could be available to communities to invest.
I think one of the glaring errors of past BRAC rounds has
been the lack of an inter-service approach to BRAC. I
personally believe that an inter-service approach--that
certainly is true I think in the area of maintenance depots,
which all the services have--could allow significantly greater
savings than we have realized so far.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, I would just like to say that I think there is an
opportunity for partnerships in 2005. Unlike prior BRAC rounds,
most communities and States recognize that DOD does have excess
infrastructure and they recognize that we can be better off by
partnering and cooperating and finding innovative ways to
address those issues rather than going into a defensive crouch
and trying to maintain the status quo.
I would be more than happy to answer questions as we go
forward. I almost made it, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Roberson
Good morning. My name is Paul Roberson--until recently, I was the
Executive Director of the Greater Kelly Development Authority, the
agency redeveloping Kelly AFB (1995 closure/realignment) in San
Antonio, Texas. My BRAC experience includes involvement in the San
Antonio Community's response to both the 93 and 95 BRAC rounds. The
BRAC 95 Commission selected Kelly AFB for closure/realignment. Since
1995, I have led the effort to redevelop Kelly. Additionally, through
my association with the City of San Antonio and while serving on the
Board of Directors of the National Association of Installation
Developers, I have had extensive discussions with community leaders in
other cities that have been faced with trying to mitigate the
significant economic impact of base closure. I have also been active in
assisting the State of Texas develop plans for the upcoming BRAC 2005.
Thus, I have seen the BRAC process from several different perspectives,
pre-BRAC and post-BRAC, public and private, local, State, and national.
Because my direct experience with military base transformation is
largely related to the realignment of Kelly Air Force Base, arguably
the most complex BRAC action ever undertaken by the Department of
Defense or any community, many of my observations will be based on that
experience. However I will also offer more general observations,
particularly as they relate to the State of Texas, before I conclude.
For your background, Kelly was a large aircraft/aeronautical
equipment maintenance Depot, with over 19,000 employees--mostly civil
service, 62 percent of whom were Hispanic. As the largest employer in
South Texas, Kelly had an enormous economic impact on the area. The
conventional wisdom was that ``there's no way they'll ever close
Kelly''. The reality was that the Air Force had excess capacity in its
depot structure and the BRAC Commission closed two of their five
depots.
Since that fateful decision, the redevelopment of Kelly has been
recognized by DOD and the private sector as one of the most successful
military base transitions in the nation. In this regard, I would like
to compliment the Air Force for the outstanding job they did in
planning and executing the closure. The movement of a very complex and
vital industrial mission was handled with minimal impact and with great
care and compassion for the 12,000 people involved. This was not a
trivial task. Perhaps, the factor that made this closure/realignment so
successful was the spirit of cooperation and partnership exhibited by
local leaders and Air Force officials. Within the constraints of law
and mission essential interests, the Air Force made every effort to
work with the Community to find solutions that supported the goals of
redevelopment.
And this leads to my first observation: Communities and the DOD can
be much more successful if they approach the BRAC process, both pre-
and post-BRAC in a spirit of partnership and cooperation. On the
Community's part, local leaders must recognize that DOD does, in fact,
have excess infrastructure and many installations are excessively
expensive to operate. In fact, communities/States can and should
cooperate with DOD in finding solutions to these issues. DOD, on its
part, should approach the 2005 BRAC with the goal of finding ways to
achieve reduction of infrastructure/costs and simultaneously
acknowledging the impact to local communities and the lack of
sufficient resources to repair neglected infrastructure. Kelly is an
example of this partnership after a closure/realignment decision. A
pro-active example of this cooperative spirit prior to a BRAC round is
the Brooks City-Base project in San Antonio. Although Brooks was not
selected by the BRAC commission for closure in 1995, San Antonio's
leadership recognized that Brooks was very costly to operate (Brooks
was on the DOD's 1995 list of bases recommended for closure). Together
with the Air Force, the City developed a concept to transfer ownership
and responsibility for the land and infrastructure to the City. The Air
Force leases back space they need for their missions, but no longer
have to bear the infrastructure costs associated with owning the
property. The City is now able to lease space and develop land and
facilities to their best use. This could well be a model for
partnerships for some installations and communities with similar
circumstances.
At Kelly, we have learned that redeveloping a closed military base
is really hard work--in fact, successfully transitioning an active
military installation to a thriving industrial park may be one of the
hardest jobs any community and its leadership can face. The most
significant issues that made this so hard for Kelly--and my
recommendations for your consideration for the 2005 BRAC--include the
following:
Transfer of Property.--The earliest possible transfer of property
serves the interests of the Community and the Service. At Kelly, the
Air Force decided to take the full 6 years authorized by law to close
the base. This made sense because of the size and complexity of the
industrial aircraft maintenance mission. At the time, the Community
agreed with this decision and rationalized that this would give us more
time to implement the Community's vision for redevelopment.
Fortunately, we did not wait for the base to be formally closed to
begin redevelopment. Rather, we initiated an innovative ``hot
turnover'' process whereby the Air Force transferred by lease,
buildings and land as they vacated premises. Thus, the redevelopment
actually began within a year of the closure decision. This process
worked well, and in effect we were receiving the property as rapidly as
the Air Force could turn it over, even though the base did not formally
close until 2001. As a general rule, turning over the property as soon
as possible allows the community to get on with redevelopment and the
Services to realize earlier infrastructure cost savings. Transfers
should continue to be executed through the Local Redevelopment
Authority as the primary representative of the community, unless there
is an extraordinary, mutually agreeable reason to do it differently. As
I said earlier, the property at Kelly was transferred by lease--in
fact, no deeds will be transferred until environmental remediation
actions are completed. Since some redevelopment ``deals'' go much more
smoothly with deeds, this may delay redevelopment. I will address this
issue in the section on Environmental.
No cost EDC.--I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important the
no-cost EDC was to the successful transition of Kelly. By getting title
to the property at no cost, the community can concentrate its limited
financial resources on preparing the site for redevelopment. No-cost
conveyances generally are completed quickly, getting the cost of
maintaining the base off of DOD's books. Prior to the no-cost EDC, it
was not unusual for negotiations between the Service and the Community
to drag on for years. This created a level of uncertainty that severely
impacted redevelopment activities. The no-cost EDC also was a major
factor in our successful negotiations with local banks for both line of
credit and capital project loans. As a result, I strongly recommend
continuation of the no-cost EDC, perhaps except where the value of the
property is such that it is in the interest of the community, as well
as the Service, to put the property up for sale.
Facilities.--Of the approximate 14 million square feet of buildings
on Kelly, about half are available for redevelopment. The remainder was
either retained by the Air Force/DOD or is in such poor condition they
are not suitable for commercial use and must be demolished. Because the
Air Force did not originally recommend closing Kelly (it was
recommended for downsizing in place), they did not anticipate, nor
program funds to realign certain missions. Consequently, several Air
Force/DOD missions have remained at Kelly in facilities that the
redevelopment agency was required to lease back to the military. This
accounts for approximately 2.4 million square feet. As you might
expect, these are some of the most modern and commercially marketable
facilities. The folks at KellyUSA jokingly state that they are looking
forward to the 2005 BRAC to close the rest of Kelly. The Air Force does
plan to construct new facilities to relocate these organizations to
Lackland AFB (which is adjacent to Kelly). While the primary objective
of this plan is to consolidate all Air Force organizations on Lackland,
the benefit to the community will be that many commercially useable
buildings will be available for redevelopment. In this regard, I
recommend support of funding requests for new construction at Lackland
that are part of the Air Force's fiscal year 2005 BRAC closure plan.
Approximately 5 million square feet of the 14 million square feet
of facilities at KellyUSA are in such condition they have absolutely no
commercial reuse value. We have demolished 1 million square feet of
buildings and an additional 4 million square feet remain to be
demolished. This demolition must be complete to clear the way for
construction of new facilities that meet commercial market place
standards. The cost of this demolition is a significant burden on the
redevelopment budget.
Unfortunately, of the 6.6 million square feet of buildings that are
available for reuse at Kelly, many require significant investment to
make them commercially marketable. As a matter of fact, one of our
large aviation tenants, Boeing, told me that the Air Force could do
work in the facilities, but there was no way the Air Force would allow
them to use the facilities to perform maintenance on Air Force aircraft
In this case, we had to find $30 million in financing to upgrade the
facilities and the ramp before the firm would agree to locate its
repair function at Kelly.
Facilities issues are complex (like most things in BRAC) and
contentious. However, I recommend that at the minimum, the BRAC account
should be supplemented to provide funding for demolition of clearly
unusable buildings and retrofits of useable facilities to meet local
safety and health requirements. Additionally, a ``pre-closure''
assessment by a certified property assessment team needs to be made of
the total demolition requirements, including their cost, and,
concurrently, an estimated cost to make the remaining, marketable
facilities code compliant.
Utilities.--One of the major issues that we faced at Kelly is that
the centralized heating and cooling utilities were designed and
constructed for operation across the entire base. For example, a single
steam plant produced heat for a major portion of the buildings at
Kelly. That concept worked well when the base was fully occupied by the
Air Force. However, after the buildings were conveyed to GKDA, we did
not have tenants in all of the buildings. There was simply no
economically viable method to reduce the ``output'' of the system to
that necessary to accommodate the needs of our tenants. Ultimately, the
centralized systems will be abandoned in favor of new stand-alone
components in individual buildings. MILCON funds should be made
available for redesign and modification of such utility systems to make
them more commercially viable.
Records/Data.--Similar to the facility/demolition issue, a thorough
pre-closure assessment of records, work orders, reports, maps,
databases, warranties, maintenance logs, contracts, hardware and
software products, utility bills, etc. would greatly benefit the
community. In many cases there have been serious information gaps that
create inefficiencies, unnecessary costs, and maintenance/construction
problems. Full disclosure through accurate, field verified data on all
facilities, utilities, contracts, and systems should be provided to the
community upon announcement of closure/realignment.
Personal Property.--Personal Property includes all the machinery,
tools, furniture, fixtures, and other equipment on the base. In the
case of Kelly, this personal property consisted of literally hundreds
of thousands of different items ranging from major engine test cells to
individual hand tools. No community would argue with the fact that the
DOD Components that are being relocated must take with them the
personal property that is required for successful mission
accomplishment. However, under the BRAC law provisions governing use of
personal property, any other military installation can come to the BRAC
base and ``request'' that personal property in excess of the needs of
the relocating unit be transferred to them. The current BRAC statute
should be amended to narrow the current exemptions placed on personal
property to give the community priority for personal property required
for redevelopment second only to the needs of the relocating unit.
Environmental.--In the case of Kelly, the environmental
contamination of the facilities, land and groundwater was the result of
many years of industrial uses that employed many toxic and hazardous
materials such as solvents. Unfortunately, a significant volume of
these contaminants ended up in the ground water below Kelly and has
migrated for miles outside the fence underneath nearly 20,000 homes.
The cleanup of this industrial waste has been the most contentious
issue between citizens in the community and the Air Force. DOD,
Congress and communities must continue to explore alternatives to the
``traditional'' approach toward cleanup. In many cases, it may be more
advantageous to both the Federal Government and the local communities
to transfer funds required for cleanup to the community and allow the
community leadership to deal with its citizens and restore the facility
to whatever level required by the community. Such a transfer would also
allow the Community to set the priorities and schedules for the cleanup
and expedite the transfer of deeds.
Access to Capital.--At Kelly, and at virtually all other BRAC
sites, one of the major challenges, if not the major obstacle, to
redevelopment is the ready availability of capital for investing in the
construction of new buildings/utilities/streets, deferred maintenance
and modernization of existing buildings or demolition of unusable
facilities. I do not know of a single redevelopment authority that has
not struggled with this issue. At Kelly, it is estimated that more than
$300,000,000 in investments will be required to modernize the
infrastructure to commercially equivalent standards. In San Antonio, or
any other community, it simply is not realistic for the redevelopment
authority to look to the local taxpayers to carry the total burden for
an investment of this magnitude. However, there may well be ways that
Congress and the Administration could help in this area. A program
similar to the Small Business Loan program should be developed whereby
a community could obtain low interest financing from commercial lending
institutions, with a Federal guarantee that the loans would be repaid.
Perhaps the Small Business Administration with very little additional
administrative cost could administer this program. The ``risk'' to the
Federal Government would be minimal but the benefits to communities
adversely affected by BRAC would be tremendous.
To summarize the Kelly experience, early transfer of the property;
continuation of the no-cost EDC; access to funding for demolition/
upgrade of key facilities and utilities; community friendly rules on
personal property; transfer of responsibility and funding for
environmental cleanup; and access to low cost, federally guaranteed
loans would significantly enhance the Community's ability to redevelop
a closed/realigned base. I believe these lessons are applicable to any
base selected for closure/realignment.
Let me now transition to more general observations based on my
discussions with communities around the country and especially my
experience within the State of Texas.
Role of States.--The role of State governments has varied around
the country. Some States have played a much more active role than
others. In Texas, the State did not take an active role in prior BRAC
rounds. However, we anticipate the State will be very active in
preparing for the 2005 BRAC, coordinating Communities' efforts and
assisting Communities to work with the Military Departments in seeking
ways to transform their installations into more cost effective
operations. The point I would like to make is that, while the State of
Texas wants to avoid closing bases, the attitude and approach is
focused on partnering with DOD and finding ways to achieve mutual
interests. This mindset is dramatically different than prior rounds
when most States and Communities went into a defensive crouch and did
not consider any alternative other than maintaining the status quo.
Collectively, DOD, the Congress, and the States, need to figure out how
to capitalize on this new attitude.
Interservice Opportunities.--One of the most glaring errors of
prior BRAC rounds was the absence of an Interservice or Cross-Service
approach. Depot level maintenance is a classic example. All the
services perform this function and therefore there are great
opportunities to improve productivity and reduce costs by consolidating
these Depots on an interservice basis. Numerous other functional areas
would benefit from the same approach. I realize that this is hard, but,
if done correctly, an interservice approach to BRAC 2005 may well be
more productive than the actions taken in all of the prior BRACs
combined.
Pre-BRAC Assessments by Services.--In past BRAC rounds, there have
been some serious mistakes. Within Texas the most glaring example was
the closure of Reese AFB--a pilot training base. After Reese's closure
it became painfully obvious that there was a shortage of pilot training
capacity. While I am sure the Service and DOD were acting in good faith
at the time, it is extremely important that the criteria used to
determine which bases to close/realign are able to withstand close and
aggressive scrutiny.
Partnerships.--Let me reiterate one more time the theme that I
emphasized at the beginning. There is a great opportunity for DOD/
States/Communities to partner and cooperate in seeking ways to
transform military installations into more cost effective operations.
In Texas, we are taking this approach. There clearly are going to be
cases where an installation will be closed, but this should not destroy
the partnership, rather, it opens up new opportunities for the
Community and DOD to work together on ways to enhance the
redevelopment.
Models for Pro-Active Initiatives.--Before I complete my comments,
I would like to briefly outline three different models that have been
developed in San Antonio. These models represent approaches to helping
DOD transform their infrastructure.
KellyUSA.--Because of the unique facilities/runway at Kelly, we
focused much of our marketing efforts to attract firms doing aircraft
maintenance. Our successes include major maintenance operations by
Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and several other aerospace firms. In
virtually all cases, these firms are doing depot maintenance under
contract with DOD. Thus, Kelly has emerged as a private business park,
with private business tenants performing depot level maintenance on
military aircraft/equipment under contract with DOD. We understand the
Air Force is very pleased with the significant cost savings over
government depots. This is one model for bases selected for closure/
realignment: privatize the mission (where appropriate) and conduct the
privatized mission in facilities transferred to the community. The
Service divests itself of infrastructure and associated costs; the work
is performed at a reduced cost; and the community gets a ``kick start''
toward redevelopment.
Brooks City-Base.--Brooks has not been ``BRACed'', but San Antonio
recognized that the base was expensive to operate. In partnership with
the Air Force, the property and infrastructure have been transferred to
the City, while the Air Force missions remained as tenants on City
property. The City can now develop property not occupied by the Air
Force for commercial purposes. While the Brooks City-Base is still in
the early stages of development, the prospects are excellent. This
model, or a variation of it, can be applied in a wide variety of
situations.
Fort Sam Houston.--This historic Army Post is using the legislation
authorizing ``Enhanced Use Leasing'' and a partnership with a private
developer to lease vacant facilities on the Post. If successful, this
would be another important model to transform military installations.
Senator Hutchison. You did make it, you did make it. And I
certainly know of your efforts personally and I think you made
the success by not fighting it, as you said, and hitting the
ground running and being very creative.
But the environmental issues, just as Senator Feinstein
said, are still there at Kelly and that is something we must
clear up in the next BRAC round.
Mr. Robert Leonard from Sacramento, California.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. LEONARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AIRPORT SYSTEM
Mr. Leonard. Good morning, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Feinstein, Senator Stevens.
Prior to assuming my current position as assistant director
of the Sacramento County Airport System, I served as executive
director of the Sacramento County Department of Military Base
Conversion for 9 years. In that capacity, I led Sacramento
County's efforts as the local redevelopment authority for
Mather Air Force Base and McClellan Air Force Base.
Sacramento has become one of the most experienced
communities in the country with military base conversion as we
have dealt with three base closures. Mather Air Force Base,
Sacramento Army Depot, and McClellan Air Force Base have each
closed under the then-current BRAC process. Sacramento had a
base in the first round of BRAC, that was Mather in 1988
announced closure, and in the last round of BRAC, 1995, with
McClellan Air Force Base.
We have had first-hand experience and been a direct
participant in the evolution of the BRAC process. Although the
BRAC process and the forms of assistance and resources that
have been provided to base closure communities have
significantly improved over time--and I might add the tools
also made available to the military services working with
communities in base closure--I along with many others believe
there is room for much improvement.
Some of the themes, the three themes that I want to touch
upon, have been already briefly mentioned by Mr. Roberson:
environmental remediation. As you are aware, the majority of
BRAC sites have significant environmental remediation or
cleanup needs that simply must be dealt with. LRAs, or local
redevelopment authorities, must have certainty in site
characterization, a remediation plan, and, most importantly, a
remediation schedule and funding. These factors are most
critical in the development of a realistic reuse plan and the
attraction of private investment to support successful reuse
and economic recovery.
Six years ago the estimated cost to clean up McClellan was
approximately $832 million and was projected to take 30 years.
Today the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is
anticipated to continue far beyond 2033. Approximately $350
million has been spent to this date.
Although this is a long-term program, incremental progress
on schedule is absolutely critical to support successful reuse.
Over the past 2 years, Air Force appropriation requests for
McClellan environmental programs have not been fully supported
by the Department of Defense or Congress and as a result the
cleanup schedule has been adversely affected. The achievement
of critical incremental milestones in the remediation program
has been delayed now 7 to 9 years and we see the impact of that
compounding over time.
Adequate resources must be made available on an ongoing
basis and in turn appropriately administered to maintain the
remediation schedules. The consequences of not doing so again
have a compounding negative impact on the successful reuse of
McClellan, Mather, and any other base reuse location.
In the cases of both McClellan and Mather, there have been
creative solutions to environmental remediation identified and
pursued through the partnering of the county, the Air Force,
and the environmental regulatory agencies which are a key
player in this process also. It is not just the Department of
Defense and the communities. These approaches have saved both
time and money and we must continue to look for them as we deal
with bases that are in the closing process and any future
bases.
Infrastructure and code compliance, the second key theme I
would like to touch upon. As we learned early in the base reuse
process of Mather and was reinforced with McClellan, successful
transition of infrastructure ownership and its operation are
critical to both the closure of the facility by the respective
service and also successful reuse of the LRA. The hot turnover
concept, as was previously mentioned, was also applied at
McClellan. This was a process that saw the infrastructure
transition years before the base closure, which allowed the
services to focus resources, specifically the Air Force, in
getting the base closed and allowed us to bring reuse
activities into the base.
No single element of infrastructure--water, sanitary sewer,
electrical, natural gas systems, for example--can be
overlooked. At essentially every closed military base that I am
aware of, this basic infrastructure, which was never developed
considering local, State codes, requires significant capital
investment. The same also unfortunately applies to building
codes.
The last area I would like to touch upon is the Federal
property transfer process. That process has improved
dramatically over time with the introduction of the economic
development conveyance and then in turn the no-cost EDC. These
tools were applied at both Mather and McClellan.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Although Sacramento County has no fears associated with
future rounds of base closure--we do not have any more bases in
our community--I would urge you to consider the no-cost EDC
methodology for disposing of military property in the future.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Leonard
Good morning, Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and members of
the Committee. My name is Rob Leonard. I am currently Assistant
Director of the Sacramento County Airport System. The Sacramento County
Airport System is comprised of Sacramento International Airport, Mather
Airport, Sacramento Executive Airport, and Franklin Field. Prior to
assuming this position I served as Executive Director of the Sacramento
County Department of Military Base Conversion for 9 years. Sacramento
County is the Local Redevelopment Authority for the former McClellan
Air Force Base and Mather Air Force.
Sacramento has become the most experienced community in the country
with military base closure and conversion as we have dealt with three
base closures. Mather Air Force Base, the Sacramento Army Depot, and
McClellan Air Force Base have each been closed under the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) process. Sacramento had a base in
the first ``round'' of BRAC (1988) and also the last (1995) round of
BRAC. We have had first hand experience and have been a direct
participant in the evolution of BRAC process. Although the BRAC process
and the forms of assistance and resources provided to base closure
communities has significantly improved over time, I along with many
others, believe there was much room for improvement. My comments focus
on three key areas:
Environmental Remediation
As you are well aware, the majority of BRAC sites have significant,
environmental remediation or clean-up needs that simply must be dealt
with. Local Redevelopment Authorities must have certainty in the site
characterization, a remediation plan, and most importantly the
remediation schedule and funding. These factors are most critical in
development of a realistic reuse plan and the attraction of private
investment to support successful reuse and economic recovery.
Six years ago the estimated cost to clean-up McClellan was
approximately $832 million and was projected to take 30 years. Today,
the cost is estimated to be $1.3 billion and is anticipated to continue
far beyond 2033. Approximately $350 million has been spent to this
date. Although this is a long-term program, incremental progress, on
schedule, is critical to support successful reuse. Over the past 2
years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan
environmental program have not been fully supported by the Department
of Defense and Congress; and as a result, the clean-up schedule has
been adversely affected. The achievement of critical milestones in the
McClellan remediation program is now anticipated to be delayed by seven
or more years.
Adequate resources must be made available on an ongoing annual
basis and, in turn, appropriately administered to maintain remediation
schedules. The consequences of not doing so have a compounding negative
impact on successful reuse of both McClellan and Mather, or any other
base reuse location.
In the cases of both McClellan and Mather there have been creative
solutions to environmental remediation identified and pursued through
the partnering of County, the Air Force, and the environmental
regulatory community. These approaches have saved both time and money.
We must continue to look for them and be open to them in the future.
Infrastructure and Code Compliance
As we learned early in the reuse process at Mather and was
reinforced at McClellan, successful transition of infrastructure
ownership and its operation is essential to support both the closure of
a base by the military and also early reuse success of the Local
Redevelopment Authority. The ``Hot Turnover'' of McClellan
infrastructure over 2 years prior to base closure is a model of success
compared to multi-year piecemeal experience at Mather.
No single element of infrastructure--water, sanitary sewer,
electrical and natural gas distribution systems, and telephone for
example, can be overlooked. At essentially every closed military base
that I am aware of the basic infrastructure, which was never developed
considering local or State code requirements or standards, requires
significant capital investment. The same fact unfortunately applies to
all buildings and structures. At McClellan the infrastructure and code
compliance investment identified in the reuse plan is $283 million. The
equivalent requirement at Mather is approximately $140 million.
Sacramento County has benefited from Federal grants, primarily from the
Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, local and
State investment, and also private sector investment but we still have
a long way to go, over $330 million at the two former bases in
Sacramento County. A Federal low-interest loan program, in addition to
existing grant programs, may be appropriate to support both the
improvement and operation of infrastructure in the critical early years
of reuse following base closure.
Property Transfer
The Federal ``process'' for disposal of surplus property at a
closing military facility has substantially improved since the first
round of BRAC. The introduction of the Economic Development Conveyance
(EDC) followed by most recently the no cost EDC have made the Federal
property disposal process much less painful for both the military
service and the LRA. Although Sacramento County has no fears associated
with a future round of base closures, I would urge you to consider the
no cost EDC methodology for disposing of surplus military property in
the future.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Mr. DuBois, we went ahead and started and we will be
through very shortly and call you.
Mr. DuBois. No problem.
Senator Hutchison. I know you had traffic problems.
I would like to just ask all three of you briefly. I think
from what you have said there are a couple of factors that keep
recurring. One is the land transfer and second the
environmental remediation. It has been said, by the Department
of Defense, that one of the problems is that a community will
not reach the decision about what it wants to do with the
property early enough that they can do a swift transfer and the
correct environmental remediation.
All three of you I think said it was not a factor in your
communities. But my question is how can we better help other
communities who are going to face this not run into
disagreements on land use that would cause them the delays that
all of you have said would be devastating to your communities?
General Roberson. Senator Hutchison, the afternoon--you may
recall, in fact, you were at the mission when it made the
decision in 1995. That afternoon, the Mayor of San Antonio at
the time appointed a communitywide group of people to plan a
vision for the redevelopment of Kelly that represented all the
aspects of the community. They worked for several months and
put together a vision for the redevelopment of Kelly and,
amazingly enough, that vision is still, in broad outline, what
we are still working on today, several years later.
So I think the key to it is an early decision by the
leadership of the community to get a broad involvement of the
community and to try to hammer out a vision that everybody can
buy into, and then use that as a blueprint for the future. If
you do not do that, I think you can end up with the kind of
debates and arguments that delay redevelopment over time.
Senator Hutchison. Any other comments?
Mr. Bryan. I think in our case under the hot turnover
scenario as we have all mentioned, early on Governor Carroll
Campbell sort of put together what we call the BEST Committee,
B-E-S-T, Building Economic Solutions----
Senator Feinstein. Pardon me, could you speak directly into
the mike. It's hard to hear.
Mr. Bryan. I am sorry, I am sorry.
As I said, early on Governor Carroll Campbell put together
a committee called the BEST Committee as a group of community
leaders to look at this property and see what possibility it
was best used for, and obviously after a year that plan was put
together and it enabled us to have a hot transfer while they
were still hammering out the cleanup, how that is going to
occur, when it occurs.
At this point I think we have some 350 acres out of 1,500
that have been transferred and this process is still ongoing
under the leasing scenario.
Mr. Leonard. I would concur that I think the most important
point is focused local leadership, and if you look at the
successful case studies around the country where the local
leadership has come together immediately following a closure
announcement and, rather than turf wars erupting in disputes
over who is in charge, bringing the local leadership together
to focus in turn on a reuse plan and transition of the
properties is absolutely critical.
There are case studies in California where you can see both
success and near-failure all because of the focus in
leadership.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
My last question. I do want to get in the record the issue
of the McKinney Act. We have faced it in BRACs, of course, but
we are also facing it in ongoing bases that want to take out
certain parts of a base or take out housing. So I want to ask
each of you what your experience was with the McKinney Act and
if you have any thoughts about eliminating it or if it could be
reworked in any way that would not affect the ability for a
reuse that would make sense so that it is all the same type of
reuse.
So anyone who would like to answer?
General Roberson. Maybe I can start, Senator. While I am
personally sympathetic with the goals of the McKinney Act, at
Kelly it was a great disaster for us. We did make a significant
amount of personal and real property available to legitimate
homeless organizations and it worked out fine, but there was
one group that turned out not to be a legitimate homeless
organization that did not get property and, after going through
the process, ended up taking us to Federal court, and that has
lingered on for 5 years as a matter of fact and cost the
redevelopment agency over a quarter of a million dollars in
legal fees, and finally is almost resolved now in our favor.
But it delayed the use of some property and obviously was a
significant financial burden on the redevelopment agency.
I guess I could get a little emotional about it because of
the impact on us. But I don't see any solution but to eliminate
the McKinney Act.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Leonard? Sorry.
General Roberson. In our case, early on we brought the
providers together to identify any of the local groups that may
be part of the group that could utilize the McKinney Act and we
dealt with this issue one time as we moved ahead. It was agreed
upon, anyone that was not on this list would not qualify 3
years down the road to come back in and try to secure a portion
of our base.
We successfully located some of the homeless providers and
they are there now, but it has been an ongoing scenario of new
folks coming in to say that they are entitled to this property
and then we have to go back to the original scenario that we
have, that we have dealt with at one time early on.
Senator Hutchison. Did you give up buildings or did you
give up land?
Mr. Bryan. Buildings and housing.
Senator Hutchison. So you did not have to give away land,
or did they not move the houses?
Mr. Bryan. No, the houses are still there and they are
occupying the houses. There were so many of the buildings that
they would like to have that they could not afford the
utilities and the upkeep on them. So we had to keep juggling
that around to giving them a supplement they could operate once
they got there. But we did not lose any land.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Leonard.
Mr. Leonard. Yes, two case studies. Mather, we as the LRA
brought all the homeless providers together and identified a
series of competing needs. We developed a program together and
then in turn, through the county Department of Human Services,
implemented that program with the county as lead agency, with
also HUD support to make that program go, and it remains a
success story to this date. So the county took property, real
property, through a homeless assistance conveyance to make that
program go.
McClellan, a different story. We attempted the same
approach. However, we had one provider within our community
which did not cooperate within this process. They laid claim to
some prime property on McClellan, validated their request, and
secured Federal sponsorship, and we have in essence been in a
multi-year experience of negotiating them away from that
property to another site on the base, also providing them in
essence a cash settlement to assist them in developing
additional facilities and running programs on McClellan and
also at another location.
Although, as Mr. Roberson indicated, I too am sympathetic
to the needs, I feel as though this is a real conflict and a
significant complicating factor in the military base reuse
process. So I would urge it be dispensed with.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
I was puzzled by your testimony. You say: ``Over the past 2
years the Air Force appropriation requests for the McClellan
environmental program has not been fully supported by the
Department of Defense and the Congress. As a result, the
cleanup schedule has been adversely affected. The achievement
of critical milestones in the remediation program is now
anticipated to be delayed by 7 or more years.''
This is because of lack of funding?
Mr. Leonard. Yes, yes, because of lack of funding and also
the application of funds that have been appropriated.
Senator, we wanted to express our appreciation for your
efforts over the last year in supporting our needs at
McClellan.
Senator Feinstein. I do not recall ever getting an
additional request, ever having one being brought to my
attention, and I am just asking my staff to go back and check
now, but I do not recall it at this time. So how much money are
you speaking of?
Mr. Leonard. Specifically, there is a request that we are
working on now for $20 million to support a sanitary sewer
replacement and environmental remediation at McClellan. This is
absolutely critical. We stand by with local funds to replace
the sewer system. However, because of radioactive materials
contaminating the sewer there is an additional requirement for
Air Force address of that issue.
Senator Feinstein. Is that the plutonium from the reactor?
Mr. Leonard. No, that is a separate issue. We also had
another site, referred to as CS-10, which has a $38 million
cleanup requirement, and I believe that is being funded over a
multi-year period. That is the plutonium site. The radiological
issues associated with sanitary sewer represent a different
issue for which funding is needed.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am concerned that you are this
far behind. My question is what do you need this next year? You
mentioned the $20 million for the sewer and I gather the
community is putting in a like amount; is that correct?
Mr. Leonard. That is correct.
Mr. Bryan. How much do you need for the plutonium cleanup?
Mr. Leonard. I would have to check to see what the
additional number will be next year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, if you would do that I would
appreciate it. And I wish someone would talk to me directly
about it. I would appreciate that very much as well.
Mr. Leonard. Certainly.
Senator Feinstein. May I ask you, Mr. Bryan, a question
just to clear something up. What is the current relationship
between the redevelopment authority and the State legislature?
My understanding--I am unclear of how that status was resolved
in Charleston.
Mr. Bryan. I guess you are speaking of the recent
legislation that the property would be divided between the City
of North Charleston and the South Carolina State Ports
Authority.
Senator Feinstein. That is correct.
Mr. Bryan. That legislation has been passed that a portion
of the property would go to the City of North Charleston for a
redevelopment project that is part of their old village, which
is about 300 acres, 350 acres, and the rest of the 1,400 some
acres would be the South Carolina Ports Authority to build
their new terminal with some Federal tenants placed in those
areas that they will have to work around.
I have to tell you, I am concerned about the jobs that we
have in there now with that type of scenario. But the
legislation is passed; now it is my job to see that it goes
smoothly towards dividing it.
Senator Feinstein. Would you express your concerns a little
more fully, please?
Mr. Bryan. My concern is that the property on the naval
base and the money spent belongs to the taxpayers of the State
of South Carolina and that a portion of this property that
would go to the City of North Charleston may wind up as a
private development with private developers coming in. And when
the legislation was passed, we did an agreement with the City
of North Charleston on a development plan for that base that
they would pay the redevelopment authority the market value of
the property. When the legislation was passed, the legislation
was passed that they get it free of charge and then they are
able to sell it to their private developers. But the
redevelopment authority has no relationship whatsoever to the
developer. Ours is strictly with the city.
Senator Feinstein. I missed that. The redevelopment agency
has no relationship?
Mr. Bryan. Has no relationship with the developer. Our
relationship is strictly with the city of North Charleston. I
have some concerns about the project, but if it does not go our
relationship is with the city. We would have had to send a
development of this magnitude out on an RFP.
Senator Feinstein. So is what you are saying public land is
being given to a private entity for a profitmaking purpose? Is
that what you are saying?
Mr. Bryan. What I am saying is it is being given to the
City of North Charleston and the city is selling it to a
private developer, yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. At market rate?
Mr. Bryan. I hope so.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bryan. My main concern there was the jobs that are in
place and the long-term effect of a private development
collecting the rents and that sort of thing from these jobs and
the long-term sustainability was my concern.
Senator Feinstein. How many jobs are in place?
Mr. Bryan. 5,400.
Senator Feinstein. 5,400. So they would essentially be
lost?
Mr. Bryan. They have agreed to honor their term of lease.
We do have some 30-year leases in place, but when you are
operating a shipyard there is continual investment and I am not
sure you continue to invest if you think you may be going away
1 day. So I am concerned about that.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you, are the people satisfied
with that?
Mr. Bryan. ``The people'' as?
Senator Feinstein. In Charleston, the community.
Mr. Bryan. I think the City of North Charleston, which the
base is located in, is satisfied that they are getting some
riverfront property and that sort of thing. I think the
taxpayers as a whole for the Charleston region probably do not
quite understand how that could happen.
Senator Feinstein. So you are saying this would most likely
end up being office commercial or housing and the shipyard jobs
would be gone?
Mr. Bryan. I surely hope not. It is a shipyard that has 700
or 800 employees. It is just really doing a great job with
keeping people employed and bringing ships in. As I said, it
has been a very successful conversion and I hope that it
continues to be a shipyard for many years.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Bryan. At some point I feel that the local
redevelopment authority would probably go away faster now in
this scenario that the land is being divided. Once the land is
divided and the land is in the ports authority area and the
land is in the City of North Charleston and they start
collecting the rents and dealing with the issues, then maybe at
some point in that--I have devised a plan that maybe the local
redevelopment authority will go out of existence maybe December
31, 2004, if this plan continues in the way that it is going.
Now, whether the City of North Charleston keeps their own
LRA in place, I do not know. I know there has been some moves
in the future from the city to ask the State legislature to do
away with the redevelopment authority so that they can do their
projects now as they would like, without stumbling blocks. That
is really the way it is.
Senator Feinstein. Right. Thank you. I have to think about
this a little bit because I basically believe local
decisionmaking should determine the use of these bases. It is
an interesting decision for Charleston to make if they are
going to lose all those jobs.
Mr. Bryan. I think there was a real push to get the State
ports authority in an area that they could have their new
expansion. Daniel Island was a potential for years and the
legislature has basically said you are not going there, but let
us look at the Navy base. I think some concessions were made
for the City of North Charleston because they had some
ordinances in place that said there will be no port type
activity in the City of North Charleston. So I think some
concessions were made there, and hopefully in the long term it
will turn out to be good.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bryan. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Hutchison. Thank all of you for coming here from
your home towns to help us, because certainly this is a major
part of any BRAC that we have and your insights have been very
good and we will try to help other communities learn from your
experiences. Thank you.
General Roberson. Thank you.
Mr. Bryan. Thank you very much.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DuBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
Senator Hutchison. Now I would like to ask Mr. Ray DuBois,
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment.
Mr. DuBois. Madam Chairwoman, can you hear me?
Senator Hutchison. Yes, I can.
Mr. DuBois. I want to thank you very much for rearranging
the hearing today. To hear from folks like Paul Roberson and
Jim Bryan and Bob Leonard is for me very informative. It is,
after all, their experiences that have helped to inform the
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 round and the process
by which the Secretary is going to do the analysis.
I would like to begin by saying that, notwithstanding the
fact that I am in one of my other hats, the Director of
Administration and Management, and therefore own the motor pool
at the Pentagon, that still does not get me across the river on
time sometimes. I understand there was an incident on the
Memorial Bridge today that absolutely clogged all the arteries
in.
Senator Hutchison. Oh, that was why?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, yes, ma'am.
Now, today I am going to briefly open with a statement and,
with your forbearance, submit for the record my written
statement. But I thought it was important to just outline BRAC
2005, the process, the overseas basing issues that are on the
Secretary's desk, some reuse issues that in no small measure by
virtue of the inputs from folks like those who were in the
first panel, how we intend to relook at the reuse and disposal
issues.
BRAC environmental cleanup, of concern to this subcommittee
and to you and Senator Feinstein, as well as to us. I did
listen to the exchange on the McKinney Act and I might just
make one quick comment about that, and I understand that
Senator Feinstein made some remarks about the perchlorate issue
that I am prepared to at least answer as I see the process
going on in terms of looking at the reference dosage and risk
assessments there.
Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld appreciates the opportunity
that you have afforded me and in turn myself as his
representative to appear today before this Military
Construction Subcommittee. The issues of base realignment and
closure, both the process and product are clearly--and the
Secretary has testified to this effect--not something that one
wakes up in the morning and wants to do with great appreciation
and alacrity.
Having said that, there is no question that the critical
importance of the rationalization of our entire military
infrastructure for the Department is very, very important to
him. Now, some have implied recently that the Secretary's
attention has been somewhat diverted. I can assure you that it
is not all Iraq all the time. There are issues pertaining to
transformation of the Department that take up the Secretary's
time during the day also.
Now, BRAC--he personally has been involved in this BRAC
kickoff, if you will, and I will address that in a moment. To
reconfigure our current infrastructure, to include both the
war-fighting capability and the efficiency of our business
operations, is tantamount to success. Our expectation is by
removing excess infrastructure, excess capacity if you will, we
hope to save at least several billions of dollars per year.
Now, if we were able to do that we could then focus those funds
on facilities we actually need and turn wastes into war-
fighting, as well as quality of life improvements for the men
and women who serve and voluntarily serve in our military.
The Department will conduct this rationalization with an
eye toward ensuring that we assess the capacity across
installations maintained by the Military Services for the best
joint use possible. This is in many ways a different approach
than has been the case in the four prior rounds--best joint use
possible.
Now, we have examined carefully the experiences gained
through the management of the previous BRAC rounds and, looking
ahead to the next one, we have attempted to make a number of
process improvements to enhance our ability to arrive at the
right-sizing of our infrastructure, which will in turn
complement and support the business transformation activities
of the Department.
Now, the Secretary released a memorandum, which I believe
you have, in November of last year that, quote unquote, kicked
off the Department's BRAC process. It created an analytical
framework and a review and oversight process that we believe
improves and strengthens those of previous BRAC rounds and
which in point of fact takes into consideration several
suggestions some Senators and Members of the House in our
discussions over the past 2 years.
Now, for example, early on in the process the Secretary
will review and approve those functions within the Department
that will receive what we call joint cross-Service analysis as
well as establish the measurements of success, the metrics for
that analysis. Now, while the Services, the individual military
departments and Services, will evaluate their unique functions,
their unique military operational functions, those functions
which are determined to be common to more than one service,
business-oriented, and in point of fact functions that exist in
more than one service or reside in the private sector, they are
going to be evaluated from the get-go in a joint cross-Service
way. This is different from the prior rounds.
We recently established six broad areas to examine
functions for joint analysis. Now, you can imagine we could
have used various terms, and I will answer questions as best I
can on what these terms mean. But I think they are fairly self-
explanatory.
The first category is what we call industrial activities,
those activities that are again common to the Services across
the board and also activities which the private sector
performs, number one.
Number two, supply and storage, warehousing and so forth.
Number three, technical and laboratory.
Number four, education and training facilities.
Number five, medical facilities.
And number six, a sort of catch-all category that we call
administrative facilities. But in particular I should note that
this last category, the administrative category, will address
the national capital region, a region that, as we all know, has
in excess of 100,000 military and civilian personnel in the
employ of the Department of Defense, and every single military
service as well as the Secretary of Defense owns or controls
real estate in the national capital region and we believe that
only through a joint cross-Service approach could we
appropriately assess and rationalize that particular area.
Now, overseas: In this subcommittee at my last appearance,
we addressed some of the issues. But there is no question that
our installations transformation is not limited to the United
States and its territories. We are also assessing our
facilities overseas to determine the proper size and mix. As
you well know, since 1990, the Department has returned or
reduced operations at about 1,000 overseas sites, resulting in
a 60 percent reduction in our overseas infrastructure and in
particular a 66 percent reduction in Europe.
We continue to review the overseas basing requirements with
the assistance of the combatant commanders and we are currently
examining opportunities for both joint use of facilities and
land by the four Services together, consolidation of the
infrastructure, enhanced training areas--again a joint service
assessment.
Now, the Secretary, as you know, directed a comprehensive
review of our overseas presence in response to the interest and
the direction of some of the members of this subcommittee as
well as others in Congress. It also reflected his vision, which
was addressed in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of
September 2001, to look at and comprehensively review that
infrastructure that was in support of our war-fighting plans
overseas.
Now, it has been asked, why hasn't the Secretary responded
to the requirement to submit to Congress a more complete report
in this regard. We received from the combatant commanders their
preliminary inputs last year. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, General Myers, requested that the Secretary delay his
report to Congress in order to review those reports, those
inputs, as well as the fact that we were about to appoint and
announce two new combatant commanders, one in Korea, General
Leon LaPorte, and the SACEUR or the European Commander, General
Jim Jones, and the Secretary believed that it was important to
get their initial views as well.
I can assure the committee, the subcommittee, however, that
the Secretary has in place a process which will address these
overseas basing requirements, to include reprogramming for
fiscal year 2003, as well as, where and when necessary,
presenting a budget amendment to this committee in the Senate
and your counterpart in the House, a possible budget amendment
for fiscal year 2004, prior to your markup.
With respect to reuse, you heard from the three witnesses
in the prior panel that local communities, when faced with a
closure, must address and grapple with a number of reuse and
redevelopment issues. The closure of a military base can be a
significant redevelopment challenge. After four rounds of BRAC,
there have been numerous success stories and, admittedly, there
have been some stories less than successful.
Reusing a military base is frequently the largest and most
complex economic redevelopment effort ever undertaken in that
particular community. Local reuse authorities work to harness
public and private sector resources to drive economic recovery
and growth.
Now, as of October 2002, the end of the last fiscal year, I
asked for a review of how many civilian jobs were created on
former military bases. It is in excess of 85,000, an 8 percent
increase from the previous year.
The timely transfer of property will always be a priority
for the Department and I recognize the importance of quick
access to the property in order to, yes, save DOD caretaker
costs, but also to leverage private development financing,
create new jobs, and generate new tax revenues.
Each military department has an extensive and varied
experience with BRAC reuse and disposal and I am sure you will
address that to the witnesses who follow me. Now, in order to
share those experiences and expertise and to ensure that the
Department of Defense is conducting reuse and disposal in the
most efficient and effective way possible, I have formed a
working group called the Reuse and Disposal Group, chaired by
my principal deputy, Mr. Philip Grone, former Deputy Staff
Director of the House Armed Services Committee, to work with
the Services and military departments and Members of Congress
and interested parties in the local communities to improve how
we go about BRAC reuse and disposal.
I look forward to reviewing with the Congress, perhaps
early next year, some of the ideas that we are coming up with.
Now, in conclusion, we have tried to do much within the
BRAC authority provided by the Congress. By consolidating and
realigning and reducing unneeded infrastructure, the Department
can indeed focus investments on maintaining and recapitalizing
what we actually require, resulting in ready facilities for the
war-fighters while more prudently using the taxpayers' money.
Change is rarely easy. Changes that we are asking of the
military departments and our communities are daunting. But we
look forward to working with you on this challenge.
Now, I did mention that I would quickly talk, if you would
permit me, Madam Chairman, about BRAC cleanup, an issue that
continues to, yes, in some ways vex myself and my three
Assistant Service Secretary colleagues. But it is important to
note that, with the help of the Congress, we have already spent
in excess of $7.5 billion on BRAC environmental requirements,
the majority of which of course has been devoted to BRAC
cleanup.
Now, it is true that there is still a cost to complete, not
an insignificant one, one that is approximated in excess of $4
billion to suffice the final cleanup requirements. But as I
have testified before, oftentimes environmental impediments
frustrate the community involved as well as the Department of
Defense, and these environmental impediments are not
necessarily driven by a statute, be it State or Federal.
Oftentimes it is driven by conflicts between State and Federal
regulators on the site and between local special interests who
have varying degrees of desires with respect to cleanup
remedies and land use controls most particularly.
Now, we plan to reinvigorate, and it is in this year's
defense authorization legislative proposal in front of you, in
front of the authorizing committees, we plan to reinvigorate
the President's Economic Adjustment Committee, which is an
organization comprised of all 23 Federal agencies and
departments, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to
use together our respective and collective influence, power,
and funding to attempt reconciliation at the local level and
appropriate funding for environmental cleanup and land use
planning.
Lastly, the McKinney Act. The Department of Defense wants
to go on record, I want to go on record, that we support the
goals of the McKinney Act, but, like most other public policy
statutes, sometimes they are difficult to administer, again
because of local special interest conflicts, especially for us
the quarterly requirements, the repetitive screening
requirements.
We believe that the McKinney Act as it applies to BRAC
would be much more workable if it was a one-time screening
requirement and once it has been concluded that the property is
not suitable or there is no interest, the property should be
free from further requirements. This constant rolling screening
I think is an impediment to ultimate reuse.
Now, the McKinney Act was originally designed as a property
transfer mechanism. Many homeless assistance providers,
however, expressed that they would rather have money than the
property because they find that they cannot necessarily make
use of the property that might be available to them in a BRAC
situation. Now, of course the Defense Department is not
authorized nor has Congress appropriated funding to us to
satisfy what may very well be important and legitimate concerns
on the part of the homeless organizations in that particular
community, and therefore we get caught in this local conflict
between jurisdictions and between interests.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I think I will stop there. I do appreciate your forbearance
in letting me address some of those issues that I understand
came up in your opening statements. I do know that Senator
Feinstein has some perchlorate concerns and rightly so, but I
will wait until I get asked the question if that is all right
with you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raymond F. Dubois
Chairwoman Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I welcome the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the base realignment and closure
(BRAC) process and the critical importance of the rationalization of
military infrastructure to the Department of Defense. Rationalizing our
infrastructure is an integral part of our effort to transform the
Department. New force structures must be accompanied by a new base
structure. Today I will discuss this Administration's approach to the
new BRAC round and our progress in implementing the prior rounds.
TRANSFORMING BASES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Since 1988, the Department of Defense has closed 97 major
installations and realigned missions at an additional 55 others.
Combined with the over 230 minor BRAC actions undertaken during the
four previous rounds of BRAC, the Department of Defense has
rationalized much of its infrastructure. Since the last round in 1995,
three successive Secretaries have argued for the need to further
rationalize defense infrastructure. In the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002, Congress was persuaded by the
case laid out by Secretary Rumsfeld and authorized an additional BRAC
round for 2005. We are grateful to the Congress for authorizing this
process. BRAC 2005 will reconfigure our current infrastructure to
improve both war fighting capability and efficiency. Our expectation is
that by removing additional excess capacity we hope to save several
billion dollars annually. We can then focus the funds on facilities we
actually need and turn waste into warfighting as well as [and] quality-
of-life improvements for the men and women who volunteer in service to
the Nation.
Prior BRAC actions have resulted in net savings to the Department
of Defense and its Components of approximately $17 billion, with annual
recurring savings of approximately $7 billion. These savings have been
thoroughly validated by the General Accounting Office. However,
savings, while critically important, are not the only benefit--in fact,
they are not even the primary benefit. The authority to realign and
close bases we no longer need will be a critical element of ensuring
the right mix of bases and forces within our warfighting strategy as we
transform the Department to meet the security challenges of the 21st
century.
Transformation requires rationalizing our base structure to better
match the force structure for the new ways of doing business. And the
Department will conduct this rationalization with an eye toward
ensuring we assess capacity across the installations maintained by the
military services for the best joint use possible, if that is
appropriate for the mission under review.
We have examined carefully the experiences gained through the
management of previous base realignment and closure rounds. Looking
ahead, to the next round in 2005, we have attempted to make a number of
process improvements to enhance our ability to arrive at a rightsizing
of our infrastructure which will complement and support the force and
business transformation activities of the Department.
CONDUCTING BRAC 2005
The Department's BRAC 2005 round will be based upon the general
template used in the three previous BRAC rounds. While I recognize that
there was some criticism regarding the implementation of the previous
Commission's recommendations, overall, the process worked well. In
fact, the review by the General Accounting Office of the Department's
1995 BRAC process concluded that the process was generally sound and
well documented and should result in substantial savings. The
Comptroller General concluded that as Congress considered the need for
future defense infrastructure reductions that it avail itself of a
process similar to that authorized in 1990 that govern the succeeding
three rounds of base realignment and closure. As a caution, however,
the General Accounting Office also recommended that the Department
needed to strengthen its leadership within the process, should there be
a future BRAC round, to maximize the opportunity for rationalization,
particularly in areas that could be considered joint or common business
and functional areas.
Both the Congress and the Department have responded affirmatively
to those recommendations. The Congress authorized a BRAC round for May
of 2005 based upon the successful construct of the previous three
rounds with the Secretary providing recommendations to an independent
commission which then holds public hearings and issues its
recommendations to the President who then forwards them to the Congress
for approval on an ``all or none'' basis. Similarly, the Secretary of
Defense, in his memorandum of November 15, 2002, that ``kicked off''
the Department's BRAC process created a review and oversight process
that is substantially strengthened from those in previous rounds.
The Secretary established an Infrastructure Executive Council,
chaired by the Deputy Secretary, and composed of the Secretaries of the
Military Departments and their Chiefs of Services, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics) as the policymaking and oversight body for
the entire BRAC 2005 process. The Secretary also established a
subordinate Infrastructure Steering Group chaired by the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and
composed of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Military Department Assistant Secretaries for installations and
environment, the Service Vice Chiefs, and myself.
This structure will permit the Secretary of Defense will approve
key elements of the process has, in fact, established a strengthened
joint process for BRAC 2005 that will advance transformation,
jointness, combat effectiveness, and the efficient use of taxpayer's
money by effectively capitalizing on the military value of our
installations. For example, early on in the process, the Secretary will
review and approve those functions within the Department that will
receive joint cross-service analysis and the metrics for that analysis.
While the Services will evaluate their unique functions, those
functions determined to be common business-oriented (i.e., the
functions exist in more than one service or reside in the private
sector) will be evaluated jointly for cross-servicing.
Along those lines, we have recently established six broad areas to
examine functions for joint analysis. Those broad areas are: Supply and
Storage, Industrial, Technical, Education and Training, Medical and
Administration. We are now in the process of designing the
organizational approach for a comprehensive analysis of these functions
for the Secretary's approval. In the previous round, the Department
constrained its joint cross-service analysis by limiting the authority
of the groups conducting the analysis and assigning them a much more
limited functional basis. Through the lessons learned from previous
rounds and the design of a process to mitigate the constraints imposed
in previous rounds, I am confident that BRAC 2005 will achieve its
potential to materially improve the manner in which military
infrastructure and supports our war fighting capability.
OVERSEAS
Our installations transformation is not limited to the United
States. We also are assessing our facilities overseas to determine the
proper size and mix. Since 1990, the Department of Defense has returned
or reduced operations at about 1,000 overseas sites, resulting in a 60
percent reduction in our overseas infrastructure and a 66 percent
reduction in Europe, in particular, and we continue to review overseas
basing requirements of the Combatant Commanders and examine
opportunities for joint use of facilities and land by the Services,
consolidation of infrastructure, and enhanced training. We have
undertaken a comprehensive review of our overseas presence, in response
to both the interest and direction of the Congress and the Secretary's
initiative. While this comprehensive review has not been completed, I
can assure the Subcommittee that we are working very hard on it and
will report to the Congress as it is completed.
BASE REUSE AND COMMUNITY PROFILE
For local communities faced with a closure, of course, BRAC raises
a number of reuse and redevelopment issues. As the Members of this
Subcommittee know well, the closure of a military base can be a
significant redevelopment challenge. After four rounds of BRAC,
numerous success stories abound and, admittedly, some challenges
remain.
The closure of a military installation creates a hurdle and an
opportunity for local communities to reuse large parcels of land and
existing buildings in ways not previously envisioned. A closed
installation can be the affected community's greatest asset for
mitigating the impacts of the closure and charting a future that
diversifies the local economy and attempts to build on a community's
strengths.
Reusing a military base is frequently the largest and most complex
economic redevelopment effort ever undertaken in a community. Local
reuse authorities work to harness public and private sector resources
to drive economic recovery and growth. Reuse also creates an
opportunity to achieve multiple community goals, including the
diversification of the local economy through new job creation;
expansion of the tax-base; and satisfying a range of community needs
for new public facilities. Through the four previous rounds of BRAC,
the Military Departments transferred about 250,000 acres of land with
buildings and other improvements for reuse as non-Defense activities.
As of October 2002, over 85,000 new civilian jobs have been created on
former military bases--an 8 percent increase from the previous year.
The Defense Economic Adjustment Program seeks to assist Defense-
impacted communities, workers, and businesses. Over the past four
rounds of BRAC, the Department's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
has provided over $270 million in economic adjustment planning
assistance for the preparation of adjustment strategies, reuse plans,
and initial organizational staffing. In addition, $218 million has been
provided by the Department of Labor for worker adjustment assistance;
$405 million in aviation master planning and implementation assistance
from the Federal Aviation Administration; and, $568 million from the
Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration for
building construction, demolition, and other implementation activities.
Interagency coordination with the Departments of Health and Human
Services, Education, Justice, the Interior, and Transportation, has
also facilitated the transfer and effective reuse of more than 154,000
acres.
The Department recognizes the uniqueness of each community and has
provided a combination of technical and financial resources to support
the needs of the impacted community. These include:
--Organization.--A community's single point of contact for all
matters relating to the closure that is representative of the
impacted community and deliberates to reach a consensus on base
reuse and other local adjustment issues.
--Plan.--Community prescription for economic recovery in response to
the closure, including specific details on reuse of the former
military facility. The effort optimally takes into account the
Military Department's environmental baseline information along
with the community's economic strengths and opportunities. Job
creation and tax base expansion are common goals, although
public activity and non-revenue-generating activity
(institutional use, parks and recreational areas, hospitals,
schools, etc.) are included as well.
--Implementation.--community will seek to achieve a sustained mix of
public/private civilian activity on the former base consistent
with its redevelopment plan, yielding enough revenue to cover
the community's costs of reuse and the necessary private return
on investment. For some, this may take a considerable amount of
time.
Federal property disposal laws and special enhancements authorized
for BRAC locations provide a variety of acquisition mechanisms to
satisfy a diverse number of base reuse scenarios. Traditional public
benefit transfers have been available for public entities and certain
eligible non-profit organizations. These include use for aviation,
ports, prisons, education, health and historic monument purposes. BRAC
laws added the economic development conveyance (EDC) for job producing
activities like business and industrial uses. Initially this provision
was for transactions at or less than fair market value. Later Congress
made these transfers available at no cost. The fiscal year 2002
National Defense Authorization Act modified the EDC provision to make
the no-cost EDC a permissive action. There was also Congressional
direction that the Secretary seek fair market value consideration for
EDC transfers in BRAC 2005.
Despite this change to the EDC authority, a rich array of property
disposal and acquisition authorities and strategies remain. A recent
example of a mixed disposal is the former MCAS Tustin where the 1,585
acres were transferred under public benefit authorities for homeless
and park uses, under an EDC for primarily business development, and
much of the former military housing was sold at a public bid sale. In
addition the historic blimp hangar will be transferred to the City of
Tustin under an historic PBC. Numerous closed bases have been
transferred under multiple property disposal authorities that suit the
intended community uses.
From 1988 through 1995, approximately 387 closure or realignment
actions were approved and the Department has completed each action
within its respective statutory deadline. In implementing these
actions, the Department has sought to close the facilities quickly to
maximize savings and make property available for community reuse
objectives, including job creation. As of December 2002, the Military
Departments have disposed of 271,769 acres (53 percent) of the 510,747
acres that are being made available for disposal and local reuse. Of
the remaining inventory, roughly 189,559 acres are projected to be
transferred by the end of fiscal year 2004. Incidentally, approximately
82 percent of the remaining acreage lies in 6 installations where
environmental remediation must be completed. I am working closely with
each of the Military Departments as they seek to transfer this property
and remedy any impediments to disposal. The transfer of this property
is a priority for the Department and I recognize the importance of
quick access to the property in order to save DOD caretaker costs,
leverage private redevelopment financing, create new jobs, and generate
new tax revenues.
However, impediments exist that delay property disposal. Many are
environmental-related and have been encountered to varying degrees at
every location. They range from conflict between Federal and State
regulations or regulators; lack of policy on specific contaminants such
as unexploded ordnance to fragmented relationships among the clean-up,
disposal, and reuse interests.
There are also some that are inherently community-based (such as
delays in reuse planning and lack of capital for infrastructure
improvements). Others stem from the individual Military Department
efforts at property disposal, including inconsistent interpretation of
BRAC laws, regulations and policy and inefficiency in program execution
and administration.
Still other impediments arise when multiple interests are involved
in negotiations such as the Military Departments, local and/or State
regulators, local authorities and private developer/third party
interests over such items as local protection and maintenance,
development interests, cleanup levels, and land use controls. Lastly,
where impediments have been encountered, the Department has fostered a
partnership with the affected community to address the issues and
facilitate rapid reuse of the former installation.
Each Military Department has extensive and varied experience with
BRAC reuse and disposal. In order to share those experiences and
expertise, and to ensure that the Department of Defense is conducting
reuse and disposal in the most efficient and effective way possible for
all concerned, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is forming a
working group to examine potential improvements to the BRAC reuse and
disposal process.
BRAC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Very early on, the Department decided that expeditious cleanup of
BRAC property was a priority, and ambitiously established a goal to
have remediation response complete or remedies in place by the end of
fiscal year 2005. To guide our BRAC environmental remediation efforts
consistently, we use three over-arching principles:
--Protect human health and the environment.
--Make property available for reuse and transfer as soon as possible.
--Provide for effective community involvement.
The technical challenge of remediation is finding the
contamination; determining what is protective of human health and the
environment; determining a remedy that is safe, cost-effective, and
acceptable to the regulators and the community; and then implementing
the remedy. Simple to describe, but at times very difficult to do. Not
only is there a maze of Federal and State laws and regulations to
navigate, as well as regulatory and community stakeholders to consult,
but sequencing and completing the cleanup must take reuse needs,
priorities, and timelines into account.
The Department has made very good progress in remediation of
traditional hazardous substances. At the end of fiscal year 2002, 79
percent of all 4,900 hazardous substance cleanup sites had remedies in
place or response complete, and we project having 92 percent of our
cleanup sites at the remedy-in-place or response complete milestones by
end of fiscal year 2005. With continued support from Congress and
regulators, we are confident that this can happen. A few sites, due to
complex challenges or other obligations (e.g., Chemical
Demilitarization treaty obligations) will extend beyond fiscal year
2005.
Our BRAC military munitions response program (MMRP) will take
longer to complete, but we are making progress. At the end of fiscal
year 2002, 32 of our 74 BRAC MMRP sites are at the remedy-in-place or
response complete milestone, and we expect that number to grow to 45 by
the end of fiscal year 2005.
The Department continues its efforts to move BRAC properties to
communities faster while still maintaining our commitment to provide
appropriate environmental restoration. One initiative is early
transfer, in which the Components may transfer property by deed while
environmental restoration activities are on-going. This type of
transfer allows better integration of cleanup and redevelopment
activities. DOD has completed 15 such transfers using the early
transfer authority Congress provided in 1996.
As an example, the former Naval Shipyard Mare Island represents one
of DOD's largest early transfers. Early transfer resulted in disposal
of BRAC property years earlier than would have otherwise been possible.
In the case of Mare Island, the City of Vallejo entered into an
agreement with the Navy to continue remediation. The property was
transferred and redevelopment started much sooner than if the City of
Vallejo had to wait for the Navy to complete the cleanup. The 668 acre
Eastern Early Transfer Parcel transferred 4 years ahead of schedule on
March 26, 2002, and the 2,814 acre Western Early Transfer Parcel
transferred 10 years ahead of the previous schedule on September 20,
2002 In another example of early transfer, the Army and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection entered into an agreement
transferring 192 acres to the Bayonne Local Reuse Authority in December
2002. The agreement will allow the reuse authority to perform
environmental remediation activities in conjunction with the
redevelopment process.
As a further example, innovative contracting approaches are proving
effective in leveraging the strengths and capabilities of the private
sector to improve our remediation efforts. For example, guaranteed
fixed price remediation'' (GFPR), focuses on the outcome--DOD contracts
for the final remedy at fixed cost and time. During fiscal year 2002,
the GFPR contract awarded for activities at Fort Pickett, Virginia, was
at 15 percent less than the government estimate. The Navy also realized
similar cost avoidance at Charleston Naval Complex by using this
performance based contracting approach. Cost savings, of course, may
vary from site to site, but, local communities also gain from the time
saved in the initiation and length of remediation activities or by
having increased certainty by securing a final remedy in place by a
fixed date.
CONCLUSION
The Department has done much within the BRAC authority provided by
the Congress. By consolidating, realigning and reducing unneeded
infrastructure, the Department can focus investments on maintaining and
recapitalizing what we actually require, resulting in ready facilities
for the war fighters while more prudently using taxpayer's money.
Change is rarely easy and the changes we are asking of the Military
Departments and our communities are daunting. We look forward to
working with you on this challenge.
In closing, I sincerely thank you for this opportunity. We
appreciate your strong support of our military construction program and
we look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee as we
reshape our global infrastructure.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, Mr. DuBois.
I am going to try to introduce something, and perhaps I can
work with Senator Feinstein or others, to keep the McKinney Act
from doing some of the things that all three of our previous
witnesses mentioned as real problems. Not only was it never
intended that money should be coming out of the BRAC or the
Department of Defense as a substitute, but a quarter of a
million dollars in legal fees ongoing really hurts a
community's capabilities to move forward. So I hope we can make
some changes there.
Let me start with the issue that we have talked about many
times, and that is the overseas bases. How, in the changing
environment that we have now, with perhaps changing geographic
priorities and training constraints in certain areas, how can
you determine what you would be able to reasonably close in a
2005 BRAC process when things are changing so much with our
overseas commitments?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. As I indicated, the Secretary of
Defense in the combatant commanders conference of now several
weeks ago discussed this with the Joint Chiefs and all the
combatant commanders, both the geographic combatant commanders
and the non-geographic--STRATCOM, TRANSCOM, et cetera. They
came to a conclusion, not surprising, that the overseas basing
infrastructure was in point of fact a legacy of the Cold War.
It needs to be rationalized, it needs to be reconfigured.
The Secretary discussed with them how fast that the
regional combatant commanders, the geographical commanders, in
concert with the Joint Chiefs and the specified commands, could
report to him on a long-term vision that would in point of fact
inform the domestic BRAC process over the next 2 years. I want
to just set that aside for a quick moment.
The most immediate requirement, however, is, are there any
programmed military construction projects in EUCOM or PACOM
authorized and appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 budget,
this fiscal year, which in the view of the combatant commanders
and the Joint Chiefs could be reprogrammed or changed. By
virtue of the fact that some bases--and I will speak
specifically to Korea--have been determined now by General
LaPorte--and the Army this morning reported to me that they
will be able to get back to me by early next week at the latest
with their views of General LaPorte's recommendations. Are
there bases that are enduring and are there bases that are not?
General LaPorte has identified those that he believes are
enduring and those that he believes are not. Now, this issue
obviously has a number of implications for host Nation support.
Korea does invest a considerable amount of money in supporting
U.S. forces in South Korea and therefore that discussion has
yet to take place.
Suffice it to say that we will ask Congress to reprogram
some money in terms of Korea as well as Europe from 2003
projects currently authorized and appropriated to other areas.
I will give you a hypothetical that in fact is grounded in
reality, although I hope you will appreciate the fact that I do
not want to state specifically at this moment Camp A or Camp Y.
But if the Second Infantry Division, for instance, in Korea was
scheduled to get a barracks at a particular location in Korea,
but General LaPorte thought it would be best to build those
very same barracks at another location because the other
location in point of fact is of an enduring quality, we will
ask for your permission to do that--same barracks, same fitness
center, same military construction projects, same amount of
money, but it will be done at a different location.
In 2004 we have asked General LaPorte to do the same thing.
Remember that these projects, especially the 2003 projects,
were originally planned for two and a half years ago. As you
pointed out, Madam Chairman, life has changed. The Secretary of
Defense has said we can no longer continue to support an
infrastructure, given the 21st century requirements that the
President has articulated and the Secretary of Defense is going
to implement.
How quickly the 2003-2004 recommendations will be presented
to Congress. As I indicated in my opening statement, I want to
do that before you go into markup. That is the only way that
this will work.
Senator Hutchison. I agree and appreciate it, because the
timing was not going to fit. So I appreciate your really
focusing on that and coming forward for the 2003-2004 request.
I would like to extend that, though, the relationship to the
2005 BRAC, and how can you go into a 2005 BRAC with the
uncertainties that you have now and will have over the next
year, and what kind of troop strength you might have there or
bring home because of training constraints or change. You may
take something out of Germany, for instance, and just bring it
home rather than sending it to the Czech Republic.
So how are you fitting in your foreign requirements with
the base closure that is going to be ongoing? The last thing
you want to do is close a base and then try, heaven forbid, to
reopen it. You do not want to do that. So how are you going to
assure that in 2005 when we are making the final round probably
of base closures that you have totally in hand the information
you need about foreign troop strength?
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. The Secretary in fact within the
last week has discussed with the Chairman how to answer your
very question. Let me just say in a phrase, the domestic BRAC,
those recommendations that will be finalized in the spring of
2005, could not be done intelligently unless there is a
rationalization of the overseas infrastructure. To that end,
the Secretary and the Chairman have discussed, as I indicated,
an integrated global presence and basing strategy approach.
How quickly--and he has also discussed it, they have
discussed it, with the combatant commanders and the Joint
Chiefs. How quickly they could pull together a reasonable
vision of what ought to be--and ``what ought to be'' means 10-
plus years out--remains to be seen. However, having been privy
to some of these conversations, the Secretary believes that
these kinds of initial reports and assessments from the
combatant commanders back to my office, the Joint Chiefs,
Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the chairman's office
by this summer will help us create a structure and a framework
that will have some definition, and I mean that sincerely--not
just some amorphous, well, we think we are going to have an end
strength of this amount over here, but some definition by the
end of the summer.
It is true that we have started the BRAC, domestic BRAC
process. However, we also know, as you have said and as I have
tried to indicate, the Secretary wants to inform that process
with an overseas vision as we get into it in more detail this
coming summer, so that when those final decisions are made some
time between the January and May time frame, or January and
March time frame of 2005, they will be fully informed by a
vision and a strategy for presence and basing overseas.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Let me ask my Ranking Member to see if she has any
questions, and then I have another round.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
I do have four questions. I will be brief on all except the
first, which is perchlorate. The Defense Department has said
that it is not willing to start cleanup of perchlorate until
there is a national standard, and this could take 3 to 5 years
or longer. So millions of Americans are drinking contaminated
water today.
Companies like Kerr McGee and Goodrich, and I want to
compliment them, have already spent millions on priority
actions to reduce the threat, and I would like to urge the
Defense Department to do so as well. One obvious priority
effort is to try to stem the flow of perchlorate into the
Colorado River from the former DoD facility at Henderson,
Nevada, which was owned by the United States Navy from 1951 to
1962. The perchlorate from this facility has spread to the
water supplies of millions in Arizona, in Nevada, in California
via the Colorado River.
Kerr McGee, which operated the facility after the Defense
Department, has built a state-of-the art ion exchange facility
and taken other measures in an attempt to address the problem.
They have been very forthcoming. The Defense Department has
done nothing.
I have a serious question for you which may take weeks to
research, but I would like to ask for a thorough answer. That
question is, given the necessary funding, what are the top
priority sites around the country for the Defense Department to
reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water and what
initial measures would the Department take?
Mr. DuBois. Excuse me, Senator. I am just making sure that
I have got the notes here.
This is a very complex question. It is both science and
science policy, and I want the Congress to understand that the
Office of Management and Budget, the Council for Environmental
Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Department of Defense, NASA, and the Department of Energy,
along with the Office of Science and Technology Advisor to the
President, have all been meeting on a, I say regular basis, two
or three times a week for the past month, on this issue.
It has not gone unnoticed by those of us in the Executive
Branch that there are clearly issues, some of which are
mischaracterized, some of which are miscommunicated, but issues
that nonetheless must be addressed.
The Department is in my estimation not backing away from
their responsibilities to clean up perchlorate. We remain
committed to our obligations to meet the cleanup standards, and
I underline the word ``standards,'' established through the
environmental restoration process. Now, there is at present
no--I repeat, no--Federal regulatory standard for perchlorates.
EPA, as I indicated, working with the agencies that I just
listed as well as with the States and the tribes and water
suppliers and the public, is evaluating perchlorate as an
environmental contaminant.
You indicated in your statement that perchlorate has
contaminated drinking water. Now, the question is, as I
understand it, Senator Feinstein, what is the appropriate
reference dose for perchlorate in drinking water that may
create a risk or not? Given the fact that the science is in
question both from the point of view of the folks who assembled
the data and evaluated the data, because there is enough
question as to what is the appropriate draft reference dose, in
order to eventually establish a standard EPA and the executive
branch are going to refer this issue to a panel of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS).
It is not, from what I have been told, a 3 to 5-year
proposition. We understand that the NAS is going to address
this issue. How long it will take for them to address the
issue, the scientific aspects of the issue, is not--I am not
aware of. I understand, however, that it will be less than 1
year. But I would take your question and I will ask Governor
Whitman what is their best estimate.
Now, EPA will not complete nor disseminate a final risk
assessment until that NAS scientific review is concluded and
all the comments are addressed. Again, I want to--and I take
for the record your concerns about the Colorado River,
Henderson, Nevada, naval site. I want to learn more about the
technology the Kerr McGee Corporation has built, the ion
exchange facility. I will learn more about that. The top
priority sites that you mentioned, I will work with the three
Assistant Service Secretaries to determine where they are.
But I must say that, again, absent a standard, a regulatory
standard, it does not imply nor should it be characterized that
the Defense Department is standing in the way of cleaning up a
potential contaminant. And I underline again the word
``potential.''
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
I would like to make this point. EPA has a current
reference dose--it is not a standard, but it is a guideline for
cleanup--of 4 to 18 parts per billion.
Mr. DuBois. That is correct.
Senator Feinstein. And the problem is we have over 200
wells in 80 different water jurisdictions that are being closed
because they do not meet these standards. Now, I think it would
be very interesting--my staff has been--I have not had a chance
to go to visit the Henderson, Nevada, site. Kerr McGee has been
very forthcoming. They know there is a problem. They have spent
a lot of money trying to clean it up. Goodrich I think put $2
million into an ion exchange program to try to help a small
community of Rialto.
But where this is hitting it can sometimes hit all of the
water supply. Therefore, all these children are drinking this
water. In the mean time, you have all these agencies meeting
and you have the EPA working, and I am told--and we have asked
many times--it is 3 to 5 years. So it seems to me that you have
a priority situation and that it might be a good idea to take a
look at Henderson and talk with the people, because I think
there are solutions out there and what I am trying to do is get
the Department of Defense, whom I view as the responsible major
party, participating along with the private sector and the
State public sector and try to see if we cannot come up with
some reasonable, some cost-effective activities that might
reduce this threat.
Mr. DuBois. I would embrace whatever technologies might be
available to clean up perchlorate, irrespective of what the
final standard might be. With respect to that, the 4 to 18
parts per billion reference dose was not meant to be used by
the State regulators as a standard. Rather, as I said, the
science is in question. The EPA--and I defer to them--has
developed clarifications to the memorandum signed by Mary Ann
Horenco to the EPA regions and in turn to the State regulators
that caused certain State regulators--and I have seen some of
the letters, one in particular addressed to me on a military
reservation perchlorate issue--caused certain State regulators
to say, ``Oh, well, this is the standard and therefore you have
got to clean up to it.''
That was not the intent of Mary Ann Horenco's memorandum.
EPA is issuing a clarification to that effect.
Senator Feinstein. You are saying then it is okay to keep
drinking the water?
Mr. DuBois. Well, I am not saying that at all, Senator. I
am saying that I do not believe that until the NAS rules on
what the appropriate reference dose is--it may end up being far
higher than 18 parts per billion. But I nor my colleagues in
NASA nor the Department of Energy or the private sector, or EPA
for that matter, have any conclusion until such time as the NAS
study is over.
Again as I indicated, we were told, I was told--and I defer
again to EPA--that this particular focused assessment will not
take more than a year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am happy to hear that then. That
is the first I have heard that. So that is good news.
Well, let me move on. It is my understanding--and correct
this if it is wrong--that the 2005 BRAC round will be closely
managed by the Office of Secretary of Defense, unlike the
previous rounds, which were more Service-driven. How will this
round differ from prior rounds in terms of scope, focus, and
management?
Mr. DuBois. I have stated in conversations with you and
with other Members of the Senate and the House that there are
some specific differences, and it is true that the Secretary of
Defense, in response to criticisms by Members of Congress,
quite frankly, that his predecessors did not take enough of an
active role early enough in the process of the prior four BRAC
rounds to engender true cross-Service analysis, to engender
joint use of military installations, he took that to heart, and
in so doing he established an Infrastructure Executive Council
chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Also in response to observations, comments, and criticisms
by Members of Congress, he knew that in order to have an
appropriate and comprehensive BRAC round the senior leadership
of the Department, both uniformed and civilian, had to be
involved. And on this Infrastructure Executive Council are the
Joint Chiefs, the Service Secretaries, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
the chair, along with Pete Aldridge, the Under Secretary for
Acquisition Technology and Logistics.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) report after the 1995
BRAC round made it quite clear that the opportunity had been
lost in terms of the way that round and the prior rounds were
conducted from the point of view of achieving cross-Service
analysis and joint use, joint base utilization. That, as well
as, as I have indicated, comments from you all, said to the
Secretary, I have got to do it differently.
Therefore, while it is true that he, as the ultimate
arbiter, delegated the responsibility to the Deputy Secretary,
he has included all of the senior leadership. But it should be
noted that there are military-unique activities, unique to the
individual military Service, mostly operational in nature,
which shall be analyzed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Marine Corps independently.
But it is also true, as I indicated in my opening
statement, that there are business operational functions and
facilities which more than one Service is involved with and/or
the private sector performs in this regard to some extent and
therefore needs to be reviewed from the get-go in a joint
cross-Service way.
Of the six groups that I mentioned, three of them are
chaired by senior civilians in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense: the industrial activities group, the education and
training group, and the technical and laboratory group, right.
There are three of them that are being chaired by members of
either the joint staff, the supply and storage group, or in the
case of the administrative group the Deputy Under Secretary of
the Army is chairing it; and the medical group is being chaired
by the Surgeon General of the Air Force.
We in point of fact looked at--this is like an NFL draft.
We went out for the best athletes, the folks who we thought
could best lead this cross-Service exercise, and we did not
necessarily say it all had to be driven by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, although there is a very clear charter:
You will look at this cross-Service. If you are the Deputy
Under Secretary of the Army and you are chairing the
administrative group, you have got to take off your Army hat
and you have got to put on a cross-Service hat.
The differences are pretty much as I have explained this
morning. There are some minor changes that were in the BRAC
authorizing legislation. It however makes it very clear that
military value is the preeminent selection criterion.
In December of this year, again under the law, the statute,
the Secretary will report to you on what he believes the
appropriate selection criteria ought to be, plural, and there
will be time for public comment, time for Congress to comment,
so that as we go into, let us face it, the really tough
decision analytic stage, which is the calendar year 2004, we
will have had this dialogue and deliberation with you and with
the public and with organizations such as were represented in
the prior panel.
Senator Feinstein. This is very helpful.
In your prepared statement, Mr. DuBois, you mention that
the Defense Department has disposed of 53 percent of the
property available from prior BRAC rounds. You also note that
approximately 82 percent of the remaining acreage lies in six
installations where environmental remediation must be
completed. Could you please name those six installations and
tell the committee the estimated cost and cleanup time for each
of them? And if you cannot do it today, would you please do it
in writing.
Mr. DuBois. Yes, ma'am. I think that the three Assistant
Service Secretaries who follow me will be able to address that
in particular. I will say this----
Senator Feinstein. If you could just name the six
installations.
Mr. DuBois. I do not have them on the tip of my tongue. I
will submit it for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. DuBois. But we have in this fiscal year under way,
while, as you indicated, 53 percent of all prior BRAC acreage
has been disposed of, i.e., 47 has not, with the disposal
actions in the pipeline today, the largest of which is in
Alaska--that is in and of itself in excess of 70 or 80,000
acres. Were that to come to pass, we would be left with
probably less than 10 percent of the original BRAC acreage
closed.
Again, I defer to my colleagues in the Services. They know
the details of the individual----
Senator Feinstein. You mean less than 10 percent unclosed?
Mr. DuBois. Which have been closed but not disposed.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, not disposed.
Mr. DuBois. They have all been closed. It has not been
removed from our property books.
Senator Feinstein. Got it.
Mr. DuBois. The six major ones--and as I said, the
individual Services--and I believe the Army has the majority of
them--will be addressed by the Assistant Service Secretaries.
Notwithstanding that, I will insert for the record list of
acreage and with the environmental remediation planned for
those sites.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I am going to forgo my last round because we have a 12:00
o'clock vote and I do want to get the third panel. So, Senator
Burns, I yield to you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I appreciate
this. With that, I would ask that I can submit my statement for
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Conrad Burns
First of all, I want to thank Chairwoman Hutchison for convening
the hearing today on this issue of Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC].
As we approach the forecasted date of another possible BRAC round in
2005, many concerns and issues must be addressed. I have a number of
questions myself and look forward to addressing some of them today.
My home State of Montana--the small community of Great Falls,
Montana in particular--knows all too well how painful this process can
be. Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB) lost nearly 700 jobs when its C-135
aerial refueling tankers were moved to Florida as part of the 1995
round of base closures and realignments. I know that my part of the
world has already suffered enough job cuts and economic damage because
of the loss of this flying mission. This process really can wreak havoc
on small communities, further damaging already fragile local economies.
One time closure costs and environmental cleanups, coupled with the
long lead times necessary to close a base, can make promised savings
hard to identify. I also question whether this is the right time to
downsize facilities when we are facing an increased threat, both at
home and abroad. If the government returns or sells its bases, it will
never get the land back.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent at Malmstrom AFB during
my time in the Senate, with more on the way, to improve the operational
facilities, living conditions and quality of life for our military men
and women. In addition, our land-based missile systems, in particular,
remain an important leg of the Nuclear Triad and play an essential role
in ensuring national security. While I have no doubt that with 200
Minuteman III missiles, premier facilities, significant air space and
little or no encroachment issues, Malmstrom AFB has and will continue
to play a critical role in our national security, I do have a number of
questions which I want addressed today.
I look forward to hearing testimony from the panelists who are here
today and listening to the discussion on this subject.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Burns. I have only one question, Mr. DuBois, and
that is how do you define ``jointness'' as it is used in the
context of these proceedings?
Mr. DuBois. I think ``jointness'' can be defined in any
number of ways, but certainly at the top of the list----
Senator Burns. When we get into problems up here, it is
because the chairman defines it one way, I define it another
way, and Senator Feinstein defines it another way, and then we
argue for the next 6 months and never get nothing done because
we do not define the thing.
Mr. DuBois. I understand, Senator. In prior BRACs when it
was more Service-centric, when the Navy decided that they were
going to close or realign an installation and said, now where
do we take these missions and facilities, to what installation
ought they to go, they only considered other naval
installations. This BRAC, we will insist and ensure that when
any of the Services considers a unique function and facility
and mission to that Service ought to be realigned resource
closed on Base A and moved to Base B, the Base B will be not
just that Service's infrastructure, but all the Services'
infrastructures can be considered and will be considered.
That is my essential definition of what joint utilization
in this BRAC round will be.
Senator Burns. That is the only question I have, just the
way he defines it. I do not agree with it.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. DuBois.
Mr. DuBois. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. I appreciate your making the effort to
be here, and would like to now call our second panel, which is
now our third panel: the Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Dr.
Fiori; Air Force, Mr. Gibbs; and Navy, Mr. Arny. We will start
with you, Dr. Fiori.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIO P. FIORI, Ph.D., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND
ENVIRONMENT
Dr. Fiori. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss
The Army's accomplishments in executing four rounds of the base
closure under the base realignment and closure authority
provided by Congress and to briefly discuss how we organize for
an additional BRAC round in 2005----
Senator Hutchison. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. Let me just
interrupt you and say that we have a 4-minute green light and
if you could just summarize after that.
Dr. Fiori. This is quite quick, thank you. A detailed
written statement has been provided for the record.
Before commenting briefly on the execution of our BRAC
program, I would like to say what I am sure we would all
appreciate is the challenge confronting the military services
today. As we meet to discuss the drawdown of our
infrastructure, large numbers of servicemen and women are
deployed. We take immense pride in the current skill and
professionalism of these men and women. But as we continue to
streamline our infrastructure using our BRAC authority, we are
motivated by the reality that these brave people deserve the
best living and training facilities when they return home.
The Army has completed 112 closures and 27 realignments
resulting from the 4 BRACs. As a result of these actions, we
are saving approximately $945 million per year. Our BRAC cost
through fiscal year 2003 is $5.37 billion.
The Army is now completing the remaining environmental
restoration activities, transferring surplus property and
performing caretaker operations. Our budget request for this
year is $66 million for fiscal year 2004, which will allow us
to complete environmental cleanup and ordnance removal efforts
to continue to render these properties safe for disposal. To
date, The Army has disposed 46.8 percent, with 142,000 acres
remaining. We have established a goal of disposing 100,000
acres this fiscal year.
Environmental restoration continues to be the challenge in
expeditious disposal of property. To overcome this impediment
and accomplish our objectives, we are taking advantage of
several innovative approaches toward environmental restoration.
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Department is authorized to
convey property prior to completion of required environmental
remediation. This early transfer authority, in conjunction with
environmental services cooperative agreements, allows the
Department to convey property years ahead of schedule and
transfer funding to local communities for the completion of the
environmental remediation activities.
To date, the Army has executed four Environmental Services
Cooperative Agreements. Two additional actions are planned for
fiscal year 2003.
Another approach that we are using is Guaranteed Fixed
Price Remediation contracts, where The Army obligates funds
necessary for regulatory closure of the specified restoration
activities. This process is very cost-effective and accelerates
the regulatory closures. To date, we have executed seven of
these guaranteed fixed price contracts.
We are continuing our assessment of our overseas
infrastructure and are continuing to reduce the number of
installations overseas. Since 1990, 685 overseas sites have
been announced for closure or realignment.
prepared statement
As we begin the BRAC 2005 process, which is essential for
successfully transforming The Army, our goal is an
infrastructure that supports our security requirements in a
changing world. To accomplish this important task, I have
established a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure
Analysis, who will assess all installations within the BRAC
law. Lessons learned from our previous four rounds are embedded
in our efforts to execute 2005.
Madam Chairman, that will conclude my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mario P. Fiori
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss The Army's accomplishments in executing
four rounds of base closures under the Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) authority provided by the Congress and our preparation for an
additional BRAC round in fiscal year 2005. I appreciate the opportunity
to report on our progress.
Congress has authorized The Army to restructure by closing or
realigning installations four times since 1988 in order to meet
changing requirements in a changing world. The Army's goal is to
balance its base infrastructure with its force structure and its
mission requirements. BRAC enables The Army to restructure The Army
organization and reshape its infrastructure to support a transformed
Army. BRAC also saves dollars, not only by eliminating base operations
(BASOPS), overhead, and sustainment, restoration, and modernization
(SRM) costs at closed installations, but also by consolidating
functions and creating efficiencies at realigned installations.
However, simple reductions of infrastructure or personnel do not garner
substantial savings.
In accordance with the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of
1988, Public Law 100-526, and Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, statutory requirements to
close and realign facilities were met. The Army completed all closures
(112) and realignments (27) for all 4 rounds of Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) as of July 13, 2001. Upon completion of the first 4
rounds of BRAC, The Army is realizing an annual recurring savings of
$945 million each year. However, these savings do not come without a
short-term cost/investment. Since 1988 BRAC has cost The Army a total
of $5.36 billion through fiscal year 2002. The Army invested $1.7
billion (33 percent) of the $5.36 billion on facility and
infrastructure construction or renovation at gaining installations. The
consolidation of activities in new and renovated facilities has greatly
improved efficiency and the quality of the workplace for Army
employees. Approximately $2.3 billion (42 percent) funds environmental
restoration at closing sites, a cost The Army would have to bear
eventually. The cleanup of BRAC sites benefits The Army by avoiding
future and potentially more expensive cleanups at these sites. The
remainder, $1.3 billion (25 percent), funds equipment and personnel
relocation costs. Although these savings are substantial, we need to
achieve even more in order to fund transformation and bring our
infrastructure assets in line with projected needs. The Army supports
the need to close and realign additional facilities and we appreciate
the Congress' support and authority for an additional BRAC round in
fiscal year 2005.
The Army's facilities strategy strives to meet the needs of today's
soldiers while also focusing on the changes required to support The
Army of the 21st Century. For executing BRAC requirements in fiscal
year 2004, our budget request is $66.4 million. This budget request
represents The Army's commitment to complete required unexploded
ordnance (UXO) removal, environmental restoration, and minimal
caretaking or maintenance of those surplus properties and facilities
not yet transferred from the first four rounds of BRAC.
The Army is committed to quickly transferring surplus BRAC
properties for redevelopment that is consistent with local community,
State, and Federal purposes that are determined to be most appropriate
for the property. To date, from a total acreage disposal requirement of
266,847 acres, The Army has disposed of 124,934 acres (46.8 percent)
with 141,913 acres (53.2 percent) remaining. Of the remaining acreage,
60,000 acres is a lake in California, for which the State has not
exercised their reverter and approximately 41,000 acres is property
that the Department of Interior has requested. We expect to
substantially reduce the remaining acreage in fiscal year 2003. This is
an undertaking that involves many regulatory agencies, and is focused
on environmental, historic, and cultural requirements that must be met
in order to transfer real property. The Army is using the authority
that Congress has provided in a 1996 amendment to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to
accomplish early transfers of the property to the future recipients.
This CERCLA early transfer authority allows The Army to enter into
arrangements whereby the future owners will undertake the final
environmental restoration and regulatory clearances that are necessary
for a final deed transfer of the property. It is generally more cost
effective to allow the community that will redevelop the property to
also undertake the cleanup, in conjunction with their redevelopment. We
have found that those communities that have the capacity to undertake
such tasks appreciate and prefer the early transfer authority provided
by Congress, in conjunction with a cooperative agreement that provides
the necessary funding for environmental restoration activities.
Environmental considerations are the largest and most costly
challenges to transferring and redeveloping surplus property. Federal
and State environmental regulators concerned with risk and liabilities
want the property cleaned to pristine conditions that often exceeds
industry standards. These environmental challenges include cleanup
activities involving hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes, oil or
solvent spills, and unexploded ordnance common on many of the surplus
installations that were used to train our soldiers for war.
Having completed all closure requirements, The Army is now in the
second year of completing the remaining environmental restoration
activities, transferring surplus property, and performing minimal
caretaker operations. Our budget request of $66.4 million in fiscal
year 2004 allows The Army to caretake these properties and to continue
our environmental and ordnance removal efforts that will render these
properties safe for reuse, facilitate disposal, and provide for
economic revitalization. This budget request includes the resources
required to support projected reuse in the near term and to continue
with current projects to protect human health and the environment.
The Army implemented innovative approaches to environmental
restoration at BRAC sites in fiscal year 2002, approaches that
facilitated the early transfer of several properties. The Army will
continue to support early property transfers in fiscal year 2003 and
beyond.
The significant challenges posed by the removal of unexploded
ordnance, the remediation of groundwater, and the interface of a
variety of regulatory authorities continue to hinder the transfer of
surplus property. A number of innovative approaches for environmental
restoration were recently developed by The Army to expedite the
transfer of property, while ensuring the protection of human health and
the environment. Two innovative mechanisms are being utilized to
complete environmental restoration efforts: Guaranteed/Fixed Price
Remediation (G/FPR) Contracts and Environmental Services Cooperative
Agreements (ESCA). These innovations are being employed in partnership
with the property recipients to expedite property transfers. A G/FPR
Contract allows The Army to obligate the BRAC funds necessary for
regulatory closure of specified restoration activities. The Army
retains responsibility for completion of the environmental restoration,
overseeing the contractor and ensuring that regulatory closure of the
property is obtained. An ESCA is a different mechanism that obligates
Army BRAC funds under the environmental restoration program. The Army
retains its underlying responsibility for the cleanup while engaging
the governmental entity representing the community reuse interests to
perform specific environmental restoration services outlined in the
ESCA in conjunction with its redevelopment plans. This arrangement
allows the reuse authority to leverage and harmonize its cleanup
objectives with its redevelopment plans.
The Army used a G/FPR to accelerate regulatory closure at Fort
Pickett, Virginia, by more than 1 year at a cost that will not escalate
over the course of the work. We estimate that this $2.9 million
contract saved us $0.8 million based on our initial estimates. An ESCA
allows The Army to transfer property and the associated cleanup
responsibilities to a local reuse authority or developer. This allows
the recipient to integrate cleanup with their redevelopment plans. An
ESCA completed in 2001 was used in conjunction with early transfer
authority at Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey, saving The
Army an estimated $5 million in environmental remediation costs. An
ESCA will facilitate the early transfer in fiscal year 2003 of property
at Oakland Army Base, California. The G/FPR and ESCA initiatives limit
Army environmental remediation cost growth and facilitate property
disposal and revitalization, in accordance with the community
redevelopment timeframe.
The Army is intent on transferring surplus property expeditiously,
and we remain committed to promoting economic redevelopment at our BRAC
installations. We support early transfer and reuse of properties
through economic development conveyances and use cooperative agreements
to accelerate the completion of remaining environmental remediation.
The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure authorization greatly expands the
Department's ability to negotiate economic development conveyances of
BRAC property. The Department is required to receive full fair market
value consideration, and allows the conveyance of property to any
entity that agrees to perform environmental restoration at the site.
This will permit us to sell excess property and help generate
additional funds for cleanup, resulting in the property being returned
to reuse more quickly than under the current process. The Army's use of
leasing and award of G/FPR and ESCA contracts to complete environmental
cleanup make surplus properties available for reuse earlier. The early
transfer of real property assets to interested parties in the private
sector will provide strong economic development to local communities.
This will develop business opportunities that result in jobs and tax
revenues. The successful conversion of former Army installations to
productive use in the private sector benefits The Army and the local
community.
The Army continues to effectively execute and implement the BRAC
program utilizing innovative tools made available by Congress. Many
local communities do benefit from acquisition of valuable properties
with significant reuse potential. Most recently, The Army transferred
property at the former Oakland Army Base, California, to the City of
Oakland using the early transfer authority and signing a cooperative
agreement to have the City complete the remaining cleanup actions at
the facility. This will allow the City to manage and integrate the
redevelopment and environmental restoration of the site to maximize
reuse potential. This approach is beneficial to both parties and allows
The Army to benefit from the reduced costs associated with integrating
cleanup with reuse. The community benefits from receiving the property
earlier and starting the redevelopment process. This early transfer/
environmental cooperative agreement approach to property conveyance was
used earlier at Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal and Fitzsimons Army
Medical Center.
The following summary of some of our BRAC reuses reflects the broad
range and complexity of successful reuse of BRAC installations. These
examples also demonstrate The Army's commitment to reuse and illustrate
how the impact of base closures can be minimized at the local community
level:
Leasing of Property at Red River Army Depot (RRAD), Texas.--The
Army leased Building 150 to the Red River Local Redevelopment Authority
(RRLRA). The RRLRA and its first tenant, a heavy metal fabrication
contractor that does work for the paper mills in the area, signed a
sublease. Local media reflected favorably on The Army's support to
communities in transforming closing and realigning bases into assets
for economic development.
Transfer of the Woodbridge Research Facility (WRF), Virginia, to
the Department of the Interior (DOI).--The Army conveyed 580 acres of
WRF (formerly Harry Diamond Laboratories) to DOI. The WRF closed
September 16, 1994, as a result of the recommendation of the BRAC
Commission. Pursuant to Public Law 103-307, the entire installation was
transferred to DOI for incorporation into the National Wildlife Refuge
System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) manages the
property to provide a wildlife preserve open to the public, and for
research, testing, and environmental education purposes.
Sale of Former Army Materials Technology Laboratory (AMTL),
Massachusetts Property.--The Army transferred approximately 30 acres of
the AMTL facility located in Watertown, Massachusetts, to the Watertown
Arsenal Development Corporation (WADC) for a purchase price of $7.5
million. The Army also transferred via Public Benefit Conveyance the
Commander's Quarters, a seven-acre parcel, to the Town of Watertown as
a historical site. The range of long-term direct and indirect job
creation was projected at 3,800 to 5,000 jobs and today Harvard
University has acquired and uses much of the site for its publications
operations.
Economic Development Conveyance (EDC) of Vint Hill Farms Station.--
The Army approved an EDC application for conveyance of Vint Hills Farm
Station to the Vint Hill Farms Economic Development Authority (VHFEDA).
The conveyance involved approximately 686 acres of the 701-acre
installation, and associated buildings and structures. The final
purchase price was $925,000. The remaining 15 acres was transferred to
Fauquier County as a Public Benefit Conveyance for recreational use.
Conveyance of Tipton Airfield, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, to
the Local Community.--The BRAC Commission recommended partial closure
and realignment of Fort Meade. Range and training areas to include
Tipton Army Airfield were recommended for closure. Tipton Airfield
closed September 30, 1995. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, acquired the
property as an airport Public Benefit Conveyance through the Federal
Aviation Administration. The deed for transfer of approximately 348
acres was issued to Anne Arundel County Airport Authority on July 2,
2001.
Conveyance of Fort Holabird, Maryland, to the City of Baltimore.--
The major portion of Fort Holabird was conveyed to the City of
Baltimore in 1983 and was developed as the Holabird Business Park. The
Army retained two parcels for ongoing Army missions. The 1995 BRAC
Commission recommended closure of the remainder of Fort Holabird. The
City of Baltimore was designated as the local redevelopment authority
(LRA). The Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the
LRA's reuse plan, which involves incorporation of the two parcels into
the Holabird Business Park. The LRA submitted a no-cost Economic
Development Conveyance application on March 13, 2000, which The Army
approved, and a deed transfer of approximately 13.3 acres was signed on
February 12, 2002, thereby completing disposal of the property.
Completion of Rio Vista, California, Guaranteed Fixed Price
Remediation (GFPR) Contract.--On February 5, 2002, the former Rio Vista
Reserve Center became The Army's first completed GFPR contract. The
State of California regulators concurred with and signed a No Further
Action decision document for the entire 28-acre property. The
regulatory closure of the clean up marked the first military post in
California to be closed clean. The GFPR process saves time, conserves
resources and ensures regulatory concurrence. GFPR reduces Army
liability, completes remediation faster, supports rapid redevelopment,
and provides cost savings to The Army.
Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois, Crooked Slough Backwaters
Area to Public Access.--On May 6, 2002, The Army opened the Depot
Crooked Slough Mississippi River backwaters area for recreational
boating and fishing. Public access had been denied, pending assessment
of safety concerns. Reopening the area was a direct result of
recommendations of the Savanna Strategic Management, Analysis,
Requirements and Technology (SMART) team, formed in August 2000 by The
Army at the request of Congressman Manzullo. Technical evaluations and
negotiations among Army officials, U.S. EPA, Illinois EPA, USF&WS, as
well as interested local members of the SMART team resulted in the
placement of a physical barrier system and/or hazard warning signs
around specific potential ordnance impact areas, thereby allowing the
safe opening of a majority of the Crooked Slough area to water access
for fishing and boating. The Army is continuing its environmental
remediation investigations within the restricted areas to determine the
required restoration actions. This was a good news story in that The
Army BRAC/interagency effort met Congressional and public desire for
access and regulatory, environmental and safety concerns, while
protecting Army interests. Congressman Manzullo hailed this decision as
a significant step toward citizen use of the area. He also endorsed the
establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge, an idea now under
consideration by the USF&WS.
Decision Document and Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement
(ESCA) for Military Ocean Terminal-Bayonne, Bayonne, New Jersey.--The
Final Decision Document for Nine Areas of Concern/Operable Units at
Former Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne (MOTBY) was approved on October
26, 2002. The Decision Document formally identified the environmental
remediation activities agreed to between The Army and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection for the 192 acres. This document
became the basis for work performed by the Bayonne Local Reuse
Authority (BLRA) under an ESCA, which allowed the BLRA to perform
environmental remediation activities in conjunction with their
redevelopment process. A deed to transfer 192 acres was signed on
December 11, 2002, using The Army's early transfer authority.
Although the extensive overseas closures do not receive the same
level of public attention as those in the United States, they represent
the fundamental shift from a forward-deployed force to one relying upon
overseas presence and power projection. The Army is continuing its
assessment of overseas infrastructure needs in an effort to reduce the
number of installations overseas. The total number of Army overseas
sites announced for closure or partial closure since January 1990 is
685. Additional announcements and efficient basing initiatives will
occur until the base infrastructure matches the force structure
identified to meet U.S. commitments.
The BRAC 2005 process is essential for successfully transforming
The Army structure and the Department of Defense in response to a
changing world and changing requirements. The Army looks forward to
working closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
other Services through Joint Cross-Service Groups and the DOD
Infrastructure Steering Group and Infrastructure Executive Council to
optimize our ability to project power globally while reducing
unnecessary overhead wherever possible. Joint organizational and basing
solutions is one concept that will free resources to modernize
equipment and infrastructure, and enhance our capabilities to meet 21st
Century threats.
The Army will execute the requirements of the BRAC 2005 legislation
through the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Infrastructure Analysis, a new organization, which will lead The Army
Basing Study (TABS) to assess all installations in accordance with the
BRAC law. All bases will be considered and treated equally. We will
work with OSD and our sister services to take a hard look at the
resources necessary to support the transformed Army now and into the
future.
The TABS Group will conduct a comprehensive, detailed military
value assessment of Army installations; evaluate base realignment and
closure alternatives; and develop, document, and publish base
realignment and closure recommendations that are consistent with DOD
and Army force structure plans, BRAC selection criteria, and the
requirements of Public Law 101-510, as amended. The TABS Group will
serve as the single point of contact in the Department of the Army for
BRAC 2005 and will meet all legislatively-directed and OSD-directed
BRAC 2005 milestones.
SUMMARY
There are many examples of The Army's success in implementing BRAC
per Congress' direction. There are also examples of the complex and
difficult challenges associated with this unique task. We have learned
lessons from our successes and from working through difficult and
challenging tasks. We will build on these lessons and successes as we
execute BRAC 2005. Our changing world requires changes to how we defend
and secure this great country. We owe it to the young men and women to
transform this Army to provide them the greatest opportunities for
success as we send them into harms way. With your support and authority
to execute BRAC 2005, The Army structure will be better configured to
face the new challenges and our nation will be safer and more secure.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much, right on the
button.
Mr. Arny.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE ARNY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. It is a pleasure
to appear before you to discuss some of the lessons we have
learned in the Department of the Navy over the last 15 years of
base closure.
As you know, my boss H.T. Johnson is now the Acting
Secretary and sends his regrets. It is under his leadership
that we are breaking new ground in BRAC implementation by
adapting some old established closure methods. Having
previously served as a base commander in the Air Force, a
commissioner on the BRAC 1993 Commission, and later as the head
of a local redevelopment authority (LRA) in Texas, Secretary
Johnson brings a unique blend of experience and perspective to
our most persistent base closure problem, the fact that BRAC
cleanup and proper disposal costs too much and takes way too
long.
My written statement has a number of suggestions for
process improvement, but let me just highlight a couple of
them. Lesson number one: Public sale of BRAC property can be
better than an economic development conveyance (EDC) for the
Federal Government, the community, and the developers. That
would seem counterintuitive to many people in the affected
community since an EDC conveys the property for free as long as
it can be shown to create jobs and provide economic benefit.
Our experience has shown that in some situations the
opportunity to get free Federal land becomes mired in
protracted and often acrimonious local debates. There is an
opportunity cost with each type of property disposal. An EDC
can become an opportunity lost or at least delayed for years
longer than a comparable private sector venture.
By contrast, we are beginning to see that a public sale
provides a win-win-win situation for the military, the
community, and the developer because it puts all the parties
involved back into their most familiar core roles. The
community goes back to planning and managing development
through its normal local land use and zoning authority instead
of trying to directly manage redevelopment, a task for which
they are often ill-suited. Once we sell the property, it gets
on the tax rolls immediately, unlike a typical EDC where the
community gets tax revenue only after the LRA-sponsored
development is well under way.
The developer, who was chosen competitively by the General
Services Administration (GSA), provides the vision for economic
redevelopment along with the critical financial and project
management expertise, all within the community zoning rules.
The developer has a financial incentive. He has to pay property
taxes and interest on borrowed money. Thus he tends to get the
job done more quickly and more efficiently.
Let me point out a couple of other points that are often
lost in the current debate. Local communities rarely own a lot
of land. Most of the land is held privately. Local communities
rarely develop property. It is developed by the private sector
and the communities oversee the general plans and zoning that
permits that development. These are the basics to which we are
trying to return.
The Federal Government, on the other hand, returns to its
role as the property owner, disposing of the land to the
highest bidder in a manner consistent with the local
community's existing land rules. Thus we more quickly and
completely dispose of excess property and gain in some
measure--gain some measure of fair market value for the
taxpayers' previous investment, which we can then apply to help
defray the costs of environmental cleanup and other closing
costs. The General Services Administration serves as our real
estate broker, managing the property for us and with us on an
equal basis to all parties.
Most recently, we completed a property sale of 235 acres at
the former Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin, California, in
well under 1 year from start to final settlement. We received
$208.5 million, which will be used to accelerate BRAC cleanup.
We are very pleased with those results and, as you know, we are
doing some other public sales.
I will summarize my other lessons. We do not want to get
bogged down in fed-to-fed transfers, which we have in the past.
Some agencies have taken years to decide or they quickly decide
to take a large parcel and then they back out later on.
prepared statement
We need to examine how to do National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis for property disposal. We want to look at
the ability to contract for firefighting and security guard
services and ensure that our remedies are consistent with the
previous land uses.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Arny
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I am Wayne Arny,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Facilities).
It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Department
of the Navy's efforts to implement the decisions of the four rounds of
base realignment and closure (BRAC). The first round, known as BRAC 88,
was done under Public Law 100-526. The next three rounds, known as BRAC
91, BRAC 93 and BRAC 95, were done under Public Law 101-510. I will
collectively refer to these past four rounds of BRAC as Prior BRAC to
avoid any confusion with the next scheduled round of BRAC in 2005.
My statement will cover the Department of the Navy's Prior BRAC
implementation process, the status of cleanup and property disposal,
and some thoughts on improving implementation of BRAC 2005 decisions.
PRIOR BRAC IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Prior BRAC Scope
Prior BRAC rounds resulted in 178 Navy and Marine Corps bases and
activities designated for closure or realignment. Of those bases, 46
were major closures, 89 were minor closures, and 43 were realignments.
All 178 closure and realignment actions have been completed. What
remains is environmental cleanup and property disposal.
Significant savings begin to accrue after operational closure,
i.e., when the mission functions of the bases cease, personnel billets
are reassigned or eliminated, and real property maintenance
requirements are reduced to a caretaker level. Savings fully accrue
when we no longer must operate and maintain the property for its
previous mission capability. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the
Department of Navy had achieved a net savings of $6.8 billion, with an
additional annual savings of $2.7 billion. These net savings estimates
have been validated by several independent sources.
Navy's caretaker Responsibilities
After operational closure, environmental cleanup and property
disposal become the focus. To allow other commands to focus on their
primary mission responsibilities, the Navy transferred all
operationally closed bases to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
to conduct the cleanup and disposal. The Marine Corps retained
management and funding responsibility for its two bases that were
closed, relying on the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for program
execution. Of these 178 Prior BRAC actions, 90 installations were
designated for disposal.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command established Caretaker Site
Offices at most closure sites. They are responsible for day-to-day
property management and essential services, compliance of reuse
activities with lease and regulatory requirements, and work with the
local communities. Legislative jurisdiction is often a concern since it
determines who is responsible for providing police, fire, and other
regulatory services. Early retrocession of jurisdiction has proved to
be helpful in establishing successful interim reuse activities. At
sites where exclusive legislative jurisdiction has not changed, the
Department of the Navy is often required to keep Federal employees on
the payroll to provide these services.
Property disposal
The final goal of BRAC is conveyance of the property to some other
entity. In many respects, this has been a far more complex process than
originally conceived. Property disposal is often closely linked to
environmental cleanup. Although environmental cleanup actions had been
initiated at nearly all Prior BRAC locations, most of the work had been
to assess the location, type and severity of contamination. A few
locations had progressed to planning cleanup remedies, however, little
actual cleanup had been done.
Between operational closure and conveyance, the Department of the
Navy can facilitate reuse of the property by way of interim leases to
the Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs), which then subleases
property to private businesses. If desired by the LRA, the property can
be conveyed incrementally when particular parcels satisfy environmental
standards and the prospective owners accept the property.
The Federal Screening Process
Following approval of each round of Prior BRAC, the Department of
the Navy identifies excess property at closing activities to other
Department of Defense components and Federal agencies through a Federal
screening process. Other Defense components and Federal agencies can
request \1\ all or part of the excess base closure property for their
use. If a Federal agency expresses a timely interest in base closure
property, the Secretary of the Navy would seek to align the Federal
agency's request with that of the community. The Secretary of the Navy
makes the final disposal decision. Conveyance and reuse decisions can
experience lengthy delays when a Federal agency requests property and
then delays or later opts not to accept it because of budgetary or
other reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per 41 CFR 101-47.203-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Development Conveyances
When the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 was
enacted, Congress intended for the proceeds of property sales to help
offset the costs of implementing base closure. The Act directed DOD to
dispose of property in accordance with existing standard procedures,
i.e., the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 \2\
and implementing regulations.\3\ The legislative history for the
Property Act indicates that Congress intended most property to be
disposed by public sale to the highest bidder. Public benefit
conveyances for less than fair market value were to be made
``sparingly.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 40 U.S.C. 472.
\3\ 41 CFR 101 Part 47.
\4\ H.R. 1763, 85th Cong., 2d Session, reprinted in 1958 U.S.Code,
Cong. & Adm. News, 2861, 1866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1993 the President announced a plan to help communities speed
reuse and economic redevelopment of base closure property, and minimize
the impact of the closure. The plan consisted of the following five
initiatives:
--Job-centered property disposal to put local economic redevelopment
first.
--Fast-track environmental cleanup to remove needless delays while
protecting human health and the environment.
--Transition coordinators located at major bases slated for closure.
--Easy access to transition and redevelopment help for workers and
communities.
--Larger economic development planning grants provided to base
closure communities.
The plan gave rise to Economic Development Conveyances (EDC), which
were authorized by Congress. The creation of EDCs represented a major
legislative change because it gave preference to disposal of the
property to local governments at less than fair market value instead of
public sale to the highest bidder. Since that time, a total of 15,930
acres of base closure property have been disposed of at no cost to
communities through EDCs.
LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES AND REUSE PLANS
The Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) plays a significant role in
the base closure planning process. Members of the LRA are appointed by
State or local governments and recognized by the Department of Defense
as representing the voice of the community at a base closure location.
LRAs hold public hearings and prepare a reuse plan that must balance
the needs of the homeless people in the community, as required by law
\5\, with efforts to stimulate economic redevelopment. They may also
request surplus property to assist them in implementing their plan.
Navy works with the LRA throughout this process to ensure timely
submission of a comprehensive, feasible reuse plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sec. 2905(b)(7) of Public Law 101-510.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
BRAC requires the Military Services to evaluate all reasonable
disposal alternatives, including non-disposal, and their associated
environmental consequences under the terms of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) before the property could be
disposed. In 1996, the Congress amended \6\ BRAC to require the
Military Departments to use the LRA's reuse plan as the preferred
alternative in conducting our NEPA analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Public Law 104-106, the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense
Authorization Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under NEPA, we must also consider:
--Environmental impact of the proposed disposal and the impacts of
all reasonably anticipated uses of the property;
--Alternatives to the proposed disposal and reuse plan, including the
``no-action'' alternative;
--Adverse impacts on the environment under the Federal Endangered
Species Act and the Clean Water Act, and protected resources
such as historic buildings and archeological sites under the
National Historic Preservation Act;
--Mitigation actions that would minimize adverse impacts on the
environment and protected resources such as historic
structures, wetlands, and habitats for threatened or endangered
species;
If Navy cannot certify in an Environmental Analysis that there will
be no significant impact, it must prepare an EIS. That involves a very
detailed environmental analysis and formal public participation. At the
end of the EIS process, the Department of the Navy issues a Record Of
Decision concerning disposal of the base closure property. The Record
of Decision represents a necessary element of the property conveyance
process, since disposal and redevelopment cannot begin until it has
been issued. This Record of Decision is separate from, and in addition
to the Record of Decision required for environmental cleanup.
Environmental Cleanup
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires the Federal Government to
warrant that all remedial action required to protect human health and
the environment has been taken prior to the disposal of surplus Federal
property. It also requires that any additional remedial or corrective
action discovered after disposal will be done by the United States.
This statute is the legal basis for Navy's obligation to cleanup
environmental contamination on base closure property. A Record of
Decision, approved by environmental regulators, documents the remedy
that will be used to perform the environmental cleanup. Reuses proposed
by Local Redevelopment Authorities sometimes require clean ups in
excess of what would have been conducted by Navy based on the
historical use of the property or if the property had been sold.
Early Transfer
In the past, CERCLA precluded Navy from conveying property to non-
Federal entities until all environmental remediation was complete or
until an acceptable remedy approved by State and Federal environmental
regulators was in place and operating satisfactorily. Section 334 of
the DOD Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 allowed the Department
of Defense to convey base closure property before remediation is in
place if approval was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency
when the property was on the National Priorities List, or from the
State governor if the property was not on the National Priorities List.
The Department of the Navy has used this early transfer authority
eight times to convey to property developers approximately 9,500 acres
about 5 years before otherwise possible. These early transfers have
often combined the environmental cleanup with actual redevelopment,
resulting in time and money savings to both the developer and the
Department of the Navy.
Methods for Conveying Base Closure Property
Two statutes govern the disposal of base closure property: the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and the BRAC
statute which added the option of an Economic Development Conveyance
under the Pryor Amendments of 1993. These statutes provide a way to
transfer excess Federal property to another Department of Defense
component or other Federal agency, and four primary ways to dispose of
surplus Federal property to a non-Federal recipient:
--Public sale to the highest bidder for fair market value. I will
note here that the highest bid must come close to the appraised
fair market value. If not, the disposal agency must give the
high bidder a chance to raise the bid to that level, or choose
not to complete the sale. Public sales can provide financing
terms for up to 10 years;
--Negotiated sale to a State or local government when the property
will be used for an acceptable public purpose and the grantee
will pay fair market value. Such a sale is subject to review by
Congress. Negotiated sales can provide for financing terms for
up to 10 years;
--Public benefit conveyance for less than fair market value when the
property will be put to a public purpose specifically
authorized by Congress (e.g., an airport, port, educational
facility, park) \7\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See for example, 40 U.S.C. 484(k) for park, education and
public health purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Economic development conveyance (EDC),\8\ for less than fair market
value when the LRA's reuse plan demonstrates new jobs will be
created by the proposed redevelopment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sec. 2905(b)(2) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another method of disposal is through special legislation
authorized by Congress for a particular property. These conveyances are
often for nominal consideration. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Fleet
and Industrial Supply Center Oakland have been the subject of such
special legislation.
BRAC also provides two other unique disposal opportunities that so
far have not been used by the Department of the Navy. The first is the
ability to convey property to private parties who will undertake
environmental cleanup.\9\ The receiving party agrees to assume
responsibility for the cleanup. If cleanup costs less than the fair
market value of the property, the recipient pays Navy the difference.
The second conveyance tool is the authority to exchange BRAC property
for the development of military family housing at another site where
there is a need for housing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Sec. 2905(b)(8)(e) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act.
\10\ Sec. 2905(b)(8)(f) of Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Disposal
We work closely with the LRAs as they prepare their proposed reuse
plans for submission to us and review by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, who weighs the economic development aspects of the
reuse plan with provisions for homeless people. We begin the
environmental review required by NEPA when the LRA submits its proposed
reuse plan. As part of the environmental impact analysis, Navy is
required to identify and analyze measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
Because the Navy does not control property after conveyance and the
Navy's ability to impose land use controls is limited, most actions
needed to mitigate adverse impacts will be the responsibility of the
LRA. In order to ensure that mitigation measures in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can be
implemented, Navy must ensure that the LRA agrees to and has the
authority to implement the necessary actions to protect resources such
as wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and historic and
archeological buildings and sites.
After the NEPA Record of Decision is issued, the Secretary of the
Navy, after consultation with the LRA, proceeds with disposal of the
property in accordance with the various statutory authorities. In the
case of an EDC, the Office of the Secretary of Defense must also
approve the conveyance. In the case of a negotiated sale, the
conveyance must be reviewed by Congress and, as a practical matter,
also receive the concurrence of the General Services Administration.
In the event that a LRA requests property by a negotiated sale, we
have an agreement with the General Services Administration that they
manage the appraisal process. That speeds Congressional review since
Congress routinely asks that they concur with the appraisal before
approving the negotiated sale.
Competing Demands
I have so far outlined the challenges in trying to dispose of base
closure property in a manner that furthers the public interest, and as
expeditiously as possible, within the statutory and regulatory
framework of Federal property disposal and environmental laws. Central
to the disposal process is the availability of adequate funding for
environmental remediation at closed bases. We recognize that some LRAs
and other grantees will not accept title to contaminated properties
until the property is cleaned up. Consequently, we continue to incur
costs associated with ownership (e.g., maintenance, protection costs)
until cleanups are complete and approved by Federal and State
environmental regulators.
PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL STATUS
My boss, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and
Environment) testified before this Committee on 4 March 2003, and he
provided a summary of the status of our environmental cleanup and
property disposal efforts. I will repeat some of that information here
as a matter of convenience along with some additional details.
The Department of the Navy has spent a total of $2.8 billion on
environmental efforts at Prior BRAC bases through fiscal year 2002. The
Congress has approved an additional $258 million for fiscal year 2003.
I would note that the State of California has 21 percent of the
Department of the Navy's Prior BRAC bases, and has received about 42
percent of all cleanup funds through fiscal year 2002. We estimate that
an additional $785 million is required to complete the remaining
cleanup, including long-term operation and monitoring of cleanup
remedies. Current projections are to complete all cleanup actions by
fiscal year 2016. The availability of Prior BRAC land sale revenue
could dramatically accelerate cleanup. About 66 percent of our
remaining cost of cleanup is at Prior BRAC bases in California. We
expect that about 40 percent of the total Prior BRAC environmental
funding will be spent in the San Francisco Bay area.
As of the end of January 2003, Navy had transferred 64 of the 90
former bases planned for disposal. A total of 425 parcels of land have
been conveyed at these 64 bases and other bases at which only a portion
of the base has been transferred. We will need to transfer another 196
parcels and complete all actions on the remaining 26 bases. Our plans
call for the transfer of 58 additional parcels, including the final
parcels at eight more bases in fiscal year 2003, and 51 parcels,
including the final parcels at five bases in fiscal year 2004.
IMPROVING BRAC IMPLEMENTATION
Public Sale Is A Win-Win
Although the EDC remains the preferred method of disposal, under
some circumstances EDCs can be very time consuming and difficult to
complete. When that happens, public sales have proven to be successful
alternatives. Public sale provides a win-win situation for everyone
because it puts all parties in their most familiar role:
--The community plans and manages growth through local land use and
zoning ordinances instead of trying to manage redevelopment.
The property gets on the tax roles quickly. The community never
holds title to the land;
--The Federal Government quickly disposes of excess property, gains
fair market value for the tax payers past investment in the
property, and can apply that revenue to defray the costs of
closure, realignment, and environmental cleanup. The Federal
Government is removed from the ill-advised role of analyzing
redevelopment efforts;
--The General Services Administration becomes the real estate broker,
marketing the property and ensuring equal opportunity to all
developers;
--The developer provides the visionary growth opportunities and fits
that within the community's local zoning requirements and
economic factors. The developer secures financing and provides
the project management expertise.
The Department of the Navy public sale of 3 parcels of property
totaling 235 acres at the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA
brought quick resolution to long standing acrimony on reuse direction,
generated significant revenue to pay for environmental cleanup costs,
and will provide new jobs and economic opportunities for the community,
while quickly bringing the property onto the community tax roles.
Another good example is the former Army Cameron Station in
Alexandria, VA, which was closed as part of BRAC 1988. The Army held a
public sale of the property in 1995, and most would agree that it has
been developed and returned to the tax rolls more rapidly than other
property that has been conveyed to the community at no cost,
The Department of the Navy is pursuing public sales of other Prior
BRAC properties.
Simultaneous Redevelopment and Environmental Cleanup
We have learned that successful cleanup and property disposal of
large tracts of Federal property requires skillful negotiation of a
complex mix of Federal, State and local statutes and regulations;
Federal, State and local government skills, motivation, and
capabilities; flexibility and innovative thought; and available funding
to conduct the environmental cleanup. We have also found that tying
redevelopment with actual cleanup saves time and money for both the
developer and the Federal Government. The critical ingredient to
simultaneous redevelopment and environmental cleanup is the
availability of detailed studies on the nature and extent of
environmental contamination, and the support of environmental
regulators.
Federal Agencies Sometimes Delay or Disrupt BRAC Property Disposal
BRAC property disposal process requires property to be screened for
other Federal use. If another Federal Agency identifies a need for the
property and the Navy agrees to transfer it to them, the receiving
Federal Agency has a responsibility to accept the property within a
reasonable time period. In several instances, receiving agencies have
delayed acceptance of property pending completion of environmental
remediation, even though completion of cleanup is not required for
property transfer. In other instances, some Agencies have withdrawn
their request for the property after a prolonged delay, thus requiring
the disposing service to declare the property surplus years after the
LRA has completed its outreach and reuse planning. In addition, some
Federal Agencies have resisted taking property unless and until a
CERCLA covenant for environmental cleanup was provided, even though
there is no statutory requirement to do so.
NEPA Requirements for BRAC Property Disposal
In applying NEPA to BRAC property disposal the Navy has found
itself in the middle of disputes and legal challenges between adjoining
government jurisdictions and different interest groups on how the
community should proceed with reuse of the surplus Federal property,
even though the Federal Government's ability to control future land use
is limited. The NEPA process for BRAC property disposal can sometimes
be time-consuming and expensive; we will continue efforts to make the
process more efficient and enhance its value.
Contract for Fire and Security Services At BRAC Locations
10 U.S.C. 2465 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the
purchase of firefighting or security-guard functions at military
installations within the United States that were not under contract on
September 24, 1983. At BRAC closure sites with areas of exclusive
legislative jurisdiction, Federal employees or military members
performed firefighting or security guard functions and the local
government were not required to provide such services. Local
governments have the legal obligation to provide these services in
areas of proprietary and concurrent jurisdiction although they are
sometimes reluctant to do so. Navy is later required to conduct
Reduction in Force (RIF) actions to terminate employment when the
property is disposed of or the State has agreed to a retrocession of
exclusive jurisdiction. The ability to contract for firefighting and
security guard functions would significantly reduce caretaker expenses.
Cleanup Standards for BRAC Property Are Sometimes Inconsistent With
Past Use
Several Navy BRAC property disposals have resulted in cleanup
actions that exceed levels that would have been implemented if DOD had
done the clean up to a level consistent with the past and current uses
of the property. Local communities frequently pressure the Navy to
clean up property to a level that is inconsistent with the property's
previous use. For example, an industrial site could be planned for
redevelopment as a residential use or a landfill could be proposed for
conversion to parking or storage areas.
We Can Learn From Each Other
Each Military Department has extensive and varied experience with
BRAC reuse and disposal. In order to share those experiences and
expertise, and to ensure that the Department of Defense is conducting
reuse and disposal in the most efficient and effective way possible for
all concerned, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is forming a
working group to examine potential improvements to the BRAC reuse and
disposal process. The Department of the Navy supports this effort and
looks forward to working with the other Departments and OSD.
CONCLUSION
I want to thank the Chairman and members of this committee for
holding this hearing. I hope that I have shed some light on the
complexities involved in environmental cleanup and property disposal of
BRAC property. I want to ensure you that the Navy and Marine Corps
team, from the installation level to headquarters, has been working
very hard with regulators and communities to do a responsible
environmental cleanup that is protective of human health and the
environment, and to help bring BRAC property back to productive use
through economic redevelopment. We will continue to give priority
management attention and funding to support promising opportunities for
early transfer of BRAC property. We will pursue other public sales of
BRAC property when appropriate and other disposal options have not
progressed. We will use the funds generated by the sale to accelerate
cleanup at BRAC locations.
That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support of each
member of this committee, and will try to respond to any comments or
concerns you may have.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Arny. I wish we had had
the other panel here to talk back and forth because you are so
diametrically opposed that it is hard for us to determine which
really works better. I mean, you make a good case, but they do
as well.
Mr. Arny. Well, it is fairly new, and I think you also need
to talk to the city of Irvine some time, because they have been
a partner with us on what will be the largest public sale any
of us have ever done. We have 3700 acres in Orange County to
sell and it will be done through public sale.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. Of course Orange County is in
a somewhat different category from some of our bases.
Mr. Gibbs.
STATEMENT OF HON. NELSON F. GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS,
ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein.
The Air Force is quite proud of the record that it has had
in working with the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) through
the first four rounds. There have been 22 closures and 19
realignments. Over 87,000 acres will eventually be transferred
back to the local communities. Over 60 percent of those acres
have already been transferred and another 30 percent of them
are currently in long-term lease so that the development can go
forward.
From the perspective of environmental aspects of it, we
expect to have our last remedy in place by 2005 with the
exception of one base, and the operating and monitoring,
however, of that cleanup will go on for 40 years in many cases,
with one substantive exception where the monitoring will go on
in excess of 200 years.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We believe it has been a success and we believe that we are
prepared to move forward with the 2005 round for the disposal
of properties in a very expeditious manner also.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nelson F. Gibbs
INTRODUCTION
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Department of the Air Force Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
program. Today, I will share with the committee our progress in
transitioning the installations identified for closure or realignment
in previous rounds of BRAC and how we are preparing to execute an
additional round of base closures in 2005.
One of the most effective tools we have to transform the military
is through the BRAC process. The previous four rounds of BRAC approved
22 Air Force installations for closure and 17 realignment actions, and
the Air Force completed each action within its statutory deadline. We
rationalized much of our infrastructure through the previous BRAC
rounds--but much more needs to be accomplished. Transformation requires
rationalizing our base structure to better match the force structure
for the new ways of doing business.
Congress authorized a Base Realignment and Closure in 2005 to
accomplish this ``base transformation''. BRAC 2005 is the means for the
Air Force to align our infrastructure to maximize warfighting
capability efficiency, and meet the Nation's new defense strategy.
Through BRAC 2005, we will eliminate excess capacity that drains our
scarce resources from defense capability.
2005 BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
The Air Force views the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process
as a unique opportunity to reshape our infrastructure to optimize
military readiness and to ensure we are most efficiently postured to
meet new security challenges. In January of this year, we established a
Basing and Infrastructure Analysis group within Headquarters Air Force.
This office will serve as the Air Force focal point for the BRAC 2005
process. Our major commands are following suit with creating their own
analysis structures to support the BRAC process. As in previous rounds
of base closures, we are establishing a Base Closure Executive Group
(BCEG) composed of general officers and senior civilians representing a
variety of functional areas, including those with ranges and airspace
operational expertise. The Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Basing and Infrastructure Analysis participates in meetings with his
counterparts in OSD and the other services on BRAC 2005 planning issues
and also on the composition of the joint cross service teams. The Air
Force is also working on a building up it's BRAC 2005 staff in order to
ensure the appropriate degree of corporate attention and expertise is
given to this effort The Air Force leadership is committed to meeting
the BRAC 2005 statutory deadlines and ensuring our analytical processes
are comprehensive and auditable.
BASE CONVERSION
The Air Force continues to work with the local reuse authority at
each closed and realigned bases from rounds of BRAC to minimize the
impact on local communities from the closures. The Air Force is
disposing of over 87,000 acres at 32 locations. Base conversion efforts
have led to the creation of over 48,000 jobs in a variety of reuses,
including industrial, aviation, commercial, residential and educational
activities. Thirteen airports have been created, significantly
contributing to the United States civil aviation system. Colleges
expanded their operations, hospitals and senior citizen housing
complexes developed, industrial uses ranging from biotechnology to a
state-of-the art sawmill were created, child care centers, aircraft
maintenance operations, hotels, restaurants--the list just goes on and
on. The important thing is these former installations are not sitting
idle; they are being transferred and used by communities, contributing
to their economic redevelopment and providing valuable jobs for their
people.
Successful redevelopment relies on the transfer of property to the
local communities. The Air Force has deeded almost 60 percent of our
BRAC property. We continue to increase the amount of deeded acres for
all rounds projecting over 70 percent of our total acreage will be
transferred by the end of fiscal year 2003. Over 90 percent of the
property has transitioned to reuse, either by deed or utilizing long-
term leases in furtherance of conveyance. The lease arrangement allows
the community to use the property for economic development while we
finish our environmental cleanup responsibilities. Once cleanup
remedies are in place, the contract we have with the community calls
for us to convert the lease to a deed. This has proven to be an
extremely successful tool for transitioning property for early reuse.
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL
While these facilities are being returned to their respective
communities, the Air Force has a continuing responsibility for
environmental cleanup from past operations and industrial activities.
The Air Force approaches this responsibility at our BRAC installations
with the same prudent environmental stewardship as at our active
installations.
Since 1991, we have spent approximately $2.2 billion in
environmental cleanup activities at our closure installations, and for
fiscal year 2004, the Air Force is requesting $176 million to continue
cleanup efforts. This request allocates about 70 percent for actual
installation of cleanup systems, cleanup systems operations, and long-
term management. The Air Force projects that over $2 billion is needed
in future years to complete our ongoing BRAC cleanup requirements. We
look forward to working with the Congress as we meet these goals in our
future budget submissions.
As the Air Force moves forward with our BRAC environmental cleanup
program, we are seeing the results of investments made over the last
several years. Since 1999, 12 of the 30 locations that have
environmental restoration programs have achieved last remedy in place
(LRIP) with 9 more locations scheduled to reach LRIP this fiscal year.
This is a significant milestone as it means all cleanup remedies are in
place and operating successfully. While some of those systems may be in
place for many years to come, the Air Force ensures there is no harm to
human health or the environment during the operations process. The $176
million requested for fiscal year 2004 will lead to six bases attaining
LRIP in fiscal year 2004. The Air Force plans for all our bases to
achieve LRIP status in fiscal year 2005, except McClellan Air Force
Base, CA, which was one of our major maintenance, repair and overhaul
centers that closed in 2001.
Investment in more efficient contracting approaches at our closure
installations has successfully produced faster cleanup initiatives at
significant cost savings. For example, a privatization contract at the
former Lowry Air Force Base, CO, will reduce our cleanup period from 28
years to 11 years at a cost savings of $13 million. More importantly,
it enables us to transfer the property to the local reuse authority
prior to cleanup using an early transfer authority. The reuse authority
actually contracts for the cleanup and works with the environmental
regulators. We agreed up-front to a level of cleanup and negotiated a
price based on their ability to meet our cleanup goals. This is a win-
win for both the community and the Air Force, as it gives the community
more control over the process and it allows the Air Force to transfer
the property. The Air Force is also pursuing the use of performance-
based contracting for its cleanup actions. Similar to privatization, we
will identify performance goals and rather than dictating the cleanup
remedy, we will award the contract based on a cleanup goal. The Air
Force plans to position 20 percent of our environmental program on
performance-based contracts this fiscal year. As a result of these
initiatives, the Air Force BRAC environmental program has successfully
closed 1,100 of our 1,671 environmental cleanup sites
CHALLENGES
In light of our successful execution of the BRAC program, the Air
Force continues to address important real estate and environmental
challenges. As we prepare for BRAC 2005, the Air Force is addressing a
key real estate issue--how to more efficiently transfer property. We
are already looking at lessons learned from the previous rounds of BRAC
to identify ways to improve the process so that we can improve our
processes for transferring property and accomplishing cleanup. We think
some of our initiatives accomplished this already, but we recognize
there is room for improvement. Our goal is to maximize BRAC savings to
the Department of Defense and expedite reuse.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we thank the committee for its support of an
additional round of base closure in 2005 and of the Air Force's current
Base Realignment and Closure Program. The closures and realignments of
the previous rounds of BRAC allow us to use the savings on other Air
Force requirements every year. With your help, we are meeting the need
for community reuse while providing quality environmental cleanup
efforts to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
We will approach BRAC 2005 with the same commitment. I will be happy to
address any questions.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
SALE VERSUS NON-REVENUE TRANSFER
I would like to ask the Army and the Air Force Secretaries,
what your view of public sale versus the non-revenue transfer
merits are?
Mr. Gibbs. I will pick it up first if you want.
Senator Hutchison. Okay.
Mr. Gibbs. The Air Force has sold in the last round
properties which will ultimately result in approximately $70
million of proceeds. Just under $50 million has been received.
I think, as in many things, under a specific set of
circumstances any one of the methods can be used most
appropriately.
In the case of the transfer--I would comment also, based on
Mr. Arny's previous comment, that one of the largest delays
that we have experienced over the years has been in dealing
with other Federal agencies. As you know, in the waterfall
process that we go through it basically starts there. It says
first of all, are there other military departments that would
want to use the land? Then it goes to other Federal agencies.
This has been the longest delay in many instances.
Then, moving on to the local agencies, the things that have
caused us the greatest difficulty are where the local community
has been unable to come to a conclusion relatively quickly as
to what they want done with the properties. In this business,
the longer it takes, the more difficult it becomes as positions
become entrenched. So the speed with which we can go through
the process will, in my opinion, enhance it, and if that would
be through a public sale, then I personally, and I believe the
Air Force, also, would favor that route.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Dr. Fiori.
CAMERON STATION PROPERTY SALE
Dr. Fiori. Yes, ma'am. One of our great early success
stories in selling property was Cameron Station. Our local
community just could not afford to assume it, even though it is
a fairly wealthy area. We had a developer come and take it away
and we sold it for $30 million at the time. They then met all
the local ordinances.
In our total sales, we have over $150 million, but none of
these are large properties--many of our properties are
obviously environmentally contaminated and we have had a
difficult time with them.
TRANSFER TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Also, when we transfer our property to other Federal
agencies, particularly the Department of the Interior, it has
taken quite a few years. One of our recommended legislative
corrections could easily be, let us limit the time that they
tie up the property before we try selling it, and that would
help us a little bit.
The fact is I think all the BRACs from the beginning to now
have taken a bit too long to do. By allowing us to be more
aggressive on selling it, some of the programs which I have
described to you which are expediting the sale of these
properties will help. In my case, this year, I do have about
100,000 acres out of the 140,000 remaining that I will be able
to finally, hopefully, dispose of, and most of it is going to
go to other agencies. It is a difficult subject.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask, Mr. Arny, and if either of
you have opinions on this I would welcome those as well. That
is, the concept that you said you do not use but is an option,
of conveying to private parties who will undertake the
environmental cleanup. It seems like a win-win so we would not
keep incurring these environmental costs and that seems to be
more expensive than the sale of the property in many instances.
Mr. Arny. I do not know the total history on it and I will
have to get back to you for the record. But I do not believe
many people have approached us on that. Again, since almost
every closure we had was through an LRA rather than directly to
the private sector, it is my guess--and I will document it for
the record--it is my guess that the private parties were not
approaching the LRAs because they assumed we would do the
cleanup in place.
I think one of the great advances over the past few years
has been the early transfer. We did that up at Mare Island and
it has been very successful, because we have all our bases to
clean up and the developer who is finally chosen by the
community at Mare Island--Mare Island may not be number one on
our list, but for that developer, guess what, it is number one
for him. And using the Governor of a particular State, in this
case the Governor of California, to adjudicate between what we
think is the right amount of money and bringing insurance
vehicles into place, now the community wins, because we are
still paying for the development but we are not doing it, and
it is now number one priority for that community. The developer
cannot develop unless he gets it cleaned up.
Senator Hutchison. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. We also have begun to use that mechanism. We
entered into an agreement in Colorado where effectively, the
cleanup is being undertaken by a private contractor. We pay for
it, of course, but it is also backed up by insurance. This is a
methodology that has turned out to be very effective there and
I think we will find it being used more and more.
We are also attempting to transfer more into performance-
based cleanups and that is in dealing principally with the
State regulators in getting to agree on what the performance
should be, and then it makes it much easier to do the private.
Senator Hutchison. But you have not had experience of
conveying with the requirement that the person who purchases or
takes the property would do the environmental cleanup?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, you mean take over the economic
responsibility?
Senator Hutchison. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. No, we have not, and I really would not expect
that would be very difficult for any local to take up. One of
the understandings is we have the responsibility to do the
cleanup and for somebody to take that over, is a tremendous
economic burden in many cases.
One of the difficulties----
Senator Hutchison. You just do not think there would be a
market for it, is what both of you are saying.
Mr. Arny. So far we have not seen one where they have come
up to us.
Mr. Gibbs. And said that they would like to actually do the
cleanup, no. We stay behind it economically. We believe it is
advantageous to turn it over to private companies to do and to
manage because in many cases, as Secretary Arny says, they are
much more focused on what needs to be done.
Mr. Arny. I am only again guessing here, but I think that
since, up until just recently, almost all the transfers have
been no-cost EDCs, the more recent ones, in which case there is
no incentive for a private sector person to come in there
because it is going ``free'' to the local community instead of
if it is up for public sale and the developer could make money
off it over and above the cost of cleanup. Then perhaps there
would be an incentive. But I will get back to you for the
record on the history of it.
[The information follows:]
Section 2908 of Public Law 103-160 amended the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) and provided authority
to transfer surplus property at closed bases to private parties who
agree to perform all required environmental remediation. II This
authority lapsed November 30, 1998. Navy did not identify any
opportunity to use it.
The 2002 National Defense Authorization Act restored this authority
for closures or realignments occurring after 2001.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP AT BASES
I have three base-specific questions. The first one is on
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. Let me ask them together if I
might. What is the Navy's estimated cost to complete the
cleanup of Hunters Point and what is the budget for the current
fiscal year and each of the next 2 fiscal years? That is the
first.
The second is the recent discovery of more than 100 boxes
of previously unknown shipyard radiological documents. What do
you expect that impact to be and will it cost more? And does
the Navy see any remaining hurdles to moving forward with the
conveyance agreement in the next 1 to 2 months?
Mr. Arny. That is me. I was in a similar job in the Navy in
the mideighties when we were wrestling with Hunters Point back
then, so----
Senator Feinstein. It goes on and on.
Mr. Arny. And then I represented the Port of San Francisco
for a while and worked for Veronica Sanchez. So I have been out
there a lot.
Senator Feinstein. In the mideighties?
Mr. Arny. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. While I was Mayor?
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am, I met her back then.
As to our cost to complete, as of this year it is $103.9
million.
Senator Feinstein. 129, did you say?
Mr. Arny. $103.9 million cost to complete. The 2003 budget
is $38 million, the 2004 budget is $24 million. I can get you
later numbers.
If we are successful in land sales--well, we anticipated
$68 million of land sales for this year's budget, for 2004, and
we have taken in more than that. We will use that money to
accelerate cleanup.
Senator Feinstein. How much have you taken in?
Mr. Arny. Taken in--well, I have to take away GSA's pound
of flesh. But we took in $208.5 million.
Senator Feinstein. Really?
Mr. Arny. Plus we took in--that was just on Tustin. We took
in $15 million roughly in Key West in a negotiated sale, and
once we are settled with a lawsuit at Oak Knoll we expect to
take in another $10 million or so.
Our priority on those is the money goes to the base that
was closed or to a base--if it is a Marine base----
Senator Feinstein. In the State?
Mr. Arny. In the State. We have it prioritized and I can
get you that for the record.
Senator Feinstein. Would you?
Mr. Arny. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. I would very much appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
We need to retain some flexibility, but any additional Prior BRAC
land sale revenue received by the Department of the Navy beyond the $68
million included in the fiscal year 2004 budget bill will be applied to
accelerate cleanup and property disposal at Prior BRAC locations in the
following general priority order.
--The BRAC base that generated the revenue.
--The Navy or Marine Corps military service that generated the
revenue.
--DoN bases to implement an early transfer opportunity.
--DoN bases that, with a modest infusion of additional funds, could
quickly complete cleanup and property disposal, thereby
completing actions on that base.
--All remaining DoN bases.
Mr. Arny. And we tend to--it is the base that was sold gets
first priority. The service that that base was gets next
priority, and the State--I forget where the State falls in
there. I can get that for you, and I can get you the later
numbers.
Senator Feinstein. Great.
Mr. Arny. But Hunters Point is clearly one that we would
like to accelerate the cleanup on. Hunters Point--you talked
about the six bases to Mr. DuBois. I would suspect that three
of them are ours and three of them are in the San Francisco
Bay. I would suspect they are Mare Island, Alameda, and Hunters
Point. That is just a guess.
Senator Feinstein. And then Alaska would be another, right?
That would be----
Mr. Arny. That is just huge area.
Senator Feinstein. Right.
Mr. Arny. It is area, not cost.
Senator Feinstein. And the other two would be?
Mr. Arny. McClellan maybe and--I do not know.
Senator Feinstein. Pearl, did you say?
Mr. Arny. No, McClellan perhaps. I am not sure.
Mr. Gibbs. I do not know the six.
Senator Feinstein. Well, you gentlemen will get us the six.
Mr. Gibbs. You will get the list.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that.
Mr. Arny. As far as the boxes of material, I just got
briefed yesterday on the HRA, Historical Radiological
Assessment. We are working very closely with the city, as you
know. There is a RAB meeting in 2 weeks. We will lay out ahead
of time before the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) with the
city officials. The number of boxes is not quite as large as we
thought it was, but it is still very large.
We believe we will be ready by 1 October, I think is our
deadline, and we have----
Senator Feinstein. Is that for conveyance?
Mr. Arny. No, the conveyance should be ready to go before
then. We have separated the conveyance from--we were going to
require the transfer of parcel A prior to conveyance. But
because the HRA has delayed that, we are separating parcel A
from the conveyance.
We would, however, like the city in return for early
conveyance, which we are ready to do, we would like them to
take over fire and security guard service. We are paying $1
million a year for fire and police security services. If you
recall, the police, the San Francisco Police, are actually
stationed at Hunters Point, but they are not to respond to
stuff at Hunters Point.
It is very difficult for us to hire firemen. We hire them,
they become Federal, we train them up, and guess what, they get
hired away by the City of San Francisco. And oh, by the way, so
we are undermanned, our firemen respond to a fire, and the city
also responds to the same fire.
Senator Feinstein. I would be very happy to help with that.
Mr. Arny. Thank you, I would appreciate that.
Senator Feinstein. I really appreciate the work that has
been done. So do you see any hurdles? 1 to 2 months for
conveyance, is that about correct?
Mr. Arny. I will have to check on the time frame. I was not
thinking that quickly, but that could very well be the time
frame.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Mr. Arny. Firefighting is the only hurdle.
Senator Feinstein. All right.
MC CLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE
Secretary Gibbs, I understand that the required McClellan
funding for 2004 is nearly $43 million and the Air Force has
communicated to the community a commitment of $30 to $40
million per year to be spent on remediation at McClellan over
the next 5 years. Is that in fact correct?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. What is your current working estimate of
the cost to complete the environmental cleanup at McClellan?
Mr. Gibbs. I will give you a number----
Senator Feinstein. And the time line.
Mr. Gibbs. We expect that it will be about three-quarters
of a billion dollars to complete all of the work at McClellan.
Now, I notice that Mr. Leonard had used a number substantially
greater than that in his estimate, so I will get back to you
for the record specifically. I will provide you all of the
details of the money spent to date and the amount to go.
[The information follows:]
McClellan AFB
Historical expenditures (including pre-BRAC DERA costs) for the
environmental cleanup at McClellan Air Force Base total $402,800,000
(includes fiscal year 2003). Our current estimated cost to complete the
cleanup is $752,000,000 for the period fiscal year 2004 through 2034.
Senator Feinstein. Is most of the $750 million or above
related to the nuclear----
Mr. Gibbs. Much of it is.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Residue?
Mr. Gibbs. Much of it is, yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. And that does not include the sewer?
Mr. Gibbs. No, the sewer is included.
Senator Feinstein. The sewer is included, okay. And the
time line?
Mr. Gibbs. The time line on the sewer is--well, there are
discussions currently going on now with the redevelopment
agency to see if we can rearrange the time line on that. It was
scheduled out about 2 or 3 years from now. I do not know
precisely when. But the agency has decided that it would prefer
to move that up as opposed to something else. So it is a change
in the process.
FORT ORD CLEANUP
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Dr. Fiori, the cleanup bill for Fort Ord is estimated I
believe at $306 million. I realize that unexploded ordnance
(UXD) is under a different account, but, given the
concentration of UXO on Fort Ord, can you estimate the
remaining time it will take to clean up that base and whether
you foresee additional costs?
Dr. Fiori. The costs are about $300 million from now until
the end. The cleanup will not happen under the process we are
going under today for at least another 15 to 17 years, and
those are regulatory issues that we have to solve.
Senator Feinstein. Let me just--you are saying the
cleanup----
Dr. Fiori. Of our 7,000 acres that have UXO it is going to
take 14 years. The reason for it is, at the moment at least, at
the present plan with the regulators of California, we are
allowed to only burn 500 acres per year. We need to burn the
vegetation off so we can survey the land to find the UXO. Five
hundred into 7,000 is 14 years, ma'am.
I am going out there and I am going to discuss this with
Congressman Farr. Perhaps we have alternative ways to do this.
But right now we are stuck in that regulatory climate.
Senator Feinstein. Let me ask a couple questions. This is
because of air pollution?
Dr. Fiori. Yes, ma'am, the controlled burns are due to air
pollution. They limit us to 500 acres a year. We missed this
year as a matter of fact because the weather changed at the
time we were going to do it, so we did not even do it this last
calendar year.
Senator Feinstein. Does the county want a speedier cleanup?
Dr. Fiori. As far as I could tell at the moment, everyone
seems to be satisfied with this except me. I would like to
speed it up dramatically. This is my long pole in the tent of
my remaining 40,000 acres once I get rid of my 100,000 acres
that I plan to get rid of this year.
But it is a regulatory issue and we are going to work on
it. I have a task force just working Fort Ord to see what we
could do to really expedite it and look at alternative
technologies. But right now we literally cannot find the UXO.
Senator Feinstein. Well, please let me know if I can be of
help and I would be happy to.
Dr. Fiori. I would be delighted to let you know about it,
because it is high on our priorities, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
OTHER CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES
Dr. Fiori. I do have an answer, though, about the other
properties. A lot of them are in California.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
Dr. Fiori. The largest one is Honey Lake, Sierra Army
Deport, California, 64,000 acres. I think we will be able to
transfer that to the Department of Interior this year. So that
is a large chunk of my 100,000. The other one, of course, is
Fort Ord, but only 1,300 acres of my remaining 15,000 acres
will be transferred this year. Those are the two California
large chunks of property that we are going to try to dispose of
this year.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
Thanks, Madam Chairman.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Raymond DuBois
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. Please explain the deliberation process the BRAC working
group is undergoing as it develops the initial selection criterion set
for submission to the defense committees and the deadline for this
submission.
Answer. The Department will ensure that the proposed selection
criteria meet all of the requirements of the enabling legislation and
incorporate changes that might be needed to accommodate changing
military missions. We intend to meet all legislatively mandated
deadlines regarding selection criteria, beginning with publication of
the proposed selection criteria in the Federal Register not later than
31 December 2003.
Question. We hear that much emphasis will be placed on
``jointness'' as it applies to military infrastructure in the 2005
closure round. What are you initial thoughts on what areas the
Department will be focusing on in this area?
Answer. In the operational and readiness mission areas, the
Department will focus on multi-service and multi-mission basing,
leading to enhanced inter-service training and planning opportunities
by collocating units of various military services where it makes
military sense to do so. The Department will also place emphasis on
jointness in common support areas by streamlining the support
management infrastructure. We are looking for efficiencies through
inter-service cooperation and rationalization of support requirements.
Question. How do you anticipate assets classified as BRAC excess
property in 1995 being considered for realignment opportunities in the
2005 round by the Department?
Answer. Prior BRAC rounds identified considerable excess property
for disposal. Unless the Department identifies a need for this
currently excess property, we will continue with the property disposal
process.
Question. We understand that community economic impact may play a
lesser role with respect to decisions made for closure or major
realignment of a base. Can you tell us what community factors may play
a more important role in the initial selection criteria?
Answer. Community factors have been considered in the past and will
be considered in the future. The specific factors that will be taken
into account will not be identified until the proposed selection
criteria are developed and published.
Question. Encroachment is an issue that has been continually
emphasized as a major concern for the Department--how do you anticipate
this being measured by the Department as it applies to the selection
criteria?
Answer. In the past, encroachment has been a factor the Military
Departments considered as a component of military value. I anticipate
that both current and potential future encroachment issues will be
identified and considered as a part of the installation military value
assessments during the BRAC 2005 process.
REDUCED PRESENCE IN OVERSEAS BASE INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Do you see the possibility of a reduced presence in our
overseas base infrastructure and, if so, does the Department anticipate
increased basing of forces at CONUS bases? Will such a change in basing
factor into the 2005 round?
Answer. Since the Department is currently engaged in a review of
our overseas presence and basing structure, it would be premature to
speculate on any potential changes.
However, to the extent that overseas forces are relocated to other
overseas areas, there would be no impact on United States basing. If
any overseas forces return to the United States, they would be
stationed at a domestic installation. Regardless, it is important to
note that decisions regarding overseas basing will be made in advance
of the completion of the BRAC 2005 process. As such, BRAC 2005, which
is on a later timeline, will factor overseas presence decisions into
its analyses.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. Tell us how the Nuclear Posture Review will affect the
initial selection criteria sent to the Congress.
Answer. The December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report to
Congress outlined a new portfolio of strategic capabilities for the
United States. United States plans include development of new, non-
nuclear capabilities, concurrent with a reduction in the number of
operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2012. The NPR
report listed the planned strategic nuclear force structure for 2012
and noted that periodic reviews of United States strategic capabilities
would occur during the decade ahead. The BRAC force structure plan will
reflect the most recent decisions by the Department on the strategic
nuclear force posture, and the selection criteria will connect these
decisions to the BRAC analysis to support the Secretary's closure and
realignment recommendations.
Question. What role do you see the individual services playing in
the development of the initial selection criteria and can you give me a
couple of examples of the kinds of themes they have discussed with OSD
as you have moved forward in the deliberation process?
Answer. The Department, with all of its components, will work as a
team to develop the BRAC 2005 selection criteria. The Infrastructure
Steering Group (ISG), chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), and the Infrastructure
Executive Council (IEC), chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense,
will develop the selection criteria for the Secretary's approval.
Senior leaders from each component of the Department are represented on
these two groups. Military value will be the primary consideration, as
required by statute.
Question. What different considerations will be given in the 2005
as contrasted with the 1995 round given the new Unified Command Plan?
Answer. The Unified Command Plan sets forth basic guidance to all
unified combatant commanders, establishing their missions,
responsibilities and force structure, and delineating the general
geographic area of responsibility for geographic combatant commanders.
One of the major differences between the 2005 BRAC round and the 1995
round is the consideration of force structure. The BRAC Act of 1990, as
amended, requires the 2005 round to develop a force structure plan
based on probable threats to our national security over a 20-year
period. The 1995 round required a force structure plan of only a 6-year
period. To the extent the new Unified Command Plan impacts our force
structure requirements over this extended period, those impacts will be
considered during the 2005 BRAC analysis process.
IMPACT OF BRAC ON THE MILCON REQUEST
Question. How have military construction requests been affected by
the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round?
Answer. The 2004 request funds our highest priorities for improving
quality of life and resolving critical readiness shortfalls,
irrespective of BRAC. For quality of life, the military construction
request sustains funding for family and bachelor housing and increases
the number of housing units privatized. We increased funding for
facilities sustainment, raising the corporate sustainment rate from 93
to 94 percent, which will help to preserve our facilities and reduce
the need for future, more costly revitalizations. We also preserved
funding for recapitalization.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. What role do you see Guard and Reserve forces playing in
any base closure or realignment recommendations?
Answer. As in past BRAC rounds, the Guard and Reserves will be
fully integrated in BRAC 2005. The Department views all components as
important participants in BRAC 2005.
Question. How will BRAC officials ensure each base is treated
equally in this process? Will they visit each and every installation
they are looking to realign or close?
Answer. The BRAC 2005 process now beginning will be a comprehensive
analysis of all military installations with the primary goal being
enhanced war fighting capability and efficiency. The Department will do
everything possible to ensure the BRAC process is as fair and objective
as possible, within a very disciplined analytical framework. All
military installations will be reviewed and all recommendations will be
based on approved, published selection criteria and a force structure
plan. As required by Public Law 107-107, military value is the primary
consideration in analyzing and making closure or realignment
recommendations.
The independent BRAC Commission will review the SecDef's closure
and realignment recommendations (due to the Commission by May 16,
2005). Commissioners will be nominated by the President in consultation
with the Congressional leadership. In previous BRAC rounds, at least
one Commissioner visited each site recommended for closure or
realignment. The BRAC statute, as amended to authorize the 2005 round,
provides that the Commission may not recommend the closure of a
military installation not recommended for closure by the Secretary of
Defense unless at least two Commissioners visit the installation. Upon
completion of public hearings and deliberations, the Commission must
forward its closure and realignment recommendations to the President
for approval not later than September 8, 2005.
The President must approve the recommendations (on an all-or-none
basis) and forward them to the Congress. Upon receipt, the Congress has
45 legislative days to vote down the Commission's recommendations on an
all-or-none basis; otherwise they take on the force and effect of law.
Question. Some of the BRAC goals are to eliminate excess
infrastructure and optimize military readiness. How do the BRAC
personnel feel this will affect our homeland security mission?
Answer. The events of September 11, 2001, have confirmed in my mind
that the Department must act now to review our basing requirements. We
are looking at and experiencing different threats than we were a decade
ago, and our forces must be stationed appropriately to respond to
contingencies and support the Global War on Terrorism.
EXCESS INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. Could excess infrastructure be used for homeland security
or to house or maintain other Federal, State, local government agencies
that need added security since 9/11?
Answer. Whenever the Department of Defense determines that it has
property that is excess to its needs, that property is made available
to other Federal agencies during the Federal screening process. If no
Federal agency identifies a need for the property, it becomes surplus
property and is made available for disposal outside the Federal
Government. State and local governmental agencies may be able to
acquire surplus property for a variety of purposes if the purpose meets
the criteria for various public benefit conveyances under the 1949
Federal Property Act, as amended. Additionally, State and local
governments can negotiate to purchase surplus property if the intended
use is for a ``public purpose'' as defined in the 1949 Act.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. Will BRAC look closely at realigning bases and locating
missions (from the same and other services) at bases where the primary
missions cannot be moved? There are several States that have multiple
military installations; will BRAC officials take into consideration the
economic impact a closure would have on a State where there's only one
base to those that have several bases?
Answer. As in prior BRAC rounds, all bases will be treated equally
and considered in BRAC 2005. BRAC 2005 selection criteria will be used
to evaluate potential BRAC actions with Military Value selection
criteria having primary consideration. For example, BRAC 2005 will be
looking for opportunities to achieve economies by further developing
multi-service and multi-mission installations.
Regarding economic impacts on States with one base, as required by
the BRAC enabling legislation, the selection criteria for military
installations will also address the economic impact on existing
communities in the vicinity of military installations. Regardless of
the number of military installations in any given state, economic
impact criteria will be uniformly applied.
INSTALLATIONS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MISSILE DEFENSE
Question. Do you see any new installations' under current or future
plans for a missile defense?
Answer. The Department does not have plans to add any new
installations in support of missile defense. However, we plan to expand
facilities at existing installations as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year (proj #) Project title Project amt Loc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR MILCON
2003 (464) THAAD......................... Test Facilities............ $23,400 PMRF, HI
MINOR MILCON
2002 (463)............................... Launch Facilities.......... 1,450 PMRF, HI
FISCAL YEAR 1996-2005 RDT&E PROJECT
SUMMARY
2002 (514)............................... Site Activation Facilities. 1,900 Eareckson AB, AK
2002 (501)............................... Missile Defense System..... 273,121 Ft Greely & Eareckson AS,
Test Bed Facilities, AK
Ph I Preparation
2002 (502)............................... Missile Defense System, 8,200 Kodiak Island, AK
Test Bed--Kodiak
Facilities, Ph I.
2003 (503)............................... Missile Defense System, 121,778 Ft Greely & Eareckson AS,
Test Bed Facilities, Ph II. AK & Beale AFB, CA
2003 (505)............................... Missile Defense System, 14,880 Kodiak Island, AK
Test Bed--Kodiak
Facilities, Ph II.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS OF THE NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW
Question. Another Nuclear Posture Review will occur in 2004, is
there any present indication that this NPR changes the conclusions of
the last NPR regarding the continued need for the long-standing triad?
If so, how, what, when, where, and why?
Answer. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) lays out the
direction for United States strategic forces over the next five to 10
years. The Review concluded that the United States needs to transform
its strategic forces, from the triad of the last 45 years into a New
Triad. The three ``legs'' of the old triad have consisted of nuclear-
armed strike forces: Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs),
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-armed
bombers. The New Triad will comprise three legs: (1) nuclear and non-
nuclear strike forces, (2) active defenses against missiles, and (3) a
revitalized defense infrastructure. The three legs will be supported by
robust planning, command and control, and intelligence.
Nuclear forces, including ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers, will
constitute one portion of the Strike leg of the transformed New Triad--
one that is vitally important. The NPR determined that the United
States will deploy, at least until 2012, a force of 500 ICBMs, 14
ballistic-missile submarines (12 operational at any time), and a bomber
force of 21 B-2s and 76 B-52s. The number of operationally deployed
strategic nuclear warheads on these forces will decline to 3,800 in
2007 and to 1,700-2,200 in 2012.
There is no requirement for another Nuclear Posture Review in 2004,
but periodic assessments are required under the Implementation Plan for
the 2001 NPR.
The periodic assessments will review the progress achieved in
establishing the New Triad. The conclusions of the assessments cannot
be predicted in advance, but the Department of Defense currently plans
to maintain the NPR-recommended force of 500 ICBMs, 14 ballistic
missile submarines (12 operational at any time), 21 B-2 and 76 B-52
bombers until at least 2012.
ICBM LAUNCHERS
Question. Will the concept of 500 ICBM launchers be maintained? If
so, how, what, when, where, and why?
Answer. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) lays out the
direction for United States strategic forces over the next 5 to 10
years. The President and the Secretary of Defense approved the NPR
recommendation that the United States will deploy, at least until 2012,
a force of 500 ICBMs.
The force of 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs is being retired in accordance
with the recommendations of the NPR. Accordingly, the force of 500
ICBMs envisioned by the NPR will comprise entirely the existing force
of Minuteman III missiles.
There are no plans to move the Minuteman III ICBMs from their
current locations.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. Presuming some missions will be realigned during the next
BRAC, what factors will be considered in the decision-making process
regarding placement at other bases?
Answer. Decisions will be based on the force structure plan and the
final selection criteria, with primary consideration on military value.
Some of the factors that could be considered are operational and
training effectiveness and efficiencies through joint operations.
Question. Malmstrom AFB has experienced hundreds of millions of
dollars in construction since 1987, with additional millions to be
spent over the next couple of years. The funds have been spent
improving infrastructure, operational facilities (particularly along
the flight line), housing and other facilities designed to upgrade the
living conditions of personnel. The estimated cost to reopen the flight
line to a new mission is estimated at $10,000,000 to $15,000,000. With
little or no operational encroachments, great weather and significant
available air space, what flying missions might be considered for
placement at MAFB?
Answer. In accordance with the requirements of the base closure
statute, the Department will consider all military installations
equally, without regard to whether the installation has been previously
considered or proposed for closure or realignment by the Department.
The attributes of Malmstrom AFB will be considered along with those of
all other installations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. You and other Defense Department officials have suggested
that the target of the 2005 BRAC round is to reduce DOD's real estate
inventory by 20 to 25 percent. That is a very significant reduction,
particularly at a time when the Nation is mobilizing for war. Has the
Defense Department taken another look at its estimate of excess
property in light of the current world crises and the build up to war?
Answer. BRAC 2005 does not have a target in terms of either
reducing installation capacity or in savings dollars. However, the 1998
Report of the Department of Defense on Base Realignment and Closure
estimated the Department has substantial excess infrastructure capacity
(20-25 percent). Notwithstanding the indications of the 1998 report,
specific excess capacity will be determined only after extensive
analyses are accomplished within the BRAC 2005 process. Once these
excesses are identified, critical considerations, like technology
changes and transformational advances, will be factored against them to
determine the unneeded capacities that can actually be eliminated.
The force structure on which BRAC 2005 installation requirements
will be based will project 20 years into the future. As in past BRAC
rounds, BRAC 2005 will consider not only peacetime garrison
requirements, but also requirements associated with the mobilization of
the reserve components. While the BRAC process focuses on CONUS
installations, the requirements of the global force will necessarily
take into account anticipated overseas basing that is largely driven by
international security considerations. As in prior base realignment and
closure rounds, BRAC 2005 will retain sufficient base structure
flexibility and capacity to accommodate unanticipated changes in
overseas basing requirements. In sum, the Department envisions
continuing to look at the future force and mobilization requirements,
as well as potential CONUS beddowns of forward deployed forces.
LONG TERM STATIONING OF U.S. FORCES IN CENTRAL COMMAND
Question. In your testimony, you note that the Defense Department
is undertaking a comprehensive review of military property overseas. At
the same time that the Department is looking at reducing the United
States military footprint in Europe and Korea, the war on terror and
the build up for war against Iraq have resulted in an expansion of the
United States footprint in the Persian Gulf region.
What does this mean in terms of the long term stationing of United
States forces in the Central Command area of responsibility?
Answer. The global positioning of all United States forces and
their supporting infrastructure outside the United States is currently
being examined by the Department of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has
directed that a comprehensive and integrated presence and basing
strategy looking out 10 years be developed and presented to him by July
1, 2003. The strategy will provide an essential foundation for
decisions concerning the appropriate locations and infrastructure
necessary to execute the United States defense strategy today and in
the future.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. You have been quoted as saying that, for the 2005 BRAC
round, all installations are on the table. Will there be any difference
in the way active installations are weighted or graded versus Guard and
reserve bases?
Answer. All active and reserve component installations will be
considered during BRAC 2005. They will be assessed based on enabling
legislative guidelines, the force structure plan and approved selection
criteria, with military value having primary consideration. In doing
so, we will take into account the missions of reserve component
installations. Additionally, reserve component installations often
support units that rely upon geographic recruiting areas, a
consideration not usually relevant to active installations.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BASE CLOSURE
Question. What will you do differently in the 2005 round to better
help local communities deal with the economic impact of a base closure?
Answer. We would like to build upon the effectiveness of the
Defense Economic Adjustment Program (DEAP) as it assists in the
alleviation of serious community effects that result from BRAC actions.
As an agency whose primary responsibility is national security, the
Department relies heavily on the domestic Federal agencies to assist
local adjustment efforts through technical and financial support.
Therefore, we will work through the Office of Economic Adjustment, as
it manages the DEAP, coordinates Federal adjustment assistance, and
assists communities to organize and respond to these impacts. Among
activities currently being undertaken to assist communities that may be
impacted by an 2005 round:
--Reinvigorate the President's Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) to
expand its purview to address certain regulatory issues and
update its membership to include all Federal agencies with
programs that can assist local economic recovery.
--Review activities that may be undertaken today to assist a
community where a substantial portion of the economic activity
or population of a community is dependent on defense
expenditures. On the basis of this effort we anticipate the
publication of a Notice of Funding Availability for communities
that would like to proactively engage in economic
diversification planning.
When Secretary Rumsfeld makes his recommendations for base
realignment and closure public in May 2005, the Defense Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA), will be prepared to provide responsive
assistance for those communities that want to begin the base reuse
planning process.
PROPERTY TRANSFER PROCESS
Question. In your opinion, what property transfer process best
allows for communities to succeed in transforming a military
installation?
Answer. There is tremendous variability in the type of facility,
geographic location, private investment rates, unemployment levels, and
other economic strengths and weaknesses at each BRAC location that
directly affect opportunities for civilian reuse. In addressing this
variability, and recognizing the uneven capacities of the private and
public sectors at each of these locations, the Department needs
flexibility in determining a responsive mix of disposal authorities to
support a community's particular resources. Existing Federal property
disposal laws provide for an array of methods to dispose of surplus
property ranging from the transfer of property to another Federal
entity, through opportunities for discounted conveyance for public
purposes, to competitive bid sales.
LESSONS LEARNED
Question. Does the DOD plan to work with communities before and
after lists are published to provide ``Lessons Learned'' from past
rounds?
Answer. The DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is available to
discuss civilian reuse experiences from prior base realignment and
closures. This information is available on a web site (http://
www.acq.osd.mil/oea) with links to several current base reuse
locations, through many publications offering guidance and lessons
learned information, and direct staff contact. There are also links
from the web site to other Federal agencies and NGO organizations, such
as the International City Managers Association, and the National
Association of Installation Developers, that also have documents with
lessons learned. This information will continue to be kept current with
the best practices as we approach and implement BRAC 2005.
BRAC CLEANUP
Question. In the 2005 BRAC round, DOD needs a better environmental
assessment of property and a better estimate of environmental
remediation costs upfront so we know from the outset what the problems
are and what the cleanup costs are likely to be. How do you plan to
achieve these standards--and to accomplish cleanup in a reasonable time
period?
Answer. The Department of Defense (DOD) is currently addressing
sites on its active, closing, and realigning installations with
potential contamination under the Defense Environmental Response
Program (DERP). Sites subject to a future BRAC round already have the
majority of required environmental restoration underway and are
currently subject to DERP program management goals. These sites are
included in DOD's current site inventory along with cleanup phase,
costs incurred to date, and cost-to-complete information. Detailed site
and installation-specific information regarding the status of cleanup
is maintained at the installation and documented in the installation's
Management Action Plan. Once the closure process begins, the Services
and regulators may identify additional requirements as investigations
progress potentially increasing costs.
Additionally, DOD has undertaken an extensive, Department-wide
effort to ensure accurate, reliable, and timely financial information,
is available on a routine basis to support informed decision-making at
all levels throughout the Department. Established in July 2002, the
Financial Management Modernization Program (FMMP) is intended to
develop a DOD-wide enterprise architecture and transition plan designed
to transform the Defense business operations and technical
infrastructure. The scope of this initiative encompasses those defense
policies, processes, people, and systems, which guide, perform, or
support all aspects of financial management within the Department, from
the formulation of budget estimates to the preparation of management
reports and financial statements. Specific to the DERP, the Office of
the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environment
(OADUSD(E)) is working to align its Restoration Management Information
System (RMIS), as well as the DOD Component's data systems that feed
the RMIS, with the DOD-wide Financial Management Enterprise
Architecture. Additionally, the OADUSD(E) has directed the Components
to eliminate serious deficiencies with the preparation and
documentation cost-to-complete estimates and material weaknesses in the
annual financial statements. Component cost-to-complete estimates and
the values in the annual financial statements for environmental
restoration must be consistent with each other and able to withstand an
audit. In summary, these DOD-wide and DERP-specific initiatives to
improve financial management and reporting will facilitate DOD's
development of accurate, supportable environmental remediation cost
estimates.
To ensure cleanup is accomplished in a reasonable time frame,
OADUSD(E) will be working with the Components to develop goals and
metrics for the 2005 BRAC round. ODUSD(E) will closely oversee
Component progress using such tools as regular In-Progress Reviews.
BRAC BUDGET
Question. Given the magnitude of the outstanding cleanup costs from
the prior BRAC rounds--an estimated $3.5 billion will needed to
complete cleanup assuming there are no more surprises out there--why
did the Defense Department reduce the fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget
request by 34 percent?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the total fiscal
year 2004 BRAC program (including environmental and caretaker costs)
represents a 34 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. When
considering BRAC environmental costs only, the planned value of the
fiscal year 2004 program ($412.0 million) represents a 24 percent
reduction from fiscal year 2003 ($540.2 million). A significant portion
of the difference is attributed to revenues anticipated from land sales
of base closure properties, thus reducing the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
Question. What are your projections for the out years--are you
planning increases or further decreases in the BRAC environmental
remediation budget requests?
Answer. The President's budget will support the goal of remedies in
place by fiscal year 2005. As the requirements decrease, the budget
will decrease. A substantial level of total BRAC environmental
requirements will remain beyond the current FYDP because many of the
BRAC sites are still in the study phase and that a greater range of
contaminants may be considered in the cleanup process leading to
transfer of properties to communities. The Department recognizes the
inherent advantages of transferring properties as soon as possible and
fully funds cleanup of all properties with identified schedules for
transfer.
STATUS OF EXCESS ACREAGE AT SIX INSTALLATIONS
Question. Could you identify those 6 installations and tell the
Committee the estimated cost and cleanup time line for each of them?
Answer. The six installations are: Adak Naval Air Station, Alaska;
Fort McClellan, Alabama; Fort Ord, California; Fort Wingate, New
Mexico; Savanna Depot Activity, Illinois; and Sierra Army Depot,
California. These six installations have some sites where remediation
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) remains to be completed. Though there are
exceptions, generally remediation under CERCLA has to be completed
before property can be transferred to a non-Federal entity. Through
fiscal year 2002, the Department spent approximately $697 million on
remediation at these six installations; we estimate the remaining
environmental cost-to-complete, including environmental remediation, at
these six installations to be approximately $635 million. Additional
information on acreage, funding, and environmental remediation
associated with each installation is shown in the table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Environmental
Acreage Acreage Acreage with Projected Remediation fiscal year
Installations Excess Acres Suitable for Transferred to CERCLA Final Cleanup Expenditures 2003 to Comments
Transfer Under Date \2\ Activities \3\ Remedy \4\ through fiscal Completion
CERCLA \1\ year 2002 \5\ Funding \6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAK NAS, ALASKA.............................. 72,600 57,600.00 0.00 15,000.00 2008 $209,282 $50,680 Remedy selection for petroleum
sites has been delayed due to
negotiations with regulatory
agencies to consider risk based
approach to cleanup decisions
for these sites. Major
remaining obstacle to airfield
conveyance is future funding
for the airfield after transfer
from Navy.
FORT MCCLELLAN, ALABAMA....................... 18,232 17,789.26 4,953.00 442.74 2011 92,873 126,352 Primary issues relate to complex
unexploded ordnance activities.
Army is planning on early
transfers in fiscal year 2003
and fiscal year 2004, with the
LRA assuming cleanup
responsibilities, including
UXO. With this early transfer
approach, not only will the LRA
be able be able to control and
integrate both re-development
and cleanup, but the cleanup
may be completed sooner.
FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA.......................... 27,015 3,062.00 11,466.00 23,953.00 2011 261,168 305,755 Primary issues relate to complex
unexploded ordnance activities,
especially with limitations
placed by chaparral habitat
management plan.
FORT WINGATE, NEW MEXICO...................... 21,881 21,829.00 5,429.00 52.00 2010 33,647 16,047 Army is working with the State
of New Mexico on environmental
issues related to OB/OD closure
on the latter transfer parcel.
Army currently in negotiations
for fiscal year 2003 transfer
of about 8,300 acres to DOI.
Remaining acreage (about 8,100)
planned for transfer after
fiscal year 2007.
SAVANNA DEPOT ACTIVITY, ILLINOIS.............. 12,606 11,821.00 0.00 785.00 2015 93,846 135,074 Complex cleanup issues related
to unexploded ordnance,
potential chemical warfare
material, and groundwater. The
Strategic Management Analysis
and Requirements Team [SMART]
team is working actively to
expedite cleanup. Most of the
property can transfer at any
time by mutual agreement with
DOI. Army and DOI are
negotiating planned transfers.
SIERRA ARMY DEPOT, CALIFORNIA................. 64,996 64,996.00 663.00 0.00 2000 6,467 1,523 Army anticipates getting
remaining MMRP work completed
in fiscal year 2003. Army is
intending on having property
ready to revert to California
in fiscal year 2003. Listing of
Carson Wandering Skipper
(butterfly) under ESA may
impede property transfer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cleanup actions either completed or not required to satisfy CERCLA requirements for transfer to a non-Federal entity. Some of the acreage may have Military Munitions Response Program
activities (e.g., unexploded ordnance clean up). Information as of September 30, 2002.
\2\ Includes property transfers to Federal and non-Federal entities, as well as long-term leases such as Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance. Information as of December 31, 2002.
\3\ Cleanup actions or further information needed to satisfy CERCLA requirements for transfer to a non-Federal entity. Note cleanup actions are taken on discrete cleanup sites within the
listed acreage. Some of the acreage may also have Military Munitions Response Program activities (e.g., unexploded ordnance clean up). The property can be transferred to other Federal
Agencies or can be transferred to a non-Federal entity through use of CERCLA's Early Transfer Authority. This property can also be put into reuse by non-Federal entities through a lease.
Information as of September 30, 2002.
\4\ Projected date of having a final BRAC cleanup site at the installation having a remedy-in-place or response complete with respect to hazardous substances. This means that cleanup actions
have been taken to satisfy CERCLA requirements for property transfer to a non-Federal entity. Information as of September 30, 2002.
\5\ Environmental remediation (traditional CERCLA-type Installation Restoration Program cleanup and Military Munitions Response Program cleanup) project costs through end of fiscal year 2002.
Information as of September 30, 2002.
\6\ Includes environmental remediation (traditional CERCLA-type cleanup and Military Munitions Response Program cleanup) and environmental compliance costs. Information as of September 31,
2002.
ESA=Endangered Species Act.
IRP=Installation Restoration Program; e.g., hazardous substances.
LRA=Local Redevelopment Authority.
MMRP=Military Munitions Response Program; e.g., unexploded ordnance.
UXO=Unexploded Ordnance
REMAINING CLOSED BASES TO TRANSFER
Question. How many closed military bases remain to be transferred
to the local community?
Answer. Overall, there were 387 major and minor base closures and
realignment actions in the four rounds of BRAC. Of this total, 82
installations have property remaining to be transferred to other
Federal agencies and eligible recipients, including local communities.
The parcels range in size from 4 acres to 72,600 acres. As reported
separately, 82 percent of this property (in acres) is at 6
installations. However, in many instances these properties are already
being used to develop new community jobs through interim leases,
pending final transfer.
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)
Question. What is the cost to the government for maintaining closed
military properties that haven't been transferred?
Answer. The Department continues to dispose of surplus property
associated with former BRAC locations as quickly as possible. Costs for
maintaining closed military properties that have not been transferred
fall into the operations and maintenance category, such as providing a
level of maintenance to keep facilities from being damaged by weather,
cutting the grass and maintaining security. In fiscal year 2002, those
costs approximated $70 million, and have decreased to $60 million in
2003 and $48 million in the 2004 budget request. These costs will
continue to decrease as more BRAC property is transferred out of the
Department's inventory.
DEPARTMENT'S POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION
Question. How would you respond to Mr. Lowry and Mr. Salazar's
concerns? Can you assure me that your proposed amendments will have
absolutely no effect on the Department's potential liability for
perchlorate contamination?
Answer. The Department revised the legislative language of our
proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) before
submitting it to Congress this year to address some of the concerns
expressed by State officials last year with respect to closed ranges.
In addition, the Department has worked with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) subsequent to submission of our legislation
specifically to address further concerns expressed by these and other
State officials about closed ranges and contractor activities and
facilities. We have submitted these revisions through DOD testimony
offered before the Readiness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services
Committee on April 1, 2003, and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee on April 2, 2003.
These revisions make even clearer that our legislation will not
alter the Department's legal obligations or responsibilities with
respect to our closed ranges or ranges that close in the future, or
with respect to our contractors. Moreover, our legislation also does
not alter the Department's obligations under the Safe Drinking Water
Act even with respect to operational ranges. Our legislation provides
that the Department will be liable for cleanup under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of munitions fragments or
constituents that migrate off an operational range if they create an
imminent and substantial endangerment and are not being addressed under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Finally, the Department's legislation does not seek to
change the liability or cost recovery provisions of CERCLA.
Thus, enactment of our range proposals would have no effect on the
Department's potential liability for perchlorate contamination. The
RCRA and CERCLA provisions would affect the timing of cleanup
activities on operational ranges, deferring cleanup on them until they
closed, in the absence of off-range migration.
Question. Can you assure me that your proposed amendments will have
absolutely no effect on the Department's potential liability for
perchlorate contamination, and if this is correct, explain why?
Answer. Our legislation will not alter the Department's legal
obligations or responsibilities with respect to our closed ranges or
ranges that close in the future, or with respect to our contractors.
Moreover, our legislation also does not alter the Department's
obligations under the Safe Drinking Water Act even with respect to
operational ranges. Our legislation provides that the Department will
be liable for cleanup under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of munitions fragments or constituents that migrate off an
operational range if they may create an imminent and substantial
endangerment and are not being addressed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Finally, the Department's legislation does not seek to change the
liability or cost recovery provisions of CERCLA.
Thus, enactment of our range proposals would have no effect on the
Department's potential liability for perchlorate contamination. The
RCRA and CERCLA provisions would affect the timing of cleanup
activities on operational ranges, deferring cleanup on them until they
closed, in the absence of off-range migration.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PERCHLORATE STUDY
Question. Can you assure me that the NAS study will rigorously
examine potential health effects on children, which many believe occur
at low levels of perchlorate exposure?
Answer. EPA has decided, with the full support and in partnership
with the Department and other Federal agencies, to submit perchlorate
health science issues to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
resolve several underlying scientific questions about perchlorate
toxicity and risk. We, along with EPA and others, expect the NAS study
will be a complete, thorough, and vigorous independent review that will
answer these substantial scientific uncertainties including the effect
of perchlorate on sensitive subpopulations, which may include children.
Question. How would you address the concerns some have expressed
that an NAS panel on perchlorate might be biased in favor of industry's
perspective?
Answer. As this will be a review conducted by the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS), the NAS--not the Department, EPA, or industry--will
be selecting panel members for the study. The Department's expectation
is that the review will be an open and transparent independent
scientific review that will answer the underlying scientific questions
about perchlorate toxicity and risk.
EARLY TRANSFER PROCESS
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. The Department is establishing a Property Reuse and
Disposal working group that will be considering ways to improve the
entire BRAC property disposal and reuse process, including early
transfer.
INTEGRATING CLEANUP WITH REDEVELOPMENT
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Integrating cleanup with redevelopment can increase
efficiency, saving time and money for both the community and DOD. These
savings can be even more dramatic if the redevelopment is consistent
with DOD's prior land uses. This is especially true for base-reuse
parcels where financially feasible redevelopment is ready to happen
with redevelopers and end-users anxious to proceed. For example, under
a traditional property transfer approach, DOD may remove soil
contamination by physically digging a ditch, treating the soil, and
then replacing the treated soil. Later, a developer may excavate the
site to build the foundation for a building, install utilities, or
change elevations to support redevelopment, again removing the soil. If
these activities were integrated the soil could be removed and shipped
off-site for treatment or disposal while the redevelopment is ongoing,
eliminating the unnecessary step of replacing and again removing the
soil. By integrating cleanup and redevelopment, four important outcomes
can be realized:
--Cleanup is only done once and it is done to the appropriate levels
for reuse
--Property will be reused much faster, benefiting the local community
by creating new jobs, generating revenue, and putting Federal
property back on the local tax rolls much earlier.
--DOD is removed from the business of managing property. By divesting
the property sooner, DOD reduces expenses associated with
maintaining the property. Earlier deed transfer also reduces
DOD's landlord responsibilities and liability as a Federal
property owner. Earlier transfer may also eliminate some
restrictions on the use of the property.
--Significant cost savings can be realized for both DOD and the
redeveloper. Integrating land use planning and site remediation
decisions early in the remedial process and matching the remedy
with reuse can save money and time for all parties involved.
REUSE PLAN & CONTROL ZONING
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes. There are several factors that contribute to the
Department's ability to dispose of property through a competitive sale
and the speed at which this could be accomplished. An adopted reuse
plan which then is incorporated into local general plans and zoning is
certainly critical to establishing a property's highest and best use
for potential buyers. This also helps to minimize uncertainty in the
marketplace where buyers may otherwise hesitate or discount their
willingness to pay until the final use for available property is
negotiated. Another complicating factor may be the manner in which
communities confer development rights. Many communities confer
development rights to the private sector in exchange for the
construction of other ``public improvements,'' such as schools, roads,
parkland/open space, etc. In such instances, it is incumbent for the
community to identify as early as possible the activities or costs that
would be the responsibility of the developer to assist the effort.
Lastly, care must be taken to ensure there is a realistic way to
redevelop property where a viable market may not presently exist. In
these situations the community or another ``public'' body is often
tasked to redevelop property that is unable to attract sufficient
private investment. Thus, the parceling of the property becomes a
significant issue, particularly if the community is likely to be left
with the least marketable property.
PROPERTY REUSE AND DISPOSAL
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. The Department is establishing a Property Reuse and
Disposal working group that will be considering ways to improve the
entire BRAC property disposal and reuse process. This issue will be
examined in that context.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Mario P. Fiori
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Question. The Army's fiscal year 2004 BRAC budget request is $66.4
million, a 56 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003. How much money
above the budget request could the Army execute in fiscal year 2004 to
expedite its BRAC cleanup program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $66.4 million
includes $57.3 million for environmental cleanup and allows us to
achieve our restoration and disposal goals, within Army priorities, and
in support of community reuse of the remaining BRAC installations. The
funds requested are appropriate for BRAC cleanup within Army priorities
for fiscal year 2004.
Question. Did you request a higher level of funding from the
Defense Department? (If so, what happened; If not, why not?)
Answer. No. The Department of Defense supported the Army's request
for BRAC funding in fiscal year 2004. The Army's BRAC budget request of
$66.4 million was the correct amount for this program within Army and
Defense priorities.
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined? Is
it more cost effective to accomplish the environmental cleanup in
conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. The best way to streamline the early transfer process is to
establish timelines for property conveyance in the public sector
resulting from the screening process and Public Benefit and Economic
Development Conveyances. The Department could then make properties
available for public sale. When appropriate, an option would be early
transfer with the price discounted by the value of the remaining
cleanup. The Army has conveyed several properties early in conjunction
with a cooperative agreement for the community to complete the
remaining cleanup. Integrating cleanup with redevelopment resulted in
efficiencies and cost savings. Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, NJ,
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, CO and Oakland Army Base, CA are
examples in the Army's experience to date.
LOCAL REUSE
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. This scenario is more in line with the traditional roles of
local governments. The Department could work with local communities to
define reuse through reuse planning and zoning, and then market the
properties within those established parameters.
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Yes. Our experience from the first four BRAC rounds
indicates that when other Federal agencies claim BRAC properties, in
some cases they take years to take control of the property. The
responsibility for cleanup of any Defense generated contamination
should remain with the Defense Department, but transfer to another
Federal agency should occur shortly after they claim the property.
______
Questions Submitted to Nelson F. Gibbs
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
BRAC SELECTION CRITERIA
Question. Encroachment is an issue that has been continually
emphasized as a major concern for the Department--how do you anticipate
this being measured by the Department as it applies to the selection
criteria?
Answer. Until the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) promulgates the
selection criteria DOD and the services must use in making
recommendations for the closure and realignment of military
installations in 2005 it would be premature to speculate how DOD will
measure encroachment as it applies to the selection criteria. The law
requires the SECDEF to propose these criteria not later than December
31, 2003, and finalize them by February 16, 2004 (Section 2913(a) and
(b) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act). The law does
specify that the selection criteria must address, at a minimum, several
factors, to include ``The ability of both existing and potential
receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and
personnel'' and the cost impact of environmental compliance activities.
Once these criteria are finalized by the SECDEF, the role of
encroachment related factors in the recommendation process should be
clarified.
NEW INSTALLATIONS
Question. Do you see any new installation's under current or future
plans for a missile defense?
Answer. The Air Force has no current plans to build new
installations to support deployment of the Ballistic Missile Defense
System (BMDS) that is under research and development with the Missile
Defense Agency (MDA).
The Missile Defense Agency should be able to provide more insight
into required installations/MILCON to meet BMDS requirements.
BASE REALIGNMENT
Question. Will BRAC look closely at realigning bases and locating
missions (from the same and other services) at bases where the primary
missions cannot be moved?
Answer. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, as revised by
the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act to provide for
the 2005 round of closure and realignment recommendations, specifically
requires the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), in making his
determinations of levels of necessary versus excess infrastructure, to
consider efficiencies to be gained from joint service tenancy at
military installations (Section 2912(a)(3)(B)). The selection criteria
that SECDEF is directed by law to develop to make recommendations for
closure and realignment of military installations must ensure that
military value is the primary consideration, and that military value
must include at a minimum several specified factors, to include ``The
impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.'' (Section
2913(b)(4)). It will not be until the SECDEF proposes these selection
criteria by December 31,2003 and finalizes them by February 16, 2004,
that we will be able to describe the exact role joint service tenancy
will play in the closure and realignment recommendation process.
Certainly to the extent an installation is not closed, it may be
considered as a gaining installation for both same and other service
missions closed and/or realigned from other installations, in
accordance with the promulgated recommendation selection criteria.
BASE CLOSURE
Question. How have military construction requests been affected by
the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round?
Answer. The Air Force's military construction request is in no way
affected by the eventuality of the upcoming base closure round. We did
not consider the upcoming base closure round when developing our fiscal
year 2004 military construction request, nor did we receive any
guidance suggesting we do so.
Furthermore, our out-year military construction programs are
comprised entirely of validated requirements at existing Air Force
installations. No parts of those programs are ``reserved'' for any
requirements related to yet-to-be-determined base closure or
realignment activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEAN UP
Question. The Air Force fiscal year 2004 request for BRAC
environmental remediation and caretaker costs is $198.7 million. It is
my understanding that the Air Force could execute significantly more
funding in fiscal year 2004. According to my information, the Air Force
could execute nearly $65 million in environmental clean up on top of
the budget request. Is this also your understanding?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 Air Force request for BRAC
environmental remediation and caretaker costs is $200.7 million. The
Air Force could execute $65 million in environmental clean up on top of
the budget request.
Question. Did you seek a higher level of funding for BRAC
environmental remediation in your budget submission to the Office of
Secretary of Defense? If so, what happened? If not, why not?
Answer. No. The Office of Secretary of Defense supported full
funding of our fiscal year 2004 budget submission for BRAC
environmental remediation.
Question. Would additional funding help to expedite the Air Force
BRAC environmental clean up program?
Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 request reflects our
requirements additional funding would allow us the opportunity to
expedite cleanup requirements currently planned for future years.
Question. What impact would additional funding have on
installations in California, such as McClellan?
Answer. While the Air Force is fully funded in fiscal year 2004 at
McClellan and the other five California BRAC installations, we have
requirements which currently would be addressed in fiscal year 2005/
2006. Additional funding would allow us to execute these requirements
in fiscal year 2004 without negatively impacting the reuse or cleanup
schedule.
Additionally, we are pursuing process improvements that will have
significant and positive impacts to the cleanup costs and schedules for
our bases. These improvements include cleanup system optimization to
reduce long term operating costs. We are also working cooperatively
with the California regulatory agencies to streamline the document
requirements and review processes.
Question. It appears that the Navy has some assurance from the
Department that it will be able to return proceeds from property sales
into its BRAC environmental cleanup account. The Air Force has realized
total proceeds of $58.4 million to date as a result of property sales
and expects an additional $27.5 million. Does the Air Force have the
same assurances that any proceeds realized from property sales will be
returned to the BRAC cleanup account?
Answer. Section 2906(d) of Public Law 101-510, as amended (10
U.S.C. 2687, note) provides for the recovery of the depreciated value
of Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) or Non Appropriated Fund (NAF)
investment in real property impacted by Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) actions. Therefore, any proceeds realized from the sale or lease
of BRAC property will be first paid to this account. After the
unrecovered depreciated value has been recovered for the BRAC
installation, all proceeds received will then be paid the BRAC account,
at which time we would request the proceeds be available for
environmental cleanup.
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. Yes. The early transfer authority has worked well for us in
cases where the local reuse authority requests the early transfer. An
improvement to the process would be to allow the Department to initiate
and request the early transfer authority by making early transfer a
condition of the transaction.
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Yes. The Air Force's experience is that closely integrated
redevelopment and environmental cleanup is more cost effective. The Air
Force has worked with its BRAC communities to understand and align our
joint priorities to achieve these efficiencies. A notable example was
the conversion of Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas to the Bergstrom
International Airport, where we identified synergies between the Air
Force cleanup program and the Airport construction plan so that the
conversion occurred within budget and on schedule. Additionally, the
Air Force maximizes its flexibility to customize the redevelopment and
cleanup integration. We successfully integrated the cleanup and
redevelopment at the former Lowry Air Force Base and believe that the
long-term costs will be reduced through the privatization of the
cleanup.
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes. This is our preferred approach. Local communities,
through planning and zoning, definitely affect the kind of development
that can occur. This approach you describe worked very successfully at
those locations that used it. It not only minimizes the financial
burden on the community but it gets property very quickly on the local
tax rolls.
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Yes. Property transfers to other Federal agencies should
occur as soon as the property is vacated. Transfer of property from one
Federal agency to another does not require Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or State Regulators concurrence because ownership is not
leaving the Federal Government.
______
Questions Submitted to Wayne Arny
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
PROPERTY SALES STAYING IN NAVY BRAC ACCOUNT
Question. The fiscal year 2004 Navy request for BRAC cleanup is
$101.9 million, a 62 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level. However, the Navy intends to spend $180 million this year in
BRAC cleanup--the $79 million difference being made up in anticipated
property sales from previously BRAC'd properties.
What assurances to you have from the Department of Defense that the
revenue from property sales will remain in the Navy BRAC accounts?
Answer. We have received verbal assurances from the senior
leadership in the Office of the Secretary of Defense that land sale
revenue from Department of Navy BRAC actions would remain available for
us to use to expedite our BRAC cleanup actions.
BRAC EXECUTIONS CAPABILITY
Question. How much money above the budget request, and the
additional $79 million in anticipated revenue, could the Navy execute
in fiscal year 2004 to expedite its BRAC cleanup program?
Answer. The Navy's fiscal year 2004 budget consists of an
appropriation request for $101.9 million plus a conservative estimate
of $68 million from land sales and a $10.7 million adjustment providing
a total of $180.6 million in spending authority. The Navy has
substantial contract execution capacity in place and could readily
obligate as much as about $500 million in fiscal year 2004 for BRAC
cleanup under normal BRAC outlay rates. Other factors that impact
expediting BRAC cleanup programs include regulator support for
additional workload, timing when funds become available, and making
sure that we get real cleanup and property disposal progress for the
investment.
STREAMLINING EARLY TRANSFER
Question. Could the BRAC early transfer process be streamlined?
Answer. The actual time required to implement an early transfer of
BRAC property can be relatively short. However, our experience to date
with early transfer is that they only occur when the community is
sufficiently motivated in taking the property, particularly when it is
needed to implement a well financed, economically sound redevelopment
plan. We have also found that the number of issues needing resolution
grows proportionally with the number of approving entities involved
(e.g., various State agencies as a precondition to gubernatorial
approval). We continue to work with State and local officials to ensure
that they understand the commitment of the Federal Government to clean
up the property even if it is conveyed under the early transfer
authority.
PARALLEL CLEANUP AND REDEVELOPMENT
Question. Is it more cost effective to accomplish environmental
cleanup in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property?
Answer. Yes. Integrating environmental cleanup can be cost
effective in terms of time and money for both the Navy and the
community. Performing cleanup and redevelopment simultaneously allows
the Department to dispose of the property sooner via an early transfer.
Furthermore, costly cleanup expenses can be avoided with the same
environmental remedy achieved through the normal redevelopment planning
and construction process. In addition, parallel cleanup and
redevelopment by the new owner supports the early transfer process by
allowing the developer a much quicker timeline to project completion
which fosters motivation to take the property as soon as possible.
Cleanup performed in conjunction with redevelopment is more
effective in terms of accelerating cleanup and property disposal
timelines, as it is usually associated with an early transfer of
property. A Navy Environmental Services Contract Agreement typically
provides funding to the receiving entity that will perform the
redevelopment, and in most cases will also do the cleanup. The
following table lists recent examples of early transfers that included
parallel cleanup and substantially accelerated property disposal and
redevelopment compared to previous plans:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Acres Date Disposal Acceleration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISC Oakland............................ 529 Jun 1999.................. Disposal 36 months early
st
NAS Agana............................... 1,799 Sep 2000.................. Disposal 12 months early
NTC San Diego........................... 51 Feb 2001.................. Disposal 4 months early
NSY Mare Island (EETP).................. 668 Mar 2002.................. Disposal 48 months early
NSY Mare Island (WETP).................. 2,900 Sep 2002.................. Disposal 7 to 10 years
early
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost avoidance can be achieved by integrating the cleanup actions
with the construction effort. Cost avoidance can result from
synchronizing the two actions, e.g., coordinating the excavation and
removal of contaminated soil with the construction of a foundation, or
installing a parking lot in an area for which the environmental remedy
would be a landfill cap. In addition, the remedial action for a
contaminated site can be tailored to the actual reuse, rather than
setting more restrictive and expensive cleanup standards to meet
potential reuse needs.
Combining cleanup and redevelopment as part of an early transfer of
property accelerates cleanup schedules and property disposal timelines,
which speeds redevelopment and economic reuse of BRAC property. Early
transfer also ends Navy: oversight and management of the property;
investments for caretaker functions; participation in local
redevelopment disputes; and escalating cleanup costs due to concerns
over the need to conduct additional studies, or to expand the scope of
the cleanup. It brings finality to the BRAC decision to close the base
and dispose of the excess property.
BRAC SALE AND LOCAL ZONING
Question. Local communities generally have difficulty assuming the
financial burden of BRAC properties. If local communities create a
reuse plan and control zoning, could the Department advertise and sell
the property to the private sector in accordance with their plan and
zoning?
Answer. Yes, the Department supports a public sale with these terms
and conditions. First, it signifies the support of the Department for
the local community's reuse plan. Second, the reuse plan and zoning
simplifies the property appraisal process, reduces risk for potential
buyers, and maximizes the value of the property. Third, local zoning
requirements could be made part of the terms of the sale, even if these
were overlays that would not become effective until property
conveyance. This is especially true for base reuse parcels where
financially feasible redevelopment is ready to happen with redevelopers
and end users anxious to proceed.
FEDERAL AGENCY BRAC NEEDS
Question. Should Federal agencies that claim BRAC property be given
a finite time period to assume control of the property?
Answer. Generally, yes. The BRAC property disposal process requires
that property be screened for other Federal use. If another Federal
agency identifies a need for the property, the property is normally
reserved and the receiving Federal agency has a responsibility to
accept the property within a reasonable time. In several instances,
receiving agencies have delayed acceptance of property pending
completion of environmental remediation even though completion of
cleanup is not required for property being transferred between Federal
agencies. In other instances, after prolonged delays, some requesting
agencies have withdrawn their requests for the properties thus
requiring the disposing service to initiate disposal actions years
after these actions would have otherwise been taken. Because these
issues have surfaced in the past, the Department of the Navy is eager
to work with the Department of Defense and the Military Departments on
the Property Reuse and Disposal Working Group, where this issue and
others will be examined in detail.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I want to thank all of you. I think we had a very good
hearing and learned a lot that we can apply to the next round.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 18, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 4:35 p.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, Domenici, Feinstein, and
Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENT OF JAMES L. JONES, JR., GENERAL, USMC,
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND
ACCOMPANIED BY LEON J. LAPORTE, GENERAL, USA COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS
COMMAND, COMMANDER, REPUBLIC OF KOREA-UNITED STATES
COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
FORCES KOREA
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much for being here. I am
very pleased to have both of our distinguished witnesses here.
We have tried to get together, but there have been a few things
going on the planet that have kept us from hearing from you.
But, frankly, I think the time has been well spent, because I
am very pleased with the prepared statements that I have seen
about the efforts that you are making on overseas bases, and
this has been a priority of our Military Construction
Subcommittee really for the last 4 years. We will look at
overseas military basing in two key theaters of operation
today.
The fiscal year 2004 military construction request includes
over $1 billion in spending for overseas facilities. More than
70 percent of that is in Europe and Korea. The Administration
has requested $535 million for U.S. bases in Europe, including
$288 million in Germany and $173 million for bases in Korea. At
the same time, new threats, a changing international political
environment, and efforts to transform the structure of our
military forces are leading the Defense Department to
reconsider how we deploy forces overseas and where those forces
will be located.
The military construction challenge is twofold. In the
near-term, during the time it takes to determine future
security needs, the challenge is to ensure that expenditures
are not wasted on facilities which may be abandoned in the
future. The long-term challenge is to ensure far-reaching
decisions about how to deploy forces overseas makes sense.
Congress directed the Defense Department to submit a report
on its overseas-basing master plan by April 1, 2002. The
Defense Department is still studying the issue and has not yet
submitted that report. This afternoon, Senator Feinstein and I
introduced legislation that would establish an independent
commission to review the overseas military structure of the
United States and advise Congress. We look forward to passing
that legislation this year.
We are fortunate to have with us today the commanders of
U.S. Forces in Europe and Korea, where so much of our military
construction dollars are spent. Both of you have been working
hard to transform our overseas basing from a Cold War structure
to one more suited to the military challenges of the 21st
century.
I really appreciate the meetings we have had, the efforts
you have made. Your staffs have been working with our staff,
and I am very satisfied that we are going in the right
direction for the efficient use of our taxpayer dollars, making
sure we have the information about the long-term goals before
we spend military construction dollars this year. And I also
appreciate that the Department really stopped spending the 2003
dollars until they were also allocated for what we are now
calling ``enduring bases.''
So, with that, I want to ask Senator Feinstein, the Ranking
Member, to also make remarks that she might have, and I want to
particularly say what a great working relationship Senator
Feinstein and I have. She has traveled overseas to bases. I
have traveled overseas to bases. And I think from what we have
both learned, we have come to the similar conclusions that we
need to look at those overseas bases, try to fit them within
the structure of our forces as projected for the future and try
to maximize the efficiency of our taxpayer dollars.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Your
comments are reciprocal. As you said earlier this morning, we
have both been Chairs, and we have both been Ranking Members of
this Committee, and I think, in the process, have developed a
very positive working relationship--I, for one, very much
appreciate that--and, in addition, a friendship which means a
lot to me.
You know, Madam Chairman, I have had the opportunity to
visit both the Korean Command, under General LaPorte, in
December, the European Command, unfortunately, not under
General Jones, but under General Ralston, a little earlier, and
had an opportunity to talk with both of them. And I just want
to repeat something I said to my staff on the way coming in to
this meeting.
One of the really great, I think, illuminating findings
that I have had since I have been in the United States Senate
is really how fine the command leadership of our military is.
And I have had the opportunity to meet four-stars, to talk with
them, to see men, really, at the apex of their military
careers, particularly note those who are open to comments,
those who are not. But I guess what I want to say is how well
served I think our Nation is by both of you and by our other
four-stars. You are very impressive people, each in your own
right; each different, but both highly committed, I think
highly intelligent. It has been a very special experience for
me, and, on a personal note, I want you both to know that.
Madam Chairman, your timing could not be more on target,
considering that the Department of Defense submitted a budget
amendment to the President only yesterday that proposes to
rescind, delete, or realign more $500 million of fiscal 2003
and fiscal 2004 overseas military construction projects.
I had the opportunity to talk with both generals in my
office yesterday. I am very impressed with their commitment to
streamlining and improving the efficiency of the United States
military presence overseas. Their efforts to reshape the
military forces within their commands have potential to produce
significant efficiencies, increase responsiveness, and enhance
the national security of the United States.
These generals are undertaking this task at a particularly
sensitive time in our relations with our allies overseas. I
think it is important to repair the damage that has been done
to the image of America overseas and to get these relationships
back on track. Both General Jones and General LaPorte have
assured me that they are committed to working with our allies
and strengthening our ties to Europe and Korea, and I want to
really commend them for these efforts.
So thank you for scheduling this hearing, Madam Chairman,
and I look forward to hearing from these distinguished
witnesses.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I welcome each of you, Generals. I consider each of you to
be close friends through the years we have worked together.
I regret to tell you, I am going to have to go to a meeting
with the Members of the House Appropriations Committee here
soon to talk about allocations for 2004, and so I will not be
able to stay and ask questions. But I do intend to stay and
listen to you as long as I can.
I welcome the initiatives, as both of the other Senators
have said, that have been indicated to me through my staff that
your people are about ready to present. And I think it is very
timely for us to consider such initiatives, and I look forward
to working with you on them.
Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Jones, I would like to ask you to speak first, and
followed then by General LaPorte.
EUCOM OVERVIEW
General Jones. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
your kind opening remarks. And, Senator Feinstein, thank you
for your very gracious remarks. I know I do not want to speak
for General LaPorte, but I know all of us who are privileged to
lead the tremendous young men and women in the uniform of the
United States today take a great pride in that privilege, and
we are so proud of everything they do day in and day out. That
makes our job much easier.
And, Senator Stevens, thank you for taking time to be here
today, and thank you for your continual support of our Nation's
Armed Forces around the globe and the important work that they
are privileged to do every day of the year.
I am very pleased to appear before you to present testimony
on the very important subject of the fiscal year 2004 Military
Construction Request for the United States European Command. As
each of you know full well, the area of responsibility of EUCOM
has recently been increased to include 93 countries, a net
increase in the land mass of 16 percent, and a net increase of
28 percent on the seas, as a result of the revisions to the
Unified Command Plan.
As you also know, during the last decade our Nation reduced
the numbers of Americans in uniform by roughly 40 percent while
transforming the force into a 21st century capability that
during these difficult times has made all of us extremely
proud. In my 36 years of active duty, I have never been prouder
of what our forces represent, not just in terms of combat
capability, but especially in terms of what such a force means
for the collective future of nations who are prepared to defend
freedom wherever it might be threatened. It is not only a force
that will win any future conflict; it is also one which will
deter and prevent future conflicts through its positioning and
through its engagement strategy around the world.
I thank the Committee, the Members, and the staff, alike,
for the attention given to the infrastructure and the quality
of life of our men and women who serve in the vast European,
Africa, and Near-Eastern theater. I pledge continued
cooperation and active dialog on these important issues.
Senator Feinstein, you mentioned my predecessor, General
Joe Ralston, to whom I am particularly grateful for a wonderful
turnover of this all-important command. He is one of our
Nation's most distinguished modern-day warriors. I thank him
for his leadership and friendship as I assumed the
responsibility of the command. No one could have been more
gracious, and no one could have done more to make it a better
experience than did General and Mrs. Ralston. The Nation will
miss them in its active-duty ranks.
EUCOM TRANSFORMATION
Much has been said about the ongoing transformation of our
Nation's Armed Forces. The United States European Command's
Strategic Transformation Campaign Plan Proposal is based on
several key assumptions, and they are as follows.
The United States desires to maintain its current position
as a Nation of global influence through leadership in the
efficient and effective application of military, economic, and
diplomatic power.
The United States remains committed to its friends and
allies through its commitment to global organizations and
institutions, and supports treaties and international
agreements to which it is a signatory.
The United States remains committed to a global strategy,
the cornerstone of which is forward-based and forward-deployed
forces which contribute to the first line of defense, peace,
stability, and world order.
The United States supports in-depth transformation of its
Armed Forces and of its basing structure, as required, in order
to respond to 21st century threats and challenges.
The United States will continue to seek ways to mitigate or
offset obstacles posed by 21st century global sovereignty
realities through a reorientation of its land, sea, air, and
space assets.
The United States recognizes that the current concept and
disposition of U.S. basing within the European Command may not
adequately support either the strategic changes attendant to an
expanded NATO alliance or the national requirements of a
rapidly changing area of responsibility.
And finally, that the United States will seek to preserve
those assets which are of strategically enduring value to its
missions, goals, and national interests, so as their location
measurably contributes to our global strategy, the NATO
alliance, and our bilateral engagements in theater.
STATUS OF EUCOM INFRASTRUCTURE
I have been in my current office for approximately 3
months, and each day has been a great learning experience. With
regard to military construction, we find ourselves at a
crossroads despite impressive theater reforms over the past 10
years, which, in and of themselves, produced a 66 percent
reduction in the number of our European installations. We find
ourselves retaining an inventory of aging facilities, many of
which should be removed from our inventory.
In determining the current value of our facilities in
Europe, we used our Theater 2002 Overseas Basing Requirements
Study, which has identified that 80 percent of all of our
installations are of critical mission value as being Tier I
facilities. Another 14 percent were labeled as very important
to the theater's mission, or Tier II. Finally, 6 percent were
deemed to be non-critical to the theater, or Tier III.
We are using this study as a benchmark for our continuing
evaluations of the needs of the European theater in the 21st
century. Our needs will clearly be different than they are
today. Determining how different is the challenge.
At present, we face four challenges with regard to
infrastructure. The first is to quickly and efficiently remove
unneeded Tier II and Tier III installations from our inventory.
This is proceeding satisfactorily, but we need to quicken the
pace. No monies in the fiscal year 2004 request will be
expended for these installations. This represents approximately
20 percent of the total number of our installations in Europe.
We need to reevaluate all Tier I facilities with regard to
their modern suitability for supporting our alliance in our
national engagement strategies in the new world order, or, as
some say, ``new world disorder.'' Each European component is at
work redefining its future basing needs while engaging with
parent service headquarters in the context of how to obtain the
maximum effect, theater-wide, in the pursuit of our objectives.
This is work in progress, and it is my expectation that we
should soon be able to better see our way ahead in this very
important matter. We are sensitive to the Committee's
legislative calendar, and we will keep Members and staff
apprised in real time of our progress in this study.
The asymmetric world and its associated threats, NATO's own
invitation to seven new members, the deepening crises that
threaten to engulf much of Africa, and the emergence of
ungoverned regions from which narco-trafficking, criminality,
and terrorism will be exported to the developed Nations,
compellingly argues for some new basing paradigms, which will
be different from our strategy of the past century. The key
will be to preserve those installations that are of critical
utility to our future goals and missions.
Our 20th century success in developing a free and
prosperous Western Europe has made it more difficult and more
expensive to train our military forces. Urbanization has
brought cities to the edge of our bases both at home and in
Europe. Despite having been successful protectors of the
environment on our bases for the last half of the 20th century,
we now face concerted efforts to limit essential military
training at sea, in the air, and on land. It is a major
problem, and it must be addressed both at home and abroad.
EFFICIENT BASING
The 21st century requires that we not only identify and
maintain our most critical strategic infrastructure, it further
requires that we become more agile, more expeditionary, and
more efficient in our basing efforts on land, at sea, in the
air, and in space. Our new bases should have a transformational
footprint, be geostrategically placed in areas where presence
yields the highest return on investment, be able to both
contract and expand, as required, and should be constructed in
such a way as to take advantage of our developing ability to
rotationally base our forces coming from different parts of the
world. It will also capitalize on the effectiveness of those
forces which need to be continually and permanently stationed
in the critical locations.
In Europe, we will need a robust mix of each to be
effective in the future, and we are at work to determine the
proposals for such considerations. For example, flexible,
forward-operating bases and smaller forward-operating locations
and new sites for our pre-positioned equipment to augment our
permanent strategic presence will prove to be extremely useful
to our future requirements. We will no longer be required to
build the small American cities of the 20th century to achieve
our strategic goals.
prepared statement
Our fiscal year 2004 request is predicated upon the
assurance that we will not expend resources except where
strategically warranted, that we will close unneeded facilities
as efficiently and as quickly as possible, that we will
identify those permanent facilities which have enduring
strategic value for the future, and that we will look at
better, more accessible, and more affordable training areas
throughout our AOR; that we will begin to reshape a portion of
our theater infrastructure to better capitalize on the utility
of rotational forces; and that we will develop newer basing
models which will produce greater strategic effect resulting in
a more peaceful theater in the 21st century.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
testimony before your Committee. I look forward to your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General James L. Jones, Jr.
Introduction
Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, distinguished Members of the
Committee; it is my privilege to appear before you as Commander, United
States European Command (USEUCOM), to discuss the very exciting efforts
underway in the European Theater to respond to the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st Century. On behalf of the men and women in
USEUCOM who proudly serve this Nation, and their families, I want to
thank the committee members and staff for your unwavering support over
this past year. Your efforts have provided us with the resources for
mission success and have enabled us to do our part in protecting our
democracy and in contributing to the security of our Nation. Your
dedication to improving our important facilities and the quality of
life of our men and women in uniform is both recognized and greatly
appreciated.
The USEUCOM Area of Responsibility
USEUCOM's area of responsibility encompasses a vast geographic
region covering over 46 million square miles of land and water. The new
Unified Command Plan, effective 1 October 2002, assigns USEUCOM an area
of responsibility that includes 93 sovereign nations, stretching from
the northern tip of Norway to the southern tip of South Africa, and
from Greenland in the west to Russia's distant eastern coastline
(Enclosure 1). The very title ``U.S. European Command'' is somewhat of
a misnomer and does not fully capture the vastness of our area of
operations.
The astonishing diversity of our area of responsibility encompasses
the full range of human conditions: some nations are among the
wealthiest of the world, while others exist in a state of abject
poverty; some are open democracies with long histories of respect for
human liberties, while others are struggling with the basic concepts of
representative governments and personal freedoms. For example, Africa,
long neglected, but whose transnational threats, ungoverned regions,
and abject poverty are potential future breeding grounds for networked
non-state adversaries, terrorism, narco-trafficking, crime, and sinking
human conditions, will increasingly be factored into our strategic
plans for the future. The resulting change in the security environment
has driven a change in our strategic orientation with increased
emphasis eastward and southward.
Historical Setting
U.S. Forces in Europe, in concert with our NATO Allies, played a
pivotal role in bringing about the end of the Soviet Union and the
Warsaw Pact. The dramatic collapse of the Soviet Empire brought
tremendous opportunities for the former Warsaw Pact states. It also
brought unprecedented uncertainty for NATO and the U.S. European
Command. For nearly a decade after the end of the Cold War, funding for
U.S. European Command infrastructure was virtually non-existent.
The existing uncertainty of the future size and makeup of U.S.
Forces in Europe led to a long period of significantly reduced funding
for infrastructure at European bases (Enclosure 2). Assuming that we no
longer required the same robust presence as that of the Cold War era,
we down sized our force structure and the number of military facilities
in theater. Since the fall of the Berlin wall in October 1989, USEUCOM
has undergone a reduction in forces of approximately 66 percent, from
248,000 (in 1989) to 109,000 (in 2002). We have closed 566
installations over the past decade, along with over 356 other sites and
training areas. This reduction equates to a 70 percent shift in
personnel and facilities compared to Cold War Era peaks. The scope and
rapidity with which force levels and structure were reduced in USEUCOM
was an extraordinary accomplishment.
During this turbulent time, my predecessors adjusted our force
disposition in keeping with the requirements of our national strategy.
Their efforts resulted in the beginning of our ``efficient basing''
programs and a number of alternative funding programs that have
produced tangible results in our effort to provide adequate, affordable
housing and facilities for our men and women in uniform. Although the
end of the Cold War promised a much more stable and secure Europe, the
scope of USEUCOM's mission grew as the newly independent states
struggled to define their place in a free Europe. In the same period,
USEUCOM experienced a dramatic decline in the number of installations
and a substantial reduction and realignment of our force structure in
theater. Consequently, we now have a greater reliance on our forward
basing capabilities than ever before. And, I believe forward based and
forward deployed forces will be even more important as we confront the
security challenges of the next century.
The New Security Environment
Today, we find ourselves at the crossroads of two centuries. While
the bipolar security environment of the 20th Century shaped our
command, and defined our mission, the 21st Century requires that we
depart from the clearly defined role of territorial defense. As we shed
the limitations of 20th Century warfare, we are emerging from a
doctrine of ``attrition'' warfare to ``maneuver'' warfare, from
symmetrical to asymmetrical response options, from the principle of
mass to the principle of precision, and from large and vulnerable
military stockpiles to a revolutionary integrated logistics concept. We
are changing from the traditional terrain-based military paradigms to
effects-based operations, in order to prepare for a new set of security
challenges.
The developed world now faces threats from sub-national or supra-
national groups; threats that are based on ideological, theological,
cultural, ethnic, and political factors. Our new adversaries do not
recognize international law, sovereignty or accepted norms of behavior.
These are the challenges of the new world ``disorder.'' They demand new
approaches and different metrics by which we allocate resources and
develop strategies for the protection of our national interests and the
future security of our environment.
Our NATO allies have also recognized the dramatic changes in the
European security environment and have responded with the most
significant changes to the Alliance's strategic direction since its
founding. At the 1999 Washington Summit, members approved the new
strategic concept, defining the range of threats the Alliance would
have to confront, and identified a broad range of new capabilities
necessary to meet them. The same year, three new states joined the
Alliance as the expansion eastward began. The Washington Summit set the
stage for an even bolder expansion in 2002. During the historic Prague
Summit last year, the Alliance again expanded, this time inviting seven
new members to join; Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria,
Slovenia, and Slovakia (Enclosure 3). Equally significant was NATO's
commitment to transform its military capabilities, command
arrangements, and operational concepts. The endorsement of the NATO
Response Force provides political guidance for the Alliance to develop
an agile and tailorable joint military force to respond to the full
spectrum of crisis, both within and outside NATO's boarders. NATO's
strategic reorientation and renewed focus on relevant military
capabilities will enhance USEUCOM's capability and ensure full
interoperability with our most important allies as we transform our
forces.
To respond to the dangerous and unpredictable threats of the 21st
Century, we are developing a strategy that matches our resources to
needed capabilities. We shall continue to refine our strategy and
recommend a basing plan that enhances our ability to project our
forces, support sustained operations, and conduct engagement activities
in the most remote regions of our theater, as required. This plan will
reflect the tremendous importance of our main operating bases as
strategic enablers to support operations both outside and inside our
area of responsibility. In achieving our goals we will begin the
process of an in-depth theater transformation that will yield a greater
return on our strategic investment.
USEUCOM Transformation Assumptions
Our efforts to transform USEUCOM's infrastructure are based on four
principal assumptions. First, that the United States desires to
maintain its current position as a Nation of global influence through
leadership and the judicious application of military, economic and
diplomatic instruments of power. Secondly, that the United States will
remain committed to supporting its friends and allies through its
involvement in global institutions and in support of treaties and
international agreements to which it is a signatory. Thirdly, that the
United States, by virtue of its critical contribution to the world
order of the 20th Century, remains committed to a global engagement
strategy. The military vanguard of this strategy will be found in our
forward based, and forward deployed forces, which contribute the first
line of defense to promote peace, stability, and order in our world.
Finally, that the United States will continue to pursue in depth
transformation of the Armed Forces. Changing our basing strategy to
respond to the dramatically different challenges of the new century is
a key element of this transformation.
Main Areas of Emphasis
The challenges presented by the new security environment and
USEUCOM's commitment to national security interests, coupled with the
opportunities made possible by transformed forces and infrastructure,
suggest three areas of focus: a critical evaluation of our existing
infrastructure; a reassessment of how we assign and deploy forces to
our theater; and new operational concepts to take advantage of
transformational capabilities and concepts.
To begin with, we are critically evaluating every facet of our
European Theater footprint. The continued reduction/realignment of
``legacy'' infrastructure that was justified by the Cold War strategy
of the 20th Century is central to our conceptual transformation. We
will re-orient some of the capability of our forces in a manner that
better reflects our expanding strategic responsibilities and the
emergence of new regional and global realities.
Next, we are reassessing how we deploy and assign forces to the
European Theater. We will use forces that are joint, agile, flexible,
and highly mobile. The combination of permanent and rotational forces,
accompanied by an expeditionary European component construct, is better
suited to meet the demands of our fluid, complex, multi-faceted, and
dangerous security environment.
Additionally, we are adopting operational concepts that capitalize
on innovation, experimentation, and technology in order to achieve
greater effect. We are witnessing a shift from our reliance on the
quantitative characteristics of warfare (mass and volume), to a new
family of qualitative factors. Today, warfare is characterized by
speed, stealth, precision, timeliness, and interoperability.
The modern battlefield calls for our forces to be lighter, less
constrained and more mobile, with a significant expansion in capability
and capacity. The principle of maneuver, attained by leveraging
technologies, reduces a unit's vulnerability while increasing its
lethality and survivability. High-speed troop lift (on land and sea),
precision logistics, in-stride sustainment, and progressive Command and
Control (C2) architectures are strategic enablers that translate into
power projection.
USEUCOM as a Strategic Enabler
With our forward presence, bases in USEUCOM provide a springboard
from which U.S. forces are able to rapidly support efforts beyond our
area of responsibility. In addition to being an ``ocean closer,''
USEUCOM enjoys a robust and secure transportation network in Germany,
Belgium and the Netherlands that provides a tremendous power projection
capability and provides our Nation immense capability and flexibility
to carry out our National Security Strategy. Nowhere is this better
demonstrated than in the ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
USEUCOM's role and contributions to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM are
significant, and go far beyond simply providing intermediate staging
facilities. Our transportation planners have extensive experience with
some of the best ports, rail connections, and airfields in the world,
allowing immense flexibility in carrying out this campaign. For
example, U.S. Army Europe rapidly established a rail line of
communication from Bremerhaven, Germany, through Eastern Europe to
Kabul, Afghanistan, facilitating the efficient movement of bulk
supplies and heavy equipment. U.S. Air Forces in Europe has flown
thousands of tons of humanitarian and military supplies into Southwest
Asia. The Naval Air Station Sigonella and Naval Station Rota provided
the staging and throughput for the majority of supplies moving south
and east. The Army's 21st Theater Support Command is fully engaged in
the effort providing thousands of tons of medical supplies, food,
blankets, and relief support in this effort.
The importance of USEUCOM's strategic bases is further demonstrated
by the support provided to Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Over 22,000 U.S.
military personnel from USEUCOM are under the operational control of
USCENTCOM in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Most recently, the
173rd Airborne Brigade from the U.S. Army Southern Europe Airborne Task
Force (SETAF) traveled 2,200 miles to successfully complete a ``combat
jump'' into northern Iraq. The capability to successfully deploy SETAF
is a direct result of the Efficient Basing South initiative.
Additionally, European-based Patriot Air Defense systems have been
deployed to Turkey and Israel reassuring these key allies of the United
States' reliability and concern for their defense.
European-based U.S. Air Force C-130 aircraft are moving supplies
and equipment bound for the Iraqi Theater of Operations through Europe.
Additionally, we are providing advanced basing support to U.S. Central
Command and U.S. Transportation Command at Burgas, Bulgaria; Constanta,
Romania; Ramstein and Rhein Main Air Bases, Germany; Souda Bay, Greece;
Akrotiri, Crete; Aviano, Italy; Moron and Rota, Spain; and RAF
Fairford, and RAF Mildenhall in the United Kingdom. So far, this
airlift bridge has moved over 26,165 passengers and 45,188 short tons
of equipment and provided a departure point for special operations
aircraft, and bombers, as well as tankers to support a myriad of
coalition forces.
In addition to our six main operating bases, four Forward Operating
Bases were established to support coalition operations. Most
significantly, our forward presence enabled our B-52s operating from
RAF Fairford to strike targets in Iraq with half the number of air
refuelings and two-thirds the quantity of fuel. Ultimately, this
presence enabled us to double our sortie generation rates by turning
bombers and crews in 18 hours or less versus 48 hours from locations in
the U.S. This was crucial to not only to strike assets such as B-52s
but also for C-17s operating out of Aviano Air Base, Italy, which
dropped over 1,000 Army airborne troops into Northern Iraq, opening up
the northern front. Reduced timelines mitigate strains on PERSTEMPO,
lessen impact on operational assets, and provide commanders greater
flexibility on the battlefield.
U.S. Naval bases in Europe provided logistics support to two
carrier battle groups and one Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) operating
with the SIXTH Fleet in the eastern Mediterranean. Air wings from these
two carriers, and cruise missiles from other ships, conducted strike
and close air support missions into northern Iraq, providing continuous
air support to Coalition Forces. U.S. Marines from the Amphibious Ready
Group were inserted into northern Iraq directly from NSA Souda Bay,
supporting security efforts in that volatile region. Sailors from U.S.
Naval Forces Europe's Naval Mobile Construction Battalion deployed to
support force flow preparatory tasks in Turkey and tactical logistics
support on the battlefield in Iraq alongside units of the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force.
USEUCOM is also actively engaged in the movement and treatment of
U.S. and allied soldiers wounded or injured in Southwest Asia.
Casualties are transported to the Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl,
Germany, and Fleet Hospital EIGHT, a naval expeditionary hospital that
was set-up at Naval Station Rota, Spain. European-based intelligence
specialists from every branch of the U.S. Armed Services are providing
timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence to U.S. Forces engaged in
combat in Iraq, our commanders and national leaders.
Theater capabilities are the derivative of operational concepts
that have been validated through combined and joint exercises. The
Marine Corps' strategic agility and operational reach capability was
demonstrated during the Dynamic Mix exercise conducted in Spain last
year by the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The derivative of this
exercise is Task Force Tarawa, which has played a vital role in the war
in Iraq. Exercising strategic enablers in theater, such as the Maritime
Positioning Squadron (MPS) assets of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary
Brigade, provides valuable lessons, increases efficiencies, and leads
to operational success.
The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq highlight USEUCOM's value as
a strategic enabler and underscore the importance of regional
engagement. In both operations, new and willing allies made significant
contributions that resulted in increased operational reach and combat
effectiveness for U.S. and coalition forces. These same new allies
offer new and exciting opportunities for training and future basing.
Basing Concepts for the 21st Century
Semi-permanent expeditionary bases, such as those utilized in
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, can more effectively engage and influence the
stability of the region. Joint Forward Operating Bases such as ``Camp
Bondsteel'' in Kosovo have proven their merit and demonstrate a visible
and compelling presence at a fraction of the cost of a larger ``small
American city'' base, more emblematic of the past. The strategic value
of establishing smaller forward bases across a greater portion of our
area of responsibility is significant and would allow us to assign and
deploy our forces more efficiently.
Transforming how U.S. forces are based and deployed in the USEUCOM
area of responsibility will be a difficult process, but one, which is
absolutely essential. To achieve our goals and meet the new security
challenges, we must be willing to embrace institutional change and
accept a shift in our previously understood paradigms. The importance
of moving this process along quickly is heightened in light of the
current disposition of our facilities and installations. The average
age of USEUCOM's 36,435 facilities in our 499 installations is 32
years. It is worse in family housing, where the average age in U.S.
Army Europe family facilities, is now 48 years. In U.S. Air Forces in
Europe, it is 43 years, and in U.S. Naval Forces Europe, it is 35
years. Due to other pressing requirements, insufficient resourcing and
modernization, since 1989, has resulted in 19,090 government quarters
being officially termed ``inadequate.''
The utilization of a rotational basing model, more flexible and
along the lines of an expeditionary construct, will complement our
forward-basing strategy and enable us to reverse the adverse
proportions of our theater ``tooth-to-tail'' ratio. Rotational forces
require less theater infrastructure and increase our agility to respond
to changing environments at significantly lower cost than that
generally associated with closing and moving bases. In this regard,
rather than enabling our operations, some of our ``legacy'' bases
(those that are not strategic enablers), can become modern day
liabilities as we strive to deal with the security challenges of the
new century.
While this may represent a dramatic shift in how USEUCOM operates,
it is not a foreign concept to our Service Chiefs. The Navy-Marine
Corps team, for example, has been a predominantly expeditionary force
since its inception. The Air Force has already created and implemented
the Expeditionary Air Force model and the Army is in the process of
creating lighter and more agile forces. Our global presence, of both
sea-based and land-based units, redistributed more strategically, will
achieve the desired goals of our National Security Strategy.
This approach to transformation is not intended to undermine the
consolidation and revitalization process related to the ``enduring''
infrastructure of our vital Strategic Bases. It is a continuum of our
effort to increase efficiencies and provide greater effectiveness for
our forces. Through the proper melding of forward basing with new and
more agile expeditionary components, we will achieve the desired
capability and the right balance to ensure our effective forward
presence in the 21st Century.
With your support, it will be possible to achieve significant
reforms to our old and costly infrastructure in the near future. We
have come a long way since the days of the Cold War, yet there is much
still to do. The process to review our current infrastructure inventory
and assess its merit through the lens of transformation is already well
underway.
Theater Basing & Consolidation Efforts
USEUCOM completed a deliberate and detailed internal review of
basing requirements and infrastructure that was completed in March
2002. This study allowed us to develop criteria by which we could
evaluate our Real Property Inventory and determine those installations
essential for mission accomplishment. As an example, our study
determined that 80 percent, or 402 of the existing 499 installations in
theater, were judged to be of ``enduring'' value (Tier I). This is to
say, 402 European installations were assessed to be vital to the
execution of U.S. Strategies, and worthy of regular funding and
improvement, without which our mission may risk failure. It was
determined that future military construction expenditures, in support
of these installations, were both appropriate and necessary. Our fiscal
year 2004 military construction program focuses on these enduring
installations deemed ``vital'' by the basing study.
The study also determined that 14 percent, or 68 of the 499
installations in theater, were ``important'' to theater operations
(Tier II). The study further determined that 6 percent, or 29
installations in theater were of ``non-enduring'' value (Tier III), or
of ``non vital'' importance to the accomplishment of our missions. Tier
III installations only receive the minimal sustainment (Operations &
Maintenance) funding required. They will receive no military
construction funding. USEUCOM's fiscal year 2004 military construction
submissions, contained in the President's Budget are only for enduring
installations.
This early study enabled us to accurately assess the utility of our
bases in theater and provided us a useful benchmark to align our future
infrastructure requirements to our new strategy. Our budget request
reflects the relevant points from this study, along with our ongoing
efforts to establish a force structure and basing plan that more aptly
meets the challenges of the current security environment. Toward that
end we are working in the Secretary of Defense's broader study on,
``Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy,'' which will ensure
that USEUCOM's footprint is properly sized and structured to meet our
changing national security interest.
Much of the groundwork for the study was well underway in 2000,
when the U.S. European Command established a formal theater basing
working group. This group brought together the basing plans of each of
our Service Components to address issues that cross Service lines and
best posture our in-theater forces to meet current and emerging
threats. The release of the Quadrennial Defense Review provided the
working group with the force structure information needed to pursue an
appropriate basing strategy. As we restructure our footprint in USEUCOM
we are considering future capabilities like the Army's Stryker Brigade
Combat Team. Design and planning for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team
conversion is underway and is reflected in U.S. Army Europe's input to
the Future Years Defense Program.
It is important to understand the criteria used to evaluate basing
strategies. The March 2002 study met the strategy requirements set
forth for that study which was primarily for fixed forces. A fixed
force strategy is very different from a strategy using rotational
forces working and training out of semi-permanent expeditionary bases.
We have begun a new evaluation of our basing requirements, using
different criteria, with an operational premise of employing some
rotational units in theater. USEUCOM's service components are leading
the way in this important effort and are the agents of change as we
continue with this vital transformation.
Military Construction Requests by Service Components
Rather than invest significant sums of money into all of our
existing facilities, some of which may not be suited to our future
basing needs, nor to our force requirements, we can seize the moment to
apply the newer metrics of transformation to determine how best to
spend, and where best to spend, our resources. The process has begun
with the reshaping of our fiscal year 2004 military construction
requirements.
USEUCOM submitted a realigned MILCON program, reducing the number
of requested projects from 50 to 37, a reduction of $164.20 million, to
the Secretary of Defense. Theater components are realigning four non
line item family housing projects with their services for a combined
value of $70.90 million. We have requested that five projects for
enduring installations, with a total value of $57.90 million, be added
to the military construction program. Together, these adjustments will
help set the conditions for successful transformation.
U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)
U.S. Army Europe has the greatest amount of infrastructure in the
theater and in order to ensure funding is concentrated on only enduring
installations; USAREUR's military construction program has been
adjusted from eleven line item projects to five, a reduction from
$177.60 million to $121.70 million. USAREUR is working with the
Department of the Army to realign three non-line item family housing
military construction projects with a value of $49.90 million to
installations that are enduring. The adjustments to the fiscal year
2004 program will reduce older static infrastructure and improve the
efficiency of the enduring bases.
Consistent with the objectives of our earlier basing study,
USAREUR's Efficient Basing East is an ongoing initiative to enhance
readiness, gain efficiencies, and improve the well being of 3,400
soldiers and 5,000 family members by consolidating a brigade combat
team from 13 installations in central Germany to a single location at
Grafenwoehr, Germany, further east. Executing this initiative will
enhance command and control, lower transportation costs, enable better
force protection, improve access to training areas, eliminate over 5
million square feet of inventory, and reduce base operations costs by
up to $19 million per year.
U.S. Army Europe's other major basing initiative, Efficient Basing
South, is likewise consistent with established basing objectives and is
well into the execution phase. Efficient Basing South, which added a
second airborne battalion to the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vicenza,
Italy, provides U.S. European Command with enhanced forced entry
capabilities, increased flexibility and more efficient use of ground
combat troops by increasing the Army's tooth-to-tail ratio. It
addresses the theater requirement for additional light-medium forces,
which in concert with other support modules, will deploy as part of the
Immediate Reaction Force. The second battalion, reached full strength
in March 2003, and recently deployed to Northern Iraq.
In support of the Efficient Basing South initiative, the Defense
Department's submission to the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
includes a critical $15.5 million Joint Deployment Processing Facility
at Aviano Air Base, Italy, to support the 173rd Airborne Brigade's
rapid deployment mission with a heavy drop rigging facility. A project
we have asked consideration for funding this year is a $13 million
Personnel Holding Area to provide our troops with cover and space to
check parachutes, weapons, and equipment before boarding their airlift.
U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE)
U.S. Air Forces in Europe are also assessing its basing strategy in
the theater, looking east and south to optimize access,
interoperability, cooperation, and influence. This strategy relies on
permanent bases, necessary to provide mobility throughput and power
projection to Forward Operating Locations in the new NATO countries.
Although these bases are not all main operating bases, they are geo-
strategically located in the European theater.
U.S. Air Forces in Europe continues to consolidate some of its
geographically disparate units throughout the region to major operating
bases that support airlift and power projection capabilities, thus
increasing efficiencies while reducing footprint. Fiscal year 2004
military construction is critical for these consolidation efforts,
focusing on improvements to infrastructure and quality of life. The
budget contains 21 line-item projects valued at $178.07 million.
Recently submitted transformational adjustments to the program reduce
the line-item projects to 18, but add two projects for a combined value
of $158.71 million. These projects provide improvements to enduring
installations across the spectrum including a mobility cargo processing
facility, consolidated communications facilities, aircraft ramps, and
crash fire stations. Critical quality of life improvements that
positively impact our mission include an airman's dormitory, Family
Support and Child Development Centers. One non-line item family housing
project for $21 million is also being realigned to an enduring
installation in the theater.
U.S. Naval Forces Europe (NAVEUR)
Power and influence projection throughout the area of
responsibility, strategic agility worldwide, and our ability to swing
combat and logistics forces around the world--requires assured access
through Air and Sea Lines of Communication. Line of communication
control is a fundamental strategy that will be enhanced by our future
Forward Operating Bases, and Forward Operating Locations, as they
directly support the force flow and stability operations of the future.
The Navy's revised fiscal year 2004 military construction submission
contains four projects, totaling $94.90 million that will continue to
strengthen U.S. Naval Forces Europe's support to project logistics and
combat power east and south.
Recapitalization of Naval Air Station Sigonella's operational base
improves its ability to support logistics flow. The significant Quality
of Life and operations support facilities upgrades at NSA La
Maddalena's waterfront, the homeport of Navy's Mediterranean based
ship-repair tender, will ensure USEUCOM maintains the capability for
unimpeded access to repair facilities for nuclear powered warships.
Construction of a Bachelor Quarters at Joint Maritime Facility St.
Mawgan will eliminate serious antiterrorism and force protection risks
and improve single sailor quality of life at this critical joint
maritime surveillance facility. These projects will ensure that these
critical bases can support future operations and maintain our
surveillance coverage of the eastern Atlantic Ocean.
U.S. Naval Forces Europe is also considering consolidating several
satellite locations, including those in London, as a means of gaining
efficiency and reducing the footprint to effectively respond to the
changing theater mission requirements and transformational initiatives.
In 1990 there were 14 major naval bases and 17,500 naval personnel
permanently stationed at shore bases. Today, U.S. Naval Forces Europe's
footprint has been reduced by five bases and the number of personnel
in-theater has decreased by one third. Previous closures have
predominately been in the United Kingdom with follow-on military
construction focusing on enhancing Navy bases in the Mediterranean.
U.S. Marine Forces Europe (MARFOREUR)
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe is the smallest Service Component
Command in USEUCOM. It is, however, well structured to support
transformational concepts with its pre-positioned equipment set, the
Norway Air-Land Brigade and Maritime Pre-Positioning Squadron-1
(MPSRON-1). The force projection capability associated with MPSRON-1 is
a timely and effective means to place a self-sustaining 15,000 man,
combat-ready brigade when and where its presence is required. The
Norway Air-Land Brigade set of equipment and supplies started in the
mid-1980's as a pre-positioned deterrent located in Norway during the
Cold War. Over the years, the Norway Air-Land Brigade program has
evolved into a very cost effective, and timely pre-positioned
capability for the entire USEUCOM area of responsibility. The equipment
and supplies have been used numerous times during past years from the
war in Kosovo, to the current War on Terrorism. The return that USEUCOM
gains for the extremely small cost and physical footprint associated
with U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe is substantial.
U.S. Special Operations Europe (SOCEUR)
Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) continues to examine the
feasibility of relocation from Patch Barracks, Vaihingen, Germany, to
other installations within the Stuttgart military community.
Consolidation of headquarters command and staff elements is a key goal.
HQ SOCEUR currently operates from six facilities on two installations,
Patch Barracks and Kelly Barracks, within Stuttgart. Two of SOCEUR's
four subordinate units are based on Panzer Kasern, Stuttgart.
Effective 1 October 2004, SOCEUR's military personnel authorization
increases by 79 personnel with the addition of a Standing Joint Special
Operations Task Force. Also in fiscal year 2004, USSOCOM will fund
approximately $11.4 million for the construction of hanger and office
facilities for the fiscal year 2005 basing of F Company, 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment, at the Stuttgart Army Air Field, totaling
105 personnel. In fiscal year 2005, HQ SOCEUR will receive a Joint
Special Operations Air Component consisting of an additional 32
manpower authorizations. Basing options within the USEUCOM Theater are
being evaluated.
War Reserve Material
Multi-service war reserve material in the theater is presently
stored in several Preposition Sites throughout USEUCOM's area of
responsibility. There is $22 million in our fiscal year 2004 military
construction request to establish facilities to store a pre-positioning
set of equipment that supports our basing strategy. Pre-positioned
equipment is essential to support our rotational force concept. These
war reserve material sites are strategic enablers that facilitate rapid
response to crises, reduce the burden on strategic-lift assets, and
optimize our ability to project power.
Infrastructure Investment: A Key Enabler
It cannot be overstated--the quality of our infrastructure has a
profound impact on our operations, intelligence capabilities, training,
security cooperation activities, and the quality of life of our service
members. We recognize the need to eliminate excess infrastructure, and
the Congressionally mandated and OSD-directed Overseas Basing
Requirements Study highlights our most recent efforts to do so.
However, despite our continued efforts and determination, it has not
been possible to improve existing infrastructure and reduce the
degradation of mission readiness at existing funding levels.
Considering the tremendous impact our infrastructure makes on all
aspects of our mission, and the current state of our facilities,
infrastructure investment is our most critical funding requirement.
We have a coherent basing strategy based on current and emerging
threats; we continue to consolidate our facilities; and, we have
maximized the use of alternative funding sources. In addition to
Appropriated and Non-Appropriated Agency Construction and Service
funding, we pursue several alternative funding programs that have
contributed to this effort. Such programs include the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Security Investment Program, Residual Value, the
Payment-in-Kind program, and Quid Pro Quo initiatives. Since 1990,
these programs have generated in excess of $2 billion for construction
projects throughout U.S. European Command's area of responsibility.
Significant efforts by the Service Components to consolidate,
privatize, and outsource have reduced the requirements backlog. Our
very successful, and still embryonic use of the build-to-lease program
to recapitalize our family housing throughout the theater has
substantially decreased our military construction requirements.
However, we need to do much more in this regard, and the renovation of
existing housing is an area that still accounts for 20 percent of the
theater's request for military construction funding.
USEUCOM has embraced the concept and practice of Public-Private
Ventures with build-to-lease housing, contracted support services, and
the privatization of utilities. We are aggressively pursuing utilities
privatization and the use of private sector financing to improve
utility system reliability. U.S. Army Europe started these programs in
the 1980's with the privatization of their heating plants and systems
and continued in 1996 with other utilities. 85 percent of U.S. Army
Europe's heating systems have been privatized providing a cost
avoidance of $2 billion. Since 1996, 39 percent of their utility
systems have been privatized resulting in a cost avoidance of $27.60
million. In fiscal year 2003, the Army's cost avoidance was $15.40
million. U.S. Air Forces in Europe has contracted out base operating
support functions, using private industry to provide civil engineering,
services, supply, and other important support. United States military
personnel and civilian employees normally hold these positions, but at
certain locations, we have effectively transferred the workload to the
private sector. The USEUCOM Service Components have all divested their
family housing and presently have a mix of both Government Family
Housing and build-to-lease family housing.
Our fiscal year 2004 military construction request has recently
been revised and submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Defense
for consideration. The adjustments submitted reflect recommended
funding support for our most strategically enduring installations,
supports our long-term effort to capitalize on new capabilities and
appropriately arrayed forces to enhance our theater engagement
strategy. With the funding requested, we can continue to transform and
align our forces in a manner that is consistent with our expanding
strategic interests and Alliance responsibilities, while improving the
quality of life for those who serve.
Summary
USEUCOM is proceeding with a strategy that matches military
capabilities with the challenges of the new century. Through the proper
blend of our Strategic Bases with newer and more agile Forward
Operating Bases, we will achieve the combined capability, and the right
balance, necessary in the new millennium. I would like to thank the
Congress for its continued support, without which our Soldiers,
Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen would be unable to
perform the tasks assigned to them by our Nation. With your continued
assistance, they will remain ready and postured forward to defend
freedom, foster cooperation and promote stability throughout our
theater of operations. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and for
the committee's consideration to my written and oral remarks.
I look forward to responding to your questions.
LEXICON OF TERMS
Main Operating Base.--Strategically enduring asset established in
friendly territory to provide sustained command and control,
administration, and logistical support in designated areas.
Forward Operating Base.--Semi-permanent asset used to support
tactical operations without establishing full support facilities. Can
be scalable, and may be used for an extended time period. May contain
prepositioned equipment. Backup support by a MOB may be required to
support
Forward Operating Location.--Expeditionary asset similar to a FOB,
but with limited in-place infrastructure. May contained prepositioned
equipment.
Preposition Site.--Sites that contain prepositioned war reserve
material (Combat, Combat Support, Combat Service Support), usually
maintained by contractor support.
Base.--Locality from which operations are projected or supported;
An area or locality containing installations, which provide logistic or
other support; and Home airfield or carrier.
Installations.--A grouping of facilities, located in the same
vicinity, which support particular functions. Installations may be
elements of a base.
Facility.--A Real Property entity consisting of one or more of the
following: a building, a structure, a utility system, system, pavement,
and underlying land.
Site.--A geographic location that has one or more bases or
facilities associated with it.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, General Jones.
General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, Senator
Stevens, thank you for your opening comments. I am honored to
appear before the Committee to update you on the current
situation in the Republic of Korea.
First, I want to extend the thanks of all the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines, and Department of Defense civilians
who serve in Korea. Your unwavering support enables us to
maintain readiness and accomplish our deterrence mission on the
Korean Peninsula.
This past year, we were able to harden theater-level
command posts, renovate a portion of our existing facilities,
and begin construction on several new projects, to include new
barracks, family housing, and multipurpose facilities on our
enduring bases. These projects continue the work needed to
provide service members with quality facilities to work and to
live.
This year is a unique opportunity to significantly improve
readiness and overall quality of life in Korea. We are
committed to consolidating our dispersed and inefficient legacy
installations into hubs of enduring installations that position
units where they can best accomplish their assigned missions.
Consolidation is a critical step toward solving systematic
issues related to encroachment, decaying support
infrastructure, overcrowded and inadequate housing, and
deficient force-protection design.
Three programs, the Yongsan Relocation, the Land
Partnership Plan, and the future of the Alliance Policy
Initiative, are the vehicles to implement this much-needed
reorganization.
Yongsan Relocation has received renewed attention this
year. Under the original 1990 Yongsan Relocation Agreement, the
Republic of Korea committed to fund the movement of the United
States Forces Korea units out of Central Seoul. Due to
President Roh's current administration's support and emphasis,
we now have agreed, in principle, to accelerate the Yongsan
Relocation.
The Land Partnership Plan. The principal instrument for
consolidating our 41 major installations and 90-plus camps and
stations is on track. The Land Partnership Plan, signed by the
Minister of National Defense and ratified by the Korean
National Assembly, will ensure stable stationing of the United
States Korea forces. It returns half of the land, 32,000 acres,
granted to the United States forces under the Status of Forces
Agreement. In exchange, the Republic of Korea Government will
procure the land needed for new construction on our enduring
installations' hubs. Moreover, the Land Partnership Plan has
the flexibility needed to accommodate refinements in force
structure and stationing. The Land Partnership Plan requires no
new military construction funding; however, it depends on
stable funding to existing military construction projects
throughout the future years defense plan.
To strengthen the Republic of Korea-United States Alliance
and to ensure continued regional and peninsula security, we are
in the midst of a Future of the Alliance Policy Initiative
Study, a series of high-level consultations directed by the
Secretary of Defense and the Republic of Korea Minister of
Defense. The Future of the Alliance Policy Initiative is
designed to strengthen the alliance, enhance deterrence, shape
future roles, missions, and functions for the combined military
forces, and establish a stable stationing plan. The Future of
the Alliance Policy Initiative brings 21st century warfighting
capability to Korea and improves combined deterrence. It
synchronizes our efforts to consolidate United States Forces
Korea into hubs of enduring installations through the Land
Partnership Plan and Yongsan Relocation. We also achieve
significant economies of scale that reduce the overall cost of
operating our bases.
Because of the Republic of Korea's commitments provided in
these three innovative programs, I am confident that we can
implement our Military Construction Plan to achieve
efficiencies and improve readiness and overall quality of life.
U.S. support to stable military construction budgets for
projects in future years is essential to bringing this plan to
fruition.
Our strategy uses a balance of sustainment, renovation,
build-to-lease, and military construction to address our core
deficiencies. We prioritize military construction projects
based on their impact on readiness, infrastructure, mission
accomplishment, and quality of life. This approach ensures that
we use resources to address the most pressing needs on our
enduring installations.
PREPARED STATEMENT
To implement this strategy, we need your help in two areas,
continued stable military construction budgets and, secondly, a
change in the rules governing build-to-lease programs in the
Republic of Korea.
I am confident that our strategy will prudently use
military construction projects to improve the overall readiness
and quality of life for the service members who serve in Korea.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear today before this
Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of General Leon J. LaPorte
INTRODUCTION
Senator Hutchison, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished committee
members, I am honored to appear before you as Commander United Nations
Command, Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea. I
want to express our deep gratitude to Congress for your support to our
forces serving in Korea. Our ability to accomplish the mission in Korea
has been possible because of the help you provided. Over the last year,
we have had many legislators and their staffs visit Korea. They spent
time with our service members hearing about their concerns, and seeing
the living and working conditions firsthand. With your support we have
made significant quality of life improvements such as workplace
renovation, housing upgrades, and providing internet access in our
libraries, day rooms and community centers. However, there is much more
to be done. Your efforts and personal involvement made a tremendous
impact on our people. On behalf of all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
Marines, and Department of Defense civilians serving in Korea, I thank
you for your continued support.
This has been an extraordinary year in Korea. 2002 marked the
fourth democratic transfer of power in the Republic of Korea, renewed
South Korean efforts toward inter-Korean reconciliation, and the first
World Cup hosted in Asia. In contrast, there were some discouraging
incidents such as North Korea's calculated armistice violation in the
West Sea, exposure of the North Korean nuclear weapons programs, a
tragic training accident in June, and cyclic rise of anti-United States
Forces Korea sentiment. North Korea attempted to split the Republic of
Korea-United States Alliance by exploiting these events. Our Alliance
weathered these challenges and continues to serve as the foundation for
peace and security throughout Northeast Asia. These incidents have
firmly reinforced three points: the consequences of events in Korea
affect the entire world, continued United States presence in Northeast
Asia is critical to regional stability, and the Republic of Korea-
United States Alliance is essential to regional security.
CONSOLIDATING TO ENDURING INSTALLATIONS
This year is a unique opportunity to significantly improve
readiness and overall quality of life in Korea. We are committed to
consolidating our dispersed and inefficient legacy installations into
hubs of enduring installations that position units where they can best
accomplish their assigned missions (Figure 1). Moreover, this effort is
a crucial step toward solving systemic issues related to encroachment;
decaying infrastructure; overcrowded and inadequate housing; and
deficient force protection design. Momentum in three major programs
facilitate this consolidation effort: Yongsan relocation; Land
Partnership Plan; and the Future of the Republic of Korea-United States
Alliance Policy Initiative.
Yongsan relocation has received renewed attention this year. Under
the original 1990 Yongsan relocation agreement, the Republic of Korea
committed to fully fund the movement of United States Forces Korea
units out of central Seoul. For a variety of reasons, relocation of
Yongsan languished until the current Korean government placed heavy
emphasis on moving national government functions out of Seoul. Party as
a result of the Roh administration's emphasis, we now have agreement-
in-principle to accelerate Yongsan relocation. Next month we expect to
complete the Yongsan relocation facilities master plan. The Republic of
Korea will pay all costs associated with Yongsan relocation. We are
aggressively working with the Republic of Korea government to decide
the details of timing and final facilities for Yongsan relocation under
the terms of the original agreements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Yongsan relocation agreement provides for residual U.S.
presence in Seoul to man headquarters billets for Combined Forces
Command and United Nations Command. United States Forces Korea
headquarters and operational units will move out of Seoul.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Partnership Plan, in its first year of execution, is the
principle instrument for consolidating our 41 major installations.\2\
Approved by the Ministry of National Defense in March 2002 and ratified
by the National Assembly in November 2002, Land Partnership Plan has
the full support of the Korean government and will ensure stable
stationing for United States Forces Korea. Land Partnership Plan
depends heavily on predictable military construction funding because
the needed facilities are funded by a combination of United States
military construction and host nation funded construction.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As ratified in November 2002, the Land Partnership Plan
identifies 23 enduring United States Forces Korea installations on the
Korean peninsula. As part of the Future of the ROK-U.S. Alliance Policy
Initiative, USFK proposed LPP refinements to further reduce the number
of enduring installations and accelerate consolidation into enduring
hubs.
\3\ The Land Partnership Plan agreement provides the Status of
Forces Joint Committee the authority to negotiate modifications to the
basic plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Partnership Plan is a comprehensive, durable framework for
United States Forces Korea stationing. It returns half of the land
(32,000 acres) granted to United States Forces Korea under the Status
of Forces agreement. In exchange, the Republic of Korea government must
procure the land needed to expand our enduring installations. These
land parcels accommodate new facilities construction and provide
easements that reduce encroachment and improve force protection.
Moreover, Land Partnership Plan has the flexibility needed to
accommodate refinements in force structure or stationing to achieve
efficiencies identified through the Future of the Republic of Korea--
United States Alliance Policy Initiative.
The Future of the Alliance Policy Initiative is a series of high-
level consultations designed to strengthen the Alliance, enhance
deterrence, shape future roles, missions, and functions for the
combined military forces, and establish a stable stationing plan for
United States Forces Korea. During these talks, the Republic of Korea
confirmed the agreement to consolidate United States Forces Korea into
hubs of enduring installations and to refine the Land Partnership Plan
to implement a stable stationing plan.\4\ The details of the
consolidation will be developed in subsequent meetings between the
Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense and Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Trade in conjunction with the United States Office of the
Secretary of Defense and State Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The joint press statement from the first Future of the Alliance
Policy Initiative meeting confirms ROK commitment to USFK consolidation
and acceleration of Yongsan relocation: ``The two sides agreed to
consolidate the USFK base structure in order to preserve an enduring
stationing environment for USFK, to achieve higher efficiency in
managing USFK bases, and to foster a balanced development of ROK
national lands. Both sides agreed to continue discussion on the timing
of the overall realignment process . . . to provide a stable stationing
environment for USFK, the two sides agree to relocate Yongsan Garrison
as soon as possible.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these three innovative programs, I am confident that we can
implement our military construction plan to enhance readiness; achieve
efficiencies; guarantee force protection; and improve overall quality
of life. Your support to stable military construction budgets for
projects in the Future Year's Defense Plan is essential to bringing
this plan to fruition.
Today I will address current and future requirements in the context
of: the Northeast Asia security environment; the Republic of Korea
today; the North Korean challenge to regional and global security; the
Republic of Korea-United States Alliance; and the Fix Korea Strategy.
THE NORTHEAST ASIA SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
Northeast Asia is a nexus of economic might, competing interests,
converging threats, cultures, and historical animosities. Over 17
percent of the world's trade value is with countries in Northeast Asia,
and United States trade with the region (over $414 Billion) is second
only to our trade with the North American Free Trade Association.\5\
Many of the nations in the region--China, Japan, Russia, and the
Republic of Korea--are contending for economic and political influence.
Enduring cultural and historical animosities remain a dynamic political
force. This region marks the convergence of five of the world's six
largest militaries, and three of the five declared nuclear powers.
Today, the current military demarcation line between North and South
Korea is the most heavily armed in the world and remains an arena for
confrontation. North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and
proliferation of missile technology threatens global and regional
stability. United States presence in Korea demonstrates our firm
commitment to defend democratic values and prevent our enemies from
threatening us--and our partners--with weapons of mass destruction. Our
forces in Korea send the clear message that we will stand with our
allies and friends to provide the stability that promotes prosperity
and democratic values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Derived from U.S. Census data. For 2002, total trade with
Northeast Asia ($U.S. billion) are: Japan $172.93, China $147.22,
Republic of Korea $58.17, Taiwan $50.59. Trade with NAFTA during the
same period was $557.39 (Canada $371.39 and Mexico $232.26), (http://
www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2002/11/balance.html, accessed 14
APR 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republic of Korea Today
The Republic of Korea today is fast becoming a global economic
competitor. In 2002 the Republic of Korea's economy grew six percent
while boasting the world's 11th largest Gross Domestic Product and
third largest cash reserves.\6\ The Republic of Korea's vision of the
future is to diversify its economy by becoming the ``transportation,
financial, and information technology hub of Northeast Asia''.\7\ This
vision seeks to route Northeast Asia, Europe, and the Americas trade
through South Korea using an inter-Korean transportation system. Inter-
Korean initiatives begun by former President Kim, Dae Jung and
continued by President Roh, Moo Hyun pursue reconciliation for
cultural, economic, and humanitarian reasons. The Republic of Korea's
engagement policies toward North Korea profoundly affect how South
Koreans view their relations with the United States and North Korea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guide
Korea, fiscal year 2003.
\7\ President Roh, Moo-hyun announced his intent to position the
Republic of Korea as the ``economic powerhouse of Northeast Asia''. In
public appearances, he amplified this vision stating that he sought to
make South Korea the transportation, financial, and information
technology hub of Northeast Asia. For President Roh's national
priorities, see Korea Herald articles at http://kn.koreaherald.co.kr/
SITE/data/htmlXdir/2003/01/11/200301110003.asp, http://
kn.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/htmlXdir/2002/12/28/200212280010.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many South Koreans under age 45, a generation that has lived in an
era of peace, prosperity, and democratic freedoms, have a diminished
perception of the North Korean threat. These South Koreans see North
Korea not as a threat but rather as a Korean neighbor, potential
trading partner and a country that provides access to expanded Eurasian
markets. This view of North Korea contrasts with America's view that
North Korea is a threat to regional and global stability. This
divergent perception of North Korea, coupled with strong national
pride, has been a cause of periodic tension in the Republic of Korea-
United States Alliance.
There have always been groups in the Republic of Korea that are
critical of United States policy and claim that the United States
hinders inter-Korean reconciliation. Demonstrations against American
policy and military presence increased sharply during this year's
Republic of Korea presidential election. Political interest groups made
claims of inequity in the Republic of Korea-United States alliance a
central issue during the presidential campaign. Opposition groups
exploited a United States military court's acquittal of two American
soldiers charged with negligent homicide in the tragic training
accident that claimed the lives of two South Korean schoolgirls last
June. Non-governmental organizations asserted that the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) was unjust and that the acquitted soldiers should have
been tried in a Republic of Korea court rather than by a United States
military court. During the presidential election campaign, these groups
used biased and inaccurate media reporting to inflame anti-United
States Forces Korea sentiments and mobilize demonstrations, a
traditional tool of political protest in the Republic of Korea.
Regrettably, several of these protests turned violent.
Since the December 2002 Republic of Korea presidential election,
anti-United States Forces Korea demonstrations have virtually
disappeared, due in large part to positive steps taken by United States
Forces-Korea, the United States Embassy, and the Republic of Korea
government. Shortly after his election, President Roh, Moo Hyun voiced
support for a strong Republic of Korea-United States alliance and
continued United States military presence in Korea even after
reconciliation. Since the presidential election, pro-American groups in
the Republic of Korea have conducted demonstrations, some as large as
100,000 people, supporting the continued stationing of United States
forces in the Republic of Korea. The future of the Alliance involves
the Republic of Korea assuming the predominant role in its defense and
increasing both Republic of Korea and United States involvement in
regional security cooperation. I firmly believe that we have an
opportunity to revitalize the Alliance, by closely examining the roles,
missions, capabilities, force structure, and stationing of our
respective forces.
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA'S SUPPORT TO GLOBAL MILITARY OPERATIONS
The Republic of Korea has continued their support for U.S.-led
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republic of Korea's National
Assembly has extended its mandate and increased its commitment of
support forces to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM through December 2003.
Today Republic of Korea liaison officers are planning and coordinating
with their United States counterparts at both Central Command and
Pacific Command headquarters. The Republic of Korea has provided
several contingents of support troops to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM,
including a navy transport ship moving essential airfield material to
Diego Garcia, four C-130 cargo aircraft to support the United States
Pacific Command's operations, a hospital unit in Afghanistan, and an
engineering unit at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. In addition, the
government of the Republic of Korea has provided $12 million of their
$45 million pledge to fund humanitarian and rebuilding efforts in
Afghanistan.
In April, with President Roh's strong endorsement, the Republic of
Korea National Assembly approved deployment of troops to the Iraqi
theater of operations. The contribution of a 600-man engineering
battalion, a 75-man security unit, and a 100-man medical unit to the
Iraqi theater of operations bring needed stability operations
capabilities to Iraq. Participation in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and
IRAQI FREEDOM represent another in a long series of Republic of Korea
deployments along side United States troops during the past 50 years of
our Alliance.
north korean challenges to regional and global security
North Korea is a dangerous dictatorship that continues to pose a
direct threat to peace, security, and stability in NEA Northeast Asia.
The Kim Regime uses illicit activities to fund the extravagant
lifestyles of the inner circle and is using its military capabilities
to extort resources from the international community. North Korea poses
several threats to global stability: an economy on the brink of
failure; an active nuclear weapons program; withdrawal from the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty; growing threat to the world through
proliferation of missiles, chemical, and biological weapons
technologies and possibly nuclear materials and technology; and large
conventional force and special operations force that directly threaten
our Allies. North Korean brinksmanship ensures that the Korean
Peninsula remains a place of palpable danger, illustrated by the North
Korea's unprovoked attack in the West Sea on June 29, 2002, the restart
of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, and their efforts to develop highly
enriched uranium nuclear weapons. North Korea continues to flagrantly
violate their international agreements resulting in increased regional
tensions. The Republic of Korea and United States forces continue to
face the possibility of a high intensity war involving large
conventional forces and significant weapons of mass destruction
delivered by long-range missiles.
North Korea poses a dangerous and complex threat to peace and
security on the peninsula and throughout the region. Their growing
weapons of mass destruction, missile, and re-vitalized nuclear weapons
programs constitute a substantial threat to the world. What's most
dangerous is that they have shown willingness to sell anything to
anybody for hard currency. They will continue to support the military
at the expense of the general population and extort aid to prop up
their failing economy. We see no indications that the Kim Regime will
change the policies of brinkmanship and proliferation of missiles and
weapons of mass destruction technologies throughout the world.
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA-UNITED STATES ALLIANCE: UNITED NATIONS COMMAND,
COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AND UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA
Since I took command in May 2002, I have had several opportunities
to assess the readiness and training of United Nations Command,
Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea. Key events
included response to the West Sea Armistice Violation by North Korea,
security for development of the inter-Korean transportation corridors
through the Demilitarized Zone, and security support for the 2002 World
Cup and Asian Games.
United Nations Command
Under the mandate of United Nations Security Council Resolutions
82, 83, and 84, the United Nations Command in Seoul provides a standing
coalition with 15 member nations to address trans-national interests in
regional stability. United Nations Command led the international
response to the June 29, 2002 West Sea Armistice violation by the North
Koreans. This egregious, unprovoked North Korean attack in the West Sea
that sank a Republic of Korea patrol boat, killed 6 and wounded 19
Republic of Korea sailors. The member nations of the United Nations
Command promptly issued strong statements denouncing the North Korean
aggression. Facing this international censure, North Korea reluctantly
expressed regret over the incident and agreed to the first United
Nations Command-Korean Peoples Army General Officer talks in almost 2
years. At the General Officer talks, North Korea guaranteed not to
interfere with a United Nations Command-led salvage operation. Under
the United Nations flag, the Republic of Korea's navy successfully
salvaged the sunken boat. United Nations Command observers ensured
neutrality and transparency of the salvage operation. The strength of
the Republic of Korea-United States Alliance, backed by the United
Nations Command member nations led to a successful West Sea recovery
operation and reinforced the legitimate authority of United Nations
Command to enforce the Armistice. United Nations Command again provided
a stabilizing force and prevented a dangerous situation from escalating
into open hostilities.
Following the West Sea salvage operation, the Republic of Korea and
North Korea held the Seventh Inter-Korean Ministerial talks, during
which they re-invigorated efforts to establish inter-Korean
transportation corridors. These corridors allow reconnection of rail
lines and roadways through two designated points in the Demilitarized
Zone to facilitate inter-Korean humanitarian visits and commerce. To
support this Republic of Korean reconciliation initiative, United
Nations Command worked closely with the Republic of Korea's Ministry of
National Defense to establish special coordination measures between the
Republic of Korea's Ministry of National Defense and the North Korean
People's Army to speed construction and operation of the transportation
corridors while ensuring compliance with the Armistice Agreement and
security of the Demilitarized Zone. The first group of passengers
crossed the Military Demarcation Line through the eastern corridor on
14 February 2003. This was the first time in 50 years that citizens of
the Republic of Korea crossed directly into North Korea and is a clear
demonstration of successful cooperation between the Republic of Korea
and United Nations Command. Figure 2 illustrates the location of the
east and west inter-Korean transportation corridors through the
Demilitarized Zone.
Combined Forces Command
Combined Forces Command ensures the security of the people of the
Republic of Korea. Combined Forces Command provides the military force
that deters external aggression and stands ready to defeat any external
provocation against the Republic of Korea. Combined Forces Command,
composed of air, ground, naval, marine, and special operations
component, conducts combined training exercises and readiness
inspections to maintain the warfighting readiness that is essential to
deterrence. The Combined Forces Command headquarters is a fully
integrated staff, manned by Republic of Korea and United States
military officers. This thoroughly integrated headquarters coordinates
the operations that deter external aggression. In 2002, Combined Forces
Command assisted with the successful United Nations Command salvage
operation in the West Sea and military security support to the World
Cup and Asian Games.
Leveraging Combined Forces Command wartime operational procedures,
United States Forces-Korea and Republic of Korea forces shared
information and conducted combined exercises to deter terrorist
infiltrators seeking to disrupt the World Cup and Asian Games. Combined
Forces Command operated a Crisis Action Response Team to quickly
respond to any type of incident. United States Forces-Korea provided
unique biological defense assets to augment the Republic of Korea's
military capabilities. Our close cooperation demonstrated the agility
of Combined Forces Command to conduct a wide range of operations and
ensured a secure 2002 World Cup and Asian Games.
United States Forces Korea
United States forces in Korea are the tangible demonstration of
United States commitment to peace and stability in Korea and throughout
Northeast Asia. United States Forces-Korea brings the robust
technological superiority, information dominance, and warfighting
prowess that buttress the Republic of Korea's military capabilities.
Our forward presence deters North Korean aggression and prevents a
devastating war that can only have tragic consequences throughout the
region. My command priorities--Ensure peace and stability on the Korean
peninsula, Readiness and Training, Strengthen the Republic of Korea-
United States Alliance, Transform the Command, and Make Korea an
Assignment of Choice--focus our resources to maintain the military
dominance that ensures deterrence. I want to present my vision of
improved readiness and quality of life and the key military
construction projects that will need your support. Your continued
support is essential to maintaining the balanced readiness that
sustains our state-of-the-art warfighting capabilities.
Enduring Installations--the Cornerstone of Balanced Readiness
Balanced readiness requires functional installations that meet both
warfighting requirements and quality of life needs. Our current
installations, a legacy of the Cold War, meet neither of these
criteria. The existing 41 major bases are dispersed throughout Korea,
causing substantial inefficiency in operations, logistics, and life
support. For example, our logistics facilities are significantly
separated from their operational unit customers, lengthening supply
channels and delaying replenishment. Dispersion also impacts quality of
life, requiring service members at remote installations to travel
between 1 and 4 hours to a medical or dental appointment or use a
commissary.
Our facilities and infrastructure are old--one third of all
buildings in the command are between 25 and 50 years old and another
one third are classified as temporary buildings. They have deteriorated
because of high operational tempo, deferred maintenance, and the 1990-
1994 military construction freeze. These deficits underscore the need
for stable military construction to achieve consolidation and rectify
our facilities shortfalls. Figure 3 illustrates the historical military
construction spending in Korea.
Fix Korea Strategy
Consolidating into enduring installations is the key to improving
readiness and improved quality of life for United States Forces Korea.
Our service members in Korea face challenges from decaying support
infrastructure, inadequate force protection facilities, overcrowded and
inadequate housing, family separation, and financial hardship. Our
strategy to maintain readiness and improve the working and living
conditions in Korea has six pillars: Sustain and Improve Our Aging
Infrastructure, Renovate Where We can, Maximize Build-to-Lease,
Minimize Build-to-Own, Achieve Environmental Standards, and Address
Inadequate Pay. With your help, we've made significant progress
implementing this strategy. We have upgraded much of our existing
housing and begun construction on several of the needed additional
facilities. Stable funding contributes to the strength of each of the
strategy pillars.
Sustain and Improve our Aging Facilities and Infrastructure
The first priority of our strategy is sustaining our existing
infrastructure. Providing quality facilities allows our skilled
uniformed and civilian personnel to work safely and efficiently. We
prioritize Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funding based on
safety of use, mission impact, efficiency, and quality of life to
ensure that best return on investment. However, Sustainment,
Restoration, and Modernization funding levels have resulted in a
growing backlog of restoration requirements.\8\ Over time, lack of
maintenance leads to failure of life support systems and degraded
readiness and increases the frequency of emergency repairs. It also
leads to increased costs associated with substantial restoration
projects. Figure 4 illustrates how lack of proper maintenance required
significant repair to one of our many sewer systems. Similar projects
have been required to maintain our electrical power distribution,
roads, and buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Current Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization backlog in
Korea is approximately $1.1 billion: $774 million Army, $327 million
Air Force, $1.8 million Navy. 2003 Sustainment, Restoration, and
modernization funding is $171 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renovate Where We can
In addition to sustaining our infrastructure, we are renovating
existing structures to provide the capabilities we need. The fiscal
year 2004 renovation of hardened aircraft shelters at Kunsan air base
illustrates this process. This $7 million force protection project is
part of a phased plan that repairs the concrete protective structures
and utility systems that support our mission critical aircraft.
Force protection is a key part of our renovation program.
Protecting the force remains essential to operational readiness--I will
not compromise the safety of our service members and their families.
Although we continue to assess the terrorist threat as low, we remain
vigilant and have taken critical steps to improve our security posture.
Notable improvements this year have been increasing perimeter security
forces, installation of closed circuit television monitors at key
access points, fielding Portal Shield chemical and biological detection
systems, and conducting intensive anti-terrorism and force protection
training exercises.
Over the past year we completed a detailed vulnerability assessment
of our installations. This assessment identified over 130 major tasks
required to comply with anti-terrorism and force protection
requirements. Key requirements to improve force protection focus on
establishing adequate standoff protection around our key facilities and
installations and upgrading structural integrity on mission essential
and vulnerable buildings. The total value of these force protection
projects is $15 million. We appreciate your support to these programs
that protect our service members and improve our warfighting
facilities.
In addition to workspace improvements, we are also upgrading our
family housing, dormitories and barracks. I firmly believe that safe,
quality accommodations improves our members' quality of life, increases
their satisfaction with military service, and ultimately leads to
increased readiness and retention. With your support, we have continued
our housing renovation program and service members across the peninsula
are enthusiastic about the results. To continue this initiative in
2004, we will invest another $8 million in family housing.
Korea currently has the worst unaccompanied housing in the
Department of Defense. Overcrowding and inadequate facilities requires
us to house 40 percent of our unaccompanied personnel outside of
installations, causing significant force protection concerns. The Air
Force Dormitory Master Plan and Army Barracks Upgrade and Buyout Plan
allow us to use funds where they are most needed for renovation and
construction. Last year we invested $130 million to renovate fourteen
barracks buildings across the peninsula. Our plan calls for us to
replace the last Quonset hut with permanent facilities by the
Department of Defense target of 2008. We need your continued commitment
to a stable Military Construction budget to continue our renovation and
force protection improvement programs.
Use Build-to-Lease
As we close facilities during consolidation under Land Partnership
Plan, we will need additional facilities on our enduring installations.
Build-to-lease is the most cost effective way to improve housing and
facilities in Korea. We believe this program, modeled on successful
Department of Defense programs in the United States and Europe,
provides the answer to many of our quality of life concerns and reduces
costs associated with new military construction. We are now exploring
build-to-lease units at Camp Humphreys (1,500 families) and Camp Walker
(500 families) to provide adequate housing for our military and certain
key and essential civilian sponsored families. Build-to-Lease uses
Korean private sector and Host Nation Funded construction where
appropriate. These programs reduce both initial start-up costs and
total cost of ownership. Build-to-Lease will enable use to rapidly
replace our aging housing infrastructure and to increase our available
family housing units.
To fully implement the Build-to-Lease plan, I need your help to
change the legislative rules on Build-to-Lease. First, we need to
increase the maximum family housing lease period from 10 to 15 years
and extend the maximum lease duration for support facilities from 5 to
15 years. Build-to-Lease is a ``win'' for the American service members
stationed in Korea because it will significantly raise their quality of
life and it is a ``win'' for the American taxpayer because it reduces
the cost of housing improvement for our service members with families.
With increasing numbers of married service members, we recognize
that high operational tempo and unaccompanied tours are detrimental to
overall readiness. We must act now to reduce the perennial problems of
family separation and poor quality of life in Korea. We currently
provide government owned and leased housing for less than 10 percent of
our married service members (1,862 families) compared to more than 70
percent in Europe and Japan. Our goal is to provide quality command-
sponsored housing for at least 25 percent of our accompanied service
members and their families by 2010. If traditional military
construction alone were used to meet this increased demand for housing,
it would cost $900 million.
Increasing our rate of command sponsorship is an important step to
enhance readiness and improve quality of life. Replacing a portion of
the current 12-month unaccompanied tours with longer accompanied tours
reduces turbulence that affects readiness on and beyond the Korean
peninsula. For example, a 24 to 36 month accompanied tour enhances
readiness by allowing leaders to develop more enduring and stable
working relationships with our Republic of Korea partners. Longer tours
in Korea also reduce the turbulence throughout the Services, enhancing
readiness in units beyond the peninsula. Accompanied tours, coupled
with adequate housing, improve the service member's quality of life by
reducing family separation. I urge you to support all efforts to
increase and improve the family housing in Korea.
Build-to-Own
While ``Build-to-Lease'' is a promising option, there are some
facilities that must be government owned. For example, Build-to-Own
provides unaccompanied housing, administrative, operations, logistics,
maintenance, and medical facilities that support our core operations
requirements. These improvements are sorely needed to improve the
efficiency of our enduring installations and the quality of life in
Korea. As a key steward of Military Construction in Korea, I assure you
that your appropriations will be prudently invested in the enduring
installations that will support our service members long into the
future.
We deeply appreciate your support to 2003 Military Construction
($237 million), which has vastly improved readiness and quality of
life. We were able to harden the theater Command Post Tango and to
begin construction on 1,792 unaccompanied housing units, a new family
housing development at Osan air base, and a multi-purpose center at
Camp Castle. Even with the great assistance we received in fiscal year
2003 we continue to have substandard facilities throughout this
command. Our fiscal year 2004 military construction projects are
prioritized based on their impact on readiness, infrastructure, and
quality of life. Table 1 summarizes the major military construction
projects for the coming fiscal year. These projects have been re-
validated in the Secretary of Defense fiscal year 2003-2004 Military
Construction budget review as essential facilities.
TABLE 1.--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Category Project Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force......................... Readiness.............. Upgrade Hardened Aircraft Shelters....... 7.0
Air Force......................... Housing................ Dormitory (156 Room)..................... 16.5
Air Force......................... Housing................ Construct Family Housing Phase II........ 45.0
Army.............................. Housing................ Barracks Complex......................... 40.0
Army.............................. Housing................ Barracks Complex......................... 35.0
Army.............................. Housing................ Barracks Complex......................... 30.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the previously discussed projects to upgrade
aircraft shelters at Kunsan, we have also asked for fiscal year 2004
Military Construction appropriations that include 111 new family
housing units at Osan air base ($45 million) and four new Unaccompanied
Enlisted Housing projects ($131.5 million), providing new housing for
888 service members. These projects will reduce the number of service
members living in dense urban areas outside our installations, improve
force protection and reduce the high out-of-pocket living expenses
incurred by service members and their families. They will also allow us
to move toward our goal of increasing the command sponsored housing for
our accompanied service members and their families. Your continued
support to Military Construction in the Future Years Defense Plan
enables us to implement our comprehensive construction program that
prudently uses resources to correct the significant infrastructure
shortfalls on our enduring installations.
Achieve Environmental Standards
We have made significant strides in environmental custodianship.
Caring for our environment is important to me personally and to the
command. Our wastewater management has been a great success. Over the
last 6 years, we invested approximately $30 million in ten wastewater
systems and we have programmed an additional $12 million for three more
systems. Your support to these improvements ensures safe water and a
clean environment for all who serve in Korea. We have worked hard with
the Republic of Korea-United States team to improve coordination on
environmental protection measures and to share lessons learned to
protect the environment.
In addition, we have implemented innovative procedures that have
decreased the operational use of hazardous materials, reducing our
storage and disposal requirements. Computer-assisted material
management programs allow us to better manage inventory, shift to more
environmentally friendly alternative products, and reduce disposal
requirements. Other initiatives include recycling used oil and anti-
freeze, and an effective battery recovery program that reconditions and
returns batteries for use with minimum environmental impact.
The most immediate environmental concern is with aging and
frequently leaking fuel storage tanks, a legacy of our obsolete
infrastructure. We are committed to resolve this problem throughout
United States Forces Korea. We have a $100 million program through
Defense Energy Support Center to upgrade fuel storage facilities
throughout Korea to ensure that we meet environmental standards. To
sustain our environmental improvements we need your continued support
for environmental projects in 2004. These resources will be wisely
invested in our enduring installations under the Land Partnership Plan,
resulting in improved stewardship of the environment.
In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with these thoughts:
Northeast Asia is a critical region for the United States and our
partners. The Republic of Korea-United States Alliance and our
continued presence in the region demonstrate our commitment to ensure
peace and security in the region. Congressional support is vital to our
future in Korea and Northeast Asia. We thank you for all that you've
done.
Korea is a better place because of your efforts, and we thank you
for all that you've done. We have made some significant improvements in
quality of life and readiness--investments that increase our efficiency
and will support our service members far into the future. However,
substantial work remains to be done. To improve family housing and
service member quality of life that is essential to morale and
readiness, we need to increase Build-to Lease authorities in Korea. We
also need stable military construction budgets that support to our
critical projects. With your continued support we can implement our
plan to make Korea an assignment of choice for all the Services.
Land Partnership Plan is an enduring commitment to achieve stable
stationing for United States Forces Korea. The momentum provided by the
Future of the Republic of Korea-United States Alliance Policy
Initiative, ensures that we can establish a stable, enduring stationing
plan that improves readiness and overall quality of life. Because the
success of Land Partnership Plan depends on stable military
construction projects, I assure you that your appropriations will be
prudently invested in enduring installations.
You can be justifiably proud of all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
Marines, and civilians that serve and sacrifice in Korea. Their daily
dedication and performance reflect the trust and support that you've
placed in them. They appreciate your efforts and continued support.
Senator Hutchison. Yes, Senator Stevens.
LEGAL CHANGES RELATED TO TRANSFORMATION
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Let me ask you just one general question for each one of
you. Do you require any changes in basic law that govern your
military forces in order to bring about these changes you have
just described?
General Jones. Senator, I do not think, in terms of our
national law, I am not aware of any changes in basic law that
we might require.
Senator Stevens. No treaty changes, no basic laws?
General Jones. We may need to re-look at some of the
understandings with which we have entered into some of our
agreements--for instance, notably with--if we should decide to
put some bases in the eastern part of our EUCOM AOR, we may
have to re-look at some of the understandings with Russia, for
example. The agreement that allowed NATO expansion was that
there would be no major military bases. That was not defined.
The model that we are presenting, or that we will present, has
smaller units more oriented on engagement as opposed to
strategically in place warfighting capability.
So I think that as we look through all of these documents,
we are looking at that as we go along to make sure we, number
one, understand them all, find the ones that are still in
existence. It is a work in progress. But, right now, I have not
seen anything that is a show-stopper.
Senator Stevens. General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Senator Stevens, the six tenets of the
United States Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty that was
signed in 1953 are still valid today and will apply in the
future. So I see no requirement for any national legislation or
treaty reorganization with South Korea.
Senator Stevens. One further. What is the time frame for
each of you in the changes that you envision?
General Jones. Sir, we are operating under a near-, mid-,
and long-term plan. Near-term is 2 to 3 years. Mid-term is 5 to
8, and long-term is 8 to 10 or 12.
General LaPorte. The same time period that General Jones
stated is what we are operating under.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
NON-ENDURING INSTALLATIONS
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
First, I want to ask--I think, General Jones, you mentioned
this, but do either of you have any military construction
projects ongoing in bases that you do not consider to be
enduring?
General Jones. I am sorry, that we do not consider to be--
--
Senator Hutchison. Enduring.
General Jones. Oh, enduring. We probably have some projects
that are in the defined Tier II and Tier III category, and we
have decided, upon reexamination of both of those categories,
that we should not continue to invest any funds in those
particular installations. So whatever we have will be stopped.
Senator Hutchison. And, as I understand it, you are also
reevaluating your Tier I installations----
General Jones. That is correct.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. With the thought that there
would be no 2004 money going there, as well if----
General Jones. We will not invest, and will not request any
money for any installation in Europe that is not of
strategically enduring value.
Senator Hutchison. And what would be your--I am going to
come to you, General LaPorte--but what would be your time table
on the reevaluation of the Tier I?
General Jones. I would say that within the next 60 days we
will have that completely done.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. That will certainly meet with
our time table, because we are trying to delay our----
General Jones. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Report.
General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Senator, we have two projects from 2000
that are in the process of being implemented in the Yongsan
relocation area. It was a medical warehouse and it was a
modification/renovation of the hospital. Those are ongoing.
They should be completed in the next 12 to 18 months. There is
also one barracks from 2002 MILCON that is ongoing. Both of
these facilities, we believe, we are going to be able to use
into the future.
I talked about Yongsan relocation. There will be some U.S.
forces that will remain in Seoul as part of the United Nations
Command and Combined Forces Command. They will be able to make
use of these facilities.
Senator Hutchison. Other than that, there would be none
going----
General LaPorte. No, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Out.
TRAINING SITES FOR EUCOM
I have been concerned, from my visits around the world,
about encroachment on training space at many overseas
locations. It could be airspace, it could be artillery range. I
wanted to ask each of you to what extent this has posed a
problem for you in your areas of responsibility. And are you
looking at the potential of rearranging your training to
perhaps do training elsewhere, perhaps even in the United
States with rotations back in?
General Jones.
General Jones. Madam Chairman, as you know, post-war Europe
has been a tremendously successful period. Entire Nations have
been transformed into prosperous democracies, and urbanization
has taken hold in Europe, just as it has in our own country.
And the bases that were built 40 or 50 years ago in areas that
were remote locations are no longer remote. And with that urban
sprawl comes increased concern about the environment, the
ecology, the noise, just things that are normally attendant to
military bases.
And the second thing that has happened is that it becomes
more costly. As Nations become more prosperous, the cost of
training goes up. There is not any one thing that has changed
the environment except that the development of the European
theater has made it more difficult, particularly on land and in
air space, to adequately train our units.
Sometimes the restrictions do not seem to be much;
sometimes they say, ``Well, we will impose ours on you''--
sometimes they will impose limits on the size of the unit;
sometimes they will impose limits on the types of weapons that
you can use. But in the aggregate, it becomes harder. And like
all militaries, we tend to look for areas where we can go and
get the units trained for the important work that they do.
And training is extremely important, particularly as we go
into a high-tech force in the 21st century. The transformed
force requires training so that we can eliminate the problems
that face us on the battlefield when we have to fight the
Nation's battles.
So we are always looking for ways to train better, and some
of those bases might be back here at home, some might be
elsewhere in our own theater, and we pledge to you that we are
going to do a continued examination to try to find where we can
train most efficiently and in accord with the environment that
we happen to be in.
Senator Hutchison. Well, one of the reasons that we have
introduced our legislation to evaluate our overseas bases is to
try to have all of the information on training constraints and
other problems as we go into the 2005 BRAC. Because if
significant units are going to be brought back, of course, we
want to make sure we do not close a base that we are going to
need, particularly a big training area. So that certainly will
be part of the overall 2005 BRAC.
General Jones. Absolutely.
Senator Hutchison. General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Senator, we have over 90 camps and
stations; and at the end of the war, we basically went aground
where the units were and established these camps. They used to
be at the end of dusty trails. Today, most of these camps have
been engulfed by significant development. The prosperity of
South Korea has caused a boom in the construction arena.
So encroachment is an area that I am very concerned with
and we work very hard on. Unfortunately, last year we had an
accident as a result of encroachment because of the congestion
associated with moving to and from a training area. So we are
very concerned about this.
One of the main tenets of the Land Partnership Plan is to
address this, to move away from the crowded residential urban
areas, such as Seoul and some of the other very congested
areas, and move our assets to areas where we are able to
conduct our training. We are able, with the Land Partnership
Plan, to use training areas that, in the past, have been just
for the ROK military; but part of the agreement was to give
them back land and to get training time on those training
areas.
As we look to the future, the force we have will have more
of a regional role, in terms of regional stability, so there
will be training opportunities off the peninsula to look at. We
are examining those now. Encroachment is a concern. At this
point in time, we are able to meet all our training objectives,
and we are just going to have to continue to work this.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, General LaPorte.
I am going to come back with other questions, but I did
want to pass it down.
Senator Feinstein.
COST FACTORS IN EUCOM TRANSFORMATION
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
Let me begin with, if I might, General Jones. As you were
speaking, General, I was reading your written statement, and it
is really a very solid statement. I think you point out that
your area of responsibility includes 93 sovereign Nations and
stretches from the southern tip of Norway to the southern tip
of South Africa, from Greenland to the west, to Russia's
eastern coastline. You are right, it really is a misnomer to
say it is the European Command, because it is such a vast area.
As mentioned in your statement, on page 4, you point out
the crossroads of two centuries, departing from territorial
defense and shedding the limitations of 20th century warfare to
a very different--from symmetrical to asymmetrical responses.
And you go on and make the case for a major reevaluation. And
in the study that was just concluded, you determined that 80
percent, or 402, of the existing 499 installations in theater
were judged to be of enduring value.
This morning, the Washington Post discussed your plan to
develop new, quote, ``bare bones,'' end quote, training bases
throughout Europe, and the article mentions ``relatively modest
construction costs.''
I do not see how they can be relatively modest if you have
402 of 499 installations in theater of enduring value and yet
knowing what you have to do to reposition and redeploy. Can you
make further comment on the ``relatively modest'' figures?
General Jones. Yes, ma'am, I think I can.
The first point I would like to make is that the Tier I
strategically enduring value judgments were made in 2002. I
mentioned in my opening statement that we are reevaluating
those, as well, and it is work in progress. I am not convinced
that all of those are absolutely of strategically enduring
value.
So my commitment to you is that we will complete that
reevaluation. We have already done Tier II and Tier III, and
that is beyond us, but we are re-looking of Tier I, as well.
Now, I also suggest that an installation, by DOD
definition, can be as small as an antenna surrounded by a
fence, and you may have a base with 14 installations on them.
So when we say 499 installations, we should not confuse that
with bases, because that is not the case.
With regard to the future and the term ``modest
investment,'' I use that term in terms of the size of the
investment to be required. If, for some reason, we decided to
shift one of our very strategically enduring locations, and I
publicly used the example of Ramstein Air Base, and the huge
cost--huge cost--it would take to simply move that facility
somewhere else in our theater simply because we would judge it
to be more useful elsewhere, I would think that we would not
want to assume that kind of a burden.
CATEGORIZING INSTALLATIONS
The proposal that we are working on is to identify truly
bare-bones facilities, truly lighter footprints that can
accommodate rotational forces, that are there for limited
periods of time, that can practice the strategy of engagement
along with a strategy of strategic response to a crisis, that
can be built at comparatively very modest costs and can be
easily contractible from being an active base to not-so-active
base to a cold base, where we could use our strategic
flexibility using forces that emanate both from the theater and
from the continental United States or, frankly, anywhere else
in the world if we wish to do so, as opposed to the 20th
century model where we built what I call ``Small City, USA,''
with families and schools and basing infrastructure and PXs and
commissaries and everything else that goes with the traditional
mindset of an American base in the 20th century.
I believe that we can identify the few strategically
enduring installations that we would not want to pay the kind
of money we would have to pay--i.e., a Ramstein Air Force
Base--and use the strategic enduring installations as
springboards to these smaller, more remote locations, that
would, by comparison, be very, very modest, in terms of an
investment.
So it is a comparison between a 20th century model of a
base, that was very useful to us, and the fact that the world
has gotten smaller and we can project power coming from
different parts of the world to do those things that we wish to
do at a significantly--at a fraction of the cost that it would
take to rebuild a 20th century base.
ROTATIONAL FORCES
Senator Feinstein. Would that envision, then, a different
rotation system? You would not bring families, for example? It
would be, I guess, a base similar to that which was built in
Kosovo, for example?
General Jones. Camp Bondsteel would be a good example of
what I would term a forward-operating base. I also would
envision a family of forward-operating locations which would be
much more modest than the forward-operating base. And the units
that would visit those bases and operate from those bases would
be generally rotational, whether they come from the theater or
from the United States, and they would be there for temporary
periods of time to do a specific mission, and then they would
leave.
And we are working with the services, principally the
United States Army, because this is the service that has the
most transformation, the most difficult time with this concept.
But we are making good progress, and I think we will be able
to, in time, provide a force-basing construct that will support
a much more flexible basing strategy.
AFRICA
Senator Feinstein. Is there anything you could tell us at
this time about Africa and what your plans would be in that
area?
General Jones. Thank you for that question, Senator. I
appreciate that, because I think Africa is a continent that is
going to be of very, very significant interest in the 21st
century, and I think it is only a matter of time. It is
assigned, with the exception of several countries around the
horn of Africa, to the European Command. And, as you have
correctly stated, it is a little bit of a misnomer to think of
the European Command as simply in Europe. It is not.
We have had an engagement strategy in Africa that has been
largely reactive, reactive to crisis. Where we have had a
proactive strategy, it is generally been confined to special
operating forces, very small, focused efforts that have been
important. But, in my estimation, we will have to do more in
the future.
I am concerned about the large, ungoverned areas of Africa
that are possibly ``melting pots for the disenfranchised of the
world,'' so to speak, the terrorist breeding grounds,
criminality, people who are being recruited as we speak to rise
up against the developed world and the democracies that enjoy a
peaceful and prosperous way of life. And I believe that we are
going to have to engage more in that theater.
And part of the basing realignment and proposals that we
are coming up with will establish some footprints at a very low
cost, and very low manpower cost, as well, but we will
hopefully see more visits and more presence by our American
forces, and maybe even coalition forces, coming from the
European theater to begin to stem the tide of what is going to
be, I think, an extremely difficult story with regard to the
developments of not only the southern rim of the Mediterranean,
but sub-Saharan Africa, as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much because, you know,
many of us think that we have really ignored Africa, at great
peril for the future, for exactly the reasons you are saying
and actually looked away when huge atrocities were committed
involving literally the destruction of millions of people. And
I think once we let that get started, America's credibility is
diminished, so, at the very least, we can say that there is
going to be additional attention, and I think that is very
welcome. So thank you.
General LaPorte, you mentioned, in your opening comments,
about something that we well know, and that is the
extraordinary value of Yongsan in won or dollars, and the plans
you have for the future of the Alliance Policy Initiative and
the impact of that on the Land Partnership Program.
I would like to know the extent to which this has been
discussed with the Government of South Korea, the extent to
which the South Korean Government looks favorably upon this,
and the degree to which they will help in its implementation.
General LaPorte. Senator, the meeting in December, which
was held here in Washington, the Security Consultative meeting
between Secretary Rumsfeld and the Minister of National
Defense, directed this Future of the Alliance Study.
Senator Feinstein. Could I ask you to speak a little more
loudly? I have a cold, and both of my ears are plugged, so I am
kind of straining to hear.
General LaPorte. The SEM directed us to do a Future of the
Alliance Policy Initiative. We have started those negotiations.
Department of Defense policy is working with Ministry of
National Defense policy. The first series of talks have been
conducted. They were conducted at the end of April. They will
have future talks in May. So the discussions on the roles, the
missions, the force alignments, is ongoing.
The first decision that has come out, of significance, is
the Yongsan Relocation, where the Republic of Korea Government
has endorsed the relocating of forces in Seoul south to Camp
Humphreys, which will be an enduring installation. As part of
the agreement, the South Korean Government will defer all costs
associated with the procurement of land and the movement of
facilities to that area.
Minister of Defense Cho has given us a letter of
commitment, through the Secretary of Defense, to purchase the
needed land, and they will purchase that in their fiscal year
2004 budget. So the discussions have really gone well up to
this point, and the commitment from the South Korean Government
has been exceptional. So I am very confident, as we continue
these discussions and address the other issues on the table, we
will get similar results.
Senator Feinstein. When I was there in December with you,
there was some concern about South Korean acceptance of our
military. Could you update us on that? And could you also tell
us, very briefly, what you have done to try to intermesh with
the community on a greater basis?
General LaPorte. Following the tragic accident that we had,
there was some anti-American sentiment expressed, primarily
through demonstrations. And that continued throughout the month
of December. Following the national elections, the
demonstrations just dropped off almost totally.
Recently, I have been asked several times, ``Is there a
crisis in South Korea?'' And my answer is adamantly, ``No,
there is no crisis in South Korea.'' There would be a crisis in
South Korea if they did not hold free and democratic elections.
There would be a crisis in South Korea if the people of South
Korea could not gather and speak their mind. There would be a
crisis in South Korea if the civilian leadership did not
control the military. Or there would be a crisis in South Korea
if the people were unable to worship the way they want.
Senator, last week, my wife and I went to a Korean church.
There were 10,000 people present. And as I walked in, the
minister said, ``They are praying for you and the United States
Forces Korea.'' So we are getting tremendous support from the
Korean people.
We have developed a Good Neighbor Program. This is designed
to increase our interaction with the media, with the
universities, with the surrounding communities, with the other
military units. It is an outreach program. It is working very
well. This month, we will have a--May is Good Neighbor Month
for U.S. forces in Korea. We have tremendous programs where we
are teaching English in schools. We have adopted orphanages. We
are working with the military units on better ways to move on
the roads, to coordinate with the local authorities. So we are
putting a great deal of effort at every level to ensure that we
have good relationships, and I think we are seeing the benefits
of that. The South Korean people are fully in support of the
United States Forces Korea being on the peninsula.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, General LaPorte,
General Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Hutchison. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the
Ranking Member, as well, for their attention to this very
important subject. And I wanted to just stop by today briefly.
I am not going to be able to stay for the entirety of the
meeting.
But I did want to, General Jones, just commend you for your
work in this area as you outline your vision for the direction
for our transformational force. As you know, I had the
opportunity over the break to be in Romania for two purposes,
one of which was military purpose--and had a chance to visit
the--I do not even want to use the word ``base,'' but the
footprint, the hole that we have near Constantza for the
operations in Iraq, which was extremely helpful. And the morale
was very high, and what I witnessed and saw there was just a
good partnership between the Romanian Government and our
forces, in terms of our current operations. In looking at the
map, having a location so close to the Black Sea, if it would
be in Romania or Bulgaria, I think, is just crucial to our, you
know, transformational-force concept of being able to launch
with as little restriction and complication as possible to
parts of the world that may need our attention.
So I just wanted to commend you and to, again, say that, at
least from my brief visit, and it was brief, I feel that the
Romanian leadership would be very open to work with us, you
know, in the appropriate ways if that would be what we would
have in mind.
Secondly, to say that realigning our bases in Europe in our
current position, I think, makes a lot of sense, to sort of
minimize our footprint where we are not so much needed, and try
to be more strategically placed.
I also want to support Senator Feinstein's note about
Africa. I do think it has been a continent that has not
received the kind of attention that it should and most
certainly deserves, not just because of its largeness and not
just because of its future economic opportunities, but also
because of the complicated politics of a Nation that is, in
some ways, still very underdeveloped in certain areas--there
are some very developed areas--and the potential for
fundamentalism to creep into a situation where there is some
hopelessness, and for us to be able to be there, if possible--
we cannot be everywhere, but I want to just support that
concept.
Thirdly, I wanted to say I read in the paper somewhere, or
maybe heard somewhere on the news, maybe it was a commentator,
that said something like we need to be careful, Madam Chair, to
not go where we are not welcomed.
I would just want to say that we need to be where we are
needed. And it would be nice if we were welcomed everywhere,
but I am one that wants to be where we are needed; to be with
our partners, to be where we are needed, to kind of carry out
this new transformation vision. So I would hope that we would
be guided by that fact and not just necessarily where we are
welcomed.
Now, that is not to say that you can bust your way in
through every door, but I want us to be, you know, forward
thinking and fairly aggressive in this strategy, would be, you
know, my thinking about it.
And, finally, I just want to commend both of you all. My
experience now--it is just a few years, on the Armed Services
Committee--Madam Chair, I have had the chance to visit a few of
our installation bases around the world and, of course, through
our country. And I want to say I do not think the military gets
enough credit for the diplomats that you are, for the work that
you do in terms of improving relations between countries,
between the way--soldiers to soldiers. You may have on a
different uniform, but fighting sometimes for the same cause.
And I find that to be very, very helpful in America's efforts
to get out our message, to express our values, to give an
example of what our values are--not just talk, but actions.
And I wanted to come to this Committee just to compliment
you all and to say that I want to be a stronger voice in
complimenting what the military does, because serving in
orphanages and teaching English in school and helping the local
people--people in Louisiana appreciate the military presence in
Louisiana. We appreciate what the military does. And I think--
and I have witnessed and seen, other countries appreciate the
communities, the military presence, and the good job that you
all do as good neighbors.
So that is just really why I wanted to come by today and
wait my turn to speak. I have some questions, Madam Chair, to
submit to the record, and I look forward to working with you
and the Ranking Member, because this is a very important
realignment, and I think this work is extremely important, that
it get done correctly.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator.
HOST NATION SUPPORT
I would like to ask a couple of other questions, and then I
will see if there are others from Senator Feinstein.
I would like to know, in your two areas--now, your area is
so big, I am really talking about Europe here--what the host-
Nation support is. And then, in Korea, what is the host-Nation
support? Because one of the criteria we will be using in
looking at the overseas basing is, What are the host Nations
doing in support of our troops, and, therefore, what kind of
efficiencies do we have?
General Jones.
General Jones. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The European model does not lend itself quite to an easy
answer in this regard, because it was not established at the
same time as, for example, the model that--what we have in
Japan, which I am very familiar with. And that proportion of
host-Nation support, otherwise known as burden sharing, is a
difficult one to grasp in Europe.
But while we do not have the similar type of agreements
that we have in the Asia Pacific theater, we do have agreements
that focus on access and use of host-Nation infrastructure, for
example, that may come to us at no cost, or special agreements
on construction with regard to who builds it and when it
returns back to the host Nation. With Turkey, for example, we
have the Turkish Construction Circular. And we have an
agreement called the Shell Agreement with Italy. These
agreements address the way we will do construction with those
Nations.
The closest thing we have to infrastructure burden sharing
is the NATO infrastructure program, and we are studying the
2,907 agreements for burden sharing to see if we cannot provide
a better analysis. And if I could come back to you with a more
complete answer on that, I would appreciate it, because it is
extremely complex.
But what I would say, by way of a contemporary answer, is
that, over the last 6 months, an equivalent of $127 million has
been contributed to the United States by 27 Nations within the
European theater for primarily force protection and use of
their fields and ports which have facilitated our mission--
Germany, $33.75 million; the United Kingdom, $24 million;
Greece, $16 million; Turkey $11 million; Spain, $9 million;
Hungary, $7 million; Romania, $7 million; and Italy, $4
million.
So I would like to respond to the question for the record
with the details that you deserve, but it is not quite as self-
evident as it is in Asia.
Senator Hutchison. Well, it could be that as we go down the
road and we are making decisions on bases, that we could be
more specific----
General Jones. Clearly.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Because it will be part of
the commission that we hope to set up. Part of their evaluation
would include----
General Jones. Clearly.
Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Host-Nation support.
General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Senator, we receive both direct and
indirect support from the Republic of Korea. Indirectly, we
receive support in terms of use of their ranges, use of their
facilities.
Force protection is provided by the Korean National Police
at all our installations. An example would be within 24 hours
after 9/11, South Korea put 5,000 Korean National Police as a
force-protection force around all our installations in Korea.
Today, they still have the Korean National Police serving as a
force-protection element. That saves us significant dollars and
also service-members' time.
Direct investments, I will just give you some examples. In
2001, South Korea provided $425 million; in 2002, $490
million----
Senator Hutchison. Put that in percentages of the total.
General LaPorte. It is probably about 40--somewhere about
40 percent, Senator.
And then, this year we are scheduled to receive $540
million; and in 2004, it is estimated to be approximately $595
million.
Senator Hutchison. You are in the 40 percent range?
General LaPorte. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison. I want to ask about the concept of unit
rotations. The Army is looking at more unit rotations. The GAO
took a look at the issue in 1994 and identified nearly a half-
dozen times over the years where the Army has tried and halted
various efforts to employ the unit-rotation concept overseas.
And, General Jones, unit rotations are very much a part of your
concept, but not so much yours, General LaPorte.
I wanted to ask you if it is something that could be done
in Korea as a way to once again assure the training
capabilities, or is it not as appropriate? And is it possible
for the Army to have a unit-rotation system in Europe, but not
in Korea?
I would start with you, General LaPorte.
General LaPorte. Senator, when I went to Korea last year, I
talked to all the service chiefs of staff, and one of the
topics we discussed was the potential for unit rotations. And I
told them I had a very open mind and would be willing to look
at where this would be an appropriate strategy.
As you are well aware, we have a threat, a North Korean
threat, that we must address each and every day. That does not
mean that everyone has to be on a 1-year assignment. We are
looking at it, we are talking, especially to the United States
Army, the possibility of unit rotations--for instance, the
Patriot batteries that are securing the air fields at Osan and
Suwon. That is a similar task to what takes place in Kuwait and
what used to take place in Saudi Arabia. So, theoretically, you
could have those battery-sized locations. A battery would be
about, say, 100 or 115 people. They could come to Korea on a
rotational basis. So we are looking at that.
It becomes challenging when you get into the headquarters
elements and you get into the combat brigades that are up in
the 2nd Infantry Division. But I will tell you, we have, the
Army has, a significant study looking at this. I have talked to
General Jumper about this, in terms of Air Force assets. So we
are going to continue to aggressively look at this.
Senator Hutchison. Anything that you would add to what you
have already said?
UNIT ROTATION IN U.S. EUCOM
General Jones. Yes, ma'am.
We have, actually, a success story in unit rotation in
Europe right now with the Army. All of the forces in KFOR in
Kosovo and in Bosnia are National Guard units. The one in
Bosnia is from Minnesota, and the one in Kosovo is from
Pennsylvania. And these units come over on a 6-month rotation.
They are among the most motivated National Guardsmen I have
ever seen. They love what they do. They come into the theater,
they make a tremendous difference, and then they go home to
their home base.
I want to emphasize something that General LaPorte said,
because I think we have to be careful of what unit rotation is
and what it is not. What it is, is that you can rotate combat
forces, particularly light combat forces, to make a tremendous
presence felt over a much wider area within our area of
operation.
I do not face the symmetrical threat that General LaPorte
faces, and his calculus on the type of force he needs in place
ready to respond is different from mine, because mine is more
asymmetric. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a
threat, we are an asymmetric-based organization.
But we can, through the proper disposition of equipment and
combat support and combat service support that would be pre-
staged and pre-based, rotate the combat forces that would be
lighter, more agile, more deployable that would come into the
theater, train, operate, train, influence, shape, engage,
whatever the case may be, and then return home to their home
bases, whether they be in Europe or whether they be in the
United States or sometimes, if the Korean were--or Korean
theater is peaceful, maybe General LaPorte will send us some of
his units, as well.
Senator Hutchison. I was not really thinking of Guard and
Reserve. I was thinking more of active duty, if that could be
part of the----
General Jones. I wanted to give you an example of a
success, and----
ACTIVE DUTY UNIT ROTATION
Senator Hutchison. Yeah. I have to say, with all due
respect, that the leader in the effort of command and control
by a Guard unit was the Texas unit that went to Bosnia. And I
think that was the test, and they passed, and I think that
really led the way. I happened to know, because I visited them
when they were there, and it was just a wonderful experience,
and it was something that a Guard unit could do that kept you
from having to use active duty. But I was really thinking--in
the active-duty terms, can you also do the rotations
effectively and still stay up to speed and trained?
General Jones. This is an issue that we are currently
working on with General Shinseki and the U.S. Army, because
they will have to respond to the input from other commanders,
like myself, who make demands on types of units.
But I think one point that I would like to make is that as
we adjust our footprint, as opposed to the last time, 10 years
ago, or 11 years ago, where we did a force drawdown in Europe,
that force disappeared from the active structure. The 7th Corps
disappeared from the active structure. This time, I have to
emphasize that no one is talking about end-strength reductions.
This is a very important distinction.
And for a theater commander, such as myself, if we achieve
a different basing modality from the standpoint of permanent
infrastructure, large number of families, huge infrastructure
costs, it will be because we can do a different--we can solve
the problem differently with these rotational forces. But if we
send forces home from Europe, it will be with the expectation
that the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps
will be able to replace in kind on a rotational basis the
forces that we still need. So it is not a zero-sum game.
And so I think, with regard to the Army, that is a more
difficult challenge, and we all know, because--we all know why.
But I think we are going to work our way through it.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
FORWARD OPERATING BASES
A technical question, General Jones. We could not identify,
in the budget document, the funding for the planning and design
for the forward-operating bases in Eastern Europe. My
understanding is you may want to plan and design for that, and
perhaps in Bulgaria and Romania. How much money do you need for
planning and design in 2004? Is it six or seven?
General Jones. I requested, I think, $6.8 million--$6.85
million.
Senator Feinstein. So it is $6.5 million. That takes care
of that.
General Jones. And that would be to do the surveys and all
of the studies and the--because some of these areas are still
relatively unknown to us.
EFFICIENT BASING SOUTH
Senator Feinstein. One of the things that I got involved in
was the Efficient Basings South, when General Meigs was in
command. And I had an opportunity to visit--I think I mentioned
this to you--Camp Ederle in Vicenza, which, as you know, is an
urban base in the middle of the city. And to move troops out,
you have to drive them 2\1/2\ hours to Aviano. And we have not
had any requests that I could see for any additional MILCON at
Aviano.
You added, I gather, a second airborne battalion to the
173rd Airborne Brigade, and I think 22,000 of those dropped
actually in Iraq----
General Jones. Uh-huh.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. If my memory serves me
correctly.
General Jones. Correct.
Senator Feinstein. My question is, What lessons have you
learned from that? And do you think that Ederle is going to be
adequate for these needs? And Aviano, as well?
General Jones. I think the utility and the wisdom of the
investments that we have made in that particular region and
that particular unit are really an example of the kind of
forces that we need in Europe for the future. They are
expeditionary by nature. They did participate in a combat drop
into Northern Iraq.
As you know, when the discussions with the Turkish
Government did not materialize with an agreement to be able to
introduce the 4th Infantry Division by land, we had to come up
with another scheme, and we successfully introduced almost
6,000 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, into Northern Iraq by
air. And the first regular unit that was in there, conventional
unit, was the unit from SETAF stationed in Vicenza, the 173rd.
And I think this kind of unit is extremely useful for the
theater because of their agility and their mobility and their
proximity to Aviano. I would favor considering still another
battalion to round out the unit. If it were left up to me, I
would probably grow that unit even by one more battalion,
because----
Senator Feinstein. In Camp Ederle?
General Jones. In the area, in the vicinity. Perhaps not
quite specifically there, because, as you said, space is very
tight. But it is, geostrategically, very well located, in terms
of the theater and in terms of the potential threats in the
east and the south, and can be deployed very quickly, as we saw
in the Iraqi Freedom Operation. So it is a very, very
important, strategically important, area for us and a very
modern capability that we will need in the 21st century.
Senator Feinstein. But is there anything in this budget
having to do either with expansion at Aviano or Ederle?
General Jones. For Efficient Basing South, deployment
facility phase one at Aviano, $15.5 million. For deployment
facility phase two at Aviano----
Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. For a deployment facility?
General Jones. Uh-huh.
Senator Feinstein. Which would be exactly what?
General Jones. Essentially to facilitate the throughput of
deploying forces from that region and facilitating the
difficulties that you--including the modalities and basing
arrangements to facilitate the rapid departure of troops and
also the reentry of troops.
And then we have $16.4 million earmarked for Vicenza, as
well.
Senator Feinstein. That is about a total of $30 million,
then, to improve----
General Jones. $34.9 million, to be exact.
Senator Feinstein. 34----
General Jones. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To improve deployment and
basing----
General Jones [continuing]. Environmental support----
Senator Feinstein. [continuing]. At Ederle and----
General Jones. Vicenza.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Aviano Air Base.
General Jones. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, that is what I wanted to know.
Thank you very much.
General Jones. If I could just add another remark to that.
The Joint Deployment Training Facility provides the heavy drop-
rigging facility for the SETAF of the 173rd Brigade to deploy
from Aviano during contingency operations, will provide space
to support 1,000 deploying soldiers, 20-ton overhead lift for
heavy drop-rigging, parachutes shakeout, drying tower,
rollarized floor for heavy drop-rigging, and air/land
palletization, a wash bay for preparation of vehicles for air/
land--quite a bit of capability there.
RELATIONSHIP WITH NATO
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
As the SACEUR, would you care to comment on your role in
revitalizing the United States and NATO relationship?
General Jones. Well, I am privileged, Senator Feinstein, to
have my second assignment to be the commander of the Allied
Command in Europe. This is also a transformational period for
the alliance. As you know, the traditional role of the Supreme
Allied Commander Atlantic will change very shortly to be the
Allied Commander for Transformation, and that is why the
European theater--I am sorry, the NATO theater--the European
theater has expanded by air and sea, because I have been
assigned the previous operational area that SACLANT used to
have.
The military portion of the alliance is very strong, very
robust. Senator Landrieu pointed out that the engagement yields
have tremendous dividends. And after the many years of the
alliance, we have formed lifelong friendships and partnerships
across the 19 member Nations. And the military portion of the
alliance is very robust and very strong, and it survives all
kinds of strains and pushes and tugs as the diplomatic and
political debates rage on around us.
We are in the business of transforming NATO. NATO, as a
political alliance, has signaled the strong message that
members desire to expand the alliance. And as the leader of the
military portion of that alliance, we are working hard to
develop the NATO Response Force, which will be the engine of
transformation for the 21st century military alliance
capability. And this is very exciting and very promising work.
And it provides, really, the framework for what the U.S.
European Command is doing. As NATO expands, so, too, must we
reevaluate the U.S.'s contribution to the alliance. But being
able to do both of those things simultaneously is a real
privilege and something that I----
Senator Feinstein. Just let me tell you where I am going,
and you might not want to comment. But when you told me the
sheer size of the NATO military force, I found it just
unbelievably large, at well over 2 million. And yet the basic
inability, at least apparently, to really participate
efficiently and quickly in any military action that might take
place, it made me--last evening, I was thinking about whether
the NATO people are aware of that and the fact that by their
very bulk in size there is an obsolescence that tends to set in
because they cannot be relevant in what you describe as the new
asymmetrical world.
General Jones. This is why I use the term ``NATO at the
crossroads,'' because NATO is what it is today because of a
very--the most successful military alliance in history. It has
served its purpose as a defensive alliance. We built it a
certain way. America was privileged to lead. That threat went
away as a symmetric threat, and now we are in the business of
reshaping the military arm that undergirds the alliance in such
a way that it will be more useful in the future.
On the one hand, it is extremely large, with 19 sovereign
Nations, each of which have to decide for themselves what they
want in their own individual militaries. My job is, I believe,
to signal to those 19 Nations what we think, in NATO, is
militarily relevant to the future challenges of NATO, and the
instrument of that change will be the NATO Response Force.
Nations will have to decide for themselves how big they
wish their forces to be and, more importantly, how they wish to
shape those forces. And it is a fascinating dialogue, to be
able to go from one country to the other to present the concept
of NATO transformation through the NATO Response Force and to
engage in the dialogue that goes through as to how do Nations
contribute to that NATO Response Force.
My feeling is that, as we go down this trail together, that
we will produce something that will be very relevant, but it
will be different than the large monolithic threat-based
symmetrical response force that we have had, and that NATO will
kind of go through something that the United States went
through in the last 10 years of gradually shrinking and
collapsing the capabilities that are not terribly useful in the
21st century and hopefully generating some resources from
within to transform the force into a capable NATO Response
Force that we all seek and the United States would absolutely
welcome in the 21st century.
And so I am extremely optimistic about our direction, and I
find it very exciting to be able to participate in this
process. It will take a little time. It will take some focus.
But to give you a sense of how quickly things are moving, it is
hoped that at the June ministerial that the NATO Response
Force, which was stipulated at the Prague summit as something
that the Nations wished to do, will receive the endorsement of
the Ministers as saying that we endorse the concept. And by
October of this year, we hope to be able to have available for
other Nations to see a sample of the most expeditionary piece
of the NATO Response Force with, say, something between 2- to
5,000 integrated air, land, and sea forces that will be
presented as an example of how NATO can go if it wishes to do
so in the future. And I think this is very exciting.
Senator Feinstein. I just want to say at least this Senator
thinks you are really on the right track. And I think, in terms
of really satisfying a basic need, that this is really the way
to go. And I really very much hope that you have the
cooperation of all those Nations that are a part of NATO.
And I know that politically the mass means something, but
strategically I do not really think it does. And so I think you
are absolutely right in the direction in which you are going,
and----
General Jones. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. To have a really leaner,
more mobile, more modern, more transformed force would be much
more effective in the future, and I think this is really very
smart thinking. I just want to say that.
General Jones. Thank you, ma'am.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
General Jones. And may I say that I am receiving--we are
receiving, those of us who are doing this work--we are
receiving enthusiastic support by all member Nations who, one
at a time, have told me that they consider the NATO Response
Force to be extremely important, and they are all looking at
ways in which they can make a contribution, and I find that
very uplifting.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
General Jones. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. And thank you,
General LaPorte.
That concludes my questions.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. This has been very
helpful. I appreciate so much--you both came a very long way to
be here, and I am so pleased that we really were able to work
before this. I think you have started on a path that is going
to transform the military and certainly start the thinking
process for assuring that we are spending our dollars on the
strategic needs that our country has. And I appreciate both of
your service very much and look forward to continuing to work
with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to General James L. Jones, Jr.
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
BASING CONCEPT
Question. You envision a basing concept that employs semi-permanent
bases that do not have full support facilities. Can you elaborate on
that concept and describe in more detail what such a base would look
like and how it would differ from a traditional European base? In
general terms, how many such bases would be required?
Answer. Our concept involves a network of Joint Main Operating
Bases, Joint Forward Operating Bases, Joint Forward Operating Locations
and Joint Pre-positioned Sites. This network will transform Unites
States European Command's (USEUCOM's) operational flexibility to better
prosecute the war on terrorism, respond to crisis, conduct security
cooperation, increase stability in the region and maintain operational
readiness through enhanced training and exercises. Our concept includes
a reduction of permanently assigned forces to USEUCOM thereby allowing
us to reduce the number of large main operating bases required to
support the families and services associated with permanently assigned
forces. An essential element of our concept is the increased reliance
and use of forces that are rotated from the United States to Europe in
order to conduct training exercises and other security cooperation
activities in order to maintain a United States presence. These
rotations would be for a short duration, perhaps 3 to 6 months, and the
troops would use Joint Forward Operating Bases and Joint Forward
Operating Locations as their logistical hubs.
The following characteristics of Joint Main Operating Bases, Joint
Forward Operating Bases, Joint Forward Operating Locations and Joint
Pre-positioned Sites helps to explain the concept and shows how they
differ.
--Joint Main Operations Base (JMOB).--Strategically enduring asset
established in friendly territory to provide sustained command
and control, administration, and logistical support in
designated areas. Ramstein Air Base, Germany, is an example of
a JMOB.
--Joint Forward Operating Base (JFOB).--Semi-permanent asset used to
support tactical operations without establishing full support
facilities. Can be scalable, and may be used for an extended
time period. May contain pre-positioned equipment. Backup
support by a JMOB may be required. Camp McGovern, Kosovo, is an
example of a JFOB.
--Joint Forward Operating Location (JFOL).--Expeditionary asset
similar to a Forwarding Operating Base, but with limited in-
place infrastructure. May contain pre-positioned equipment.
--Joint Preposition Site (JPS).--Sites that contain pre-positioned
war reserve materiel (Combat, Combat Support, Combat Service
Support), usually maintained by contractor support.
The exact number of sites is yet to be determined, however, our
concept envisions a reduction in the number of JMOBs in EUCOM. We will
maintain those required and consolidate or reduce the rest. We will
build a small number of new JFOBs in Eastern Europe and in Northern
Africa. In order to extend our reach into Eastern Europe and Africa, we
will develop a series of JFOLs, although total number has yet to be
determined.
NEW ENDURING BASES
Question. To what extent do you envision having to reestablish new
``enduring'' bases elsewhere in your command's area of operations?
Answer. Our proposed strategic transformation concept does not
establish or build new infrastructure on the level of existing full
support facilities we have traditionally operated in Western Europe.
Our vision is to optimize existing installations through consolidation
and, in some cases, closure, and establish a network of joint forward
operating bases and locations that provides employment of a rotational
deployment concept. This structure will ensure increased operational
capability to prosecute the global war on terrorism, respond to crises
throughout our area of responsibility, and conduct security
cooperation, as well as provide increased stability and enhanced
training and readiness.
NEW TRAINING AREAS
Question. Do you envision establishing significant new training
areas further East in Europe? If so, what would be the scope of any
such facilities?
Answer. Although our forces may not initially enjoy the same level
of training range capability they have traditionally had at Western
Europe locations, we anticipate full cooperation of our future host
nation partners in exercising our military capability to the greatest
extent possible. Over time, as our joint forward operating base
infrastructure matures, we envision building up instrumented ranges and
facilities that will provide fully joint coordinated training between
our services and allies. Realistic and demanding training has been the
asymmetric edge of Unites States forces over the past decade. Our
success in combat, whether ground, air or sea, has been solidly based
in our training. We believe that new training areas in Eastern Europe
and North Africa will provide us the opportunity to keep that
asymmetric edge well into the future.
RESIDUAL VALUE
Question. Has the United States European Command completed
negotiations for residual value for all of the more than 560
installations returned during the last decade? If not, how many
installations are still in negotiation? When will these negotiations be
completed?
Answer. No, United States European Command has not completed
negotiations for residual value for the more than 560 installations
returned during the last decade.
There have been 566 installations returned in the last decade. Of
these 566 installations, only 26 percent, or 149 installations, are
currently under negotiation and 417 have been completed.
The host nations significantly impact the negotiation process for
residual value. Our goal is to conclude these negotiations as quickly
as possible where no residual value is anticipated. For the remaining
installations, the goal is by the end of 2004.
Question. What stumbling blocks have United States negotiators
encountered during more than a decade of residual value negotiations?
How might our strategy be adjusted should we return additional
installations?
Answer. There have been no stumbling blocks to date. With the
Federal Republic of Germany, in particular, United States European
Command has negotiated many technical arrangements over the years that
have now resulted in a predictable and stable Residual Value
negotiation environment and fair market returns are being realized. In
1994, the General Accounting Office validated our Residual Value
strategy and the Office of Management and Budget has reviewed and
approved all of our yearly Residual Value packages. Additionally, the
United States policy in some countries is not to seek Residual Value
due to overarching United States political goals.
In compliance with the Commander of United States European
Command's intent for more forward operating bases and forward operation
locations in countries where we now have little or no presence, the
requirement for new construction in our traditional host nations will
be less. We will be less likely to pursue payment-in-kind as a means of
Residual Value with our traditional host nations due to the lessened
requirement for new construction. In accordance with Article 48 of the
Supplementary Agreement to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Status of Forces Agreement, whenever we do not have a need for
facilities anymore, we must return those facilities as quickly as
possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
Question. According to a 1994 GAO report, the extent of United
States improvement and damages to the facilities in Germany figures
prominently into the negotiated value. The Status of Forces Agreement
with Germany explicitly cites environmental damage caused by United
States forces as an offset of the facility's value. In the past, what
has been the cost of environmental damage on United States facilities
that we have returned to Germany and other European countries? In the
future, will United States facilities that will be returned to Germany
be evaluated for environmental damage? What are the criteria for
assessing environmental damages?
Answer. With regard to the return of property, there has been no
cost for environmental damage in any host nation other than Germany.
The cost to date for environmental remediation in Germany occurred
during the period between 1992 and 1997 for a total of $23.8 million.
Ongoing negotiations are considering environmental costs as part of the
final settlement.
United States facilities returned to Germany in the future will be
evaluated for environmental damage. Before United States facilities are
returned, an environmental summary report will be completed. This
document characterizes the environmental condition of a site being
returned. The purpose of preparing this report, among others, is to
establish the environmental condition of the site to assist in
determining the validity of any claim for environmental damages that
may be asserted by the host nation following return.
In Germany, the 1993 Supplementary Agreement to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Status of Forces Agreement states that
German law applies within an accommodation, e.g., a United States
installation. The appropriate criteria for environmental remediation
shall be guided by German Federal and Lander (state) laws that serve as
a framework for soil and groundwater remediation in German states
containing United States Forces installations.
As part of Residual Value negotiations, each installation
identified for realignment is evaluated for environmental damages on a
site-specific basis, employing a risk-based approach. Neither the NATO
Status of Forces Agreement nor the Supplementary Agreement specifically
obligates the United States Forces to accomplish environmental cleanup
before return. Under Department of Defense Instruction 4715.8, the
United States Forces are not authorized to expend funds to remediate
environmental damages after an installation has been announced for
return unless it is determined that remediation is necessary to avoid
an imminent danger to life or health or necessary to sustain current
operations in light of the projected return date. The result of failure
to clean up the environmental damage before return is that a monetary
claim may be asserted under Article VIII of the NATO Status of Forces
Agreement, Article 41 of the Supplementary Agreement or may be set off
against Residual Value under Article 52 of the Supplementary Agreement.
The treaty obligation for the United States Forces to bear costs
arising in connection with the assessment, evaluation, and remedying of
hazardous substance contamination caused by the United States Forces is
set forth in paragraph 8bis(b) of the Protocol of Signature Re Article
63, Supplementary Agreement.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
FUTURE BASING ROLE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Question. General Jones, I recently returned from a trip to
Romania, where I visited with the 5,000 Marines stationed there.
Romania is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aspirant, and I
hope the Senate will soon approve NATO's expansion and membership for
Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, and Slovakia.
These aspirants have been members of the Coalition of the Willing, and
we should be grateful to these burgeoning democracies for supporting
America's efforts to oust a dictator. In particular, I want to commend
Romania for housing United States troops, opening its airspace, and
committing its own forces to the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Regrettably, our traditional allies Germany and France were
reluctant to support America's efforts bring freedom to the Iraqi
people. Additionally, Germany's reluctance to allow United States over
flight and Austria's refusal to do so complicated the United State's
ability use its airfields in Germany. United States planes flying over
Europe en route to the Middle East or United States also had to change
their routes to avoid flying over Austrian airspace. There is also a
growing sentiment in Germany against America's military presence in
Germany. This could potentially create force protection problems for
our 68,000 troops in Germany.
Given the change in strategic threats to the United States, the
lack of support faced by United States forces in Germany and Central
Europe, and the support found for United States foreign policy and the
military in Eastern European countries such as Romania, Hungary,
Bulgaria, and Poland, what role can these countries have in basing
United States troops? Do you foresee permanent basing of United States
forces in these countries? Is the United States evaluating whether to
increase, decrease, or keep constant its troop strength in Europe? Has
the Department conducted studies to determine the costs associated with
the construction of new bases in Eastern Europe? If so, what are the
anticipated costs? If not, please make them available once formulated.
Answer. Eastern European countries such as Romania, Hungary,
Bulgaria, and Poland will play a very important role as we transform
United States European Command (USEUCOM). These countries have the
potential for hosting new and improved training facilities as well as
Joint Forward Operating Bases and Joint Forward Operating Locations
that will support our concept for the use of rotational forces.
Overall, our concept does not envision creating new large main
operating bases that have been the tradition in Europe. We envision a
very small and limited number of permanently based United States forces
in the new areas we move to. Only those absolutely required will be
permanent--the vast majority will be rotational forces brought over for
specific training and security cooperation objectives.
We are evaluating what the troop strength in Europe needs to be. We
have yet to determine the exact number but we have determined that we
will reduce the number of permanently assigned forces and rely more on
the use of rotational forces.
We are just now beginning the process to estimate costs associated
with our Transformation. We must conduct detailed site surveys as well
as negotiations with the host nations in order to determine costs. Once
we have cost estimates developed, we will provide them.
______
Questions Submitted to General Leon J. LaPorte
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
KOREA
Question. Are you giving up training areas under the Land
Partnership Plan and if so, how will you make up for the loss of those
facilities?
Answer. Under the Land Partnership Plan, we are returning many
heavily encroached training areas that are of very limited use to USFK.
In return, we have gained guaranteed time on Korean military training
facilities, at no cost to USFK, to meet our requirements. We have kept
our primary training areas and the Korean government has agreed to
remove the encroachments to increase the safety and effectiveness of
our training. This agreement has already provided great improvements in
the quality of training and ultimately our readiness.
Question. You have stated that you would like to increase the
number of accompanied tours in Korea. What are the military
construction implications of increasing accompanied tours? Even if
housing is privatized, won't this require additional infrastructure to
support more families?
Answer. Increasing the number of accompanied tours is an important
part of our overall strategy to enhance, shape, and align our forces in
Korea. We currently have less than 2,000 family units in Korea. My goal
is to provide 5,500 family housing units on enduring facilities south
of Seoul and outside of North Korean artillery range. With the increase
of accompanied tours there will be a need to increase the supporting
infrastructure. We plan to fund the overwhelming majority of this
increase using Build-to-Lease and Military Family Housing Privatization
Initiatives. The build-to-lease projects will include the needed
facilities and infrastructure (roads, power, water, waste and
recreation facilities) improvements associated with the increase in
accompanied tours. Other requirements not covered by Build-to-lease
will be met through Land Partnership Plan, Yongsan Relocation and Host
nation funded construction as USFK consolidates units on enduring
locations.
Question. Following recent negotiations between Defense Department
and ministry of National Defense officials, the press reported that
Yongsan Army Garrison would be moved to Osan by the end of the year.
How long do you expect the relocation to take?
Answer. We have an agreement with the Korean government to relocate
United States forces out of the capital of Seoul, with all expenses
paid by the Korean government. The Yongsan facilities will be moved to
Camp Humphries/Pyongtaek and not Osan Air Base as indicated in the
question. Once the ROK Government processes the land and funds the
facility construction, the Yongsan relocation will take approximately 3
years to complete.
Question. The Defense Department has submitted a budget amendment
requesting that several barracks projects scheduled for fiscal year
2004 be shifted from Camps Casey and Hovey to Camp Humphreys. This
approach depends on the Korean government fulfilling a promise to
provide the land for these facilities, which it has not yet acquired.
Would you describe the steps that have to take place before we are
ready to begin fiscal year 2004 construction projects on this land?
Answer. The Status of Forces Agreement establishes the Facilities
and Areas Subcommittee under a SOFA Joint Committee to consult, make
recommendations, and execute decisions land and facility decisions. The
United States Forces Korea Engineer and the ROK Ministry of National
Defense (MND) Chief of Real Estate are the subcommittee co-chairmen.
The Steps in the Land Grant Process in the Republic of Korea
--The Facilities and Area Subcommittee (FASC) conducts a joint survey
of the proposed area to define boundaries.
--The FASC develops, negotiates arid forwards an ``Agreed
Recommendation'' to the SOFA Joint Committee, stating the size,
location, and any proposed land grant conditions.
--ROK MND acquires the land for USFK as per the 25 April 2003 letter
from Minister of Defense to the Secretary of Defense. This
letter pledges to purchase all the land required to meet USFK
alignment need within United States government timelines.
--ROK MND acquires the land and establishes a property vacate date.
--ROK MND coordinates with local government officials to make any
required changes to local zoning restrictions for the land.
--ROK MND completes land acquisition
--The grant is then approved by the SOFA Joint Committee.
--ROK MND and USFK exchange real estate documents recording the grant
of the property to the United States.
ROK MND has just completed the purchase and grant of new land to
USFK for the construction of the fiscal year 2003 Family Housing
project at Osan Air Base following this procedure. We are confident ROK
MND will meet our land requirements again next year.
Question. What concerns have South Korean officials voiced
concerning environmental clean-up of facilities to be returned to them
under the Land Partnership Plan? Have environmental concerns halted or
delayed any land transfers under the Land Partnership Plan? Will the
Korean government pursue environmental testing of land returned to them
by the United States Government?
Answer. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Department
of Defense policy, USFK will remedy any contamination that poses an
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and safety. The
Republic of Korea is then responsible to remediate by Korean law prior
to returning the land to public use. The Land Partnership Plan (LPP)
was negotiated under this premise and ratified by the National
Assembly. As part of our transfer process we have worked together to
establish a system of joint surveys and consultations with the Korean
government prior to any transfer of land. This process will ensure a
full understanding of the conditions of the property, and any remedial
actions to be performed. The joint surveys and consultations fulfill
all ROK and United States requirements under the SOFA and LPP. This
process has resulted in the delay of 2 small properties to perform our
initial surveys and to work through any lessons learned on these new
procedures. It is our intent to refine this process before we begin the
sizable land returns planned for the near future. Currently are also
establishing new guidelines and environmental standards to be met for
the land that will lie acquired under the LPP for caretaking and
possible long range turnover back to the Korean government.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Hutchison. As I told both of you earlier, we are
going to try to delay Military Construction because of the
changes that are very clearly being made right now, and we
would like to wait as long as we can. So we will wait for your
final review of your Tier I installations. We will certainly
work with you, as I know a lot is happening right now with
Korea, and try to have our final bill as late as possible in
the year.
Thank you so very much.
[Whereupon, at 6 p.m., Tuesday, April 29, the hearings were
concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Arny, Wayne, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Facilities, Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense.......................................... 159
Prepared statement........................................... 161
Questions submitted to....................................... 191
Bryan, James C., Chairman, Charleston Naval Complex Redevelopment
Authority...................................................... 113
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Prepared statement........................................... 153
Questions submitted by.....................................176, 189
Statement of................................................. 152
DuBois, Raymond F., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Defense.......................................... 1
Prepared statements.........................................13, 141
Questions submitted to......................................40, 176
Statements of...............................................10, 137
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
Questions submitted by..........38, 43, 84, 106, 180, 188, 190, 191
Statements of......................................2, 110, 114, 196
Fiori, Hon. Mario P., Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Installations and Environment, Department of the Army,
Department of Defense.......................................... 59
Prepared statements.........................................60, 155
Questions submitted to.....................................104, 188
Statement of................................................. 154
Gibbs, Hon. Nelson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force,
Installations, Environment and Logistics, Department of the Air
Force, Department of Defense..................................71, 167
Prepared statements.........................................72, 167
Questions submitted to.....................................106, 189
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator from Texas:
Opening statements of...................................1, 113, 195
Questions submitted by...............35, 40, 82, 104, 106, 235, 238
Johnson, Hon. H.T., Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
Installations and Environment (Also Acting Secretary of the
Navy), Department of the Navy, Department of Defense........... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Questions submitted to....................................... 82
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota:
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Questions submitted by.......................................39, 44
Jones, General, James L., Jr., USMC, Commander, United States
European Command, Department of Defense........................ 195
Prepared statement........................................... 201
Questions submitted to....................................... 235
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana, question
submitted by................................................... 237
LaPorte, General, Leon J., USA Commander, United Nations Command,
Commander, Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces
Command, and Commander, United States Forces Korea, Department
of Defense..................................................... 195
Prepared statement........................................... 211
Questions submitted to....................................... 238
Leonard, Robert B., Assistant Director, Sacramento County Airport
System......................................................... 127
Prepared statement........................................... 128
Roberson, Paul, Former Executive Director, Greater Kelly
Development Authority, San Antonio, Texas...................... 121
Prepared statement........................................... 122
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions
submitted by....................................36, 41, 106, 109, 197
Zakheim, Hon. Dov S., Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Questions submitted to....................................... 35
Statement of................................................. 4
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Page
Active Duty Unit Rotation........................................ 230
Additional Committee Questions................................... 235
Africa........................................................... 224
Basing Concept................................................... 235
Categorizing Installations....................................... 223
Consolidating to Enduring Installations.......................... 211
Cost Factors in EUCOM Transformation............................. 222
Efficient Basing................................................. 200
South........................................................ 231
Environmental Damage............................................. 237
EUCOM:
Overview..................................................... 197
Transformation............................................... 198
Forward Operating Bases.......................................... 231
Future Basing Role of Eastern European Countries................. 237
Host Nation Support.............................................. 228
Korea............................................................ 238
Legal Changes Related to Transformation.......................... 219
Lexicon of Terms................................................. 209
New:
Enduring Bases............................................... 236
Training Areas............................................... 236
Non-Enduring Installations....................................... 220
North Korean Challenges to Regional and Global Security.......... 214
Northeast Asia Security Environment.............................. 212
Relationship With Nato........................................... 233
Republic of:
Korea's Support to Global Military Operations................ 213
Korea-United States Alliance: United Nations Command,
Combined Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea.... 214
Residual Value................................................... 236
Rotational Forces................................................ 223
Status of EUCOM Infrastructure................................... 199
Training Sites for Eucom......................................... 221
Unit Rotation in U.S. EUCOM...................................... 230
Department of the Air Force
Accommodate New Missions......................................... 73
Additional Committee Questions................................... 82
Air Force Facilities and Infrastructure.......................... 71
Alameda Point Naval Air Station Funding.......................... 86
Antiterrorism/Force Protection Funding Plan...................... 106
Barracks/Dormitories.......................................82, 104, 106
Base Realignment and Closure.....................................76, 78
BRAC............................................................. 111
Cleanup Program.............................................. 106
C-17 Aircraft in Alaska and Hawaii............................... 109
Continue:
Demolition of Excess, Uneconomical-to-Maintain Facilities.... 76
Environmental Leadership..................................... 74
Corporate Adjustment............................................. 110
Elmendorf Air Force Base......................................... 81
Environmental Cleanup............................................ 77
Family Housing Privatization...............................84, 105, 108
FYDP and Unfunded Priorities..................................... 112
Germany.......................................................... 80
Hunters Point Naval Shipyard..................................... 86
Installation Readiness.....................................83, 105, 108
Invest in Quality of Life Improvements........................... 73
Korea............................................................ 80
McClellan AFB.................................................... 111
Milcon Recapitalization Rate..................................... 111
Military Family Housing.......................................... 72
NATO............................................................. 87
Navy............................................................. 84
Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources..................... 75
Overseas Military Construction................................... 79
Overview......................................................... 72
Privatization.................................................... 80
Quality of Life.................................................. 71
Recapitalization Rate......................................83, 104, 107
Sustain, Restore, and Modernize our Infrastructure............... 75
Transformation................................................... 106
Department of the Army
Army Family Housing.............................................. 64
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).............................. 68
Facilities Strategy.............................................. 62
Family Housing:
Construction................................................. 65
Leasing...................................................... 66
Operations and Maintenance................................... 66
Privatization................................................ 65
Military construction:
Army (MCA)................................................... 62
Army National Guard (MCNG)................................... 66
Army Reserve (MCAR).......................................... 67
Mission.......................................................... 66
Facilities................................................... 67
Other Worldwide Support Programs................................. 64
People........................................................... 62
Planning and Design/Unspecified Minor Construction............... 67
Readiness........................................................ 63
Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM)................. 67
Transformation...................................................64, 66
Worldwide Unspecified Funding.................................... 67
Department of the Navy
Environmental Programs........................................... 54
Infrastructure Efficiencies...................................... 52
Legislative Proposals............................................ 56
Office of the Secretary
Additional Committee Questions..................................35, 176
Adequacy of the Budget Request...............................35, 40, 44
Base Closure..................................................... 189
Base Conversion.................................................. 168
Base Realignment................................................. 189
And Closure (BRAC)9, 41, 43, 176, 177, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 186
2005 Base Realignment and Closure................................ 168
Base Reuse and Community Profile................................. 143
BRAC.............................................................36, 39
And Environmental Cleanup.................................... 145
Budget....................................................... 182
Cleanup...................................................... 182
Environmental................................................ 168
Clean up...............................................190, 188
Executions Capability........................................ 191
Sale and Local Zoning........................................ 192
Selection Criteria........................................... 189
Cameron Station Property Sale.................................... 170
Challenges....................................................... 169
Conclusions of the Nuclear Posture Review........................ 179
Conducting BRAC 2005............................................. 142
Department's Potential Liability for Perchlorate Contamination... 186
Early Transfer Process........................................... 187
Economic Impact of Base Closure.................................. 181
Environmental Cleanup............................................ 170
At Bases..................................................... 172
Europe...................................................38, 39, 43, 45
Excess Infrastructure............................................ 178
Family Housing................................................... 9
Privatization................................................35, 40
Federal Agency BRAC Needs........................................ 192
Fort Ord Cleanup................................................. 175
Funding and Program Highlights................................... 7
Housing.......................................................... 44
ICBM Launchers................................................... 179
Impact of BRAC on the MilCon Request............................. 177
Improving:
BRAC Implementation.......................................... 165
Business Practices........................................... 20
Installations Required to Support Missile Defense................ 178
Integrating Cleanup with Redevelopment........................... 187
Korea............................................................ 39
Lessons Learned.................................................. 181
Local:
Redevelopment Authorities and Reuse Plans.................... 162
Reuse........................................................ 188
Long Term Stationing of U.S. Forces in Central Command........... 180
McClellan Air Force Base......................................... 174
Military Construction Accounts................................... 8
National Academy of Sciences Perchlorate Study................... 187
NATO Security Investment Program................................. 9
New Installations................................................ 189
Other California Properties...................................... 175
Overall Milcon:
Budget....................................................... 37
Request...................................................... 43
Overseas......................................................... 143
Parallel Cleanup and Redevelopment............................... 192
Percentage Europe Pays in Host Nation Support.................... 32
Preserving Ranges and Training Areas............................. 19
Prior BRAC:
Cleanup and Disposal Status.................................. 164
Implementation Process....................................... 161
Property:
Reuse and Disposal........................................... 188
Sales Staying in Navy BRAC Account........................... 191
Transfer Process............................................. 181
Reduced Presence in Overseas Base Infrastructure................. 176
Remaining Closed Bases to Transfer............................... 186
Reuse Plan & Control Zoning...................................... 187
Road to Recovery................................................. 13
Sale Versus Non-Revenue Transfer................................. 169
Status of Excess Acreage at Six Installations.................... 183
Streamlining Early Transfer...................................... 191
Taking Care of:
Our People................................................... 14
What We Own.................................................. 16
Transfer to Other Federal Agencies............................... 170
Transforming Bases and Infrastructure...........................22, 141