<DOC>
[DOCID: f:1910421.wais]
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 Hutchision
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 Mr. 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.]