Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Senator Ensign as the new Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. I look forward to working closely with you during this Congress. I know that together we can continue the valuable work accomplished by this Subcommittee in support of our military missions and our men and women in uniform as well as their families.

I would also like to welcome our newest subcommittee members, in addition to several seasoned veterans of the full committee who have recently joined us on the Readiness Subcommittee. We are glad to have you with us.

I would also like to recognize Senator Inhofe for his distinguished service as both a past Chairman and, most recently, Ranking Member of this Subcommittee. Over the past several years I have had the honor of working with him to tackle many important issues together. I know that all of us will benefit greatly from the wealth of knowledge he brings from his leadership of this Subcommittee.

I thank our witnesses for joining us today to discuss the fiscal year 2004 budget request the military construction, family housing, environmental and other installation programs of the Department of Defense. I look forward to your testimony and to your continued partnership with this Subcommittee as we address the many significant readiness issues and challenges that we face both today and also in the future.

I ask that you outline for the Subcommittee not only the funding levels and major programs in this budget but also the philosophy and priorities you used in putting this budget together.

Our military is still adjusting to a new threat environment. Budget priorities have been placed on fighting the global war on terrorism, on transformation initiatives, and on modernization efforts in support of our critical military missions. While all of these are important priorities, they should not replace our previous commitment to improving quality of life. Improvement to our military installations and the housing that we provide for our servicemen and women and their families remains important.

I am disappointed that the fiscal year 2004 budget request of $9.0 billion for military construction and family housing is $1.5 billion below the level provided by Congress last year. Without a sustainable funding path for our facilities and our housing, we risk undermining not only the mission goals we are working so hard to achieve, but also the quality of life we are working so hard to provide for our men and women in uniform–in both the short and long term.

In an effort to prevent the continuing deterioration of installations and to improve and sustain the condition of our facilities moving forward, DOD has set forth several key objectives across the services, including fully funding sustainment, reaching a 67-year average recapitalization rate by 2008, and eliminating almost all inadequate housing across the services by 2007.

While progress has been made toward these facilities improvements, our ability to achieve these goals is based on unprecedented levels of investment in the budget out years.

Relying on large funding increases in the future is a risky and unrealistic strategy. Decisions we make today regarding our installations will have significant long-term consequences for our overall mission in the future, and I am confident that we will achieve a more realistic, sustainable funding path for military construction as we move forward.

Turning now toward environmental programs, the Department as a whole has spent roughly $45 billion on its environmental programs over the last ten years, and each of the military services has worked hard to ensure that it can comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations in a manner that has a minimum impact on military training and readiness.

Looking at the past decade, I do not question the Department's environmental record, but I am concerned that this year's budget proposes a reduction of $400 million, or almost 10 percent, in the Department's environmental programs.

I recognize that the successful execution of environmental programs can reduce costs over time. However, this reduction comes at a time when we face huge problems with the cleanup of unexploded ordnance, which we have hardly begun to address, and when we continue to move back the deadlines for addressing environmental problems with formerly used military sites.

Accordingly, I am deeply disappointed by the Navy's decision to reduce the budget for its environmental programs by more than $200 million, or almost 20 percent. I am even more disappointed by the Army's decision to deliberately underfund its environmental compliance program – providing only 79 percent of the funding which the Army itself has determined is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. Even the Department's proposed budget for pollution prevention and environmental technology – the spending that will help us address the environmental problems of the future – is down by more than $125 million, or almost 30 percent, from last year's appropriated level.

Four years ago, when a previous Administration proposed to underfund a number of key environmental accounts, this Committee issued the following warning in our report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000:

"The environmental programs of the DOD and military departments are essential to the protection of human health and safety of installation personnel and the public. Moreover, good faith support for funding levels necessary to meet environmental requirements enables the DOD and military departments to sustain installation and training operations through an established credibility as responsible stewards of over 25 million acres of public lands. If that credibility is placed in doubt because of inadequate funding for environmental programs, public support could fade and regulatory scrutiny could intensify, potentially resulting in unnecessary operational impediments."

This year, the Department of Defense has once again asked Congress to enact a "Range and Readiness Preservation Initiative", which would exempt certain DOD activities from a number of environmental laws. One of the arguments that the Department makes in support of this legislative proposal is that its track record as a "good environmental steward" of defense lands demonstrates that it can be counted upon to act in an environmentally responsible manner even if it is exempted from the environmental laws. I do not believe that the funding decisions that I have described in this year's budget are consistent with the kind of "good environmental stewardship" which the Department has made a centerpiece of its case for legislative exemptions from the environmental laws.

I believe it is our responsibility to carry out our activities in a way that protects the environment and earns the trust of the American people, especially those who live on and near our installations.

I hope that the witnesses will be able to address these concerns as well as any challenges that they may face or other questions we might have regarding this year's budget request. I look forward to your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.