U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

i 

30–692 2019

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–105] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING 

ON

FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENERGY, 

INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

BUDGET REQUEST 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 18, 2018 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona, Vice Chair 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

ANDREW SCHULMAN, Professional Staff Member 

BRIAN GARRETT, Professional Staff Member 

MEGAN HANDAL, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Bayer, Hon. Phyllis L., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy ............................................. 6 

Gillis, Jordan, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, Department of the Army ............................................. 9 

Henderson, Hon. John W., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy, Department of the Air Force ........................ 8 

Niemeyer, Hon. Lucian, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, Department of Defense ............................................... 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bayer, Hon. Phyllis L. ...................................................................................... 60 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z. ............................................................................ 35 

Gillis, Jordan .................................................................................................... 90 

Henderson, Hon. John W. ................................................................................ 69 

Niemeyer, Hon. Lucian .................................................................................... 36 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 33 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Brown ......................................................................................................... 103 

Mr. Carbajal ...................................................................................................... 103 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 103 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 107 

Mr. Brown ......................................................................................................... 109 

Mr. Courtney ..................................................................................................... 108 

Mrs. Hartzler .................................................................................................... 108 

(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT BUDGET REQUEST 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 18, 2018. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. The Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

will come to order. 

I welcome each of you to this hearing, the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2019 budget request for military construction, facilities investment, environmental restoration and compliance, installation energy resilience, and other infrastructure issues pertinent to the warfighter and our national security. 

Today, the subcommittee will hear from our witnesses how the 

Department and the military services are posturing to meet the 

military infrastructure needs of the Nation, both today and in the 

future. 

Over the past few years, the House Armed Services Committee 

leadership has led the call to provide the military with the resources necessary to counter advances by our adversaries. 

Regretfully, years of underfunding and substantial budgetary [instability] have, up till now, hampered these efforts. I am grateful 

that Congress and the administration have worked together to provide the military what they need to begin to reverse the erosion of 

our military strength. 

There is agreement on funding levels for defense for the fiscal 

year 2019. We have a top line from which to work with, but as 

General Joe Dunford said late last week in testimony before the 

full committee, quote, ‘‘We cannot reverse a decade-plus of erosion 

in one fiscal year,’’ end of quote. 

Today, the Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear how this 

year’s President’s budget intends to address installation and infrastructure readiness writ large. 

Across the spectrum of operations, our military installations are 

essential to the readiness of the warfighter, their families, and the 

wholeness of the various missions and support provided by our selfless Department of Defense civilian workforce. 
2 

While clear progress is being made in many budgetary fronts, 

funding across the installations portfolio remain somewhat flat, if 

not headed in the wrong directions in some cases, which is a cause 

for concern. Aggravating the underfunding problem, the cost and 

complexity of infrastructure required to support modern weapon 

systems such as the fifth-generation aircraft is consuming a growing and, I am concerned, an unsustainable portion of the overall 

construction top line. 

I am committed to work with the Department to achieve reforms 

that further improve the lethality of our installations to enable our 

military to be more agile and more efficient. The challenges are 

great, but working together, we can ensure that the military has 

the most relevant and effective infrastructure backbone to prepare 

[for] what will meet them in the field. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I turn to the distinguished 

ranking member of this Readiness Subcommittee, the gentlelady 

from the territory of Guam, Congressman Madeleine Bordallo, for 

her opening statements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I do look 

forward to hearing how the fiscal year 2019 budget will help the 

Department overcome deficits in MILCON [military construction], 

facilities sustainment, restoration and maintenance programs, environmental and energy programs, and ultimately, contribute to 

military readiness and the security of our great Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment first, but I don’t 

see them in the audience, but when they do arrive, I will be introducing the members of the Guam Chamber of Commerce who met 

with you this morning. We had a very interesting meeting. These 

are members of the Armed Services Committee. 

Our military installations provide the platform from which our 

military is able to project power and build readiness. 

Maintaining these installations is important for our warfighters, 

and just as important to the quality of life of our service members 

and their families. 

Like Chairman Wilson, I am concerned by the toll that more 

than a decade of budget risk and instability has had on the military installations and the military infrastructure. 

We are facing a more than $70 billion backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs on our installations. And this number will continue to grow unless the Department changes its approach to installation investments. 

The recent budget agreement provided additional resources to 

the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 

2019, and the Department has indicated its top priority is to use 

these additional funds to help restore military readiness. 

However, as we review the budget request, I remain concerned 

that the emphasis has been on procuring new equipment, rather 
3 

than focusing on the O&M [operations and maintenance] and MILCON accounts that support the facilities, the maintenance, and 

training that enables readiness. 

Unfortunately, the budget request for the infrastructure account 

seem to reinforce my concern with funding largely requested at levels below the fiscal year 2018 amount. 

Construction is being largely consumed by new mission requirements and sustainment, as well below the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] directed goal of 90 percent. 

So with that in mind, it is my hope that our witnesses can share 

how the fiscal year 2019 budget request will help restore the readiness of our military installations and how the Department will leverage the new authorities and flexibility that have been provided 

by Congress in the recent NDAAs [National Defense Authorization 

Acts]. 

I do, however, appreciate the administration’s support of the 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Program [REPP], which 

prevents civilian development from encroaching on our military installations. 

The REPP program also promotes land conservation in partnership with willing landowners and local communities. And I appreciate the Department including $75 million for the REPP program 

in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request, and I support 

funding this program at the requested amount. 

Finally, I encourage the witnesses to share specific examples of 

how unpredictable funding contributed to installation management 

challenges and impacted the quality of life for our service men and 

their families. 

And I look forward to the discussion we will have today. And I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Congresswoman Bordallo. And I appreciate when you said that the delegation from 

Guam found the office interesting. It was interesting because when 

they arrived, they noticed that I had a clock indicating what time 

it was. It is always tomorrow in Guam. And so, in fact, right now 

it is 4:08 in the morning, tomorrow. So we will keep up with this, 

my appreciation of Guam. 

I am pleased to recognize our witnesses today and thank them 

for taking time to be with us. Secretary Lucian Niemeyer, we will 

begin with you and look forward to your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LUCIAN NIEMEYER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Secretary NIEMEYER. I appreciate the opportunity, Chairman 

Wilson and Ranking Member Bordallo and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, to speak to you today about the President’s 

budget and our priorities within that budget. 

We look forward to working with the committee to support our 

defense missions and the quality of life for our members and their 

family members who are called to sacrifice so much for our country 

on a daily basis. 
4 

First and foremost, we are very grateful to Congress for the recent-enacted Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 which begins the recovery from the significant impacts of sequestration. We now have a 

responsibility to ensure and honor the trust of the American people 

by spending every dollar wisely, and that is our plan. 

Early this year, the President released a National Security Strategy which then guided the development of a National Defense 

Strategy to clearly articulate the threats and challenges our Nation 

faces. 

Our mission is clear. We must be prepared to defend the homeland, to remain the preeminent military power in the world, and 

advance an international order that promotes security and prosperity. 

The strategy confronts the stark reality that the homeland is no 

longer a sanctuary. The strategy also requires each of us in the Department to drive budget discipline and affordability in order to ensure resources are directed to the highest warfighter requirements. 

Our budget priorities presented to you today establishes a foundation to rebuild the agility, resilience, readiness, and lethality of 

our Armed Forces. 

With a clear understanding of the strategy, we have set forth the 

following objectives that confront the challenges imposed by years 

of underfunded facility and infrastructure accounts. 

First, we are using every program and funding source available 

to eliminate waste in DOD [Department of Defense] infrastructure. 

We continue to advocate for adequate funding for installations accounts. We are protecting installations and ranges from incompatible development, and improving combat credibility of our Nation’s 

test and training ranges. 

We are enhancing our energy security. We are exploring new opportunities for third-party partnerships. We are working with our 

military engineer and contracting communities to develop smarter 

contracts and to execute our contracts smartly. We continue to provide for the welfare of our people and resources through unparalleled environmental stewardship, and occupational safety programs. 

And most importantly, we continue and will continue to collaborate with the hundreds of defense communities around the country 

who support our bases and provide for our troops and their families. I can’t emphasize that last point enough. These guiding principles will allow us to provide the resources requested in this budget to achieve real results. 

The requested $10.5 billion in military construction in family 

housing programs makes significant progress in recapitalizing facilities, but this year’s funding, as you both pointed out, will not 

fully reverse the impact of 6 years’ sequestration. 

We currently have an unfunded maintenance backlog exceeding 

$116 billion. Twenty-three percent of the Department’s facilities 

are in poor conditions. Another 9 percent are in failing condition. 

My frank assessment to you today is it may be too costly to buy 

ourselves out of this backlog. We must work to remove unneeded 

capacity in order to fund higher priorities. 
5 

As noted in National Defense Strategy, we continue to reduce excess infrastructure and will work with Congress for options for 

base realignment and closures. 

These efforts will be enhanced by a careful evaluation we are undertaking of how and when we base new forces and new capabilities. 

For example, the basing of new hypersonic systems, autonomous 

vehicles, cyber forces, will have an impact on their lethality. Likewise, there are station implications in the training and deployment 

of directed energy programs, electronic warfare and artificial intelligence programs. 

In lieu of another request this year to authorize a BRAC [base 

realignment and closure] round, we are reviewing our facility 

usage. For instance, we must ensure the facilities that were sized 

for 100 personnel actually have 100 personnel in them. We also 

have proposed increased efforts to demolish our facilities we don’t 

need. We are reducing leases in order to move back to on-base and 

into facilities. 

Our efforts will get us part of the way, but we need your support 

for fair, objective, and transparent process for future base realignments and closures. 

We are facing other challenges head on. We are managing the 

impact of increased cost of labor and materials resulting from adverse weather around the country experienced last year on our 

military construction execution. 

We are proactively improving MILCON project delivery and contract management processes to deliver power projection projects on 

schedule and within budget. 

Given the risks documented recently by the Department of 

Homeland Security, the Department’s energy programs are focused 

on energy security for critical facilities. 

We appreciate your support for the energy resilience and conservation improvement program, to improve infrastructure resilience while still maintaining a payback. We are also urgently identifying resources to improve the cyber protection of our facilityrelated control systems. 

The Department’s environmental budget supports activities ranging from managing critical habitats to addressing drinking water 

health advisories to making the best use of limited cleanup dollars. 

We are committed to reduce a $27 billion backlog, which is the 

second in the entire DOD inventory, while sustaining our reputation as the Nation’s premier steward of natural resources and cultural assets. 

Our warfighters also need access to unencumbered land, water, 

and airspace to hone their readiness and lethality without compromising health and safety. We are heavily engaged with other Federal agencies to provide larger and more realistic air and sea 

ranges with less maneuver restrictions to better simulate battlefields and threats around the world. Our commitment is to provide 

combat-credible test and training ranges. 

In summation, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, we have 

both challenges and opportunities in support of our new National 

Defense Strategy. We have a determined sense of urgency to 
6 

achieve results now, knowing that each achievement deters aggression by our adversaries. 

We appreciate congressional support for our military and look 

forward very much to working with you on our priorities. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Niemeyer can be found in 

the Appendix on page 36.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Secretary Niemeyer. 

We now proceed to Secretary Phyllis Bayer. And please proceed 

with your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PHYLLIS L. BAYER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

Secretary BAYER. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Thank you. 

Ranking Member Bordallo, other members of the committee, it is 

an honor to appear before you today to testify on the readiness of 

the Department of Navy’s energy, installations, and environmental 

portfolio. 

I have had the honor and the privilege of serving in this position 

for about 8 weeks. And while I am by no means fully up to speed 

on all the issues affecting our infrastructure, our facilities, and our 

ranges, I have had the opportunity to visit several installations and 

witness firsthand many of the challenges that our installation professionals are facing. 

More importantly, my visits have confirmed my appreciation for 

the strategic importance and the contributions to readiness that 

our installations provide. 

I strongly believe that readiness begins at our installations, and 

I understand that my job is all about delivering readiness to the 

fleet and the operating forces. 

I want to start by first thanking you as well for all your support 

for the fiscal year 2018, the omnibus bill, and we ask for your continued support for the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget. 

While these additional appropriations are important, and they 

are very helpful, they won’t solve all of our infrastructure problems 

and the facility-related problems that we have. We have more work 

to do to properly maintain facilities and modernize our infrastructure to deliver readiness better, faster, cheaper, and in full support 

of the National Defense Strategy and in support of Secretary 

Mattis and Secretary Spencer’s priorities. 

Thank you also for the new authorities that you have provided 

us. Congressman Bordallo mentioned those. These authorities give 

our base commanders the flexibility they need to modernize these 

infrastructures and they can make smart business decisions with 

greater options available to them. It helps them to be more creative, and that is a good thing. 

You have a copy of my written detailed statement; however, I 

would like to highlight three areas where I am working to improve 

installation readiness. 

First, in the area of safety, and then I will touch briefly on energy and our environmental programs. 

The strength of our Navy and Marine Corps team resides in the 

incredibly talented community of over 800,000 sailors, Marines, 
7 

and the civilians and the contractors that support them. And I am 

truly honored to represent them and to support them here today. 

I care about the safety and the health of each and every one of 

them. Our operational environment is obviously inherently dangerous; however, we must always do everything that we can to ensure that their working environments are safe. 

I am committed to enhancing the Navy and the Marine Corps 

culture of safety and to leverage best practices to do so. The gold 

standard is that of the OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s Voluntary Protection Program [VPP]. 

It is a program of which I am personally a very big fan. This is 

a proven effective program that focuses everyone’s attention on 

safety in the workplace, and it works. It keeps our people more safe 

from mishaps. And I am encouraging all of our installations to enroll in the VPP program to generate a vivid, persistent awareness 

on safe work practices. A safer workplace will improve our ability 

to deliver more readiness to the force. 

In our energy program, we are working to improve our ability to 

deliver readiness by making installations more resilient against 

threats and vulnerabilities, cyber attacks, power interruptions or 

disruptions. 

Our focus is sharp and we are working to ensure that the critical 

facilities have the appropriate backup power supplies, often using 

public-private partnerships that leverage the use of other people’s 

talent and money, to ensure that our installations are fortified to 

deliver readiness. 

Regarding our commitment to being good stewards of the environment, we continue to make progress in the area of natural and 

cultural resource management programs, and in one area that I 

know is on the minds of many, is that of emerging contaminants. 

I want to assure you that I am fully committed to transparency 

and to keep you and your staffs and your committees—your communities, forgive me, who are our neighbors, fully informed as we 

address this issue and ensure safe drinking water for all. 

Lastly, I want to ask for your support in an important area, and 

that is protecting our test and training ranges from encroachment. 

Today, these ranges face all forms of encroachment. Development, crowded areas, even frequency spectrum. And the Earth is 

getting more crowded every day. And it is critically important that 

our sailors and Marines have these ranges where they can practice 

realistic training and where we can conduct testing in realistic conditions. And when I say ‘‘realistic,’’ that is an environment that is 

as similar to the combat environment that we can possibly make 

it, so that sailors and Marines can gain the confidence they need 

and they can be ready for the next fight. 

Many of our ranges, land, over the sea, under the water, are 

threatened by encroachment. These are complicated matters, and 

they require collaboration and discussion. And while we strive to 

be compatible with our neighbors, we must always ensure that 

these valuable national assets are protected and not further impacted by encroachment. 

In closing, I realize that the past funding levels forced our leadership to focus only on the most important operational requirements as Congresswoman Bordallo mentioned, and that was the 
8 

right thing. However, it did come with a great impact to our shore 

infrastructure. We have a lot of challenges, and we have a lot of 

issues, and they are complex. But I am excited to face the challenges, with your help. 

I look forward to working with each of you to make this happen. 

And I appreciate your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Bayer can be found in the 

Appendix on page 60.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you very much, Secretary Bayer. 

We now proceed to Secretary John Henderson. Please proceed 

with your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HENDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

Secretary HENDERSON. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Bordallo, and distinguished members of this committee, I am honored to represent our American airmen who honorably serve our 

Nation, and to discuss the Air Force’s fiscal year 2019 energy, installations, and environmental budget request. 

I have submitted my full written statement for the record, but 

I would just like to hit a few key points today. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2019 President’s budget request for infrastructure totals $8.75 billion. In our request, National Defense 

Strategy priorities to restore readiness and cost-effectively modernize continue to drive difficult choices across our portfolio. 

These choices are necessary to build a more lethal and ready 

force. Consequently, we chose to accept risk by deferring some infrastructure funding requirements in a deliberate effort to provide 

the increased funding necessary to accelerate modernization and 

restore full combat readiness. 

To mitigate this risk, we are proactively leveraging an asset 

management framework to ensure that we are focusing our resources on the right facilities, at the right time, with the right 

scope of work. To this end, we are developing analytic tools to process huge amounts of data into predictive metrics which will help 

improve the timeliness and prioritization of our future infrastructure investments. 

We are also reforming our business processes to incorporate economies of scale across the infrastructure portfolio. Our intent is to 

significantly reduce the cost and time required to complete infrastructure projects, while also expanding our overall capacity to deliver when there are funds available. 

We continue to use innovative funding tools like enhanced use 

leases, public-private partnerships, and energy savings performance contracts to support our mission, our airmen, and their families. Looking ahead, we plan to use the additional authorities provided to us in the fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018 NDAAs, 

which will further assist us in managing our infrastructure more 

effectively. 

Our 2019 budget request includes $1.78 billion in military construction funds to support urgent combatant commander requirements, the beddown of the F–35 and KC–46, Presidential aircraft 
9 

recapitalization, research and test facilities modernization, and 

other mission-critical requirements. Our budget also requests $3.36 billion in facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization; $2.45 billion to operate existing facilities; $395 million for military housing; and $680 million to support environmental compliance and restoration. 

In total, our fiscal year 2019 infrastructure budget request represents a strategic balance for capability and capacity, and ensures 

that we are best postured to field a ready and lethal force today 

while concurrently modernizing for the challenges of tomorrow. 

On behalf of our Air Force, please accept our sincere thanks for 

your demonstrated support to the Bipartisan Budget Agreement 

which provides much-needed budgetary relief in fiscal year 2018 

and fiscal year 2019, and also provides funds for military construction projects that were on our unfunded priority list. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Henderson can be found in 

the Appendix on page 69.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Secretary Henderson. 

We are grateful now to proceed to the last witness, Acting [Assistant] Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment, 

Mr. Jordan Gillis. And please proceed with your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JORDAN GILLIS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

Mr. GILLIS. Thank you, sir. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Bordallo, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss the installations, energy, and environmental component of the Army’s fiscal year 2019 budget request. 

Let me first reiterate what Mr. Niemeyer said in that we appreciate all the hard work behind the Bipartisan Budget Agreement 

of 2018, and are grateful for the resources that will allow us to 

begin to recover from the effects of sequestration. 

The Army’s number one priority is readiness. Army readiness begins on Army installations. We will use our funding to address 

readiness by prioritizing our investments where we believe we will 

see the greatest returns and contribute to increases in readiness. 

In the near term, sustainment, restoration, and modernization 

investments will help address the number of facilities we have in 

poor and failing condition, and make sure that current facilities 

meet the needs of the force. 

More medium-term investing in MILCON will provide new facilities where required. And underpinning it all, investing in energy 

resilience and addressing our environmental obligations will help 

ensure we have the installation and land resources we need to 

train, fight, and win our Nation’s wars. 

Thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and for 

your continued support of the soldiers, civilians, and families of the 

Army. I look forward to working with you and your staffs on this 

in future years’ requests, and I look forward to your questions 

today. 
10 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillis can be found in the Appendix on page 90.] 

Mr. WILSON. Whoops. Thank you very much for being here today. 

And I haven’t seen somebody so brief in so long. Thank you very 

much. But I would like to remind each of the subcommittee members that we will adhere to the 5-minute rule for questions of the 

witnesses. 

Beginning with me, and fortunately, we have the leadership of 

a professional staff member, Andrew Schulman, who will keep the 

time. And so beginning right now, Secretary Niemeyer, I want to 

thank you for being here today, and I would like to recognize your 

many years of service in the Senate as a professional staff member 

and especially your service as an Air Force officer. And we are 

grateful to have a veteran of your distinction and your experience 

in the Pentagon. 

We thank you for all that you have done, and continue to do for 

our Nation. Even before I get to my first question, something that 

got my attention that you testified was about destructive weather. 

And last year, and this, any of you, if you know what might have 

occurred, but with the hurricanes that we had last year that were 

devastating, whether in the Gulf of Mexico or on the East Coast, 

is the government self-insured and what were the costs of recovery? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. So we submitted an amendment for emergency appropriations. I don’t have the exact dollar amount. It went 

into repair facilities. I can get that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Secretary NIEMEYER. We still continue to recover down in Puerto 

Rico, particularly military installations there, and, to some degree, 

in Florida. We are in pretty good shape from an operational perspective. As you know, also, the Corps of Engineers is involved in 

the restoration of power in Puerto Rico. That particular part is 

being worked directly between FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], the Corps, and the White House on the restoration 

of power. 

But for us, we are in pretty good shape from an operational perspective. We think we got the funding we needed. We still have 

some repairs we need to do, but we are recovering well. My concern 

was more the budget climate, the bid climate. There is a lot of 

work going on down there and the concern is it is going to drive 

our bids up in other places in the country. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you for addressing that. And additionally, thank you for raising, obviously, the Caribbean and how important that is. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WILSON. And the installations, whether in the Virgin Islands 

or back over to Puerto Rico. But do you have everything else? I am 

going to get—— 

Secretary NIEMEYER. No worries. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. A question. You have so much to be 

thinking about, and then you have that on the side. So how incredible. 

And we recognize it may not be practical to ever provide enough 

funding to eliminate the growing need of backlog for maintenance 
11 

of facilities and repairs while simultaneously constructing modern 

facilities to emerging warfare requirements. This is where I think 

innovation has to play a key role. 

The Congress has enacted numerous provisions over the past few 

years targeted at accelerating and expanding your authorities to 

execute construction and repair projects in a timely and cost effective manner. 

Could you speak at a strategic level on your priorities and your 

plan of action to ensure the maximum return on the limited facility 

investments that you are able to bring to bear? Also, is there anything that Congress can do to help you in achieving those priorities? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. I think my fellow witnesses thanked this 

committee, particularly, for taking the lead over the last few years 

on allowing some flexibility in how we could use operation and 

maintenance funds, to be able to address some repurposing of 

buildings. We think that is absolutely stunning to be able to do 

that. It allows us to be much more effective in how we use our infrastructure and how we can then reuse our infrastructure. I want 

to thank the committee for that. 

We did get some additional authorities for using funding for restoration of our labs. That is fantastic. And we are moving, not as 

quickly as we would like to on that, but we are starting to get some 

traction on some of those projects. 

As far as new authorities, Congressman, I would love to work 

with you and your staff. There are a lot of things I have got ideas 

on, and I think there are ways we can provide flexibility. 

My concern, overarching concern, is to maintain commitment to 

the American people, that we put our dollars towards the highest 

priorities. And that is, that is going to be tough to do right now. 

We do have some challenges in front of us that we have to—we 

were given a short amount of time—in our operation and maintenance accounts before they expire here on September 30th. 

So we are working very diligently to try to provide as much flexibility in the contracting world to allow us to have, to be able to 

carry out projects in the next 5 months to address those readiness 

needs. 

So I don’t necessarily need anything legislatively right now, I 

just need to be able to execute. And that is what I am working on. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I am encouraged by the flexibility of all of 

you, and particularly proactively demolition, mothballing, whatever 

can be done to facilities usage so that, to the benefit of the taxpayer and to our military and military families. So thank each of 

you. And I now proceed to Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope this doesn’t count against my 5 minutes, 

but I would like to take a moment to acknowledge members of the 

Guam Chamber of Commerce, who have just arrived. They are 

members of the Armed Forces Committee and they are here all 

week with members and staff who are advocating for programs 

that support our military and enhance the security. 

Would you kindly stand? I guess there is just two of them. They 

are at other meetings. 
12 

One is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the 

other is the President of the Guam Chamber. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WILSON. We are delighted that Joe and Ms. Castro are here, 

so best wishes. And, indeed, now your time begins. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you. 

I lost my place. I was so excited. 

All right. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my time here. 

And my first question is for Mr. Niemeyer. And I want to thank 

him for meeting with the Chamber yesterday. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. They were very, very elated after the meeting 

with you. You gave them hope for the advancement of our military 

buildup on Guam. Thank you very much, Lucian. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. My first question is, the 2006 Defense Policy Review Initiative includes the relocation of 5,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam by 2026. 

Now, as you know, the construction industry in Guam relies on 

workers hired under the Immigration and Naturalization Act H–2B 

program [U.S. Department of Labor hiring program] from nearby 

countries. Without the H–2B workers, the buildup will face significant challenges and postponements. 

So I included a provision in last year’s defense bill to help address the workforce issue on Guam and am currently working on 

additional language in this year’s bill. 

So with that in mind, please confirm that the realignment of Marines to Guam remains a priority for you in the Department of Defense, and moreover, does the Department support additional legislation to ensure a sufficient construction and healthcare workforce 

is available on Guam to support this realignment? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, ma’am. I really appreciate the question. 

I have been in this position for 8 months. Within the first 3 

weeks of me assuming this position, I was on a plane to Guam, 

spent a few days there. Once again, I have been there plenty of 

times as you know, making sure that our plans are on track and 

we are addressing the issues. And I spent some time with both the 

Governor and some other DOD officials making sure what is the 

impact we are having of recent changes in policy on visa restrictions. 

Your work last year was stellar in allowing us at least to free up 

some visas. I am talking to Governor Calvo’s staff, I think we are 

starting to see a little flexibility starting to break free. As you 

know, we share your concern that it did not go far enough. We are 

still committed to a One Guam approach, that what we are working with the Department of Defense not only affects our national 

security on Guam but also works with our neighbors, our community, too. 

So we fully support, we know you have another bill pending. And 

hopefully we will see that through to expand that visa requirements or some of the, extend the visa H–2B program to include 

other than just support for military construction. We believe the 
13 

entirety of the Guam economy, a vibrant Guam economy is actually 

a national security priority and we support you on that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Assistant Secretary. This means a 

great deal for us. We have been at this since 2003 so it has been 

a long, long time, and we are now progressing. 

My next question is for Assistant Secretary Bayer. I had the opportunity to meet with her the other day. And she, too, is very supportive of our move to—the Marines to Guam. So I want to continue. My question to you, Secretary Bayer, is to monitor the 

progress of the MEC [munitions and explosives of concern] clearance operations, and its impact on the costs and the schedule of 

military construction projects on Guam. 

While I noted late last year the Navy issued waivers for three 

specific projects, these waivers were for projects that were either 

completed or nearly so, and the committee continues to remain concerned about the progress and the Navy’s way ahead. 

So can you please provide an update on the steps the Navy is 

taking to reduce the impact to the cost and the schedule of military 

construction projects? 

Will you also commit to working with all stakeholders to minimize the impacts of the MEC clearance requirements on the Marine Corps relocation to Guam? 

Secretary BAYER. Yes, ma’am, Congresswoman Bordallo, absolutely. I will answer your second question first. Yes, you absolutely 

have my commitment to work and stay focused on the cost and the 

schedule. 

This is an important issue for a lot of us over here on this side 

of the table. Just last week, Mr. Henderson asked us for some help 

on trying to expedite progress on construction. And we got together 

and had a very good discussion on the very latest of what is going 

on with the munitions of explosive content, with the MEC. 

What we have learned is that some additional people have been 

added to the workforce there, so we think that that is going to be 

a big help. I shared that with you in the office the other day. And 

what we also learned is that the explosives safety survey that was 

being used for the clearance process is being updated. 

And not only that, it is being updated for 16 areas, which we 

think the survey now is going to give better fidelity to the people 

on the ground so that they can give the information to the construction workers quicker, and they can clear areas faster. 

So we are focused on it, as is Mr. Henderson, and you have my 

commitment to continue to do so. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. And I only have 6 seconds 

left. So will there be a second round, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Bordallo. We now proceed to Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As all of our panelists noted today, movement of troops and materials is vital to our national security. And I have some concerns 

at a base that I represent, Fort Drum, which is an Army installation in New York’s 21st District. 
14 

We have inadequate rail lines. And that infrastructure is critical 

to supporting the necessary throughput of troops and materials and 

it is important for training. This is also important when it comes 

to European infrastructure where plans call for the movement of 

entire armored brigades via rail. 

How is this lack of capacity being mitigated and synchronized 

when it comes to our operations plans? Acting Secretary Gillis, I 

will go to you. 

Mr. GILLIS. Thank you. I appreciate the question. So the Army 

has identified four power projection platforms, including Fort 

Drum, Fort Bliss, Fort Bragg, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord that 

have significant rail shortfalls that impact mission readiness. 

We are currently evaluating our power projection capacity in coordination with applicable operation plans through a recently established power projection working group. This ongoing review will 

enable an updated optimal investment strategy to modernize the 

Army’s power projection platforms. 

Once we have completed and validated the results of that effort, 

we will certainly work to schedule a briefing for you and other committee members, as required. But power projection platform infrastructure requirements are nested in the Army’s overall installation readiness framework. And we understand, for us as well as 

you, those are high priority items. 

Ms. STEFANIK. Thank you for that. This is an extremely high priority, and particularly because Fort Drum is home to the 10th 

Mountain Division, the most deployed unit in the U.S. Army since 

9/11. It is a priority for our base. It is a priority for the Army. And 

I want to work to make sure that we can make that investment 

when it comes to our infrastructure and power projection. 

My next question is for Assistant Secretary Niemeyer. 

Another unique asset that we have at Fort Drum is a renewable 

energy facility. We have a biomass facility. It means the installation is 100 percent energy secure, and 100 percent renewable. 

I would like to hear your comments about that model and the 

strength of that model, and potentially taking that model and 

learning from it at other installations across the country. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, ma’am. First of all, what you have 

done at Fort Drum, is, I think, eventually where we want to get 

to with the rest of the Department of Defense. 

We want to be able to ensure our own power supply that we 

could potentially, if we need to, come off the grid and continue to 

power our critical missions. So what you have done there is amazing, and it does serve the model of what both the Army and the 

Department of Defense is looking at. 

We do have some concerns moving forward on tying ourselves to 

a particular fuel source. As you know, we are running some challenges there with the biomass compared to the cost of natural gas. 

I think we are going to build off that and look, okay, where do we 

build some flexibility in there so we are not beholden to just one 

type of fuel generation source. 

And we will be looking to use that model around the country. We 

definitely are shifting our goals, for in the past we were really focusing on just renewable generation sources. We are now, open up 

the gates, whatever we feel is most effective, to provide us that en-
15 

ergy security that Fort Drum has, and we are going to use any energy source. 

And so it was a great, great project, and we definitely are learning from it on how to make it even better as we move around the 

rest of the country. 

Ms. STEFANIK. And just to delve a little bit deeper. As you are 

making that cost-benefit analysis, if your prioritization is making 

these installations energy-secure, I understand some of the cost 

concerns regarding the biomass facilities at Fort Drum, but it is 

the model for having long-term certainty and long-term security to 

make sure that these installations can have access to power when, 

you know, they are potentially off the grid. 

So how do you make that cost-benefit analysis? How do you go 

about that? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. That is a fantastic question. And I am not 

sure I have the definite answer for you. When I first got into this 

position that was one of the things we asked ourselves: What is the 

cost of energy security? What are you willing to pay, 10 percent 

more, 15 percent more? Where does that get us to, 90 percent reliability, 95 percent? We are still wrestling with that. We are still 

working on a case-by-case. 

I understand your position perfectly that we do have a 99.9 percent reliability. What is that worth and above what we would be 

paying for market rate right now? 

Ms. STEFANIK. And from my perspective, that is worth a lot. And 

the reason why it is worth a lot, is because we are looking at that 

as a model for other bases. So I just want to reiterate why this is 

an effective model at Fort Drum and why it is worth the investment. And with that, I have no further questions. Thanks. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Stefanik. 

We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of California. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Henderson, I have the 

honor of representing Vandenberg Air Force Base. 

My question is in regard to the Air Force’s decision to deactivate 

all Air Force firefighters that are nationally registered emergency 

medical technicians [EMTs] and firefighter paramedics by rendering their license to operate at medical emergencies as inactive. 

As I have indicated in my letter to Secretary Wilson, I am extremely concerned, not only about this decision but also the process 

that was utilized to come to this decision. 

It is my understanding that the Air Force established an emergency medical services working group comprised of nine members 

to address this issue. Eight members were from the surgeon general’s office, and only one was from the fire and emergency services. 

This means eight out of nine members working in offices not directly involved in the emergency field made decisions that had to 

do with emergency services on base. 

I question as to whether this group had the emergency service 

experience to make such a decision to reduce the level of emergency medical care to the base population. 

For Vandenberg, this Air Force working group determined the 

base only needed a single $1 million ambulance contract covering 

a 97,000-acre Air Force base. Essentially, this single contract war-
16 

ranted the fire departments to be reduced to emergency medical responders. 

However, it is my understanding that this decision was made 

without so much as a site visit, or even a phone call to understand 

how enormous this base truly is. One ambulance cannot meet the 

12-minute time response standard for ALS, also advanced life support, even 10 percent of the time much less the required 90 percent 

threshold. 

Areas such as major space launch complexes and missile defense 

authority sites on Vandenberg are out of reach for the single ambulance contractor. 

The Air Force decision to only require emergency medical responders certification is only setting the bar as low as possible, and 

it is absolutely unacceptable. 

Mr. Henderson, this decision is affecting bases nationwide. I just 

can’t understand why the Air Force would want to take away such 

an important life-saving capabilities from bases. 

These firefighters already have EMT certifications. Why would 

you want to purposely go in and require EMR [emergency medical 

responder] certifications? 

Secretary HENDERSON. Thank you, Congressman. And first of all, 

I just, for the committee, I just want to say, the safety and health 

of our airmen and our families and the people who occupy our installations is of paramount importance to the Air Force. 

Since we discussed this yesterday, I just want to let you know 

that we heard you, and I understand the issues that you have 

raised, and I completely understand your dissatisfaction with the 

response that the Air Force provided you in March on this topic. 

After we talked yesterday, I went back and discussed this with 

our staff, and we went through some of the issues that led to that 

response and to this analysis. And what I have discovered with 

that is that there is some extremely important issues that you have 

brought up, and our solution to address them adequately is pretty 

complex. 

So what I would like to do, if it is okay with you, Congressman, 

is take this for the record, so that we can provide you an informed 

comprehensive response, because you raised several important 

issues there. Specifically about Vandenberg, but as you said, this 

has impacts across their enterprise on, specifically the accreditation for the firefighters and whether they need them or don’t need 

them on specific installations. 

So I would go back and relook our process for doing that and look 

at the issues you raised and provide a response for the record, if 

that is okay. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Henderson. I strongly urge the 

Air Force to stop the transition and reevaluate, as you have stated, 

the issue and actually talk to the individuals at the base before 

making further decisions. And I look forward to receiving your follow-up on this. 

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Carbajal. We now proceed 

to Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut. 
17 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. 

Mr. Niemeyer, I am trying to, again, understand the decision 

that was made to not proceed with BRAC, which again I think is 

a hard decision given the batting average over the last few years. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Zero. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Your testimony on page 16 again, you describe 

a process of examining usage, demolishing buildings, and then coming back to Congress with options. 

So given the fact that, I think, the Department always has the 

discretion to take down buildings or structures on bases and 

should, particularly ones that are out-of-date and inefficient, and 

that we just did have a report back from the Pentagon last October 

where, again, it was alleged 19 percent overcapacity. 

What are we going to be seeing, you know, during the course of 

this year into next year, you know, we will come back to Congress. 

Which, it sounds, you know, reading between the lines, that is the 

plan. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Right. So there was some concerns about 

the amount of excess capacity we provided in that report last year, 

19 percent. It is really tough to go around the military and see 19 

percent excess facilities. And it is tough inside the Department to 

say, look, that is a compelling reason why we need to go ahead and 

ask Congress for a base realignment closure authorization. 

As a military engineer my whole life, I realize that we need to 

do more work within the installations world to be able to more efficiently capture what is happening with our facilities. 

So what we have right now is during years of force drawdown, 

you had, what, a brigade used to be in five buildings? A brigade 

leaves. That remaining brigade spreads out into 10 buildings. It 

looks like it is a fully utilized base, but as an engineer, I know that 

those facilities are only being half-utilized. I am spending heat, I 

am spending electricity inefficiently trying to maintain a smaller 

force. 

So we are working right now in the Department through our reform initiative to work with the services. The Marine Corps is already underway. The Army has been doing it for a while and getting better at it. We are trying to get it to be an enterprise look, 

Okay, let’s go back and making sure we are optimally occupying 

our facilities. 

And we are working very diligently on that effort. We are hoping 

that efforts like that, by being able to capture exactly where we 

have excess, is enough for us to be able to talk to the Secretary and 

then have the Secretary come over and talk to you about the fact 

we probably do need some type of prudent process moving forward. 

There is another aspect to this, Congressman. That is, from my 

perspective, BRAC is not just about saving dollars. Having been 

through the 2005 round when I was on the Senate Armed Services 

Committee, we can actually get stronger, we can get more ready, 

we can get more lethal by being able to consolidate forces, by being 

able to look at where we might have key realignments. 

We have emerging technologies. You know, we didn’t have unmanned systems back in 2005, or very little of them. We didn’t 

have cyber forces. So how do we lay in those new technologies onto 
18 

our existing cold water basing structure. Do we even know what a 

base of the future really should look like? 

Those are the types of things that I would like to undertake. So 

we are taking a pause. We are looking at the National Defense 

Strategy. We would like to reevaluate to what degree we think 

moving forward base closures might help us carry out the defense 

strategy to become more lethal. But we are just, with the National 

Defense Strategy just coming out 2 months ago, we weren’t really, 

in good conscience, ready to ask Congress for an authorization for 

BRAC this year. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, I am impressed with that answer. I mean, 

it sounds like a very intelligent, smart way to, you know, weed out 

inefficiencies and excess. But it also sounds like a process that 

could take, you know, longer than one fiscal year or one calendar 

year. Right? I mean, there is something like over 300,000 structures, I think, in the U.S., according to one of your predecessors, 

as I recall vaguely from a prior hearing. 

But so and that does makes sense. If there is buildings that 

should be either abandoned or taken down, you don’t need a BRAC 

to do, you know, individual structures. 

So I guess, again, the question is, so is the next Congress, you 

know, in early 2019 going to get some—is that when you sort of 

foresee reporting back in terms of a cleaner analysis? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. I owe some analysis and some data back to 

the Secretary of Defense, and then I will allow the Secretary of Defense to make that call where we go from there. Right now, I am 

working those questions back to the Secretary. 

Mr. COURTNEY. All right. Thank you. Well, again, I think that 

sheds a lot of light for all of us, in terms of, you know, again, an 

issue that, and this committee obviously is very sensitive. So thank 

you. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Courtney. We 

now proceed to Congressman Anthony Brown of Maryland. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is for Mr. Niemeyer. I have a few questions for other 

panelists, but I will start with Mr. Niemeyer. 

It is my understanding there is about $70 billion of backlog in 

infrastructure across all the services. Does that sound about right? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. We calculate, we throw in a bunch of different factors. We are up over, actually over $100 billion. 

Mr. BROWN. Yeah. Big number. 

I want to follow up on some of the, I think your responses to 

some questions on the Senate side regarding the border wall which, 

for the purposes of this hearing, I will just refer to as the southern 

border boundary. 

You said that there is—is there an intent to build a 37-mile barrier along the Barry Goldwater Range? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. There is an exploration of what options we 

have for supporting the President’s plan. We have not made any 

decisions. We are still in just the exploration of options. If those options are executed, we would want to come back to Congress, explain what we think we can do, if we can do it, and work with Congress in making sure what can be done. 
19 

Mr. BROWN. So then maybe I can test your current understanding. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Sure thing. 

Mr. BROWN. You understand that there is not a specific line item 

authorization for the Department to construct a border barrier at 

this time? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. We have the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill provided $1.6 billion for—— 

Mr. BROWN. I apologize. 

Secretary NIEMEYER [continuing]. Certain replacements and upgrades along the 1,800- or 1,900-mile border. 

We know that is all we have right now. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. Do you think $1.6 billion would cover the 37 

miles? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Right now, I believe that those funds are 

dedicated to other segments of the border. 

Mr. BROWN. So regarding the 37 miles, you understand that 

there is not specific line item authorization currently from Congress to the Department to construct a barrier? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. There is a minor construction program, I am 

sure you are familiar with. What is the threshold for that under 

which you don’t need authorization? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Well, the minor construction threshold is, I 

believe, $3 million currently, but that is not an authority that we 

would want to consider here. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. That is insufficient to do anything. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. There are other emergency authorities that 

require certain levels of either coordination or proclamations that 

we are aware of. 

Mr. BROWN. What is the maximum amount that you can do 

under the emergency construction? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Well, under section 2803 the max per year 

is $200 million per year. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. And then there is another authorization for 

national emergencies that does not have a dollar limit. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. So it is my understanding that in order to access that authorization, emergency authorization, you would have 

to identify another project that is authorized and appropriated by 

Congress from which to take that money, correct? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Not necessarily. We could draw funds from 

what we call unobligated balances. 

Congress provides us, and thankfully so, the flexibility to manage 

our overall military construction program. So when bids come in 

less than they should be, we have now that delta, we then put 

aside to see if we can fund—if we have a bid overage, we can go 

and fund that. 

Mr. BROWN. What is the current amount of that—— 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Sir, I would have to get that for your record 

right now what we have for prior and obligated balances. It shifts 

from month to month as far as—— 

Mr. BROWN. Is it in the billions? 
20 

Secretary NIEMEYER. I don’t know if it is quite there yet. The appropriators do a good job of trimming it every year. 

Mr. BROWN. I hope you do. I hope they do. I appreciate it, sure, 

if you could get back to me on what that is. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. BROWN. And maybe in writing, if you can outline the response that you just provided me. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Sure thing, sir. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. BROWN. And your most current thinking about the authorizations and the appropriations that you would consider in a building, some or all of that 37-mile barrier at the Barry Goldwater 

Range. 

Thank you. Let’s see, another question. I am electronic today. 

Mr. Niemeyer, certain financial institutions, banks, not credit 

unions, but banks, can occupy space, commercial office space on 

military installations. And it is my understanding that in lieu of 

a lease payment, they can make an in-kind contribution. 

Last year, I believe, or certainly subsequent to this year—I 

mean, prior to this year, Congress instructed the Department to 

clarify what an in-kind contribution could consist of. And we were 

supposed to receive that information on March 1st of this year. To 

my knowledge, we have not received it. Could you tell me the status of that? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Sure thing. So we have been working on 

this issue very diligently within the Department of Defense. I have 

had a couple of meetings on how we define that. I have actually 

got a draft report ready to go. I had some questions from my general counsel on that particular report. As soon as those questions 

are clarified, we will be writing to Congress. And I apologize for 

being late on that. 

Mr. BROWN. Just one follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Do you think it 

will be before we mark up this year’s NDAA? 

Mr. NIEMEYER. That is my goal. 

Mr. BROWN. That is your goal. 

Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresswoman Brown. 

We now proceed to the second round of questions. 

And Secretary Niemeyer, you have come up again. And since the 

inception of the extraordinarily important European Defense Initiative, the Congress has provided nearly $600 million to support the 

construction in Europe to prepare for EDI. 

The fiscal year 2019 request includes nearly $800 million in additional funding dedicated to infrastructure in Europe under the European Defense Initiative. This is for roads, for bridges. It is upgrading railway, and maybe particularly to take into account the 

different gauges between the rail systems of what was the former 

Soviet empire and the rest of the world. And also, what we are 

looking for is a positive model in the tradition of the success of 

Kaiserslautern, Germany. 
21 

What does the end state of EDI construction look like? Does the 

Department have an overall master plan for the European theater 

working with the European Union? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. So this program is absolutely essential. As 

you know, the Secretary of Defense laid out three overall priorities: 

restore the readiness of our forces, strengthen alliances around the 

world, and this program goes directly to his second priority. His 

third priority was reform how we do business in the Department 

of Defense. 

But we are absolutely committed. This program has been beneficial to us with our nations in Europe, and will continue to allow 

us to have the flexibility with our partner nations to respond to 

whatever contingency or scenario may happen there. 

As far as long-term plan, you did put some language in the fiscal 

year 2018 defense authorization asking the Department to come 

back with a 5-year plan, and how we plan for future investments. 

We are working to get that over to you. It is really in our policy 

shop within the Department of Defense, and we will be scheduling 

a time with you and your staff here in the near term to go over 

what we believe are long-term plans. 

I can’t tell you what the end state is going to be. EUCOM, I am 

sorry, European Command is the primary generator of requirements. As relationships evolve, as nations in NATO [North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization] change their posture, our requirements may 

either go down or go up. We are constantly reevaluating those projects, making sure we’re executing them on time, and then as new 

projects arise, we are vetting them through our DOD structure, to 

determine, okay, what degree they provide support for the Secretary’s priorities. 

So I would like to take, as far as coming over to you with the 

plan, I would like to take that for the record and then be able to 

answer more questions, potentially in a classified setting. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. This is really so important. I am very grateful, as the cochairman of the European Union 

Caucus, to see the cooperation between the American military, the 

European Union, and NATO. So, this is absolutely critical for the 

deterrence and peace through strength in Europe. 

I now proceed to Congresswoman Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Each of the Secretaries this afternoon have stated that their top 

priority is the recovery of military readiness, and we all agree. But 

as I pointed out in previous hearings, the increases in this year’s 

budget request appear focused on buying new weapons systems, 

new equipment, rather than sustaining the systems and the facilities that we own today. 

So, with infrastructure in particular, I believe the Department 

has taken far too much risk over the past decade. 

So, can you comment on whether you believe this budget adequately invests in your service’s military infrastructure and how it 

will support the recovery of installation readiness, along with the 

overall readiness of the force? 
22 

And I think I would like to start with Secretary Gillis. We 

haven’t asked you any questions yet. 

Mr. GILLIS. No, I really enjoy testifying alongside Mr. Niemeyer. 

That has worked out well for me so far. 

Ms. BORDALLO. He is so adequately experienced in every area. 

Mr. GILLIS. Well, thank you. I appreciate the question for a 

change. And I share your concern. 

The choices that the Army made were a result of sequestration 

in the Budget Control Act, and we made the choice that we had 

to make between readiness and facilities. 

I believe now, with the funding in 2018 and 2019 projected, that 

we are on a much better track. For 2019, our facility sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization request reflects a $196 million increase above our 2018 request. 

Based on that and requested funding across all the appropria- tions, the Army plans to address about 8 percent of the $11 billion 

backlog that we have talked about in 2019 and ultimately buy that 

$11 billion backlog out over the course of 12 years. In addition, our 

2019 MILCON budget request is $234 million over and above our 

2018 request. 

We believe we are on the right track, but I understand your concerns about the condition of facilities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And Secretary Henderson. 

Secretary HENDERSON. Thanks, Congresswoman. 

So, for the Air Force, much like the Army, due to the sequestration for the last several years and several of the must-fund requirements that the Air Force is responsible for, not all those requirements took the same hit under sequestration, and some of our support funding mechanisms, especially infrastructure, took an inordinate hit over the last 4 or 5 years. And so now, as you know, we are probably at an estimated $33 billion or $34 billion of backlog for deferred maintenance and costs 

to our facilities. As Mr. Niemeyer alluded to earlier, I just don’t 

think there is a way we are going to buy our way out of that. 

A couple of things that we are doing for a way ahead on this. 

First, you will see in the fiscal year 2019 budget, we have asked 

for a 7.7 percent increase in the sustainment part of our facility 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization. This is a $209 million 

increase, and this will, at least, keep the good facilities good. 

So the essence of your question was: Is the funding adequate? I 

would say it is adequate, but it is certainly not enough to buy down 

the backlog of deferred maintenance that we have. But by keeping 

up with the sustainment, you know, every dollar we defer in sustainment turns into $15 of work later. So we are trying to keep up 

with that for sure. 

Secondly, we have substantially increased our planning and design funds this year so that we can increase our capability to ask 

for more money for infrastructure in fiscal year 2020 and 2021 to 

meet our facilities requirements there and start to potentially 

grow, get back at that backlog if the funds are available then. 

Third, we have maximized or accelerated our use for enhanced 

use leases, public-private partnerships, and the new authorities 

given to us by Congress. So thank you for that. I have several examples of that that we can discuss maybe in follow-on questions. 
23 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Secretary HENDERSON. We are also leveraging an asset management framework that really focuses on the right facilities at the 

right time at the right scope. We are rethinking our acquisition 

strategy. 

And so, it is a tough situation that our mission support community is dealing with right now, but we have a great team of engineers and installation managers and acquisition folks and sustainers that are continuing to keep our power projection platforms 

intact, while the bigger Air Force accelerates the modernization 

and lethality that we need to fight a high-end war. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear a quick response from Secretary Bayer and Lucian. 

Secretary Bayer, if you would care to answer. 

Secretary BAYER. Absolutely, ma’am. We are in about the same 

situation as you have heard there, obviously. 

One of the things, there is a lot of backlog, and I agree that there 

are probably places that we would eventually say we are going to 

just cut our losses there. But we are focusing our priorities of 

where we feel like our priorities are needed. So that is about the 

smartest thing we can do when we don’t obviously have all the 

money in the world to take care of everything as best as we would 

like to. 

I would say one of the things that I am most excited about is the 

ability to use the conversion authority. I saw in one place—I think 

you would be interested in this—where a base commander looked 

at a facility that he wanted to use for ship repair that was near 

the berth, and it was being used for something else. So he moved 

the function of that building to another building. He swapped it. 

And then he used that authority that you all gave us to repurpose 

that building to perform the function that he needed to be closer 

to the berth. 

So these are things that I am excited about being able to put the 

money where it is needed the most, and it gives our base commanders what I mentioned earlier in my statement, the opportunity for creativity. We are hoping to use those more broadly. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, thank you. And Mr. Niemeyer. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. Yes, ma’am. OSD, we would love to help 

them more, although we are not the resources. The services carry 

out their priorities. I think that is the best thing OSD can do to 

support that. We do encourage models and programs that allow us 

to take our limited O&M dollars and put it towards the most urgent requirements to address the most urgent priorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That makes sense. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. So we are dedicating a lot of our effort into 

making sure that, okay, yes, we are definitely taking a risk in our 

accounts, but the money we do get is knocking out our most critical 

facilities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

being so generous. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ranking Member Bordallo. 

We now proceed to Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
24 

Ms. Bayer, I just wanted to touch for a moment on the public 

shipyard infrastructure situation which the Navy reported back 

after our NDAA request for an estimate in terms of just what is 

the task ahead. Again, it was $21 billion between now and 2040. 

Anyone who has visited any of these yards knows without much 

analysis that these shipyards, particularly with larger Virginia- class subs with the payload module extension and the buildup of 

the Navy in general, the dry docks, they all need to be upgraded. 

How do you sort of see—again, it is a long-range plan that was 

described—but how do you see that sort of fitting in with the budget of the Navy in terms of, in terms of infrastructure and trying 

to make it all sort of come together? 

Secretary BAYER. Thank you, Congressman. It is a long-range 

plan. And I have been in meetings with Vice Admiral Moore and 

he is, he and I are thinking the same way, that this optimization 

plan is phase one, and it is a very good start. But we believe that 

we have got a lot more work to do. Twenty-one billion dollars is a 

lot of money. And we, again, want to put that money where it is 

best needed and can be used to the wisest use. 

One of the things that I particularly am a fan of is to look more 

closely and embrace where we can bring in modern technology, not 

just to optimize our current work processes, which is what the 

phase one plan looks at, but that we modernize the way we do our 

operations. And that would give us more efficient operations. 

I have seen evidence of how some corporate private sector companies are using less footprint, but increasing their productivity. I 

would like to see us do more of that. 

I would just comment on the pier up in New London. I am glad 

to report that there is money in the 2019 budget to begin the planning and design for that. And that is a first start. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Well, thank you. Again, obviously, a lot of us on 

this subcommittee and also on the Seapower Subcommittee are 

very animated about trying to find ways to get to the Force Structure Assessment’s [FSA’s] 355-ship Navy. But there is a lot of other 

factors, whether it is workforce, manpower, and, obviously, infrastructure, that has to sort of also be factored in, or you are going 

to have a lot of platforms and no money to operate them and no 

place to repair them. 

So I am glad you guys are focused on that, because it really is 

as much a part of the FSA as the sort of topline numbers. 

Secretary BAYER. Absolutely. I would like to just comment very 

briefly that we have seen where at both Norfolk and at Puget 

Sound where the rare skill sets, unique skill sets, I should say, 

that the shipyards themselves are creating training programs 

where they are bringing in young, talented people and training 

them on the special skills that we need to grow a workforce. So 

there are some promising things there and we want to learn and 

develop that workforce, but we are paying attention to that. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. We now proceed to Congressman Salud Carbajal of 

California. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gillis, as you know, I represent Camp Roberts and SATCOM 

[satellite communications station]. As we discussed in our meeting 
25 

last week, I am concerned about the degradation of the east perimeter road that goes up to SATCOM. 

Just to let this committee know, SATCOM is designated as a 

mission-critical facility, so it is important that it is accessible. The 

road has been completely destroyed, and it is impossible to drive 

on the road without damaging your vehicle, at times, and possibly 

even yourself. 

It is my understanding Cal Guard [California National Guard] 

has met with DOD and expressed this repair as a priority, and requested it to be included in the current fiscal year budget or unfunded request list. 

I believe one course of action is to pursue a partial repair by repairing the road between Camp Roberts containment area and 

SATCOM through the O&M restoration project. 

Mr. Gillis, can you provide me your thoughts and any updates on 

this matter since we last met? 

Mr. GILLIS. Yes, sir, I would be happy to. So it is a critical mission at Camp Roberts. The need for or the requirement to repair 

the road has been surfaced. 

We are looking now for a way to fund that in 2019, and would 

be happy to take for the record and come back to you as we make 

progress. Basically, trying to figure out the best split of money between the stakeholders involved. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you. 

Second question. The Army has set a requirement to be able to 

secure critical missions by providing necessary energy and water 

for a minimum of 14 days. 

Camp Roberts and SATCOM are currently depending on gas generators as their backup, but has expressed to me that it is critical 

that we start looking at battery storage, as gas generators can become a problem if they are unable to obtain the gas from local 

sources. 

Talking to your offices, I understand that one of the concerns is 

the high cost of battery storage. But you all are exploring other 

ideas, such as microgrids. 

Especially in the age where cyber attacks can easily disrupt our 

energy infrastructures, it is important that we have the capability 

to protect our military assets and have the capability to isolate ourselves from the grid that can be affected. 

Mr. Gillis, in terms of access to battery storage for bases like 

Camp Roberts, is there something Congress can do? Because at the 

end of the day, it is about security and resiliency. 

In terms of readiness, I can’t think of anything more important 

than ensuring our installations have the capability to operate in 

any type of domain. Where, in the process, are we with microgrids? 

How can Congress assist to possibly speed up this process? 

Mr. GILLIS. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the question. A couple 

of things. Microgrids, in general, we are deploying across the Army, 

and are looking as much as we can to leverage third-party financing mechanisms to do it. The Army has an Office of Energy Initiatives that looks for and seeks out those funding sources so that we 

can contribute to the increased resilience of Army installations. 

What we are trying to address with our 14-day requirement is 

to maintain that supply of electricity and water to maintain critical 
26 

missions. So we are focusing on those critical missions first to try 

to increase readiness that way—correction—to try to increase resilience that way. 

At Camp Roberts, for battery storage in particular, I think battery storage is promising because it continues to decrease in price. 

We just cut the ribbon on a solar project in Huntsville that incorporates solar and battery storage, and increases resilience at that 

installation. 

So I am encouraged by the future for battery storage. 

If I am not mistaken, you have got some solar assets at Camp 

Roberts. We have engaged the Office of Energy Initiatives to see 

what can be done to revitalize the sunk cost there and see what 

we can do to bring that back on line as a resource. And you have 

got my commitment that we will continue to look to see how we 

can integrate battery storage into that, as well. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back, but I do have 

one more question if we do another round. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Carbajal. 

We now go to Congressman Anthony Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is for Mr. Gillis. It was a pleasure meeting with 

you in my office. I would have 10 questions. You answered nine of 

them. I only have one left. 

While Congress has provided significant additional funding in 

2018, and I am sure you will see the same in 2019, for various programs and activities across the Army enterprise, many installations don’t have sufficient civilian staffing or manpower to manage, 

execute, administer these programs and activities. 

In Maryland, where most of our installations are in support of 

RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation] missions, we 

have been seeing reductions in installation manpower; some installations, over 30 percent. 

My question is: Is there a plan to address these civilian shortfalls? Have you sent it to Congress? If not, when would such a plan 

be available? 

Mr. GILLIS. Sir, I know that there are initiatives underway in the 

Army. I don’t have the visibility on those that would allow me to 

give you an informed answer. So, if I could, I would like to take 

that for the record and we will get the right answer and bring it 

back to you regarding civilian hiring. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. You are so kind, because now we can 

hear the final question from Congressman Carbajal. 

Mr. BROWN. You didn’t get your questions answered in your office? 

Mr. CARBAJAL. I was waiting for you to be done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The importance of military departments ensuring installations 

and energy resilience for critical missions and infrastructure has 

been raised in the most recent NDAA, as well as referenced in the 

National Defense Strategy and the National Security Strategy. 
27 

‘‘The homeland is no longer a sanctuary,’’ is one quote from the 

National Defense Strategy in reference to the potential for physical 

attack, cyber attack, and extreme weather events that could gravely impact our energy-dependent missions. 

One of the ways your office is trying to ensure increased resiliency on our installations is through the Energy Resilience and 

Conservation Investment Program, ERCIP. This program has been 

successful in creating energy resilience on installations nationwide. 

The Army has committed to advancing the capability of systems 

installations, personnel, and units, to respond to the unforeseen 

disruptions and quickly recover. This would require the service to 

adopt flexible and adaptable approaches, and programs like ERCIP 

helps the Army to do this. 

This Nation’s military must build resiliency, and this will require 

more investments into programs like ERCIP. 

Mr. Gillis, I wanted to hear your thoughts on this and any additional steps the Army is taking to address this concern of resiliency? 

Mr. GILLIS. Yes, sir. ERCIP is an excellent program. We use that 

to address both energy conservation and energy resilience initiatives. 

We believe that energy conservation helps us ultimately achieve 

resilience more easily. ERCIP is a program that is administered by 

OSD, by the Department of Defense, and all the services submit 

projects, and the Army, Air Force, and Navy equally benefit from 

the existence of the ERCIP program. We prioritize the projects that 

we submit to that program, and have been very lucky to get very 

generous funding over the life span of the program. 

In addition to ERCIP, we also use energy savings performance 

contracts and utility energy contracts to use third-party financing 

and utility industry expertise to increase resilience on our installations. 

A couple of examples of those, more recently, is an ESPC [energy 

savings performance contract] that was awarded to include programmable thermostats, demand control of ventilation, interiorexterior lighting retrofits, and a 4-megawatt combined heat and 

power plant at Fort Huachuca, reduces energy costs by about 23 

percent to the installation, and it helps us achieve some reliability 

and progress toward energy security. 

We have done another UESC [utility energy service contract] at 

Fort Detrick to centralize boilers, which gives us about $1.8 million 

in annualized savings, and an ESPC at Fort Bliss should get us 

about $1.3 million in annual savings. 

So, those get us improved utilities infrastructures on our installation, which enhances resilience. In addition to ERCIP, ESPC, and 

UESC, those are three ways that we address it, and I think address it pretty ably. 

Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you. I encourage your efforts to continue 

in this regard. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Carbajal. Indeed, I have seen the success of the energy savings performance 

contracts. Best wishes on your continuing. 
28 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. Secretary 

Henderson, please express our best wishes to our former colleague, 

Secretary Heather Wilson, who I am happy to claim any time as 

a cousin. 

We thank all of you for being here, and each one of you for your 

service to our Nation. I want to thank Mr. Schulman for his service 

today, too. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 18, 2018 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 18, 2018 

(33) 

Statement of the Honorable Joe Wilson 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness 

"Fiscal Year 2019 Energy, Installations and Environment Budget Request" 

April18, 2018 

Good afternoon. The Readiness Subcommittee of the House Armed Services 

Committee will come to order. I welcome each of you to this hearing the 

Department of Defense's fiscal year 2019 budget request for military construction, 

facilities investment, environmental restoration and compliance, installation energy 

resilience and other infrastructure issue pertinent to the warfighter and our national 

security. 

Today the subcommittee will hear from our witness about how the 

Department and the military services are posturing to meet the military 

infrastructure needs of this nation both today and in the future. 

Over the past several years, House Armed Services Committee leadership 

has led the call to provide the military with the resources needed to counter 

advances by our adversaries. Regrettably, years ofunderfunding and substantial 

budgetary instability have, up until now, hampered those efforts. 

I am pleased that the Congress and the Administration have worked together 

to provide the military what they need to begin to reverse the erosion of our 

military strength. There is agreement on funding levels for defense for fiscal year 

'19. We have a top line from which to work with, but as General Dunford said late 

last week in testimony before our full committee, "we cannot reverse a decade-plus 

of erosion in one fiscal year." 

Today the Readiness Subcommittee meets to hear how this year's 

President's Budget intends to address installation and infrastructure readiness writ 

large. 

Across the spectrum of operations, our military installations are essential to 

the readiness of the warfighter, their families, and the wholeness of the various 

missions and support provided by our selfless DOD civilian workforce. 

While clear progress is being made in many budgetary fronts, funding across 

the installations portfolio remains somewhat flat, if not headed in the wrong 

direction in some cases, which is a cause for concern. 

Aggravating the underfunding problem, the cost and complexity of 

infrastructure required to support modern weapon systems such as 5th generation 

aircraft is consuming a growing and I believe unsustainable portion of the overall 

construction top line. 

I am committed to working with the Department to achieve reforms that 

further improve the lethality of our installations to enable our military to be more 

agile and more efficient. The challenges are great, but working together, we can 
34 

ensure that the military has the most relevant and effective infrastructure 

"backbone" to prepare for what will meet them in the field. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, I tum to the distinguished Ranking 

Member of the Readiness Subcommittee, the gentlelady from Guam, Madeleine 

Bordallo, for her opening comments. 
35 

Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo 

Readiness Subcommittee Hearing 

Fiscal Year 2019 Energy, Installations and Environment 

Budget Request 

18 April2018 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here 

today. I look forward to hearing how the FY 19 Budget will help the Department 

overcome deficits in MILCON, facility sustainment, restoration and maintenance 

programs, environmental and energy programs, and ultimately contribute to 

military readiness and the security of our nation. 

Our military installations provide the platform from which our military is 

able to project power and build readiness. Maintaining these installations is 

important for our warfighters and just as important to the quality of lite of our 

service members and their families. 

Like Chairman Wilson, I too am concerned by the toll that more than a 

decade of budget risk and instability has had on the military's installations and 

infrastructure. We are facing more than a $70 billion backlog of deferred 

maintenance and repair on our installations. A number that will continue to grow 

unless the Department changes its approach to installation investments. 

The recent budget agreement has provided additional resources to the 

Department of Defense for FY 2018 and FY20 19. And the Department has 

indicated its top priority is to use these additional funds to help restore military 

readiness. However, as we review the budget request I remain concerned that the 

emphasis has been on procuring new equipment rather than focusing on the O&M 

and MILCON accounts that suppoti the facilities, maintenance, and training that 

enables readiness. 

Unfortunately, the budget request for the infrastructure accounts seem to 

support my concern, with funding largely requested at levels below the FY 18 

amount. Construction is being largely consumed by new mission requirements and 

Sustainment is well below the OSD directed goal of 90%. So with that in mind, it 

is my hope that our witnesses can share how the FY19 budget request will help 

restore the readiness of our military installations and how the Department will 

leverage the new authorities and tlexibilities that have been provided by congress 

in recent NDAAs. 

In addition, I encourage the witnesses to share specific examples of how 

unpredictable funding contributed to installation management challenges and 

impacted the quality of life for our force and their families. 

I look forward to the discussion we will have today. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman. 
36 

Statement of 

Honorable Lucian Niemeyer 

Assistant Secretary Of Defense 

HOLD UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE 

(Energy, Installations and Environment) 

Before the House Committee on Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Readiness 

Fiscal Year 2019 Department of Defense Budget Request for 

Energy, Installations and Environment 

April IS, 2018 
37 

Introduction 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request 

for the Department of Defense programs supporting energy, installations, and the environment. 

This is my first time appearing before you and I look forward to working with the committee to 

support the priorities of the Department and the quality oflife for our military members and 

family members who are called to sacrifice so much for public service. 

First, thank you for your continued support for our mission. We are grateful to Congress and the 

American people for the recently-enacted Bipartisan Budget Act of20l8, which lifts the caps so 

our military can be resourced at a fl.mding level that begins to reverse the effects of sequestration. 

The Administration sent Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request of $716 

billion for national security, $686 billion of which is for the Department of Defense. We have a 

responsibility now to honor the trust of the American people by spending each defense dollar 

wisely to address our most urgent priorities to build a more lethal, resilient, and rapidly 

innovating Joint Force. 

In order to so, we need a timely appropriation in Fiscal Year 2019 to be fully effective. While 

the process of Continuing Resolutions instead of spending bills provides Congress with 

additional negotiating time, the price is paid in stress on the Department through a shortened 

period to execute contracts for combat capabilities and readiness requirements. Budgetary 

disruption and instability negatively impact the Department's ability to work efficiently and 

modernize rapidly. 

Earlier this year, the President released a National Security Strategy which guided the 

development of a National Defense Strategy to clearly miiculate the threats and challenges our 

Nation faces around the world. The objectives of the Depmiment are "to be prepared to defend 

the homeland. remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure the balances (fpower 

remain in ourfavor, and advance an international order that is most conducive to our security 

and prosperity." Our FY 2019 budget priorities enable the Department to establish a foundation 

for rebuilding the U.S. military into a more capable, lethal, and ready Joint Force. Each military 

service has a distinctive readiness recovery plan and the increases are targeted to advance these 

plans to improve readiness and increase lethality. 

The National Defense Strategy acknowledges that great-power competition has reemerged as the 

central challenge to U.S. security and prosperity, demanding prioritization and hard strategic 

choices. "Thefiiture Joint force will have a modern, flexible, and tailored nuclear deterrent; 

decisive, globally-capable conventionalforces; and competency in irregular warfare. The future 

force will be lethal and resilient in contested environments, disruptive to adversaries, and 

competent across the conflict spectrum." 

The strategy confronts the stark reality that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary. America is a 

target, whether from terrorists seeking to attack our citizens; malicious cyber activity against 

personal, commercial, or government infrastructure; or political and information subversion. 

New threats to commercial and military uses of space are emerging, while increasing digital 
38 

connectivity of all aspects of life, business, government, and military creates significant 

vulnerabilities. During conflict, attacks against our critical defense, government, and economic 

infrastructure must be anticipated and deterred. 

The strategy stresses forward force maneuver, resilient posture, and agile logistics. Investments 

over the next lew years will prioritize ground, air, sea, and space forces that can deploy, survive, 

operate, maneuver, and regenerate in all domains while under attack. Our investments must 

facilitate the transition from large, centralized, unhardened infrastructure to smaller, dispersed, 

resilient, adaptive basing that includes active and passive defenses. 

Finally, the strategy requires each of us in the Department to drive budget discipline and 

affordability. Better management begins with effective financial stewardship. As noted in the 

National Defense Strategy, "The Department will continue its plan to achieve full auditability of 

all its operations, improving itsfinancial processes, systems, and tools to understand. manage, 

and improve cost. We will continue to leverage the scale of'our operations to drive greater 

e!Jiciency in procurement of materiel and services while pursuing opportunities to consolidate 

and streamline contracts in areas such as logistics. information technology, and support 

services. We will also continue efforts to reduce management overhead and the size of 

headquarters staff We will reduce or eliminate duplicative organizations and .lystemsfor 

managing human resources. finance, health services, travel, and supplies. The Department will 

also work to reduce excess property and infrastructure, providing Congress with options for a 

Base Realignment and Closure." 

Each mission within our energy, installations, and environmental portfolio is directly engaged in 

the successful execution of this strategy. The DOD representatives before you today provide 

war1ighter capabilities through over 585,000 facilities on more than 500 bases, posts, camps, 

stations, yards, and centers around the world, with a replacement cost exceeding $1 trillion, not 

including the cost of the 27 million acres ofland that our installations occupy. We execute the 

construction offacilities to provide our Combatant Commanders in partnership with our Allies 

with basing adaptability and deployment flexibility. 

Our warfightcrs need reliable energy to carry out their missions, whether they are out in the field 

or on base. We spend over $12 billion annually on fuel and energy, not including investments to 

enhance the energy security of our critical facilities and assets in the Department. We are also 

working with other agencies in the Administration to support the President's goal to accelerate 

development of all energy sources in ways that are compatible with the preservation of military 

capabilities. 

Our warfighters need access to unencumbered land, water, and airspace to hone their readiness 

and lethality without compromising health and satety-we invest heavily in programs and 

achievements to secure access to ranges that support mission-essential activities. We are also 

heavily engaged with other Federal agencies to provide our warfighters with larger, and more 

realistic ranges with less maneuver restrictions to better simulate battlefields and threats around 

the world. 

2 
39 

The continued support of Congress, and in particular, this subcommittee, allow us to use the 

resources provided to enhance the agility, resilience, readiness, and lethality of our forces around 

the world. 

With a clear understanding of the Secretary's intent, we have set forth the following objectives to 

guide our efforts to carry out the strategy and to confront our challenges posed by years of 

underfunded facility and infrastructure accounts. 

I. We are using every program and funding source available to us to eliminate waste in 

DOD installations and infrastructure and maintain what we need; 

2. We continue to advocate for adequate funding for installation and infrastructure accounts 

to meet mission requirements and to address risks to safety and readiness; 

3. We arc working with other Federal agencies, States, and communities to protect 

installations and ranges from incompatible development and to enhance the combat 

credibility of our Nation's test and training ranges; 

4. We are implementing programs to ensure combat capability, missions, and resiliency by 

enhancing the energy security of our forces and assets; 

5. We are exploring new opportunities for third party partnerships and engaging with 

industry to determine best practices and innovative solutions for our current challenges; 

6. We are working with the military engineering and contracting community to develop 

smarter contracts, and manage contracts smartly; 

7. We continue to provide for the safety and welfare of our people and resources through 

unparalleled environmental stewardship and occupational safety progran1s; 

8. And last, but definitely not least, we are enhancing our collaboration with the hundreds of 

dedicated defense communities around the Nation supporting our bases and providing for 

the quality of life for our troops and their families. 

We have a number of high priority issues to review today, including the ongoing improvement 

and recapitalization of DOD facilities, access to training lands, protecting the health of our force, 

and ensuring energy resiliency for both our expeditionary forces and installations. 

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request- Military Construction and Family Housing 

The President's FY 2019 budget requests $10.5 billion for the Military Construction (MILCON) 

and Family Housing Appropriation- an increase of approximately $700 million from the FY 

2018 base budget request, inclusive of FY 2018 budget amendments to suppmi the Missile 

Defense Agency and hurricane recovery requests. This increase supports the Secretary of 

Defense's guidance. In addition to construction required to bed down new or changing missions, 
40 

this funding will also be used to restore and modernize enduring facilities, acquire new facilities 

where needed, and eliminate those that are excess or obsolete. 

While the FY 2019 request makes significant progress in recapitalizing facilities in poor and 

failing condition, the funding will not in one fiscal year fully reverse the impacts of six years of 

sequestration. Many of our facilities have degraded signi1icantly from reduced investments in 

Military Construction, Facilities Sustainment and Restoration and Modernization. The 

Department currently has an unfunded backlog of deferred maintenance and repair (M&R) work 

exceeding $116 billion, and many of our facilities will require significant investment in the 

future. The stark reality is that it may be too costly to buy ourselves out of this backlog. The 

Department must ensure that its infrastructure is ideally sized to increase the lethality of U.S. 

forces while minimizing the cost of maintaining unneeded capacity, which otherwise diverts 

resources from critical readiness and modernization requirements. 

We arc requesting $8.9 billion tor military construction (excluding Overseas Contingency 

Operations funding) across the Services and defense agencies, which is the substantially higher 

than our previous budget submission. This represents a five percent increase from our FY 2018 

request, inclusive of budget amendment requests for a Missile Defense missile field expansion at 

Fort Greely, AK, and repairs related to the 2017 hurricane season. This request addresses 

requirements for construction at enduring installations stateside and overseas, and for specific 

programs such as the NATO Security Investment Program and the Energy Resilience and 

Conservation Investment Program. In addition, we are targeting MILCON funds in key areas to 

support the national defense strategy. 

l. Delivery o(power projection platfOrms: In support of the Secretary of Defense's 

guidance that increased DOD funding will improve readiness and increase wartighter 

lethality, the DOD Components applied more than 66 percent of the MILCON budget 

request to construct operational/training facilities ($3.5 billion) and 

maintenance/production facilities ($1.4 billion). 

2. Combatant Command Priorities: In support of the Secretary's priority to enhance our 

relationship with our Allies while providing adaptive basing opportunities for our 

warfighters, more than $1.1 billion is included in the President's Budget request ($291.1 

million in the base and $828.4 million in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) 

request) to support Combatant Command priorities. Within the OCO request, $700 

million is for MILCON projects supporting the European Deterrence Initiative to 

improve infrastructure and facilities throughout the European theater to provide our 

allies, partners, and potential adversaries a clear indication of the United States' longterm commitment to Europe. The improvements support military readiness in the region 

and improve theater Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration 

capabilities. 

3. Homeland Defense: The FY 2019 budget request includes $182 million to support missile 

defense ofthe homeland, including $174 million for the second phase of the Long Range 

Discriminating Radar System Complex at Clear AFS, Alaska, and $8 million tor the 

expansion of Missile Field #1 to support two additional ground based interceptors at Fort 

4 
41 

Greely, Alaska. We also have dedicated the bulk of our $150 million Energy Resiliency 

and Conservation Improvement program (ERCIP) for FY 2019 to projects that will 

enhance the reliable delivery of power to mission facilities. We believe this program is a 

critical tool to quickly respond to emerging energy security requirements and request the 

continued support by the committees for full funding of this account. 

The Department is committed to protecting the quality oflife for military personnel and their 

families by ensuring access to suitable, affordable Family and Unaccompanied Housing. The 

environment in which our forces and their families live has an impact on their ability to do their 

job, and on the Department's ability to recruit and retain. Quality oflife to include the physical 

condition of the facilities in which our service members and their families live and work and a 

safe, healthy environment around and within those facilities- is also critical to support personnel 

readiness for new and current missions and strategic initiatives worldwide. 

While the Department has privatized 99 percent (more than 200,000 units) of our family housing 

in the United States, our FY 2019 Family Housing budget request includes $514 million to fund 

family housing construction at locations where privatization is not feasible or not authorized 

overseas. In addition, our FY 2019 budget request includes $1.1 billion for operation and 

maintenance of government-owned and leased family housing worldwide, to include providing 

housing referral services to assist military members with their housing needs. This O&M budget 

request supports more than 34,000 government-owned family housing units, most of which are on 

enduring bases in overseas locations, as well as more than 7,500 government-leased family 

housing units where government-owned or privatized housing is unavailable. The requested 

funding will ensure that U.S. military personnel and their families continue to have suitable 

housing choices. 

The Department also continues to modcmize Unaccompanied Personnel Housing to improve 

privacy and provide greater amenities. The FY 2019 President's Budget request includes $245.8 

million for 8 construction and renovation projects, providing more than 1,690 new or replacement 

bed spaces that will improve living conditions for trainees and unaccompanied personnel. 

Our request also includes $1.7 million to support administration of the Military Housing 

Privatization Initiative (MHPI) program as prescribed by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. 

This includes monitoring MHPI programmatic goals and performance, and risk associated with 

Federal credit assistance provided for MHPl projects (e.g., government direct loans and limited 

loan guarantees). The Department continues to work with our MHPI project owners to help 

ensure the long-term viability of individual projects and the program as a whole. We are 

continually assessing the impact that changes to the Basic Allowance for Housing may have on 

project revenue, which covers project operating and maintenance expenses, funds debt payments, 

and finances the future housing revitalization and recapitalization necessary to provide continued 

high quality housing for military families and to ensure these projects remain viable throughout 

their 40-50 year lifespans. 

5 
42 

Special Considerations 

Cost oflabor in a post-storm bid climate and impact on 2018 and 2019 execution 

The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most destmctive hurricane seasons on record, 

with over $1 billion in damage in to DOD facilities. The private sector rebuilding will take years 

and many billions of dollars while consuming a large portion of the U.S. construction market. 

As such, the Department's FY 2019 MILCON budget request takes into account the impact on 

constmction costs of a high demand for specialty craftsmen and material prices over the nearterm. While the ongoing recovery from last summer's hurricane damage has tightened 

construction markets and driven up construction prices in the most impacted areas, the 

Department judges the impacts will last through October 2018, barring a repeat of last summer. 

As such, we plan on using prior-year bid savings from other MILCON projects to absorb 

potential bid spikes in FY 2018 in order to avoid delays in the award of critical warfighting 

requirements. We would appreciate a discussion with the committees prior to a decision to 

rescind funds from prior-year MILCON accounts which could threaten our ability to award 

FY20 18 priority projects. We do not anticipate needing to adjust FY 2019 MILCON project cost 

estimates in the affected areas to reflect spikes in construction prices. 

Actions planned to mitigate contract cost increases and time delays 

We have undertaken a proactive assessment of recent challenges in MILCON project delivery 

and program management to improve our performance delivering MILCON projects on schedule 

and within budget. The Department is implementing reforms in a number of key areas, to 

include: improving identification of project requirements; enhancing collaboration between 

resource sponsors, end users, and constmction agents to ensure projects meet mission 

requirements within budget constraints; selecting the best engineering and acquisition strategy to 

cost-effectively meet mission requirements; identifying risk mitigation measures before cost or 

schedule changes adversely impact the mission; and increasing awareness and accountability at 

all levels of management and performance as problems arise. The Department is also consulting 

with our industry partners to identify commercial best practices to lower costs, save time, 

measure performance differently, and improve project quality in support of the warfighter. 

Congress on an funding policy for 

large MILCON projects. Congressional decisions to reallocate incremental appropriations for a 

MILCON project results in the need for DOD to defer priorities late in the budgeting cycle in 

subsequent years in order to include remaining increments in the budget request. Further 

Congressional incremcntation may result in delays to project delivery of critical warfighter 

requirements. 

Facilities Sustainment and Recapitalization 

In addition to MILCON, the Department invests significant funds to maintain and repair our 

existing facilities. Sustainment fimding represents the Department's single most important 

investment in preserving the condition of its facilities. It includes regularly scheduled 

maintenance and repair or replacement of facility components-the periodic, predictable 

investments that should be made across the service life of a facility to slow its deterioration, save 

6 
43 

resources over the long tenn, maintain safety, optimize facility performance across its lifecycle, 

and help improve the productivity and quality of life of our personnel. 

These activities have endured funding constraints under the Budget Control Act, forcing Defense 

Components to accept significant risk in facilities sustainment and recapitalization. Recognizing 

this, the Military Departments increased Facility Sustainment commitments in the f'Y 2019 

budget request of$9.1 billion, a 6.3 percent funding increase compared to the Department's FY 

20 18 budget request. 

In addition, Restoration and Modernization funding is used to perform total facility renovations 

and critical repairs to ensure the facility can support assigned missions. Our FY 2019 budget 

request includes $2.8 billion ofO&M funding for recapitalization. The combined facility 

sustainment and recapitalization funding of $11.9 billion, a slight decrease the FY 2018 request, 

still reflects an acceptance of significant risk in DOD facilities. 

As a result of limited investments in previous budgets for facilities sustainment and 

recapitalization, 23 percent of the Department's facility inventory is in "poor" condition [Facility 

Condition Index (FC!) between 60 and 79 percent] and another 9 percent is in "failing" condition 

(FC! below 60 percent) based on recent facility condition assessment data. This will ultimately 

result in DOD facing larger bills in the out-years to restore or replace facilities that deteriorate 

prematurely. 

Previous budgets also have limited investment for targeted demolition to eliminate obsolete, 

inefficient, and underutilized support infrastructure. Without a new Base Realignment and 

Closure round, DOD has largely been forced to rely on routine demolition or renovation of 

buildings as part ofMILCON projects in order to right size its facility inventory. The 

Department dedicated some of its additional FY 2019 resources to demolish more unneeded 

facilities. The FY 2019 budget request includes $442 million ofO&M funding specifically for 

demolition or conversion of existing facilities and $65.4 million for MILCON funding to support 

demolition of assets in conjunction with new construction. In total, almost 30 million square feet 

of building space will be removed or replaced. 

Environmental and Safety Programs 

Restoring military readiness requires that we maintain access to training lands and protect the 

health of our force. The Department's environmental budget accomplishes these objectives 

through activities ranging from managing critical habitat and avoiding training restrictions to 

addressing drinking water health advisories and making the best use of limited cleanup dollars. 

At the same time, we manage a $27 billion (and growing) environmental liability, the second 

largest DOD liability, while sustaining our reputation as the Nation's premier steward of natural 

resources and cultural assets. The President's FY 2019 Budget requests $3.4 billion for 

environmental programs, which is comparable to the FY 2018 request, to continue our efforts in 

these areas. 

We are requesting $1.3 billion to continue cleanup efforts at the remaining Installation 

Restoration Program (IRP- focused on cleanup of hazardous substances, pollutants, and 

7 
44 

contaminants) and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP- focused on the removal of 

unexploded ordnance and discarded munitions) sites. This includes $1.1 billion for 

"Environmental Restoration," which encompasses active installations and Formerly Used 

Defense Sites (FUDS sites that DoD transferred to other Federal agencies, States, local 

governments, or private landowners before October 17, 1986). The remaining $245 million is 

for "BRAC Environmental." 

Our focus remains on continuous improvement in the restoration program: minimizing overhead, 

adopting new technologies to reduce cost and accelerate cleanup, and refining and standardizing 

our cost estimating. We have improved our relationships with State regulators through increased 

dialogue, which reduces the number of formal disputes over cleanup levels and allows us to 

implement cleanup activities in a timelier manner. All of these initiatives help ensure that we 

make the best use of our available resources to complete cleanup. 

Table 5: Pro~ress Towards Cleanup Goals 

Goal: Achieve Response Complete at 90% and 95% of Active and BRAC IRP and MMRP 

sites, and FUDS IRP sites, by FY 2018 and FY 2021, respectively 

! Status as of the end I Projected status at Projected status at 

i ofFY 2016 the end ofFY 2018 the end ofFY 2021 

Total i 86% I 88% 93% 

By the end of2017, the Department, in cooperation with State agencies and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, completed cleanup activities at 86 percent of Active and BRAC IRP and 

MMRP sites, and FUDS IRP sites, and is now monitoring the results. During FY 2017 alone, the 

Department completed cleanup at over 500 sites. Of the roughly 39,800 restoration sites, almost 

33,200 are now in monitoring status or have completed cleanup. 

In addition, DOD has made significant progress in the cleanup of our FUDS sites, completing 84 

percent of the IRP sites. Despite this progress, 1,700 of the over 5,100 FUDS sites still need to 

be addressed, many of which are MMRP sites. The Department is evaluating opportunities, such 

as partnering with landowners at our FUDS sites, to expedite cleanup and make these lands 

available for development sooner. 

While DOD is committed to cleaning up all the remaining sites in a timely manner, many of 

these sites present complex challenges. New and changing standards require DOD to reprioritize 

or reopen previous remediation decisions which delays progress. Additionally, some sites have 

no feasible solution to clean up the contamination, and as a result, the Department is making 

significant investments in environmental technology to identify new potential remediation 

methods. 

8 
45 

Environmental Technolozy 

A key part of DOD's approach to meeting its environmental obligations and improving its 

performance is the pursuit of advances in science and technology. The Department has a long 

record of success developing innovative environmental technologies and quickly transferring 

them from the laboratory to actual use on remediation sites, installations, ranges, depots, and 

other industrial facilities. These same technologies are also now widely used at non-Defense 

sites helping the nation as a whole. 

While the FY 2019 budget request for Environmental Technology overall is $172 million, our 

core efforts arc conducted and coordinated through two key programs the Strategic 

Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP - focused on basic and applied 

research) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP- focused 

on validating more mature technologies to transition them to widespread use). The FY 2019 

budget request includes $77 million for SERDP and $24 million for ESTCP for environmental 

technology demonstrations, with an additional $16 million requested specifically for energy 

technology demonstrations. 

These programs have already achieved demonstrable results and have the potential to increase 

training land availability by developing more effective management strategies for installation 

managers, to reduce costs by developing new ways oftreating groundwater contamination, and 

to reduce the life-cycle costs of multiple weapons systems. In the area of Environmental 

Restoration, we are launching an aggressive initiative to develop more cost-effective treatment 

options for other newly-identified contaminants in addition to addressing Perf1urooctane 

Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). In the critical area of installation energy, 

we are focused on proving technology and solutions that cost-effectively improve the energy 

security of our installations and that protect our energy assets and facilities [rom cyber attacks. 

Environmental Conservation and Compatible Development 

The Department continues to preserve access to the land, water, and airspace needed to support 

our mission. As training, testing, and operational activities expand and new weapons systems 

are introduced, access and use of ranges becomes even more important. The FY 2018 budget 

request for Conservation is $419 million. The Department will invest these funds to maximize 

our flexibility to use lands tor military purposes, as well as addressing incompatible land uses 

beyond our fence lines. 

The Department's lands and waters are vital to readiness, but also support a diverse atTay offish 

and wildlife species, including over 400 that are federally protected under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Managing tor healthy and resilient natural landscapes provides the 

conditions necessary for mission-essential activities, such as reducing fire risks, avoiding 

wildlife conflicts, and improving range and training area conditions. 

Species endangerment and habitat degradation can and does have negative impacts on the 

mission through regulatory protections. In recent years, there has also been a marked increase in 

the number species being petitioned and evaluated for listing under the ESA. We have initiated a 

TIGER TEAM with the Depa11ment of the Interior to develop proactive, collaborative 

conservation initiatives to help prevent additional species of concern to the Department from 

9 
46 

being listed under the ESA, and implementing conservation actions to facilitate species recovery 

and de-listing. As a result of our management, research, and coordination efforts, the 

Department has regained access to important training lands. For example, our continued 

cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and other partners for the 

conservation of the black-capped vireo at Fort Hood has significantly reduced training 

restrictions on 73,000 acres, and the species is currently being evaluated for de-listing. 

Similarly, working with partners in the USFWS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 

California, the US Marine Corps translocated over 1,000 endangered desert tortoises from newly 

withdrawn lands at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms. 

This translocation opened over 160,000 acres for training, filling a critical need to support largescale Marine Expeditionary Battalion (MEB) exercises. Ongoing management and monitoring 

ctrorts will help sustain military readiness. 

We have also realized great success and mission benefits from the unique regulatory provisions 

within the ESA that exclude military lands from critical habitat designations. Building on this 

success, we will continue to work with our partners at the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries 

Service, as well as other Federal, State, and non-governmental partners, to develop new and 

innovative regulatory approaches that streamline processes and provide greater mission 

flexibility. We will also be working to develop more landscape-scale initiatives to better 

capitalize on both our on-installation conservation programs and our off-installation conservation 

partnerships through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (REP I) Program. 

Readiness and Environmental Protection integration Program 

REPI investments protect training, testing, and operational assets of the Department. As 

training, testing, and operational activities increase and new weapons systems are introduced, the 

ability to work with Federal, State, local and private partners to promote compatible 

development, relieve regulatory restrictions, and leverage resources that sustain critical military 

capabilities, becomes even more important. Investing in and taking advantage of current 

opportunities for innovative collaboration is paramount to securing the operational viability of 

local installations and ranges. REPI is able to directly leverage the Department's investments at 

approximately one-to-one with those of our partners, effectively ensuring compatible land uses 

around our installations for half the price. Through REPI's partnering efforts, we can continue to 

support the warfighter, provide value to the taxpayer, and enhance military readiness and 

capabilities. 

To enable DOD to sustain its national defense mission and to ensure military installations do not 

become refuges oflast resort for threatened, endangered, or at-risk species, the Department has 

developed an approach that supports land protection beyond installation boundaries. Under this 

approach, DOD engages with other governmental and non-governmental partners who work with 

private landowners, to develop initiatives and agreements for protecting properties for the 

purposes of avoiding or mitigating regulatory restrictions on training, testing, and operations on 

DOD lands. These efforts ease the on-installation species management burden and reduce the 

possibility of restricted activities, ultimately providing more flexibility for commanders to 

execute their missions. 

10 
47 

A recent, innovative example of this approach is the Department's Gopher Tortoise Conservation 

Crediting Strategy, which the Department, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and three 

State agencies finalized in March of2017. This Strategy seeks to address the conservation of the 

gopher tortoise, a candidate species for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

thereby providing the regulatory predictability that commanders require to effectively operate at 

installations and ranges throughout the southeast. Through the 2018 REPI Challenge, a 

competitive funding process that seeks to cultivate innovative approaches to sustaining military 

capabilities, the Department seeks to fund similar species crediting strategies that will help 

reduce existing or future regulatory restrictions to testing, training, and operational activities. 

Within the $424 million for Conservation, $75 million is directed to the REP! Program. The 

REP! Program is a cost-effective tool to protect the nation's existing training, testing, and 

operational capabilities at a time of decreasing resources. In the last 15 years, REP! partnerships 

have protected more than 510,000 acres of land around 93 installations in 31 States. In addition 

to the tangible benefits of preserving DOD's existing training, testing, and operational assets, 

these efforts have resulted in significant contributions to the economic health and recreational 

opportunities for local communities. 

In addition, DOD, along with the Departments ofthe Interior and Agriculture, continues to 

advance the Sentinel Landscapes Partnership to protect large landscapes where conservation, 

working lands, and national defense interests converge- places defined as Sentinel Landscapes. 

Established in 2013, the Sentinel Landscapes Partnership further strengthens interagency 

coordination and provides taxpayers with the greatest leverage of their funds by aligning Federal 

programs to advance the mutually-beneficial goals of each agency. 

Since the initiation of the Partnership, agencies from the three Departments have designated 

seven locations as Sentinel Landscapes. Some of the military's most important installations 

anchor these Landscapes: Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington; Fort Huachuca in Arizona; 

Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River and the Atlantic Test Ranges in Maryland (Middle 

Chesapeake Sentinel Landscape); Avon Park Air Force Range in Florida; Camp Ripley in 

Minnesota; and two consortia of installations in Eastern North Carolina and Georgia. 

Partnerships at each ofthese locations arc collaborating to preserve, enhance, and protect habitat 

and vital working lands near military installations in order to reduce, prevent, or eliminate 

military test, training, and operational restrictions due to incompatible development. At Joint 

Base Lewis-McChord, Fort Huachuca, and Middle Chesapeake Sentinel Landscapes combined, 

partners have invested more than $86 million between Fiscal Years 2013 and 2016 to advance 

each location's specific military mission and resource conservation goals. Over $17 million of 

the total investment during this period has come from State and local governments, whose 

support for the mission of the Partnership has helped to ensure its success. 

In addition to investments made in these areas, partners at each of the Sentinel Landscapes are 

working collaboratively on innovative approaches to better leverage existing efforts to preserve 

working lands and promote compatible development. In the Middle Chesapeake and Avon Park 

Air Force Range Sentinel Landscapes, partners are working to improve efforts to match REPI 

funds with funding from the other Departments by aligning or merging agency requirements for 

the acquisition and monitoring of easements and land interests. This unprecedented level of 

ll 
48 

interagency cooperation will enable the most efticient use of taxpayer funding to protect military 

capabilities and sustain readiness. 

Department of Defense Energy Programs 

Unlike the Department's MILCON and Environmental Remediation programs, where the budget 

request includes specific line items, our energy programs are subsumed across other accounts, 

yet are critical to our support for military readiness, resiliency, and agility. 

Operational Energy- "Unleash us from the tether of fuel" 

Operational energy is the energy required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces 

and weapons platforms for military operations. While energy is an essential component of our 

warfighting capability, longer operating distances, remote and austere geography, and antiaccessiarea denial threats arc challenging the Department's ability to assure the delivery of fuel. 

As the ability to deliver energy is placed at risk, so too is the Department's ability to deploy and 

sustain forces around the globe. 

Based on his experience in Iraq, then Lt Gen James Mattis, Director of Marine Corps Combat 

Development Command, directed researchers in 2005 to identifY technological and operational 

improvements that would "unleash us from the tether of titel." The operational energy 

investments in the FY 2019 budget request are focused on reducing that "tether" and increasing 

the capability of our forces on land, air, and sea. 

The FY 2019 President's Budget supports a broad set of investments to ensure lethality in 

contested environments through resilient and agile logistics. The Department is investing over 

$2.8 billion to upgrade and procure new equipment, improve propulsion, adapt plans, concepts, 

and wargames to account for increasing risks to logistics and sustainment, and enhance how the 

Department considers energy in developing new capabilities. As the Department responds to 

changing threats in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East, these initiatives are increasing 

capability and decreasing risks for warfighters deployed around the globe. 

Significant initiatives include: 

• Operational Energy Capability Improvement Fund (OEC!F): The Department is requesting 

$40.6 million in ROT &E funding to support operational energy research programs that 

improve military effectiveness. Ongoing initiatives include efforts to improve the fuel 

economy of our tactical vehicle fleets, increase the energy performance of unmanned systems, 

enhance power and thermal management for high pulse power weapons, and wirelessly 

transmitting energy in the far field. Our new starts this year include assessments of 

operational energy science and technology gaps in meeting warfighter requirements over the 

near-, mid-, and far-term. 

• Operational Risk in Wargames: To better plan for the impact of operational energy in 

contingencies, we are actively engaged in supporting war gaming and exercises conducted by 

the Department. Recently, my office participated the Air Force's Global Engagement 

wargame, the Army's Deep Futures 17 wargame, as well as the U.S. Pacific Command 

12 
49 

Logistics Wargame. Operational Energy staff continuously participate in the planning and 

execution of the games, as well as the assessment of game results. With the integration of 

realistic constraints to logistics capacity and threats to our fuel storage and distribution, our 

efforts will improve Department decision-making in operation plans, concept and capability 

development, and program investments. 

• Direct Support to the War fighter: In coordination with the Combatant Commands and the 

Military Services, my otlice works closely with the warfighter to enhance lethality and 

readiness. We invested $4 million in 2017 to adapt Service training and education programs 

in each of the Services to increase operational reach and readiness. We have developed a 

repository to capture operational energy lessons learned and are using the information we 

have gleaned to influence warfighters on the effects of their energy decisions on risk, reach, 

and the readiness of the force. Finally, my team works with AFRICOM, EUCOM, and 

CENTCOM to decrease risk to operations by leading power assessments resulting in 

improved power reliability and reduced fuel consumption, which has direct effects on the 

reduction of vulnerable logistics convoys while providing more operational capability to 

commanders on the ground. 

Installation Energy 

Installation energy is the energy used to power our 500 plus permanent installations here in the 

U.S and overseas, including the fuel used in our 160,000 non-tactical fleet vehicles. Our 

installation energy bill remains our single largest base operating cost. In FY 2017, we spent $3.5 

billion to heat, cool, and provide electricity to our facilities. To reduce this cost, the Department 

is pursuing energy efficiencies through building improvements, new construction, and third party 

financed investments. 

The Department of Defense has identified a top priority to ensure that our military capabilities 

and our ability to protect our Nation's interests are assured through the delivery of reliable and 

resilient power. Given recent federal reports on the vulnerability of our national commercial 

electrical grid to emerging threats, we have reviewed the scope of our efforts to concentrate 

resources on projects which will enhance the resilience of our defense critical and task critical 

assets. These efforts will include the continued development of distributed energy sources which 

can be used to power critical missions regardless of the condition of the commercial grid. 

The Department's FY 2019 budget request includes approximately $726 million for investments 

in energy resilience and energy conservation, most of which are directed to existing buildings. 

This includes $576 million in the Military Components' Operations and Maintenance accounts 

for sustainment and recapitalization projects, which generally involve retrofits to install 

improved lighting, high-elliciency HVAC systems, double-pane windows, energy management 

control systems, and new roofs. The remainder ($150 million) is for the Energy Resilience and 

Conservation Investment Program (ERC!P), a MILCON account which funds projects that 

improve energy resilience and security, save energy and water, reduce DOD's energy costs, and 

most importantly, contribute to mission assurance. 

13 
50 

Energv Resilience and Conservation Investment Program 

Secure access to energy resources on our installations is critical to the execution of the DOD 

mission. The interdependent and vulnerable nature of existing electric power grids supporting 

our installations places risk on our mission capabilities and installation security as well as our 

power projection ability and support to global operations. 

ERCTP is one of the Department's key tools to enable more robust energy security. DOD is 

requesting $150 million for this program for FY 2019, including $113 million for energy 

resilience projects and $37 million for energy conservation projects. These projects include two 

microgrid projects, one at Schriever AFB, CO and one at Camp Williams, UT. In addition, the 

portfolio includes a project at Fort Sill, OK, to constmct a new underground electric service 

connection between an existing substation and a newly constmcted substation. This project will 

support critical missions of our Field and Air Defense Artillery Brigades by eliminating the 

single point of failure at Fort Sill and providing complete redundancy to critical missions in the 

event of a power dismption caused by a natural disaster, physical attack, or other event. 

These resilience projects have a combined Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) of 2.26. In other 

words, every dollar we invest in ERCIP, generates more than two dollars in savings, 

demonstrating that, in most cases, energy resilience does not have to come at a premium price. 

Enentv Resilience Planning and Facilities Energv Management 

In addition to investing in energy resilience projects, the Department is committed to real-world 

scenario-based planning, including using the results of the North American Reliability 

Corporation (NERC)-sponsored GridEx and our installation reliability exercises to drive more 

sophisticated internal testing and investment for resilient infrastructure. This improves our 

installations' security posture, increases our planning eiTectiveness, and ensures our ability to 

continue critical missions in the face of grid power dismptions that could occur due to weather 

events and/or direct physical or cyber attack. We are also working with the Departments of 

Energy and Homeland Security to pinpoint the energy needs of critical defense assets and 

national infrastructure in order to maximize the use of reliable electricity delivered through our 

national power administrations. 

Leveraging strong energy sector relationships of the Critical infrastructure Partnership Advisory 

Council, DOD is engaging with industry and Federal interagency stakeholders to identify 

opportunities to enhance the Department's mission assurance through outside-the-fence 

solutions. Inside the installation fence, DOD is actively improving data sharing between mission 

operators and installation owners to use all available technologies that produce energy resilience 

solutions prioritized by mission, inforn1ed by metrics, and validated by results. Furthermore, the 

Department is working with the Department of Energy to support the early-stage research and 

development of advanced reactor technologies, including small modular reactors and very small 

modular reactors. DOD envisions potential future use for very small reactors at remote operating 

bases and independent strategic sites where an assured source of power aside from the 

commercial power grid is critical for the delivery of national security missions and capabilities. 

Energy resilience includes cybersecurity of Facility-Related Control Systems (FRCS). FRCS 

supporting Defense Critical Infrastructure (DCI) are essential to perform wartighting 

14 
51 

capabilities, execute critical missions, and project power; therefore they are actively threatened 

by adversaries and are highly vulnerable to cyber security attacks and failures. Malware such as 

Stuxnet, BlackEnergy, and Crashoverride specifically targeted FRCS and the Ukraine electric 

grid attack demonstrated the capability to cut power to mission-critical facilities. Risk to 

missions increase as more devices are connected to networks without appropriate security 

protections, and poor cyber hygiene persists by system operators without cybersecurity skills. 

To build a FRCS defense posture, the Department recently hegan developing FRCS 

cybersecurity plans to account for the capabilities and resources required to implement cyber 

security controls on its highest prioritized assets and systems. We will continue to work with the 

Department's Chieflnformation Officer and Principal Cybcr Advisor toward solutions and 

resources ensuring FRCS are defensible, survivable, and resilient to operate and sustain critical 

functions in a cybcr-contcsted environment. 

The Military Departments are continuing to implement updated energy resilience policies, which 

requires plans for energy disruptions and the capability to ensure available, reliable, high-quality, 

and cyber secure power to continuously accomplish our missions from our installations and 

facilities. This includes prioritizing installation missions, conducting assessments, and planning 

and programming energy projects that reduce mission risk by improving energy resilience and 

security. My office also issued an Energy Resilience: Operations, Maintenance and Testing 

Strategy and Implementation Guide last year to provide installation commanders, mission 

operators, and energy managers procedures to ensure that energy generation systems, 

infrastructure, equipment, and fuel are available and reliable to support critical mission 

operations on military installations. We will be releasing further guidance this year that enables 

the Department to identifY and align critical mission operations with critical energy requirements 

and effectively plan outage scenarios, which directly translates energy resilience metrics into 

tangible improvements in power and fuel resiliency for mission assurance. 

The Department's energy efficiency efforts not only contribute to energy resilience by reducing 

critical loads, but also by lowering our base operating costs, which frees up funds for the 

warfighter. Since FY 2005, the Department has continued to reduce facility energy usage, 

freeing up approximately $5.4 billion for higher priorities. To further improve facilities energy 

management, my office issued a policy to require the Military Departments to develop 

Installation Energy Plans (IEP) by the end of FY 2019. These plans directly enable installations 

to plan and carry out investments to enhance mission assurance for critical facilities. 

Smart Financing to Promote Energv Resilience 

The Department has broad alternative financing authorities that can be leveraged to implement 

installation energy initiatives that assist in improving energy resilience and mission assurance at 

our installations at lower cost to the taxpayer. These authorities allow us to use performancebased contracts, power purchase agreements, enhanced use leases, and utilities privatization, 

among others. Using Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) and Utility Energy 

Service Contracts (UESCs), private energy firms or utility companies make energy upgrades at 

our installations and are paid back over time using utility bill savings. Since December 2011, the 

Department has awarded $2.6 billion in performance-based contracts, which are expected to save 

DOD over $4 billion across the contract terms, which are then used to pay for energy 

improvement. 

15 
52 

Another way the Department leverages its financing authorities is non-Federal financing for 

large-scale distributed energy projects. This minimizes DOD's capital investment by leveraging 

smmier contracts that incentivize industry to fund resilient infrastructure improvements. When 

the business case supports it, the DepaJiment is pursuing distributed energy projects with microgrid-ready applications that enable the provision of continuous power in the event of a 

disruption. For example, the Army leased land to Hawaiian Electric Company to construct, own 

and operate an on-site 50 megawatt (MW) multi-fuel/biofuel generation plant at Schofield 

Barracks, Hawaii. The on-site generation system will enhance the resilience of the Oahu 

electrical grid and can provide Schofield Barracks, Field Station Kunia, and Wheeler Atmy Air 

Field with one hundred percent of their electrical power needs in the event of a power grid 

disruption. Additionally, at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kauai, the Navy signed an 

enhanced-use lease with a developer to construct an on-site solar plus battery energy storage 

system that includes infrastructure and contractual rights that allow the Navy to greatly improve 

power quality and reduce costs during normal operations. During a power disruption, this 

project will operate as a micro-grid to provide a reliable and continuous source of backup power, 

directly reducing risk to our mission. 

To maximize opportunities for these types of smati contracts, the Department is standardizing 

project information and streamlining processes to spur investment by the financial services 

industry. DOD is initiating a study to accelerate adoption of energy resilience projects through a 

shared risk rating, which incentivizes third parties to seek opportunities that support DOD 

mission, retains the Department's control over its assets and operations, and improves facility 

contract execution. This will enable low-cost, high-value contracts that make prudent use of 

resources and ensure our military's capability, lethality, and readiness. 

High Interest Programs Supporting the National Defense Strategy 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRA C) 

As stated in the National Defense Strategy, the Department is working to reduce excess property 

and infrastructure. To achieve greater performance and affordability, we must ensure that our 

basing infrastructure is ideally sized to increase the lethality of our forces while minimizing the 

cost of maintaining unneeded capacity, which diverts resources from critical readiness and 

modemization requirements. These efforts will be enhanced by a comprehensive enterprise 

review of how and where we base new forces and capabilities in suppoti of the National Defense 

Strategy. Emerging technologies such as hypersonic systems, autonomous vehicles, and cyber 

torces may require new basing concepts. Bases may also need to be assessed in order to 

optimize the training and deployment of directed energy programs, electronic warfare, and 

artificial intelligence systems. In lieu of another request tor legislation in FY 2019 to authorize 

an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to 

include facility usage optimization review to ensure we have a better accounting of excess 

infrastructure. We also have proposed tor FY 2019 increased efforts to demolish unneeded or 

obsolete facilities over the course of this year. Our collective etTorts will allow us to provide 

Congress with fair, objective, and transparent options for future base realignments and closures, 

which maximize Department resources while also addressing any outstanding Congressional 

!6 
53 

concerns. 

Business Operations Reforms 

In the weeks and months ahead we will relentlessly pursue a host of initiatives that directly 

contribute to the Sec Del's priorities of building a more lethal force, strengthening alliances and 

attracting new partners, as well as reforming the Department for greater perfonnance and 

affordability. In particular, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the Reform 

Management Group to lead the Department's business operations refmm effort. This group, 

which is led by the Chief Management Officer in close coordination with the Director of Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation, consists of nine cross-functional teams, including 

information technology, human resources, community services, contracts, real property, testing 

and evaluation, medical services, logistics and supply, and tinancial management. They are led 

by subject matter experts within their respective fields and call upon their experience and 

relationships within their communities to generate ideas for both immediate and longer term 

business process improvements. 

My Principal Deputy leads the real property management reform team, which is identifying "best 

business practices" throughout the Department and across the entire Federal Govemment that 

can be applied toward increasing resource efTectiveness and reducing operating costs on an 

enterprise-wide basis. Additionally, we are working with local municipalities outside the gates 

of our military installations to gain insights on the "Smart Cities" movement sweeping the nation 

that will enable us to expand the use of public-private and public-public partnerships. Further, 

we are engaging the private sector to identity and, where feasible, adopt "corporate best 

practices" to enhance the mission assurance of our installations made all the more resilient 

through the application of innovative solutions provided by emerging technologies and bolstered 

by the Internet of Things (loT). 

Though the individual teams are responsible for creating opportunities to increase effectiveness, 

efficiency, and performance throughout the Department of Defense, leadership is responsible for 

overseeing the execution of these reforms. As we move forward, the Department will be grading 

the reform ctTorts based on evolving performance and productivity measures, benchmarked from 

private sector best practices, with an enduring focus on increased lethality and improved 

readiness. 

Protecting and Enhancing our Training and Test Range Infrastructure 

In addition to test and training lands owned by the Department of Defense, we have a close, 

cooperative relationship with the Department of the Interior to manage public lands and off shore 

areas for use by DOD. This relationship is crucial to our ability to protect and enhance our test 

and training capabilities across the country. From time to time, we also have a recurring 

requirement to renew public land withdrawals in order to continue military operations. This 

withdrawal renewal process can take up to seven years, significant resources, and extensive manhours to undertake an exhaustive environmental review and other studies for a land use which 

has been in place for decades and is still determined to be of critical use by DOD. We also have 

been identifying locations where the Department would like to expand ranges, which will 

17 
54 

significantly improve the combat credibility of our test and training ranges by otTering 

opportunities for more realistic maneuver, attack, and opposing force capabilities. Offering our 

combatant forces a combined-arms environment more closely resembling what may be 

encountered in a contingency against a peer competitor is a vital element to increasing the 

lethality and readiness of our forces. As such, we are actively engaged with the Department of 

the Interior on improvements to streamline the review process, thereby reducing the time and 

resources required for execution. 

Addressing Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

The investigation and cleanup ofPFOS and PFOA in drinking water where previous Department 

of Defense activities are determined to be the source of the contamination continues to be a top 

priority for my office. PFOS and PFOA are part of a class of man-made chemicals used in many 

industrial and consumer products to make products resist heat, stains, water, and grease. In the 

1970s, DOD began using aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which quickly extinguishes 

petroleum-based fires, but contains PFOS, and in some cases PFOA. 

On May 19,2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued Lifetime Health 

Advisories (LHAs) recommending the individual or combined levels of PFOS and PFOA in 

drinking water be below 70 parts per trillion. 

In response, the Department began testing DOD drinking water systems to identity drinking 

water that exceeded EPA's LHA. DOD has tested all 524 DoD-owned drinking water systems 

worldwide. As of August 31, 2017, twenty-four DOD drinking water systems tested above the 

LHA and DOD has followed the EPA advisory recommendations, to include providing 

consumers bottled water or additional treatment of water. Where DOD purchases drinking 

water, we identified 12 drinking water systems where the results are above the EPA LHA level. 

These installations are working with the drinking water supplier to taking appropriate actions 

(such as providing bottled water) to ensure all personnel receive safe drinking water. 

Although the EPA LHA level is only guidance under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and 

is not an enforceable drinking water standard, DOD considers the EPA's LHA toxicity 

information when assessing risk to human health under its cleanup program. DOD followed a 

comprehensive approach to identify installations where we have stored or used AFFF containing 

PFOS or PFOA and suspect there was a release that may impact drinking water. 

As of August 2017, DOD has identified 401 active and BRAC installations where there are one 

or more areas with a known or suspected release of PFOS or PFOA groundwater that may impact 

drinking water off an installation. The Military Departments are following the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process. The DoD 

Components then determine whether there is exposure through drinking water and, if there is 

exposure, the Departments' priority is to cut off the drinking water exposure. As of August 

2017, the Military Departments have sampled over 2,600 groundwater wells for PFOS/PFOA (on 

90 installations) with 1,621 sampling results exceeding the EPA LHA. The Military 

Departments will prioritize sites for further action using a risk-based approach. The 

Department's fundamental premise in site prioritization is "worse first," meaning the DoD 

18 
55 

Components will address sites that pose a greater potential risk to human health and the 

environment first. These known or suspected PFOS and/or PFOA release areas are in various 

stages of assessment, investigation, and cleanup. Throughout the CERCLA process, the 

Department will work in concert with regulatory agencies and communities, and will share 

information in an open and transparent manner. Now that we have an initial inventory, it may 

take a few years to determine the potential cleanup costs as we collect information on the nature 

and extent of the releases. As DOD moves through the CERCLA process, it will be necessary to 

understand the regulatory cleanup standards for PFOS and PFOA. 

We are also taking steps to remove and replace AFFF containing PFOS from our supply system. 

In January 2016, the Department issued a policy requiring Service-specific risk management 

procedures to prevent uncontrolled land-based AFFF releases during maintenance, testing, and 

training activities. The policy also requires the removal and proper disposal of AFFF containing 

PFOS from the local supplies for non-shipboard use where practical. Each of the Military 

Departments is taking actions to remove AFFF containing PFOS from the supply system. 

In addition, SERDP is addressing environmental issues associated with PFOS and PFOA and the 

use ofAFFF. SERDP researchers arc developing technologies to quantify and remediatc these 

substances in both soil and groundwater. SERDP is also researching fluorine-free substitutes for 

AFFF which meet the military's stringent performance requirements. In FY 2019, ESTCP will 

initiate demonstrations of existing replacement AFFF formulations at DOD facilities to 

determine if their performance can meet DOD's needs. 

Finally, we are working with EPA and States to address the many challenges that have been 

identified since the EPA issued the LHA. Likewise, we are working with the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to support the effort to conduct the exposure 

assessment and health study required by the FY 2018 NDAA. Addressing PFOS and PFOA is a 

priority for the Department, and we are committed to finding an altemative that meets critical 

mission requirements while protecting human health. 

Focus on the Indo-Pacific Region 

Guam and the Commonwealth o[the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI! 

Our posture in the Pacific must be capable of persistent engagement with all countries in the 

Indo-Pacific. The National Defense Strategy recognizes that China is leveraging military 

modemization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to 

reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage. As the most forward U.S. territories in the 

Pacific region, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northem Mariana Islands (CNMI) are 

critical to countering China's influence. To that end, the Department's has three ongoing 

initiatives in Guam/CNMI: the Marine Corps relocation from Okinawa to Guam; a CNMl Joint 

Military Training (CJMT) proposal to develop ranges and training areas on Tinian and Pagan 

Islands; and the establishment of a Divert and Exercise Airfield on the north side of Tinian 

International Airport. 

The relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, which is estimated to cost $8.7 billion and 

involves 5,000 Marines organized as a Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), supports the 

19 
56 

Department's restructured posture in the Indo-Pacific region and our alliance with Japan. It will 

better align our forward-deployed forces to enable us to respond quickly and effectively to any 

contingency threatening regional security, to ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian assistance in 

response to natural disasters, and to provide a foundation of stability for the continued free 

movement of trade, investment, and commerce. It will also ensure that we fulfill our 

commitments to the Government of Japan and the Japanese people to reduce the number of 

Marines on Okinawa. 

The relocation is expected to achieve initial support capability (ISC) in 2024, contingent on 

affordability and environmental analyses. The FY 2019 budget request includes $266 million in 

MILCON and Planning & Design funding, including $143 million for a multi-purpose machine 

gun range on Guam. Last year, the Department awarded approximately $750 million in 

construction projects, including the foundational $309 million utilities and site improvement 

project for the future Marine Corps Base Guam. Approximately $500 million oftbese contracts 

come from Japaucse-providcd funding. Overall, the Government of Japan bas committed $3.1 

billion to fund this relocation and bas already transferred $1.5 billion of its commitment to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

In addition to ranges constructed on Guam for the Marine relocation, the Department is 

proposing a $910 million initiative to develop ranges and training areas in the CNMI to increase 

joint military training capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. The Marine Corps is leading this 

initiative on behalf of the U.S. Pacific Command. While the Marines relocating to Guam will 

use the proposed CNMI ranges and training areas, these two initiatives have independent utility 

and are being studied under separate environmental analyses. 

The Air Force is continuing efTmis to establish a divert capability tor up to 12 tankers on the 

north side ofTinian International Airport, at an estimated cost of $375 million. It will also be 

used for humanitarian assistance staging, exercises and other aircraft support activities, 

significantly improving the Air Force's ability to conduct strategic airlift operations and provide 

humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. For FY 2019, the budget request includes $51 

million to construct a cargo pad and maintenance facility. The CNMI's Commonwealth Ports 

Authority approved the Air Force's Airport Layout Plan in January and forwarded it to the 

Federal Aviation Administration for final review and approval, allowing us to kick ofTland lease 

negotiations. Those efforts are on-going and we anticipate completion sometime later this year. 

Public lnfi·astructure in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNM[) 

U.S. military initiatives arc competing with Chinese promises of significant investments in new 

casinos and hotel construction. As such, public infrastructure assistance is a key component of 

our strategy to foster commitment and cooperation between the Department and the CNMI. 

The Mariana Islands play a critical role in providing a platform for maintaining a significant 

forward presence in the Indo-Pacific region. However, many parts of the CNMI's infrastructure 

are more than30 years old, and some portions date back to the end of World War II. The 

tropical climate and typhoons, combined with system age and limited maintenance, have 

degraded the infrastructure even further. To address the mutual requirement for adequate 

transportation inJ!-astructure, DOD has proposed to partner with the local government and the 

20 
57 

local community in the immediate term to carry out civilian infrastructure assistance projects as 

training activities for military engineering units a win-win for DOD and the community. For 

FY 2019, the Department is requesting $10.5 million in investments via the Office of Economic 

Adjustment to improve public infrastructure on Tin ian. Providing tangible improvements to the 

local community not only supports our military activities on the island, it demonstrates that DOD 

is committed to the CNMI's long-term economic growth, advancing Secretary Mattis' goal of 

strengthening partnerships. 

Workforce Issues in Guam and Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Is! andY (CNMI! 

Stable economics in Guam and CNMI, underpinned by a sustained labor pool, arc critical to the 

Department's ability to implement the National Defense Strategy and achieve national security 

objectives in the Indo-Pacific region. However, both Guam and the CNMI are having a difficult 

time sustaining their workforce due to geographic isolation and a small population base. The 

initial cost just to get to Guam and or the CNMI is generally prohibitive for the type of laborer 

needed, and people from the U.S. mainland arc historically hesitant to move so far ftom family 

and stateside conveniences. These issues will only get worse when Guam's/CNMI's exemption 

from the otherwise applicable nationwide cap for H-2B nonimmigrant workers and the CNMIonly transitional worker (CW-1) program expires on December 31,2019. Without long-term 

access to a foreign labor pool, the economies of these isolated U.S. territories will suffer and the 

cost of ongoing defense projects could skyrocket beyond their current estimates. 

Although Section 1049 of the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act provided 

some short-term relief~ the Department believes a long-term solution recognizing Guam and the 

CNMI's unique challenges is necessary. 

Office of Economic Adjustment 

The request of$70 million for the Defense Office ofEconomic Adjustment directly funds 

programs to support and preserve our installations and ranges, including collaborative studies 

with local communities to ensure compatible civilian development. We also use these funds to 

study and strengthen the resiliency of supply chains to remain responsive to the needs of our 

industrial base through t1uctuations in procurement activity. The Office is an essential interface 

to promote constructive and mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships with local 

communities, States, and ten·itories that provide critical support to our warfighters. These 

partnerships have fostered an unprecedented level of support and preservation of military 

installations by States and communities who protect our bases as regional economic engines. 

The Office also provides funds to ensure that adequate planning and implementation occurs in 

the expansion of public services and investments to support our existing and growing missions. 

Maintaining support for this Office is crucial to the continued ability of our installations to safely 

and securely operate while responding to t1uctuations in military activities, and keeping faith 

with our service members and families by addressing quality oflife issues in local defense 

communities. 

21 
58 

Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse 

The Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse is the primary office 

within the Department of Defense charged with the mission to support the expansion of 

commercial energy development and power transmission in the United States in areas and using 

methods that are compatible with preservation and safe operation of military activities and 

capabilities. The Department appreciates the statutory changes made by Congress to Title 49 of 

the United States Code. The revised authority increases the public visibility of DoD impacts 

from specific projects, increases State engagement in the impact review process, improves 

DoD's ability to protect its missions from incompatible energy development, and strengthens 

installation commanders' ability to highlight potential impacts. 

As a result of Congressional direction and our own efforts, we arc effectively evaluating the 

mission impact of commercial energy projects to identity and implement affordable and feasible 

mitigation solutions where DOD missions might be adversely impacted. In 2017 the Department 

reviewed over 4,200 applications for energy projects that were forwarded by the FAA, which 

nearly matched the high number from 2016. Due to the extensive collaboration between our 

office, local communities, States, and energy developers, no commercial energy project reviewed 

in 2017 rose to the level of an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's FY 20 19 budget request for DOD 

programs supporting installations, energy, and the environment. We appreciate Congress' 

continued support for our enterprise and look forward to working with you as you consider the 

budget request. 

22 
59 

Lucian Niemeyer 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment 

Mr. Lucian Niemeyer was appointed by the President as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Energy, Installations, and Environment on August 2, 2017. In this position, he provides 

budgetary, policy and management oversight ofthe Department of Defense's real property 

portfolio which encompasses 28 million acres, over 500 installations with over 500,000 buildings 

and structures valued at a trillion dollars. Within this portfolio, he is responsible for enhancing 

the Department's planning, programs, and military capabilities to provide mission assurance 

through military construction, facilities investment, environmental restoration and compliance, 

installation and operational energy resilience, occupational safety, and defense community 

assistance programs. Mr Niemeyer is also responsible for the policy development and execution 

of initiatives concerning utilization, consolidation, and optimization of domestic and overseas 

installations. 

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Niemeyer worked in the private sector as the founder of The 

Niemeyer Group, LLC. He also served from 2003 to 2014 on the professional staff of the United 

States Senate Committee on Armed Services where he was responsible for a wide portfolio of 

national security programs, including military installations and ranges, world-wide basing, 

energy programs, facility privatization initiatives, military budgets, unit readiness, industrial 

base, and environmental issues. He also provided oversight for military logistics and sustainment 

programs as well as Air Force and Navy acquisition programs. 

Mr. Niemeyer is an Air Force veteran, retiring in 2008 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel with 15 

years of active and 5 years of Air National Guard service working within the installation 

engineering and military plans community. 

Mr. Niemeyer holds a Bachelor of Architecture, from the University of Notre Dame, a Master of 

Business Administration from The George Washington University, and a Master ofNational 

Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. 
60 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED IW THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS L. BAYER 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF NAVY 

(ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

of the 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMlTTEE 

18 APRIL 2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
61 

Good morning Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo, and members of 

the Subcommittee. It is an honor to sit before you today with my fellow Service 

members to testify on the readiness of the Department of the Navy's Energy, 

Installations and Environment (EI&E) portfolio. As you know, Secretary Mattis 

directed that the Department of Defense increase readiness, specifically, to produce a 

more lethal and ready force. In support of that direction, Secretary Spencer focused 

Department of the Navy efforts toward taking care of our people, improving our 

processes, and creating greater capabilities in every area of the Navy and Marine Corps 

fighting force. My remarks will cover how we are aligning with this direction, first in 

the area of our safety program, and then regarding our facilities, energy and 

environmental programs. 

investing in Our People 

The strength of the Navy-Marine Corps team is derived from our outstanding 

Sailors, Marines, their families and the civilians and contractors who support them. This 

represents a community of over 800,000 people (Active Duty, Reserve and civilians) 

each moving about and doing their jobs every day. Because we care about the safety and 

health of each and every person on our team, it is my goal, and that of Secretary Spencer, 

to keep them safe and avoid preventable mishaps as they perform their jobs. 

We are using technology to enhance our ability to prevent mishaps and working 

to reach an objective of zero mishaps. The Risk Management Information initiative will 

comprise a streamlined mishap reporting system, with database consolidation, state-ofthe-art analytical innovations, and data capabilities to improve our predictive abilities and 

in turn, do better to keep Sailors and Marines more sate. Moving forward, I am 

committed to leveraging the best practices of industry, such as those recognized by 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Voluntary Protection Program. The 

Department of the Navy has 75 Commands currently pursuing or have achieved the 

Voluntary Protection Program "Star" status; that is, they achieved injury and illness rates 

at or below the national average of their respective industries. I am working to increase 
62 

the number of commands in the VPP program to create a stronger culture of safety 

because a safer workplace will create a more efficient, effective and ready force. 

Installations- An Integral Component of Readiness 

Our forces arc aligning to the 2018 National Security Strategy and the 2018 

National Defense Strategy which require us to sustain and expand our competitive 

advantage. To do this, we must modernize key capabilities, prioritize speed of 

delivery, continuously adapt, deliver performance and adopt proven business 

innovation. That means we must modernize our facilities to better deliver the 

competitive advantage that the National Defense Strategy requires. 

To ensure we win the Great Power Completion, our facilities must operate more 

efficiently and be equipped with the latest cutting-edge technology, like smart and 

urban technologies, that will deliver capabilities faster, smarter, cheaper and in a more 

efficient manner than our adversaries. 

Congress has given us a start in the FY18 Omnibus Bill, and with your support 

for the President's FYI9 budget request, we can begin to address our critical facilities 

and infrastructure needs. This year's $14.78 budget request includes a 4% increase 

across appropriations to operate, maintain and recapitalize our installation 

infrastructure and support functions. 

Military Construction (MIL CON) 

The Navy's $1.9078 PB19 MlLCON request includes 33 projects, planning and 

design (P&D) and unspecitied minor construction (UMC). Nearly half of the MILCON 

program ($824M) is in direct support of new platfonns. 

The $906M Marine Corps' PBI9 MJLCON request includes 16 projects, planning 

and design (P&D) and unspecified minor construction (UMC). This supports new 

capabilities and platforms, relocation and consolidation of forces, and meeting of safety 

and environmental mandates. 

2 
63 

Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization CFSRM) 

To support warfighting readiness and capabilities, the President's FY19 budget 

request is $3.08 to sustain infrastructure for Navy and Marine Corps at 80 and 81 

percent, respectively, of the Department of Defense (DoD)'s Facilities Sustainment 

ModeL 

The Department has over 90,000 buildings, over 50,000 structures and nearly 

20,000 utility assets - in total, over 160,000 facility assets on its 95 installations; an 

inventory that represents over $300 billion dollars in plant replacement value. It is a 

large "house" that we are tending. 

Over the last decade, the Department of the Navy took risk with reduced 

infrastructure funding, capital investments and installation operations to afiord 

warfighting readiness. These lower resource levels have reduced many facility 

conditions to a point of no return. For example, I am aware of a banacks that has 

withstood this under-investment for so long, that now rather than asking tor funds to 

repair it, we are forced to request funds to replace the barracks because the 

underinvestment has left us with structures that are not worth "repair." We must get 

ahead of facilities management with a commitment to perform necessary preventive 

maintenance and avoid these kinds of situations. It is wasteful of the taxpayer's 

dollars; it's demoralizing for Sailors and Marines to live in such poor conditions, and 

with your help, we can do better. 

I ask tor your help to fund our full Budget request for the needed maintenance and 

repair, through the Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization accounts so 

that that we avoid waiting too long and pay more for these repairs. With steady, stable, 

predictable funding, we can reconstitute and modemize our facilities and keep these costs 

at their minimum. 

3 
64 

Base Operating Support (BOS) 

The FY19 BOS request of $7.95B has remained largely flat since the Budget 

Control Act in 2013. Base operations at Navy and Marine Corps installations are funded 

to the acceptable standards necessary to continue mission-essential services. We have 

enforced low service levels for most installation functions (administrative support, base 

vehicles, grounds maintenance, janitorial and facility planning) in order to maintain our 

commitment to warfighting operations, security, family support programs and child 

development. These measures, while not ideal, are necessary given budget tradeoffs. 

Familv Housing 

The family housing budget request of $419M provides for Navy and Marine 

Corps family housing operation, maintenance, renovation and construction requirements 

that support recruitment and retention of Sailors and Marines. The budget supports 

suitable, safe and affordable housing; it includes the operation, maintenance, 

recapitalization, leasing and privatization oversight of the Department's family housing 

worldwide. This will replace 96 homes on NA VSUPPACT Andersen for Navy, Air Force 

and Army families and will support renovation of 44 Junior Enlisted family mid-rise 

housing units at MCAS Iwakuni. The Department continues to rely on the private sector 

as the primary source of housing for Sailors, Marines and their families. 

Installation Energy 

Regarding installation energy, the Navy appreciates the changes in the FY18 

NOAA that gave us more authority to consider resilience in addition to efficiency in our 

investment decision. The Department's installation energy security program is f()cused 

on readiness and resiliency. As such, we are targeting approximately $410M of private 

capital using Energy Savings Perfonnance Contracts (ESPC) and Utility Energy Service 

Contact (UESC) authorities to leverage savings to pay for resiliency improvements to our 

existing infrastructure. In addition, the Department is making the investments required to 

support energy program management and targeted restoration and modernization funds 

set aside for high priority and quick payback energy projects. Additionally, we are 

grateful for the $82M in ERCIP (Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment 

4 
65 

Program) funding that will improve installation readiness at five locations (Indian Head, 

MD; San Clemente, CA; Great Lakes, IL; Isa Air Base, Bahrain; and Albany, GA) and 

move us toward secure, reliable, and cost effective utility and facility operations. 

Environmental Planning and Protection 

Sustaining realistic training and testing capabilities and the ability to operate 

unimpeded off our coasts are critical to warfighting readiness and lethality. Our ranges, 

both offshore and on land, are highly susceptible to encroachment from a variety of 

sources. While we strive for compatibility, we must ensure our critical military training 

and testing ranges endure and are not further diminished from encroachment, and 

therefore we ask for your support of the Department's FY 2019 Readiness and 

Environmental Protection Integration (REP!) program request. 

Regarding environmental planning and compliance, the Navy will continue to 

build upon our strong relationships with regulatory and community partners to advance 

the Department's mission along with our commitment to environmental and human 

health protection. Our FY19 request also maintains our robust Environmental 

Restoration program at former and current Navy properties. 

Environmental readiness is an important enabler of the 2018 National Defense 

Strategy. We are focused on environmental planning (NEPA) in support of home-basing 

of key platforms such as EA-!SG Growler training at Whidbey Island, Washington, 

planning for our at-sea ranges worldwide and for establishment of infrastructure and 

training facilities that support the Pacific rebalance on Guam and in the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

As an example of executing our mission and stewardship responsibilities, we will 

continue to monitor the over 1,000 desert tortoises that were relocated in 2017 to support 

Marine Corps air and ground training at Twentynine Palms, California. To maintain our 

environmentally responsible activities at sea, we will continue to be leaders in ocean 

research by studying marine mammal response to sound in water. We will also continue 

5 
66 

to work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure all compliance 

requirements for the new Marine Corps Base on Guam are implemented and with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service to obtain necessary authorizations that ensure 

uninterrupted training in the open ocean. 

The Navy and Marine Corps remain committed to natural and cultural resource 

stewardship which supports mission readiness and will prioritize implementation of our 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans and Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plans across the Department as a means of facilitating environmental 

readiness. These plans are a "win-win" that further conservation goals while 

simultaneously relieving potential encroachment threats that would hamper warfighting 

readiness. 

Environmental- Emerging Contaminants 

We continue to make progress on our efforts to clean up the emerging 

contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). We 

have implemented a proactive and comprehensive strategy of: 1) sampling on- and offbase drinking water, 2) providing alternate drinking water where necessary, and 3) 

conducting site investigations and cleanup of soil and groundwater. As of the end of 

2017, we prioritized and sampled the most at risk wells, eliminated exposures where 

found, and ensured our neighbors and Department of Defense personnel are receiving 

safe drinking water. We are grateful for the $55M in additional Congressional funding 

provided in FY18 to accelerate our cleanup response at our active and closed installations 

and surrounding communities. 

Conclusion 

The Department of the Navy continues to carefully and deliberately manage its 

portfolio to advance Navy and Marine Corps readiness and to improve the safety and 

quality of life for Sailors and Marines. The Department's FY 19 request makes needed 

investments to support our people and our infrastructure. This budget also preserves 

6 
67 

access to critically important training and test ranges and promotes environmentally 

prudent and safe actions while challenging us to more energy resilient infrastructure. 

I look forward to working with Congress to deliver an innovative and resilient 

program that supports mission success for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 

the most formidable expeditionary fighting force the world has ever known. With your 

help, we will work to ensure our Navy and Marine Corps support the National Defense 

Strategy and have the ability to project superior naval power across the globe. 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and look forward to your 

questions. 

7 
68 

Phyllis L. Bayer 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) 

2/20/2018- Present 

On Feb. 20, 2018, Mrs. Phyllis L. Bayer was appointed Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy (Energy, 

Installations and Environment) (ASN (EI&E), following her confirmation by the Senate. Her 

responsibilities include oversight and policy for Navy and Marine Corps facilities sustainment 

and restoration and modernization; military construction; utilization and disposal of real 

property; environmental protection, planning and restoration ashore and afloat; conservation of 

natural resources; the timely completion of base realignment and closures; and safety and 

occupational health. 

Mrs. Bayer most recently served in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness as Chief of Staff. As Chief of Staff, she managed policy development that shaped 

and affected the readiness of over 2.4 million members of the U.S. Anned Forces. Mrs. Bayer 

previously served as Program Manager in the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, 

Executive Director of the Defense Business Board and Senior Policy Analyst for OSD Test and 

Evaluation. Mrs. Bayer is a recipient of the OSD Meritorious Civilian Service Medal, the White 

House Oftice of Science and Technology Policy Recognition Medallion, OSD Exceptional 

Civilian Service Award, OSD Award for Excellence, Department of the Army Superior Civilian 

Service Award and the Anny Achievement Medal. 

Mrs. Bayer is a 1986 graduate of the University of Southern Mississippi where she received a 

Bachelor of Science in Geology. She holds a Master of Science in Geology from the University 

of Southern Mississippi, a Master of Science in Administration from Central Michigan 

University and a Master in Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College, 

Fort Leslie J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 
69 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TTVES 

SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2019 ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

BUDGET REQUEST 

STATEMENT OF: THE HONORABLE JOl-IN W. HENDERSON 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR 

INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

APRIL 18,2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
70 

Executive Summary 

Air Force installations are critical, integral components to support the priorities of the Air 

f'orce to build a more lethal and ready force, strengthen alliances and partnerships, and deliver 

greater, more affordable performance with the right size and mix of agile capabilities to compete, 

deter, and win. Ready and resilient Air Force installations send a strategic message to our 

adversaries and allies, signaling commitment to our friends and a credible deten·ent to our foes 

that we can defend the homeland, own the high ground, and project power anywhere, and any 

time in partnership with our allies. 

The Air Force Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget (FY19 PB) request for infrastructure, 

totaling $8.88 billion, is displayed below in Table I. Numbers include Air Force, Air Force 

Reserve, and Air National Guard and exclude OCO. 

Table I 

' .···· .FYi8' .... . 

FY18.1'B1 Enl.cte\1 FY19PB1 % Chang~ troln ··.· .· (mill~on$) (milliOn$) (million$) 11¥18 PB 

MILCON1 $1,964 $2,043 $1,906 -3% 

New Weapon Systems 805 668 887 10% 

Existing Mission 767 903 494 -36% 

CCMD 219 204 230 5% 

Program Support 173 268 295 71% 

FSRM 3796 3934 3364 -11% 

FS 2737 2737 2946 8% 

RM 1058 1197 418 -61% 

Facility Ope rations 2400 2400 2451 2% 

Demolition 21 21 30 41% 

Housing 403 403 396 -2% 

O&M 318 318 317 0% 

Construction 85 85 78 -8% 

BRAC 54 54 53 -2% 

Environmental 703 762 680 -3% 

Environmental Quality 409 409 383 -6% 

Environmental Restoration 294 353 297 lo/() 

Total $9,341 $9,617 $8,879 -5% 

Note 1: Automated Budget Interactive Data Environment System (ABIDES) Data 

Note 2: Base only 

1 

. 

% Chlll!JI<' fi;O~ FYts Enaetil\1 

-7% 

33% 

-45% 

13% 

10% 

-14% 

8% 

-65% 

2% 

42% 

-2% 

0"/o 

-8% 

-2% 

-II% 

-6% 

-16% 

-8% 
71 

As in FY 18, the FY 19 PB continues to reflect a delicate balance across capability and 

capacity demands. In the FY 19 PB, the requirements associated with National Defense Strategy 

priorities to restore readiness and modernize, in order to build a more lethal force, continue to 

necessitate difficult choices across the portfolio. Consequently, the Air Force has chosen to 

accept risk in the infrastructure accounts in order to accelerate modernization and restore full 

readiness by allocating resources to high priority wariighting requirements by deferring 

infrastructure sustainment, restoration, modernization, and recapitalization needs. 

In an effort to minimize these impacts, we are developing an Installation Health 

Assessment tool to assist us in establishing predictive metrics for facility conditions and bettertargeting limited facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization (FSRM) funds to the most 

critical projects in a timely manner. Additionally, we are looking at ways to reform how we 

currently do business by finding economies of scale in this portfolio to significantly reduce the 

cost and time required to procure these types of projects and expand our overall capacity to 

deliver them when funds arc available. 

2 
72 

Introduction 

Ready and resilient Air Force installations are critical, integral components to support the 

priorities of the Air force to build a more lethal and ready force, strengthen alliances and 

partnerships, and deliver greater, more affordable performance with the right size and mix of 

agile capabilities to compete, deter, and win. Installations, comprised of both built and natural 

infrastructure, serve as the power projection and readiness-building platforms for the Air force's 

enduring core missions. Ready and resilient Air force installations send a strategic message to 

our adversaries and allies, signaling commitment to our friends and a credible dete!Tent to our 

foes that we can defend the homeland, own the high ground, and project power anywhere, and 

any time in partnership with our allies. 

The total Air Force Fiscal Year 2019 President's Budget (FY19 PB) request for 

infrastructure totals $8.88 billion. This funds military construction (MILCON), facility 

sustainment, restoration and modernization, housing, legacy Base Realignment and Closure 

cleanup and our environmental programs. As in FY 18, the FY 19 PB attempts to balance 

demands for the capability and capacity needed to restore readiness and increase lethality. This 

balance is essential to ensuring we arc best postured to field a ready force today while 

concurrently modernizing for tomorrow, an imperative in a dangerous world with violent 

extremism and increasingly capable near-peer aggressors. Consequently, the Air Force has 

chosen to accept risk in the infrastructure accounts in order to allocate resources to high priority 

wartighting readiness and modernization requirements. Unfortunately, deferring these 

investments will likely increase sustainment and restoration costs over the long-term. 

3 
73 

Military Construction 

The dynamic global posture and advanced weapon systems required in today's complex 

security environment demand that our limited military construction budget prioritize efforts to 

provide infrastructure for new weapon system bed down, acquire research, development, test and 

evaluation infrastructure, and support Combatant Commander priorities. Thus the FY\9 PB 

funds only our most critical, degraded existing-mission infrastructure. 

New Mission Intrastructure 

The FY 19 PB request continues the work to modemize our fleet and increase our 

lethality. This includes infrastructure investment in Air Force weapons system acquisition and 

modemization programs, including the F-35A, KC-46A, MQ-9 and Presidential Aircraft 

Recapitalization programs. Achieving initial and full operational capacity depends not only on 

the acquisition of the aircraft themselves, but also on delivery of the necessary hangars, 

maintenance and training facilities, airfields, and fuel infrastructure. Included in our MILCON 

budget is funds for KC-46 flying training unit infrastructure and depot maintenance capability at 

two locations, the Formal Training Unit (FTU) at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and the depot 

maintenance activity at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Also included is infrastructure to bed 

down the F-35A at four locations, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, 

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, and Royal Air Force (RAF) Lakenheath, United Kingdom; and 

in preparation for the Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization, funding for the second increment of 

the hangar and maintenance complex and relocation of the hazardous cargo pad and explosive 

ordnance disposal range at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Finally, our new mission MILCON 

budget also includes projects at three locations, Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, Shaw Air Force 

4 
74 

Base, South Carolina, and Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. These facilities will increase 

the capacity and resilience of the MQ-9 platform and the Airmen who operate them. 

Research. Development. Test & Evaluation lntrastructure 

Our ability to innovate and modernize depends on our Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation infrastructure. Thus, in the FYI9 PB, we fund the construction of new, state-of-the 

art laboratory space at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratory a 

Federally Funded research and development center focused on solving problems with direct 

national security implications. Additionally, our budget includes requests for a Cyber Test 

facility at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, postured for FYI9 execution, and two other projects to 

establish Joint Simulation Environment capabilities at Edwards Air Force Base and Nellis Air 

Force Base. Lastly, given the National Defense Strategy's call to "accelerate our modernization 

programs and devote additional resources ... to solidifY our competitive advantage," the Air Force 

is excited to leverage new authorities to meet our current and future research, development, and 

test range infrastmcture needs. 

Combatant Command Jn(i-astructure 

This budget request includes funding to address Combatant Command requirements in 

U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), U.S. Strategic 

Command (USSTRATCOM), and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). These 

investments set the stage tor future investment across our Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP). 

We remain committed to efforts initiated by the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) 

in FY 15 to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies and partners in Europe of the 

United States' commitment to our security and territorial integrity. The FYI9 European 

Deterrence Initiative (EDI) MILCON program builds on FYI8 efforts to set deterrence 

5 
75 

conditions in the European theater, and it continues our support tor the joint, allied team to 

quickly respond to any and all aggressive actors in the region. The FY19 ED! MJLCON 

Overseas Contingency Operations investment continues the USEUCOM Commander's FY17 

and FY18 efforts to improve infrastructure and enhance prepositioning options for airfields, 

training, and storage areas in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Norway, Poland and Slovakia, while expanding the program in Germany, Norway, 

Slovakia and the United Kingdom. It also includes construction and planning and design 

funding to support future efforts in the European theater. 

Recognizing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region are high and our presence is cmcial to 

long-term regional stability, our FY19 budget request includes infrastructure investments in four 

countries and ten·itories in the Pacific, including our Pacitlc Divert initiative in the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas to enhance our partnerships and regional resilience in 

support of Asia-Pacific Stability Initiatives. Our budget request also includes construction, 

planning, and design funding in support of power projection facilities at our hubs in Central 

Command, investments that will ensure the necessary infrastmcture is in place to continue 

prosecuting operations against the Islamic State and other state and non-state violent extremist 

organizations in the region, and infrastmcture investments that will continue to strengthen our 

Nation's Nuclear Command, Control and Communications network. Lastly, the Air Force is 

responsible for providing globally positioned infrastructure to support geographically dispersed 

operations, infrastructure that does not always fit neatly into one or more of the geographic 

combatant commander's area of responsibility. For this reason, our FY19 budget includes funds 

for study, planning, and design of infrastructure in these global seams, with specific 

6 
76 

concentration on infrastructure needed to enable effective response across multiple Combatant 

Commands in adjacent areas of responsibility. 

Existing Mission lnfi-astructure 

Our budget request includes iunds to address our most urgent military construction 

existing-mission recapitalization needs, including over $100 million for Air National Guard and 

Air Force Reserve projects. 

Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization 

In FY19, the Air Force requests funding for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and 

Modernization (FSRM), that is approximately 1 I percent less than our FYI8 PB request 

(including the Consolidated Appropriations Request). Facilities Sustainment, funded at 80 

percent of the OSD modeled requirement, is approximately eight percent higher than the FY18 

budget, while Restoration and Modernization is 61 percent lower. Through the application of 

asset management principles, the Air Force's remarkably constrained FYI 9 FSRM request 

continues to focus limited resources on "mission critical, worst first" facilities, prioritizing 

requirements with the highest consequence and probability of failure. The Air Force continues 

to accept risk across the FSRM portfolio. In an effort to mitigate this risk, we are developing an 

Installation Health Assessment tool to assist us in establishing predictive metrics for facility 

conditions and better-targeting limited FSRM funds to the most critical projects in a timely 

manner. Additionally, we are looking at ways to find economics of scale in this portfolio in 

order to significantly reduce the overhead cost and time required to procure these types of 

projects and expand our overall capacity to deliver them when funds are available. 

7 
77 

Housing 

To ensure that we are postured to continue taking care of our Airmen and their families, 

the FY19 President's Budget requests needed funds for military family housing operations and 

maintenance, and military family housing construction. There is no better way for us to 

demonstrate our commitment to service members and their families than by providing quality 

housing on our installations. With 32 housing projects at 63 bases, and an end- state of 53,239 

homes, the Air Force family housing is privatized at nearly all stateside locations, including 

Alaska and Hawaii. We are now focused on long- term oversight and accountability of this 

portfolio. In FY19, we will be responsible for managing approximately 15,200 governmentowned family housing units at our overseas installations,. Our Family Housing Operations and 

Maintenance request funds our efforts to sustain and improve adequate government- owned 

units, and our Family Housing Construction request improves 130 government- owned single 

family and duplex units on Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan and corrects neighborhood 

parking deficiencies at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom. Combined, these 

Operations and Maintenance and Military Construction funds will ensure we continue to support 

the housing needs of our Airmen, their families, and the Army, Navy and Marine Corps 

teammates we house overseas. 

Similarly, our renewed focus on the investment strategy for dormitories will sustain the 

Depmiment of Defense goal of90 percent adequate dormitory rooms for permanent party 

unaccompanied Airmen, while continuing to support Airmen in formal training facilities. The 

FYJ9 PB Family Housing Construction request includes two dormitories suppmiing the F-35 

bed down. The first is a student training dormitory at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and the 

second a dormitory at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom. 

8 
78 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRA C) 

The FY19 PB request funds environmental restoration efforts at former installation 

locations previously closed through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Our 

BRAC cleanup program focuses on protecting human health and the environment through 

projects that address legally enforceable requirements and transfer acreage and achieve 

beneficial reuse of property. The Air Force has transfen·ed more than 98% ofBRAC acreage; 

we plan to complete transfer of the final seven acres ofBRAC 2005 properties in the next year, 

and expect to complete transfer from all previous BRAC rounds by 2024. Even with the cost of 

environmental clean-up, closing 40 Air Force installations through five BRAC rounds has 

resulted in billions in net savings. Furthermore, BRAC provides the opportunity to look across 

the enterprise and strategically reposition forces to improve lethality, readiness, and efficiency. 

After reviewing the new National Defense Strategy, the Air Force will assess its required force 

structure and posture to define future infrastructure requirements. 

Air Force Community Partnership Program 

In an effort to "make every dollar count," we continue to leverage our highly successful 

Air Force Community Partnership (AFCP) program. This program cultivates "win-win" 

partnerships between our installations and local communities. It taps into the intellectual capital 

and innovative spirit of installation and community leaders, to find creative ways to 

simultaneously accomplish the Air Force mission while enhancing the communities surrounding 

our bases. The program continues to serve as an invaluable forum for fostering relationships and 

promoting ways to obtain shared value with our community partners. With 62 installations and 

9 
79 

communities now participating in the program, we have implemented more than 300 partnership 

agreements, generating more than $51 million in Air Force benefits and $24 million in 

community benefits. Installations and communities participating in the AFCP Program now 

have a well-structured framework and process to develop mutually beneficial partnerships with 

minimal guidance and oversight. This year, we plan to ii.Jrther expand the program by bringing 

in more installations and communities, and focusing on initiatives with Air Force-wide 

applicability. Community partnerships function as an important tool to help minimize the cost of 

our installations, enhance mission effectiveness, and promote quality of life for Aim1en and their 

families. However, they are not a substitute for the large-scale return on investment 

opportunities historically achieved through the BRAC process. 

Installation Energy 

Mission Assurance through Energv Assurance 

Installation energy is a constraining resource that often requires long, complex, 

interdependent, and vulnerable logistics tails. Energy resilience can have a significant impact on 

how the Air Force engages across the full spectrum of operations. To accomplish nearly all of its 

operational and training missions, the Air Force must ensure reliable and resilient power; without 

it, our Airmen cannot fly, fight and win. The overarching vision for the Air Force's energy 

program is "Mission Assurance through Energy Assurance," focused on securing the ability to 

perform its warfighting mission, even in the face of disruptions to traditional energy sources, 

while simultaneously optimizing energy productivity through technology and process 

improvements. 

10 
80 

The Air Force focus on achieving mission assurance through energy assurance entails 

promoting distributed generation and storage capabilities to reduce single point vulnerabilities, 

evolving to a scenario where the national electric grid serves as the backup, instead of the 

primary source of electricity at Air Force installations. Consistent with the National Security 

Strategy, the Air Force is "committed to supporting energy initiatives that will attract 

investments, safeguard the environment, strengthen our energy security, and unlock the 

enormous potential of our shared region." For the Air Force, this means prioritizing projects 

which improve our energy resilience, followed by those projects which only result in cost 

savings or renewable project development where the power is going to the electric grid, as 

opposed to the installation. 

The Air Force energy program relies on both direct investment and third-party financing. 

Direct investment typically comes through FSRM funding, and third-party financing vehicles 

include Energy Savings Perfmmance Contracts (ESPC) and Utility Energy Service Contracts 

(OESC). In total, the Air Force awarded 16 ESPC and UESC projects totaling $470.2 million 

between Calendar Years 2002 and 2017. To take advantage of existing expertise, the Air Force 

has also partnered with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) to expand its ability to identij'y and execute third- party performance 

contracts. 

The Air Force continues to explore innovative funding solutions. Our recently 

introduced Energy-as-a-Service initiative is a groundbreaking concept, especially for the Federal 

Government. Through this initiative, the Air Force will identify effective, synergistic, and 

economical means to satisfy energy supply, efficiency, reliability, and resilience requirements. It 

aims to leverage the capabilities oflocal utilities and energy solution providers, through 

11 
81 

consolidated agreements that assign overall responsibility to invest in, operate, manage, and 

modernize Air Force energy systems. The Air Force is currently evaluating Request for 

Infonnation (RFI) responses from industry to explore the potential ofthis new concept that will 

break from existing paradigms to help the Air Force achieve its energy vision. 

Operational Energy 

Air Force Operational Energy breaks barriers by connecting Ainnen with technology, 

data, and innovative thinking to develop and champion energy-informed solutions for the Air 

Force. Through technology and process improvements, we aim to create an energy optimized 

Air Force that maximizes combat capability for the war fighter. With operational energy 

comprising approximately 81 percent of the overall Air Force energy bill, improving how aircraft 

and aircrews use aviation fuel can generate a significant capability increase. 

To improve operational energy performance, the Air Force is requesting operational 

energy related funding in the FY19 PB, while planning to continue leveraging prior-year 

Congressional adds. For example, the $6 million add in the FY18 budget supports collaborative 

projects which enable work with both major defense companies and small businesses to develop 

innovative technologies with the highest potential to establish or enhance warfighter capabilities. 

To achieve our vision of maximizing combat capability by optimizing operational energy, 

the Air Force Operational Energy office is organized along four lines of effort: Current 

Operations, Logistics and Sustainment, Future Operations, and Strategic Engagement. 

Current operations analysis focuses on maximizing combat capability by improving 

enterprise-wide data collection and conducting analysis to leverage an improved understanding 

of the relationship between mission and fuel use. Key initiatives include stakeholders across the 

12 
82 

Air Force enterprise working to develop a fuel data collection strategy and implementation plan, 

and developing information systems and software applications to address outdated aerial 

refueling planning tools. For example, the tanker planning tool "Jigsaw" transitioned tanker 

scheduling for the AI Udeid Combined Air Operations Center from whiteboards to a digital 

format. Jigsaw has already demonstrated a two percent efficiency increase and scheduling 

algorithms planned for FY18, optimizing tanker support for combat operations and building an 

interface to communicate with the Master Air Attack Plan, are projected to further increase 

efficiency five to ten percent. "Galactic," a suite of applications for 618th Air Operations Center 

planners, will address shortfalls in current planning tools enabling planners to develop air 

refueling mission plans that optimize tanker tasking and routing, bringing not only operational 

energy efficiencies, but also maximizing the combat and training effectiveness ofthe each tanker 

aircraft. Numerous other analyses supporting current operations are underway, including cost of 

weight analysis to identii'y inefficiencies introduced by carrying excess fuel, validation ofthe 

hypothesis that aerial refueling at speeds closer to receiver max range airspeed can reduce fuel 

consumption and flight time, saving fuel, increasing fighter aircraft service life, increasing 

maintenance intervals, and conserving fighter hours for more productive operations like training 

and combat, and Line-Oriented Efficiency Analyses (LOEA) where subject-matter experts 

research the operation and maintenance of aircraft to recommend changes or best practices to 

optimize fuel use while maximizing capability and readiness. LOEAs producing significant 

efficiencies were performed on E-3, RC-135, and C-5 platforms, and a C-17 LOEA is planned 

for FYI8. 

Logistics and Sustainment analysis focuses on improving Integrated Life Cycle 

Management processes across the Air Force logistics enterprise and fuel supply chain. Examples 

13 
83 

include (I) improving engine sustainment processes (e.g. engine washes) and better leveraging 

new methods for inspection and rework of engine compressor sections to ensure overhauled 

legacy engines deliver optimized engine perfonnance through the utilization of 21st century 

technologies, (2) conventional and alternative fuel and fuel additive testing, evaluation, and 

certification to improve resiliency of the jet fuel supply chain, and (3) unprecedented levels of 

"energy-play" in war game scenarios, i.e., comprehensive analysis of constraints to ensure 

adequate consideration of2"d and 3rd order operational etTects of adversaries efforts to target fuel 

supply chains. 

Future Operations analysis guides acquisition policy to ensure Air Force acquisition 

stakeholders address Operational Energy requirements associated with new and major 

modification programs, via Energy Key Perfonnance Parameter and the Energy Sustainability 

Analysis. Future Operations analysis is closely integrated with Air Force Research Laboratories 

activities to ensure the most promising transition technologies arc prioritized. Key initiatives 

include, but are not limited to, microvancs, finlets, active winglet systems, adaptive flaps, and 

flight computerized optimization of control surfaces (PEAK Seeking Trim). Of these, 

microvanes and fin lets (aft drag reduction initiatives) hold the greatest promise for immediate 

impact to the fleet with their low procurement cost, easy installation, and significant reduction in 

overall energy demand. For example, microvanes on the C-17 reduce aft drag and return a I% 

gain in efficiency; fleet wide this equates to savings of more than $10M per year. Other analyses 

target innovations for the airframe and power plant, such as lightweight modular armor plating, 

or synthetic lightweight cargo tiedowns to replace steel chains onboard cargo aircraft. 

Lightweight tiedowns can save I ,000 pounds per aircraft, increasing mission payload, or 

reducing fuel cost, as well as the wear on aircraft engines and stmctures. 

14 
84 

Strategic engagement capitalizes on education and training opportunities, and a broad 

strategic communications strategy, to promote operational energy efficiencies. This includes 

strategic communications plans, key messaging, and a renewed mission and vision which focus 

specifically on operational energy initiatives. 

Environmental Stewardship 

To meet our obligations to protect human health and the environment, the FY19 PB 

includes funding for Environmental Quality programs, including environmental compliance, 

environmental conservation, and pollution prevention, Environmental Restoration for cleanup of 

current installations, including munitions sites and sites closed during previous BRAC rounds, 

and funds to implement a conservation strategy to ensure all aspects of natural resources 

management are successfully integrated into the Air Force mission. 

Environmental Quality 

With this request, the Air Force ensures a resilient natural infrastmcture and maintains 

sound environmental stewardship by funding compliance with environmental laws. Through our 

standardized and centralized requirements development process that prioritizes the 

environmental quality program, we minimize risk to the mission, our Airmen and surrounding 

communities, and the natural infrastmcture. This is a balanced, resource limited approach, 

adequate to ensure the Air Force has ready installations and continued accessibility to the natural 

infrastructure needed to support the installations and ranges we rely on every day, and will 

continue to rely on in the future, to train and operate. 

The environmental compliance program focuses on regulatory compliance for our air, 

water and land assets. Examples of compliance eftotis include more detailed air quality 

15 
85 

assessments to analyze environmental impacts from Air Force activities, protecting our 

groundwater by improving management of our underground and above ground storage tanks, 

hazardous waste management and disposal, and ensuring environmental plans and permits are 

compliant and up-to-date. 

Efforts in pollution prevention include maximizing the diversion of solid waste from 

landfills to reduce the volume and cost of disposal, while averting contamination of our natural 

infrastructure, recycling used oil, tluorescent light bulbs and spent solvents, and as supporting 

our hazardous materials (HazMat) pharmacies to effectively reduce and safely manage the use of 

hazardous materials. We continue to protect the health of our Airmen and the environment by 

making investments to minimize hazardous materials usage and hazardous waste disposal 

through the demonstration and validation of new technologies such as the robotic laser depainting process on aircraft. Leveraging technologies like the robotic laser minimize negative 

environmental impacts and risks to Airmen, while enhancing the Air Force mission. 

We remain firmly committed to a robust environmental conservation program. Prior 

appropriations have allowed the Air Force to invest in conservation activities on our training 

ranges and provide direct support to mission readiness. The conservation program in FY19 

builds on past efforts to continue habitat and species management for 125 threatened and 

endangered species on 53 Air Force installations. This year's budget request also provides for 

continued cooperation and collaboration with other agencies, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to provide effective natural resources management and safeguard military lands from 

wildfire hazards. Furthermore, the FY 19 budget will further the Air Force's implementation of 

tribal relations policy to ensure the unique trust relationship that the U.S. government currently 

16 
86 

shares with tribes continues, and it will provide opportunities to communicate aspects of the Air 

Force's mission that have the potential to affect tribes. 

As trustee for more than 9 million acres of land including forests, prairies, deserts, 

wetlands, and coastal habitats, the Air Force is very aware of the important role natural resources 

play in maintaining our mission capability. To maintain military readiness, the Air Force needs 

realistic test and training environments, which in themselves are ecosystems. Quite simply, if we 

don't maintain the ecosystems we use to test and train, we will not be able to maintain military 

readiness. We continue to utilize proactive ecosystem management principles and conservation 

partnerships with other federal and state agencies to minimize or eliminate impacts on the 

training mission. We are challenged that as a result of our proactive natural resources 

management practices, coupled with the restricted access our mission sometimes requires, our 

installations are quickly becoming the last bastion of habitat for many species currently 

threatened by the increased development outside installation boundaries. 

The Air Force remains firmly committed to responsible environmental stewardship, 

ensuring compliance with legal requirements, mitigating mission impacts, and reducing risk to 

our natural infrastructure. We will continue to honor our environmental management practices 

to ensure the sustainable management of the resources needed to test and train to fly, fight, and 

win now and into the future. 

Environmental Restoration 

The Air Force remains focused on completing investigations and establishing remedial 

actions to reduce risk to human health and the environment in a prioritized manner. Ultimately, 

we seek to make real property available for mission use at our installations, and facilitate 

community property transfers and reuse at our closed installations. 

17 
87 

The Air Force has made significant progress managing this complex program area, with 

more than 13,500 restoration sites at our active and closed installations (more than 8,300 active 

and almost 5,300 BRAC). The environmental restoration program (ERP) is on-track to achieve a 

"response complete status" at 85 percent ofERP sites by the end ofFYI8 and, 91 percent by the 

end ofFY21. 

The new regulatory focus on Emerging Contaminants poses a significant risk 

management challenge to the Air Force environmental program. Regulatory, Congressional and 

other requests for information on environmental sampling, mitigation, response actions, and the 

public health implications of emerging contaminants are on the rise. Characterizing the extent of 

Air Force environmental releases of emerging contaminants such as PFOS/PFOA, assessing the 

potential risk and impact to human health and the environment, initiating response actions, and 

implementing appropriate mitigation measures drive unforeseen, chemical- and site- specific 

environmental liabilities and program costs, and crosses over Federal agency areas of 

responsibility. The Air Force response to releases of emerging contaminants from its facilities is 

a deliberate, science- based and data- driven process that is focused on protection of human 

health and the environment. It is conducted in accordance with the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program, is consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and is carried out 

in cooperation with appropriate Federal regulators, city and state officials and other stakeholders. 

On PFOS/PFOA health matters, we are coordinating with the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) to address potential PFOS/PFOA public health risks and appropriate 

Air Force actions. The Air Force supports ATSDR etimts to conduct a nationwide PFOS/PFOA 

health assessment which includes both non-DoD and DoD communities. 

18 
88 

While we will not compromise on the protection of the public, our Airmen and civilian 

workforce and their families, neither can we endlessly absorb the operational and financial risks 

of attempting to work with a myriad of unregulated emerging contaminants without some level 

of certainty that the cost of controlling exposure will have a commensurate public health and 

operational benefit. 

Conclusion 

The Air Force again made hard strategic choices while preparing this budget request. We 

continue to work diligently to strike a delicate balance between capability and capacity, aiming 

to both improve readiness and modernize to ensure a ready force today and a capable high-end 

force tomorrow. Our FY19 PB request includes MJLCON to support Combatant Command and 

new weapon system requirements while also investing existing-mission facilities and our 

research, development, test and evaluation infrastructure. W c plan to continue the dialogue on 

right-sizing our installations footprint to ensure we set the proper course for enabling the Defense 

Strategy, thereby addressing our most pressing national security issues. 

In spite of the fiscal challenges, we remain committed to our Service members and their 

families. Privatized housing at our stateside installations and continued investment in 

Government housing at overseas locations will provide our families with modem homes to 

improve their quality of life now and into the future. We also maintain our responsibility to 

provide dormitory campuses that support the needs of our unaccompanied Service members. 

Finally, we continue to carefully scrutinize every dollar we spend. Our commitment to 

continued efficiencies and right-sized installations will ensure maximum return on the Nation's 

investment in its Air Force installations. 

19 
89 

John W. Henderson 

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy 

The Honorable John W. Henderson is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force tor Installations, 

Environment and Energy. He is responsible for the formulation, review and execution of plans, 

policies, programs and budgets to meet Air Force installations, energy, environment, safety and 

occupational health objectives. Mr. Henderson was commissioned in the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in May 1994, upon graduation from the South Dakota School of Mines, and retired in 

tbe grade of colonel in 2017 after a 23-year career. Mr. Henderson commanded an engineer 

battalion during operation Enduring Freedom and deployed with the 25th Infantry Division and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during two tours supporting operation Iraqi Freedom. He held 

multiple command and staff positions throughout his career, to include five assignments with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, culminating as the Omaha District Commander. Mr. Henderson 

is registered as a licensed professional engineer in the state of South Dakota. 

EDUCATION 

1994 Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City 

2002 Master of Science, Civil Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City 

2006 U.S. Anny Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 

2015 National Security Fellowship, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 

CAREER CHRONOLOGY 

1995-1996, Platoon Leader, 44th Engineer Battalion, 2d Infantry Division, Camp Howze, Republic of 

Korea 

1996-1997, Executive Officer, 82d Engineer Company, 2d Infantry Division, Camp Edwards, Republic of 

Korea 

!997-1998, Company Commander, Engineer Brigade, 2d Infantry Division, Camp Howze, Republic of 

Korea 

1999-2000, Company Commander, Charlie Company, 864th Engineer Battalion, Fort Wainwright, Alaska 

2000-2001, Aide-De-Camp to U.S. Army Alaska Commanding General, Fort Richardson, Alaska 

2001-2002, student, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City 

2003-2004, Hydraulics/IIydrological Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss. 

2004-2004, Operations Officer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Multi-National Forces- Iraq, Baghdad, 

Iraq 

2004-2005, Resident Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss. 

2005-2005, Deputy District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss. 

2006-2007, Operations Officer, 25th Infantry Division, Tikrit, Iraq 

2007-2008, Battalion Executive Officer, 25th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division-North, Tikrit, 

Iraq 

2008-2010, Honolulu District Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Schofield Barracks, 

Hawaii 

2010-20!1, Pacific Ocean Division Chief of Staff, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii 

2011-2013, Battalion Commander (OEF), 864th Engineer Battalion, Joint Base Lcwis-McChord, Wash. 

2013-2014, Corps Executive Officer, I Corps, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. 

2015-2017, Omaha District Commander, U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Neb. 

AWARDS AND HONORS 

Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal with two oak leaf clusters 

Meritorious Service Medal with silver and bronze oak leaf cluster 

Humanitarian Service Medal 

Combat Action Badge 

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS 

Society of American Military Engineers 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

National Society of Professional Engineers (Current as of March 2018) 
90 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

MR. WILLIAM JORDAN GILLIS 

ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY 

AND ENVIRONMENT) 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SECOND SESSION, 115TH CONGRESS 

ON FY19 BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

APRIL 18, 2018 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

1 
91 

Introduction 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Bordallo and distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Installations, Energy, and 

Environment component of the Army's Fiscal Year 2019 budget request. I want to 

begin by thanking the committee for its continued support and commitment to our 

Soldiers, Families and Civilians. Your sustained leadership and guidance were 

instrumental in the successes we experienced last year. I look forward to discussing 

the budget request and to working with the committee to achieve our mutual goal of 

improving the condition of Army installations and the contributions they make to Army 

readiness, and continuing to improve the welfare and quality of life for our Soldiers and 

Families. 

Readiness 

The Army's number one priority is Readiness. It is completely aligned with the 

Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army's efforts to ensure, build, and sustain 

warfighting capabilities. As outlined in the National Defense Strategy and Army 

priorities, attaining desired readiness levels requires both a system-wide assessment of 

current conditions and a modernization effort that seeks to mitigate risk while setting 

conditions to meet both current and future threats. We will execute our installation 

investment strategy to achieve these ends while remaining a good steward of our 

nation's resources. 

Army readiness begins on Army installations, where we build individual and unit 

readiness. They serve as our initial maneuver platforms when we deploy to support 

contingency operations around the globe and, increasingly, are where we coordinate 

and control various mission-related functions for units once deployed. The Army 

remains engaged globally and is preparing for an increasingly complex future as part of 

Multi-Domain Battle. Our potential adversaries are prepared and capable of using cyber 

warfare, false information, and unconventional attacks to disrupt our operations within 

2 
92 

the United States. We must be aware of these new challenges as we work to ensure 

our installations are capable of deploying and sustaining our forces in a contested 

environment. This effort demands both a new mindset regarding the role Army 

installations play in Multi-Domain Battle and predictable, adequate, sustained, and 

timely funding for our infrastructure, facilities, systems, and other associated assets. 

Our readiness objectives within the Installations, Energy, and Environment 

portfolio will be achieved through investments in Facilities and Infrastructure; Energy 

Resilience; and Environmental Stewardship. Additionally, we have dedicated initiatives 

that we will conduct to address the other Army focused priorities of Modernization and 

Reform. 

I am confident that with your sustained support, Army installations can continue 

to enhance Army readiness and lethality. 

Readiness: Installation Facilities and Infrastructure 

The Army's MILCON budget request provides resources to build new facilities to 

meet the Army's installation needs related to mission readiness. For FY 2019, the 

Army's budget request is just over $2.02 billion for Military Construction. The request 

allocates $1.012 billion for the Military Construction Army; $180 million for the Army 

National Guard; $65 million for Army Reserve; $331 million for Army Family Housing 

Construction; $377 million for Army Family Housing Operations; and $63 million for the 

Army portion of the Base Closure Account. 

The $1.012 billion for Military Construction Army will allow the Army to move 

forward with projects such as the $99 million Cyber Instructional Facility at Fort Gordon, 

Georgia; the $32 million Vehicle Maintenance Shop at Fort Campbell, Kentucky; and the 

Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey Munitions Disassembly Complex for $41 million. We can 

also begin to make investments to improve our academic facilities at West Point Military 

Academy. 

3 
93 

The ARNG's FY 2019$180 million MILCON request includes: $106 million to 

build Readiness Centers in Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota; $12.4 million to construct two range projects in Ohio and Illinois; $27 

million to construct an administrative and warehouse facility in Alaska; $18.1 million for 

Unspecified Minor Military Construction (UMMC); and $16.6 million for planning and 

design. Readiness centers are the heart and soul of the National Guard and ranges will 

allow the Guard to be ready to perform state and federal missions. Many of these 

projects will consolidate units and functions into a single facility allowing the Guard to 

close multiple older facilities. 

The USAR FY 2019 MILCON request totals $64.9 million with two critical projects 

replacing failing facilities. The two projects are: $34 million to replace an Equipment 

Concentration Site in Barstow, California; and $23 million to replace World War II era 

Transient Training Barracks at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. An additional $7.9 million will 

support planning and design of future year projects and address critical needs through 

the UMMC account. 

The Army is increasing investments in our facilities and infrastructure 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) accounts. These increases in 

funding will maintain and improve the condition of our facilities. Periodic restoration and 

modernization of facility components are necessary to ensure the reliable functionality 

of our facilities in support of mission readiness. We are focused on preventing further 

degradation of facilities and precluding small maintenance issues from turning into large 

and expensive problems. 

The FY 2019 $4.7 billion budget request gets us closer to meeting our full SRM 

requirements. The $1.6 billion request for restoration and modernization funding, an 

increase of $742 million over FY 2017 execution, will enable the Army to address up to 

eight percent of our critical maintenance backlog requirements. 

4 
94 

Responsibly managing real property facilities and infrastructure across 13.8 

million acres means the Army must maintain extensive base operations. Through 

funding for Base Operations Support (BOS) accounts, Army installations provide 

services similar to those associated with a municipality: public works, security 

protection, logistics, environment, and Family programs. These programs and services 

enable Soldiers, Civilians, and Families to live and work on 156 Army installations 

worldwide. The FY 2019 budget requests a total of $10 billion for BOS accounts, 

including $8.274 billion for the Active Component; $1.130 billion for Army National 

Guard; and $595 million for Army Reserve. 

In lieu of another request for legislation in FY 2019 authorizing an additional 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to include 

facility usage optimization, ensuring we have a better accounting of excess 

infrastructure. Under this initiative, Commanders are accountable for making all 

reasonable efforts to consolidate units into our best facilities; maximize space utilization; 

and dispose of excess assets. 

Readiness: Energy Resilience 

Energy resilience is a critical component to building and enabling Army readiness 

and support to our Soldiers and joint service partners across the installations portfolio. 

Energy resilience is our ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing 

conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from energy disruptions that 

impact critical operations on military installations, bases, and camps. Assured access 

to energy and water underpins readiness-related functions that occur on Army 

installations and are increasingly vulnerable to severe weather or hostile action as 

highlighted by the recent hacker intrusions on our national electrical grid. 

Recognizing these emerging challenges, the Army is moving aggressively to 

implement a policy directing installations to sustain operations for critical facilities and 

infrastructure for a minimum of 14-days. We are prioritizing these efforts initially on 

5 
95 

Mobilization Force Generation Installations (MFGI's) and installations identified as Army 

Power Projection Platforms. We will also complete installation energy plans on 19 

installations in FY 2019 to provide direction forward. In addition, we will continue to 

build on past projects and established capabilities to ensure that energy-related 

investments first and foremost contribute to energy resilience. 

The Army's installation energy budget request will largely be used to fund our FY 

2019 utility bill at $1.088 billion. We recognize that this is a significant cost and that 

reducing demand enhances energy security. To that end, the Army reduced Energy 

Use Intensity by 9.6 percent in FY 2017 from FY 2015 levels. We will continue to 

measure this and set goals for continued improvement. Our budget request also 

includes $125 million for water and waste water services, and $524 million to fund our 

Utilities Privatization Program. 

Efficiency remains a critical component of the Army's installation strategy as it 

avoids costs and, by reducing energy demands, makes installation energy security 

easier to obtain. The FY 2019 budget request contains provisions for $260 million in 

energy projects, focused on resilience and efficiency. To augment this amount to meet 

Army total needs, we will continue to partner with the private sector through the use of 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)and Utility Energy Service Contracts 

(UESCs). This approach allows companies and utilities to provide the initial capital 

investment to design, implement, and maintain energy and water conservation 

measures, the cost of which is paid over the course of the contract. Last year was the 

second best in the history of the program with a total third-party investments in 

ESPCs/UESCs of $289 million. While we do not have specific annual targets that must 

be met, we expect to sustain this very successful ESPC/UESC program. 

Energy resilience requires on-site energy production. To this end we are 

refocusing our "Office of Energy Initiatives" that was previously engaged almost 

exclusively on development of renewable energy projects, to an office focused on 

building energy resilience, or the "Office of Energy Resilience." This office has built or is 

6 
96 

developing over 530 megawatts of on-site energy production. The Army has facilitated 

energy projects to strengthen the resilience and security of our installations by enabling 

more fully "islandable" capabilities that combine energy generation with energy storage 

and controls. In Hawaii the Army worked with Hawaiian Electric Company to develop a 

50-megawatt biofuel project capable of providing Schofield Barracks, Field Station 

Kunia, and Wheeler Army Airfield with secure energy during emergencies. The project 

is located above the tsunami strike zone and will provide "black start" capability to 

enhance grid resilience -benefiting both the Army and the community. All of you will be 

invited to join me for the opening of this project later this year. Additionally, at Fort Sill, 

Oklahoma, the Army is working with the utility provider to build on site natural gas and 

solar power plants able to meet 100 percent of the installation's energy needs. 

The "connective tissue" of energy resilience depends on the deployment of cyber 

and physically secure, "micro-grids." Most of the Army's past energy generation 

projects were designed to support this logical next step. The Energy Resilience & 

Conservation Investment Program account (ERCIP) will help us achieve this end state. 

The Army fully appreciates the recent change in this account to focus on resilience. 

Readiness: Safeguarding our Environment 

The Army manages over 13.8 million acres of land that contain over 1.3 million 

acres of wetlands, 226 threatened and endangered species, over 86,000 archeological 

sites, 2,500 environmental permits, and over 1 ,300 cleanup sites. Environmental 

considerations are applicable across the full range of military operations at enduring 

installations, contingency base locations, and at all levels of command in the Army. The 

mission of the Army's Environmental Program mission is to support and generate 

operational and expeditionary forces by delivering environmental compliance and 

natural resource asset stewardship worldwide, ensuring continued access to training 

and testing lands, and reducing environmental impacts from weapons systems and 

equipment development, testing, and fielding. 

7 
97 

The Army's lands are an invaluable military training and testing asset. 

Environmental Quality ensures Army installations comply with environmental laws and 

conserve natural and cultural resources to maintain accessibility to Army lands and the 

quality and value ofthe training landscape. Environmental Restoration investigates and 

cleans up hazardous substances and pollutants while Munitions Response addresses 

unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munition constituents. 

Restoration and Munitions Response often result in the safe return of Army land assets 

to mission enabling use. Environmental Technology identifies, investigates, and 

facilitates the use of environmental technology solutions while reducing costs of materiel 

production, maintenance and operation, and serves to avoid creating future 

environmental risks. 

Our FY 2019 environmental budget request of $914 million will allow the Army to 

remain ready and capable of accomplishing our national defense mission. The Army 

remains a strong partner and a Federal agency leader in environmental stewardship 

while ensuring our military force is ready, resilient, and capable of defending our Nation. 

Modernization and Reform 

As indicated above, Army installations are now clearly included in the Army's 

Multi-Domain Battle and are facing new threats from a range of potential adversaries. 

Concurrently, "smart" cities all across America are taking advantage of new and 

emerging technologies to deliver enhanced public services to their constituents at 

significant cost savings. Accordingly, one of my top priorities is to embark on a 

deliberative process to prepare our installations for the future. This "Installations of the 

Future" effort will use innovation, technology, and partnerships to ensure a modern 

Army has modern installations capable of serving as our initial maneuver platforms. 

The Army will collaborate with private industry and academia to explore "smart city" 

technology applications that can create "smart installations". During FY 2019 we intend 

to undertake a limited number of demonstration projects that will allow the Army to 

collect data, perform deep analytics, and apply an artificial intelligence to enhance 

8 
98 

readiness. Successful pilots will inform future budget requests. I would welcome the 

chance to provide you or your staff a more detailed briefing on this initiative. 

As you are all aware, the entire Department of Defense is undertaking dedicated 

management reform efforts to reduce costs and improve the delivery of goods and 

services. The Army's installation management community is an active participant in a 

wide variety of Department of the Army and Department of Defense led efforts ranging 

from contract reform, space utilization, and facilities/lease consolidation. Additionally, it 

is my intent to work with the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management and 

other Army senior leaders to conduct a system-wide review of the Army's structural 

approach to installation management to include structure, major processes, and 

operations. 

Conclusion 

Army Readiness begins on Army installations. We need ready and resilient 

installations to ensure our Soldiers are properly trained and can be deployed anywhere 

in the world in order to fight and win our nation's wars. 

The Army is methodically increasing its facility sustainment levels and focusing 

its infrastructure investments on readiness priorities to support power projection, 

mobilization, and the warfighter. Predictable, adequate, sustained, and timely funding 

allows the Army to maintain its critical infrastructure and training lands to support 

Soldiers, Civilians, and Families. 

Trust is the bedrock of our institution. We greatly appreciate the funding 

provided in FY 2018 and commit to being responsible stewards with the resources 

entrusted to us this year. The Army will ensure these resources are allocated against 

our number one priority-Readiness. 

9 
99 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your continued 

support of our Soldiers, Civilians and Families. 

10 
100 

Jordan Gillis 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army 

Installations, Energy and Environment 

Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Jordan Gillis was appointed as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA IE&E) and became the Acting Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA IE&E) on 16 October 2017. He is 

the primary advisor to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army on all Army 

matters related to Installation policy, oversight and coordination of energy security and 

management. He is also responsible for policy and oversight of sustainability and environmental 

initiatives; resource management including design, military construction, operations and 

maintenance; Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC); privatization of Am1y family housing, 

lodging, real estate, utilities; and the Army's installations Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) 

programs. 

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Gillis was a Director in the Energy Practice at ScottMadden, a 

general management consulting finn. His consulting experience focused on work for electric 

utility clients across North America in areas such as mergers and acquisition integration, 

business plan development, operational assessments, organization design and staffing, and 

implementation of departmental and corporate strategy. 

Mr. Gillis served as a field artillery officer in the U.S. Army at posts including Fort Stewart, GA 

and Ar Ramadi, IZ. His awards include the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Army 

Commendation Medal, and Army Achievement Medal (7th award). Mr. Gillis earned a B.A. 

from Duke University and an M.B.A. from Emory University's Goizueta Business School. 

A native of Atlanta, Mr. Gillis served on the board of Georgia Public Broadcasting and, as an 

Eagle Scout, was an active scouting volunteer. 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 18, 2018 

(103) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The Department of Defense is self-insured for governmentowned property. We exercise this self-insurance through the congressional authorization and appropriation process. Thus far, the total impact of the 2017 hurricane 

season on the Department of Defense was $2.1 billion. In November 2017, Congress 

provided $1.2 billion in the FY 2018 Budget Amendment Request to help DOD recover from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Since November 2017, estimates 

have been refined and additional condition assessments were conducted at sites in 

Puerto Rico that were not previously accessible by qualified facility engineering assessment teams. The adjustments and added facility requirements total $985.9 million, which the DOD Components funded from existing FY 18 appropriations. [See 

page 10.] 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The Department is extremely appreciative of Congressional 

support for this program and its impact on the Secretary of Defense’s strategic goal 

to strengthen alliances. We continue to assess the infrastructure need to implement 

an evolving EDI strategy as the posture situation in Europe changes, such as NATO 

bolstering its forward presence in Eastern Europe. The European Command 

(EUCOM) is looking across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) to build the 

full posture that the EUCOM Commander requires to deter Russian aggression. 

EUCOM’s requirement process includes assessments of the EDI infrastructure required over the FYDP. [See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CARBAJAL 

Secretary HENDERSON. Mr. Carbajal, we understand your concerns in regards to 

Air Force Fire Protection not providing Emergency Medical Technician-level of care 

at our installations. The Air Force Director of Civil Engineers and the Air Force 

Surgeon General recently met and reached an agreement to allow firefighters to obtain and operate as Emergency Medical Technicians. We will base the number of 

firefighters certified as Emergency Medical Technicians on each installation’s operational needs. This higher level of care will not only better protect those living and 

working on base, but will also increase firefighters’ knowledge to better make decisions on the care and safety of patients. Additionally, we are developing a training 

curriculum and the logistical needs to support this requirement across the Air Force 

enterprise. We anticipate fully implementing this capability by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2019. [See page 16.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN 

Mr. GILLIS. As the Assistant Secretary for Installations, Energy and Environment, 

my portfolio is focused on the manning of the garrisons on Army installations. Installation Management Command (IMCOM) integrates and delivers base support to 

enable readiness and lethality for a globally-responsive Army. With seventy-five garrisons around the world, IMCOM supports practically all commands while executing 

policy and priorities promulgated by Headquarters, Department of the Army. In fiscal year (FY) 2019 IMCOM civilian authorizations total 25,040, which is 11.6% less 

than FY 2015, and 29% less than FY 2010. The Army made the difficult decision 

to reduce the civilian workforce to preserve and support other current and future 

Army priorities. IMCOM is taking action to reduce to the FY 2019 authorized manning level. To achieve those numbers, a Reduction in Force (RIF) is required at 

some garrisons and the Headquarters. On 6 June 2018, Congress will be notified 

as required. Specific to Maryland, U.S. Army Garrison Fort Meade and U.S. Army 

Garrison Aberdeen Proving Ground are included in the RIF. Where vacancies still 

exist, the Army encourages the use of direct hire authority by the garrisons to help 

make sure garrison manpower is adequate to provide services needed to maintain 

Army readiness. Additionally and when applicable, we encourage our garrisons to 

enter into public-public partnerships with local communities through inter-governmental support agreements. [See page 26.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 18, 2018 

(107) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP 

Mr. BISHOP. There are several DOD installations and test/training ranges primarily in the western U.S. which operate on vast tracts of public lands that are 

withdrawn from the Department of Interior control pursuant to temporary leases, 

which often are issued for 25 years. In order to renew the lease withdrawal, the affected military department must apply to renew the lease and as a condition of the 

permit, must also undertake an expensive and time-consuming environmental review along with public input under the Administrative Procedures Act. Since this 

protocol has been in place, there has never been an instance where the lease was 

not renewed. Can the Department quantify how much time and money is spent per 

year conducting these reviews? What would be the financial and operational impact 

if these lands were permanently withdrawn for military use? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The Department of Defense (DOD) currently utilizes several 

million acres of public domain lands, primarily in the western United States and 

Alaska, for military purposes such as training and testing. These lands are withdrawn from the public domain and reserved for DOD use (and, in some instances, 

other compatible uses). A significant portion of these lands are withdrawn and reserved on an indefinite basis by public land order, Executive Order, or other legal 

mechanism. The remainder of these lands are withdrawn and reserved by statute; 

it is this latter category of lands that generally has a time limitation on the length 

of the withdrawal and reservation, recently 25 years being the congressionally preferred period. While these lands are reserved for DOD use for a period of years, they 

are, for the most part, still managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI). Approximately 5 years before such a withdrawal and reservation expires, DOD begins 

the process for renewal. That process includes preparation of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an action that generally takes at least two years, costs several millions of dollars, and 

consumes very substantial staff time. In addition, considerable time and resources 

are expended in meetings with local members of the public, local officials, and congressional representation. During the entire period, the Military Department that 

operates the installation also coordinates with DOI, both with regard to the NEPA 

analysis and with regard to how and under what terms the withdrawal and reservation should be renewed. This consumes considerable time and effort by staff at DOI 

as well as DOD. These costs are not annual costs but costs that occur during the 

renewal process over the last several years of a particular location’s withdrawal 

term. As such, it is difficult to plan or budget for them because they consume staff 

time of both DOD and DOI on an irregular, intermittent basis and must be performed by personnel with specialized knowledge and experience in the withdrawal 

process. Hence they are particularly disruptive to steady-state management. The financial cost of a single withdrawal, adding both NEPA compliance and staff resources, would total several millions of dollars over the renewal period, although the 

disruption to staff resources is more damaging than the cost in money. An indefinite 

withdrawal and reservation (technically, there are no ‘permanent’ reservations) 

would provide substantial benefit to both DOD and DOI, if addressed in a manner 

that promotes sound land management. Operationally, an indefinite withdrawal and 

reservation allows better long-term planning for the installation, thereby reducing 

overall costs. It avoids any question as to long-term land uses, particularly by tenant activities that may be located on the installation, such as long-lived energy production facilities. The current process of once-a-generation review by Congress does 

not provide responsible or meaningful land management. Responsible land management must take place continuously. Consequently, mechanisms such as those contained in section 2831 of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, relating to better communication between DOI, DOD, state and local 

officials, the public, and Congress along with increased transparency would be more 

beneficial to sound land management than keeping an ineffective once-a-generation 

review process that does not provide meaningful oversight. While proposals to provide for indefinite withdrawals and reservations do not change land management 

responsibility, which generally remains in DOI, they would more closely mirror the 

non-statutory withdrawals and reservations. Those withdrawals and reservations 
108 

have, in some instances, been in existence since the Second World War, if not before; DOD has no evidence that those lands have been managed with less care than 

statutory withdrawals, even though they are and always have been indefinite. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY 

Mr. COURTNEY. The Office of Economic Adjustment, which funds programs to ensure that military installations and military connected industries maintain productive and beneficial relationships with local communities. In Connecticut, we have 

seen the enormous benefit of this office, which has organized and funded several 

Joint Land Use Studies. These studies have helped avoid encroachment at two National Guard bases in Connecticut and develop a plan with several municipalities 

to prepare for the arrival of Block V Virginia-class submarines on the Thames 

River. Mr. Niemeyer, your testimony states that the office ‘‘is an essential interface 

to promote constructive and mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships with 

local communities’’ and ‘‘Maintaining support for this Office is crucial to the continued ability of our installations to safely and securely operate.’’ 

Recently, a proposal was introduced to eliminate the Office of Economic Adjustment. Can you describe the importance of the office, its role, and your view on its 

performance and benefit to the Department and our local communities? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The support of defense communities and States are absolutely essential to protect our military installations and ranges in the Department 

of Defense. In addition, these same communities will have a critical role in the enhancement of training and readiness activities and the resilience of military infrastructure to support the priorities of the National Defense Strategy. OEA is the Secretary of Defense’s primary office for interaction and collaboration with the states, 

territories, and hundreds of defense communities around the country on initiatives 

to preserve and enhance military capabilities. OEA’s current mission lines: 1) directly support lethality and readiness, quality of life, and collaboration and alliance; 

2) are neither duplicated, nor replicated, elsewhere in the Department; 3) leverage 

other Federal, state, and local resources to support the Department; and, 4) routinely lessen the political cost to any Department effort that impacts states and cities. Specifically, the OEA program of assistance includes the following efforts: • Provides essential planning assistance to defense states and communities to 

support safe and secure military operations at our installations and ranges by 

promoting compatible development near these facilities and working to alleviate 

instances of incompatible development. Often these efforts lead to civilian activities in addition to the assistance provided that directly benefits the Department. • Works with states and communities to help strengthen the resilience of their 

supply chains to withstand the fluctuations of Defense spending. These efforts 

maintain the effective delivery of goods and services for our installations and 

warfighters. Often these efforts also include strengthening and sustaining civilian activities to make these supply chains more resilient so they can effectively 

function under the current cybersecurity environment. • Helps defense communities effectively work with the Services to facilitate the 

prompt transfer of surplus and excess property, which frees up critical resources 

to be used to support the warfighter. This program allows defense communities 

to leverage Federal, state, local, public, and private resources to effectively redevelop the base property, which minimizes the economic impact of the closure. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER 

Mrs. HARTZLER. The Office of Economic Adjustment has been tremendously valuable to defense-supporting communities around the state of Missouri and to the 

state government itself. The efforts by OEA in Missouri have been designed to work 

through the communities and the state to support the missions of our military installations, such as Whiteman Air Force Base and Fort Leonard Wood. Can you 

please discuss how the elimination of OEA may impact these communities and the 

programs supported by the agency? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. OEA’s mission is neither duplicated nor replicated elsewhere 

in the Department—it is the Secretary of Defense’s primary office for interaction 

and collaboration with the states, territories, and hundreds of defense communities 

around the country on initiatives to preserve military capabilities. Great care has 

been taken through OEA’s existence to ensure OEA’s mission has not be duplicated 

in the Services and that its capabilities support and benefit the Services. The costs 

of eliminating OEA would result in additional costs to establish the capability else-
109 

where, and could result in redundant efforts across each of the Military Departments. OEA’s program of assistance is the only means for the Department—and the 

Federal government as a whole—to directly impact civilian activities that, in turn, 

provide direct value and savings to the warfighter by allowing the Department to 

reduce costs through shedding excess infrastructure, engaging a more resilient supply chain and competitive defense manufacturing sector, and enhancing lethality of 

our assets. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Niemeyer, the last NDAA directed the Department to provide a 

briefing to this committee on establishing a standardized method for calculating inkind contributions for financial institutions on military installations. The briefing 

was due by March 1, 2018. What is the status of this report? Will HASC receive 

this briefing before the NDAA gets marked up? Please follow up with my office with 

a firm date of the report’s release. 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The required briefing will be provided to HASC staff on 

April 24, 2018. The brief will be jointly prepared and presented by Department representatives from the offices of the Under Secretaries of Defense for Acquisition & 

Sustainment, Comptroller and Personnel & Readiness. 

Mr. BROWN. This committee has long recognized that our defense communities are 

the foundation of our readiness and the Department’s only direct connection to communities is the Office of Economic Adjustment. For almost 60 years, OEA has been 

there to make sure DOD is a good neighbor and we are supporting the communities 

we rely on every day for support. In light of the Chairman’s recommendation that 

would eliminate OEA, can you share the Department’s view on this agency and its 

importance? 

Secretary NIEMEYER. The support of defense communities and States are absolutely essential to protect our military installations and ranges in the Department 

of Defense. In addition, these same communities will have a critical role in the enhancement of training and readiness activities and the resilience of military infrastructure to support the priorities of the National Defense Strategy. OEA is the Secretary of Defense’s primary office for interaction and collaboration with the states, 

territories, and hundreds of defense communities around the country on initiatives 

to preserve and enhance military capabilities. OEA’s current mission lines: 1) directly support lethality and readiness, quality of life, and collaboration and alliance; 

2) are neither duplicated, nor replicated, elsewhere in the Department; 3) leverage 

other Federal, state, and local resources to support the Department; and, 4) routinely lessen the political cost to any Department effort that impacts states and cities. Specifically, the OEA program of assistance includes the following efforts: 

• Provides essential planning assistance to defense states and communities to 

support safe and secure military operations at our installations and ranges by 

promoting compatible development near these facilities and working to alleviate 

instances of incompatible development. Often these efforts lead to civilian activities in addition to the assistance provided that directly benefits the Department. 

• Works with states and communities to help strengthen the resilience of their 

supply chains to withstand the fluctuations of Defense spending. These efforts 

maintain the effective delivery of goods and services for our installations and 

warfighters. Often these efforts also include strengthening and sustaining civilian activities to make these supply chains more resilient so they can effectively 

function under the current cybersecurity environment. 

• Helps defense communities effectively work with the Services to facilitate the 

prompt transfer of surplus and excess property, which frees up critical resources 

to be used to support the warfighter. This program allows defense communities 

to leverage Federal, state, local, public, and private resources to effectively redevelop the base property, which minimizes the economic impact of the closure. 

Mr. BROWN. This committee has long recognized that our defense communities are 

the foundation of our readiness and the Department’s only direct connection to communities is the Office of Economic Adjustment. For almost 60 years, OEA has been 

there to make sure DOD is a good neighbor and we are supporting the communities 

we rely on every day for support. In light of the Chairman’s recommendation that 

would eliminate OEA, can you share the Department’s view on this agency and its 

importance? 

Secretary BAYER. OEA’s mission is significant and important to the Department 

of the Navy (DON). It assists in preserving and enhancing military capabilities as 

it is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) lead office for interacting and collaborating 
110 

with states, territories, and defense communities around the country on initiatives. 

OEA leverages other Federal, state, and local resources to support the Department 

initiatives on compatible development, disposal and reuse of property, and maintain 

effective supply chains for goods and services. This reduces costs for the DON. 

OEA’s relationships and initiatives with states, territories, and defense communities 

routinely lessen the political cost to any DON effort that impacts those states and 

cities. Specifically, OEA has assisted DON in promoting compatible development 

near our installations by providing essential planning assistance to defense states 

and communities. Joint Land Use Studies have benefited our installations by identifying compatible use opportunities and developing plans to alleviate instances of incompatible development. OEA continues to assist the DON with the transfer of surplus and excess property, which frees up resources to support the warfighter. The 

OEA program allows defense communities to leverage Federal, state, local, public, 

and private resources to redevelop installation property, minimizing the economic 

impact of the closure. 

Mr. BROWN. This committee has long recognized that our defense communities are 

the foundation of our readiness and the Department’s only direct connection to communities is the Office of Economic Adjustment. For almost 60 years, OEA has been 

there to make sure DOD is a good neighbor and we are supporting the communities 

we rely on every day for support. In light of the Chairman’s recommendation that 

would eliminate OEA, can you share the Department’s view on this agency and its 

importance? 

Secretary HENDERSON. The support of defense communities and States are essential to protect the Air Force’s installations and ranges. In addition, these same communities will have a critical role in the enhancement of training and readiness activities and the resilience of military infrastructure to support the priorities of the 

National Defense Strategy. OEA is the Department of Defense’s primary office for 

interaction and collaboration with the states, territories, and hundreds of defense 

communities around the country on initiatives to preserve and enhance military capabilities. The Air Force leverages these capabilities to directly support lethality 

and readiness, quality of life, and collaboration and alliance. Specifically, OEA programs of assistance includes the following efforts: • Provides essential planning assistance to defense states and communities to 

support safe and secure military operations at our installations and ranges by 

promoting compatible development near these facilities and working to alleviate 

instances of incompatible development. • Works with states and communities to help strengthen the resilience of their 

supply chains to withstand the fluctuations of Defense spending. These efforts 

maintain the effective delivery of goods and services for our installations and 

warfighters. • Helps defense communities effectively work with the Air Force to facilitate the 

prompt transfer of surplus and excess property, which frees up critical resources 

to be used to support the warfighter. This program allows defense communities 

to leverage Federal, state, local, public, and private resources to effectively redevelop the base property, which minimizes the economic impact of the closure. 

Mr. BROWN. This committee has long recognized that our defense communities are 

the foundation of our readiness and the Department’s only direct connection to communities is the Office of Economic Adjustment. For almost 60 years, OEA has been 

there to make sure DOD is a good neighbor and we are supporting the communities 

we rely on every day for support. In light of the Chairman’s recommendation that 

would eliminate OEA, can you share the Department’s view on this agency and its 

importance? 

Mr. GILLIS. The Army and other military departments maintain their own close, 

direct connections with the communities which host them. Army leaders at Fort 

Meade, Fort Detrick, Aberdeen Proving Ground and elsewhere throughout the country regularly communicate and form partnerships with local communities in a variety of ways and forums to share information and resources, and undertake initiatives of mutual interest and mutual benefit. Army installations work closely with 

local and regional planning agencies to establish regional compatible land use plans 

which minimize impacts of installation operations and development, respect future 

growth patterns and development, and seek mutually compatible land uses and zoning considerations. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) implements certain 

important authorities which Congress has provided to the Secretary of Defense that 

are unique within DOD. Those authorities enable OEA to provide direct grants and 

technical assistance to communities facing potential shifts in economic stability because of changes within the defense industry. OEA also provides technical and financial assistance directly to state or local governments to help develop plans to 

meet the future growth needs of the community, while protecting the sustainability 
111 

of military training and readiness missions. The Army certainly appreciates the importance of the technical and financial assistance OEA provides which complements 

the Army’s established relationships with Army communities. 

Æ