U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i

40–999 2008

[H.A.S.C. No. 110–38]

HEARING

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED

PROGRAMS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING

ON

BUDGET REQUESTS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, BASE

CLOSURES AND FACILITIES’ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

HEARING HELD

MARCH 20, 2007

(II)

READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

KATHY CASTOR, Florida

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

TOM COLE, Oklahoma

ROB BISHOP, Utah

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington

DAVE SIENICKI, Professional Staff Member

TOM HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member

CHRISTINE ROUSHDY, Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS

2007

Page

HEARING:

Tuesday, March 20, 2007, Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization

Act—Budget Requests for Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closures and Facilities’ Operations and Maintenance ........................................... 1

APPENDIX:

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 ........................................................................................ 31

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUESTS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING,

BASE CLOSURES AND FACILITIES’ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative from North Carolina, Readiness

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 2

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Readiness

Subcommittee ....................................................................................................... 1

WITNESSES

Anderson, Hon. William C., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment and Logistics) ...................................................................... 7

Eastin, Hon. Keith E., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and

Environment) ........................................................................................................ 4

Grone, Hon. Philip W., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations

and Environment) ................................................................................................ 3

Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) ..................................................................................................................... 6

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Anderson, Hon. William C. .............................................................................. 108

Eastin, Hon. Keith E. ....................................................................................... 60

Grone, Hon. Philip W. ...................................................................................... 35

Penn, Hon. B.J. ................................................................................................. 86

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Letters to Hon. Ike Skelton, Hon. Carl Levin, Hon. Robert C. Byrd,

Hon. David R. Obey, Hon. Tim Johnson, Hon. Chet Edwards, Reference

the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Recommendation #5 ... 135

Report to Congress on the Base Realignment and Closure 2005, Fort

Monmouth, New Jersey, Recommendation #5 ............................................ 147

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:

Mr. Saxton ......................................................................................................... 173

(1)

FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT—BUDGET REQUESTS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, BASE CLOSURES AND

FACILITIES’ OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 20, 2007.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m., in room

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon Ortiz (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. ORTIZ. This hearing will come to order.

I thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing before this

subcommittee today.

Today the Readiness Subcommittee will hear about Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and military construction

(MILCON) programs.

While I am glad to see the Department of Defense (DOD) committing the largest amount of money to new construction in recent

history, several serious issues still confront this committee, some of

our own making and some because of the lack of attention from

DOD.

Whether you support the President in Iraq or not, we can all

agree that we are in for a long war against a very determined

enemy. In this long war, our troops deserve the best that our great

nation can offer, and we will support this effort.

There is an old saying, ‘‘The first time you sign up a soldier or

sailor, you sign up one person. The next time you sign them up,

you sign up their whole family.’’ Our troops gauge this nation’s

commitment to them by this country ensuring that they have the

best facilities available to eat and sleep and usually taking care of

their families.

We don’t always do a good job of that, and I am being generous.

We were all sickened at the terrible treatment provided to our soldiers at Walter Reed. These building problems are because of the

poor facilities oversight.

The people that can make a difference are testifying before us

today, and we look forward to hearing from you.

With the sustainment that DOD has proposed for fiscal year

2008, we should expect additional problems similar to Walter Reed.

This committee will do what it has to to fix this oversight.

2

The overall increase in proposed military construction and our

ability to manage such a large program is problematic. This problem will only get worse because Congress cannot fully fund the

BRAC 2005 account in a timely manner, pushing some construction

into fiscal year 2008.

The Department must manage this military construction increase very carefully and ensure that our soldiers and sailors have

the correct facilities in time to meet their rebasing timeline.

Finally, our troops deserve the best training available. Some of

the services would rather train our troops in conditions that do not

simulate deployed conditions. Encroachment flight patterns and

land use constraints represent one of the biggest problems that

confront DOD and our ability to train like we fight.

The department should be prepared to make hard training decisions that ensure the best training for our troops.

I look forward to hearing your testimony.

The chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from

North Carolina, Mr. Jones, for any remarks that he would like to

make.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NORTH CAROLINA, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

And while my remarks will be brief in order to give more time

to our witnesses, no one should mistake brevity for a lack of concern.

The United States military has underfunded its installation

needs for years, and the situation is worsening daily with the prospects of continued war and steeply degrading readiness.

I think everyone knows that I have been very concerned about

the course we have taken as a nation and the toll it has taken on

our troops, our military families, and to a lesser degree our influence abroad.

We in Congress have not discharged our responsibilities very

well either with our inability to pass a military construction appropriations measure until this past month and our continued inability to fund the base realignment and closure part of that military

construction bill.

It cannot be easy for base commanders to manage under these

circumstances, but our troops deserve better, as do the civilian

communities, neighboring and supporting our military installations.

I am not sure all levels of military leadership understand the impact that military bases have on local communities and the great

efforts most communities undertake to support their local bases. It

is absolutely critical that we fund these accounts for construction,

maintenance and base support services in a straightforward, honest manner that is not subject to political and funding maneuvers.

We all love and support our military and want nothing but the

best for them.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the plan to

create truly outstanding facilities and for managed installations

well-integrated with their civilian neighbors.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

3

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you.

Our witnesses today are the Honorable Phil Grone, a good friend

for many years—we used to work together—the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environments for the Department of Defense; the Honorable Keith Eastin, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; and the

Honorable B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment—so good to see you again, sir; and the Honorable William C. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

Now, without any objection, the witnesses’ prepared testimony

will be accepted for the record.

What we are trying to do today is to stick to the five-minute rule,

if you can condense your testimony. The reason being that in a few

minutes we are going to have a few votes, and then after that we

have to come back and then we have a meeting at 4 and we have

a full committee markup at 4:30.

So, Mr. Grone, if you are ready with your testimony, you can

begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP W. GRONE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)

Secretary GRONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Ortiz, Mr. Jones and distinguished members of the

Subcommittee on Readiness, I am pleased to appear before you

today to discuss the budget request for the Department of Defense

for fiscal year 2008, particularly those programs that support the

management of our installation assets.

The President’s budget request continues the department’s efforts to reposition, to reshape and to sustain the nation’s military

infrastructure at home and abroad.

As this subcommittee is aware, the real property and asset management responsibilities of the department are extensive. In support of these responsibilities, the program supporting the department’s installation management portfolio totals $56 billion in this

budget request.

The budget supports a number of key elements of the department’s comprehensive asset management strategy, and I will briefly mention a few.

The request supports a facility recapitalization rate of 67 years,

achieving the goal of a 67-year recapitalization cycle for the department’s real property assets. In 2001, that rate stood at 192 years.

The budget request does, as the chairman indicated, provide 88

percent of the need to sustain our facilities. If enacted, this budget

will continue our efforts on military housing at home and abroad

and military housing privatization remains central to our strategy.

In last year’s budget, we fulfilled our commitment—with the support of the Congress—fulfilled our commitment to eliminate inadequate family housing in the United States by 2007 and the end

state is we expect 90 percent of the department’s military family

housing inventory to be privatized.

Through program efforts such as the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative and our outreach to the states, local

communities, private and nonprofit land trusts and the environVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
4

mental community, the department’s effort to preserve and enhanced military test and training ranges are achieving results. And

in support of the observation of Mr. Jones, this outreach to local

communities is a key part of this program. The department has requested $30 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget to support these

efforts to control encroachment with local communities.

We also are continuing our aggressive approach to energy conservation and the purchase and development of renewable sources

of energy. In fiscal year 2006, military installations reduced consumption by 5.5 percent, exceeding the energy conservation goal of

2 percent.

All of these initiatives are critically important, but certainly

among the most important is the implementation of the 2005 base

realignment and closure round. As you know, BRAC 2005 affects

over 800 locations across the Nation through 24 major base closures, 24 major realignments and over 760 lesser actions.

The significant transformation to the total force and its operation

capability, the department’s business operations and to the savings

ultimately derived from BRAC, require resources to meet adequately the challenge of implementation, and the chairman has indicated what those challenges are in the immediate term.

While some committees of the Congress have taken action to re- store the $3.1 billion that is necessary to implement the round in

fiscal year 2007, I would add that as we sit here today, with the

money that we have available, considering fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 and the reductions we have taken to date, we currently have on hand 53 cents out of every dollar the department

has requested to implement BRAC 2005.

We are very, very hopeful and appreciative and supportive of the efforts of members here to restore the $3.1 billion that will help get

us back on track and keep us on track for the statutory deadline

for implementation of September 15, 2011.

Mr. Chairman, the department is working hard, as I said, to

reposition, reshape and to sustain our installations for the future.

We recognize that installations are an important aspect of the generation of combat power and that they are critically important to

the quality and well-being of military personnel and their families.

We appreciate your previous support for our efforts and look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to conclude all

of these initiatives successfully.

Thank you, sir.

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

Appendix on page 35.]

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you.

Secretary Eastin.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)

Secretary EASTIN. Thank you, Chairman Ortiz, Mr. Jones.

As you all are well aware, the Army is very busy. Concurrent

with fighting the long war on terrorism, we are in the midst of

transforming our army to meet our national security challenges.

We are changing from a division-centric force to a brigade-centric

5

army modular force to more quickly respond to threats around the

world.

In addition, we are on the verge of repositioning our forces worldwide through base realignment and closure and the global defense

posture and realignment initiatives. Our plan integrates these initiatives and allows us to divest Cold War assets and infrastructure

and create the infrastructure needed for the foreseeable future.

This consolidation will yield a tremendous savings over time. We

will reduce overhead costs by streamlining installation staff and

contracting support.

In addition, the President, as you know, has announced that the

Army will grow by 74,000 active guardsmen and reservists over the

next 5 years. We have asked for about $400 million in the fiscal

2007 supplemental and another $2.3 billion in our fiscal 2008 request to begin the process of providing facilities for these new soldiers.

We are committed to providing you the details of those moves in

2008. We have given you the 2007 so far. We will give you the 2008

by the end of the month.

We have continued to make significant measurable progress toward our goal of eliminating inadequate housing for the single and

married soldiers. This budget will achieve almost 82 percent of our

goal of eliminating inadequate barracks and puts us on a glide

path to reach the goal of total elimination of the inadequacies by

2013.

Similarly, for family housing we continue to invest dollars in our

residential communities initiative. By the end of this fiscal year, we

will have privatized over 78,000 homes. At the end state, over 98

percent of our housing inventory in the United States will be

privatized.

For our reserve components, this budget will mean 1,743 Army

Reservists and 3,300 guardsmen will receive new centers as well as

continue to modernize the Army Guard Aviation and Maintenance

facilities. Under BRAC we will carry out 12 major and one minor

base closure, conduct 53 alignments, close 387 reserve facilities and

construct in their place 12 new armed forces reserve centers.

In all, this BRAC round, we have more than 1,320 separate individual actions under BRAC. Many of these actions are joint, requiring close coordination with other services.

Through Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR), we also

returned 50,000 soldiers and their families from Germany and from

Korea. This repositioning will allow the efficient return of overseas

forces and enable our installation commanders to focus their efforts

on enduring installations rather than abroad.

With your support, funds provided in fiscal year 2007 and this

budget will allow us to complete planning, conduct environmental

studies and begin the design and construction necessary to achieve

our legal mandate to complete BRAC by the year 2011.

As you are also aware, Congress did not—you must be tired of

hearing this by now—Congress did not fully fund our 2007 BRAC

request. We are short almost $2 billion. We urge you to see to helping fund this shortfall as soon as possible. If not funded, the project

would be cut our delayed, which has an operational impact on the

6

training, mobilization and deployment of forces in support of the

global war on terror.

Mr. Chairman, with the generous help of this committee and the

Congress, we have made tremendous progress in enhancing training and generating combat power in this time of war. However, despite these major improvements, the Army still requires significant

resources to overcome years of insufficient investments in its installations and infrastructure.

If resourced, our stationing plan will produce installations better

able to train and prepare our forces for future missions. Our plan

will also provide a quality of life for soldiers and their families that

they deserve and which is commensurate with what they could attain in the private sector.

We thank you for your help and look forward to answering your

questions.

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

Appendix on page 60.]

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much, sir.

Secretary Penn, good to see you, sir. You can proceed with your

statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. B.J. PENN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

THE NAVY (INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT)

Secretary PENN. Thank you.

Chairman Ortiz and members of the subcommittee, thank you for

the opportunity to discuss the Department of the Navy’s installations and environmental efforts.

I would like to briefly highlight a few topics that are discussed

in more detail in my written statement.

I am pleased to report a very substantial increase in investment

for installations and environmental programs in this budget. We

are asking for a total of $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2008, an increase of $1.8 billion above last year’s request. I appreciate the efforts by the House to restore $3.1 billion for

BRAC 2005 implementation. The funds are critical to allow us to

stay on track and attain the intended operational efficiencies while

minimizing further turbulence in the future of our personnel and

communities affected by BRAC 2005.

We continue to finance our prior BRAC environmental cleanup

and property disposal from the sale of other prior BRAC properties.

We have budgeted to spend the last of the $1.1 billion in land sale

revenue in fiscal year 2008 while our cost to complete environmental cleanup on all remaining prior BRAC property has increased by $725 million since last year.

Most of the increase is due to the recognition last year of substantial low-level radioactivity contamination at the former Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, California. The lowlevel radioactive material is buried underground, undetectable on

the surface and poses no risk to humans if left undisturbed. We are

working this issue with the city, the regulators and the congressional delegation.

I commend the Marine Corps for its efforts to eliminate by 2012

its barrack shortfall for enlisted Marines for their current approved

175,000 end strength. The budget includes $282 million for 10 barVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
7

racks projects at seven Marine Corps locations. The budget also includes about $950 million across the baseline and supplemental

budgets for a mix of facilities to grow the Marine Corps’ permanent

end strength to the 202,000 by 2011.

This initiative, which is separate from the current operations in

Iraq and Afghanistan, will allow the Marine Corps to reduce the

strain on individual Marines by establishing a more stable department deployment to dwell ratio and enhance their regular warfare

capabilities.

Both the Navy and Marine Corps continue family housing privatization efforts. Our investment of less than $600 million has attracted over $6.6 billion in private-sector capital to eliminate inadequate homes for our sailors and Marines with families.

The Navy is successfully applying privatization to improve housing for unaccompanied sailors. The Navy signed the first Department of Defense barrack privatization contract in December 2006.

Located in San Diego, this project will provide 941 new two-bedroom/two-bathroom apartments and privatize an existing building.

Construction will be completed in 2009. The Navy is in exclusive

negotiations with the developer for a second barracks privatization

project in Norfolk.

Chairman Ortiz, I know that you were on the forefront of family

housing privatization efforts some years ago in your district. Thank

you for your early and continued visionary support. The seeds you

helped sow continue to bear fruit and provide a quantum improvement in the quality of housing for all military personnel.

Thank you, Chairman Ortiz.

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

Appendix on page 86.]

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, sir.

Secretary Anderson.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT AND LOGISTICS)

Secretary ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jones and

other members of the distinguished members of the committee. On

behalf of America’s airmen, it is a pleasure to be here.

I will begin by thanking the committee for its continued support

of America’s Air Force and the many brave and dedicated airmen

who serve around the globe to keep the country safe.

As our nation and department finds itself engaged in hostility

and war for the 16th consecutive year, we are also in a transition

period where the Air Force continues to evolve and remain indispensable as threats to our nation emerge and change. The Air

Force is getting smaller, but our commitments are not.

Airmen perform critical installations, environmental and logistics

tasks that are intrinsic to every facet in the success of our missions. We are making process changes at every level of the Air

Force which result in resource savings and more efficient operations. In these tumultuous times, our priorities remain consistent:

winning the global war on terror, developing and caring for our airmen and recapitalizing and modernizing our air and space systems.

8

Air Force facilities, housing and BRAC programs are key to supporting these priorities. At home, our installations provide stable

training environments as we equip and reconstitute our force. Both

our state side and overseas bases provide force projection platforms

to support combatant commanders.

Our bases are weapon systems, and in order to support our basecentric concept of operations, the Air Force has developed an infrastructure investment strategy that focuses on enabling the combatant commander to fight and win the war on terror, provide quality

facilities, implement BRAC, sustain and recapitalize our aging infrastructure, all the while proactively supporting the operational

environment.

The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request for traditional MILCON is $1 billion. This budget carefully balances our facilities

operations and maintenance accounts for sustainment, restoration

and modernization with military construction to make the most effective use of available funding to support the air force mission. The 2008 budget request also includes $363 million for housing

investment, which balances new construction, improvement and

planning and design work. Housing is a very good new story for

our airmen. Privatization continues to be a success, bringing quality homes to airmen and their families in less time than we could

using traditional MILCON.

To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC-related activities, of which $910 million is construction. The Air Force

is lead for 64 BRAC business plans and has equity in an additional

16 business plans. Full support of our funding request is critical to

ensure we remain on track to meet the requirement of compliance

for 2010. So, like our sister services, we are in the same boat on

funding.

We are committed to make BRAC and joint basing a raging success. However, several joint basing policy elements run counter to

the spirit of efficiency and cost savings in the joint basing construct. The Air Force believes total obligation authority and real

property transfer would serve as a disincentive to cost savings, efficiency and effective execution of customer expectations; these customers, our operational commanders, who should define requirements necessary to execute the mission and manage the funds to

meet their needs.

This year we commemorate 60th anniversary of a proud service,

a service born of revolutionary ideas, forged in combat and proven

through the decades of progress and achievement. The readiness

and capability of our force to fight and win our nation’s wars now

and in the future depends heavily on the state of our operational

infrastructure.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Anderson can be found in

the Appendix on page 108.]

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Before we go into some of the questions, and after consultation

with the minority, I now ask unanimous consent that my good

friend, Mr. Saxton, a member of the House Foreign Service Committee, be allowed to participate in today’s hearing and be authorVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
9

ized to question the witnesses and he will be recognized at the conclusion of the questions from the committee.

Let me begin, and I hope the bell don’t ring, but, Mr. Secretary,

Secretary Grone, I just received a copy of the department’s decision

to implement fiscal year 2007 military construction program.

Why did the department issue policy not to execute any of the

important operations military construction projects that this body

authorized to support the war? Maybe you can give us a little explanation on that.

Secretary GRONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the spending plan which was required by the continuing resolution 30 days after enactment of the resolution, the secretary was

asked to provide a spending plan to the committees for military

construction, family housing and base realignment and closure.

For the military construction and military family housing accounts, we consulted with the committees on appropriations and

looked to the history, the legislative history to the extent we had

access to it, of the derivation of the numbers for each of the respective accounts, military construction, Army, Navy, military family

housing, et cetera.

And in judging which projects ought to be in that, it became clear

that the funding lines were those funds that were included in the

President’s budget, as authorized by the Defense Authorization

Bill. And so that is how those particular projects were selected.

Regrettably, because the funding in the continuing resolution did

not provide sufficient funds to cover all of the projects that were

authorized by the committee, there were projects that were identified by the committee that otherwise would have been executed if

we had had a standard military construction enactment that we

would be executing today.

But without sufficient funds to cover everything, we selected

those highest priority projects which are reflected in the President’s

budget and that could be immediately executed.

For base realignment and closure, we had to go through a similar

but much more complex process, where we had to array projects in

to some degree a priority order of implementation within the resources that we had available without being able to understand or

assure ourselves that the rest of the remainder of the $3.1 billion

would be forthcoming.

And so we looked at key projects that were imperative to operational requirements necessary to complete recommendations by

2011 on time and try working with the components to assess those

priorities and the priorities that came forward to the Congress

were largely—although there were some differences around the

margins—largely a pro rata distribution to the components for execution. But we made some marginal changes necessary to improve

efficiency of implementation and to support some operational imperatives.

Mr. ORTIZ. As I was reading through your statement, you indicated also that Congress’s inaction to provide the balance of the

$3.1 billion BRAC 2005 funding will, in your words, significantly

jeopardize the ability to execute BRAC by 2005 by the deadline of

September 15, 2011.

10

Are you advocating that maybe we should delay the implementation of the BRAC deadline?

Secretary GRONE. No, we are not advocating delay of the round.

The secretary’s observations, all of our respective observations from

an oversight and execution perspective, is that the inability of the

Congress, if the Congress so chooses, not to provide the $3.1 billion,

will have significant operational effects on the components as we

implement base realignment and closure as well as challenge if not

make impossible our ability to achieve the 2011 timeline.

It is my sense that members have understood the secretary’s argument, have taken it very firmly onboard, have understood the

concerns of the operational commanders, and that is why we see

some action here to restore those funds.

Because my observation is that the members understand the critical nature of these funds to completing not just the job of BRAC

on time, but to be able to keep the operational requirements, particularly for the Army, which is where a good deal of this operational requirement is, but certainly for the other services, to keep

it on track, on schedule, and reduce operational risks.

So I would not advocate, nor do we believe it is necessary, to

delay the round. That will simply create deficiencies in the process,

continue to have disruptions of schedules, delay the achievement of

savings, which are necessary to put those savings back on target

on military mission, whether it be at the installation level or in operations of wherever, we can judge, along with the Congress, if

those monies ought to be more effectively spent.

So keeping on schedule is critically important to the department’s mission. 2011 is critically important to our mission. And the

full receipt of funds that are necessary to carry out the implementation of those recommendations is absolutely critical to the future

of the department.

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is good to see you again, Mr. Secretary, as well as the others

on the panel.

Mr. Secretary, how involved have you been with the issue dealing with the outlying field in eastern North Carolina?

Secretary GRONE. I have not been involved with it on a daily

basis. We have observed the Department of the Navy’s planning

and programming for that project and have been involved from

time to time, as needed. But the day-to-day management of it has

been done by the Department of the Navy.

Mr. JONES. The reason I asked that is I have looked at some of

the analyses that have been provided to those of us in Congress

and I really have had questions—and I will put this in written

form—as to how much actual research and due diligence has been

looking at site two versus site one, site one being the outlying field

in Washington County.

And I have spoken in the last couple of weeks to one—I won’t

use his name at this time, because I don’t have his permission, but

was an Air Force pilot that spent time in eastern North Carolina,

out at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, and he is helping me to

prepare some very technical questions to the Navy.

11

He does not have an interest in where the outlying field is located or not, but he does not think the Navy has done as much research as they should have done into the seriousness of bird

strikes.

And I will tell you, if you have never visited Lake Mattamuskeet,

I am telling you, some of these birds are big, quite frankly. They

are just huge. They are 70 and 80 pounds. And I see Mr. Penn

shaking his head, so apparently he knows what I am talking about.

I say this because this has become a hot-button issue. The governor of the state, the secretary of agriculture for the state of North

Carolina have both taken some very strong positions in the last few

weeks.

And I don’t have this county in my district. I have some counties

that adjoin Washington County. It is actually Mr. Butterfield’s district.

But, for me, I want to make sure that this has been—in fact, in

my prepared remarks that I read, ‘‘and base support services in a

straightforward, honest manner that is not subject to political and

funding maneuvers.’’ And I would hope there would not be military

politics, so to speak.

We all know there are problems with Oceana. We understand the

issue, so to speak. But I want to make sure for eastern North Carolina that we do have the best of both worlds, where the Navy gets

what it needs to train those pilots, but also we protect the natural

beauty that has been blessed by God.

And so I am really concerned, Mr. Penn. I am going to be putting

this in written form to you. I don’t think it is fair today, because

we had not talked about this, to bring up a couple of the technical

issues that I think that the Navy must address during the public

hearings if not before the public hearings.

But, Mr. Grone, I would like for you to also receive a copy of my

letter, asking for this information in detail back to me regarding

my concern of bird strikes, because this is going to be an issue that

has got to be resolved before there is a go ahead by those of us in

Congress.

Secretary GRONE. Mr. Jones, I certainly look forward to receipt

of that.

My understanding and observation is that the Navy did an extensive study on the question of bird strike and also looked extensively at the effect on the wildlife refuge there.

The Navy certainly—and I yield to Mr. Penn for any comment

he would like to make, but it was looked at extensively.

We look forward, however, to any technical questions you may

have. And certainly in the process that we are in right now, the

public comment and overview process, it is critically important that

we have those views. So we would benefit by that, and we will take

a very hard look at it.

Mr. JONES. Before I yield to Mr. Penn, you know, when you see

in the paper that the governor is upset that the Navy is proposing

to poison some of the wildlife and the birds, the ducks and the

geese, I mean that is not good public relations (PR) for the Navy.

If the solution is that you are going to take on the swans and you

are going to end up trying to poison them, this is not helping the

Navy and there has been other comments in the paper.

12

And I realize there is always two sides to any story, and I want

to make it clear that I am very pro-military. I think the world we

live in is very dangerous. But I also want to make sure that there

is a compatibility between the community and the military. And

that has always happened in my district. This has been the issue.

So I want to make sure that the Navy can say to those in the

community and to the governor of the state of North Carolina, we

are absolutely certain that we can live with God’s creation.

Mr. Penn, I don’t know if I have a moment or two left, if you

want to respond or not.

Secretary PENN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. You don’t have to.

Secretary PENN. And we feel the same way, sir. We are going to

live with it. We are going to do the right thing by everything.

There is no intent to poison the birds. I mean, I don’t know where

that came from. A lot of things come out.

We have done several weeks of extensive field work and drafted

12 technical reports, produced two consultations with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service—they were a cooperating agency with us—wildlife

experts and acoustics engineers. The Navy also hired three internationally recognized waterfowl experts, and their contributions

were invaluable.

We wanted to do this to make sure that it was aboveboard, there

could be no question that the Navy is trying to sway the decision

or the outcome.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

Secretary PENN. I am also a hunter, so—we will do the right

thing, sir.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, I believe that. And I will have a letter prepared next week to send to you and a copy to Mr. Grone as well.

Secretary PENN. Look forward to receiving it, sir.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Bordallo.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Ortiz. I am sure the

members of the committee know that you will be visiting my home,

the territory of Guam, very soon, to check over our military installations there, and we are very much looking forward to that trip.

And I wish to say good afternoon to our very distinguished panel

of witnesses.

My first question is to Secretary Grone.

Some have raised concerns that the Department of Defense lacks

a commitment to the development of a master plan for the planned

buildup on Guam.

How satisfied are you with the level of coordination that has

been achieved within the Department of Defense and among the

services with respect to the planning for the planned buildup in the

territory?

What challenges remain for you and your colleagues as you work

to bring together the various stakeholders within the department

to finalize an integrated master plan for Guam?

Secretary GRONE. Thank you for that question. It is a critically

important one.

13

As you know, and as the members know, the careful discussion

and negotiation, the agreement we reached with the government of

Japan to comprehensively realign our base unit installation assets

in Asia, in partnership with our Japanese ally, is critically important. A critical component of that arrangement is the relocation of

Marines from Okinawa to Guam.

And in addition to all the other military activity we have aboard

the island for the Navy not associated with the move, for the Air

Force, the coordination is a critical piece.

My colleague, Mr. Penn, chairs the Guam Executive Counsel, on

which Mr. Anderson and myself, and Mr. Eastin from time to time

as circumstances warrant, sit. We sit with our colleagues from

across the department. It is the platform where we certainly look

at issues that are joint and even, you know, singularly, on a military component, to ensure that we are doing the right thing by

planning, budgeting, looking ahead at all the issues that need to

be addressed.

It is also the place where we describe interagency effects and we

can work tasks out of that, to work the Federal interagency as necessary, and also the joint program office, to be able to liase with

the governor, yourself and other interested members and certainly

the subcommittee to ensure that we have the right posture going

forward.

So I am satisfied that we have the right executive-level attention

to the matter. I am satisfied that we are providing the proper oversight. And the Department of Navy is doing, in my view, a very

fine job of coordinating this activity.

Certainly, we do have challenges in the effort, but we are receiving very solid cooperation from the Japanese government, consistent with the agreement we reached. It will be a challenge of implementation, that wave of construction and the like. We recently had

a whole series of technical visits to the island, looking at a whole

number of things.

So there was a lot of activity around the enterprise devoted to

this issue, and I think we are postured well for the future.

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

And to my friend, Secretary Penn, who has become quite a fixture in Guam at this point in time, the secretary will be visiting

Guam at the same time Mr. Chairman, Chairman Ortiz, that we

are visiting, Secretary Penn will also be on the island at the time.

Mr. Secretary, two weeks ago the Navy announced that it will

hold public scoping meetings on Guam, Saipan and Tinian during

the first week of April to solicit input, suggestions and concerns

from individuals from these communities regarding the planned relocation of the 8,000 Marines to Guam.

To what extent can you assure us that the Navy will make every

effort possible to address these suggestions, comments and concerns that individuals from these communities put forth during

these scoping hearings and during the public comment period?

Can you describe for this subcommittee the process by which

comments from the local communities will be integrated into further planning for the build up on Guam?

Secretary GRONE. Well, certainly, ma’am, it would be, I think,

advisable for my colleague, Mr. Penn, to comment more directly on

14

the management of the process, because it is the Navy’s responsibility to do that process.

But as you well know, the public comment process in any process

like that is critically important. I am quite certain that the Navy

will take all the public comments from wherever they come, from

the governor down to just the average citizen, quite seriously as we

build up the planning that is necessary to execute this extensive

and significant series of moves to enhance the national security.

We have long had, as I mentioned earlier—what we are trying

to do is work very closely in cooperation with governors, with local

communities, on issues that affect the long-term stewardship and

management of our installation assets. That places a great deal of

premium on planning. It places a great premium on dialogue.

And in that context, it is completely appropriate. It is necessary

for us to take those comments very seriously. It does not guarantee

that the Navy will agree with every comment.

But the fact that those comments will be taken seriously, that

they will be assessed, and frankly, as I have observed in many,

many processes, we learn a lot in public comment and we change

proposals from time to time as a result of public comment.

So it is a very, very valuable part of the process.

Ms. BORDALLO. Secretary Penn, do you agree with that?

Secretary PENN. Yes, ma’am.

In fact, at this time we are planning, as long as there are individuals at the hearings, we intend to remain there. We are not

going to have a set time, say until 4 until 6 or 6 until 8. As long

as someone is there, we will be there to get their comments.

As you know, it was announced in the Federal register on the

seventh of this month that we were going to be out there. We have

extended our comment period to the maximum possible, which is

60 days, and that is the window we are looking at.

We have handouts for the various locations where we are going

to be holding the scoping meetings. It should have been broadcast

that there is information, there is a resource in the library, where

they can get the information in advance to our getting there. And

we have a really nice handout for everyone that shows up, telling

them the process and the procedures for commenting.

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just one quick question.

Mr. ORTIZ. Just make it short, because we have other members

here.

Ms. BORDALLO. If there are changes, drastic changes, in some of

these decisions, would you then go back to share that with the civilian community?

Secretary PENN. That will come out in the final, yes, ma’am. It

will.

And one of the other things that I should mention is, we are

working with all the other agencies. We are working with Interior,

Labor, Education, Transportation, Homeland Defense, Homeland

Security, to make sure we all have a package bundle, so we are all

being considered to get the very best we can for this evolution.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you.

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes.

15

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing.

Thank all of you for being here today. I just have two questions

for the panel.

As you know, many of our facilities under the BRAC program

have worked very, very hard to stay on schedule, some of them

ahead of schedule. The surrounding jurisdictions have just gone to

bat to make that happen.

The two questions I would have for you is, let us assume that

the unfunded fiscal year 2007 BRAC allocation was restored. How

long would it take for those funds to be executed at the post level?

In other words, is there sufficient time remaining in the fiscal

year to stay on schedule and execute the funds as were originally

projected, especially for those facilities that have been on schedule

and maybe some of them even ahead of schedule?

And the second thing is, outside of funding, have you run into

any ambiguity in the BRAC language that in any way could cause

a delay or serve as an obstacle for implementing or moving forward

with BRAC projects?

Secretary GRONE. Mr. Forbes, let me try to answer both questions, and then my colleagues may wish to elaborate.

For purposes of execution, I can only go back to the fiscal year

2006 monies that we had. Now, admittedly, it was $1.5 billion, but

there were two aspects in the last fiscal year that I think merit attention.

One is that we were ultimately provided through appropriation

$400 million less than was requested. And because of some reporting requirements that the Congress had asked, fund release was

delayed for a couple, two to three, months.

In the time that remained in fiscal year 2006, we executed nearly

all of the funds and very early in the first quarter of fiscal 2007

we had executed nearly 92 percent of the funds. So we had positioned ourselves in a position with contract vehicles and the like

to, as soon as we were in the middle of fund receipt, we could begin

to move projects and execute the program.

We have similarly positioned ourselves presently with the $2.5

billion and would do the same with the remainder.

I can’t tell you that every dollar would be expended by the end

of the fiscal year, but my expectation is that very early in fiscal

year 2008, similar to what we saw in fiscal 2006, that those monies

would be committed and executed in a very, very timely way.

So I am confident that my colleagues have execution plans in

place that will put dollars on target as soon as we have funds received.

Mr. FORBES. Any language barriers that are causing delay?

Secretary GRONE. We continue to work through certain ambiguities of commission recommendations as we are developing implementation plans. That said, I see nothing there that would cause

us to miss the September 2011 deadline solely as a matter of language. I don’t foresee that.

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ORTIZ. We have about three votes, and it is going to take us

about 20, 25 minutes, but we will continue on.

16

I yield to Ms. Giffords now for any questions that she might

have, and we will see if we can maybe wait until we have about

five or six minutes left before we go vote.

Do you have any questions?

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for Secretary Eastin.

You talked about the Army increasing—I thought the number

was 65,000, but you had referenced the number 74,000 in terms of

increase of the force and increased numbers of soldiers.

Can you talk a little bit about how you go about doing that?

When I go back to my district, and I communicate to folks, at

Fort Huachuca, which is in Sierra Vista, they understand because

of just the nature of that geography. But for folks around the district, southeastern Arizona, what is actually going to take you to

increase our facilities in order to accommodate 74,000 soldiers

across the country?

Secretary EASTIN. The increase is broken down into several

pieces.

First, we were working on a temporary 30,000 increase. The

number we are looking for is 482,400. And then we are going to

add 30,000 to it that were in large part already onboard. Then we

are going to add another 7,000 per year for 5 years. So that is not

like we have to swallow up 65,000 all in 1 year.

Many of the 30,000 are on board, and we just have to get the

Army story out there, indicate what an opportunity it is to serve

your country, and from our point of view we need to make the installations and the experience, as much as an early military experience can be, rewarding.

Say, your first six weeks or so, I am not so sure about that, but

thereafter, to make sure that we take care of the soldiers, we take

care of their families and reward them in the way that they are

rewarding us by their service.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary Eastin, do you have any concerns or areas that we

should be focused on about this? You talked a little bit about the

numbers, but are there areas that we can be helpful with?

Secretary EASTIN. We deal, of course, on this committee and in

my lane, with providing infrastructure for our soldiers and their

families to live on and to work with. Turning these installations

into models of mini city governments, where they can return to and

be happy about when they are in the fight, they can look down the

barrel of their rifle and see an enemy and not look down the barrel

of their rifle and worry about how their wife and kids are being

taken care of back here.

So I consider it our duty and our responsibility to provide them

with the best care, the best facilities we can, and really show what

it is, how we appreciate their services.

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you.

Mr. ORTIZ. We will continue for the next five minutes, Mr.

Bishop, then see if we can get there and vote.

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I will talk fast.

I appreciate being down here and I hope you guys will hurry up

and do your whipping so we don’t have to wait for more votes when

we get on the floor.

17

First of all, I would be remiss, Secretary Grone, if I didn’t thank

you for your service to the country, and especially what you have

done for me, my staff and my district in the state of Utah. Thank

you very much.

My question, though, today, it is actually two questions, are for

Secretary Eastin.

And I will apologize. I have to pretend I am a senator and I have

to get some kind of preface to this thing. And I apologize. It is obviously a parochial question or we wouldn’t be here.

But I represent in Utah two Army installations, the Tooele Army

Depot as well as the Dugway proving grounds. And I know the

challenges the Army faces in your MILCON dollars, and they are

significant.

But I am concerned about the matrix in the MILCON dollars

that is resulting in what I think is significant neglect and deterioration of the infrastructure and the facilities at Tooele as well as

Dugway, which are not training bases, they are not forts, they are

support installations.

Tooele Army Depot has not had a MILCON project approved in

15 years, even though they have been in the pipeline, they have

been valid, but they have never seemed to make it in the fight

after they have been kicked down for other priorities, which in the

first 15 years I was empathetic, the last 15 years I was sympathetic, now I don’t care.

We have also met people on your staff who thought Tooele was

actually closed in BRAC 1995 when it was merely realigned, and

it still has a significant storage mission as well as several hundred

civilian employees that are there.

I want, though, to focus my two questions on Dugway proving

grounds. I am getting both shots in while I have the chance.

This is a unique mission in chem bio defense. It is the only place

where outdoor stimulant testing can take place, so it is obviously

in a remote, isolated area of the Utah desert.

For the past eight years, Dugway has had a MILCON project

need in their life science test facility. It is based on the post 9/11

workloads. The current facility, built in the 1980’s, is completely

full, and the scientists are now conducting their lab work with the

chemical and biological agents in temporary trailers in these harsh

desert conditions. It doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in either the

Army, the employees or the citizens of my state who have traditionally supported our military very strongly.

This facility project has again this year been slipped to the end,

and it has happened time after time, which, once again, I can tell

you by this time I don’t care.

In the civilian housing area, our facilities are crumbling. The

community center, the ceiling is taken down. Half of it is closed because of a lack of working plumbing.

And remember, this is an isolated area. It takes you 90 minutes

at 70 miles an hour on a two-way road to get there to any kind

of shopping or service area. They can’t go to outside commercial opportunities outside the front gate.

So the first question, which is generic, is: What is the Army proposing to address the long-term needs at these support installaVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
18

tions, like Tooele and Dugway, which I believe have been put on

the back burner too long?

Second question, which may be even more specific to Dugway, is:

If the Army isn’t going to fund them, have you ever considered the

idea of turning the Dugway proving ground into a nonprofit research institution, or giving it over to the state of Utah, which may

actually care? Given the lack of these resources, would you be supportive of a privatization study for the testing facilities that are

presently being done at the Dugway proving grounds?

Secretary EASTIN. Let me answer your last question first.

We are open to all suggestions, such as privatizing something

like this, because believe it or not, we don’t feel particularly good

about shoving these projects out to the right. I know Dugway and

the life science center has been shoved out to the right several

times, and it is going to be small solace to you to know that you

are one of a couple hundred other projects that have gotten shoved

out to the right while we are fighting wars and trying to build

buildings for BRAC and for our Army modular force initiative.

We are trying to take care of the troops, and unfortunately some

of these that are not on the frontlines of what the Army does sometimes seems like we don’t care. We do care. And if there are other

options for getting at least the life science center off of the front

page or the disabled list, if you will, we would be happy to hear

them, and I would be happy to work with you or your people.

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. I am not trying to

be difficult on this. I realize the problems you are facing. I realize

the MILCON problems have not been helped necessary this year so

far and we may have other difficulties that go along with that.

But in some respects, it is difficult trying to get some kind of attention for areas that are very remote and have the facilities that

continue to keep crumbling simply because, as you mentioned, they

get shoved back there. It is not that they are not valid programs.

It is the prioritization.

That is why I am wondering somewhat about the matrix that is

used on the evaluation of these particular projects.

Thank you.

Mr. ORTIZ. We only have five minutes, but I will tell you what,

you can continue with your questioning, and we will give him time

to respond, because we only have about five minutes for the vote.

Mr. BISHOP. Actually, I am done. You can forget about me the

rest of your life.

Mr. ORTIZ. What we are going to do is, we are going to raise the

speed limit.

Thank you.

We will be right back. It is going to take about 20, 25 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. ORTIZ. We are going to see if we can now resume our hearing, because we do have a meeting at 4. I think we have ample

time to finish this hearing today. I think that more members will

be coming in.

But, Secretary Penn, I am concerned about the encroachment

and the department’s current intent to address these issues. This

is a concern that I have had for many, many years about encroachment at many military bases.

19

The chief of naval operations recently visited my office and in my

opinion has developed a strategy that only ensures that encroachment at our navy training bases doesn’t get any worse at Naval Air

Station (NAS) Oceana.

The training conditions of our naval aviators, that they use, are

deplorable, and I am sure that you are aware that many of the

folks in North Carolina, including the governor, are against the

building on the outlying landing field in the proposed area.

I was just wondering, why doesn’t the Navy adopt a strategy that

allows noise levels to be reduced at NAS Oceana and more of the

fleet replacement squadron for training and pilot readiness can be

developed.

And this is not the only place where we have problems with encroachment. I mean, you go to Camp Pendleton, you go to many,

many other bases, and the training is miserable because you can

train here, then you get on a bus and you move someplace else to

continue training. But Oceana is a problem because it was brought

up to you on the Base Closing Committee. Maybe you can elaborate

on some of what I just asked you.

Secretary PENN. Yes, sir.

As you know, Oceana is a master jet base. We have all the equipment, all the facilities, everything we need there to be operation

ready, to enhance our operational capability, including surge capability.

Oceana is strategically co-located with other major naval facilities and bases in the Hampton Roads area, making that a fleet concentration area. And it is ideally located and close to regional training ranges and the carrier operating areas. That is the reason.

Mr. ORTIZ. But, you know, I think that overall we are going to

have to look at all of these bases. I think that these bases provide

many good things, civil service jobs, to the communities, and if the

communities are not concerned about encroachment, there are

other bases that do their best not to put those that are training in

harm’s way.

I think this is something that, we are going to look at it and I

am not sure what the solution would be, but what restrictions can

be put on communities if they start annexing land and land and

land. Before you know, the bases don’t have any areas of training

and it makes it very dangerous.

Some of the pilots I have talked to said that it is just like landing

in a mall, because of the lights. And this is Navy. They should be

landing out at sea——

Secretary PENN. Right. Where it is really dark.

Mr. ORTIZ [continuing]. And the training is very, very difficult for

them.

So I hope that as we move on, that we can find a solution to this

problem, you know. You just heard my friend from North Carolina,

they are still having problems whether they can get an outlying

field there or not.

So does anybody want to touch—Mr. Grone, would you like to

touch on that?

Secretary GRONE. Sir, I think that Mr. Penn has adequately addressed the operational requirement as the Navy sees it. Our judgment was to concur with that judgment.

20

Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Jones, do you have any questions?

Mr. JONES. I will be real quick, because Mr. Saxton——

Mr. ORTIZ. Oh, Mr. Saxton is here.

Okay. He yields to Mr. Saxton.

Go ahead.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eastin, during the last Base Realignment and Closure Commission, some of us were unconvinced that the closing of Fort Monmouth was the right decision. And the chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission actually was told by the secretary of the Army that under no circumstances would the Army

permit the move to sacrifice or short-change ongoing C4ISR support for the service and warfighters in the field, particularly during

this war.

The chairman then added language requiring the secretary of defense to submit to Congress a report that a movement of organization functions and activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen

proving ground would be accomplished without disruption of their

support for the global war on terror.

The language required a report. I would like to know where the

report is. And will you, as a representative of the Army, can you

tell us whether the Army will proceed with the closing of Fort Monmouth if you realize that it does have a derogatory effect on C4ISR

progress?

Secretary EASTIN. Thank you, Congressman.

First, we have no intention of closing down Monmouth unless we

have some redundancy someplace else. We will not go to Aberdeen

and have one particular service that Monmouth is provided that is

uncovered somehow.

This is not just because Congress willed it that way or you think

it is a good idea. I think it is good to keep these services to the

country. They are very important and they need to be seamless.

And as you know, whenever you put pieces of equipment, especially

highly specialized and technical equipment, such as they are using

up there together, you need sometimes to run it in parallel with

what is in existence up there already so that we know they have

the same capabilities.

So we are not going to do that unless we have the others running

in parallel at the same time.

With respect to the report, Army Material Command, which has

the cognizance of the Monmouth operation, is preparing that report. Needless to say, the closer they get to actually having to do

something there, the more fidelity that report is going to have.

I do not know the status of it, although we know we owe it to

you.

Mr. SAXTON. Would it be possible for you to check on the report

and get back to us?

Secretary EASTIN. I will be happy to. I know they have been

working on it, I just don’t know where it is.

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 173.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

Secretary Anderson, I guess it has probably been the better part

of—it was two years ago that I sat down and visited with Mr.

21

Grone about the concept of joint basing and creating joint bases. It

has been some time ago.

But we laid out in about an hour-and-a-half conversation some

concepts and parameters that we thought would be good, to recognize the fact that we fight together, we go to war together, that we

train together, that we live together and that we have separate

bases, and that there were some opportunities to create joint bases.

And that process was recommended to the Base Realignment and

Closure Commission, and the concept in the report was adopted.

The details of working it out were left to the services to work out

together, and I think that was probably a good move. But the process seems to have gotten slogged down here recently over a couple

of issues.

One issue is quality-of-life issues, and they are important, and I

fully recognize that they are important. And I recognize there are

different cultures in the different services, and I realize what a difficult time it is to bring them together.

All four services happen to be based with significant number of

people, particularly the Army, the Air Force and the Navy, and to

some extent the Marine Corps, in my district. So I live with them

all, and I understand the difficulty and the issues of bringing cultures that are somewhat different together.

I also know that the Army and the Navy and the Marine Corps

have agreed on one concept of land transfer and that the Air Force

holds a different position, which you I think mentioned in fact in

your opening statement.

I would just like to say that this issue is the Magilla Gorilla

issue on the block right now as far as I can see, and it needs to

be solved, and if you are the one guy out, meaning the Air Force,

then it seems to me that you have a special responsibility to either

convince the other services that you are right, make a deal with

them, make an arrangement with them, or yield to their position.

I think this is extremely important. I can see both sides of it and

I know it is a thorny, difficult issue, but in having talked to representatives of the Air Force and the Army and the Navy and the

chief of staff of the Air Force just a week ago, and while I won’t

pretend to know exactly what DOD’s position is, I think I have a

pretty good idea inside, and I think we just need to get this set of

issues behind us.

Failing to do that, I believe deeply in the concept of jointness in

basing. And if the services can’t pursuant to the recommendation

of the commission do it themselves, then maybe there are some

other people in this town who will have to take a look at doing it

with you or for you. And I don’t think that is a good thing for us

to talk about doing.

So I guess my question is, what are your plans on resolving these

issues and do you think you will need any help in the future?

Secretary ANDERSON. Great question. Actually, there are a number of them in there and I will try to address each of them. I hope

I can. And I am sure you will remind me if I miss a piece.

Let me first start off with the position that the Air Force has,

and I believe agreed by all parties here at the table, that joint basing is important. The efficiencies that can be driven through joint

basing, the delivery of services in a much more effective manner,

22

great idea. Unfortunately, it took an act of Congress to actually get

the services to start talking about it, which kind of just personally

I don’t know why it took that much, but be that as it may, it did.

You raised quality-of-life concerns. And you are right. From the

Air Force position, the joint basing is an opportunity to not only

maintain quality of life but actually, from our perspective, improve

the quality of life, not only for every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine that is serving in uniform today, but maybe even more importantly, making sure that the families that are left behind with multiple deployments have the best possible services and infrastructure they can possibly have.

So we are pushing very hard to make sure that not only quality

of life is maintained at the highest level of the combined, the individual piece of each combined base, but we believe it is an opportunity to actually improve quality of life for everybody across the

board.

The Air Force doesn’t disagree at all about the ‘‘what’’ in terms

of, as you laid out, what is trying to be accomplished by joint basing. The ‘‘how’’ is a little bit of a different matter from our perspective.

You talked about speed, and I agree. This is something that we

ought to get done, get done quickly and get done effectively. Our

position is rather than pushing 12 bases into this at one time, potentially creating 12 sets of the same mistakes, that we go through

a process by which we bring the mistakes up in a database of the

situation, learn from them, fix them, and then push them out to

the other bases much more quickly and effectively in order to speed

up, not slow down, the process.

The first step of that was actually worked out in a discussion between the Chief Naval Officer (CNO) and the chief of staff of the

Air Force, and I think they did a terrific job of saying why don’t

we start with a tabletop exercise. The Navy has agreed. The Air

Force has agreed. Recently the Army has asked if they could join,

from what I understand, and the answer is emphatically yes.

That we can learn, through going through this exercise on a

table and developing and dealing with issues, then take this out to

two bases or three, whatever is the most appropriate, go to total

operational capability in joint basing, at those bases, learn from

those bases, and all of the lessons learned. Then we can consolidate

them and push them out to all the rest of the bases and move

much quicker with the residual of the remaining bases, to get them

up to speed and generate savings and efficiencies much quicker

than by just pushing it out and learning the same lessons 12 times

and having to fix them 12 times.

The other area of interest is this debate about transfer of title,

transfer of Table of Allowance (TOA). From the Air Force perspective, we look at this as a consumer and a supplier relationship, just

like the outside market, where a consumer controls their purse and

a consumer controls their real estate and they go to a service provider to provide whatever that service happens to be, whether it is

child care or dining facilities or what have you.

The natural tension between the bill payer and the individual

who provides the service is the most effective manner, it is free enterprise, the most effective manner of driving costs down and drivVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
23

ing efficient delivery of service. And that is our position as related

to transfer of title and TOA. If you move it all to one party, that

tension and pull between a purchaser and a supplier gets lost.

We believe controlling the purse against the group that actually

provides the service is what is going to provide the best platform

to provide efficiency, effectiveness and cost savings in the joint base

construct. So we want it to be a raging success.

That is why we are pushing for an approach in our mind that

gives us a much greater possibility for having a tremendous success with joint basing. We are 100 percent behind it and think we

ought to get it right.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I know that my time has expired.

But I wonder if there is time to let the other service representatives at the table——

Mr. ORTIZ. We will give them time to respond.

Mr. SAXTON. Would you gentlemen like to talk about these

issues? I think you hold a little different position, perhaps?

Secretary EASTIN. I am not sure we in the Army agree about

TOA and land ownership. If we are going to have a joint base, in

our view, it ought to be truly a joint base, and that is just our point

of view.

I think that if the Air Force is coming to the table with the Army

running the show, they ought to be giving up their TOA and they

ought to be giving up their land. Vice versa with the Army. If we

are going to go over and have the Army basically run the base in

conjunction with us, we ought to give them the land and the TOA

involved.

Probably room for everybody to have their opinion in these

things and ultimately the grand arbiter in the sky, who is sitting

here on my right, will have to make these decisions.

Secretary PENN. Sir, I agree with Mr. Eastin. I ran the largest

air station in the Navy and I probably had 30 squadrons, three aircraft carriers, two cruisers, and numerous other commands, and I

was the landlord and it was very easy. It worked. It worked for me

personally and I think the concept is valid.

Mr. SAXTON. Listening to Secretary Anderson, it seems to me

that the issue of how you keep everybody equitable from a howyou-pay-for-things point of view is a big issue. Is that right?

So if the Army is going to run the Washington base and the Air

Force is going to run the New Jersey base, it seems to me that

there could be some parameters developed with regard to governance to solve these issues so that the actual concept of who owns

the land takes a lesser position and the concept of how you run the

base takes a higher position.

And once again, I just hope that these issues can be resolved in

a timely manner so that we can move forward with all of the I

think great efficiencies and coming together of the services that I

know are so healthy for the services and the men and women that

serve in them.

Thank you.

Mr. ORTIZ. Ms. Boyda.

Mrs. BOYDA. Yes, thank you, Chairman Ortiz.

First of all, when you were giving your opening remarks you

mentioned several times that you appreciate the support of this

24

committee and your funding, and I would just like to say I appreciate what you all have been through.

I represent Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth, Forbes Field, and

I also have the Kansas National Guard headquarters in my district, so we have been living through the train wreck caused by this

BRAC problem and the fact that there was no funding for the

BRAC installations, not adequate funding, as of last October 1.

So you all have done a yeoman’s job in getting through that and

I think you have the commitment of leadership on hopefully both

sides of the aisle to make sure that we make up for that shortfall,

get that money to you as soon as possible and get back on with

what you are doing with BRAC funding. So thank you for that.

Honorable Mr. Eastin, I had a question for you about the Parsons Army Ammunition Plant that was part of the BRAC funding.

I have been down there to the BRAC. We have had some Army materiel come in, people come down. I have got to say that what has

happened has been less than satisfying, and that might be polite.

We are looking for a list to tell people what is going to be left

at the plant and the ability to get that list as early as possible will

really help the economic development in that area. It is 200 jobs.

Maybe in many districts 200 jobs isn’t a big deal. In Parsons, Kansas, and Leavenworth County, Kansas, it is a big deal. That Army

ammunition plant has been around for 50 to 60 years, and it is

very much part of the community.

I would like to just ask for your support in helping us get that

list, and I was wondering if I could even ask you to accompany me

down to Parsons at some point and say can you help us make sure

that we are getting a speedy and fair hearing on what would be

left there in the plant.

Let me just also describe the good people of Parsons, Kansas, for

a minute. They want whatever is best for the military and whatever is best for our country, and I mean that. They are as fiscally

conservative and responsible and as patriotic as they come. If it

makes sense to move that equipment, then they are going to be behind it 100 percent.

That equipment has been there for over 40 years, and it is very

hard for people to understand why moving that would be economically viable. And so it is a great big concern in the community. And

I was wondering again if I could just ask for your support in just

helping to resolve that. Clearly, they would just like to be able to

open that facility and to run it privately. And have the county be

the landowners and transfer that so that you can get out from

under that facility as an Army Materiel Command (AMC) facility.

Please, sir.

Thank you.

Secretary EASTIN. I am sorry you had a less-than-satisfactory experience with AMC. I have personally found them charming and

wonderful.

Let me tell you about the munitions plant and my view of the

BRAC law. The BRAC law is that we leave and we take the equipment we need, but that the default position of the Army and in fact

all the services is, the equipment stays unless we need it.

Now, I know AMC is doing a report on this, assessing their

needs. I am told it should be to you people in mid-April or so.

25

Mrs. BOYDA. Excuse me. It was my understanding—have we

moved back now?

Secretary EASTIN. I am sorry?

Mrs. BOYDA. It should be—we have been told March, for sure.

Secretary EASTIN. I am told we will have this—we meaning I

guess me—will have this by the end of March. And someone has

assumed for me that it is going to take two weeks to look at it.

That is why I——

Mrs. BOYDA. All right. Thank you.

Secretary EASTIN. My friendly note-passer tells me mid-April

here.

So being what it is, we will have this fairly shortly.

Mrs. BOYDA. I certainly appreciate anything you can do. Again,

being in no-man’s land is probably the worst of all possible worlds,

so I would appreciate anything that you can do to just help get

clarity on that and, again, to make sure that if anything is needed,

of course, and I mean this, people in Parsons will say, ‘‘It needs to

go.’’ But let’s just get clarity and leave anything that can help keep

jobs in that community.

Let me just also ask, please, to Secretary Grone about the Office

of Economic Adjustment (OEA) money. It certainly appears in the

President’s 2008 budget, what, it is down about $80 million from

$137 million in 2007 and this year it is down to $57 million, something like that? This is just the kind of money that will really help

Parsons recover from losing this longstanding business in their

community.

Can you help me understand that, please?

Secretary GRONE. Certainly, we view the role of OEA as critically

important, as the principal agency within the department not concerned with implementation, per se, but in equitable transition.

And the comparative numbers that you suggested I believe are appropriated dollars. The Congress had added funds, and in some

cases earmarked some funds for certain projects, prior year activity

or certain planning moneys.

We believe that the funds that are requested in this year’s President’s budget are sufficient to support the planning and adjustment

activities that we require in this coming fiscal year. And OEA has

been, is playing a key role, in our liaison with state and local communities. So they are a critically important part of the transition

from my perspective.

Mrs. BOYDA. So if I understand you correctly, you are not seeing

any pull back at any services and we can expect the same, a full,

basically, transition, and make sure the clean up and everything,

you anticipate that to be——

Secretary GRONE. Well, cleanup is not a function of OEA.

Mrs. BOYDA. I apologize.

Secretary GRONE. It is a function of the components.

But in terms of the work that OEA will be doing with local communities, the director of OEA has a case manager assigned to each

and every major action. That case manager works very closely with

the local communities, with members, as you know.

That role is absolutely critical. They work very closely with the

military departments in coordinating actions and they are basically

the honest broker at the table to refer people to appropriate other

26

Federal agencies or internal to the department, to try to break red

tape and keep things on track.

I mean, I view them as playing a very, very crucial role.

Mrs. BOYDA. I will do everything I can to keep that funded from

this end. Thank you again for——

Secretary GRONE. Certainly, if there are issues in the disposal

process and the economic redevelopment process affecting the installation, certainly Mr. Eastin and I will work that aggressively.

I have been very clear as a matter of departmental policy that our

objective is expeditious transition of the mission in order to assure

expeditious reuse of property.

Mrs. BOYDA. Thank you.

Secretary GRONE. We have no interest nor desire to hold property in caretaker status for any lengthy or considerable period of

time. We want to assist communities to get to viable economic redevelopment as quickly as we can.

Mrs. BOYDA. That is certainly our goal.

Secretary Eastin, thank you again for your support.

Mr. ORTIZ. I have one question before I yield to my good friend

Shea-Porter.

Secretary Eastin, as I indicated in my opening statement, I am

embarrassed and appalled as to the living conditions that have

been provided to our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. When General Kiley testified before our committee, he indicated that the A76

process contributed to the deterioration of the state facilities at

Walter Reed.

And my question is, did the A76 process contribute to the present

conditions at Walter Reed?

Secretary EASTIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe so.

The A76 process in the case of Walter Reed was, I can’t even describe the process too well. It started in 2000, in the year 2000, and

did not end up until the transfer early in February of this year. It

went through 17 amendments. I sometimes got the idea looking

back through this that maybe our own management was not entirely behind this issue.

Bottom line, it just took entirely too long. Did it affect what went

on out there? It is never a happy circumstance when you come to

work and are living in what you might think of as jeopardy to your

job, but this is how the process works, and it is designed to get the

most cost-effective operation wherever we do the A76.

We have done thousands of these position competitions and basically the employees probably win more than two-thirds of these

things. In the case of Walter Reed, however, the employees came

in with an operation that was slightly higher than the private sector did, even taking into account their ten percent benefit by this.

In looking back at what happened, if you want to look at—if you

can measure these things by the number of people onboard, with

10 or 20 we have had the same number of people onboard at Walter Reed in these functions, which is the public works base operations functions. It was not housekeeping and it had zero to do

with providing medical services. These are basically go fix the window, go fix the air conditioner, make sure the rug is okay, that

kind of thing.

27

Nothing—we started out with about 320 positions last June, before the final days of the A76 process. By the time the contractor

took over, there were some 290 positions left at Walter Reed and

the contractor now has 320 positions. People doing the same

amount of work at Walter Reed.

So it started at a level, it went down some as we went through

a reduction in force, a RIF, which by the way was 17 people out

of the 300-some people. It wasn’t a massive you are-all-gone. It was

17 people. And so it stayed, the amount has stayed steady throughout.

The garrison commander and the director of public works at Walter Reed, I assume you are referring to Building 18, had the ultimate responsibility for Building 18 and they had it up to the day

the contractor took over.

They had adequate people onboard. I have seen some crazy numbers out there, that it got down to 50 or 60 people. I don’t know

where that number came from or how you count. I mean, there are

various ways to count. But from what I can determine, the number

stayed relatively the same throughout the period, within 20 or 30

positions out of 300.

The contractor that we put onboard came on on the 14th of February. The Washington Post story came out two weeks later. And

they promptly got on it, but I don’t think we can fault them for a

couple of weeks in trying to get their hands around what it is to

do at Walter Reed.

We may think a lot of—that the A76 process itself is controversial in some quarters. It is not particularly convenient, sometimes,

for the military in times of growth and BRAC changes and Army

Modular Force (AMF) changes, but it is with us. I think overall it

is a good process and I don’t think it really affected the Walter

Reed experience.

Mr. ORTIZ. One of the reasons I ask you is, I have had a

chance—I normally go to visit Walter Reed and Bethesda, but this

last time I went down there, I talked to some of the people who

worked there, they said they saw a vast number of knowledge and

experience just walk out the door because of this contract that

came on, the new contract.

And one of the things—and that is maintenance. But I think that

we need to look at the health services that we provide to our soldiers. It takes special people, and I have seen them three or four

at a time working on individuals who had just been amputated,

who have been wounded, and sometimes it takes special people,

and I don’t know whether you are up to par or how your staff is,

whether you have complete staff, doctors and nurses.

We are here because we want to help you. If you need more

nurses, if you need more doctors—but A76, as far as I know, by visiting the area, they said that a vast number of experience, some

of the people that were hired couldn’t even find the stairwells because they were new.

So any time—and I have told people before in committee before,

that for the past several years the civilian workforce has had a

cloud over them. First, you know, it was base closure commission.

They didn’t know whether their base was going to be shut down

28

and whether they were going to be out of a job. And then comes

A76 after that. And all this contracting out.

We want to be sure that we have people who work there that are

committed, that we recompense them, that we repay them, that we

honor their commitment to the hospital that they work. In many

cases, you know, when they hire people, they don’t have the benefit

that the civilian workforce has. They don’t have the retirement,

they don’t have the pay, they don’t have the holidays, and this is

a matter of concern.

But I appreciate your answer. I know we are going to have a

meeting in a few minutes, another markup, but let me go to my

good friend, Shea-Porter.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for a

moment, since I have so many constituents who are employees.

As you know, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has been excellent,

has excelled in the many, many years that it has been there. And

somehow or another, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was on the

BRAC list for closing and was rescued because of their great work.

But the DOD did not choose to execute the fiscal year 2007 congressional additions in the fiscal year 2007 authorization bill, and

I am very concerned about what the mission is going to be for the

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

They are going to be receiving these Virginia class subs and yet

the money is not keeping for their dry docks and I wanted to know

why the money is not following what the work assignment is going

to be. They have to have it in order to do the work on the Virginia

subs.

Secretary GRONE. Ma’am, I will try to answer the question in

part, and Mr. Penn can speak to the operational issue.

As we discussed earlier, before I believe you came in the room,

the question of how the spending plan was developed was raised

by the chairman and other members. The fact of the matter is that

the continuing resolution did not provide sufficient funds to finance

all the military construction projects that were authorized in the

Defense Authorization Bill. And so projects—choices had to be

made.

In consultation with the Appropriations Committee, we understand the account amounts were derived. It appeared to us for reasons of execution, prioritization and consistency with what we believe was to some degree intent, we followed the path of the President’s budget minus projects that were not included in the authorization bill, and that is largely how those funds were derived, with

some marginal changes. In fact, the only account that was short of

the funding that was provided in that way was the defense-wide

military construction account.

So the projects that we included in the spending plan, the President’s budget 2007 projects were of a higher priority by virtue of

the fact that they were included in the budget and made it through

that process to be included.

We certainly recognize that there are projects throughout the authorization bill and throughout the varying appropriations bills because they had not reached a conference conclusion that were meriVerDate 22-MAR-2001 14:28 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 040999 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\110-38\079030.000 HAS2 PsN: HAS2
29

torious or projects that were otherwise in the Future Years Defense

Program.

But the raw fact of it is that we simply didn’t have the funds

available to us through the continuing resolution to finance all of

the projects that the Congress judged through the authorization

process were worthy of being funded in this fiscal year.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Let me follow up on that, since you talked

about execution and prioritization.

It seems to me that would be a pretty touch priority if you know

that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is going to be doing operations and maintenance on the Virginia subs, that you would want

to have the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard able to do the work.

So wouldn’t that give it a high priority?

Secretary GRONE. Again, we have military construction projects

that support operational requirements of all of the services

throughout the entirety of the program. And, again, the fact is that

we were not provided sufficient funds to follow the direction of the

authorization bill by the appropriations outcome. And that is the

best that I can answer that.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I do have great concern about it, because I

know that China is building nuclear subs. They are outbuilding us

right now. It is pretty critically that, first of all, we build them to

keep pace, and then, second, that we are able to maintain them.

So what do you see the future of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

and the Virginia attack subs to be? Is that something that you are

going to put on top priority?

Secretary GRONE. That is an operational question that I would

have to leave to the Navy. So I would yield to Mr. Penn, or we will

have to have an operational perspective provided for you.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Penn.

Secretary PENN. And I would have to yield to the chief of Naval

operations. Unfortunately, I don’t control operations.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay, but we are talking about——

Secretary PENN. I don’t think we have anything in the 2007 or

2008. I think we have funding in the Future Years Defense Plan

(FYDP) for Portsmouth, and I will be glad to get back to you with

that.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would appreciate that, because obviously

this is a matter of national security, that if we are having these

Virginia subs, we need to have a shipyard able to do the operations

and maintenance work on them, and they have to be ready in order

to do that.

Thank you.

Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much for your testimony.

And like I say, we are in the same boat. We are working together. We need to solve some of these problems that we have.

Being no further questions, this hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 20, 2007

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 20, 2007

(35)

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

MARCH 20, 2007

(135)

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD

MARCH 20, 2007

(173)

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Eastin, during the last Base Realignment and Closure Commission, some of us were unconvinced that the closing of Fort Monmouth was the right

decision. And the chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission actually was told by the secretary of the Army that under no circumstances would the

Army permit the move to sacrifice or short-change ongoing C4ISR support for the

service and warfighters in the field, particularly during this war.

The chairman then added language requiring the secretary of defense to submit

to Congress a report that a movement of organization functions and activities from

Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen proving ground would be accomplished without disruption of their support for the global war on terror.

The language required a report. I would like to know where the report is. Would

it be possible for you to check on the report and get back to us?

Secretary EASTIN. The report to Congress required by the 2005 BRAC Commission

has begun, and will be submitted before the end of the year. The current target date

is December 15, 2007. The report will be submitted well before we begin any largescale movement of personnel from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Æ