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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–161 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–738 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 4837/S. 2674 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2005, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

(ex officio) 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

(ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

DENNIS WARD

SEAN KNOWLES

CHRISTINA EVANS (Minority) 

B.G. WRIGHT (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 

Page 

Department of Defense: 

Office of the Secretary ...................................................................................... 1 

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 39 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 

Department of Defense: 

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 57 

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 83 

(1) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison, Stevens, Burns, and Feinstein. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DUBOIS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Our hearing will be called to order, and I 

am very appreciative that we could start with Mr. Dubois on the 

Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee for the 2005 

budget request. Today we will focus on the Department of Defense 

in general, and the Air Force construction programs. Navy and 

Army to follow. I’d like to start with my statement and then I will 

turn it over to Senator Feinstein. 

This year’s military construction request is up slightly over last 

year’s at $9.49 billion, compared to $9.1 billion. Certainly this is 

encouraging, but it is still $1.4 billion below what the Department 

projected last year for the 2005 fiscal year. I’m encouraged that the 

funding request for the National Guard and Reserve components, 

at $620 million, is a rise considerably from last year’s request. It 

is still less than the amount enacted last year in support of the 

Guard and Reserve in our final bill, and we all know what a tremendous burden in the Global War on Terror our Guard and Reserve units are under. However, this is going in the right direction 

and we’re pleased to see that. 

One item of continuing interest to the subcommittee is the investment of our scarce MILCON dollars in our overseas bases. 

Clearly the Department has more carefully focused its request for 

overseas construction this year, bringing it down from over $1 billion in its initial fiscal year 2004 request to $823 million this year. 

I hope that we will be able to see the overseas master plan soon, 
2 

so that we will have a better idea of what is considered to be ongoing and what is going to be closed. 

We’re making progress toward providing a better working environment and better quality of life for our military personnel and 

their families. Certainly in the area of family housing privatization 

we are able to get more people in better housing, more quickly than 

we could under the traditional military construction approach. And 

I will say that we will be working with you on the lifting of the 

cap for the privatized housing. 

But I would ask you, Mr. Dubois, to be looking long term at the 

rise in the O&M costs that we have when there is privatized housing versus the initial costs, and I know there’s a tradeoff there, but 

in the out years when we are providing stipends for off base housing for people it goes into O&M, and I’d like for there to be a look 

at whether that is—maybe after we get caught up if that is in our 

long term best interest. 

But I certainly agree with the priority that we’ve got to do better 

fast, and that lifting the cap on privatization is a way to do that. 

Let me just end my formal remarks by saying I really appreciate 

the Department’s updating us so well and frequently on what your 

priorities are. Certainly on the overseas basing, I think you have 

been very forthcoming about what you’re going to be doing. I hope 

we can get better information on a real master plan quickly, and 

I’d like to have a time table on that. 

But I think as compared to last year we are way ahead of the 

game. I think your focus on overseas basing is better, but I still 

want to make sure we are not wasting one dollar for the welcoming 

back of troops you will be sending back and you’ve already made 

that public announcement. So I thank you for the communication, 

I think it’s been terrific this year. I appreciate it very much. 

And now I’d like to turn to my distinguished vice chairman and 

just say for the record how much I appreciate our working relationship. There couldn’t be a closer relationship and a better give and 

take than we have had on this committee, and it’s my hope that 

this lasts for a long time. Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and I’d like to echo those words, it’s a very special privilege to have 

you as a friend as well as a colleague, and we have worked together easily and well and I too appreciate that, and it is going to 

go on. So thank you very much, and thank you for your leadership 

on this committee. 

Mr. Dubois, I want to welcome you, we look forward to hearing 

from you today. I think it’s clear that it appears at the top line of 

the military construction budget request is that it changed very little from last year’s request. However, last year’s budget request 

was reduced by over 12 percent at a time when we were preparing 

for war on a major scale. The low request came at an unusual time 

and the committee had hoped to see a more robust request this 

year, in light of the military’s ongoing war efforts. 

As our missions increase our service members deserve quality facilities, and their families deserve quality housing in which to live 

and work. And in fact over the past 2 years the requested amounts 
3 

were substantially decreased. Taking a closer look at this request, 

individual accounts appear to have changed dramatically. 

Now, even given the Navy’s ability to use land sale profits to assist with BRAC environmental clean up, I’m very concerned that 

the BRAC remediation request is reduced again this year. The 

overall BRAC clean up budget request has dropped 56 percent in 

the last 2 years, taking a $125 million cut this year alone. It was 

only 2 years ago when the services badly underestimated their environmental clean up requirements and came to the committee for 

help. And we provided that help. 

So I am hopeful that you will be willing to re-look at that account 

because the clean up needs are vast. I mean, I can say in California alone we can probably use the whole budget, plus. And that 

doesn’t take into consideration the other 49 States. 

I would like to commend the Department for keeping its promise 

to the Reserve components to steadily increase funding for their infrastructure needs. Although the request for Reserve components is 

down 15 percent from last year’s enacted amount, it is still 68 percent higher than last year’s requested amount, so that’s some good 

news. 

The quality of our military infrastructure impacts the ability of 

our forces, as we all well know, to train, to maintain their equipment, to do their jobs. Adequate infrastructure in terms of housing 

and family support facilities is the overriding quality of life issue 

for service members and their families. Where investment in military construction is needed, this committee wants to meet that 

need. But it’s up to the Defense Department and to you, Mr. 

Dubois, and to the individual services to come before this committee and tell us what the Department needs. 

We all recognize that infrastructure is an essential element of 

readiness, it’s also an easy target for cuts in the face of competing 

demands. And I think that’s happened for the past two years and 

I really hope it doesn’t happen again. So we look forward to your 

testimony. Thank you very much for being here. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. We will have—— 

Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Senator STEVENS. Yes. Thank you. I’m invisible. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Not really. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’m going to pay a heavy price for that. Mr. 

Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Senator STEVENS. I just stopped by, I have another hearing, but 

I do want to echo what you said and to make a request. It’s obvious 

that we’re going to go into a new era now in terms of installations 

and bases, and I want to reaffirm the request made by the Chair 

to have us fully informed as to the impact of those plans on this 

subcommittee. 

Last time we went through a base closure round we found we 

had put money into bases that were listed on the base closure list, 

and at the request of the Department. I don’t think that should 

happen. I think we’re going into this era with both eyes open, and 

the demands, particularly for overseas relocation, are going to be 
4 

rather extensive, as well as demands at home to be prepared for 

the relocation that’s been announced. 

Some of us were briefed recently by SACEUR when we were visiting with him, and the extent of those relocations in Europe are 

going to be immense. 

So I would not want to be in a position we were in before of responding to requests for improvements of bases that we are going 

to close, or installations we’re going merge. I would hope that we’d 

find some way to really program the budget out further than we 

currently have it, as far as overseas construction and the construction at home. 

I encourage you, Madam Chair, to make certain that we conserve 

this military construction money to the maximum extent possible 

and use it for the future—although I share the Senator from California’s position with regard to the cost of base closure, installation 

closure, and merger from the environmental point of view. Those 

have to be factored into these decisions too. 

As far as I’m concerned, I do think that the worldwide strategy 

that has been discussed so far is going to have enormous impact 

on this subcommittee. I think we must be prepared and not get off 

on the wrong track again. Thank you very much. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are 

excellent points and in my questioning I am going to ask when 

they will start factoring into their MILCON budget request, the 

troops they’ve announced they’re bringing home so that we can 

have a smooth transition. That’s got to be a part of it. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, base closure and remediation costs have 

to be part of this figure too. That’s the problem. 

Senator HUTCHISON. That’s right. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Senator HUTCHISON. That’s exactly right. Well, thank you very 

much for coming. We appreciate it. Our first witness is Raymond 

Dubois, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations 

and Environment. Mr. Dubois, your full statement will be a part 

of the record, if you could summarize. I want you to cover fully— 

you have quite a long statement, and it covers a lot of territory. If 

you can summarize, we will submit the full statement for the 

record, and then we will be able to ask the questions. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DUBOIS

Mr. DUBOIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein. 

The questions that you have posed in your opening statements, 

along with those of Chairman Stevens, are needless to say extremely important, both in terms of how we build this year’s 

MILCON budget, as well as how we are looking at the out years. 

Let me take the opportunity just to briefly highlight some of the 

remarks that I’ve made in my written statement, because I think 

it’s worth—they’re worthy of emphasis. Clearly we believe that we 

have a strategy for our real property asset management as well as 

the important environmental stewardship obligations which we 

hold dearly. 

Now, I do want to thank this particular committee. As you know, 

I testify probably almost as many times as the Secretary of Defense 

himself before various committees before the House and the Sen-
5 

ate. But in particular this committee has evidenced over the years 

strong support for the quality of life for our troops, as well as the 

healthy infrastructure so necessary to that quality of life. 

We believe that we have defined a strategy to address those conditions of our installations and facilities, which were inadequate 

when we came into office. Now, for many years, as you have pointed out, both today and in the past our facilities had declined. Had 

declined in a miserable sense due to competing priorities. And we 

can’t get around that, can’t get away from that, but it also, we 

think declined—those facilities declined due to a poor understanding of how to properly fund sustainment and recapitalization 

in particular. 

Now, we all remember that at the outset of this Administration, 

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld identified military housing 

as a central priority of the Department. We have significantly improved that housing as well as the military infrastructure through 

attention to best business practices and using models that we have 

taken from the private sector to improve our facilities. 

Now, full facilities sustainment is in our view the foundation pillar of the Department’s infrastructure investment strategy. As you 

know, the Department is requesting $6.5 billion for sustainment 

now, and in most respects that bill is not a Military Construction 

Appropriation per say, it comes out of the O&M account. But it is 

important to recognize that we are spending a considerable amount 

on our infrastructure and we are obtaining a 95 percent sustainment rate based on standard commercial benchmarks. 2008 is 

our goal to achieve full sustainment. 

What does full sustainment do? It prevents the deterioration and 

it does preserve the performance of the life of the facility, and all 

facilities by category have a useful life. Managing those 

sustainment costs and funding to the appropriate levels is in the 

long run less expensive than repairing and replacing unusable facilities. 

However, sustainment alone will not keep facilities from becoming obsolete. We must continue to recapitalize our facilities to coincide with the military mission and the needs of our services. The 

quality of our infrastructure directly affects their training and 

readiness, as you have pointed out in your statement. 

The Department is requesting $4.4 billion for the recapitalization 

of our facilities, which is the second pillar of our infrastructure investment strategy. The third pillar is the quality of life pillar in 

many respects, because if we do not focus on those issues we will 

reap the negative benefits, if you will, in terms of recruitment, retention, readiness, and morale. Now, to that end the Department 

is committed to providing quality housing. As you have pointed out, 

how are we approaching this quality housing dilemma? 

We have, one, increased the basic allowance for housing. Two, we 

have eliminated the out-of-pocket expense for off base housing. 

Three, we have increased the housing privatization projects, and 

four, we are maintaining, and with your help we will continue to 

maintain, appropriate military construction funding. 

We think that the Department has used privatization in a skillful manner to advance this goal and obtain maximum benefits from 

the Congress’ appropriated levels for housing investment. Now, our 
6 

policy requires that privatization projects yield at least three times 

the amount of housing as traditional military construction for the 

same amount of appropriated dollars. And we believe our housing 

privatization efforts have now achieved unqualified success, with 

the installation commanders and service members of all ranks welcoming privatization efforts to revitalize their family housing. 

There will be at the end of this month in excess of 55,000 military family housing units privatized, and we are continuing to accelerate our effort and project by the end of 2005 fiscal year, to 

have awarded over 136,000 privatized units. 

Now, it is important at this juncture I think in my opening remarks to reprise, if you will, your comment, Madam Chairman, 

about the issue of the so-called cap. Due to the rapid acceleration 

of the program over the last 3 years we have used about 70 percent 

of the $850 million budget authority provided by our original authorities for housing privatization. 

That means by the end of this calendar year we will have used 

the remaining 30 percent. We have submitted to Congress a legislative proposal to increase our authority by an additional $1 billion, 

that is to say to a level of $1.85 billion, allowing us to fully implement the President’s management agenda to eliminate all inadequate military family housing through contractual privatization 

by the year 2007. And I thank you for your commitment to help 

us in that regard. 

Another issue that needs to be put on the table I think today is 

the importance of our access to needed test and training ranges, 

and the fact the Department over the last several years has asked 

for Congress’ assistance in terms of mitigating the effects of encroachment in and around our facilities. 

No one would deny the fact that realistic live fire training is an 

enormously important aspect to our military readiness. But that requires substantial natural resources—air, land, water, brown 

water, blue water—those natural resources where the military can 

train as they would fight. Those resources must replicate to the extent that we can the challenges, the stresses, the discomfort, physical and psychological, the actual conditions of combat. 

Now, as we have discussed over the last several years, encroachment comes from many sources, it’s not just an environmental 

issue or an endangered species issue, it is also urban and suburban 

sprawl. It is also appropriate land use, or on the negative side, inappropriate land use in and around our military installations. Air 

space restrictions, frequency spectrum competition, all of these 

issues tend to restrict somehow, both in and around our installations, our training opportunities. 

The Department appreciates, as I indicated, the action of Congress in adopting several provisions from our fiscal year 2003 and 

fiscal year 2004 requests, and the National Defense Authorization 

Act of those 2 years now embrace some of the requests that we 

have made. These provisions are key enablers of what we call 

range sustainability. 

And I also want to point out something that was in last year’s 

bill that I think was very important because it connects to a request in this year’s bill, and that is section 2811 of the 2003 Act, 

which allows the services, the military departments, to take a 
7 

proactive role in developing programs to protect installations and 

ranges from urban sprawl by working with the States and local organizations, non-governmental organizations, to promote sound 

land use. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes a new initiative of $20 million targeted on our new authority to assist in developing 

those partnerships with the local communities. The Department is 

very proud in this regard of our environmental programs at our 

military installations, and we’re committed to pursuing a comprehensive environmental program. As you know, we have the responsibility to manage over 30 million acres of land. They are important to military training and readiness. We have completed integrated resource management plans, as required by the Sikes Act, 

at 95 percent of our installations. 

As you know, INRMPs, Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, provide a management framework to protect threatened and endangered species while providing for no net loss of test 

and training opportunities. 

I think I’ll stop here, Madam Chairman, and again thank you for 

this opportunity to highlight some of our initiatives that may come 

up in the questioning as it has in your opening statements, relative 

to our BRAC effort. 

The BRAC effort is extremely important. I’ve testified to this on 

numerous occasions, as has the Secretary, and with respect to both 

your question and that of Chairman Stevens, it is no doubt true 

that the overseas rationalization, both of force structure and of infrastructure, will have a tremendous impact on domestic BRAC. 

The Secretary I know has briefed you, and Chairman Stevens received a briefing I believe this week. The Secretary intends to finalize, he and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, finalize their decisions on these, what I call major building blocks of our overseas 

force structure and infrastructure in the May timeframe of this 

year. 

He knows that he has to do that in order to appropriately inform 

the domestic BRAC process and give the military departments and 

the joint cross service groups enough time, i.e. between May and 

June of next year, to use those decisions to define and design 

where that force structure will return, in terms of the base structure in the United States. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND F. DUBOIS

Madam Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to discuss the President’s Budget request for fiscal year 2005 and 

the plan of the Department of Defense for improving its infrastructure and facilities. 

The Department is continuing with its efforts to transform the force structure to 

meet new security challenges and the way we do business. In Installations and Environment, this translates into a renewed emphasis on taking care of our people, 

providing facilities to support the warfighter by eliminating facilities we no longer 

need and improving those that we do, and modernizing our business practices—all 

while protecting the environment and those assets for which we have stewardship 

responsibility. 

At the outset, I want to express the Department’s appreciation for the strong support of this Subcommittee for our initiatives. With regard to infrastructure, the Department has a defined strategy to address the condition of our installations and 
8 

facilities. These issues are an integral component of readiness. Installations are the 

‘‘platforms’’ from which our forces successfully deploy to execute their diverse missions. Over many years, our facilities declined due to competing priorities and poor 

understanding of funding requirements, but we are significantly improving our military infrastructure through focused attention to best practices drawn from standard 

business models. Continuing to improve our facilities and military readiness is a priority of the Secretary of Defense. 

The Department currently manages nearly 600,000 buildings and structures with 

a plant replacement value of $630 billion, and over 46,000 square miles of real estate. As you know, we have developed models and metrics to predict funding needs 

and have established goals and performance measurements that place the management of Defense infrastructure on a more data driven business basis. We accelerated our goal to eliminate nearly all inadequate housing from fiscal year 2010 to 

2007. By the end of fiscal year 2005, we will reduce the number of inadequate housing units by 66 percent (61,000) from our fiscal year 2001 level of 180,000 

inadequates. The Department’s facilities sustainment budget funds annual maintenance, predictable repairs and normal component replacements. We have increased 

funding for facilities sustainment consistently since fiscal year 2002, sustaining facilities at an average of 89 percent, and this year’s budget request raises that rate 

to 95 percent for each of the Military Services, TRICARE Management Activity and 

the Department of Defense Education Activity. 

Restoration and modernization—i.e. recapitalization—funds unpredictable repairs, 

improvements and total facility replacements. We have continued to improve our 

management of the recapitalization of the inventory. The budget request improves 

the recapitalization rate to 107 years and we anticipate achieving our 67 year recapitalization goal in fiscal year 2008. 

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT STRATEGY

The Department’s recent successes were made possible through effective management and prudent budgeting. Our investment strategy links the asset management 

plan to actual funding. 

The traditional view of the Military Construction and Family Housing appropriation funding requests for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 shows a slight increase in this 

year’s request. The Military Construction and Family Housing top-line is but one 

indicator of the health of our program. However, it does not represent a comprehensive approach to our management practices for the infrastructure as a whole. 

COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS 

[President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars—Budget Authority] 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Military Construction ............................................................................................................... 4,574 4,877 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................................................................ 169 166

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................................. 370 246 

Chemical Demilitarization ....................................................................................................... ( 1 ) 82 

Family Housing Construction/Improvements .......................................................................... 1,251 1,625 

Family Housing Operations & Maintenance ........................................................................... 2,780 2,547 

Homeowners Assistance .......................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Family Housing Improvement Fund ........................................................................................ 0.3 0.3 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 9,144 9,460 

Note: Fiscal year 2004 Request column represents the fiscal year 2004 Amended Budget Submission. 

1 Chem-Demil included in Military Construction totals for fiscal year 2004. For fiscal year 2005 Chem-Demil has a separate Treasury code. 

Facilities Support Investment and Operating Expenses 

Managing our facilities assets is an integral part of asset management. Facilities 

are the ‘‘platforms’’ from which our forces deploy and execute their missions. The 

quality of our infrastructure directly affects training and readiness. In addition, 

from a purely financial perspective, it is more cost effective in the long term to fully 

fund the general upkeep of facilities than to allow them to deteriorate and replace 

them when they are unusable. 
9 

1 Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host nation, and working capital funds. 

SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST 

[President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal Year 2004 Request Fiscal Year 2005 Request 

Sustainment (O&M-like 1) ....................................................................................................... 6,382 6,531 

Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like) ............................................................................ 1,012 1,243

Restoration and Modernization (MilCon) ................................................................................ 2,350 3,161 

TOTAL SRM ................................................................................................................. 9,744 10,935 

1 Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host Nation, and working capital funds. 

Facilities sustainment, using operations and maintenance-like 1 appropriations, 

fund the maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep an inventory in good 

working order. It includes regularly scheduled maintenance and major repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to occur periodically throughout 

the life cycle of facilities. Sustainment prevents deterioration and preserves performance over the life of a facility. 

To forecast funding requirements for sustainment, we developed the Facilities 

Sustainment Model (FSM). FSM uses standard benchmarks drawn from the private 

and public sectors for sustainment costs by facility type and has been used to develop the Service budgets since fiscal year 2002 and for several Defense Agencies 

beginning in fiscal year 2004. 

Full funding of sustainment is the foundation of our long-term facilities strategy, 

and we have made significant progress in achieving this goal. The fiscal year 2004 

budget request funded sustainment at an average of 94 percent of the FSM benchmarks across the Services, TRICARE Management Activity, and the Department of 

Defense Education Activity. The fiscal year 2005 budget request of $6.5 billion improved this by standardizing sustainment funding at 95 percent for each of the 

Components, and we plan to achieve full sustainment in the near term. 

Restoration and modernization, together called recapitalization, provides resources for improving facilities and is funded with either operations and maintenance or military construction appropriations. Restoration includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive 

age, natural disaster, fire, accident or other causes. Modernization includes alter-
10 

ation of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, to accommodate new 

functions, or to replace building components that typically last more than 50 years. 

Recapitalization is the second step in our strategy. Similar private sector industries replace their facilities every 50 years, on average. With the types of facilities 

in the Defense Department, engineering experts estimate that our facilities should 

have a replacement cycle of about 67 years on average. 

As with sustainment, we have improved the corporate recapitalization rate for the third straight year. The budget request includes funding of $4.4 billion for fiscal 

year 2005. The request improves the recapitalization rate from 136 years last year 

to 107. When we began our focused attention on this matter, the Department’s recapitalization rate stood at 192 years. Our out-year budget plan would realize the 

target rate of 67 years in fiscal year 2008. 

Even with full sustainment and a 67-year recapitalization rate, it will take time 

to restore the readiness of our facilities from C–3 and C–4 status to C–2. 

Sustainment stops deterioration and a 67-year recapitalization rate stops obsolescence, but more is needed to restore readiness in the near term. Thus, the third step 

in our plan is to accelerate the recapitalization rate to restore existing facilities to 

at least C–2 readiness, on average, by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

Improving Quality of Life 

One of our principal priorities is to support military personnel and their families 

and improve their quality of life. Our Service members deserve the best possible living and working conditions. At the outset of this Administration, the President and 

Secretary Rumsfeld identified military housing and privatization of that housing as 

a central priority for the Department. Sustaining the quality of life of our people 

is crucial to recruitment, retention, readiness and morale. To that end, the Department is committed to providing quality housing using our ongoing approach—increasing the basic allowance for housing and eliminating the out-of-pocket expense 

for off-base housing (where over 60 percent of our Service members live); increasing 

the number of, and accelerating the pace of, housing privatization projects; and 

maintaining military construction funding for family housing where necessary. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget keeps the Department on track to eliminate nearly 

all its inadequate military family housing units by fiscal year 2007, with complete 

elimination of some inadequate housing overseas in fiscal year 2009. The budget 

continues the Department’s extensive use of privatization to advance this goal and 

to obtain maximum benefit from its housing budget. 

As I noted earlier, in January 2001, the Department had about 180,000 inadequate family housing units (out of a total of 300,000 housing units worldwide). At 

the start of fiscal year 2004, through traditional construction and improvement 
11 

projects, housing privatization and demolition, we have reduced that number to 

roughly 120,000. The President’s fiscal year 2005 budget includes funding to allow 

us to reduce that number further—by the end of fiscal year 2005, we will have reduced the number of inadequate housing units to roughly 61,000 inadequate. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request will eliminate the out-of-pocket housing costs 

for the average military member through changes in the basic allowance for housing, a key component of the Department’s approach to quality housing. The fiscal 

year 2005 budget request includes necessary funding to ensure that the typical 

Service member living in the private sector, where approximately two-thirds of our 

members live, will have zero out-of-pocket housing expenses. Eliminating out-ofpocket expenses is good for military personnel, but also serves to strengthen the financial profile of the housing privatization program by providing members the ability to pay appropriate market rents. 

Privatizing military housing is a priority for the President and the Secretary and 

is an integral part of the Administration’s Management Plan. The Department has 

skillfully used privatization to advance this goal and obtain maximum benefit from 

its housing investment. Our housing privatization program is crucial to providing 

a decent quality of life for our service members. 

We believe our housing privatization efforts have now achieved identified success, 

with installation commanders and Service members welcoming privatization efforts 

to revitalize their family housing. As of March 22, 2004, the Department has closed 

out awards on 29 projects, which include 58,503 military family housing units (a 50 

percent increase over our privatized units as of January 2003). We project by the 

end of fiscal year 2005 DOD will privatize more than 136,000 family housing units 

We project 20 more privatization awards in fiscal year 2004, and over 25 in 

2005—bringing our cumulative total end of year fiscal year 2005 to about 136,000 

units privatized. We project by the end of fiscal year 2007 that we will privatize 

over 160,000 units or more than 70 percent of our domestic family housing. 

During fiscal year 2005, we expect several other bases to have their renovations 

and construction completed or close to completion, including those at Fort Carson, 

Colorado. Our policy requires that privatization projects yield at least three times 

the amount of housing as traditional military construction for the same amount of 

appropriated dollars. Recent projects have demonstrated that leveraging is normally 

much higher. The 29 projects awarded thus far reflect an average leverage ratio of 

over 1 to 1. Tapping this demonstrated leveraging potential through our 29 awarded 

projects to date has permitted the Department, in partnership with the private sector, to provide housing for about $550 million of military construction funding that 

would otherwise have required over $6.7 billion for those awarded projects if the 

traditional military construction approach was utilized. 

The Department has achieved privatization successes by simplifying the process, 

accelerating project execution, and institutionalizing best practices in the Services 

deals with the private sector. Many of our projects require use of appropriated funds 

when subsidies are provided to the projects, especially as investments, loans and 

limited loan guarantees. The amount of such appropriated funds was limited in Section 2883 of Title 10, United States Code, to $850 million for military accompanied 

(family) housing and $150 million for military unaccompanied housing. Due to the 

rapid acceleration of the program over the last three years, we are now in position 

where almost 70 percent (about $600 million) of the $850 million cap has been used. 

We project the remaining 30 percent of the cap will be used up by the beginning 

of fiscal year 2005; thus impeding the full implementation of the President’s Management Agenda initiative to eliminate all inadequate military family housing by 

2007. The Administration has requested that our budget authority for privatized 

family housing be increased by $1 Billion so that we can continue to improve housing options for our military families. We ask your support for this proposal. 

Military construction is another tool for resolving inadequate military housing. In 

fiscal year 2005, we are requesting $4.1 billion in new budget authority for family 

housing construction and operations and maintenance. This funding will enable us 

to continue operating and maintaining the Department’s family housing as well as 

meeting the goal to eliminate inadequate housing by 2007—three years earlier than 

previously planned. 

We recognize that a key element in maintaining the support of the Congress and 

of the private sector is the ability to define adequately the housing requirement. The 

Department’s longstanding policy is to rely primarily on the private sector for its 

housing needs. Only when the private market demonstrates that it cannot provide 

sufficient levels or quality of housing should we consider the construction, operation, 

and maintenance of government-owned housing. 

An improved housing requirements determination process, following the Deputy 

Secretary’s January 2003 memorandum, combined with increased privatization, is 
12 

allowing us to focus resources on maintaining the housing for which we have a 

verified need rather than wasting those resources duplicating private sector capabilities. The improved housing requirement process is being used by the Department 

to better determine the number of family housing units needed on installations to 

accommodate military families. It provides a solid basis for investing in housing for 

which there is a verified need—whether through direct investment with appropriated funds or through a privatization project. 

By aligning the housing requirements determination process more closely with the 

analysis utilized to determine basic allowance for housing rates, the Department is 

better positioned to make sound investment decisions necessary to meet the Secretary’s goal to eliminate nearly all inadequate housing by 2007. Further, as more 

military families opt to reside in the private sector as housing out-of-pocket expenses decrease for the average member, the Services on-base housing requirement 

should generally also decline. This migration should permit the Services to better 

apply scarce resources to those housing units they truly need to retain. 

Range Sustainment 

Another key initiative is our effort to ensure access to needed test and training 

ranges and installations to support both current and future requirements. This involves mitigating the effects of encroachment around these facilities, and posturing 

our test and training infrastructure for sustainable operations. 

Training provides our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines the combat skills they 

need to win and return safely to their families. Experience has taught us that realistic training saves lives. Training, however, requires substantial resources; air, 

land and water where military forces can train as they would fight—replicating the 

challenges, stress, discomfort, physical and psychological conditions of actual combat. 

Encroachment at installations, training ranges and test sites, however, interferes 

with the ability of our military to train and execute their missions. Encroachment 

comes from many sources—environmental, urban and suburban sprawl, airspace restrictions, and the frequency spectrum. Endangered species and their critical habitats in or near gunnery or bombing ranges also can reduce test and training access. 

As access is restricted due to encroachment, training opportunities for our men and 

women in uniform become increasingly limited in terms of time, scope, or realism 

with cumulative impact on military readiness. 

The Department deeply appreciates the action of Congress in adopting key provisions in both the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Acts that were part of the Administration’s Readiness and Range Preservation 

Initiative (RRPI). These provisions are key enablers of range sustainability. For example, one of the most useful provisions for countering physical encroachment due 

to incompatible development is Section 2811 of the 2003 Act. This provision allows 

the Services to take a proactive role in developing programs to protect installations 

and ranges from urban sprawl by working with states and non-governmental organizations to promote sound land use. 

To assist the Services in implementing this authority and forming compatible land 

use partnerships at the state and local level, the President’s fiscal year 2005 Budget 

request includes a new initiative of $20 million targeted to our new authority—to 

assist in developing new policies, partnerships, and tools to assist communities and 

other interested stakeholders in executing compatible land use partnerships around 

our test and training ranges and installations. The new request is intended to build 

upon on-going efforts—innovative win/win partnerships with our neighbors to enhance conservation and compatible land use on a local and regional basis 

Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 included 

important clarification of the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s (MMPA) definition 

of harassment. This action allows the Navy to continue to test and train with active 

sonar, by clarifying regulatory criteria that were previously based on imprecise statutory language in the Act’s definition of harassment. The Congress also added a national security exemption to the MMPA for military activity in time of national 

emergency, an exemption provided in other major environmental legislation that 

was not present in the original and reauthorized versions of the act. The fiscal year 

2004 National Defense Authorization Act also authorized the use of Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) in lieu of Critical Habitat designation, 

if approved by the Secretary of the Interior, thereby allowing ranges and installations to effectively manage their natural resources while supporting military readiness. 

Another significant environmental accomplishment is in the area of natural resources, where we are working to ensure continued access to our critical test and 

training ranges, supporting our readiness mission. The Department currently man-
13 

ages more than 30 million acres of lands which are important to military training 

and readiness. We have completed integrated natural resource management plans 

(INRMPs), as required by the Sikes Act, at 95 percent of our installations. INRMPs 

provide a management framework for our resources for no net loss of test and training opportunities. Legislation in The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2004 authorized the use of INRMPs to substitute for critical habitat designation under the Endangered Species Act, if those plans meet certain preparation and 

implementation requirements and the Secretary of the Interior determines that the 

DOD INRMP provides a benefit to the relevant species. DOD is preparing an 

INRMP strategic plan to ensure that its installations coordinate with all interested 

stakeholders, complete in a timely manner the next round of updates to our existing 

INRMPs due in 2006, and fund all required projects. 

Clearly, to protect our military we must also protect our all important test and 

training ranges. Substantial urban growth and other ‘‘encroachment’’ around previously isolated ranges have strained our ability to conduct necessary testing and 

training essential to maintaining readiness. In response to this challenge, we are 

working to expand efforts to sustain our training mission and protect the valuable 

natural resources entrusted to our care. Both are required as we endeavor to ensure 

that our men and women in uniform get the best training available. Our troops deserve the best. 

Improving Environmental Management 

The Department continues to be a leader in every aspect of environmental management. We are proud of our environmental program at our military installations 

and are committed to pursuing a comprehensive environmental program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM—SUMMARY OF REQUEST 1

[President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars—Budget Authority] 

Fiscal Year 2004 

Request 

Fiscal Year 2005 

Request 

Environmental Restoration ...................................................................................................... 1,273 1,305 

BRAC Environmental 2 ............................................................................................................. 412 322 

Compliance .............................................................................................................................. 1,603 1,665 

Pollution Prevention ................................................................................................................ 173 168 

Conservation ............................................................................................................................ 153 169 

Technology ............................................................................................................................... 190 186 

International ............................................................................................................................ 3 4 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 3,807 3,819 

1 Includes operations and maintenance, procurement, RDT&E, and military construction funding. 

2 Funding levels reflect total BRAC environmental requirement planned for execution. Funding levels are higher than the PB request (see 

page 4 chart) as a portion will be financed with BRAC land sale revenues. 

In fiscal year 2005, the budget request includes $3.8 billion for environmental pro- grams. This includes $1.3 billion for cleanup, $0.3 billion for BRAC environmental, 

$1.6 billion for compliance; about $0.1 billion for pollution prevention, and about 

$0.1 billion for conservation. 

By the end of fiscal year 2003, we reduced the number of new Federal and State 

Notices of Violations (NoVs) by 80 percent from the 1992 baseline. The Department’s success is due to an aggressive self audit program, which includes root cause 

analysis and corrective action plans. While the number of new NoVs decreased, the 

number of regulatory inspections increased by 12 percent in fiscal year 2003. Even 

as regulators are increasing their oversight, they are finding more installations in 

full compliance. In fiscal year 1994, every 100 inspections resulted in 37 new enforcement violations. In fiscal year 2003, every 100 inspections resulted in only 8 

new enforcement violations. 

In calendar year 2002, we provided drinking water for over 2 million people 

worldwide and less than 5 percent of the population received notices that the water 

exceeded a drinking water standard at some point during the year. To further protect people, assets, and mission, DOD is conducting vulnerability assessments and 

developing emergency response plans for all systems serving 25 consumers or more; 

far beyond the requirement in the Safe Drinking Water Act to assess systems serving a population greater than 3,300 persons. 

We reduced the amount of hazardous waste we dispose of by over 68 percent since 

1992, reducing the cost to manage these wastes. The Department diverted over 41 

percent of all the solid waste generated from landfills to recycling; thereby avoiding 

over $138 million in landfill costs. These pollution prevention techniques continue 
14 

to save the Department needed funds as well as reduce pollution. We increased the 

number of alternative fueled vehicles that we acquire to 77 percent of all non-tactical vehicles acquired, exceeding the requirement in the Energy Policy Act of 75 

percent. 

The Department’s commitment to its restoration program remains strong as we 

reduce risk and restore property for productive use by future generations. We are 

exploring ways to improve and accelerate cleanup with our regulatory and community partners. Achieving site closure and ensuring long-term remedies are challenges we continue to face. Conducting environmental restoration activities at each 

site in the program requires accurate planning, funding, and execution of plan. 

The Department must plan its activities years in advance to ensure that adequate 

funding is available and used efficiently. As an example, instead of waiting for Federal and State regulation to determine cleanup standards before beginning planning 

for perchlorate restoration, in September 2003 the Department required the Military Components to assess the extent of perchlorate occurrence at active and closed 

installations, and Formerly Used Defense sites. We will use the data collected to determine priorities and funding requirements for our cleanup responsibilities. As 

soon as perchlorate standards are determined, the Department will be ready to request the appropriate funding and begin execution. In addition, the Department has 

invested $27 million to research potential health effects, environmental impacts, 

and treatment processes for perchlorate. The remediation technologies we are testing in several states continue to increase the effectiveness of treatment. We are putting ourselves in the best possible position to respond to any new requirement established by regulatory agencies. 

The Defense Environmental Restoration Program goals assist the Components in 

planning their programs and achieving funding for activities. We achieved our goal 

to reduce 50 percent of high risk sites at active installations by the end of fiscal 

year 2002 and are on track to achieve 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2007. 

At the end of fiscal year 2003, 83 percent of BRAC sites requiring hazardous waste 

remediation have a cleanup remedy constructed and in place, and 78 percent have 

had all necessary cleanup actions completed in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) standards. 

We also are working to mitigate unexploded ordnance (UXO) on our military 

ranges. Our operational ranges are designed to train and make combat-ready our 

Nation’s warfighters and prepare them for combat. UXO on ranges is a result of our 

military preparedness training activities. However, we are actively developing ways 

to minimize the amount of UXO on our operational test and training ranges. The 

Department is developing policies on the periodic clearance of UXO for personnel 

safety and to ensure chemical constituents do not contaminate groundwater. 

To address UXO problems at locations other than operational ranges, Formerly 

Used Defense Sites, some BRAC installations, and closed ranges on active installations—we have the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP). We are currently developing goals and metrics for the program to track our progress to completion and finishing the prioritization protocol that will allow us to sequence sites by 

risk. We have an inventory of our munitions response sites, which we shared with 

the states and EPA, and have made available to the public. This inventory is being 

updated as we reconcile our list with the states. Even though the UXO cleanup program is in the early stages of development, considerable progress has been made 

in cleaning up MMRP sites at our BRAC installations and Formerly Used Defense 

Sites (FUDS). As of the end of fiscal year 2003, DOD has fulfilled its cleanup obligations at over 120 of the approximately 195 identified MMRP sites at BRAC installations, and has cleanup actions underway at 27 sites. These sites were identified 

prior to fiscal year 2001 as having UXO contamination and the Department has 

been making steady progress to eliminate their hazards—almost 65 percent of the 

BRAC MMRP inventory has been addressed. A similar situation can be found at 

FUDS sites, where 45 percent of the MMRP sites identified have had all cleanup 

actions completed. Over, 790 of the 1,753 FUDS sites with currently identified UXO 

contamination have been addressed, and another 36 are undergoing cleanup actions. 

In addition, we are developing new technologies and procedures through the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. Over 60 percent of the investments in 

these programs focus on projects to sustain ranges and range operations. These, 

along with the Army and Navy’s Environmental Quality Technology Programs, have 

helped us make tremendous strides for realizing our goal to reduce current and future environmental liability. 

Across the Department, we are actively implementing environmental management 

systems based on the ‘‘plan-do-check-act’’ framework of the international standard 

for environmental management systems (ISO 14000). Our objective is to transform 
15 

environmental management in the Department of Defense from an activity external 

to the mission to a systematic process that is fully integrated with mission planning 

and execution. This transformation is essential for the continued success of our operation at home and abroad. Our new management systems target reduction in our 

day-to-day compliance costs and long-term environmental liabilities by increasing 

environmental awareness and mobilizing all Defense organizations and employees 

to reduce environmental impacts through improved control of day-to-day mission activities. The Military Departments and Defense Logistics Agency reported plans to 

implement environmental management systems at roughly 625 installations. Over 

50 percent of these installations have environmental management system policies 

in place—the first step toward full scale implementation. To date, 33 installations 

have fully implemented environmental management systems. 

Utilities Privatization and Energy Management 

The Department seeks to reduce its energy consumption and the associated costs, 

while improving utility system reliability and safety. To accomplish this, the Department of Defense is developing a comprehensive energy strategy that will continue 

to optimize utility management by conserving energy and water usage, improve energy flexibility by taking advantage of restructured energy commodity markets 

when opportunities present themselves and modernize our infrastructure by 

privatizing our deteriorated and outdated utilities infrastructure where economically 

feasible. 

With approximately 2.2 billion square feet of facilities, the Department is the single largest energy user in the nation. Conserving energy in today’s high-priced market will save the Department money—money that can be better invested in readiness, facilities sustainment, and quality of life. Our efforts to conserve energy are 

paying off; in fiscal year 2003 military installations reduced consumption by 1 percent resulting in a 2.7 percent decrease in the cost of energy commodities from fiscal 

year 2002. With a 26.1 percent reduction in fiscal year 2003 from a 1985 baseline, 

the Department has, thus far, maintained a positive track to achieve the 2005 and 

2010 facility energy reduction goals stipulated by Executive Order 13123. 

The comprehensive energy strategy will support the use of meters to manage energy usage at locations where the monitoring justifies the cost of installing, maintaining and reading the meter. Metering in itself does not save energy, however use 

of meters can be beneficial to determine accurate billing, perform diagnostic maintenance, and enhance energy management by establishing baselines, developing demand profiles, ensuring accurate measurement for reporting, and providing feedback to users. 

The Department has a balanced program for energy conservation—installing energy savings measures using appropriated funding and private-sector investment— 

combined with using the principles of sustainable design to reduce the resources 

used in our new construction. Energy conservation projects make business sense, 

historically obtaining about $4 in life-cycle savings for every dollar invested. The fiscal year 2005 budget contains $60 million for the Energy Conservation Investment 

Program (ECIP) to implement energy saving measures in our existing facilities. This 

is a 20 percent increase from the fiscal year 2004 congressionally appropriated 

amount of $50 million, partly because of the performance of the program to date 

and because of the focused management effort for continued success. The Department will also continue to pursue renewable energy technologies such as fuel cells, 

geo-thermal, wind, solar, and purchase electricity from these renewable sources 

when it is life-cycle cost-effective. In fiscal year 2003 military installations used 3.2 

trillion British Thermal Units of renewable energy, and project an increase in fiscal 

year 2004. The pursuit of renewable energy technologies is critical to the Department’s and Nation’s efforts in achieving energy flexibility. 

The Department has reaffirmed its preference to modernize military utility systems through privatization. Following on revised guidance signed by the Deputy 

Secretary of October 2002, the DOD Utilities Privatization Program has made solid 

progress. The Services have greatly simplified and standardized the solicitation 

process for obtaining industry proposals. The Request for Proposal templates have 

been clarified to improve industry’s ability to obtain private sector financing and 

manage risks. Of 2,602 utility systems serving the DOD, 435 systems have been 

privatized and 739 were already owned by other entities. Over 900 systems are currently under solicitation as each Service and the Defense Logistic Agency continue 

aggressive efforts to reach privatization decisions on all systems by September 2005. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

In accordance with the authorizing legislation, the Secretary certified on March 

23, 2004, that the need exists for the closure or realignment of additional military 
16 

installations and that the additional round of closures and realignments authorized 

for 2005 will result in annual net savings for each of the Military Departments, beginning not later than fiscal year 2011. This certification is contained in the report 

that was provided to Congress last week. 

The Secretary’s certification of the need for BRAC is a direct result of the changed 

world in which we live. The conclusion that an additional round of BRAC is needed 

is shared not just by the Department’s civilian leadership but also by the Chairman 

and Joint Chiefs. Changes in the threats we face, how we prepare for those threats, 

and changes in technology require that we reconfigure our force structure to most 

effectively and efficiently support our forces. Our force structure and the way we 

employ it is already transforming and this will continue. BRAC has proven to be 

the most effective and comprehensive tool to position our base structure to accommodate and facilitate this transformation. Therefore, an additional base realignment 

and closure (BRAC) round is essential to the Department’s efforts to transform the 

Armed Forces to meet the threats to our national security and to execute our national strategy. 

The Secretary’s certification that there is a need for BRAC also reflects the fact 

that the Department retains excess infrastructure capacity, even after the previous 

four BRAC rounds. Excess capacity diverts scarce resources from recapitalization. 

The report we have provided includes a ‘‘discussion of the categories of excess infrastructure and infrastructure capacity’’ as required by the legislation. Elimination of 

excess capacity is an important goal of BRAC because it is important to the Department’s stewardship of the taxpayer’s dollar and to its application of taxpayer resources to achieve their maximum effect. I must note, however, that the Department 

is focused on the elimination only of truly excess capacity—that which is not important to preserving military value. The Secretary has not established any quantitative capacity reduction targets for BRAC and the Department will not eliminate 

assets, even if only used marginally, wherever these assets are important to the 

preservation of the capabilities the Department must retain and enhance. This was 

a key consideration in the previous rounds and is even more important now. 

BRAC 2005 will be a capabilities-based analysis. The Department recognizes that 

the threats our Nation now faces are difficult or even impossible to forecast through 

conventional analysis. That realization compels us to review our facilities in BRAC 

within the context of the capabilities they offer instead of viewing our facilities 

against definitive requirements. Because it is critically important for the Department to retain the infrastructure necessary to accommodate its ability to ‘‘surge’’, 

the Department is gauging its installations against the range of threats faced by 

our Nation so that it can differentiate among and capitalize on those that offer 

needed capabilities, and reconfigure, realign or close those that do not. The previous 

BRAC rounds demonstrated that DOD has, in fact, focused on the elimination of assets that are ‘‘reconstitutable,’’ that is, available through construction or purchase 

in the private sector, while retaining difficult to reconstitute assets like land maneuver areas and airspace for training. 

The Secretary has directed that BRAC must: further transformation by 

rationalizing infrastructure to force structure; enhance joint capabilities by improving joint utilization; and convert waste to war fighting by eliminating excess capacity. I know that you share the Department’s goal that BRAC 2005 must result in 

a base structure configured to most effectively and efficiently support the capabilities necessary to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. I also know that this Subcommittee appreciates the fact that every dollar wasted on unnecessary infrastructure is a dollar diverted from improving Defense capabilities. That is why Congress 

authorized BRAC 2005—it is the only process that uses a rigorous, objective process 

rooted in military value to rationalize the Department’s infrastructure. 

CONCLUSION

The Department is transforming its installations and business practices through 

an asset management strategy, and we are beginning to see the results of that 

transformation. We are achieving the President’s goal to provide quality housing for 

our service members and their families, and we have made positive progress toward 

our goal to prevent deterioration and obsolescence and to restore the lost readiness 

of our facilities. We also are transforming our environmental management to become outcome oriented, focusing on results. We are responding vigorously to existing 

encroachment concerns and are putting a long-term installation and range 

sustainment strategy into effect. 

The Base Realignment and Closure effort leading to the delivery of the Secretary’s 

recommendations to the independent Base Closure Commission in May 2005 is a 

key means to transform our infrastructure to be more flexible to quickly and effi-
17 

ciently respond the challenges of the future. Together with the Global Defense Posture Review, BRAC 2005 will make a profound contribution to transforming the Department by rationalizing our infrastructure with Defense strategy. 

In short—we have achieved significant accomplishments over the last 3 years, and 

we are well on our way to achieving our goals across the Installations and Environment Community. 

In closing, Madam Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to highlight our successes and outline our plans for the future. I appreciate your continued 

support of our installations and environment portfolio, and I look forward to working with you as we transform our plans into actions. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, let me just 

start right there with your last point and ask you again to clarify. 

First of all, apparently you’re looking at a May deadline for the 

global imprint to know where we’re going to be bringing troops 

home, where we’re going to keep them, where we’re going to add. 

Tell me again your time table for getting that information to the 

requisite Secretaries for the determination of where those troops 

will be deployed back. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Uh-huh. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And in conjunction with the BRAC, will 

there be plenty of overlap for the BRAC to be able to consider 

where the recommendations are for the returning troops to return? 

Mr. DUBOIS. As I indicated—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. You said May of next year, but—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. No, no, May of this year. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I was talking about—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. May of this year would be—excuse me, I’m sorry. 

May of this year would be the time that the Secretary would finalize his decisions as to what force structure would return from overseas. 

That gives us a year to plan for where that force structure would 

go in the United States. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, what is the time table for the Base 

Closing Commission to start its deliberations in 2005? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The President of the United States must nominate, 

and I believe the Senate must confirm by March 17th of 2005, the 

members of the nine member commission. The Secretary of Defense 

must report to that commission no later than May 16th. 

Now, I would predict that as soon as the Senate confirms the 

nine members, the Secretary is going to be very close to making his 

final and formal recommendations. So the timing, while this President must do it no later than March, and the Secretary must report no later than May, I suspect that the report of the Secretary 

will come prior to that deadline of May 16th. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, let me just try to firm that up and 

say, will you make it your goal to assure that before the first BRAC 

beginning organizational meeting that you will have in place the 

plan for where the troops will go so that can be part of their deliberations, as well as your own recommendations for what is to be 

closed? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Many of the meetings that we’ve had to date, internally at the Pentagon, of the infrastructure steering group, and the 

joint cross steering groups, and the military services themselves, 

has focused principally on process. Principally on how we would 

apply the selection criteria which has been published, as you know. 
18 

The issues pertaining to specific deliberations of which infrastructure would be needed to accept or receive overseas force structure will happen beginning, as I indicated, in May of this year. 

Now, it is true that, in terms of Europe, the Army is facing the 

largest potential, potential return of force structure. And I know 

that the Army, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for installations and environment, and the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for infrastructure issues 

have already begun to lay out a process by which if—sort of the 

what-if situations, where the Secretary and the President decide 

that a given force structure is to return, what is the implications 

for our analytic process. 

So I feel very confident that in this case, the Army has established a process and they are poised, if you will, to accept the Secretary and the President’s decision on the return of force structure 

in order to insert those decisions into their domestic BRAC deliberations. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. I’m taking that as a yes, it will be 

our goal to—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. Make sure those time tables 

meet. Okay, I’m going to finish this, and then I’m going to let my 

colleagues question. Then I do have a number of other questions, 

but I want to try to give everyone a chance. 

But again, on this overseas re-stationing, in your testimony you 

referred to the bases that will be on the recommendation list for 

being maintained, our domestic bases. It must have a surge capacity, because I think you rightly point out that we now know that 

we’re probably going to add maybe 30,000 more Army troops, 

maybe 40 for a short period of time. That’s a surge. Then likely 

they would be able to be winnowed back. 

My question is, how are you going to determine the keeping of 

bases with surge capacity. What are the factors that go into that 

as one of the points that you’re going to have as your criteria for 

maintaining a base? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The issue of surge, is in our view encompassed in 

criteria number 3, under the Military Value Selection Criteria, and 

I quote, the ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training. 

It is absolutely critical that in this BRAC in particular that the 

rationalization of our infrastructure, the realignment and in some 

cases the closure of infrastructure, in no way diminishes our capability to train. That is to say that you cannot get rid of impossible 

to reconstitute assets. And what falls into that category? Unrestricted airspace, maneuver training areas, land. These are very 

much in the forefront of the minds of those individuals in the Defense Department who have to wrestle with the notion of what to 

rationalize, what to realign and what not to. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me just ask you to add into your factors 

that if you’re going to have surge capacity in bases, we’re going to 

need to look at the traditional military housing construction, as opposed to the privatized housing that requires then the lease-back 

through stipends for people to be there. 
19 

I would think that you’d be looking at that—if we’re going to 

have the ability to house people on a quick basis off and on, it can’t 

be privatized housing that has to pay leases to keep our commitments. It’s going to have to be more of the traditional MILCON. 

So I would hope you would be considering that. 

Mr. DUBOIS. It is certainly a consideration, Madam Chairman. I 

want to point out, though, an oftentimes overlooked factor today. 

The United States Army today, has on active duty, in terms of active duty forces, Reserve components, Army National Guard, Army 

Reserves, almost 645,000 people. We have surged for Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now we have 

surged to the battlefield. We have taken care of our infrastructure 

needs in the battlefield. 

The question is, and you have raised an important issue, what 

do we need to maintain within CONUS, within the United States, 

in terms of surge and contingencies. 

Well, we’re living that right now, we’re in many ways getting lessons learned right now, as to what kinds of infrastructure need to 

be maintained in this surge that we’re living through. So it is 

something that we take into consideration. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. One last question on this, and then 

I’m going to turn to my vice chairman. The budget request for 

BRAC is $246 million. But it does not reflect an additional $115 

million of land sales which the Navy intends to obligate for BRAC 

this year. So you’ve basically taken about a third off last year’s request for BRAC, but probably are trying to compensate for that 

with what the Navy expects to get in land sales. 

My question is, is that the case and what assurances then do we 

have that money will go for the other third of BRAC costs that I 

assume we are going to need for cleanup. And if the land sales result in more money, will that also accrue to the BRAC account? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Madam Chairman, the—any funds derived from 

public sale of BRAC properties must go into the BRAC Environmental Remediation account. It cannot be stripped away, stolen 

from or otherwise diverted. My understanding and I would defer to 

H.T. Johnson, the Secretary of the Navy for I&E, but I will certainly talk to him after this hearing is over. 

My understanding is a substantial amount of that money is already in the BRAC Environmental account, coded to the Navy. In 

other words, the BRAC Environmental account is a DOD wide account, but we actually have three separate accounts for each of the 

military departments. And my understanding is that much of that 

money is already sitting in that account. 

Therefore on both of your questions, can we be assured that monies that enter into it will be spent, the answer is yes. Can we be 

assured that the monies yet to enter into it will in point of fact 

enter into it? My understanding is that those are conservative estimates, on the basis of GSA’s appraisal of the value of the land and 

what would happen under an auction. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, I will have further questions. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But I would like to give my colleagues a 

chance to pursue their interests. Senator Feinstein? 
20 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Just on that subject. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am. 

PERCHLORATE

Senator FEINSTEIN. It’s my understanding that the Air Force 

took a big hit and still is with respect to environmental cleanup, 

and particularly McClellan Air Force Base, a major problem that 

I’d like to talk to you a little bit about separately if I might. Twenty-nine States have perchlorate contamination. This has been a 

major interest of mine now for the last 3 years. Perchlorate is now 

showing up in fresh produce. Reports are now surfacing where 

produce grown in California, and particularly dairy products sold 

in Texas has perchlorate in it. The State has just passed its regulation of six parts per billion. 

In the last 2 years, in the MILCON Appropriations Report, we 

directed the Department of Defense to provide two reports to the 

Congressional Defense Committees regarding perchlorate. The first 

encompassing the activities of the Department’s Perchlorate Steering Committee was due December 31, 2003. We have not received 

it. 

The second report which requires the Defense Department to 

identify sources of perchlorate on BRAC properties and to develop 

a plan to remediate perchlorate contamination on BRAC sites is 

due April 30th. Now, the fact that the Committee has not received 

the December report, doesn’t seem to bode well for the April report. 

Can you give me the status of each report and let the Committee 

know when we can expect to receive them? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am, on the issue of perchlorate, just let me 

say in—as an introduction. You made me extremely aware of the 

issue of perchlorate almost within months of getting this job 3 

years ago. And quite frankly it had not been on my radar screen. 

I took your involvement and concerns very seriously. 

We have, we think, made some substantial investments in perchlorate remediation and cleanup, perchlorate detection, as well as 

the science of perchlorate health. And I can get into that in a 

minute. 

But I do want to answer specifically your questions about those 

reports. It is true that under the NDAA for fiscal year 2004 you 

required the DOD to provide a report of activities on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee by December 31, 2003. 

My understanding was that we had discussions with your staff, 

quite frankly, Senator, to say that that was in our view a little bit 

of an unachievable deadline. Having said that, last—yesterday in 

preparation for this hearing I asked the question, that I presumed 

that you would ask and I said, all right, where is the report? Recognizing that we couldn’t meet the December 31 deadline. 

It is now prepared in draft form, and we are about to send it to 

OMB. As you know, we have to go through our own OMB clearance 

process, for the interagency review before submission to Congress. 

This like other issues, but in particular perchlorate. As you 

know, there are a number of Federal agencies that have serious equities here, not the least of which is EPA. We’re going to send it 

to OMB very shortly within a few days I am told. And how long 
21 

that interagency clearance process—comment process takes is, as 

you appreciate, something that’s totally out of my control. 

However, I am in—a week doesn’t go by when I don’t talk about 

perchlorates with OMB and EPA. In fact Governor Leavitt of EPA 

came over to visit with the Secretary of Defense recently at my request and this is one of the issues that they discussed. They know 

about your concerns, and many Americans’ concerns. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And it’s getting worse, Mr. Dubois. The contamination is spreading and the levels in many places are now 

higher, and it’s permeating the food chain. And that makes it serious. 

Can you give me a—I mean, if—you couldn’t make the December 

date, are you going to have it to us within weeks, or is it going to 

take months? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I would—cannot answer that question definitively, 

Senator, the only answer—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, could I get an answer from—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. I will call OMB tomorrow, or when I get back to the 

office today and I will say, we’re going to submit this report to you 

for clearance, can you give me some indication as to how long it 

might take. It’s the best I can—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. How about the report due April 

30th? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The report—wherein Congress required the Department of Defense to provide data collected from BRAC installations, 

the report is being consolidated by our lead executive agency, the 

Department of the Air Force, and we expect to have that report to 

Congress by it’s due date of April 30, 2004. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. April 30th, could you—I missed that. 

Mr. DUBOIS. The report I believe is due on April 30th. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. April 30th. 

Mr. DUBOIS. And we anticipate being able to provide that report 

by April 30th. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Good. That’s some good news. Now, in 

the background—a GAO report published in December, recommended that DoD revise its plans, first, on the deadlines for 

completing its site inventory and initial evaluations. Secondly, reassess the time table proposed for completing its reevaluation of 

sites using the new risk assessment procedures, and third establishing interim goals. 

What I’m interested in, is what progress has been made on the 

identification of perchlorate contaminated sites, and how is DoD 

planning and prioritizing cleanup activities? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The Department has undertaken what we believe, 

and in no small measure because of your resolute position on this 

issue, the Department has undertaken an aggressive environmental sampling program wherein we require—as I say, the office 

of Secretary of Defense requires the services, the Military Service, 

to sample for perchlorate anyway—anywhere that there is a reasonable expectation that perchlorate may exist and there is—and 

this is critical and there is a pathway to a human receptor. That 

is to say, into drinking water. Now, we have invested approximately $20 million to do that through fiscal year 2005. 
22 

In particular, in California, we formed an ad hoc working group, 

with the California regulatory officials, to jointly prioritize the sampling activities in the State. We’ve also directed that our Munitions 

Action Plan, which you and I have talked about, the Defense Planning Guidelines, that the Secretary signs, that components, Military Services, assess the hazards of off range migration of munitions constituents, including perchlorate, in their range assessments. 

There is, in addition to that sampling, we have invested approxi- mately $25 million in the development of potential ground water 

treatment technologies for perchlorate through our SERDP and 

ESTCP programs. Now, these demonstration and certification 

treatment projects for perchlorate are in several key places in California, as well as in other places around the country. Edwards Air 

Force Base being one of them. 

There’s another issue here. In fact, it’s something that you 

brought up I think last year in this very hearing, and I looked into 

it, that is to say what are possible alternatives to perchlorate. It’s 

one thing to address the perchlorate issues today. It’s another thing 

to look down the road. And the Department of Defense has invested so far $9 million into possible alternatives to perchlorate. 

And finally, as you know, the Department along with EPA, 

NASA and the Department of Energy have with the Office of 

Science and Technology advisor to the President, and OMB asked 

the National Academy of Sciences to assess the science to date and 

where possible, either certify or comment on the varying standards 

quotes. 

And remember what California did recently was to publish a 

public health goal of six parts per billion. And that goal—but they 

also said we—we the State of California as well as the Department 

of Defense await the results of the National Academy of Science 

panel study to determine what is the proper scientific basis for contaminant limits. 

EPA and the Department of Defense and others have a disagreement as to what those levels are, based on scientific evidence. And 

we hope that the NAS, an objective independent body, will bring 

us to conclusion in that regard. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you aware that it is entering the food 

chain? Specifically in dairy, and lettuce? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I have read in—I have read in the papers that the— 

that they’re finding perchlorate traces in lettuce and—but again— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And dairy. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Dairy products. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And California’s the largest dairy State. The 

milk goes all over the country. And the particular population at 

risk are small children, and pregnant women. And some of the 

studies have shown substantial levels in milk, substantial levels 

being over six parts per billion. 

So I’m sending out an alarm to you. I believe that the Department of Defense has a responsibility here and that we really have 

to get cracking and get this stuff cleaned up and out of our water 

supply. 

And I’m sorry, Madam Chairman, this has been, as you know, 3 

years now of trying to push and I’m running out of patience. I can 
23 

tell you the concern in my State is very broad. Drinking wells are 

contaminated. Certain cities are without half to three-quarters of 

their water supply. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Again, Senator, if—when the State of California, 

when the Federal Government determines the maximum contaminant levels for perchlorate in other constituents, the Department of 

Defense intends fully to abide by—by the way, whichever is lower, 

EPA can come out with—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So in other words, California’s standard, 

you’re not going to abide by that, I recognize it’s a goal. But that— 

you’re not going to abide by that in the interim. 

Mr. DUBOIS. We are awaiting, as is EPA and the State of California, the NAS—the completion of the NAS study, which I have 

been told will be early fall of this year. But whatever contaminant 

level is lower, that is what the DoD will abide by, as is legally required as you know under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

This is clearly an important issue, and I don’t mean in anyway 

to diminish our intense focus on this and the amount of money that 

we’ve put behind this. We would only ask that the interested parties, not the least of whom are the Congress of the United States 

and Governor Schwarzenegger’s staff in Sacramento with whom I 

have discussed this, let—and we all agree that is a determination 

that must be made by an independent body, an NAS study. 

We don’t know what the contaminant level is that will impact 

varying segments of the population. It is something that is of importance to us. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I’ve taken this as far as I should, at 

this time. But perhaps we can sit down separately, and I can perhaps use my other questions in the second round. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Mr. DUBOIS. I would like to add, if I might, Madam Chairman, 

the importance of this issue. I became seized with it some time ago. 

I searched quite frankly around the Federal Government for experts in water remediation and perchlorates in particular, water remediation in general. And I have just hired one of the leading experts from the Department of Interior to our staff at Defense and 

she and Alex Beeler on my right here, the new Environmental Deputy at the Department have this clearly on the top of their agenda. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I really appreciate that, Mr. Dubois, this is 

really serious. And I think you know that now, and we’ve really got 

to work fast so that those levels do not build up. That’s one of the 

problems that we’re finding is the buildup of the level of contamination. Now two States are the largest in terms of contamination, 

one is Texas, and one is California. So we both have a very serious 

interest in seeing that you take some aggressive steps. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Senator 

Burns. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. I was interested in your 

comments today, Mr. Secretary, on the ability to train, especially 

within the Air Force. Urban sprawl yes, airspace, yes, spectrum, 

yes, and so on. And the infrastructure on the ground. Hang a shingle out there and put Montana on it, would you? 
24 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, sir. 

Senator BURNS. I’ve got a—I was going to bring that chart this 

morning, and I just turned everything over in my office trying to 

find it. It is a chart of 5 hours of air traffic activity in this country. 

And it illustrates that, wherever we’ve got installations where 

we’re training both tactical and everything else you’re out of airspace, you’ve got little bitty holes down there in the southwestern 

part of this country and—which commercial uses of airspace, spectrum and this type of thing, and we just happen to have a lot of 

airspace and we’ve got spectrum, and we’ve got the infrastructure 

on the ground to do that kind of stuff. 

ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

I hope to hear your thoughts on this. And I like 40 percent of this appropriation in environmental work. Forty percent of $9 billion appropriation, and you’ve almost got $4 billion appropriated to 

deal with environmental issues. I’m interested in that because 

whenever we start talking about going into another BRAC round, 

how many installations are we now still in the process of environmental cleanup before it’s ready for sale, or to do something else 

with? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The cost to complete is currently estimated for environmental remediation to the standards with the local redevelopment authority and the military service have agreed to, for BRAC 

properties, BRAC to date properties, but not yet disposed, is approximately $3.9 billion. That’s a significant amount of money, I 

don’t deny it. 

But it is—remember, too, that the Department of Defense even 

when we close a property, and we’ve disposed of the property, we 

do retain the legal liability to clean it up if something happens that 

we were not aware of. It’s not like we push this off on the State, 

or we push this off on the local redevelopment authority or the developer who might take it over, or another Federal agency for that 

matter. 

It’s an issue that we live with, and one could ask do we put 

enough money behind this every year, it is going down year, over 

year, over year. 

Senator BURNS. I would just like to say that, in the past, the 

BRAC Commission has underestimated the cost of cleanup whenever they made their recommendations of closure or realignment. 

I don’t want history to repeat itself because I used to chair this 

committee and I know what we had to go through when that happens. And sometimes I think it’s good money thrown after bad to 

be honest with you, in some of these activities. 

But I just come this morning, I wanted to look at the housing 

thing, and I know that they’ve got more concerns than I have, but 

environmental cleanup is something that’s very important to me. 

I—perchlorate is a problem to those States, should be looked at 

very seriously, and of course as we move down this next round of 

BRAC, I think we better have some pretty realistic figures on our 

obligation in the area of environmental remediation, once we decide 

to close a facility. 

And I thank you this morning for your report. 

[The statement follows:] 
25 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Thank you for coming to brief this subcommittee on military construction, and for 

your service to our great Nation. Your work is critical to developing and maintaining the facilities for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the world. I 

intend to honor our men and women serving and those who have made the ultimate 

sacrifice for our country by ensuring that our active, reserve, and national guard 

have the resources they need to support current and future requirements. 

I am encouraged to learn that our services remain strong in this time of extended 

deployments to austere and often hazardous bases around the world. It speaks well 

of the character of our airmen, who accept this duty, who often choose to continue 

their voluntary service to our Nation. We must ensure that we provide the resources 

they need for their installations while deployed overseas as well as here in the 

states. 

I am convinced that replacing dangerous and outdated facilities improves morale 

for our forces worldwide, contributing to better-trained service members who can 

complete the mission more effectively and safely. Investing in facilities to support 

the fielding, training, operations, and quality of life of our forces pays great dividends in combat effectiveness and lives saved. 

This commitment must not end with the active forces. We will also continue to 

support essential infrastructure improvements for our National Guard forces, which 

have shouldered an increasingly significant role in the security of our Nation, alongside our active duty forces. 

While not engaged in our current operations against terrorists worldwide, our 

strategic forces remain a critical component of national security. I strongly encourage the investment in training and quality of life improvements we need to maintain the proficiency, readiness, and morale of these airmen, whom this Nation relies 

on to steward the strategic deterrence capability. 

I urge you to judiciously execute the efforts appropriated by this subcommittee. 

We must ensure the facilities we invest in overseas are aligned with our long-term 

defense posture, and that those investments in shorter-term bases are balanced 

against our overall posturing strategy. 

I have seen that the Department of Defense intends to re-align our forces deployed overseas, and can see the relation between the realignments overseas and 

the closures in this country. While I contend that it may be premature to consider 

closing bases in this country until our strategic repositioning overseas is completed, 

I support efforts to eliminate excess infrastructure where we are sure we see no requirement for these facilities in the future. Again, I thank you for being here today 

and look forward to the discussion this morning. Thank you. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Thank you, sir. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Burns. Follow-up questions. Housing privatization is moving obviously more of our military families off base. Now, in some cases I know privatization is 

being done on base. But the bottom line is the impact on local 

school districts is an issue that we also have to keep in mind. 

We asked for a report from the Department of Defense by March 

15 of this year on the impact of privatization on local school districts. We haven’t gotten that report, but I think again it should 

be very much a factor in our overall military budgets and our support for school districts that are in our military base towns. Could 

you look into that, and determine if we are going to get that report 

shortly? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am, I certainly will. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. The Central Command installations. Earlier this month General Abizaid testified to the House 

Appropriations Committee that he had $531 million in urgent unfunded MILCON requirements in theater, plus $340 million in 

MILCON which Congress has already provided. The conference report accompanying last year’s supplemental appropriations bill required a report to this Committee on CENTCOM’s master plan for 

facilities in its area of responsibility. 
26 

General Abizaid has also said that he wants to move U.S. troops 

out of Saddam’s palaces and consolidate the 44 installations that 

we have in Iraq in the Baghdad area to 11. So I have two questions, one is: we were supposed to have a report again on the 

CENTCOM master plan due last December which we haven’t received. When could we expect to see that? 

Secondly, how are you going to propose the MILCON for the consolidation that General Abizaid is suggesting that he would like to 

do? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The so-called CENTCOM master plan has been in 

the works for sometime, it is overdue I recognize that, Madam 

Chairman. It is a plan that I’m not—I’m not directly responsible 

for. 

However, the—the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the 

Joint Chiefs, or the Joint Staff, OSD installations and Enviro—my 

portfolio, and General Abizaid’s command all hold a piece of this 

report, and we owe it to you. Needless to say it has been somewhat 

difficult given the situation, the emerging—the evolving situation 

in Iraq in particular as to what kinds of infrastructure was going 

to be needed, and for how long. 

O&M BUDGET

I read recently a remark by a brigadier general out there that 

unfortunately he used the term enduring, which has meaning to 

you and me and apparently it has a different meaning to the brigadier general. This also pertains to the issue that has been discussed between Congress and the Executive Branch on contingency 

construction. And what parts of—so called contingency construction 

ought to be in the military construction budget and what parts are 

legitimately an emergency compelling need now. And therefore, in 

the O&M budget. 

As you know, the Comptroller of the Department, Dr. Zakheim, 

laid out some pretty strict guidelines when the Congress pointed 

out that certain O&M dollars were being spent on arguably, and 

I underline that word, installations that were for a longer term use 

than a short term use. And I’ve been to Iraq, I’ve actually spent 

the night in a palace, I’ve also spent the night in a tent, with the 

troops. I am not certain quite frankly exactly where our installations are going to end up in Iraq, it is as you pointed out a continuing—as I pointed out a continuing discussion. 

The important thing that we owe you, it seems to me, that General Abizaid, and the Secretary of Defense owe you is, if we predict 

that we’re going to remain in Iraq for a period of time, 2, 3 years, 

with a substantial level of infrastructure, what does that mean in 

terms of the kind of infrastructure we’re going to need. 

Now, it gets back to what’s temporary and what’s not temporary. 

I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that if we build 

something that clearly has a life for the next year or two, that’s 

temporary. Should that then be a military construction appropriation? If we can predict it, and in place certain, I would agree with 

you that it ought to come before this committee. 

When General Abizaid, however, says, I’ve got $500-plus million 

of immediate construction requirements, new—repairing runways, 

or laying concrete slabs for field hospitals. I think that one has to 
27 

conclude that that’s probably a construction, or contingency construction requirement that he legitimately can pull from the O&M 

accounts of the services. I don’t know how we end off on this. 

I do know this, however. That Dr. Zakheim has been very clear, 

that when the combat commander, in this case General Abizaid, 

can predictably state I need the following infrastructure for the 

foreseeable future, something in excess of several years, then we’ve 

got to—we have the obligation to come back to the MILCON committees. 

But there is also probably a substantial amount of contingency 

construction. I need it today. It’s temporary, I won’t need it 3 years 

from now, that’s probably an O&M related matter. But it is a matter of discussion between your staff and my staff. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, you’re talking about a significant portion of overseas MILCON budgeting. I for one favor temporary as 

long as we can do it so that we have lower costs, and can reuse 

much of that temporary equipment. On the other hand, we also 

need some way to budget rather than just supplemental and emergency appropriations. 

So we’re looking at a huge number there, and the sooner you can 

get us something that we can plan with the better, because that 

would be a mighty big supplemental if that’s the way you were 

going to go, which I really don’t think is as responsible. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. On sustainment. Your testimony says and 

you said that you’re going to fund at a 95 percent rate. However, 

some of the services are indicating that a significant amount of 

those funds are going to be diverted from facility sustainment to 

base operation support and that sustainment will be significantly 

lower. 

Now, I think—your priority is exactly right, on sustainment. I 

see us tearing down buildings and building new ones when just 

basic maintenance would have made these buildings last a longer 

time. As you know, we’re in old buildings all over our government, 

and I think we should be in old buildings longer than just tearing 

things down and rebuilding them when they’re perfectly good buildings. So I like your priority. However, is it realistic? 

Mr. DUBOIS. When the Army established the Installation Management Agency, and the Navy has a similar agency, it recognized 

the fact that sustainment dollars are often stolen. Let’s face it. Diverted. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Sure. 

Mr. DUBOIS. To use another term, a nicer term, in order to give 

appropriate visibility into how sustainment dollars are budgeted, 

and how they’re actually spent, the Army and the Navy took this 

management action. Air Force in a similar fashion watches it carefully but I don’t defend taking dollars out of that account and using 

them for other things. 

But when it comes to base operating services, when you have the 

notion that I’ve got a roof that just started leaking, and I’ve got so 

many dollars to sustain the infrastructure on my installation, and 

I’m the installation commander, I’ve got to use the dollars where 

they’re immediate—the immediate need is required. 
28 

Now, interestingly enough, I am the installation commander of 

a place called the Pentagon Reservation, a 280-acre campus if you 

will. A building that has in excess of 6 million square feet. We are 

re-capitalizing the Pentagon today, 60 plus years after it was originally built. It was reasonably well maintained over those years. 

But what has happened? The building itself as the national command center of the United States military has become obsolete, in 

terms of electronics, in terms of computers, in terms of communications, and in terms of how best to use that space. That’s an example of why sustainment is important but recapitalization is also important. 

In any event, I do watch, and continue to watch carefully, as do 

my three colleagues in the Military Departments, the three assistant service secretaries for I&E, how those dollars are being spent 

well. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I thank you, and I would hope that 

your services would look at the fact that you’re operating out of a 

60 year old building and you’re going to upgrade it rather than 

tearing it down and starting all over. I think that could be well 

used in the Services as well. 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

Last question, for me, and this will be my final question. Special 

Operations Forces. Our staff has been visiting several of the facilities this year, and found them overflowing with equipment, seriously short on space, and yet with all of the added requirements 

and the proposals to add more in Special Operations Forces, there 

doesn’t seem to be anything in the budget that indicates you’re asking for military construction to house the added needs. Are you addressing this segment, or—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. Let me address—I’m sorry. 

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. Do you have plans that we 

don’t see? How are you going to meet these demands? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The Special Operations Forces worldwide are a special focus of the Secretary’s integrated global presence and basing 

strategy work. 

As a matter of fact, this very issue, not just where SOF Forces 

are positioned, but how to appropriately support them in terms of 

infrastructure has been teed up by—in particular, Admiral Fargo 

in the Pacific Command, and General Jones in the European Command. I’ve been present at meetings with those two gentlemen and 

the Secretary of Defense, it is—it always comes up in no small 

measure because of some of the things, and some of the observations that your staff has made, as well as I have made in my travels around the world to now in excess of 100—nearly 120 installations some of which are the SOF installations. 

It is a concern, we believe, that the SOF infrastructure needs to 

be rationalized and realigned with the SOF Force presence. 

And again, if we’re going to bring back some of that SOF Force 

structure to the United States, we want to make sure that we’ve 

made the appropriate investments—military construction investments in bases in the United States to accept and receive it. 

It’s also true about overseas, we’re looking at consolidation. 

Those small bases that your staff and I have gone to look at are 
29 

crowded and they are—and we’re trying to figure out does this 

make the most sense, is this the best expenditure of our dollars, 

both MILCON and O&M dollars. We have kind of concluded that 

it probably isn’t and that’s why it’s been put on the table with respect to this global presence, and this global basing study. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Well, we need to address that, and 

provide for it if in fact it’s as bad as we think it is. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Uh-huh. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. While 

you were speaking about the CENTCOM request I was reading 

General Abizaid’s testimony to the House MILCON Committee, 

which he said and I quote, ‘‘CENTCOM has prioritized another 44 

projects at an estimated cost of $531 million, in urgent and unfunded contingency construction requirements. We submitted these 

requests to the Joint Staff in January 2004, we expect that other 

requirements will emerge due to changes in the situation, new missions and the evolution of our basing strategy.’’ 

And so he’s saying that there will be additional ones, and this 

$531 million appears nowhere. Now you say you’ll take it out of 

O&M in the Defense budget, in other places, is that correct? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Well, when a combat commander such as General 

Abizaid comes to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs and 

the Joint Staff with a request in January, clearly it couldn’t have 

entered into our 2005 budget request. The extent to which these 

projects are prioritized by CENTCOM, and yet to be prioritized, 

and I have to underline this, yet to be prioritized by the Military 

Services, there is a shared responsibility overseas for installations 

and infrastructure, it is not entirely the combat commander’s priorities. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you’re saying, and I don’t want you to 

spend a lot of time on this. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But you’re saying it will not be in the O&M 

of the Defense budget this year, is that correct? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I see—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It means we leave it for another supplemental? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I suspect that some will, but there will be the question—the question is on the table, will there be a supplemental and 

if so, when? I think the Secretary of Defense has indicated that he 

believes because of the uncertainties of OIF and OEF that there 

will be a supplemental. The question is timing, as you know, and 

the question is size. 

We’re dealing with a set of uncertainties. Abizaid himself—General Abizaid, while he comes in with his wish list, that wish list 

has already been adjusted by virtue of what’s happened in the last 

60 to 70 days. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, this was his testimony as of March 3rd, 

of this year, before the House MILCON Committee, it appears on 

page 40 of the—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. Yes, ma’am, I’m aware of it. 
30 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I think one of the problems that I have, 

is when you can include projects in the budget, they’re not there, 

and therefore the cost of the war has essentially been taken up by 

a supplemental appropriation which I find not the most optimum 

situation. 

EUROPEAN BASES

But let me go into the issue of our European bases. The request includes $428 million for MILCON in Europe and I think it’s based 

on the assumption that several existing bases Grafenwoehr, 

Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Vicenza, Aviano, Lakenheath, and 

Mildenhall will be enduring bases. 

So my question is, has a final decision on the future of these 

bases been made, and has the Secretary of Defense designated 

these specific bases to be enduring installations? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I’m not sure that the Secretary has actually stated 

it in such definitive terms, Senator, but let me say on his behalf 

that the military construction requests for those European bases 

that you mentioned in our view reflect critical military requirements. And yes, we believe those bases are enduring in the sense 

that they may not—the force structure on those bases today may 

not be—the same force structure on those bases today, may not be 

the same force structure on those bases in a year or two or three. 

But clearly bases like Ramstein, bases like Vicenza, bases like 

Sigonella, bases like Rota in Spain, are bases that are in our plan 

for the future. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. So the intent is to make them enduring bases. Has the President approved the designation of these 

bases as enduring installations? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I’ll have to just say I don’t know whether the President has used the term enduring. All I know is that the Secretary 

in his discussions with me and my understanding is with the President, although the final, final decision has not been made, clearly 

has set aside, places as I mentioned like Ramstein, that you mentioned Grafenwoehr, as places where we will remain, we the United 

States Military will remain. I don’t know whether the President’s—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So the answer is no, he has not approved the 

designation at this point? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I would have to say you’re correct in that regard. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Has the Defense Department calculated the overall cost of the proposed overseas basing realignment and when will you have a comprehensive cost estimate for 

the Congress? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The—we have looked at various alternatives should 

the Secretary and the President decide that they’ll bring back, 

shall we say force package A, what would be the cost to not just 

bring it back, but to build to bring it back. We’re looking at various 

alternatives in this regard. 

But as it is the case with BRAC, domestic BRAC, there must be 

an upfront investment in building—military construction investment in building facilities at the receiving locations. We as you 

know, are very forthright in what we estimate that cost to be. But 

we also are forthright in saying the savings derived from that 
31 

BRAC adjustment, realignment, and closure will also in our view— 

the estimates, we have made those estimates too. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you give us the cost estimate, you said 

you’re very forthright in those cost estimates. 

Mr. DUBOIS. When we—yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What is the cost estimate of the overseas 

base—— 

Mr. DUBOIS. I have not finished that calculation at this time. 

Now, it is—please remember it is dependent upon what decisions 

the Secretary and President ultimately make. If they say bring 

back one division, that has a cost estimate. If they say bring back 

another division that has another cost estimate. If they say bring 

back an F–16 squadron, that has a cost estimate. 

We are building—I use the term building blocks. We are trying 

to assess the individual building block estimates so that when the 

Secretary and the President make those final determinations, 

which as I indicated I anticipate to be in May, we will be able to 

bring to you those cost estimates. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. As you know, we spent a lot of time last year 

on these European bases, and Grafenwoehr and Ramstein and 

Vilseck, and Aviano there new ones added this year, but you’re 

asking essentially for $218,553,000 for the German bases, and we 

don’t know whether they’re going to be enduring bases. And this 

is the second year now that we still don’t know. And yet we’ll most 

likely appropriate the money, and I guess the problem is, do we appropriate the money and then the plans change? 

Mr. DUBOIS. I think that the discussion that we’ve had over certainly beginning last year—and what I—I don’t want to mislead 

this Subcommittee in any way shape or form. My view is the Secretary has indicated that these bases which we have asked for a 

military construction appropriation are enduring. You’ve asked me 

a question, since I haven’t talked to the President whether he has 

said, oh yes they are enduring, I believe that the Secretary of Defense has concluded that they are enduring. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can we therefore—well, I guess we can’t conclude they’re enduring. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Well, as I said, he intends to make that final—you 

know, there are a lot of moving parts here, Senator. And he wants 

to make that recommendation to the President ultimately and discuss it with the Congress. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The frustration we have is there were moving parts last year too. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Right. And we also cut back—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It took us a long time to come together on 

this. 

Mr. DUBOIS. We cut back seriously on what we’ve asked for in 

terms of Europe. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I know you did. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Because of these very reasons. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. So we’re no further—we’re no clearer. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Well, I wouldn’t—I don’t think I can agree with 

that. I think we are substantially clearer. The question is will the 

Secretary of Defense make decisions and discuss them with Con-
32 

gress prior to your markup? That’s the question at hand, and my 

understanding is depending upon when your markup is, that is his 

intention. He knows that you will have a difficult time making 

these appropriations and decisions absent a certainty to the extent 

that we can be, on these overseas bases. He appreciates that. 

KOREA

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I think you know, we don’t want to waste 

money. I went to Korea and saw some new facilities, but the plan 

for Korea proposed essentially to do away with them. And we don’t 

want to get into that. 

Mr. DUBOIS. But as you well know many of those new facilities 

that you saw were MILCON appropriations from several years ago. 

And rightly so, Korea had suffered for a number of years with not 

very many dollars for—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I understand that, I don’t want to belabor it. 

We’ve spent $15 million on a community center expected I think 

to last for a while. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Uh-huh. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And that’s the point I want to make. And the 

new housing as well. 

Mr. DUBOIS. In terms of Korea of course, we’ve only asked for 

military construction on bases and land that we control in concert 

with our announced strategy with respect to our reconfiguring force 

structure on the peninsula. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, can you, give us a progress report on 

moving out of Seoul and moving south. Where is that? 

Mr. DUBOIS. The two governments, our government and the Korean government have concluded that we will move out of the 

Yongsan Garrison to Camp Humphrey, the Camp Humphrey Osan 

footprint. South of the Han. The question quite rightly is, how long 

will it take, and does the Korean government agree that the monies derived from their use of Yongsan, no longer the use of the 

United Nations command, and the United States—the Eighth 

Army. And the United States forces of Korea to be reinvested in 

infrastructure in the Camp Humphreys Osan footprint. The decision has been made we’re moving out. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is there an approved agreement? 

Mr. DUBOIS. My understanding is there is. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That has been approved by the legislature? 

Or by the Korean government? 

Mr. DUBOIS. That’s my understanding and I will clarify that for 

you when I get back to the Pentagon. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Now, with respect to the land purchases as we discussed this last year, around Camp Humphreys and around Osan, 

that has been approved by the Korean legislature, and the monies 

have been appropriated and they’re in the process of actually buying the parcels, because they were owned by 150 different farmers, 

but we didn’t ask for military construction on those properties, 

until they are assembled and transferred to our use. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But there is agreement on Yongsan, and the 

price? 
33 

Mr. DUBOIS. There is agreement on Yongsan and the concurrent 

cost to build new for that garrison and our troops, headquarters 

troops to move south. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I would certainly, and I think the 

Chairman would certainly be very interested in knowing the details of that agreement. I notice there’s nothing in this budget. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Madam Vice Chairwoman, I would agree 

with you totally on wanting to know how much of the agreements 

have been made on costs and cost sharing, but there’s one little semantic thing, we don’t need the permission of Korea to leave a base 

or any other country. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, I understand. I understand. 

Senator HUTCHISON. But the terms certainly do require agreements and I would be interested in that as well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Mr. Dubois. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Secretary, we do appreciate your time, 

and the updates that you have given us along the way. I think we 

are moving in the right direction, but there’s still a lot to be done 

on both of our parts. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUBOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

OVERSEAS BASING/BRAC

Question. Mr. Dubois, have decisions been made on redeployment of specific units 

and/or numbers of forces to the United States? If so, of what size? 

Answer. Decisions have not been made. The Department of Defense is formulating 

a set of recommendations based on Combatant Commander and Service input. Per 

the President’s instruction, the State and Defense Departments are consulting closely with our allies and conducting site surveys to determine feasibility of initial proposals. The Department has frequently briefed members of Congress and their staffs 

on the proposals under consideration. A report to Congress will be provided during 

Summer 2004. 

Question. Mr. Dubois, to what extent do you envision that costs associated with 

redeploying any forces from overseas to stateside locations (movement, military construction, etc.) would be paid for out of the designated BRAC account or provided 

for separately? 

Answer. The BRAC statute limits how the Department may spend money in the 

BRAC account. Basically, the BRAC account can only be used to fund the implementation of approved closure and realignment recommendations. To the extent that redeploying forces from overseas to stateside locations is part of an approved BRAC 

closure and realignment recommendation, the Department may fund that action 

from the BRAC account. 

Question. Mr. Dubois, what is the restationing of overseas forces going to cost? 

If we don’t yet know, when will we know? 

Answer. Current working cost estimate is continually being updated, but represents less than half of 1 percent of the FYDP. As a rough estimate, it will be refined as more detailed plans are developed. This reflects the worldwide scope of 

global reposturing and the evolving nature of this initiative due to the relatively 

large number of locations and the diplomatic, cost and savings variables involved. 

Question. Mr. Dubois, if the return of forces to the United States will be accomplished as part of the BRAC process, and we don’t know how much that restationing 

effort will cost, how can the Secretary have certified this month that BRAC will result in a savings by 2011? Do the calculations on which the Secretary’s certification 

was based include the costs of accommodating troops returning from overseas? 

Other Due Outs: Perchlorate Report; School Impact Report; CENTCOM Master 
34 

Plan; Land and Cost-Sharing Agreements with Korea; and Information on C–17 

Basing decisions, specifically with reference to Dyess AFB and Kelly USA. 

Answer. As required by statute, the Secretary’s certification was based on the 

force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and economic analysis provided to 

Congress pursuant to Section 2912 of the BRAC statue. That economic analysis was 

based on the experience of previous BRAC rounds, which suggests that each military department will achieve annual net savings beginning not later than fiscal year 

2011, the 6 year of implementation. The actual costs and savings from BRAC 2005 

actions will depend on the specific recommendations adopted. 

Perchlorate (BRAC) Report and Land and Cost Sharing Agreements with Korea 

will be submitted to Congress in July 2004. The Department is in the final stages 

of report development on the CENTCOM Master Plan and School Impact Report 

and plans to submit a final report to Congress in August 2004. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

UTILITY PRIVATIZATION

Question. Mr. Dubois, what is the status of utility privatization within the Department? What problems do you see in the future with utility privatization? 

Answer. Through the Utilities Privatization (UP) Program, the Department of Defense (DOD) will take advantage of industry innovations, efficiencies, financing and 

economies of scale to obtain safe, environmentally sound and reliable utilities services. The Defense Components are actively pursuing a privatization evaluation of 

the utility systems at every Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard installation, within 

the United States and overseas, that is not already designated for base closure. 

Of the 1,867 DOD utility systems that are eligible for privatization, the Defense 

Components have privatized 446 systems and exempted 244 systems for economic 

or security reasons. Within a 5 percent range DOD is on track to complete evaluations on the remaining systems by September 30, 2005. Of those systems with active 

solicitations, RFPs have been issued and are pending closure on 95 systems; and 

RFPs have closed and are under evaluation on over 860 systems. 

The ongoing solicitations are normally receiving adequate interest to achieve competition. This follows a successful effort by the Services to share lessons learned and 

industry feedback to improve solicitation templates and better align the program 

with industry practices. 

Many systems included in earlier solicitations, which closed prior to March 2003 

did not receive adequate interest. Most of these systems were located on small Reserve or National Guard sites. Utilities had not been interested in participating in 

the privatization of these systems for a variety of reasons. In general, they perceived 

that the cost of developing a proposal in a competitive arrangement did not provide 

a cost effective business opportunity. With the improved templates and engagement 

with industry representatives, interest has improved. The Services are continuing 

discussions with industry to identify barriers and develop resolutions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

BRAC

Question. Mr. Dubois, what role will the availability of training ranges play in determining realignment at Air Force installations? 

Answer. The BRAC process is the means by which the Department can reconfigure its current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity maximizes 

both warfighting capability and efficiency. The BRAC 2005 process is intended to 

ensure a comprehensive analysis of all military installations in the United States 

and Territories, on an equal footing. Training ranges are an important part of this 

installation inventory, and will be evaluated using the final selection criteria published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2004. As required by law, military 

value will be the primary consideration in analyzing and making recommendations 

for the closure or realignment of military installations. Training capabilities, as reflected in criteria two (one of the four military value criteria), are essential to maintaining military capability. 

Question. Mr. Dubois, there has been discussion of placing Air Guard units within 

the boundaries of active installations for cost savings and security purposes—to 

what extent will this be considered by the Department in the upcoming closure and 

realignment process? 
35 

Answer. The Department will analyze all installations by the same process, to include consideration of movement of National Guard forces to active bases and active 

duty people to National Guard bases. Military value will be the primary consideration for making recommendations for base closures and realignments, as required 

by statute. 

Question. Mr. Dubois, what steps will be taken in the base closure and realignment process to ensure consistency with the Strategic Capabilities Assessment 

(SCA)? Will the current policy be adjusted to reflect the Department’s closure and 

realignment needs or is it the intent to continue the policy of retention of 500 landbased missiles? 

Answer. The Strategic Capabilities Assessment is a periodic review of progress in 

implementing the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR recommended that the planned strategic nuclear force in 2012 would comprise 14 Trident II SSBNs, 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, 76 B–52H bombers, and 21 B–2 bombers. The Strategic Capabilities Assessment was recently completed and the results 

are being reviewed within the Department. At this time there is no action underway 

to change the planned strategic nuclear force structure for 2012. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Question. Mr. DuBois, the fiscal year 2005 budget request for BRAC environmental cleanup is $246 million, down nearly 36 percent from the $370 million requested in fiscal year 2004. No funding has been requested for the cleanup of Navy 

BRAC installations because the Navy is expected to finance its fiscal year 2005 

BRAC cleanup requirements out of the revenue from land sales. 

Can you explain why the Department has chosen to reduce its request, rather 

than using the proceeds from land sales to supplement funding and accelerate necessary cleanup? 

Answer. The Navy opted to finance its prior BRAC fiscal year 2005 program with 

land sales revenue in lieu of seeking appropriated funds because it believed that 

proceeds from the sale of El Toro and Oak Knoll properties would be available in 

sufficient time to pay for caretaker and environmental cleanup costs, thus allowing 

the Navy to use appropriated funds for other needs. The Navy used conservative estimates in its fiscal year 2005 land sale revenue projection, and has successfully sold 

a number of prior BRAC properties in the last few years that have generated $230 

million in revenue that is being used to accelerate cleanup at prior BRAC locations. 

Question. Could the Services execute a larger BRAC environmental cleanup program in fiscal year 2005 if additional funds were made available? 

Answer. We believe the Services can execute a larger program if additional funds 

were made available by Congress. However, we have sufficient funds to meet our 

legal/regulatory obligations and believe the requested level of funding is an appropriate balance between environmental and other DOD mission requirements. 

Question. Did the Navy request any funding from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission? Was it a Navy decision or an 

OSD decision for the Navy to self-finance its entire BRAC cleanup program out of 

land sale revenues? 

Answer. The Navy did not request any funding from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense for its fiscal year 2005 budget submission. It was a Navy decision to selffinance its BRAC cleanup program out of land revenue. 

As you know, I am extremely concerned about the BRAC environmental cleanup 

program because so many communities in California are impacted by environmental 

contamination on closed bases that will take many years and cost many millions of 

dollars to remediate. 

Question. Can you assure me that the fiscal year 2005 BRAC round will not delay 

or in any way divert resources from the environmental cleanup of installations 

closed under previous BRAC rounds? 

Answer. Based on resources currently available, the Services have sufficient capacity and capability to execute a new round of BRAC while finishing requirements 

associated with the previous rounds. The 2005 round of BRAC will not divert funds 

specifically appropriated for restoration projects supporting previous BRAC rounds. 

Question. What lessons have you learned from the previous BRAC rounds that 

you plan to apply to environmental cleanup associated with the 2005 round? 

Answer. We are evaluating lessons learned over the past four round of BRAC and 

developing options associated with environmental processes. Some considerations 

are: 
36 

—Should cleanup be done by DOD or the new owner? 

—How do we maximize property value? 

—Use of early transfer authority (ETA) should be optimized to get property in the 

hands of new owners faster. 

—Use of environmental services cooperative agreements (ESCAs) should be encouraged to help the Military Components fulfill their environmental cleanup 

responsibilities and integrate cleanup with redevelopment. For example, at Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal in New Jersey, the Army transferred both property and the responsibility for cleanup to the Bayonne Local Reuse Authority 

under ETA and an ESCA. The ESCA effectively put the local reuse authority 

in charge of their own destiny in terms of both cleanup and property reuse. This 

action saved the Army approximately $5 million and successfully defused ongoing frustrations over the pace and scope of cleanup actions and changing 

reuse plans. The action was a win-win for all parties. 

—The environmental condition of the property could be documented early in the 

process for potential transferees. 

—Work closely with Local Reuse Authorities (LRAs) and developers earlier in the 

process to return property to productive reuse faster. 

—Increased use of performance-based contracting will contribute to improved 

cleanup and property transfer. The Department currently has 15 BRAC installations where performance-based contracting is setting the pace for cleanup. 

—Increased use of the Conservation Conveyance Authority where it presents the 

best option for transfer and reuse. For example, Honey Lake, a section of Sierra 

Army Depot in California, was DOD’s first land transfer using the conservation 

transfer authority. Over 57,000 acres were transferred to four public and private entities which make up the Honey Lake Conservation Team. The team is 

completing the restoration and conservation efforts. 

RESERVE COMPONENTS

Question. The Department is finally showing that it is concerned with the infrastructure needs of the reserve components. Although this year’s overall request is 

15 percent less than last year’s enacted amount, as compared to the requested 

amount, the reserve components request amount has increased by 67 percent. 

Several facilities for the National Guard and Reserves are considered Federal facilities—rather than state-owned facilities. It is my understanding that these federally designated reserve component facilities may be subject to the upcoming BRAC 

consideration. Is this true—and if so, will criteria such as distance to training 

ranges, jointness, and community need be considered? 

Answer. The Department is approaching BRAC with an eye toward the Total 

Force—Active, Reserve, and Guard. This approach reflects the importance of accommodating Guard and Reserve training, basing, and quality of life needs by incorporating them into the comprehensive analyses of all military installations. This 

comprehensive analysis will use the final selection criteria published in the Federal 

Register on February 16, 2004, for making closure and realignment recommendations. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Question. Mr. DuBois, the fiscal year 2002 Military Construction Appropriations 

report mandated an assessment of renewable energy resources, including solar, 

wind, and geothermal, on U.S. military installations. As I have watched gasoline 

prices climb steadily in recent weeks, I am becoming increasingly concerned that 

spikes in electricity costs cannot be far behind. I have not for a moment forgotten 

the energy crisis of 2002 that hit California so hard, and that in part prompted this 

subcommittee’s requirement for an assessment of renewable energy resources. 

I am interested in how OSD views the importance of this assessment, to what degree OSD supports the study, and whether OSD is actively requiring each of the 

Services to participate fully in the assessment. Can you assure me that this assessment is in fact a priority of OSD and that no foot-dragging or lack of cooperation 

will be tolerated? 

Answer. OSD considers the renewables assessment very important. We are fully 

committed to developing and executing an action plan with Congress’s help, according to the requirements set forth in the Department’s May 2002 Interim Report to 

Congress. This action plan will address the full range of issues for instituting a renewable energy program at DOD. 

Under the Air Force lead, we are moving forward now, trying new and different 

approaches to acquiring renewable energy and developing institutional approaches 

to simultaneously serve the military mission, reduce costs to the Services and the 
37 

taxpayer, educate the military about renewable products and services, and streamline procurement. 

Question. The Committee earmarked $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2004 Senate 

report to continue the renewables assessment. Can you tell me when this funding 

will be released? 

Answer. The Air Force, designated as the renewable study program lead, is in the 

process of drafting an investment plan for the fiscal year 2004 $2.5 million Energy 

Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) appropriation consistent with the Congressional intent to continue the renewable study effort. Once their plan is finalized, 

it will be coordinated with the other services and OSD will release the funding. 

MINOR CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS

Question. Mr. DuBois, in discussions with the Services, we have heard strong support for increasing the minor military construction ceiling from $1.5 million to $3 

million for all minor construction projects, not just those involving life, safety and 

health. 

Would OSD support raising the limit on minor construction projects to $3 million, 

and if so, do you intend to submit proposed legislation to Congress to achieve this 

change? 

Answer. This year’s fiscal year 2005 legislative proposals’ submission includes language to raise the limit of minor construction projects to $3 million. 

(39) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

STATEMENTS OF: 

HONORABLE NELSON F. GIBBS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE 

AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS 

MAJOR GENERAL DEAN FOX, CIVIL ENGINEER, UNITED STATES 

AIR FORCE 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID BRUBAKER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR 

NATIONAL GUARD 

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM M. RAJCZAK, DEPUTY TO THE 

CHIEF, AIR FORCE RESERVE 

Senator HUTCHISON. Now we have the Honorable Nelson Gibbs, 

the Assistant Secretary of Air Force for Installations, Environment 

and Logistics, Major General Dean Fox, the Air Force Civil Engineer, Brigadier General David Brubaker, the Deputy Director of 

the Air National Guard, Brigadier General Rajczak, the Deputy to 

the Chief of Air Force Reserve. I understand there is a joint statement that will be given by Mr. Gibbs. 

While you all are getting seated, I’ll just tell you a little story 

that I came away with from Albania in the early stages of our presence there. 

Several years ago we went to the two sides of the airfield in 

Tirana, and we visited with the Army side first where they were 

just beginning to set up the airfield and I talked to the soldiers and 

the Army guys. I asked, how are things going here? They said, 

‘‘well except for the mud, the bugs, the food, taking showers with 

hoses, everything’s really pretty good.’’ 

I go to the Air Force side, where they have air conditioned tents 

for food, and they have really nice setups with air conditioned tents 

for the soldiers. We said, ‘‘well how are things going.’’ They said, 

‘‘well, you know, it’s rough over here. We don’t even have cable 

TV.’’ 

So with that, I welcome all of you from the Air Force, and welcome your testimony, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Mrs. Feinstein, it’s a pleasure to appear before you to talk about the Air 

Force military construction program for fiscal year 2005. I have 

with me, the Air Force Civil Engineer for his first appearance before this Committee, General Fox. Generals Brubaker and Rajczak 

have been here before so they’re prepared to answer any of your 

questions 

But we’ve made one slight modification. I’ve asked General Fox 

to do the opening statement to give him at least a minute or two 

to be able to speak and therefore feel comfortable with the Committee. But then when he’s completed, we look forward to your 

questions. 
40 

Senator HUTCHISON. So he will be giving the only statement, you 

will not be giving a statement. 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s correct. You have a copy—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Just questions. 

Mr. GIBBS [continuing]. Of my prepared statement. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I do. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think that was submitted for the record. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, I do have that. 

Mr. GIBBS. But he’ll make the general opening remarks on behalf 

of the Air Force. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, General Fox. 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL DEAN FOX

General FOX. Madam Chairman and Senator Feinstein, good 

after—good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before 

you to discuss the Air Force fiscal year 2005 military construction 

program. We sincerely thank you for the support you’ve given the 

Air Force missions, and our people around the world. 

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

Our military construction and military family housing programs 

are absolutely essential to the Air Force mission whether it’s on the 

flight line, in the workplace, or in the home. 

Although higher priorities have not always allowed us to address 

all our facility needs, the Air Force certainly recognizes the importance of investing in our facilities. We fight from our bases, whether from expeditionary locations as has been previously discussed, 

or otherwise, which makes our facilities critical to our mission. 

The importance our senior leaders place on our facilities is seen 

in recent budget submissions. Our military construction and housing facility budget has increased in fiscal year 2003, and 2004, and 

increased further in this year’s program request. We sincerely appreciate your great support for our programs. 

In addition to the military construction and the housing request, 

we’re continuing an upward trend in our operations and maintenance sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts. The 

Air Force is committed to taking care of our people and their families. Quality of life projects such as our dormitories, and military 

family housing help support them. 

As our members are more frequently deployed away from home, 

knowing their families are well taken care of, helps our airmen 

keep focused on the Air Force’s and our Nation’s task. With a $1.7 

billion request for military family housing we’re able to maintain 

our good housing and continue on our path to eliminate inadequate 

housing in the Air Force by 2007 in the Continental United States 

(CONUS), and 2009 overseas. 

PRIVATIZATION

Through privatization initiatives and traditional housing construction funds, we plan to invest in more than 10,000 housing 

units in fiscal year 2005 alone. 

Providing adequate housing does not stop with families. We’re in- vesting over $128 million to provide 1,104 rooms this fiscal year in 
41 

our dormitories, keeping us on track to eliminate our inadequate 

dorms for our junior enlisted personnel both in the United States 

and overseas. The quality of our overseas installations remains a 

priority. Our airmen are sent to foreign lands from their homes in 

the United States to protect our Nation’s interest. It is essential we 

provide them with the right tools and facilities for them to carry 

out their role. 

With 20 percent of our airmen stationed overseas, it is extremely 

important to make sure we continue to invest in those installations 

supported as enduring locations by our combat commanders. Our budget request of $140 million for these locations consists of 

the most essential facility needs to ensure our airmen can efficiently perform their task and we ask for your support of both the 

operational and quality of life projects. 

Our military construction budget also consists of projects to support the Air Force’s new weapons systems which will provide our 

combatant commanders the capabilities to meet our security needs. 

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, we thank the committee for its 

strong support of Air Force military construction and family housing. As Mr. Gibbs mentioned, this is my first year I’ve had the 

honor and privilege of bringing our program before your committee 

and I look forward to appearing before you again in the future. 

We’ll be happy to address any questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NELSON F. GIBBS

Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, the strength and 

flexibility of airpower and our joint warfighting success in the Global War on Terrorism is directly enabled by three interdependent factors; outstanding men and 

women in uniform, superior weapons platforms, and an agile support infrastructure. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2005 military construction (MILCON) budget request reflects our commitment to ensuring the Air Force’s continued ability to execute the 

full range of air and space missions. In turn, the Air Force continues to maintain 

the commitments made last year to invest wisely in installations from which we 

project air and space power, take care of our people and their families with adequate housing and quality of life improvements, and to sustain the public trust 

through prudent environmental management. 

INTRODUCTION

Air Force facilities, housing, and environmental programs are key components of 

our support infrastructure. At home, bases provide a stable training environment 

and a place to equip and reconstitute our force. Overseas bases provide force projection platforms to support combatant commanders. 

As such, the Air Force has developed an investment strategy focused on sustaining and recapitalizing existing infrastructure, investing in quality of life improvements, continuing strong environmental management, accommodating new 

missions, optimizing use of public and private resources, and reducing infrastructure wherever we can. 

Total Force military construction, family housing, sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization programs each play vital roles supporting operational requirements 

and maintaining a reasonable quality of life for our men and women in uniform. 

While the Air Force has always acknowledged the importance of proper funding 

for facility sustainment and recapitalization, too often competing priorities have not 

permitted us to address all the problems we face with our aging infrastructure. Despite competing priorities, you supported our request last year. The Air Force sincerely appreciates your support. 

Continuing a positive trend into fiscal year 2005, the Air Force military construction program included in the Presidents Budget request is approximately the same 

as last year with an increase in the military family housing program. The requested 

$2.6 billion for Total Force military construction and Military Family Housing is a 

$200 million increase over last year’s request. This request includes $664 million for 
42 

Active military construction, $127 million for Air National Guard military construction, $84 million for Air Force Reserve military construction, and more than $1.7 

billion for Military Family Housing. 

The Air Force has also increased Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) funding. This year, the amount 

dedicated to SRM is more than $200 million greater than in the 2004 request. With 

the fiscal year 2005 budget request, more than $2.2 billion will be invested in critical infrastructure maintenance and repair through our O&M program. This year’s 

request is up almost 11 percent from last year, to continue to move to the Air Force 

goal of a facility recapitalization rate of 67 years by 2008. 

Considering the level of effort across the entire infrastructure spectrum (military 

construction, MFH, and O&M SRM), the overall Air Force fiscal year 2005 budget 

request is more than $4.8 billion. 

Overseas Military Construction 

Even though the majority of our Air Force personnel are assigned in the United 

States, 20 percent of the force is permanently assigned overseas, including 29,000 

Air Force families. Old and progressively deteriorating infrastructure at these bases 

requires increased investment. While a new Global Basing Strategy is under development by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force fiscal year 2005 military construction request invests in overseas installations supported as enduring locations by the combatant commanders. The request for overseas construction in the 

Pacific and European theaters of operation is $140 million for 13 projects. The program consists of infrastructure and quality of life projects in the United Kingdom, 

Germany, the Azores, Italy, Spain, Japan, and Korea. I also want to thank you for 

the essential overseas MILCON funding you approved in the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations Bill for construction projects in Southwest Asia as well as 

at critical en route airlift locations, needed to directly support ongoing operations 

in that region. 

Planning and Design/Unspecified Minor Construction 

This year’s request includes planning and design funding of $160 million. These 

funds are required to complete design of the fiscal year 2006 construction program, 

and to start design of the fiscal year 2007 projects so we can be prepared to award 

these projects in the year of appropriation. This year’s request also includes $24 million for the unspecified minor construction program, which is the primary means of 

funding small, unforeseen projects that cannot wait for the normal military construction process. 

SUSTAIN, RESTORE, AND MODERNIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE

Operations and Maintenance Investment 

To sustain, restore, and modernize infrastructure, there must be a balance between military construction and Operations and Maintenance. Military construction 

restores and recapitalizes facilities. O&M funding is used to perform facility 

sustainment activities necessary to prevent facilities from failing prematurely. Without proper sustainment, facilities and infrastructure wear out quickly. O&M funding 

is also used to directly address many critical restoration and less-expensive recapitalization needs. These funds enable commanders in the field to address the facility 

requirements that impact their near-term readiness. 

INVEST IN QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS

The Air Force recognizes a correlation between readiness and quality of life. Quality of life initiatives acknowledge the sacrifices our Airmen make in support of the 

Nation and are pivotal to recruiting and retaining our country’s best and brightest. 

When Airmen deploy, they want to know their families are safe, and secure. Their 

welfare is a critical factor in our overall combat readiness. Family housing, dormitories, and other quality of life initiatives reflect the Air Force commitment to 

provide the facilities they deserve. 

Family Housing 

The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan provides the road map for our Housing military construction, O&M, and privatization efforts, and it is designed to meet 

the goal of ensuring safe, affordable, and adequate housing for our members. The 

fiscal year 2005 budget request reflects an increase of more than $180 million over 

the fiscal year 2004 budget for family housing. With the exception of four northerntier locations, inadequate housing will be eliminated in the United States by 2007. 

The inadequate units at those four northern-tier locations will be eliminated by 

2008. For fiscal year 2005, the $847 million requested for housing investment will 
43 

provide over 2,200 units at 16 bases, improve more than 1,300 units at six bases, 

and support privatization of over 6,800 units at six bases. An additional $864 million will be used to pay for maintenance, operations, utilities and leases to support 

family housing. 

Dormitories 

Just as we are committed to provide adequate housing for families, we have a 

comprehensive program to house our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel. The 

Air Force is well on its way in implementing a Dormitory Master Plan. The plan 

includes a three-phased dormitory investment strategy. The three phases are: (I) 

fund the replacement or conversion of all permanent party central latrine dormitories; (II) construct new facilities to eliminate the deficit of dormitory rooms; and 

(III) convert or replace existing dormitories at the end of their useful life using an 

Air Force-designed private room standard to improve quality of life for Airmen. 

Phase I is complete and we are now concentrating on the final two phases of the 

investment strategy. 

The total Air Force requirement is 60,200 dormitory rooms. The Air Force Dormitory Master Plan achieves the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) fiscal 

year 2007 goal to replace all inadequate permanent party dormitory rooms and the 

Air Force goal to replace all inadequate technical training dormitories by fiscal year 

2009. This fiscal year 2005 budget request moves us closer to those goals. The fiscal 

year 2005 dormitory program consists of seven dormitory projects, 1104 rooms, at 

both stateside and overseas bases in direct support of unaccompanied personnel, for 

a total of $128 million. 

Fitness Centers 

Fitness centers are a critical component of the Air Force quality of life program. 

The growing expeditionary nature of our activities requires that Airmen increasingly deploy to all regions of the world, in extreme environments and therefore must 

be physically prepared to deal with the associated challenges. In other words, Airmen must be ‘‘fit to fight.’’ Our new fitness program directs Airmen to devote more 

time and energy to being physically fit, and the use of our fitness centers has dramatically increased to support this reorientation in our culture. The fiscal year 2005 

military construction program includes three fitness centers: Lajes Air Base, Azores; 

Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah; and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. 

CONTINUE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP

The Air Force continues to ensure operational readiness and sustain the public 

trust through prudent environmental management. As part of the overall military 

transformation program, we actively seek and employ smarter solutions to longstanding environmental challenges. We are applying lessons learned in terms of 

how, and the extent to which, pollution can be prevented and contamination can be 

controlled. We are investing in more efficient contracting methods as a key element 

in our approach to future environmental restoration. Additional use of performance 

based contracting will focus on cleanup performance goals and thereby reduce process requirements. Finally, we are establishing systems to better identify the equity 

value of our installations’ environmental resources to the surrounding community. 

For example, land that provides habitat for an endangered species may be valuable 

as open space in a community’s redevelopment plan. That value should be identified 

and understood. 

In addition to ensuring our operations comply with all environmental regulations 

and laws, we are dedicated to enhancing our existing relationships with both the 

regulatory community and the neighborhoods around our installations. We continue 

to seek partnerships with local regulatory and commercial sector counterparts to 

share ideas and create an atmosphere of better understanding and trust. By focusing on our principles of ensuring operational readiness, partnering with stakeholders, and protecting human health and the environment, we remain leaders in 

environmental compliance, cleanup, conservation, and pollution prevention. The $3.3 million environmental project in the fiscal year 2005 military construction program will allow Shaw AFB to meet current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for wastewater discharge. 

ACCOMMODATE NEW MISSIONS

As indicated earlier, joint warfighting success in the Global War on Terrorism has 

been possible in part due to superior weapons capabilities. New weapon systems are 

the tools of combat capability that enable our combatant commanders to respond 

quickly to conflicts in support of national security objectives. The fiscal year 2005 

Total Force new mission military construction program consists of 45 projects, total-
44 

ing more than $403 million. These projects support a number of weapons systems; 

two of special significance are the F/A–22 Raptor and the C–17 Globemaster III. 

The F/A–22 Raptor is the Air Force’s next generation air superiority and ground 

attack fighter. F/A–22 flight training and maintenance training will be conducted 

at Tyndall AFB, Florida, and Sheppard AFB, Texas, respectively. Our fiscal year 

2005 military construction request includes two F/A–22 projects at Tyndall AFB for 

$19 million, and one F/A–22 project at Sheppard AFB totaling $21 million. 

The C–17 Globemaster III aircraft is replacing the fleet of C–141 Starlifters. C– 

17s will be based at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; Travis AFB and March Air Reserve 

Base (ARB) in California; Dover AFB, Delaware; Hickam AFB, Hawaii; Jackson Air 

National Guard Base, Mississippi; McGuire AFB, New Jersey; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; Charleston AFB, South Carolina; and McChord AFB, Washington. Thanks to 

your support, construction requirements for Charleston and McChord were funded 

in prior-year military construction programs. The request for fiscal year 2005 includes two projects for $15 million at Elemendorf AFB, two facility projects for $15 

million at Travis AFB, two projects for $10 million at March ARB, and five facility 

projects for $26 million at Hickam AFB. 

Other new mission requirements in fiscal year 2005 include the Global Hawk beddown at Beale AFB, California; Predator force structure changes at Indian Springs 

Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada; Combat Search and Rescue aircraft beddown at 

Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; C–130J simulator facility at Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; F–35 Joint Strike Fighter test facilities at Edwards AFB, California; and various projects supporting Homeland Defense, such as the Air Sovereignty Alert missions flown by the Air National Guard at Andrews AFB, Maryland; Duluth International Airport, Minnesota; Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey; and 

Truax Field, Wisconsin. 

OPTIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES

In order for the Air Force to accelerate the rate at which we revitalize our inadequate housing inventory, we have taken a measured approach to housing privatization. We started with a few select projects, looking for some successes and ‘‘lessons 

learned’’ to guide the follow-on initiatives. The first housing privatization project 

was awarded at Lackland AFB, Texas, in August of 1998, and all 420 of those housing units have been constructed and are occupied by military families. Since then, 

we have completed three more projects (Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; Robins AFB, Georgia; and Dyess AFB, Texas) and have three more under construction (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Patrick AFB, Florida; and Kirtland AFB, New Mexico). Once these 

three projects are complete, there will be nearly 5,500 privatized units. We are on 

track to privatize 60 percent of our U.S. based family housing by 2007. The fiscal 

year 2005 budget request includes $83 million to support the privatization of nearly 

7,000 units at six bases: Tyndall AFB, Florida; Scott AFB, Illinois; Columbus AFB, 

Mississippi; Keesler AFB, Mississippi; Holloman AFB, New Mexico; and Fairchild 

AFB, Washington. 

CONTINUE DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, UNECONOMICAL-TO-MAINTAIN FACILITIES

For the past 8 years, the Air Force has pursued an aggressive effort to demolish 

or dispose of facilities that are unneeded and no longer economically feasible to sustain or restore. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, we demolished 15.5 

million square feet of non-housing building space at a total cost of $200 million. This 

is equivalent to demolishing more than three average size Air Force installations. 

For fiscal year 2004 and beyond, we will continue to identify opportunities for demolition and facility consolidation. In general, the facility demolition program has been 

a success, enabling us to reduce the strain on infrastructure funding by getting rid 

of facilities we don’t need and can’t afford to maintain. 

CONCLUSION

The near and long term readiness of our fighting force depends upon this infrastructure. We will continue to enhance our installations’ capabilities, remain good 

stewards of the environment, and ensure Air Force infrastructure is properly distributed to maximize military readiness. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, and thank all of you for 

being here. I want to start, General Fox, or Mr. Secretary, with the 

issue of privatization. I think we discussed it fully with Mr. Dubois 

and the need to raise the cap. And I have certainly a great interest 

in the Air Force privatization projects at Lackland and Sheppard 
45 

Air Force Base. There are others. And I will be working to lift the 

cap so that those can stay online. 

BUILD-TO-LEASE HOUSING OVERSEAS

But my question is really on build-to-lease housing overseas. The Air Force is requesting $44 million for family housing this year at 

RAF Lakenheath, and an additional $131 million would be requested over the next four years, it obviously will be an enduring 

base. And it includes $58 million for family housing at Ramstein 

this year, with another $10 million in the out years. 

The state of Rheinland-Pfalz has proposed a build-to-lease program for military family housing in the Ramstein AB area, an approach which has met with success in other places in Germany. My 

question is, are you aware of this and have you considered buildto-lease in lieu of traditional family housing at Ramstein and could 

this be a more prominent part of your building housing overseas 

at other bases including Lakenheath where you’re going to make 

a substantial investment. 

GERMANY

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, I am aware of those proposals in Germany for 

the build-to-lease. That is a potential solution. We have had other 

build-to-lease projects in Germany previously. But they currently 

have a—they have not reached resolution with the Federal Government. The difficulties there is—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Federal government of Germany? 

Mr. GIBBS. Federal government of Germany. Their proposals 

there would be to build on the—on Federal land, and they don’t 

currently have permission to do that. So they have some more work 

to do internally within their governments, federal and state level, 

to allow those projects to move forward. 

To my knowledge, and this was through last week, they hadn’t 

made any proposals to do any of those activities on private land at 

this point. But certainly—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. He said that, however—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Certainly. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Is it something that you would consider? 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, absolutely. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Are you really looking at it seriously. I’m 

sure that they will get over the hump and there would be other options to look at if it’s working so well in the United States, is it 

something that we ought to be looking at overseas? 

Mr. GIBBS. Absolutely. We would encourage them to go beyond 

the build-to-lease, to go into—to what effectively would be a private—more closely—would look more similar to the privatization 

that we do here. Which would be for them to construct housing and 

effectively put it at our disposal in exchange for the allowance for 

quarters over there. Which would not give us a long-term commitment as a build-to-lease does. 

We have had some preliminary discussions with them about that. 

They’ve been a little apprehensive because of the increased risk. 

One of the things that we want to talk with them further about is 

the success it has enjoyed here. Try to convince them to consider 

that in addition to the build-to-lease. 
46 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, since you are making commitments to 

enduring bases, which I certainly support because it will mean that 

we can do no military construction at bases that will not be designated right now as enduring, I hope that you will factor that in 

as quickly as possible as we are looking at some pretty substantial 

investments in traditional housing. And perhaps prioritize the traditional housing that you know would be best on base whether it’s 

general, officer, or—— 

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. Or whatever would be right. So 

that we can save any dollars that might be able to be saved down 

the road. 

Mr. GIBBS. Absolutely. 

GUARD AND RESERVE

Senator HUTCHISON. I’d like to ask General Brubaker and General Rajczak. In past Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

rounds our Guard and Reserve forces have not been treated as 

well, and perhaps you can say, well, we haven’t used them to the 

extent that we are now using Guard and Reserve units. However, 

would you just make a brief statement about where you think we 

are now in the planning for BRAC and in military construction ongoing, as it relates to assuring that our Guard and Reserve units 

have the capacity and the military construction that they need. 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

General BRUBAKER. If I may start, I would just say that first of 

all we are, I think, very fairly and well represented in the BRAC 

process. From the National Guard perspective we are a sitting 

member of the Air Force Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG). 

And I’m very pleased with our interaction and our ability to express any concerns from the National Guard perspective. 

As far as how we will play in BRAC and whether or not that will 

be considered, I think again we will be equally represented in that 

process as the Air Force works its way through the BRAC and 

makes its formal recommendations. 

RESERVE

General RAJCZAK. I agree with General Brubaker’s comments. 

We are also a representative, or also a member of the Base Closure 

Executive Group, for the Air Force. And to address your second 

point about new construction, or being able to get adequate support 

for our construction requirements, most of the new construction 

that is in our fiscal year 2005 budget request as a matter of fact 

is for new mission support. Including installations and activities in 

Texas and California both, as well as in Ohio, and in Oregon. 

Again, we compete very well through the Air Force budgeting 

process and I think we’re very fairly represented both in the BRAC 

and in new construction requirements. 

C–17

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Gibbs, I read in your testimony the 

commitment and the military construction that you’re asking for to 

support the F/A–22 and the C–17. And I just wanted to ask you 
47 

and perhaps you can answer this for the record, because it’s somewhat parochial. 

C–17 BASING

But in looking at all of the places that there would be basing for 

the C–17, I would just like to ask you to look at a couple of places 

in Texas, where there might be some savings in military construction. Either Dyess, where there is excess capacity still, ramp space. 

And of course for the B–1s, and Kelly where there is significant 

space, hangar space still available and could take C–17s. If any of 

those would be able to save military construction in the other basing, I would appreciate your just looking at that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You know they’re going to California. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, some aren’t. 

They’re going to California, Alaska—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m shocked at you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. California, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and the State of 

Washington. I’m not suggesting that we mess with California, but 

I’m just wondering if with all of the bases that are in the works 

here, if there would be some savings. That’s what I’m asking you 

to—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Texas doesn’t have enough—no, never mind. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, we have capacity that is unused. And 

particularly Dyess, and then for repairs and maintenance would be 

the only place that Kelly would work. But there is significant 

space—hangar space there because of the losses. 

Mr. GIBBS. The short answer to your question is yes. The longer 

answer, if I could take about 2 or 3 minutes. What you just described to a great extent is the beauty of the BRAC round. There 

are a lot of numbers that are thrown around as to excess capacity 

and what it is and it’s obviously in the eye of the beholder. 

But in the eye of this beholder it’s a substantially different environment that we have today, than we had in all of the preceding 

rounds that considered Base Closure and Realignment. In all of 

those previous periods, what we had were a number of bases that 

were significantly underused. They were using only 20 or 30 percent of their capacity. So the BRAC was approached at, well, if we 

have this base that’s 30 percent used and this space that’s 30 percent used, let’s just close one and move that mission to the other 

one, and that was easily done. 

We don’t have that condition existing today to any substantial 

extent. Certainly not in the Air Force. What we have is a lot of 

bases that are 60 to 90 percent used. When we come out of this 

BRAC round, the task, the goal to be achieved here is to get the 

utilization on the remaining bases up into the 85 to 90 percent 

range. 

So we will no longer have the luxury of keeping bases, all bases 

at a mission unique category. We cannot afford to have a 70 percent utilized base. We have to find a mission to take it up to 85 

or 90. So that’s exactly what we are attempting to do in the analysis leading up to the BRAC round, to make sure that we as effectively use as we possibly can, making allowances—to respond to a 

question you asked to the previous panel—for the ability to surge 
48 

and also to look out for the unknown unknowns that will be occurring over the next 20 years, the time period that the Congress has 

directed that we look to for sizing this base structure. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, certainly placement is a big part of it. 

The facilities that you are looking at for this year’s MILCON would 

be Alaska, Hawaii and California. But there are a lot of other 

smaller bases that you’re saying are going to take C–17s, and I 

would hope that you might look at an enduring base which would 

be Dyess as a possible recipient of some the C–17s when there is 

that excess capacity. 

GENERAL OFFICER QUARTERS

Just a last question. On the general officer quarters. The Air 

Force rating for adequacy apparently according to the Defense Department IG is different from the other services. And therefore 

there’s a significant difference in the Air Force declaration that 82 

percent of its general officer quarters are inadequate, while Army 

and Navy deem all of theirs adequate. 

My question is, should everybody be coming up to your standards, or should you be looking at it in a more uniform way, and 

are you addressing those issues that the IG has raised? 

Mr. GIBBS. I’ll ask General Fox to answer it both from an Air 

Force, and a personal perspective, I think. 

General FOX. Madam Chairman, I would tell you that we have 

set goals for family housing, military family housing of 2007 across 

the continental United States, and 2009 overseas and we’re meeting those goals. We’re doing a terrific job through privatization and 

our housing MILCON program of upgrading quarters for our 

troops. 

Since Mr. Gibbs said, let me give you the personal anecdote. I 

can tell you that at Bolling Air Force Base here in Washington we 

are well along with taking care of quarters for our airmen and our 

non-commissioned officers. And we’re developing those quarters to 

commercial standards, the same thing that they would be able to 

rent or buy downtown. That’s the standard. 

Similar for senior officers, the goal is commercial standards. 

What we live in at Bolling Air Force Base is 70 year old quarters, 

that are very rundown. We have put those quarters at the end of 

the cycle to upgrade taking care of our troops first. As we get towards the goal of 2007, the people who will be left remaining to 

have quarters fixed to a commercial standard, to a decent standard 

that they would rent or buy downtown will be the senior officers. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thank you gentlemen for your service. I just want to assure that 

the bed down costs for the C–17 and the C–5 transformation are 

in the FYDP, aren’t they? 

Mr. GIBBS. To the extent that we know them, yes, ma’am. 

BEDDOWN FOR C–17 AND C–5

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. To the extent that you know them, 

right. So the commitment is to put them in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). I recognize that in the 2005 bill we have 

two facility projects, two at Travis for $15 million, and two projects 
49 

for $10 million at March. So I think that California is going to be 

very happy about that, and we thank you for that. 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s one of the earlier locations. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Pardon me? 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s one of the earlier locations from the list that 

the Chairman read. 

General FOX. Senator Feinstein, if I can answer. The way that 

we prioritize our military construction program, when we bring in 

a new weapon system like the C–17 to California we will ensure 

that those requirements are funded up front in our President’s 

budget submission. 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good, that’s what I really wanted to hear. 

Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much, General. Last year 

we were unable to fund the consolidated fitness center requested 

by the Air Force for Vandenberg. However, we included language 

in the conference report supporting the project and urging its inclusion in the 2005 budget request. And it’s not in the 2005 budget 

request. Could you tell us what the reason is? It’s not even in the 

future, in the FYDP, any longer. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it’s—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN.—and it was requested. 

Mr. GIBBS. I think it’s out about 4 years, 3 or 4 years. 

General FOX. 2008. 

Mr. GIBBS. 2008. It’s a—I’ll give you an answer that I know 

when I give it to you before I start, it’s going to be inadequate from 

your perspective. Putting together the military construction budget 

for the Air Force, since there are always needs, and there are always more needs than there are resources to fill them. So we plan 

out over a period of time, and the military construction funds are 

held quite dearly and the competition is severe within the Air 

Force to obtain those. 

When the Congress eliminates something that the Air Force had 

put into its budget, it makes it very difficult to get that thing back 

into the budget in the near term. Because there are too many people that have the competing needs and say the Congress has already told you you don’t need it, if you put it again, you stand the 

chance of losing it again. 

So it—it becomes very difficult to get those back in shortly after 

they’re taken out. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just say what the signal was, we 

had some major problems fitting in the European basing towards 

the end. And we had many protracted negotiations and it turned 

out that I had to give up a project, so we gave up Vandenberg with 

the commitment that it would be funded this year. And we put the 

report language in the bill saying that we would fund it this year. 

So—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Ma’am, I’m not aware of any discussions like that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you should be aware, respectfully, of 

the report language. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, ma’am, I am. 
50 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It was in the bill which says that we would 

fund it. So you’re saying it isn’t a necessity any longer, or you 

would have submitted it to us. 

Mr. GIBBS. No, ma’am, I think I said it the way I believe it, that 

in fact when the Congress takes something out of the budget, it’s 

very difficult to get it back within the process. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So that is for all the overseas basing? Several 

were eliminated last year, and they were included in the President’s 2005 budget. I think that’s somewhat disingenuous. I mean, 

we deleted things in Europe last year. 

So how can you come back and say, you know, it’s—true, it is a 

fitness center. But that also was a priority in your opening statement, the commitment to fitness. 

Mr. GIBBS. Absolutely. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just ask you—— 

Mr. GIBBS. The same amount of money is going into fitness centers in 2005 as was—if you’ll go back and look at the 2004 plan 

for 2005, those projects are still there and the same amount of 

money is committed to fitness centers as we had said there would 

be the previous year. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But you just are putting them somewhere 

else? 

Mr. GIBBS. No, they’re the ones that were in for 2005. They’re 

the same ones. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But you’re not applying the same standards 

to the fitness center that you apply in Europe, where a project denied last year comes back this year. 

Mr. GIBBS. No, I think what I just said was that the same 

amount of money is included in 2005 request for fitness centers as 

we told you in the 2005 plan would be applied to fitness centers. 

And without looking at each one individually and I will go back 

and confirm that for you, but I think it’s the same ones we said 

a year ago were going to be in 2005. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, in my view, Mr. Secretary, you’re splitting hairs. You clearly didn’t put the money in for the Vandenberg 

fitness center, right? 

Mr. GIBBS. That’s correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And we clearly said in our report language 

that if you did, we’d fund it this year. 

And—okay. I have no other questions, Madam Chairman. 

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Well, I would just like to follow-up 

and ask General Fox, would you say that Vandenberg is still a priority, as it was last year? 

General FOX. Madam Chairman, we have a lot of priorities that 

we weren’t able to get into the fiscal year 2005 President’s budget. 

I would tell you even from Secretary Dubois’ comments about how 

the Department of Defense is beginning to build back its military 

construction program, we believe that the Secretary of Defense, the 

Secretary of the Air Force are very committed to building back the 

military construction program, such that we’ll be able to bring a 

healthier MILCON program to you in following years after this 

submittal in fiscal year 2005. 
51 

To answer your question specifically, I believe the Vandenberg 

fitness center is a very viable project. There were actually three 

projects that we were unable to have headroom in our military construction submittal to get into the fiscal year 2005 program. When 

we buy our new mission requirements for C–17, and other aircraft, 

then buy the must do legal requirements for environmental compliance, and look at the dormitories as a priority, we were constrained 

in 2005. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

But I believe the major command that owns the requirement for 

the Vandenberg fitness center will push it very very hard in the 

near term. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

FITNESS CENTERS

Question. Your written testimony notes the Air Force’s new emphasis on fitness. 

Our staff just visited a number of Air Force bases in Europe and found that even 

brand new fitness centers, such as the one that just opened at Aviano, are overcrowded because of the new fitness emphasis. Is the Air Force adjusting its design 

guidelines for fitness centers to account for the increased demand, and are the three 

fitness centers in this year’s budget adequately sized to accommodate that demand? 

Answer. Yes, the Air Force is changing the Fitness Center Facility Design Guide 

to accommodate the impact of the ‘‘Fit to Fight’’ initiative; increased use of fitness 

centers by both individual users and larger groups. Proposed changes include the 

addition of indoor running lanes, adjustments in size requirements for locker rooms, 

group exercise areas, and equipment areas, and the addition of parent-child workout 

area. The three fitness center projects in the fiscal year 2005 President’s Budget (Elmendorf AFB, AK; Hill AFB, UT; and Lajes AB, Portugal) all are currently under 

design based on the current guide. Elmendorf AFB is developing a companion O&M 

project to improve their facility. The combination of MILCON and O&M work will 

meet immediate needs. Hill AFB’s only major scope concern is an indoor running 

track, which they identified as an optional bid item. If construction bids are favorable, they will include the indoor running track in the fiscal year 2005 project. The 

Lajes fitness center project will provide an additional 1,300 SM of space to greatly 

improve their existing conditions. 

GENERAL OFFICER HOUSING

Question. The Air Force has an elaborate system for rating the adequacy of its 

General Officer Quarters and is to be commended for establishing a systematic approach to this question. However, the system has resulted in the Air Force declaring 

82 percent of its General Officer Quarters as ‘‘inadequate’’ while the Army and Navy 

deem all of theirs to be adequate. The Defense Department Inspector General issued 

a memorandum in January noting significant issues in the Air Force’s approach and 

suggesting steps to improve it. What are you doing to address the issues raised by 

the IG? 

Answer. The Air Force uses the Condition Assessment Matrix (CAM) to assess/ 

rate the condition of its Military Family Housing (MFH) inventory, including the existing General Officer Quarters (GOQ) inventory. This system rates the condition of 

each component of the house and evaluates its functional adequacy with regard to 

Air Force standards. The goal of these standards is to construct and maintain housing that is comparable to what Airmen can rent or buy downtown. 

Through this systematic approach, the Air Force developed the GOQ Master Plan. 

This plan identifies 82 percent of the GOQ inventory as requiring a one-time 

MILCON project. These whole-house improvement projects would address all deficiencies, conditional and functional. For the remaining 18 percent of the GOQ inventory, deficiencies can be addressed through routine MFH operations and maintenance cycles. 
52 

The Air Force non-concurred with the Department of Defense Inspector General 

(DOD IG) memorandum regarding the GOQ Master Plan, stating: ‘‘We appreciate 

the efforts of the DOD IG during the past 4 years regarding the Air Force GOQ 

Master Plan and agree that there are minor administrative procedures that may 

warrant improvements. However, in reviewing the assumptions and findings contained in the audit memorandum, Air Force policy is misstated and there are factual errors that warrant a response.’’ The Air Force provided a 45-page, detailed response, which addressed assertions contained in the DOD IG memorandum. 

Prior to the completion of the DOD IG audit, the Air Force independently took 

action to refine and improve the Condition Assessment Matrix (CAM) definitions. 

The Air Force also proactively corrected administrative errors found within the GOQ 

Master Plan. 

The Air Force fully supports the Condition Assessment Matrix (CAM) process and 

the GOQ Master Plan as excellent planning tools for managing its GOQ inventory. 

The GOQ Master Plan methodology is supported by the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD AT&L). The OSD AT&L Housing and Competitive Sourcing director 

endorsed the GOQ Master Plan methodology in a November 20, 2003 memorandum 

to the DOD IG. Furthermore, the American Planning Association Federal Division 

recognized the GOQ Master Plan as the ‘‘Outstanding Federal Program of the Year’’ 

for 2004. 

C–17 BASING DECISION

Question. Information on C–17 Basing decisions, specifically with reference to 

Dyess AFB and Kelly USA 

Answer. The Air Force briefed a comprehensive Mobility Roadmap to Congress on 

15 April 2002. The roadmap was part of a detailed force structure plan that included 33 states and 53 bases and identified the beddown plan for 180 C–17s, 112 

C–5s, and the remaining C–130 fleet following the reduction of 56 C–130s. The 

roadmap development considered numerous options while building a plan that balanced requirements and fiscal constraints. 

Given the current and authorized mobility force structure, the Air Force plan is 

to maintain the C–130 mission at Dyess AFB and the C–5 mission at Lackland AFB 

(Kelly Field). Additionally, the Air Force will transfer the C–5 Flying Training Unit 

mission to Lackland AFB in fiscal year 2007. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

REDUCED REQUEST

Question. When comparing the active component military construction funding requests, the Air Force, by far, asked for much less funding this year than in previous 

years. For example, this year’s request is 20 percent less than last year’s requested 

amount, and 36 percent less than the enacted amount. With the recapitalization 

rate of your infrastructure climbing, how do you justify this reduced request? 

Answer. The Air Force has a balanced program and we continue to concentrate 

on our backlog and achieving OSD’s 67-year recap rate goal by 2008. 

Although the active portion of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2005 military construc- tion request ($664 million) is 14 percent less than the fiscal year 2004 request ($773 

million), the total force (active, Guard, and Reserve) request of $876 million is $89 

million greater than our fiscal year 2005 projection in the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget (PB) request and near the same level as the fiscal year 2004 PB request of $878 million. Also, our fiscal year 2005 recapitalization rate of 148 years 

is better than the 180 years of last year’s budget request, putting us on track to 

achieve and maintain a 67-year rate by 2008. Although we are taking some nearterm risk in our facilities, we expect our outyear investment increases will help us 

make significant improvements. 

FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS

Question. This year your request for funding family housing is 16 percent greater 

than last years request. Conversely, the Navy’s request has decreased by almost 19 

percent from last year’s requested amount. It is my understanding that the Navy 

attributes this decrease to family housing privatization. As your testimony states, 

the privatization concept allows the services the opportunity to leverage through 

contractors, private funds, that will get military families into modern, adequate 

housing more quickly. 

Initially, the Air Force was more reluctant to use privatization to fill this housing 

deficit. However, now, at least in the continental United States, the Air Force pro-
53 

gram is well underway. Could you describe the Air Force’s current position on family housing privatization? 

Answer. With over 40,000 housing units requiring revitalization, the Air Force 

recognizes housing privatization as a key part of OSD’s three-pronged strategy of 

using local community housing, privatization, and MILCON to provide adequate 

housing for our Airmen. Privatization allows the Air Force to attract private sector 

capital and expertise to provide quality housing for Air Force members, thereby 

leveraging our construction dollars. As of March 2004, the Air Force has privatized 

6,092 units by contributing $122.3 million for a total development cost of $647.3 million—a leverage of 6.28:1. Eight more projects are planned for award by June 2004 

to privatize 10,027 units for a leverage of 22.85:1. With housing privatization providing quality housing sooner and at less cost, the Air Force has budgeted $39.1 million in fiscal year 2005 to develop privatization concepts and acquire 48 projects valued at over $5.6 billion. Besides leveraging Air Force construction dollars, housing 

privatization is proving to be more cost effective than traditional MILCON. Of seven 

awarded projects, privatization is 6.5 percent less costly than traditional MILCON 

over the 50-year life cycle; and of six projects pending award, privatization is 14.5 

percent less. Succeeding with housing privatization, the Air Force is considering 

every base with housing areas not yet privatized for privatization during updates 

to the Family Housing Master Plan (FHMP) to revitalize remaining inadequate 

housing units. Currently, feasibility studies are on going at 25 separate installations. Privatization will be selected when payback meets OSD criterion and the life 

cycle cost analysis indicates privatization to be cheaper than continued government 

ownership. With continued support from the budget authority for military family 

housing privatization and on-going successes in housing privatization, the Air 

Force’s FHMP will meet the Secretary of Defense’s 2007 goal. 

DERF FUNDS USE

Question. The Committee has become extremely frustrated by the poorly planned 

use of Defense Emergency Response Funds (DERF) to implement physical security 

measures. It appears that neither the Air Force, nor any of the other services for 

that matter, has adopted a standardized plan regarding certified and tested physical 

security measures and the products used to ensure these measures. 

The Department of State has a long-standing physical security program including 

product testing and certification. Time-proven security measures could be adopted 

immediately by each of the services. Has the Air Force made efforts to explore 

standardized measures for security enhancement and to immediately adopt products 

and measures that are proven? 

Answer. The Air Force employs a multi-pronged approach to the acquisition of 

physical security technologies. This approach includes capitalizing on Research and 

Development (R&D), and operational testing efforts, as well as tapping into existing 

governmental and commercially available solutions. Several entities including the 

Electronic Systems Center at Hanscom AFB MA, the Force Protection Battlelab at 

Lackland AFB TX, and the DOD Physical Security Equipment Action Group 

(PSEAG) are integral to this effort. 

The PSEAG is a Joint-service R&D program that supports the Physical Security 

Equipment requirements of the four Services. The PSEAG selects or designs, evaluates, and acquires the most efficient and productive security equipment at the most 

reasonable cost to ensure the effective protection of DOD resources, including personnel, classified information, material, and readiness assets. The PSEAG provides 

programming, planning, and funding support for both near and long term requirements, and eliminates duplication of R&D while ensuring interoperability between 

essential elements of security systems fielded by the DOD components to ensure 

Joint Interest/Joint Capability. The acquisition of SmartGate technology is an example of a successful product and operational development. 

In addition, the Air Force is fully engaged with the Technical Support Working 

Group (TSWG). The TSWG, the U.S. national forum that includes the Department 

of State, identifies, prioritizes, and coordinates interagency and international R&D 

requirements for combating terrorism. The TSWG rapidly develops technologies and 

equipment to meet the high priority needs of the combating terrorism community, 

and addresses joint international operational requirements through cooperative 

R&D with major allies. Since 1986, the TSWG has pursued combating terrorism 

technologies in the broad context of national security by providing a cohesive interagency forum to define user based technical requirements spanning the Federal 

interagency community. 

The Air Force recently fielded the Integrated Base Defense Security Systems 

(IBDSS) contract which provides a critical line of defense for all critical assets, fixed, 
54 

temporary or mobile by way of electronic detection, alarm assessment, access control, communications and command, control and display capabilities to support an 

effective response. The intent of this effort is to provide security personnel with 

standardized and integrated security systems that neutralize or mitigate anticipated 

threats while reducing manpower levels wherever possible. 

IBDSS acquisition is a contract vehicle for satisfying all of the Force Protection 

Command and Control Directorates acquisition requirements for the next 5 years. 

This contract supports quick reaction temporary and permanent fixed site deployments as well as multiple installations at different locations in parallel throughout 

the world. It will also be the vehicle of choice for providing standardized material 

solutions to combat mission need statements in support of the global war on terrorism, after appropriate approvals are obtained, if required. 

From a MILCON standpoint, construction guidance supports security operational 

and acquisition development. The Air Force recently fielded an Antiterrorism/Force 

Protection (AT/FP) Facility Investment Strategy (FIS) to effectively manage AT/FP 

facility requirements. To get the most for our AT/FP facility investment, FIS assigns 

highest priority to securing our perimeters. Once perimeters are secure, we can 

‘‘move in’’ to take care of critical and mass gathering facilities. Combined with new 

Air Force entry control facility design standards and SmartGate acquisition, FIS 

succeeds making the most of our construction funds to protect our installations. 

AIR FORCE BRAC

Question. The Air Force’s budget request for BRAC environmental cleanup took 

a $53 million (¥27 percent) cut. Only 2 years ago, under my Chairmanship, the Air 

Force was desperately short funding for BRAC environmental remediation, and Senator Hutchison and I added an additional $25 million to assist you. Now, only 2 

years later, the request is on a downward glide slope while the needs are equally, 

or maybe even more pressing. 

Six of the Air Force’s National Priority list sites are in California. With cleanup 

at McClellan AFB estimated to continue until 2034, it’s inconceivable to me that 27 

percent less funding is required. How do you justify this greatly reduced request? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Air Force BRAC environmental President’s Budget 

request was not a result of a program cut. As our overall program matures, we move 

from high cost construction projects to lower cost system operation and maintenance 

projects. The shift to system operation and maintenance requirements will be reflected in more level funding requests in this and in future years. 

As the BRAC environmental program moves forward, we are taking advantage of 

remedial system optimization efforts to reduce our overall program long-term costs 

in order to deal with our challenges and meet our commitments at McClellan and 

other bases. 

MC CLELLAN AFB

Question. Air Force representatives, and representatives of McClellan Park met 

the week of March 22nd to negotiate the early transfer of McClellan. I was happy 

to add funding to the Defense Bill last year to advance to sewer replacement which 

I understand will begin construction this summer. Could you please describe the 

progress that has been made in these negotiations and which items remain open? 

Answer. Regarding the sewer project, we have budgeted $3.0 million in fiscal year 

2004 to augment the OEA grant of $4.9 million to begin the replacement project. 

The Air Force portion of the sewer project is the removal of contaminated soil encountered during the sewer trenching operation. The Air Force, Sacramento County, 

along with McClellan Park are working to finalize an Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement. Project is on track to begin July 2004. 

Regarding privatization, the Air Force, County, California State regulators, EPA 

Region IX, and McClellan Park met on March 25, 2004 to initiate the project. The 

meeting was considered a success by all attendees; agencies committed to completing general action items and agreed on delivery dates, and to move ahead on 

the privatization proposal. The County is preparing a project for a specific parcel 

of land for the agencies to consider. This project, which is due by the end of April 

2004, will provide the basis for developing the required agreements and documents 

to execute privatization. 
55 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Well, we’ll work with you and with 

Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for your time, we appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Tuesday, March 30, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 

(57) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:51 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison and Landrieu. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY J. LUST, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF 

FOR INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

MAJOR GENERAL WALTER F. PUDLOWSKI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO 

THE DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

BRIGADIER GENERAL GARY M. PROFIT, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. First, I apologize for being late for this 

hearing. We just finished our second vote and so I was detained on 

the floor. I talked to Senator Feinstein on the floor and because of 

the delay she is not going to be able to make it to this hearing; she 

had an emergency briefing in the Intel Committee that was just 

called so she is not going to be able to make it. She had intended 

to come and then leave, but I told her I certainly understood and 

I knew that you would. 

But we do have quite a bit to discuss and I appreciate very much 

the Army and the Navy coming in today to talk about Military 

Construction. And I would like to start with the Army budget and 

say that in the remarks that you have put forward, Mr. Prosch, the 

Army Military Construction is 15 percent above last year’s request 

and National Guard is 75 percent above last year’s request and Reserve is up 27 percent. However, even though Guard and Reserve 

are up they are still below the levels that we enacted last year, and 

I am concerned that we are getting further and further behind in 

Guard and Reserve Military Construction. I am very hopeful that 

you will talk about the Residential Communities Initiative. I have 
58 

seen some of those at Fort Hood, I think it is a wonderful concept, 

and I know that this is a priority for you, which I totally support; 

it’s what we ought to be doing for our military families, and I hope 

we can work together to raise the privatization cap so that you will 

have the opportunity to do that. 

I think the fact that it has been announced that we are bringing 

mostly Army troops back from Germany and Korea in the next 5 

to 6 years is very important for the Military Construction issue but 

I also am concerned, and I hope you will address this, that with 

the numbers that we are looking at, roughly half what we have in 

Europe today in the Army are going to be coming home, when will 

we start seeing the Military Construction affects of this? When will 

we start seeing what you’re going to need for those bases to which 

these people will be coming? In addition, General Abizaid has testified before Congress that he has 44 unfunded MILCON projects 

with a price tag of $531 million, most of which will be in Army support. I said last week that we really need to start looking at that 

because that’s a major part of any Military Construction funding 

that we would be looking at. 

So with that let me say welcome. I am glad we’ve been able to 

visit. I look forward to hearing the summary of your statement, 

and then I will have some questions. Thank you. 

Mr. PROSCH. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am 

pleased to appear before you with my Army Installation partners— 

Major General Larry Lust from the Active Army; Major General 

Walt Pudlowski from the Army National Guard and Brigadier General Gary Profit from the Army Reserve—to discuss the Army’s fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget. We have provided a detailed written statement for the record but I would like to comment 

briefly on the highlights of our program. 

We begin by expressing our deep appreciation for the great support that the Congress has provided to our soldiers and their families who are serving our country around the world. We are a Nation and an Army at war and our soldiers would not be able to perform their mission so well without your support. 

We have submitted a robust Military Construction budget of $3.7 

billion, 13 percent over fiscal year 2004 amended budget request, 

that will fund our highest priority, Active Army, Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve facilities, along with our family housing 

requirements. This budget request supports the Army vision encompassing current readiness, transformation and people. As we 

are fighting the global war on terrorism we are simultaneously 

transforming to be a more relevant and ready Army. We are on a 

path with the transformation of installation management that will 

allow us to achieve these objectives. 

We currently have almost 250,000 soldiers mobilizing and demobilizing, deploying and redeploying. More troops are coming and 

going on our Army installations than in any era since World War 

II. Our soldiers and installations are on point for the Nation. 

The Army recently identified key focus areas to channel our efforts to win the global war on terrorism and to increase the relevance and readiness of the Army. One of our focus areas is installations as flagships, which enhances the ability of our Army installations to project power and support families. Our installations 
59 

support an expeditionary force where soldiers train, mobilize and 

deploy to fight and are sustained as they reach back for enhanced 

support. Soldiers and their families who live on and off the installation deserve the same quality of life as is afforded the society 

they are pledged to defend. 

Installations are a key ingredient to combat readiness and wellbeing. Our worldwide installation structure is critically linked to 

Army transformation and the successful fielding of the future force. 

Military Construction is a critical tool to ensure that our installations remain relevant and ready. Our fiscal year 2005 Military 

Construction budget will provide the resources and facilities necessary for continued support of our mission. Let me summarize 

what this budget will provide for the U.S. Army: new barracks for 

4,200 soldiers; adequate on-post housing for 14,200 Army families; 

increased MILCON funding for the Army National Guard and the 

Army Reserve over last year’s request; new readiness centers for 

over 3,000 Army National Guard soldiers; new Reserve centers for 

over 2,800 Army Reserve soldiers; a $287 million military construction investment and training ranges; a battalion-size basic combat 

training complex and facilities support and improvements for four 

Stryker brigades. 

With the sustained and balanced funding represented by this 

budget our long-term strategies will be supported. With your continued help we will be able to improve soldier and family quality 

of life while remaining focused on the Army’s transformation to the 

future force. 

In closing Madam Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity 

to outline our program. As I have visited Army installations I have 

witnessed progress that has been made and we attribute much of 

this success directly to the long-standing support of this committee 

and your able staff. With your continued assistance the Army 

pledges we will use fiscal year 2005 MILCON funding to remain responsive to the Nation’s needs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee. Me and my partners here will be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear 

before you to discuss the Army’s Military Construction budget request for fiscal year 

2005. This request includes initiatives of critical importance to the Army and this 

committee, and we appreciate the opportunity to report on them to you. We would 

like to begin by expressing our appreciation for the tremendous support that the 

Congress has provided to our Soldiers and their families who are serving our country around the world. We are a Nation and an Army at war, and our Soldiers would 

not be able to perform their missions so well without your support. 

OVERVIEW

The Army has begun one of the most significant periods of transformation in its 

228-year history. We are ‘‘An Army at War—Relevant and Ready.’’ This maxim will 

define how we meet the Nation’s military requirements today and into the future. 

As we are fighting the Global War on Terrorism, we are simultaneously transforming to be a more relevant and ready Army. We are on the road to a transformation that will allow us to continue to dominate conventional battlefields and 

provide the ability to deter and defeat adversaries who rely on surprise, deception, 
60 

and asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives. To accomplish our objective, our 

operational force will temporarily increase by 30,000 soldiers. We currently have almost 250,000 soldiers mobilizing and demobilizing, deploying and redeploying— 

more troops are coming and going on our installations than in any era since World 

War II. Military Construction is an important tool to our network of installations 

to meet our challenging requirements. 

As part of this transformation, the Army is fielding and equipping six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT) to meet Combatant Commanders’ requirements and to 

continue the Army’s commitment to the Global War on Terrorism. These SBCTs 

allow the Army to continue modernizing and transforming the Current Force. The 

rapid development and fielding of six SBCTs is leading the transformation of the 

Army—physically and culturally. 

To meet the challenges of today’s missions, the Army must sustain a force of high 

quality, well-trained people; acquire and maintain the right mix of weapons and 

equipment; and maintain effective infrastructure and deployment platforms to generate the capabilities necessary to sustain a lethal force. We must ensure that a 

trained and qualified force will be in place to support the Future Force of a transformed Army. To meet that goal and ensure continued readiness, we must take care 

of Soldiers and families. Our installations are a key component in this effort. 

INSTALLATIONS AS FLAGSHIPS

The Army recently identified 17 Army Focus Areas to channel our efforts to win 

the Global War on Terrorism and to increase the relevance and readiness of the 

Army. One of the Focus Areas—Installations as Flagships—enhances the ability of 

an Army installation to project power and support families. Our installations support an expeditionary force where Soldiers train, mobilize, and deploy to fight and 

are sustained as they reach back for support. Soldiers and their families who live 

on and off the installation deserve the same quality of life as is afforded the society 

they are pledged to defend. Installations are a key component in the tenets of the 

Army Vision. Our worldwide installations structure is inextricably linked to Army 

transformation and the successful fielding of the Future Force. 

INSTALLATION STRATEGIES

There is much work to be done if all installations are to be flagships with the 

ability to both project power and support families to an equitable standard. We are 

a world-class combat ready force being supported by substandard facilities that impair our ability to meet the mission. To improve our facilities posture, we have specific initiatives to focus our resources on the most important areas—Barracks, Family Housing, Focused Facilities, Ranges, and Transformation. 

Barracks.—The Army is in the 11th year of its campaign to modernize barracks 

to provide 136,000 single enlisted permanent party Soldiers with quality living environments. This year’s budget request includes 19 barracks projects providing new 

or improved housing for 4,200 Soldiers. The new complexes provide two-soldier 

suites, increased personal privacy, larger rooms, walk-in closets, new furnishings, 

adequate parking, landscaping, and unit administrative offices separated from the 

barracks. With the approval of $700.4 million for barracks in this request, a significant portion of our requirement will be funded. We are making considerable 

progress at U.S. installations and the Army funded two barracks projects, based 

upon the Combatant Commander’s request, for Grafenwoehr, Germany. 

Family Housing.—This year’s budget continues our significant investment in our 

Soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to have funding in place by 2007 

to eliminate inadequate housing. We have included funding in this year’s budget request to privatize 11,906 houses. In addition we will replace 1,313 houses, build 100 

new houses to support Stryker Brigade Combat Team deployment, and upgrade another 875 houses using traditional Military Construction. For families living offpost, the budget request for military personnel increases the basic allowance for 

housing to eliminate out of pocket expenses. Once overseas basing decisions are 

made, we will adjust our plans for new housing construction overseas. 

Focused Facilities.—Building on the successes of our housing and barracks programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of Army infrastructure with 

the Focused Facility Strategy. The Installation Readiness Report is used to determine facilities quality ratings of C–1 to C–4 based on their ability to support mission requirements. 

Installation Readiness Report—Facilities Quality Ratings 

—C–1 facilities fully support mission accomplishment 

—C–2 facilities support the majority of assigned missions 

—C–3 facilities impair mission performance 
61 

—C–4 facilities significantly impair mission performance 

We are a C–1 Army living and working in C–3 facilities. Our goal is to reach an 

overall Army average of C–2 quality by 2010 by concentrating on seven types of C– 

3 and C–4 facilities. These focus facilities are general instruction buildings, Army 

National Guard Readiness Centers, Army Reserve Centers, tactical vehicle maintenance shops, training barracks, physical fitness centers, and chapels. We are requesting $207 million in fiscal year 2005 to support this initiative. 

Army Range and Training Land Strategy.—Providing ranges and training lands 

that enable the Army to train and develop its full capabilities is key to ensuring 

that America’s forces are relevant and ready now. The Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff 

G–3 developed the Army Range and Training Land Strategy to support the Department of Defense’s Training Transformation, Army Transformation, and the Army’s 

Sustainable Range Program. It identifies priorities for installations requiring resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and acquire training land. The 

strategy serves as the mechanism to prioritize investments for these installations 

and seeks to optimize the use of all range and land assets. The result is a longrange plan that provides the best range infrastructure and training lands based on 

mission and training requirements. 

Current to Future Force.—The Army is undergoing the biggest internal restructuring in the last 50 years. As part of this transformation effort, we are fielding and 

equipping six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams throughout the Army. This transformation will drive our efforts to ensure that our ‘‘training battlefields’’ continue 

to meet the demands of force structure, weapons systems, and doctrinal requirements. Providing ranges and training lands that enable the Army to train and develop its full capabilities is crucial to ensure that America’s forces are relevant and 

ready now. Our fiscal year 2005 Military Construction budget requests $305 million 

for projects for operations and training facilities, training ranges, maintenance facilities, logistics facilities, utilities, and road upgrades in support of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. 

The former Army Strategic Mobility Program ended in fiscal year 2003 with the 

capability of moving five and one-third divisions in 75 days. We must improve current processes and platforms so intact units arrive in theater in an immediately employable configuration. 

The new Army Power Projection Program (AP3) is a combat multiplier for Army 

transformation and a catalyst for joint and Service transformation efforts related to 

force projection. AP3 is a set of initiatives and strategic mobility enabling systems, 

including infrastructure projects, that ensures we are able to meet Current and Future Force deployment requirements. AP3 funding began in fiscal year 2004. AP3 

ensures the capability to deploy Army forces in accordance with Regional Combatant 

Commanders’ operational plans. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The Army’s fiscal year 2005 request has increased over fiscal year 2004 and includes $3.7 billion for Military Construction appropriations and associated new authorizations. 

Military Construction Appropriation Authorization 

Request 

Authorization 

of Appropriation 

Request 

Appropriation 

Request 

Military Construction Army (MCA) ........................................... $1,535,400,000 $1,771,285,000 $1,771,285,000 

Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG) ............... N/A 295,657,000 295,657,000 

Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR) ........................... N/A 87,070,000 87,070,000 

Army Family Housing (AFH) ..................................................... 636,099,000 1,565,006,000 1,565,006,000 

TOTAL .......................................................................... 2,171,499,000 3,719,018,000 3,719,018,000 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)

The active Army’s fiscal year 2005 Military Construction request for 

$1,771,285,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) and 

$1,535,400,000 (for authorization) is for People, Current Readiness, and Transformation to the Future Force. These funds are critically needed to provide new barracks, invest in training ranges and land, recapitalize existing facilities, and support 

three Active Army Stryker Brigade Combat Teams in Alaska, Hawaii, and Louisiana. The request also includes funds for planning and design for future projects, 

along with Unspecified Minor Military Construction. 
62 

The Department of Defense continues to assess its global stationing strategy. We 

have included only minimal, but critical, overseas projects in the fiscal year 2005 

Military Construction budget request. These projects are required to provide the infrastructure necessary to ensure continued Soldier readiness and family well-being 

that is essential throughout any period of transition. 

People.—We are requesting $798 million to improve the well-being of our Soldiers, 

civilians, and families. Approximately 50 percent of our MCA budget request will 

improve well being in significant ways—providing 19 unit barracks complexes for 

4,200 Soldiers ($700 million), a basic trainee barracks complex ($50 million), a physical fitness center ($18 million), a chapel ($10 million), two child development centers and a youth center ($20 million). 

Current Readiness.—Our budget request includes $504 million to keep our Soldiers trained and ready to respond to the Nation’s needs. Current readiness projects 

include operational and training instructional facilities ($92 million), training 

ranges ($122 million), logistics facilities ($31 million), utilities and land acquisition 

($27 million), maintenance/production and tactical equipment facilities ($82 million), 

communication/administration facilities ($104 million), a research and development 

facility ($33 million), and community support facilities ($13 million). 

Current to Future Force.—Our budget request also includes $298 million for 

projects to ensure the Army is trained, deployable, and ready to rapidly respond to 

national security requirements and support transformation for the Stryker Brigade 

Combat Teams. Projects include operations and training facilities ($63 million), 

training ranges ($79 million), a maintenance facility ($49 million), logistics facilities 

($19 million), and utilities and roads ($88 million). 

Other Worldwide Support Programs.—The fiscal year 2005 MCA request includes 

$171 million for planning and design, along with Unspecified Minor Military Construction. Planning and design funds ($151 million) are used to accomplish final design of future projects and oversight of host Nation construction. As Executive Agent 

for the Department of Defense, the Army uses planning and design funds for oversight of construction projects funded by host Nations for use by all Services. Finally, 

the fiscal year 2005 MCA budget contains $20 million for Unspecified Minor Military Construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)

The Army National Guard’s fiscal year 2005 Military Construction request for 

$295,657,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is focused on 

Current Readiness and transformation to the Future Force. 

Current Readiness.—In fiscal year 2005, the Army National Guard has requested 

$116.1 million for nine projects. These funds will provide the facilities our Soldiers 

need as they train, mobilize, and deploy. They include one Readiness Center, one 

Armed Forces Reserve Center, three Army Aviation Support Facilities, two Ranges, 

and two Training projects. 

Current to Future Force.—This year, the Army National Guard is requesting 

$144.2 million for 23 projects needed to transform from Current to Future Force. 

There are 16 projects for the Army Division Redesign Study, three for Aviation 

Transformation, two for the Range Modernization Program, and two for the Stryker 

Brigade Combat Team initiative. 

Other Worldwide Support Programs.—The fiscal year 2005 MCNG budget request 

contains $30.8 million for planning and design of future projects, along with $4.5 

million for Unspecified Minor Military Construction to address unforeseen critical 

needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE (MCAR)

The Army Reserve’s fiscal year 2005 Military Construction request for 

$87,070,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is for current 

readiness and other worldwide unspecified programs. 

Current Readiness.—The Army Reserve will invest $72.9 million in current readiness projects. We will invest $58.6 million to construct four new Reserve Centers, 

and one military equipment park; invest $7.9 million to modernize and expand one 

Reserve Center, invest $3.9 million to construct two ranges; and invest $2.5 million 

to acquire land for a future Armed Forces Reserve Center. 

Other Worldwide Unspecified Programs.—The fiscal year 2005 MCAR budget includes $11.2 million for planning and design. The funds will be used for planning 

and design of future projects. The fiscal year 2005 MCAR budget also contains $2.9 

million for Unspecified Minor Military Construction to address unforeseen critical 
63 

needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION (AFHC)

The Army’s fiscal year 2005 family housing request is $636,099,000 (for appropriation, authorization of appropriation, and authorization). It continues the successful and well-received Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative approved by 

Congress in fiscal year 1992 and supported consistently since that time, and our 

Residential Communities Initiative program. 

The fiscal year 2005 new construction program provides additional housing in 

Alaska in support of a Stryker Brigade Combat Team and Whole Neighborhood replacement projects at nine locations in support of 1,413 families for $394.9 million. 

The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2005, we are requesting $75.4 

million for improvements to 875 existing units at three locations in the United 

States and two locations in Europe, as well as $136.6 million for scoring and direct 

investment in support of privatization of 11,906 units at six Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) locations. 

In fiscal year 2005, we are also requesting $29.2 million for planning and design 

in support of future family housing construction projects critically needed for our 

Soldiers. Privatization. RCI, the Army’s Family Housing privatization program, is 

providing quality, sustainable housing and communities that our Soldiers and their 

families can proudly call home. RCI is a critical component of the Army’s effort to 

eliminate inadequate family housing in the United States. The fiscal year 2005 

budget request provides support to continue implementation of this highly successful program. 

We are leveraging appropriated funds and Government assets by entering into 

long-term partnerships with nationally recognized private sector real estate development and management firms to obtain financing and management expertise to construct, repair, maintain, and operate family housing communities. 

The RCI program currently includes 34 installations with almost 71,000 housing 

units—over 80 percent of the family housing inventory in the United States. By the 

end of fiscal year 2004, the Army will have privatized 19 installations with an end 

state of 42,000 homes. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS (AFHO)

The Army’s fiscal year 2005 family housing operations request is $928,900,000 

(for appropriation and authorization of appropriations), which is approximately 59 

percent of the total family housing budget. This budget provides for annual operations, municipal-type services, furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, 

leased family housing, demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds 

supporting management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. 

Operations ($150 million).—The operations account includes four sub-accounts: 

management, services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. All operations sub-accounts are considered ‘‘must pay accounts’’ based on actual bills that 

must be paid to manage and operate family housing. 

Utilities ($132 million).—The utilities account includes the costs of heat, air conditioning, electricity, water, and sewage for family housing units. While the overall 

size of the utilities account is decreasing with the reduction in supported inventory, 

per-unit costs have increased due to general inflation and the increased costs of fuel. 

Maintenance and Repair ($402 million).—The maintenance and repair account 

supports annual recurring maintenance and major maintenance and repair projects 

to maintain and revitalize family housing real property assets. While the overall account is smaller than fiscal year 2004, the reduced inventory allows for greater perunit funding than has been possible in the recent past. This allows us to better sustain our housing inventory. 

Leasing ($218 million).—The leasing program provides another way of adequately 

housing our military families. The fiscal year 2005 request includes funding for over 

13,600 housing units, including existing Section 2835 (‘‘build-to-lease’’—formerly 

known as 801 leases) project requirements, temporary domestic leases in the United 

States, and approximately 7,700 units overseas. 

RCI Management ($27 million).—The RCI management program funding includes 

procurement requirements, environmental studies, real estate requirements, management, operations, implementation, and oversight of the overall RCI program. 
64 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

In 1988, Congress established the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to ensure a timely, independent and fair process for closing and realigning 

military installations. Since then, the Department of Defense has successfully executed four rounds of base closures to rid the Department of excess infrastructure 

and align the military’s base infrastructure to a reduced threat and force structure. 

Through this effort, the Army estimates approximately $9 billion in savings through 

2004. 

The Army is requesting $100.3 million in fiscal year 2005 for prior BRAC rounds 

($8.3 million to fund caretaking operations of remaining properties and $92.0 million for environmental restoration). In fiscal year 2005, the Army will complete environmental restoration efforts at three installations, leaving 11 installations requiring environmental restoration. We also plan to dispose of an additional 8,000 acres 

in fiscal year 2005. 

Fiscal year 2003 was a superb year! Using all the tools the Congress provided, 

including the Conservation Conveyance Authority and Early Transfer Authority, the 

Army transferred 100,957 acres of BRAC property. This is almost 40 percent of the 

total Army BRAC excess acreage, and almost as many acres as all prior years combined. To date, the Army has disposed of 223,911 acres (85 percent of the total acreage disposal requirement of 262,705 acres). We have 38,794 acres remaining to dispose of at 28 installations. The Army continues to save more than $900 million annually from previous BRAC rounds. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2005 Operation and Maintenance budget includes funding for 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM—$2.54 billion) and Base Operations Support (BOS—$6.57 billion). The SRM and BOS accounts are inextricably 

linked with our Military Construction programs to successfully support Installations 

as Flagships. 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM).—The fiscal year 2005 budget for SRM is $2.5 billion, of which $2.42 billion funds sustainment at 95 percent 

of the requirement. SRM provides funding for the Active and Reserve Components 

to continue making positive progress towards our goal to prevent deterioration and 

obsolescence and restore the lost readiness of facilities. 

Sustainment is the primary account in installation base support funding responsible for maintaining the infrastructure to achieve a successful readiness posture for 

the Army’s fighting force. It is the first step in our long-term facilities strategy. Installation facilities are the deployment platforms of America’s Army and must be 

properly maintained to be ready to support current Army missions and any future 

deployments. 

The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is the recapitalization by restoring and modernizing our existing facility assets. In fiscal year 2005, the Active 

Army request for Restoration and Modernization is $93.2 million. Restoration includes repair and restoration of facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization includes 

alteration or modernization of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, including regulatory changes, to accommodate new functions, or to replace 

building components that typically last more than 50 years, such as foundations and 

structural members. 

Base Operations Support.—The fiscal year 2005 budget for Base Operations Support is $6.57 billion (Active Army, Army National Guard, Army Reserve). This is 70 

percent of the requirement. This funds programs to operate the bases, installations, 

camps, posts, and stations of the Army worldwide. The program includes municipal 

services, family programs, environmental programs, force protection, audio/visual, 

base communication services and installation support contracts. Army Community 

Service and Reserve Component family programs include a network of integrated 

support service that directly impact Soldier readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to military life during peacetime and through all phases of mobilization, deployment, and demobilization. 

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

The Army is the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing 

their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when military installations at 

or near where they are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope 

of operations reduced. For fiscal year 2005, there is no request for appropriations 
65 

and authorization of appropriations. Requirements for the program will be funded 

from prior year carryover and revenue from sales of homes. Assistance will be continued for personnel at ten installations that are impacted with either a base closure or a realignment of personnel, resulting in adverse economic effects on local 

communities. 

SUMMARY

Madam Chairman, our fiscal year 2005 budget is a balanced program that supports our Soldiers and their families, the Global War on Terrorism, transformation 

to the Future Force, and current readiness. 

We are proud to present this budget for your consideration because of what this $3.7 billion fiscal year 2005 request will provide for the Army: 

—New barracks for 4,200 Soldiers 

—Adequate housing for 14,200 families 

—Increase in Army National Guard and Army Reserve funding over fiscal year 

2004 

—New Readiness Centers for over 3,000 Army National Guard Soldiers 

—New Reserve Centers for over 2,800 Army Reserve Soldiers 

—80-year recapitalization rate for the Army 

—$287 million investment in training ranges 

—A new Basic Combat Training Complex 

—Facilities support for four new Stryker Brigades 

Our long-term strategies for Installations as Flagships will be accomplished 

through sustained and balanced funding, and with your support, we will continue 

to improve Soldier and family quality of life, while remaining focused on the Army’s 

transformation to the Future Force. 

In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and for your continued support for our Army. This concludes my statement. Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much and thank all of you 

for attending. Let me start by talking about the housing privatization authority, the $850 million cap. I am particularly focused on 

two areas, Fort Bliss and Fort Hood, that have major privatized 

housing in the works and I want to know what the $850 million 

cap will do to those projects and others that you have planned for 

this year, for this year’s budget. 

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION—CAP

Mr. PROSCH. Madam Chairman, if the $850 million cap is not 

lifted the Army estimates an additional $2.2 billion would have to 

be programmed in Army family housing construction to eliminate 

the inadequate housing at the 12 installations that would be impacted when we believe that we will hit the cap in November of 

2004. Now, that would otherwise be eliminated with our $256 million of equity with our current program invested in privatization. 

The Army would not have a program in place to eliminate inadequate housing in the United States by 2007 as we had pledged to 

our soldiers. And as you stated, Fort Sam Houston and Fort Bliss 

are two of the installations that would be impacted; I can list the 

others. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would like for you to, yes. 

Mr. PROSCH. Fort Drum, New York. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Just for this year’s budget, right? They’re in 

the works? 

Mr. PROSCH. These are RCI projects that would stop in November when the $850 million cap is hit because we could not put the 

equity investment into all these future projects. 

Fort Drum, New York; as we said, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; 

Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; Picatinny and Fort Monmouth in 
66 

New Jersey; Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Knox, 

Kentucky; Fort Rucker, Alabama; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Fort 

Gordon, Georgia and Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 

And General Lust, would you like to say anything about this important program? 

General LUST. I would just add that realistically it would be folly to think we’re going to get $2.2 billion to put against housing when 

we could make that up with $256 million of our equity put into it. 

You mentioned Fort Hood. Fort Hood was in the first go-around; 

it has already been privatized and that project is done. And I know 

you visited there and I know you’ve been to Comanche Village. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. 

General LUST. They used to have their ups and downs, but with $51,000, that contractor has made that all one nice set of quarters. 

They used to have people not wanting to live in Comanche Village, 

now they have people standing in line to live there. The RCI partners have done just a wonderful, wonderful job. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I agree with you and I have never 

seen family housing that good anywhere on any base that I have 

visited, really anywhere in the world, certainly in our country. I do 

want that to be available to every family, every military family, 

every base where you are going to make it a priority, and we will 

work to lift that cap. I just hope you will keep putting that concept 

in place. In your testimony you talk about the areas of focus that 

you’re going to have, and I’m glad you’ve said this should be one 

of them, because I love what General Schoomaker is saying he’s 

going to do in letting our new entrants stay in one place longer to 

get a community support base for families. I think that’s a very important new concept, and we need to have the nice places for them 

to be. 

RETURNING OVERSEAS FORCES

I want to also ask about when you are looking at returning the 

forces from Europe and Korea. I’d like to ask you what your criteria are for where the people are going, particularly I want to say, 

again, Fort Hood and Fort Bliss have such a huge space for training, and one of the problems you have, even at Grafenwoehr, where 

you’re going to still want Military Construction, but their training 

space is so limited compared to Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and some of 

the other places around the country, that I’d like to ask you, in 

your preparations for bringing those people home, will that space 

be a factor, and what are the other factors that you’re going to consider? 

Mr. PROSCH. Ma’am, Secretary of Defense has indicated that no 

later than early May he will publish his integrated global presence 

and basing strategy, which will tell us which units, which probably 

brigade-size units he would like to be sending back to the United 

States. We believe that the timing is perfect for this ongoing BRAC 

process to allow us to do the analysis to determine where the good 

capacity is, where the excess capacity is, posts that you mentioned 

that have good military value; that will assist us in doing that. 

General Lust, would you like to expand? 

General LUST. There are several criteria. First off, wherever we 

place them, there’s got to be training space. I mean it doesn’t make 
67 

any sense to put a unit somewhere where you’ve got a postage 

stamp, and then you’d automatically have to move them somewhere to train; so where we’ve got to have training space. It has 

not been lost on us that 68 percent of the Army’s training land is 

at one particular post in your state, and we haven’t got a maneuver 

unit there. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Fort Bliss? 

General LUST. Yes ma’am. 

What installation’s got facilities which wouldn’t cause us to have 

to build more. And that will all be cranked into part of the BRAC 

process so as they go look at what we’ve got for space and facilities, 

that’s what’s important about having the overseas basing study 

completed so we can hand that requirement off to the BRAC people 

so when they do their analysis that’s all been factored in. The other 

thing is what kind of housing we’ve got there, how quickly can we 

get it built. Obviously if I had RCI housing at an installation I 

could get it built quicker than I would if I have to go through the 

MILCON process. And also another part that plays on it, what can 

the community absorb? Because 60 percent of our people we plan 

to have live off-post, and also that community’s got to be able to 

absorb those folks into the school system, etcetera. So all that’s got 

to be taken into account as the BRAC people figure out we’re going 

to position returning units. 

Now, you would be naive to think we’ve got a place that fits all 

that. So what we’ll try doing is identify the locations where we 

have the least amount of effect. 

MILCON TO SUPPORT RETURNING OVERSEAS FORCES

Senator HUTCHISON. So when do you think you would start requesting the Military Construction to support those returning 

units? 

General LUST. I believe that first request you’ll see will be in the 

fiscal year 2007 budget because we will not have the BRAC announcement until May of 2005 the 2006 budget which will be 

locked in by that time. So we see fiscal year 2007 being the first 

year that we’ll be able to have requirements in, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me just ask Mr. Prosch if it wouldn’t 

make some sense to begin at least a year earlier than that. It just 

seems that if you’re going to have by April of next year, at the very 

latest, an idea where you’re going to move them, it surely would 

help if we could not wait for the whole BRAC process, just sitting 

stagnantly on Military Construction and losing a year. Because 

once you make the decision that you’re going to leave a base, say 

in Germany, then you know that you’re not going to add any Military Construction there. It’s going to start deteriorating, so the 

more delay you have, the harder it’s going to be to service the 

troops who are still there. You do not want to just bring them home 

and have something ongoing. You want something that would be 

perhaps a little more continuous. That’s something I know you 

can’t answer right now, but I would ask you to consider it. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes ma’am, we will consider that and we will try 

and we will get back with you and tell you our progress. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. I do have more questions, but 

I’d like to defer to my colleague who has just gotten here. I’ll let 
68 

her have a few minutes for your questions and then I’ll come back 

with a second round. 

JOINTNESS

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, 

thank you all for being here. I know that the Chair had spoken 

generally about the reorganization which we obviously generally 

support or just a realignment and the importance of refocusing our 

troop strength, saving money and doing some realignment from Europe and other places in the world and getting ready for this BRAC 

closing, which I’ve generally supported, sometimes hesitantly in the 

sense that you never want to see that happen in your own State 

but you do want to save money and so we can refocus it. And Louisiana as Texas has as well but Louisiana’s been very cooperative 

in the sense that we’ve seen some of our bases added to and we’ve 

had some of our bases, you know, closed, but we think we’ve made 

lemonade out of lemons in those circumstances and look forward to 

the next couple of years to try to realign and save dollars. But we 

have been operating under a theory, which I want to ask each of 

you, if we are going to continue to operate under, the assumption 

that joint operations is better than individual operations. We’ve got 

several joint operations, obviously the one that would come to 

mind, General, you’ve served as our commanding general at Fort 

Polk in Louisiana. So my question would be to each of you and 

whomever wants to go first, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that a 

high priority should be placed on the military value of joint bases 

in the upcoming BRAC round and generally. Do you share that vision? Is it the same operating principle that we’ll be moving forward on, the jointness of these bases, both among Actives as well 

as Reserve units? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes ma’am, I’ll start off. I think that this BRAC, 

more so than any previous BRAC rounds, is really going to get into 

the joint analysis piece. We have seven joint cross service groups 

that were put together that we didn’t have in previous BRAC 

rounds and we have a flag-level official from each service on each 

one of these joint cross service groups that’s going to analyze different functional areas such as headquarters, training and education, medical, supply, etcetera. And so I see a real effort this time 

to really take a look at the jointness. And this BRAC is going to 

enable us to have better joint cooperation and realignment. It’s 

going to allow us in the Army to reshape. I really don’t think we 

could do our transformation and reshaping to go from 33 to up to 

48 modular unit of action brigades if we didn’t have this opportunity with BRAC that will give us the legislative ability to do this 

and to put these units in the right locations. And it’s proven over 

time that BRAC will save us some money in doing this. So yes 

ma’am, I believe we’re really doing that. And I would ask General 

Lust to amplify. 

General LUST. I agree with everything Mr. Prosch said and I 

would not be surprised, coming out of this BRAC, if we do not have 

an Army unit being positioned on another service’s base if it will 

allow us to get a quicker deployment and it’s got the training space 

and so forth. Because wherever I can have joint basing I don’t have 

to pay the fixed cost of running two bases and that money can be 
69 

put somewhere else. So from my position as the ACSIM wherever 

I can get jointness and still be able to meet the training needs and 

other stuff for the units, absolutely. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Now maybe this—could you just estimate for 

us, maybe you don’t know but, what percentage of your bases, General, are in a joint situation now and what percentage aren’t? I 

mean, just roughly. 

General LUST. I wouldn’t venture a guess but I do know when 

I was out at Fort Sam Houston about a month-and-a-half ago I was 

unaware we had all services represented on that base, yet we don’t 

consider it a joint base. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Because I think, Madam Chair, as we move 

forward I think that is a concept that I’m hoping there’s some consensus and unanimity if we fight jointly we should train, you know, 

jointly. And I think there’s a movement which I’ve been happy to 

see, and I think it’s more effective. It’s not what maybe we’re used 

to over the last several decades but I can testify, actually representing a State that has two very strong joint Reserve bases here 

that it seems to be working and we’re getting very positive feedback from the individual services. So as we move forward I just 

wanted to ask Mr. Prosch and the General, but General would you 

add your comments? And if you feel differently this would be a 

good time to discuss it because these are the issues that we’re 

going to be dealing with. 

General PUDLOWSKI. Yes ma’am, we’re in agreement from the 

Army National Guard perspective. We currently have 164 of our facilities that are joint use and we share those facilities with all Reserve components 

Senator LANDRIEU. Out of how many? One hundred sixty-four 

out of how many, I’m sorry. 

General PUDLOWSKI. Out of almost 3,000 armories, looking at 

how we are organizing based across America with the number of 

armory facilities we have. And we’re looking at increasing that for 

numbers of reasons. One, because of many that you had said but 

two, it does give us a better relationship with the other services as 

we step forward into the future. Currently in the fiscal year 2005 

FYDP budget we have one joint use facility and we’ve got 14 others 

that are scheduled over the next 5 years. We’re working to increase 

the number of those facilities. The Army National Guard is also 

working in conjunction with other Reserve components, and we 

participate in the Joint Service Reserve Component Facility Board. 

What those boards do is identify potential joint projects for the 

services that affect the Reserve components. Those boards review 

on a quarterly basis. They’re facilitated by the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs Office, and in this case we 

have seen some future benefits for our organizations in sharing 

that. 

I would also add that in many of the armories across America 

and in the territories there’s another portion that goes beyond joint 

between the services and that is working with some of the civilian 

organizations who are first responders in homeland defense and 

homeland security. So there’s another style of jointness from the 

National Guard perspective and how we look at this. 

Senator LANDRIEU. General. 
70 

General PROFIT. Ma’am, if I could add two things. First of all, as 

a part of the BRAC process we’ve chartered with the Army and the 

Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, a Reserve component 

process action team that will, I think, offer us some insight into opportunities that can be created to create jointness in establishing 

more of the joint Reserve bases that you’ve referenced and that’s, 

I think, an initiative that’s very useful at this point in the process. 

The other thing I would say is we were privileged last Monday 

at Ellington in Texas to participate in an event that I think will 

produce a joint opportunity and we’d just like to thank the Chair 

for her leadership in helping us do that. So I think those are some 

of the kinds of opportunities that we see coming out of the process 

and we’re trying to be as aggressive as we can be to find ways to 

make those things a reality. 

Senator LANDRIEU. So the bottom line from all of you would be 

from the Garrison Commander and the Generals that jointness is 

a plus in this restructuring effort and that it’s something that we 

are moving more aggressively to as we fight together, to train together and that’s one of the underlying premises of our, you know, 

future plans. Does that generally summarize that? 

General PUDLOWSKI. Absolutely, ma’am. 

General PROFIT. Yes, I agree with that. 

SCHOOLS

Senator LANDRIEU. One other question and then I have others 

but we’ll switch back, the troops overseas, at least I’ve gotten back 

from individuals one of their not highlights but strengths of that 

overseas deployment, although it’s difficult because you’re away 

from the mainland, if you would, your families are usually with you 

but the quality of the schools—It’s not something we talk about 

often in this committee but Madam Chair, quality of life issues are 

very important for military families, housing and general quality of 

life issues obviously schooling is part of that. Do we have any plans 

at all for the integration as these troops do move back? And I bring 

this up because we have a model program in Louisiana that I’d like 

to speak about, maybe not at length at this time, but we’ve created 

the first military charter school in the Nation, at the Bell Chase 

Academy. Have any of you given any thought to that particular 

quality of life issue as these troops are resettled and the quality 

of the military schools that are found abroad compare to what 

might be found in some areas in the country? I don’t know who 

would want to make just a general comment about that. 

Mr. PROSCH. Well, I’ll talk a little bit then I’ll turn it over to 

General Lust here. My spouse is a teacher and she taught overseas 

and in the continental United States in both DoD schools and local 

county schools. We really worked very hard to try to partner with 

the schools. When I was the Garrison Commander at Fort Polk I 

was a member of the Vernon Parish school board. And so I really 

had a chance to impact on that. I will tell you that we worked really hard with our RCI partners so that as we build our new houses 

on post that we make sure that the schools are there to support 

the additional population when they come onboard. You’ll find 

quite frequently that the teachers on the post are spouses of the 

soldiers so that’s another opportunity. The DoD schools overseas 
71 

are good; the DoD schools in the United States are good also. And 

we have to continue to support the DoD schools as we expand the 

population on post and partner with DoD for the Military Construction to make sure those schools are built. And likewise we have to 

work with our neighboring communities, like we have in Vernon 

Parish, to continue to ensure that the schools are supported. At 

Fort Polk we have three schools; they are Vernon Parish schools 

but the land was donated by Fort Polk and they’re excellent 

schools. My two children attended them and my wife also taught 

in that school system. So we have to continue to focus and keep the 

emphasis on that. 

General Lust. 

General LUST. In reference to your question about consideration 

of schools, as the units return back from overseas it will definitely 

be one of the things that needs to be looked at. First and foremost 

is where do we position that unit so it can in fact be trained and 

ready and etcetera and so forth. But one of the things that will 

definitely have to be looked at is how many children do we think 

are going to go there, and there will be a team that will go get with 

the local school system to make sure that they’re not surprised 

when so many kids show up. I will not say we’ve done that well 

in the past; I will tell you we’ve done it better each time. When we 

had the big drawdown in Europe, we got a lot better at the end 

of that than we did at the very beginning and those lessons are 

going to carry over here. But schools will definitely be something 

that’s going to have to be addressed because there are three things 

I think a soldier owes his family: a good education, health care, and 

a good place to live. And those all three kind of go in tandem if 

you want to have a quality of life. 

Mr. PROSCH. I might also add that we’re going to strive when we 

move the units from overseas to do it in the summer so we don’t 

disrupt the school year for the children. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I think that is a very important point, and 

on jointness, which the Senator from Louisiana has focused on, the 

Ellington Field concept is just a wonderful one, and I appreciate so 

much the Army’s support for moving to what is now an air base 

but will hopefully be a joint base in the near future because one 

of the things that you mentioned, General, and I want to emphasize and am going to especially emphasize with the Navy, is that 

I think the Coast Guard needs to be more of a factor here. The 

Coast Guard is at Ellington, there’s a huge need for homeland security on these bases, particularly in the bases that are close to 

water, and I believe the Coast Guard should be an integral part of 

joint use as we are melding national security and homeland security and trying to make the best use of our dollars. So I think the 

Ellington concept is going to be everybody; it’s going to be Navy, 

Marine, Army, Air Guard and Coast Guard and I can’t think of a 

better combination. 

But I also, I wanted to go back to something that General Lust 

said, and then I’m going to leave this concept. But when you said 

that the Army would be willing to move to a base that is another 

service base, if that made the most sense, it seems to me that we 

were just talking earlier about space and we have, seems to me, 

some huge Army bases that might be the host for other services to 
72 

move in and create more of a joint concept. Is that something that 

you also think? 

General LUST. Absolutely. I could take Fort Huachuca. Fort 

Huachuca has, I think, the largest military controlled air space 

where you can fly UAVs without having to have a chase plane. And 

you know, there would be a place where you could move other services onto that location, if it was desired and met the other services’ 

training needs and such. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Or White Sands. 

General LUST. We’re not only looking to go somewhere else but 

also we’re going places that people can move in. Again, first and 

foremost, so now you know it, wherever you put them it’s going to 

meet the mission need. The last thing we want to do is jointness 

for jointness, just check the block there. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Right. 

General LUST. Because that doesn’t do anybody any good. But 

yes, I can see it going the other way. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I mentioned White Sands as well. That 

should be an opportunity with air space that is coordinated with 

big land space. 

SUSTAINMENT

Well, let me move on to the sustainment subject. We are very interested on the Military Construction Subcommittee in sustainment. Everyone is saying they’re going to have 95 percent 

sustainment so that we can make use of our facilities for a longer 

term. However, all of us know that sustainment funds are the ones 

that get raided when you’ve got the base operations support accounts that are must pay. So let me ask you to give me a realistic 

assessment of what you think you’re going to be able to spend on 

sustainment and what you do to try to prevent migration of these 

funds away from sustainment. 

Mr. PROSCH. Well ma’am, we applaud the initiative that OSD 

has done to try to come up with a model that funds sustainment 

initially at 95 percent. But as you accurately stated all too often 

that is used to migrate money to your base operations accounts, 

which are more and more becoming must fund accounts. It would 

make sense to develop a base operations support model for all the 

services along the lines for sustainment, and we have been working 

with DoD to develop such models. And once we had these models 

adopted it would permit us to effectively budget for the base operation support as we do the sustainment. When you look at the base 

support accounts, the base operations portion is the biggest for the 

Army, and it contains such things as salaries, contracts. And as we 

have more contracts to do services on our installations, and as we 

privatize utilities and as we privatize Army housing more of these 

base operation support things are going to be executed at about the 

95 percent level. And so, when you’re only funded at 70 percent 

you’re going to have to find a bill payer and all too often it’s been 

sustainment. So we would welcome an opportunity to try to fix 

that. General Lust. 

General LUST. On the sustainment model, the military departments are given guidance by OSD to put 95 percent funding in 

sustainment, but with the other priorities and stuff we end up tak-
73 

ing risk in the base ops area. And in the year of execution, we end 

up migrating money back. Now, part of your question says what 

are we doing about controlling that? You may recall in October 

2001 we stood up an organization called Installation Management 

Agency, which took over control of the garrisons of our Army and 

the money now flows from Department of the Army to the Installation Management headquarters, then from there directly down to 

the installations. And this year they were given guidance, the garrisons were given guidance that they were to fund their base ops 

which were brought up to 85 percent and the SRM was brought 

down to 70 percent and no other migration could take place without coming back into the headquarters of IMA. They have done a 

very aggressive spending of their SRM money this year to get it 

committed, etcetera, and as we go back in a mid-year review, the 

Headquarters Army is very aware that there is a need now to move 

additional money back into base ops so we don’t have to go in and 

take any money from SRM. 

I think another part of your question is where do we think we’d 

eat if we have to? If we have to migrate any more money out of 

SRM, we believe we’ll end up in the 65 to 68 percent of SRM, about 

65 percent, to finish our must funds on base ops, which is better 

than we have been in the previous 4 years of spending money, 

being able to commit money to SRM. Please do not mistake, that 

is not where we want to be. But we had to take risks in those 

areas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I understand and the point of the 

question is, just to make sure that we keep sustainment as a priority. I realize we’re in a very tough time right now, and the Army 

is in the most transition of any of our services. So I’m just saying 

that should be a factor. I understand when it slips but we do pay 

a price down the road. 

General LUST. Yes ma’am. 

ARMY GUARD AND RESERVE REQUESTS

Senator HUTCHISON. I’m going to ask one more question and 

then turn it over to Senator Landrieu, but I’m not finished. But I 

want to give her opportunities as well. And that is to you, General 

Pudlowski. You have in the President’s request about 18 percent of 

the Guard requirements, and I’m concerned about this. And General Profit also I’d like the Reserve perspective here because what 

we have is a budget that shortchanges Guard and Reserve in my 

opinion. You correct me if you think that I’m wrong, but I think 

we are shortchanging the Guard and Reserve and this is an area 

where members of Congress are going to step in, the members of 

Congress support the Guard and Reserve; we acknowledge and respect the incredible job that they are doing as a part of our war 

on terrorism. And I told Senator Stevens this morning that I wanted to have more than the President’s request for Guard and Reserve, that I think probably the Department expects the Congress 

is going to plus that up, but it’s going to have to come from something else. So Senator Stevens didn’t give me an answer, I might 

add, about what my allocation would be, but I am trying to increase it to increase the amount of Guard and Reserve because I’m 
74 

very, very worried about the Army’s submission. So please, General 

Profit, General Pudlowski. 

General PUDLOWSKI. Here, let me take it first. Ma’am, the 

MILCON program for the Army Guard for the fiscal year 2005 to 

2009 time frame is increasing dramatically. We went from $265.6 

million in fiscal year 2005 to $819 million in fiscal year 2009. That 

has actually increased because of Commanche cancellation to plus 

up to $30 million, which has taken our fiscal year 2005 figure to 

$295.6 million. So there has been an increase. I would also add 

that if everything holds true with the current FYDP we will reduce 

our revitalization rate from 144 years down to 67 years by fiscal 

year 2008. So the program is becoming more conducive to what our 

needs are. 

Senator HUTCHISON. You are increasing from your last year’s request but it is a decrease from what we actually did last year. My 

question really is are you really satisfied that you have enough for 

the job you’re being asked to do? 

General PUDLOWSKI. There is opportunity for increased usage. 

Because of some of the capabilities that we have and the ability to 

contract all these at one given time we may not be able to handle 

it all at one point in time, thus the FYDP and thus the way we 

developed this program over a 5-year period. There is opportunity 

to take on more and to increase that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. General Profit. 

General PROFIT. Ma’am, I guess it would be—I would be disingenuous if I suggested to you that if resources were unconstrained that we couldn’t buy down our recapitalization rate 

quicker. But having said all of that let me just suggest to you that, 

you raised the issue of global repositioning and let me just make 

that analogous to the transformation that I believe is going on 

within the Army Reserve. And I would just suggest to you that as 

we do that we believe that there are opportunities for us to create 

greater efficiencies with respect to facilitization that will enhance 

our ability to provide quality of service and quality of life for our 

soldiers, which is really what this is all about to us. And one of the 

pieces I would just add at this time that is important to us and we 

think we can leverage with your continued support is the Real 

Property Exchange Program in the Army Reserve and I think that 

it has great promise to further enhance that. And so we in fact 

have a legislative proposal on the Hill as a part of this budget that 

I think would even leverage that opportunity. So there are lots of 

ways I think to get at the quality of service and quality of life for 

our soldiers that we’re looking at in the Army Reserve. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. PROSCH. Madam Chairman, I’ll just add that we will strive 

to ramp up the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard 

MILCON over this FYDP. That’s our current plan. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay, thank you. We’ll be working on it. My 

hope is that we get more than we now have, but we have not gotten a final answer on that yet. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I just want to support the comments that the 

Chair has just made about the Guard and Reserve and to add 

again for the record that it’s my understanding, and if I’m wrong 

I would be corrected, but I think 40 percent, or 45 percent of our 
75 

troop strength today is from our Guard and Reserve. And I understand that there would be reasons why you wouldn’t want to say 

well, if they are 40 percent of the frontline they should be 40 percent of the budget. And I understand that there are other factors 

that play into that but clearly being 45 percent of the frontline they 

warrant more than 8 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent or even 

20 percent of the budgets that support their facilities, their equipment, their training, etcetera. And the reason that we feel this so 

strongly is not that we don’t also represent Actives in our State but 

I just left Louisiana Monday, visiting with the 256 Army Reserve 

that’s shipping out, 3,000 soldiers strong, one of the largest brigades in the—and they say and I believe the best trained and 

ready to go, and they’re all saying yes and nobody’s trying to stay 

home. And I mean, that’s just kind of how those guys and gals are, 

and I just visited with them but you know, they’re going right to 

the frontline and I think that the Chairman’s remarks should be 

taken as really representing a broad feeling in the Congress that 

we’d like to see the resources in our budgets committed to that support, both for Active and Reserve that are carrying their more 

equal, seeming to us, share of the responsibilities. So, with that 

said I really don’t have any additional questions on that subject so 

I’ll—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Did you have another round? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Not at this time. 

MILCON—FORT STEWART

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. I do have a couple of other things. The Army has notified the committee that it intends to spend $18.5 

million in Military Construction funds for construction that is not 

now authorized at Fort Stewart to support the reorganization of 

the 3rd Infantry Division from two brigades into three units of action. Is it your view that this initiative justifies bypassing the normal authorization and appropriations process? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes ma’am. Let me start off and I’ll turn it over to 

General Lust, who actually is our point of contact on the Army 

staff for working this action. Now the site work is being done right 

now for a temporary modular building complex for the unit of action, and Fort Stewart is the pilot program for where we are creating modular brigades, so the three brigades will become four brigade-size units of action. And the project includes connections to 

the utilities systems, it includes hard stand concrete for the 

motorpools, and as you stated, it was $18.5 million. General Lust 

can you explain why we need this money now? 

General LUST. Yes sir, I can. And to start off, let me make sure, 

we weighed very heavily about asking the Secretary of the Army 

to use emergency procedures; we did not use it lightly. We have a 

policy first in, first out. The 30th Division was the first deployed 

in support of Operation Iraq, Freedom-1, and they came back. 

Things we learned from that deployment, things we learned from 

the fight, and things that we knew on transition we had to get on 

with it. The Chief decided there was no time better than right now. 

To get the Division ready to deploy when needed is what has driven us to this timeline. The point I’m trying to get to is that if we 

want the 30th to be C–1 by July 1, I’ve got to start doing spade 
76 

work by the end of April, first week of May to start having things 

go. And that is what’s driving this timeline. We tried every other 

way we thought we could get around it that was legal and it drove 

us to this path here. Like I said in the beginning, we did not take 

this lightly. The only option I had to be able to make this Division 

C–1 by July is to start having groundwork done by the end of 

April, first of May, ma’am. 

REQUIRED MILCON TO SUPPORT TRANSFORMATION

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Mr. Prosch, General 

Schoomaker has said we’re going to have a 30,000 temporary increase in Army personnel. Is there any Military Construction that 

you’re going to need to accommodate 30,000 more people plus 

100,000 activated Guard and Reserve units? Are we sufficiently 

able to take care of that kind of an add without something more? 

Mr. PROSCH. The 30,000, as you know, is needed for us to do our 

transformation. 

Senator HUTCHISON. By the way, I support the 30,000 totally. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. My question is just do we have the 

MILCON to accommodate them? 

Mr. PROSCH. Well, at this time we’re not using Military Construction for the same reason that General Lust was just explaining with our modular units. Downstream as we go through the 

BRAC process and we use these 30,000 soldiers to allow us to create and expand our number of brigades and as we know where 

we’re going to bring the troops back from Europe, hopefully more 

in 2006 as you suggested, we will do that. 

General Lust, would you like to add? 

General LUST. I know of no MILCON plan to take care of the 

30,000 because we only plan to have them for about a 4-year period 

and as you know by the time they go through the MILCON process 

I can’t have it done. Where I need facilities and stuff the intent is 

to take care of them by temporary structures, etcetera, with the 

plan being that we spend our MILCON money against projects for 

the additional brigades we’re going to create plus the way we are 

going to relook how we mobilize. The model we use to mobilize for 

the Cold War is not the model that’s going to work in the future 

and I believe there will be some MILCON required to support that 

new model, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay, well we’ll be looking for how that 

transpires. 

ARMY RESERVE CENTER—PUERTO RICO

Now, my final question to you is something that I just want an 

explanation for. You’ve got $26 million for an Army Reserve Center 

in Puerto Rico. After what happened in Vieques and losing a training place that we really had the right to keep, why are we investing more in Puerto Rico and are we concerned about losing training 

capabilities for a Reserve Center there as we lost Vieques? 

Mr. PROSCH. Let me say something about that. Your question is 

very timely because General Profit and I last weekend were in 

Puerto Rico looking at what you are talking about. How do we 

make sure that we do smart things and have joint facilities? And 
77 

our vision would be to try to have Fort Buchanan, which is becoming a U.S. Army Reserve installation, as the Special Ops Command 

and the Army South moves up to Fort Sam Houston. It will be part 

of the Installation Management Agency, and we believe that it will 

have a useful purpose downstream for joint units in Puerto Rico. 

General Profit, you want to comment on that? 

General PROFIT. Yes ma’am. First of all, let me just say that we 

have reached what I believe with the Navy and with other joint 

partners an island-wide solution to our needs in Puerto Rico. It is, 

as Mr. Prosch suggests, with Fort Buchanan as an Army Reserve 

installation as of last October at the centerpiece and with, I’ll call 

them subinstallations for lack of better, at Naval Station Roosevelt 

Roads and with the very important training areas that are actually 

run by the Puerto Rico Army National Guard at Camp Santiago. 

And then the final piece of that island-wide solution is really a 

plethora of joint installations that the Army Guard and the Army 

Reserve and other joint partners are entering into. And I would 

just tell you that it’s our view right now, having reached that, I 

think final accommodation with the Navy that we have a very 

sound, very realistic and very executable program to recognize a 

very important part of the Army that is stationed in Puerto Rico. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, that’s a big investment. 

General PROFIT. Yes ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. In a place that has not kept its commitments to our Services, and I just would like to have a little more 

explanation about why we’re doing it there and making that kind 

of investment. 

General PROFIT. With your concurrence we’d like to work with 

your staff on the Committee to explain it to you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator LANDRIEU. If I could just add something on Vieques too, 

I’ve had the opportunity to tour Roosevelt Roads before it was 

closed and to spend some time on the island. I was very disappointed to see the training facility close because I thought it was 

an opportunity that the Navy had but we’ve moved on. But my 

point, besides what the Chairperson brought up is, I mean, obviously to be fair to the island and to the men and women that serve 

in uniform from Puerto Rico and have for many, many decades 

honorably in our Armed Services, but also to raise the issue of the 

cost of that environmental cleanup. I hope we don’t make the mistake of underestimating the cost of that environmental cleanup, 

and as we work with and through the regular routine of transferring and going through this transfer that we can minimize the cost 

to the American taxpayer for the cleanup that’s going to occur. Now 

obviously we’re responsible, the Navy is primarily responsible but 

this is very valuable, very valuable property and could be very valuable. And I’ve read the different versions and views of the hopefully new governor of Puerto Rico who I happen to admire a great 

deal and think he’s been an extraordinary leader, hopefully the 

governor-to-be, but I just hope that whatever we do we can minimize the cost to the taxpayer as the value of that property is added 

to, as value is added. And I’m going to be following it pretty closely. 

Puerto Rico doesn’t have a Senator so some of us have to take a 

little special interest in this issue, and because I serve on the En-
78 

ergy Committee, Madam Chair, which is the authorizing committee 

for Interior, which does a lot of the regulations for our territories, 

I’m going to be following this very carefully to make sure that 

Puerto Rico gets a fair shake, but also that our taxpayers are 

spared some expense, hoping that maybe as we develop the island 

some of it can be offset. This is what I’m saying. And I don’t know, 

Mr. Prosch, if you want to just say something briefly because I 

know we have another panel. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes ma’am. And I’m sure that my partner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, H.T. Johnson, can comment on this in 

the next session. But he and I did sign a memorandum of agreement last week and I do believe the Navy has a good game plan 

to sell the valuable property with the wonderful port in the Moskrit 

portion of Roosevelt Roads that would address everything you just 

talked about. And I think that’s exactly what we should be doing. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. Well thank you all very much. I appreciate 

it. It’s been a good exchange, and I appreciate that very much. As 

I said earlier, you are in the most transformation of any of our 

Services and, we want to work with you to anticipate your needs 

and make sure that the people who are brought back from overseas 

do have the housing and you have a good place to put them and 

also keep up with the present day needs that you have. So we’ll 

be working with you. Thank you. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO GEOFFREY G. PROSCH

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

INSTALLATIONS IN IRAQ

Question. Secretary Prosch, soon, the United States will no longer maintain bases 

in Saudi Arabia. We will have to look elsewhere for basing opportunities in the Middle East. DOD has said Iraq will soon become a new locus for U.S. troops in the 

Middle East. In some cases, DOD plans to upgrade military installations used by 

Saddam Hussein for future use by American armed forces. What plans does the 

Army have for long-term basing in Iraq? 

Answer. The Army is constantly assessing courses of action to enhance support 

to the Joint Force Commanders worldwide, to include within this region, with 

trained and ready Army forces to support the Defense Strategy and Joint and Combined operations. Currently, our focus is on near-term combat operations and related activities in support of the Coalition objectives in and around a free and sovereign Iraq. There are no current Army plans for long-term basing in Iraq. 

Question. How many soldiers does the Army intend to station in Iraq? 

Answer. The number of units and Soldiers in Iraq will vary based on Combatant 

Commander requirements. 

Question. When will the Army begin to budget for the military construction needed to house the U.S. Army in Iraq? 

Answer. There are no current plans for long term basing in Iraq. 

Question. Thru a Supplemental Appropriation? 

Answer. We currently budget only for temporary projects in Iraq that support our 

troop rotations. Some of these projects are being funded with Military Construction, 

but we are only building the minimum necessary to support the mission. The only 

billeting type projects are relocatable facilities. We anticipate the military construction needs in Iraq to remain temporary in nature. 
79 

Question. If not Iraq, what other countries within Central Command might the 

Navy and Army seek to expand their presence? 

Answer. In the context of a Department of Defense review of worldwide posture 

and presence, the Army is working with the Department of Defense, the Joint Staff 

and the commanders within the Central Command Area of Responsibility to determine the requirements for forward-presence forces. The long-term plans for both the 

presence and the posture footprint in that region are still under review. Consultations are on-going with congressional, inter-agency and diplomatic leaders to review 

the key strategic principles and implementation concepts. 

DOD REALIGNMENT OF FORCES IN EUROPE

Question. Secretary Prosch, nearly 2 years ago, DOD began discussions on the realignment of forces in Europe. In that time, Congress has not received any concrete 

details for what DOD has in mind. We have seen reports that DOD plans to move 

some personnel and infrastructure out of Old Europe and into New Europe and the 

Former Soviet states. When asked for elaboration on these plans, DOD has provided 

little. I am pleased to see this Subcommittee will hold a hearing on Europe’s realignment on April 21st. Can you shed any light on how many Army soldiers within 

Europe may be realigned from current installations to new installations? 

Answer. The Army and its Component Command to U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM) are full participants in the Defense Department review of Global Posture, 

and will transform both posture and presence in accordance with the final DOD approved Posture plan. Until that time we cannot know the impact on installations. 

Question. What current facilities do you anticipate will continue to operate? 

Answer. Efficient Basing initiatives will consolidate capabilities and allow for ease 

of projection while maintaining the training necessary for readiness. The Army and 

U.S. Army Europe will ensure that our Soldiers and their families in Europe will 

have superior Quality of Life infrastructure and services during any potential restationing period. It will be essential to continue to support projects at key, enduring installations and facilities upon final determination of the posture in Europe. 

Question. If we reduce forces in Europe, won’t we see an increase of troops and 

equipment returning to the United States for basing? 

Answer. The potential for reducing the posture footprint in Europe is still under 

review; the final composition and disposition of forces in Europe has not yet been 

approved determined. 

Question. Does it make sense to enter into BRAC in 2005 if we have not yet fully 

determined the shape and size of our presence abroad? 

Answer. The force composition and its disposition are under constant review. The 

Defense Strategy, Combatant Commanders’ concept plans, and the on-going Army 

transformation of capabilities all inform the Army requirements for posture of 

forces. Similarly, imperatives for manning, equipping, training, deploying and sustaining the future force guide key decisions for presence and basing. Future force 

decisions will be an element within the analysis for BRAC 2005. 

BRAC AT FORT POLK AND BELLE CHASSE—HOW CAN JOINT OPERATIONS BENEFIT THESE

BASES?

Question. Secretary Prosch, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that a high priority 

should be placed on the military value of Joint bases for the upcoming BRAC round. 

Do you share Secretary Rumsfeld’s vision for our military to move toward and support Joint bases? 

Answer. The future Joint Force will train, deploy and fight in an interdependent 

and closely related battle space. The value of joint basing solutions must be measured against those key imperatives for fielding, training, rapidly deploying and then 

employing a joint force for combat operations. Concepts to support these imperatives, such as joint logistics and sustainment operations, are maturing now in order 

to inform the upcoming analysis. 

Question. As the former Garrison Commander of Fort Polk, could you please discuss how Fort Polk’s Joint Readiness Training Center, where the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, Marines, and Special Ops can all train together, meets Secretary Rumsfeld’s 

vision for jointness. 

Answer. The Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) is one of the U.S. Army’s 

three maneuver Combat Training Centers. All these centers have and are continually improving their programs and infrastructure to meet the Secretary of Defense’s vision to train in a Joint, Inter-agency, Inter-governmental, and Multi-national Force context during peacetime, in order to improve joint capabilities during 

worldwide contingencies. JRTC has resident U.S. Air Force and Special Operations 

Command trainers on the ground now, to build the essential relationships and inter-
80 

dependencies between these joint team members and the Army’s tactical units. 

JRTC has also forged a training relationship with the U.S. Marine Corps, to include 

United States Marine Corps (USMC) training exercises at JRTC alone, or as part 

of a larger U.S. Army exercise. This initiative continues to improve land forces 

interoperability, as well as achieving the vision for joint training. JRTC is scheduled 

to participate in a Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) sponsored Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) exercise in August 2004, and has two exercises on the JNTC 

planning calendar for fiscal year 2005. The effort to nest the Army’s Combat Training Center Program within JFCOM’s JNTC effort is a specified task from the Chief 

of Staff, Army in support of the Secretary of Defense’s Vision. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

UNFUNDED FORCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS

Question. Mr. Prosch, following 9/11, through a Defense Supplemental bill, the 

Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF) was used heavily by Army to address 

force protection requirements. However, this past year the Army returned to the 

Committee asking for reprogramming of unspecified minor construction funds to address force protection needs that they deemed needed for life, safety, and health. 

What are the Army, Army Guard, and Army Reserve unfunded force protection requirements? 

Answer. Current operations in support of the Global War on Terror continue to 

generate force protection requirements for installations both at home and abroad: 

The Army has not identified all the requirements on force protection. It continues 

to plan to meet existing and emerging challenges. Below is information on unfunded 

requirements relevant at this time knowing more requirements will come in the way 

of the Military Construction planning and programming process. 

—Active Component requirements include installation access control, barriers, 

blast mitigation, communication systems, explosive detection devices, and site 

improvements for various facilities worldwide. The validated unfunded requirement is $15.4 million for Military Construction, with a longer list of projects totaling approximately $263 million currently under review. 

—Army Reserve requirements include facility hardening and correcting longstanding physical security deficiencies at approximately 1,100 facilities worldwide. These projects provide barriers, blast mitigation, intrusion detection systems, exterior lighting, fencing, and access control. There is no unfunded Military Construction requirement because no single project is anticipated to exceed 

the $750,000 threshold. The validated unspecified minor construction unfunded 

requirement is $24.1 million in Operations and Maintenance. 

—Army National Guard requirements include design for electronic security systems; facility hardening, security fencing, closed circuit television; access control; arms, ammunition, and explosives storage area security improvement 

measures; and intrusion detection. The validated unfunded requirement is $27.8 

million for Military Construction. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO GENERAL WALTER F. PUDLOWSKI

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

GUARD WMD/CST FACILITIES

Question. General Pudlowski, with the addition of WMD/CST facilities throughout 

the country, has the Guard budgeted for the required facilities? If not, please supply 

me a list, detailing the locations of each facility needed and how much funding will 

be required to complete the needed construction. 

Answer. The Army National Guard did not fund for these projects. 

State Location Cost 

CA 1 .................................................................................................. Hayward ................................................ $1,348,000 

CT .................................................................................................... East Granby .......................................... 2,442,464 

DE 2 .................................................................................................. Smyrna .................................................. 0 

DC .................................................................................................... TBD ........................................................ 1,549,500 

GU .................................................................................................... Barrigada .............................................. 3,353,118 

IN 2 ................................................................................................... Gary ....................................................... 0 

MD ................................................................................................... Pikesville ............................................... 1,436,624 
81 

State Location Cost 

MS .................................................................................................... Jackson .................................................. 1,334,008 

MT 1 .................................................................................................. Ft. Harrison ........................................... 1,488,000 

NC .................................................................................................... Morrisville .............................................. 1,514,856 

ND .................................................................................................... Bismarck ............................................... 1,576,832 

NE .................................................................................................... Hastings ................................................ 1,344,168 

NH .................................................................................................... Concord ................................................. 2,190,496 

NJ ..................................................................................................... Lawrenceville ......................................... 1,424,432 

NV .................................................................................................... Henderson ............................................. 1,515,872 

OR .................................................................................................... Salem .................................................... 2,461,768 

PR .................................................................................................... Sabana Seca ......................................... 1,665,224 

RI ..................................................................................................... East Greenwich ..................................... 2,063,496 

SD .................................................................................................... Rapid City ............................................. 1,576,832 

UT .................................................................................................... West Jordan ........................................... 1,519,936 

VT 2 .................................................................................................. S. Burlington ......................................... 0 

VT ..................................................................................................... TBD ........................................................ 1,549,500 

WI ..................................................................................................... Madison ................................................. 1,522,984 

WY .................................................................................................... Guernsey ................................................ 1,645,920 

P&D .................................................................................................. various .................................................. 3,031,923 

Total ................................................................................... 39,555,953 

1 As of 7 April, 2004: Project awaiting approval from Congress as part of an Unspecified Minor Construction Formal Reprogramming.

2 Included in a new Readiness Center and does not require separate facility or funds for CST facility. 

(83) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL LOOSE, COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND 

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIE WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS (FACILITIES), UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

Senator HUTCHISON. We’re very pleased to have the Honorable 

H.T. Johnson, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations, 

along with you, Admiral Loose and General Williams. And we obviously have looked at what you’re going to say. Your funding requests are down, and I know that you will talk about that. I particularly want to mention your Home Port Ashore plan that I think 

is a great beginning effort that you are making and one that we 

want to fund as we can because I think it does make being a sailor 

a whole lot easier to get off the ship from time to time. And I do 

want you to talk about your Reserve funding, which seems to be 

somewhat less than you might need. So with that, let me welcome 

you to the committee and ask for your opening statement. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you ma’am. I’d like to say a few words and 

if you don’t mind just a couple of words from my partners. We’re 

pleased to have Admiral Loose and General Williams with us. We 

have a strong Navy-Marine team, as you well know. Our budget 

shows strong support for the Navy and Marine Corps bases around 

the world. In most cases our budget request is lower this year but 

there’s a reason for it; we’ve been able to find efficiencies and we 

think we have the proper priorities. 

Better housing, as you mentioned, for our single Sailors and Marines, as well as our families is a very high priority. We’ve done 

a lot with the family public-private venture and we really want to 

take that same concept and make it work for our bachelors. Bachelors are a little different than families because we have to have 

the dormitories, if you will, in places that are severable and we 

have to ensure that we can keep the dormitories full. If you put it 

at a base that everybody’s going to move from, into combat or 

whatever, it makes it more difficult. But our public-private ventures for housing are very important, and I appreciated your comments with the Army about raising the cap. This year we will have 

26,000 homes at ten Navy and Marine Corps bases. This will give 

us a total of 31,000 public-private venture homes across these two 

Services. As the increase in the housing allowances continue we 

find that more and more of our Sailors and Marines want to live 

in the community, and living in the community is the first priority 

for us. You talk about our Sailors aboard ships; we’ve seen exam-
84 

ples where we bring them ashore while in port and it makes a very 

big difference, and we want to continue that. 

We have three projects that we want to use for public-private 

ventures with barracks. Initially we will have a room they call the 

one plus one arrangement, where you have a room and share a 

bath, and usually we’ll put two Sailors from aboard ships in each 

of these rooms until we get enough of them so they can have a private room. We are very pleased that in 2005 that the Marine Corps 

gets rid of its last gang head barracks; the Navy will do so in 2007. Our MILCON is a robust program; it’s $1.1 billion along with sustainment and modernization funds of $1.9 billion. We have refined our sustainment model and both the Navy and Marine Corps 

are funded at 95 percent of the requirement, and I’m sure you’ll 

ask us a question as you did the Army about being able to spend 

at that level and we’ll appreciate that question when it comes. 

We mentioned earlier about closing Roosevelt Roads. I for one 

was very concerned because of what happened when we closed 

Vieques. The 31st of March came and there was nothing; it was 

very smooth and we’re very pleased with Puerto Rico, and our people who are working hard to make that a picture perfect transition. 

We’re going to keep the schools open until the end of the academic 

year. So we think everything is in good shape; all of our people 

have been cared for, the civilians and of course the military have 

moved. 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk a little bit about BRAC. I’d like to 

give you three assurances. First of all, we’ll meticulously follow the 

law. Secondly, there’s no closure or realignment list in anyone’s 

desk drawer; there will not be one until we have certified data, it’s 

been carefully analyzed, compared against the force structure and 

rigorously assessed for each activity using military value, and we 

meet all the requirements of the law. While eliminating excess capacity to generate savings is an important driver, the Secretary of 

the Navy, the CNO, the Commandant and I view BRAC 2005 as 

a unique opportunity to do things that are positive for our Military 

Forces. We talked about a joint approach, I heard you talk about 

it with the Army. We’re pleased that this time the difference is 

we’re taking a look at everything in a joint fashion. And I echo 

what the Army friends said. 

Environmentally we’re doing very well. We think that we have 

been going about it in the proper way, we’re closing some bases and 

of course we have to do the environmental work after we close it 

but we find that selling property is a win-win for everyone. We get 

it back on our tax roles very quickly, a community gets the reuse, 

and the Department of Navy gets the funds for cleanup. We have 

spent $2.3 billion so far on BRAC clean-up and we have about onehalf a billion dollars left and we are moving forward on that. 

This year we had a great event. Last month, we transferred 

Adak, which was 71,000 acres. After that we’ll be down to only 7 

percent of the total remaining acres to be disposed of. So Adak was 

transferred and that was a monumental process. 

We are very pleased at what the Congress did last year on the 

Readiness Range Preservation Initiative. We are working all of 

those authorities, Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, along with Migratory Bird Treaty Act of the year 
85 

before. We are implementing them and we are very pleased with 

the results. Certainly as we implement these changes we will 

maintain the special trust and confidence that you gave us in these 

authorities. We’ll be careful not to misuse them. Environmental 

programs total about $1 billion, about the same as what we had 

last year. 

We’ve done quite well on the cleanup of active bases; 69 percent 

of all of our sites have remedies in place or is completed. And these 

are a lot of different ones on different bases and if you visit our 

bases and talk to the environmental cleanup people you’ll be really 

impressed with their enthusiasm and the successes that they have 

had. 

I’d like to ask Admiral Loose for a couple of words and then General Williams. 

Admiral LOOSE. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Navy’s fiscal year 2005 Shore 

Infrastructure Budget Request. The Navy’s Facility Investment 

Strategy focuses on making prudent investment decisions that balance the Shore Infrastructure improvements and enhance readiness and the quality of service while maintaining assets to effectively sustain the operations in support of our Navy forces. I’d like 

to add just a few comments and amplify some of the areas mentioned by Secretary Johnson in his opening statement. 

Our budget concludes a 4-year effort to eliminate the average 

out-of-pocket expenses for Navy family housing. The increase in 

basic allowance for housing means our Sailors can now find good 

affordable housing in the community without additional out-ofpocket expenses. We are achieving excellent results for our family 

housing privatization program. The Navy’s public-private ventures 

are eliminating inadequate family housing and delivering better 

quality, new homes, meeting the DoD’s goals. We have developed 

a better strategy that eliminates our liability by managing risk. 

Our approach incorporates essential safeguards and protections. 

This business strategy and acquisition approach have been accepted by others both in the government and in the private sector, and 

PPV enables us to provide a higher quality of affordable housing 

to our Sailors and their families faster and at a lower initial cost 

and at a lower lifecyle cost. It also benefits the local communities 

by refreshing aged housing stock and stimulating local businesses. 

For the Navy’s part, we have now awarded nine PPV projects for 

a total of 9,700 homes and during fiscal year 2004 and 2005 we 

plan to award another six projects, resulting in another 20,000 

homes. However, the success at providing adequate homes for our 

Sailors and their families is clearly at risk due to the statutory cap 

on the amount of budget authority that can be used in military 

family housing privatization. We project that DoD will reach the 

current cap by the fall of this year. This will impact our ability in 

the Navy to award approximately 5,500 of the 20,000 homes we 

were planning to award in 2005. Military family housing privatization is successfully providing quality self-sustaining houses for the 

Navy families. We feel it’s very important that we stay the course 

and we greatly appreciate your support in ensuring that our Sailors and their families will continue to live in quality housing. 
86 

We’re also very committed to improving the quality of housing 

for our single Sailors. As you are aware, we have roughly 17,500 

Sailors living onboard ships while they’re in home port. These Sailors, like all Sailors in the Navy endure an austere lifestyle aboard 

ship while it is underway on deployment. While their ships are in 

home port it’s imperative that we offer them a better place to call 

home, one that is similar to their shipmates ashore, married and 

single. This is a major quality of life issue that we take seriously. 

We have a program and are executing projects to address this challenge and we are looking at innovative ways to make additional 

quality housing available for all our single Sailors such as 

privatized bachelor housing. The privatized bachelor housing concept in San Diego looks very promising; we hope to bring this 

project to you for consideration in the near future. The goal is to 

provide all shipboard Sailors the opportunity to live in quarters 

ashore when their ship is in home port by fiscal year 2008. Again, 

this initiative will improve the quality of life for these Sailors and 

ensure a comparable standard of living between Sailors assigned 

aboard ships and those assigned to shore duty. 

In conclusion I sincerely thank you for the continued support 

that this committee and your staff have provided the Navy and 

very much look forward to working with you now and in the future. 

And I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. General Williams brings tremendous experience at 

all levels in managing bases, so if he doesn’t do it correctly he’s forgotten his previous lessons. So, just a few words. 

General WILLIAMS. Thank you. Madam Chair, it’s certainly a 

pleasure for me to appear before you today and with Secretary 

Johnson. But first, on behalf of our Marines and their families, I 

want to thank you for your continued support for Marine Corps 

Military Construction, family housing, encroachment and environmental programs. Our installations are the fifth element of our Marine Air-Ground Task Force and as such they’re critical to our war 

fighting and our war fighting readiness. 

Our fiscal year 2005 Active and Reserve budget request devotes 

over a $1 billion to Military Construction facilities sustainment and 

maintenance, family housing and environmental initiatives at our 

Marine Corps installations. And although the total program is a little less than fiscal year 2004 our installations will be in better condition at the end of 2005 than at the beginning. The Active and Reserve Construction Program provides some urgently needed readiness, compliance and quality of life construction projects. We’re investing about $75 million for our barracks project, which will enable us to eliminate our gang head barracks for our permanent personnel. Our family housing, we’re requesting approximately $270 

million and that’s to keep us on track to eliminate inadequate family housing by the end of fiscal year 2007. And as has been mentioned, public-private venture is very key to our success in that 

area. So your support of the proposal to eliminate the $850 million 

cap certainly will be needed and is very much appreciated. Our 

sustainment programs that we’re proposing maintains funding of 

our facilities at 95 percent of the OSD-established goals. 

The Marine Corps is committed to maintaining a ready force and 

our installations are critical to the maintenance and sustainment 
87 

of that readiness. We take this mission very seriously, as we do our 

Environmental Stewardship Program, which is also key to our ability to train as we fight. 

Madam Chair, the Marines and families make great sacrifices in 

serving our great Nation. And the Marine Corps prides itself on its 

legacy of taking care of our own and we will reward that sacrifice 

that they have made. And this 2005 budget supports the continuance of that legacy. 

Again, the Marine Corps would like to thank this committee for 

its strong support of our infrastructure program and the benefits 

that this support provides in improved readiness and quality of life. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, this concludes my statement. I’ll be 

happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANSFORD T. JOHNSON

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am H.T. Johnson, Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). It is a pleasure to appear 

before you today to provide an overview of the Department of the Navy’s shore infrastructure and environmental programs. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET OVERVIEW

Projecting power and influence from the sea is the enduring and unique contribution of the Navy and Marine Corps to national security. The Department of Navy 

(DoN) fiscal year 2005 budget request of $119.4 billion ($1.4 billion below the fiscal 

year 2004 enacted level of $120.8 billion) balances risks across operational, institutional, force management and future challenges identified by the Secretary of Defense. 

The Navy and Marine Corps installations and environmental programs total $9.1 

billion in fiscal year 2005, or about 8 percent of the DoN budget. That our portion 

of the DoN budget is declining bears witness to the successes we have had in the 

last few years managing costs and pursuing innovative solutions to long-term problems. We continue to meet all Department of Defense (DOD) and DoN installations 
88 

and environmental goals. This budget provides funds to operate, recapitalize and 

transform our fleet assets and our shore installations. 

Base Operations Support funds provide fundamental services such as utilities, fire 

and security, air operations, port operations, and custodial care that enable the 

daily operations of our bases. Our fiscal year 2005 request of $4.3 billion is about 

$200 million above the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $4.1 billion. This increase 

includes an $83 million transfer of Navy Working Capital common support services 

to O&MN, $44 million for Marine Corps military to civilian conversion costs, $24 

million for Marine Corps to transition to the Navy-Marine Corps Corporate 

Intranet, and $24 million for the fiscal year 2004 pay raise. 

Our Military Construction request is a very robust $1.1 billion. It keeps us on 

track to eliminate inadequate bachelor housing, and provides critical operational, 

training, and mission enhancement projects. 

The Family Housing request of $844 million provides funds to operate, maintain 

and revitalize the worldwide inventory of 36,600 units. Our Family Housing request 

declines because of increases in the military pay accounts for Basic Allowance for 

Housing, which makes finding affordable housing in the community more likely, and 

the success of our housing privatization efforts. Through privatization and future 

construction funds, both the Navy and Marine Corps achieve the DOD goal to eliminate inadequate homes by fiscal year 2007. 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) includes military construction 

and Operations and Maintenance funds. To avoid double counting military construction, the funding shown in the chart includes only the Operations and Maintenance 

accounts. Facilities sustainment requirements are based on a DOD model. The 

budget achieves 95 percent of the model requirement for Navy and Marine Corps 

bases, an increase of 2 percent for the Navy above the fiscal year 2004 request. 

While the fiscal year 2005 recapitalization rates decline slightly for Navy and improve for Marine Corps, both the Navy and Marine Corps meet the DOD 67-year 

recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008. 

Our fiscal year 2005 request for environmental programs totals $1.0 billion. This 

request is sufficient to meet all known environmental compliance and cleanup requirements, invest in pollution prevention, and fund cultural and natural resources 

conservation efforts, including implementation of Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plans. 

I will now discuss these areas in more detail. 

HOUSING

We have made a special effort in this budget to maintain progress in improving 

the quality of housing for our Sailors and Marines. 

Family Housing 

Our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad: 

—Reliance on the Private Sector.—In accordance with longstanding DOD and DoN 

policy, we rely first on the local community to provide housing for our Sailors, 

Marines, and their families. Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine 

Corps families receive BAH and own or rent homes in the community. Our 

bases have housing referral offices to help newly arriving families find suitable 

homes in the community. 

—Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).—With support from the Congress, we have 

used statutory PPV authorities enacted in 1996 to partner with the private sector to use private sector capital. These authorities, which I like to think of in 

terms of public/private partnerships, allow us to leverage our own resources to 

provide better housing considerably faster to our families. 

—Military Construction.—Military construction will continue to be used where 

PPV authorities don’t apply (such as overseas), or where a business case analysis shows that a PPV project is not financially sound. 
89 

FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 PPV HOMES

Navy 

—Hawaii: 1,948 

—Northeast: 4,210 1

—Northwest: 2,705 

—Mid-Atlantic: 5,930 

—Great Lakes/Crane: 2,823 

—San Diego: 2,668 

Marine Corps 

—Yuma/Camp Pendleton: 897 

—Lejeune: 3,516 

—Twentynine Palms: 1,382 

—Kansas City, 137 

1Scope being revised to retain 250 more units previously planned for divestiture at 

Mitchel Housing Complex in Long Island, NY. 

The Importance of BAH 

Higher BAH allowances help more Sailors and Marines and their families to find 

good, affordable housing in the community without additional out-of-pocket expenses. This reduces the need for military housing, allowing us to divest excess, inadequate homes from our inventory. Higher BAH also improves the income stream 

for PPV projects, making them more economically attractive to potential developers. 

The fiscal year 2005 request completes a 5-year DOD goal to increase BAH and 

eliminate average out-of-pocket expenses for housing. 

Eliminating Inadequate Homes 

The DoN remains on track to eliminate its inadequate family housing units by 

fiscal year 2007. We continue to pursue privatization at locations where it makes 

sense. We will eliminate almost three-quarters of our inadequate inventory through 

the use of public/private ventures. As of February 1, 2004, we have awarded 11 

projects totaling over 16,000 units. We recently awarded a joint Army/Navy military 

housing project at Monterey, California that includes 593 homes at the Naval Post-
90 

1Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees. 

graduate School. During fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005, we plan to award 

projects totaling over 26,200 homes at ten Navy and Marine Corps locations. This 

will allow us to improve our housing stock and provide more homes to Sailors, Marines and their families much faster than if we relied solely on traditional military 

construction. The Navy is now taking a regional approach to accelerate progress and 

improve the financial viability of its PPV projects. 

There will still be a residual inventory of Government-owned housing after fiscal 

year 2007 with a continuing need for family housing construction, operations, and 

maintenance funds. However these requirements will decline as family housing is 

privatized. We continue to review these requirements, particularly in the management sub-account, as we transition from ownership to privatization. 

The single biggest challenge in our efforts to eliminate inadequate family housing 

by fiscal year 2007 is the statutory ‘‘cap’’ on the amount of budget authority that 

can be used in military family housing privatization. DOD projects that the Services 

will reach the current cap of $850 million in fiscal year 2004, and that it will impede 

our ability to carry out our fiscal year 2005 privatization effort. Military family 

housing privatization is a successful tool to provide quality, self-sustaining housing 

for Navy and Marine Corps families. It is important that we stay the course. We 

will continue to work with the Congress to ensure that our Sailors and Marines live 

in quality housing. 

Bachelor Housing 

Our budget request of $205 million for bachelor quarters construction continues 

our emphasis on improving living conditions for unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. There are three challenges: 

—Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.—There are approximately 

17,500 Sailors worldwide who are required to live aboard ship while in homeport. Based upon actions taken by the Navy and funds provided by Congress 

through fiscal year 2004, we have now given 4,900 Sailors a place ashore to call 

home. This is our most pressing housing issue. The Navy will achieve its ‘‘homeport ashore’’ initiative by fiscal year 2008 by housing two members per room. 

Our fiscal year 2005 budget includes one ‘‘homeport ashore’’ project at Naval 

Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. By housing two members per room, this 

project will provide spaces for almost 800 shipboard Sailors. 

—Ensure our Barracks Meet Today’s Standards for Privacy.—We are continuing 

our efforts to construct new and modernize existing barracks to provide more 

privacy for our single Sailors and Marines. The Navy applies the ‘‘1∂1’’ standard for permanent party barracks. Under this standard, each single junior Sailor has his or her own sleeping area and shares a bathroom and common area 

with another member. To promote unit cohesion and team building, the Marine 

Corps was granted a waiver to adopt a ‘‘2∂0’’ configuration where two junior 

Marines share a room with a bath. The Navy will achieve these barracks construction standards by fiscal year 2013; the Marine Corps by fiscal year 2012. 

—Eliminate Gang Heads.—The Navy and Marine Corps remain on track to eliminate inadequate barracks with gang heads for permanent party personnel.1 The 

Marine Corps will eliminate their permanent party barracks with gang heads 

the fiscal year 2005 budget request; the Navy by fiscal year 2007. 

While we believe privatization will be as successful in accelerating improvements 

in living conditions for our single Sailors and Marines as it has been for families, 

it does present a different set of challenges. For years, we have built barracks to 

military rather than local community standards. For example, there were limits on 

room size, and no common area for occupants to prepare meals or to socialize. I 

want to thank the Congress for legislation last year to allow building privatized barracks to private sector standards. 

We must now consider other unique aspects in privatizing bachelor housing: the 

impact of extended deployments on unit occupancy and storage requirements; their 

location outside the fence line of the base, or inside the fence line but on severable 

Government land; and sharing a unit by two or more members. We are confident 

that the Government can join with a private partner to fashion a solution to these 

concerns that preserve the viability of a project while protecting Government interests. We are developing pilot unaccompanied housing privatization projects for San 

Diego, CA; Hampton Roads, VA, Camp Pendleton, CA. 
91 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military Construction Projects 

Our fiscal year 2005 military construction program requests appropriations of 

$1.086 billion and authorization of $1.045 billion. It includes $406 million for 12 waterfront and airfield projects; $205 million for eight bachelor housing projects; $69 

million for six force protection projects, and $64 million for three environmental 

compliance projects. There is $87 million for planning and design, and $12 million 

for unspecified minor construction. 

In aggregate, about 66 percent of the military construction request is for restoration and modernization projects. The remaining 34 percent is for new footprint 

projects that provide new capabilities, e.g., force protection, bachelor quarters, and 

facilities for new platforms. There are 5 projects totaling $94 million at non-U.S. locations overseas—Rota, Spain; Andros Island, Bahamas; Diego Garcia; and two 

projects in Sigonella, Italy. The Naval Reserve construction program has four 

projects for a total of $25 million. 

Eleven projects totaling $467 million in fiscal year 2005 have construction schedules (including fiscal year 2004 continuing projects) exceeding 1 year and cost more 

than $50 million, thus meeting the criteria for incremental funding. Five of these 

projects received full authorization in fiscal year 2004 and are being continued or 

completed in fiscal year 2005. We are requesting $289 million appropriations and 

$607 million in new authorization to start six incrementally funded projects in fiscal 

year 2005. 

Outlying Landing Field, Washington County, North Carolina 

The new F/A–18E/F Super Hornet is replacing F–14 and older F/A–18C aircraft. 

The DoN prepared an Environmental Impact Statement that examined a range of 

alternatives for homebasing these new aircraft on the East Coast. A Record of Decision was signed in September 2003 to base eight tactical squadrons and a fleet replacement squadron at Naval Air Station Oceana, VA, and two tactical squadrons 

at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC. 

This homebasing decision requires a new Outlying Landing Field (OLF) to support fleet carrier landing practice (FCLP) training. The current site near Virginia 

Beach, VA is not as effective for night-time training due to ambient light sources, 

and lacks the capacity to handle a training surge such as experienced for the war 

on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Washington County site is about 

halfway between NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point. We believe it is the best 

alternative from an operational perspective. 

In fiscal year 2004 the Congress provided authority to acquire approximately 

3,000 acres for the core area of the OLF and to begin constructing the runway. We 

are now seeking authority to acquire a 30,000-acre buffer zone for noise, build a control tower, and erect fire and rescue facilities. We are asking for this authority over 

2 years, with the first increment of $61.8 million in fiscal year 2005. 

There is some local opposition to the OLF site we selected; two lawsuits challenge 

the sufficiency of the Department’s Environmental Impact Statement. The Navy 

wants to be a good neighbor, and will consider the concerns of local property owners. 

For example, the Navy has committed that all land not required for actual OLF operations will be available for continued agricultural use. The Navy believes it has 

met all legal and regulatory requirements, and is proceeding with property acquisitions and construction planning. 

VXX 

Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX–1), located at the Marine Corps Air Facility, Quantico, VA, now performs helicopter transportation for the President, Vice 

President and heads of state. Numerous modifications and improvements have limited the mission effectiveness of the current VH–3D and VH–60N helicopters. The 

planned acquisition of a replacement helicopter, called VXX, will improve transportation, communication, and security capabilities and integrate emerging technologies. The total acquisition cost is $5.9 billion. Originally planned for an initial 

operating capability in 2013, the acquisition schedule has now been accelerated to 

December 2008. 

The fiscal year 2005 budget includes $777 million in Research and Development 

for VXX system design and demonstration, and $106 million in appropriations ($166 

million authorizations) for military construction to support VXX. Facilities are required to support the test and evaluation of three VXX scheduled for delivery in October 2006, to provide hangar space for the eventual full complement of 23 aircraft, 

and to provide in-service support for the life cycle of the aircraft. 
92 

The accelerated VXX acquisition schedule required us to make some judgments 

in the fiscal year 2005 military construction program to ensure that facilities would 

be available in time to house the aircraft and the combined government/contractor 

support team. There is insufficient excess hangar capacity to house VXX at Naval 

Air Station Patuxent River, MD, where the Navy conducts most of its test and evaluation of new aircraft. Similarly, the 1935 era hangers at Quantico are inadequate 

to meet current HMX–1 needs. 

However, before committing large sums to construct new facilities, we are studying whether there is excess capacity elsewhere in the National Capital Region that 

could be adapted to accommodate both the test and evaluation phase and the operational mission for VXX at lower cost than building new facilities at Patuxent and 

Quantico. In addition, the VXX program manager has a business case analysis underway to determine whether a government owned, contractor operated facility at 

Patuxent is the most cost effective solution for in-service support. As another variable, the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) and initial production solicitation released in December 2003 gives the vendor the option to use its own facilities. We plan to complete these studies, consider the vendors’ proposal, and decide this spring on the most cost effective location for the facilities. This timeframe 

supports the current acquisition timeline. In the absence of specific locations, we labeled two VXX projects in our fiscal year 2005 program under the title ‘‘Various Locations.’’ 

FACILITIES

Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) 

Sustainment.—The Department of Defense uses models to calculate life cycle facility maintenance and repair costs. These models use industry wide standard costs 

for various types of buildings. Sustainment funds in the Operations and Maintenance accounts maintain shore facilities and infrastructure in good working order 

and avoid premature degradation. The Navy and Marine Corps achieve 95 percent 

sustainment of the model requirements in fiscal year 2005. Sustainment dollars decreased by 9 percent due to the removal of old facilities in our inventory as a result 

of our demolition program, and revised pricing assumptions. 

SRM 

PB–03 FY–04 PB–05 

Navy 

Sustainment (percent) ............................................................................................................ 84 93 95 

Recap Rate (years) ................................................................................................................. 116 140 148 

Marine Corps 

Sustainment (percent) ............................................................................................................ Full 97 95 

Recap rate (years) .................................................................................................................. 156 88 78 

Recapitalization.—Restoration and Modernization provides for the major recapitalization of our facilities using Military Construction and Operations and Maintenance funds. While both the Navy and Marine Corps achieve the Department of Defense goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2008, the fiscal year 2005 

recap rate rises to 148 years for Navy while improving to 78 years for the Marine 

Corps. The Navy will manage its near term facilities investment to limit degradation of operational and quality of life facilities. 

Closure of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico 

The Navy closed Naval Station Roosevelt Road on March 31, 2004, as directed by 

section 8132 of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act. We have begun the 

required environmental reviews and the initial phases of the property disposal process. The Navy is taking great care in relocating military personnel and families, and 

assisting civilian employees with relocation and outplacement. The DOD school will 

remain open until the end of the school year. 

As directed in the law, the closure and disposal is being carried out in accordance 

with the procedures contained in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

(BRAC) of 1990, as amended. The Navy established Naval Activity Puerto Rico as 

a successor organization to maintain the property and preserve its value through 

disposal, which we expect to occur in late 2005. The Commonwealth has formed a 

Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) that has begun land use planning for the 
93 

property. The Navy and DOD Office of Economic Adjustment are coordinating with 

the LRA. We will ensure the needs of the military and civilian employees are met 

as we carry out this closure and property disposal. Nebraska Avenue Complex 

At the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Navy has 

agreed to relocate 10 Navy commands with 1,147 personnel from its Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC) in Northwest Washington, D.C. The 556,000 square feet of office space will provide a headquarters facility for DHS personnel. DHS will pay for 

the Navy’s first move, and if necessary, the first year’s lease costs. As of the end 

of January 2004, seven Navy commands with 469 personnel had relocated. The Administration has requested authorizing legislation that would allow the remainder 

to move by January 2005. To meet this timeline, the requested legislation must be 

enacted by April 30, 2004. Several of the Navy commands will relocate to government-owned facilities, while others will move to leased spaces until we identify permanent government-owned facilities. 

The requested legislation allows the Navy to transfer custody of the NAC property 

to the General Services Administration (GSA), who will manage the facilities for 

DHS. We will require a legislative waiver from Section 2909 of the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC), which specifies that bases many not be closed 

except through the BRAC process. The Navy will receive consideration for the fair 

market value of NAC in the fiscal year 2006 budget process. 

EFFICIENCIES

Naval Safety Program 

Senior level management attention to safety concerns, coupled with selected financial investments, can yield profound benefits to the well being of our Sailors, 

Marines, civilians, contractors, and the bottom line mission costs. Ensuring the safety of our people has been and remains a top priority for Secretary England’s and 

myself. Secretary Rumsfeld recently challenged the Military Services to reduce the 

rate of mishaps by 50 percent by fiscal year 2006. 

That has amplified efforts to reduce mishaps and reaffirm the value we place on 

safety. We have elevated the position of Commander of the Naval Safety Center 

from a one-star to a 2-star Flag Officer. Secretary England recently convened the 

first senior-level Navy and Marine Corps Safety Council to review DoN mishap reduction plans. Navy Flag and Marine Corps General Officers chair or co-chair four 

of the nine Defense Safety Oversight Council Task Forces. We are reducing lost 

workdays due to injuries in our civilian workforce. I personally visited several commands and installations and witnessed the great teaming between our command 

staff, management, and labor organizations to reduce injuries and lost workdays. 

Human error is a factor in over 80 percent of our mishaps. We are studying ways 

to modify high risk driving behaviors, particularly by young Marines. Our fiscal 

year 2005 budget will expand our Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance initiative, a highly successful program used in commercial aviation that downloads 

flight performance data (black box data) after every flight and allows the aircrew 

and aircraft maintenance team to replay a high fidelity animation of the flight and 

aircraft performance parameters. 

Commander, Navy Installations 

The Navy established Commander, Navy Installations (CNI) on October 1, 2003 

to consolidate and streamline management of its shore infrastructure. Instead of 

eight Navy commands responsible for planning, programming, budgeting and executing resources for shore installations, there is a single command—CNI. The Navy 

now has an enterprise wide view of installation management and resources. 

CNI will guide all regions and installations towards Navy strategic objectives. The 

centralized approach will identify and disseminate best business practices across all 

regions/installations. The ability to identify standard costs and measure outputs is 

improving the capability based budgeting process. Managing from a program centric 

knowledge base allows for a top-level assessment of capabilities and risks. 

This central focus on facilities can leverage capabilities between the military services to avoid duplicate investments while still creating surge capacity through joint 

use opportunities. CNI has developed strategic partnerships with Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) and Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) 

to apply their logistics and contracting expertise. 

The Navy is already realizing savings, estimated at $1.6 billion across the FYDP, 

AND improving services from CNI initiatives. 

—Consolidating functions at the regional level vs. installation level (e.g., housing 

management, administrative functions, contracting, supply, comptroller, business management, maintenance, warehousing). 
94 

—Combining command staffs (e.g., NAB Coronado and NAS North Island; CBC 

Port Hueneme and NAS Point Mugu) 

—Consolidating installation contracts (e.g., tug and pilot contracts; custodial and 

grounds maintenance; negotiating area wide utility rates). 

—Shifting installation level supply and contracting functions to NAVSUP and 

NAVFAC (e.g., eliminate duplication at the installation and regional levels). 

—Studying in 2004 the merger of other overlapping installation functions from 

Naval Bureau of Personnel (e.g., morale, welfare and recreation programs, fleet 

and family support programs, child care), NAVSUP (personnel support programs such as food services), and NAVFAC (facilities management). 

Joint Cooperation on Installation Management 

I had the pleasure in February to witness the signing an agreement between the 

installation commanders from Naval Air Engineering Station, Lakehurst, the 

Army’s Fort Dix, and McGuire Air Force Base. This partnership encourages joint solutions for common problems between the three contiguous bases and their tenant 

commands. The three installation commanders are already reducing operating costs 

by consolidating firearms training, radar information for air operations, and contracts for pest control, linen service, and hazardous waste disposal. We want to encourage such cooperation wherever we have opportunities to partner with the other 

military departments. 

BRAC 2005 

Now more than ever, we need to convert excess capacity in our U.S. shore infrastructure into war-fighting capability. BRAC 2005 may well be our last significant 

opportunity to reduce excess infrastructure, and apply savings to improve readiness. 

More importantly, it will allow us to transform our infrastructure to best support 

the force structure of the 21st Century. 

The Congress gave considerable thought on how to structure a BRAC 2005 process that sets fair and objective evaluation standards and incorporates the lessons 

learned from four previous BRAC rounds. We will be meticulous in meeting these 

statutory standards. We will treat all bases equally. We will base all recommendations on the 20-year force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and published selection criteria. In no event will we make any decisions concerning the reduction of 

infrastructure until all data has been collected, certified and carefully analyzed. 

We will look for joint use opportunities in our analysis and recommendations. 

This is a fundamental change from past BRAC processes. I believe, as does the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, that we can and must apply the type of joint warfighting successes witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq to a more efficient and effective Department of Defense shore infrastructure. 

Within the DoN, the overall BRAC 2005 process is under the Secretary of the 

Navy’s oversight and guidance. The Secretary of the Navy established three groups 

to support the process. The Infrastructure Evaluation Group (IEG) which I chair, 

will develop service unique recommendations for closure and realignment of the 

DoN military installations. It will also ensure that the operational needs of the fleet 

commanders are carefully considered. 

The Infrastructure Analysis Team (IAT) will develop the analytical methodologies, 

collect certified data from Navy and Marine Corps activities, examine joint and 

cross-service basing opportunities, perform in-depth analysis, and present the results to the IEG for evaluation. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Infrastructure Strategy and Analysis, who is a member of my staff, leads the IAT. The 

IAT has 93 military, civilian and contract personnel with a broad range of expertise 

and warfare disciplines. 

DON INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION GROUP

Asst Sec Navy, Installations & Environment (Chair) 

Dep Asst Sec Navy, Infrastructure Strategy & Analysis (Vice Chair) 

Dep CNO Fleet Readiness and Logistics 

Dep Commandant Installations and Logistics 

Dep Commandant Aviation 

Dep Asst Sec Navy Research Development Test & Evaluation 

Dep Asst Sec Navy Manpower & Reserve Affairs 
95 

A Functional Advisory Board (FAB) reports directly to the IEG and bridges the 

analysis by the DOD Joint Cross Service Groups and the DoN. The FAB includes 

Navy and Marine Corps flag officers and senior executives who are assigned to the 

seven Joint Cross Service Groups (JCSG). The FAB ensures that the DoN position 

on joint functions are clearly articulated and the leadership is kept current on JCSG 

matters. 

Demolition/Footprint Reduction 

After the Navy and Marine Corps achieved the fiscal year 2002 DOD goal of 9 

million square feet and two million square feet, respectively, they have continued 

to demolish excess and vacant facilities. In fiscal year 2005, the Navy has budgeted 

$49 million to demolish 1.6 million square feet, and the Marine Corps $5 million 

to demolish about 305 thousand square feet. 

The demolition effort has evolved from just eliminating ‘‘eye-sores’’ to encouraging 

installations to consolidate, move out of costly leased or antiquated facilities, and 

eliminate the most inefficient facilities. We want to avoid spending SRM and base 

operating support funds on facilities we no longer need. 

Utility Privatization 

Privatizing DOD electricity, water, wastewater, and natural gas utility systems to 

corporations who own and manage such systems will allow DOD to concentrate on 

core defense functions and yield long term cost savings. The Secretary of Defense 

has directed that each Service evaluate the potential for privatizing their utility systems, while 10USC § 2688 provides the legislative authority to convey utility systems where economical. The DoN is on track to meet the DOD goal of reaching a 

source selection authority (SSA) decision for all of its utility systems by 30 September 2005. To date, we have made SSA decisions for 111 systems, or 17 percent 

of the 654 systems available for privatization. Of the 111 systems with an SSA decision to date, 15 systems have been privatized, 41 systems have been exempted, and 

55 systems are under review. DoN expects to achieve SSA decisions for approximately half of its systems by the end of fiscal year 2004. It is still too early to predict what percentage of our utility systems will successfully be privatized. 

Strategic Sourcing 

Our strategic sourcing program examines cost effective options to deliver service 

and support services to our shore installations. There are three components: OMB 

Circular A–76 Competitive Sourcing program, Strategic Manpower Planning, and 

Divestiture. 

A–76 competitions compare performance costs for civilian employees vs. contract 

performance for facility management, logistics support, real property maintenance, 

and other similar functions that are widely available in the commercial sector. The 

program has competed 24,700 positions since 1998 and generated over $640 million 

in cost avoidance through fiscal year 2005. Our fiscal year 2005 program will begin 

studies on 6,480 positions as part of a plan to examine 29,000 positions in fiscal 

year 2004 through 2008, with expected cost avoidance of $250 million. 

Strategic manpower planning ensures uniform service members perform assignments that are inherently military while converting functions that are commercial 

in nature to civilian or contractor performance. The Department will study about 

4,700 military positions in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for potential conversion. 

We are examining opportunities to divest functions that are not a core competency 

of the Department and are readily available in the commercial sector. As an initial 

effort, the Department is studying whether to divest Navy’s optical fabrication to 

private industry. Navy employs 380 military and civilian personnel, and spends $36 

million to produce 1.3 million pairs of eyeglasses each year. The study is scheduled 

for completion in fiscal year 2004. 

PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP & PROPERTY DISPOSAL

The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 have been a major tool in reducing our domestic base structure and generating savings. The Department has 

achieved a steady State savings of $2.7 billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All 

that remains is to complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on all 

or portions of 22 of the original 91 bases. We have had significant successes in sales, 

disposal, and cleanup. 

Property Sales 

We have used property sales as a means to expedite cleanup and the disposal 

process as well as recover the value of government owned property purchased by 
96 

taxpayers. We have successfully completed several sales. We sold 235 acres last year 

at the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA on the GSA Internet web site 

for a net $204 million. We sold 22 acres at the former Naval Air Facility Key West, 

FL in January 2004 for $15 million. The city of Long Beach, CA opted to pre-pay 

its remaining balance plus interest of $11.3 million from a promissory note for the 

1997 economic development conveyance of the former Naval Hospital Long Beach. 

We are applying these funds to accelerate cleanup at the remaining prior BRAC locations. 

More property sales are planned that will finance the remaining prior BRAC 

cleanup efforts. We are close to resolving legal issues in the aftermath of the lawsuit 

by the LRA at the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, CA. We are monitoring progress on the lawsuit filed against the City of Irvine on the environmental 

impact report it prepared under California statutes for annexation of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, CA and expect to proceed soon with the sale of that 

property. We will use the proceeds from both sales to finance our fiscal year 2005 

program of $115 million. If necessary, we will use the funds from the Long Beach 

and Key West sales as a cash flow bridge if the Oak Knoll and El Toro sales are 

delayed. 

Property Disposal 

The DoN had about 161,000 acres planned for disposal from all four prior BRAC 

rounds, with the former Naval Air Facility Adak, AK accounting for nearly half of 

those acres. I am pleased to report that last month the Navy relinquished over 

71,000 acres of its Adak land withdrawal to the Department of Interior, and Interior 

exchanged portions of that land with other lands held by The Aleut Corporation. 

Statutory authority provided by the Congress last year was the key enabler for this 

successful land exchange. The Navy has fenced and is retaining about 5,600 acres 

due to the presence of munitions. 

The transfer of Adak, along with recent successful property conveyances at Louisville, KY; Key West, Fl; Indianapolis, IN; and Richmond, CA means that by the end 

of this fiscal year the DoN will have less than 7 percent (or about 11,000 acres) of 

the property from all four prior BRAC rounds left to dispose. 

Cleanup 

The DoN had spent $2.3 billion on environmental cleanup at prior BRAC locations 

through fiscal year 2003. We expect the remaining cost to complete cleanup at about 

$495 million for fiscal year 2006 and beyond, most of which is concentrated at fewer 

than twenty remaining locations. Any additional land sale revenue beyond that currently budgeted will be used to further accelerate cleanup at remaining prior BRAC 

locations. These sites are primarily former industrial facilities that tend to have the 

most persistent environmental cleanup challenges. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP

Cleanup Program at Active Bases 

We continue to make substantial progress toward completing our environmental 

restoration program and are on target to complete the cleanup on active bases by 

the DOD goal of 2014. For the third year in a row, the number of cleanups completed at active bases exceeded the planned target. The program Cost to Complete 

(CTC) continues to decline: it is now $3.0 billion for fiscal year 2004 and beyond. 

Almost 70 percent of all sites have remedies in place or responses complete. We 

have kept a stable funded program and predict steady progress to cleanup the remaining sites. We believe the Department of Navy cleanup program is one of the 

best in government. 

—Our Alternative Remedial Technology Team reviews innovative technologies 

and promotes their use in the field. 

—Our process improvements have reduced the number of sites being ‘‘re-opened’’ 

by regulators from 50 in 1999, to 20 in 2001 to 9 in 2003. 

—Our partnering with regulators minimizes disputes and has served as a model 

for other agencies. Our Environmental Management Executive Council brings 

together two EPA Regions and six states on the west coast to jointly resolve 

issues. 

—Our acquisition strategy matches the type of work to be performed with the 

most cost-effective contractual vehicle while enhancing opportunities for small 

businesses. 

Munitions Response Program 

We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to develop Munitions 

Response Program (MRP) objectives for discarded military munitions and 
97 

unexploded ordnance (UXO) at locations other than operational ranges. We completed an extensive inventory of our installations to identify potential MRP sites, 

finished nine Preliminary Assessments (PAs), and initiated PAs at 31 installations 

through the end of fiscal year 2003. We will initiate PAs at 13 other installations 

in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 and expect to achieve the DOD PA completion goal by fiscal year 2007. The $8 million budgeted in fiscal year 2004 and $16 

million in fiscal year 2005 is sufficient to complete all PAs. Site Inspections (SIs) 

will begin in fiscal year 2006. Any imminent human health or environmental concerns identified during our investigations will be addressed immediately. 

Vieques Cleanup 

We ceased military training on Vieques in 2003 and, as required by law, transferred 14,572 acres on eastern Vieques to the Department of Interior (DoI) in April 

2003. Interior will manage the majority of it as a wildlife refuge, with the former 

Live Impact Area (about 900 acres) designated as a wilderness area. The Governor 

of Puerto Rico has proposed listing Vieques and Culebra on the National Priorities 

List (NPL). We expect to sign a Federal Facilities Agreement to govern the cleanup 

after the NPL listing becomes final. 

Cleanup on western Vieques (the former Naval Ammunition Supply Detachment 

(NASD)) is proceeding as we work closely with the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board. Seventeen sites have been identified, but none with major environmental 

contamination, as NASD was not an industrial operation. These sites make up 490 

acres of the 8114 acres transferred. We expect to spend about $16 million on these 

sites and complete the cleanup by 2007. 

Cleanup assessments are also underway on eastern Vieques (former training/ 

bombing range). Twelve sites consisting of 80 of the 14,572 acres transferred require 

assessment and potential cleanup. The sites include routine waste disposal areas 

used to support the former Camp Garcia, a landfill, and sewage lagoon. Other areas 

of concern will be examined. We expect to spend about $14 million on cleanup for 

the 12 non-munitions sites and complete the cleanup by 2014. 

The former bombing ranges will require munitions assessment and cleanup. In 

the spring of 2003 the Navy investigated two beaches for potential munitions. The 

Navy has budgeted $8 million in fiscal year 2005 for range assessments and initial 

clearance actions. Beaches and the live impact area will be high priorities. We estimate a cleanup cost of $76 million in fiscal year 2006 and beyond for munitions assessments and clearance actions based on the land uses designated in the statute. 

We will be working closely with the EPA and DoI. Worker safety and minimizing 

disturbance of the natural environment will be important considerations. 

Kaho’olawe 

Kaho’olawe is a 28,800 acre uninhabited island in Hawaii used as a naval gunfire 

and bombing range from 1942 through 1990. In accordance with Title X of the fiscal 

year 1994 Defense Appropriations Act, the Navy transferred title of Kah’olawe to 

the State of Hawaii in 1994, and has been clearing ordnance according to the State’s 

priorities. 

Navy relinquished control of access to Kaho’olawe to the State on November 11, 

2003, as required by Title X, ending a ten-year cleanup effort. The Congress appropriated a total of $460 million for the cleanup, including $44 million provided to the 

State to assist them in preparing a reuse plan and managing the island. As of January 16, the Navy had cleared a total of 22,059 acres, consisting of 1,543 acres 

cleared of surface ordnance only; 20,516 acres cleared of surface ordnance and all 

scrap metal (known as Tier I); and 2,636 Tier I acres that were further cleared up 

to a four-foot depth (known as Tier II). During the cleanup, the Navy completed 

many non-clearance State goals, including road construction, historic and archaeological assessments, and shipped over 10 million tons of scrap metal, along with 

more than 14,000 tires and aircraft debris used as targets. 

The cleanup contractor is completing demobilization, removing remaining scrap 

items and equipment not needed by the State. The Navy has signed an agreement 

with the State, as required by Title X, to respond to newly discovered, previously 

undetected ordnance found on the island in the future. The Navy believes it has accomplished the original Title X goal to provide reasonably safe and meaningful use 

of the island, as several thousand visits by the public have already been recorded. 

However, there is no technology that can assure the complete removal of all ordnance. We will remain partners with the State to manage the risk to humans from 

ordnance that certainly remains on the island. 
98 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Marine Mammals 

The Navy is proud of its record of environmental stewardship, particularly our 

marine mammal research efforts and protective measures for military training activities. 

We are leaders in marine mammal research and are committed to find ways to 

avoid harm to animals while still performing our mission at sea. The Navy spends 

about $8 to $10 million per year in marine mammal research, representing about 

half of all known worldwide investments in this area. We coordinate with and share 

findings with other agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, 

and the National Science Foundation. 

DON MARINE MAMMAL RESEARCH FOCUS AREAS

Underwater sound propagation 

Marine mammal locations and densities 

Behavior effect thresholds 

Mitigation techniques 

The Navy has protective measures to avoid harm to marine mammals during 

training and operations at sea while preserving training realism: 

—Planning.—Using historical marine mammal location information to plan training activities. Protective measures are tailored to the type of training, location, 

and season. 

—Detection.—Posting trained lookouts 24 hours per day on surface ships. Submarines employ passive acoustic detection devices to determine range and bearing of vocalizing marine mammals. We may launch aerial searches for marine 

mammals in training areas before, during and after training events. 

—Operations.—Establishing buffer zones during training exercises, and suspending operations when necessary. Navy may limit active sonar training 

through standoff distances, source power level reductions, limit nighttime and 

bad weather operations, or opt to train in deep rather than shallow water. 

The changes made by the Congress to the Marine Mammal Protection Act will 

allow us to better balance our readiness requirements with our legal obligations to 

ensure military activities are protective of marine mammals, and will allow us to 

‘‘train as we fight’’ when our activities do not have biologically significant effects on 

marine mammals. We urge the Congress to reaffirm those changes as they consider 

reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Shipboard Programs 

The Navy invested $465 million in the last decade to install pulpers, shredders, 

and plastic waste processors on its surface ships. This equipment avoids the need 

to discard plastics into the world’s oceans and allows environmentally acceptable 

disposal of other solid wastes such as food, paper, cardboard, metal and glass. Submarines will be outfitted with similar solid waste equipment by the end of 2005, 

well in advance of the December 2008 deadline established in the Act to Prevent 

Pollution from Ships. 
99 

The Navy has been converting air conditioning and refrigeration plants on its surface fleet from ozone depleting CFCs to environmentally friendly coolants. We plan 

to spend a total of $400 million on this effort, including $30 million in fiscal year 

2005. We expect to complete the conversion of nearly 900 CFC–12 plants by 2008, 

and over 400 CFC–114 plants by 2012. We expect to spend about $35 million to install suites of pollution prevention equipment (e.g., HVLP paint sprayers, aqueous 

parts washers) on ships, including $5 million in fiscal year 2005. This equipment, 

combined with management actions, reduces 10,000 pounds per year of hazardous 

material brought aboard our large ships. 

We continue efforts with EPA to establish uniform national discharge standards 

for all armed forces vessels. This has proven to be a very complex undertaking. 

Navy and EPA have opted to segregate the 25 types of discharges into ‘‘batches’’, 

with control standards for the first batch of 5 discharges (including hull coatings) 

to be published by September 2005. 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles 

For the second year in a row, the Navy-Marine Corps Team substantially exceeded the Energy Policy Act requirement that 75 percent of covered fleet vehicle procurements be alternative fuel vehicles. At the Pentagon, our Navy Public Works 

Center in Washington, D.C. converted the entire executive motor pool to alternative 

fueled vehicles. 

We are hoping to expand our procurement of hybrid vehicles in fiscal year 2004 

and beyond and increase the use of bio-diesel and ethanol. We are working with the 

Army’s National Automotive Center to place hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles at 

Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, and to open a fueling station at Camp Pendleton. These actions help develop a regional hydrogen-fueling infrastructure and 

provide us with hands-on experience with hydrogen and fuel cell transportation 

technology. While there are important environmental benefits, these investments 

also provide opportunities for technology transfer to future weapons systems. 

Conservation 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs) are the foundation 

upon which Navy and Marine Corps activities protect and manage lands. The DoN 

has 96 bases that require INRMPs: 82 INRMPs are in place; 13 are being revised 

because they have passed the end of their 5-year cycle; and one is for the Barry M. 

Goldwater Range. This one is being prepared jointly with the Air Force and Department of Interior, and is delayed due to litigation. Navy and Marine Corps INRMPs 

already address endangered species and migratory birds. We have revised our 

INRMP guidance to ensure they provide a conservation benefit to endangered spe-
100 

2Southwestern arroyo toad, Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, California coastal 

gnatcatcher. 

cies. Our bases work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and 

game agencies to prepare the INRMPs. We are serious about our obligation to conserve natural resources entrusted to us by the American people as a means to ensure continued access to these resources to enable our military mission. Good conservation practices and military training operations can be mutually beneficial: 

—Navy efforts increased the population of federally protected California least 

terns from 13 nests in 1977 to 1,200 today, and the snowy plover population 

from 12 nests in 1992 to 101 today at the Silver Strand portion of Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. Because of this success, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

reduced training restrictions for our Special Forces. 

—Using animals provided by the Government of Mexico, the Marine Corps, Air 

Force, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and State of Arizona have established a 

captive breeding program for the Sonoran pronghorn ram, an endangered species that inhabits the Goldwater Range. Increasing the population of this species will reduce restrictions on the timing and tempo or ordnance delivery to 

target areas on this joint military training range. 

ENCROACHMENT

We have made great strides in addressing encroachment issues over the past 2 

years. Congress has provided much needed relief through enactment of legislation 

in the 2003 and 2004 National Defense Authorization Acts that allows the DoN to 

balance military readiness and environmental stewardship. 

—We worked closely with the Department of the Interior to implement congressional direction to develop a rule that clearly defines the relationship between 

military readiness activities and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Department of the Interior plans to publish the proposed rule soon. 

—The Marine Corps is sponsoring conservation forums to help identify land and 

conservation partners as a means of limiting encroachment on its training areas 

from commercial development. With the Nature Conservancy as a partner, we 

have completed one project for 2,500 acres adjacent to Camp Lejeune tank and 

rifle ranges. Other efforts are underway in California, South Carolina, and 

Georgia with partners such as San Diego County, the Trust for Public Land and 

the Sierra Club. 

—The Congress amended the Endangered Species Act to allow the Secretary of 

the Interior to exclude military installations from critical habitat designation 

when such installations are managed in accordance with an INRMP and the 

Secretary determines the INRMP provides a benefit to the endangered species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is under court order to designate critical 

habitat for a number of species in April 2004, including four species 2 that occur 

on Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. 

INRMPs at these bases provide benefits to these species. The legislative change 

should allow the Secretary of the Interior to exclude both installations from critical habitat designations, thus ensuring our ability to continue to conduct realistic military training. 

—We will use the revised definition of harassment of marine mammals in analysis of new technologies for military readiness training programs (such as the 

Virtual At Sea Training (VAST) system for naval gunfire), littoral warfare 

training, and supplemental analysis on deployment of the SURTASS LFA sonar 

system. The revised definition ensures that analysis of impacts on marine mammals is based on science, not speculation. The changes approved by Congress 

reflect current methodologies used by Navy and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and reduce the likelihood of costly, time-consuming litigation caused by 

ambiguous language. 

Notwithstanding the gains we’ve achieved thus far, encroachment continues to be 

a very real problem—one that will become more complex as populations grow, pressures on ecosystems mount, and the means required to sustain military readiness 

evolve through new technologies and threats. 

Coming to grips on when military munitions become solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act can ensure effective range management for 

both military readiness training and waste management. Flexibility for implementing the general conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act will allow more 

effective deployment of new weapons systems and the realignment of existing assets. We continue to discuss these important issues with the states and groups such 

as the National Governors Association and the Environmental Council of the States. 
101 

Congressional efforts to address balancing military readiness and environmental 

stewardship have not gone unnoticed by State legislatures. Following your example, 

three states—California, Arizona, and Texas—have enacted laws requiring local governments to consider impacts on military readiness during environmental planning 

and land use planning processes. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I would ask the members of this committee to judge the merits of 

the Department of the Navy’s installations and environmental program through the 

considerable progress we are making in virtually all areas. Funding reductions are 

driven by reduced requirements, less costly alternatives, and improved business 

processes. 

That concludes my statement. I appreciate the support of each member of this 

committee, and will try to respond to your comments or concerns. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Thank you all. You’ve answered 

my question on housing privatization so I’m not going to ask that 

again for the record. I think we’re going to have the same problem 

in all the Services on sustainment. But my goal is just to make 

sure that we do try as hard as we can to keep the 95 percent rate 

or something as close to that as possible. 

OVERSEAS BASING

Let me move to the overseas basing. Obviously, Army is the biggest one that has announced so far that they are moving from Germany and Korea a large number of their troops. Do you see Navy 

bases overseas coming back, and is that something that is going to 

figure into your BRAC and our Military Construction decisions in 

the future? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Without the-we obviously cannot yet announce 

what’s going to happen but we don’t see large units coming back 

like the Army and the Air Force. Now, some individuals will come 

back and some small bases might close but nothing in comparison 

to what the Army and the Air Force. The Marines have almost no 

presence in Europe but they have presence in the Pacific. That may 

change a little bit but on the margins as opposed to nothing like 

the other two Services. 

PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER PROGRAM

Senator HUTCHISON. The presidential helicopter program. You have an $80 million request for the test and evaluation facilities, 

and I noticed in your remarks, or your written text, that you are 

looking for places around the Capital area where you might be able 

to do that, but you’re not yet sure. My question really is, do you 

think you’re going to need that money or all of that money in this 

year’s budget? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As best we can determine, I’ll let my expert talk 

here, if the selection had gone earlier, as they had planned, the 

MILCON funds would have probably been short to need. If it’s delayed until, say, the end of the year it will be about right to have 

the MILCON, or the MILCON will be in the right sequence. There 

are two parts of that. One is a test and evaluation as you mentioned. Patuxent River is where we normally do that but in the 

sense of fairness we’re looking at alternatives; that should be completed pretty quickly. The Marines have long needed a new facility 

at Quantico, that’s the second part, and that’s needed with a new 

or a continuing helicopter program. So both of them will be needed 
102 

in this year’s budget. It would have been nice to have had them 

in last year’s budget, if we’d gone through with the original time 

frame. 

You want to add anything? 

Admiral LOOSE. Everything the Secretary said-again, the construction, I’m sorry, the acquisition award was delayed a little bit. 

They’re now determining what the impact would be on the first aircraft, which was before November of 2006. And right now we envision no impact at this point and we definitely need the money in 

the fiscal year 2005 program. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We may want to look at that as we get closer to the time that we’re going to pass our bill and see if there’s 

any efficiency in this number for this year or if it can be put somewhere else that would be a higher priority within the Navy budget. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’d be pleased to continue to interact with you 

and your staff on it. 

JOINT BASING

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Let me ask you a question on joint 

use. It came up in the Army but particularly as I look at some of 

the bases that you have around Corpus Christi and Ingleside, already we have joint use with the Coast Guard. We have joint use 

with the Army in some of them but I’m just wondering if the Navy 

has really looked at the Coast Guard as a real joint use partner 

as much as it could in light of the very enhanced Coast Guard responsibility in homeland security and their need to be all along the 

Gulf Coast, really, for homeland security purposes. Are you really 

factoring in as a major partner and of course, I know the Corpus 

Christi-Ingleside area, I’m sure the Senator from Louisiana has the 

same type of potential, because you have a Coast Guard presence. 

Are you really looking at that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. In the government there’s no closer relationship 

between two departments than the Coast Guard, the Navy and all 

the Services for that matter. We treat them as a part of Department of Defense and we recognize they’re certainly not but they’re 

full partners in everything we do and I know that at Joint Reserve 

Base Carswell we have all five services there. And I think we have 

it at Belle Chasse also, Coast Guard is at that Joint Reserve Base, 

and we try very hard; sometimes there might be an oversight but 

it’s an oversight when it doesn’t occur. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, well, Carswell is a great example and 

that’s a different priority. But I just wondered on the coasts if 

you’re looking at your coastal bases for partnership with Coast 

Guard. 

Mr. JOHNSON. As you and others visit our bases along the Coast 

you’ll find that Coast Guard is inevitably present. And also more 

and more Customs; we don’t always acknowledge that but at Corpus Christi they have built a new hangar, as I recall, just for Customs. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, Customs is right there with Coast 

Guard and Army in the depot and so there is quite a bit of interaction there. 
103 

Mr. JOHNSON. And when you go to pilot training bases no matter 

where they are you see all services who fly, Corpus Christi being 

a good example and some in Louisiana also. 

General WILLIAMS. Madam, I would just also like to add that although Camp Lejeune is not designated a joint base we in fact do 

have Coast Guard presence there at Camp Lejeune. And we certainly are always looking for opportunities to train jointly with the 

Coast Guard as well as other services. So we do have some presence there as well. 

Senator HUTCHISON. One of the things that I would just like to 

ask you to do, as we’re moving into BRAC, since the Coast Guard 

isn’t in the same category as the Navy in BRAC, it might be that 

the Navy could be proactive in looking for places that there could 

be consolidation that would be to the benefit of both, even though 

it wouldn’t be all Department of Defense. But I just think because 

they’re different, we shouldn’t forget about them as a way to become more efficient. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We cannot forget about them if we wanted to; we 

don’t want to and your friend and my boss feels very strongly about 

homeland security and so do we. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, that is a good connection. I forgot 

about his recent past. But you, of course, being from the Air Force 

yourself, are someone who can help on joint use opportunities so 

I think that could be very helpful if the Navy would sort of take 

the lead. 

Senator Landrieu. 

NEW ORLEANS JOINT RESERVE BASE

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I appreciate the Chairman’s line of question and wanted just to follow-up 

along the same lines because the city of New Orleans, which is my 

hometown, of course, and the State I represent, has been somewhat 

negotiating with the Navy about a plan that would just make a tremendous amount of sense from our perspective. We have the Navy 

Reserve, you know, headquartered in New Orleans. There’s a move 

underfoot with a broad base in our community to try to consolidate 

some of the different components, freeing up some of the very valuable riverfront space for the expansion of the cruise ship industry, 

which has become very important to New Orleans and we’ve 

reached out but they’ve actually reached to us because it becomes 

one of these favorite destinations of people, or launching off points, 

I should say, to leave from the city, which we’re grateful for. But 

in that there’s a real possibility that with just a little bit of out of 

the box thinking but with no cost to the Navy we could end up with 

really substantial facilities in a consolidated format that, you know, 

add to the footprint of that great base in New Orleans. 

So I wanted, Mr. Secretary, to ask you if you’re familiar with 

these negotiations? Is it possible for them to, you know, continue 

because again, it’s not just related to BRAC, it’s related to the 

Coast Guard, related to this other industry and other businesses 

that have a real economic interest in the outcome of these plans. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it and General McCarthy 

came to visit me Monday or Tuesday; I gave him some very encouraging guidelines and I checked with my staff and I’m going to give 
104 

him some different ones next week. But when we give those guidelines they will be so those in the community and others can rely 

on. I liked what he proposed but we have to look at it in a larger 

context and we’ll come up with some guidelines that the city can 

understand, he can understand and hopefully we’ll work all sides’ 

interest. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, is it fair to ask you if these next set of 

guidelines is going to be as encouraging as the last ones that you 

gave him? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It will be a little bit different because we have to 

look at the larger context. The last thing we want to get into is to 

have a community that’s coming and saying, we will build you a 

new building if you won’t leave. So we have to make sure that 

when the city does it it’s at the right time. And what I suggested 

to him was we should know that when we’re making decisions, but 

we want to put it in the right context so that others, some of your 

other Senators, couldn’t say we did it wrong. And I was pleased 

when my staff asked me to pause and come up with the right 

guidelines so that we can do it correctly. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Because I really appreciate that and look forward to working with you because it’s of course important, you 

know, to our community and there’s just such an opportunity if this 

would work out for the Navy to be benefitted, the taxpayers to be 

benefitted, the city and a variety of other industries. 

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD

The other is to compliment you all on the work that you’re doing 

here in the District on the revitalization of the Navy Yard. Would 

that be under your jurisdiction? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And to compliment you all on the way that 

you’re doing that with the leadership team here in the city. I also 

wear another hat as the Appropriator for the District of Columbia, 

so I’m fairly closely associated. And I’m just seeing tremendous 

progress along that whole corridor. I hope, I’m certain that what 

you’re doing is benefitting the Navy but the way that you’re engaging in a very integrated process with the other parts of the government, as well as with the local community here in the city I think 

is going to have just tremendous long-term benefits to this whole 

region. And I just wanted to commend you and to encourage you 

and to let you know that I’m looking closely at that and if there’s 

anything I can do to help you. I know the Navy may have some 

special needs in regards to the relocation of a museum and some 

other things that you all may need some help with and I’d be particularly interested in working with you on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d very much like to work with you on that. And 

we have worked well with the city. We’re concerned, encouraged, 

whatever, about the Southeast Federal Center, if we can ever get 

that moving. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Southeast? I’m sorry. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s the land next door, it’s owned by GSA, it’s on 

the contract. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, the development for the housing units 

and the—I was telling them, I was complimenting them, Madam 
105 

Chair, on the good work that they’re doing at the Navy Yard and 

how they’ve done it in a very integrated fashion with the city and 

the community and if it continues, and hopefully as it has even improved and getting better it’s going to be a tremendous legacy for 

the Navy as well as for the city and the region, that it will have 

an impact on the region that we’re in. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We hope that we can make the museum a center 

part of that but we have some troubles. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And there may be a better, you know, location or avenue. But opening up that whole area in the appropriate 

ways to give access to the waterfront for the neighborhood and the 

region and then have a very vibrant and dynamic community, 

which the Military shares with other aspects of the government as 

well as the local city, I just think it’s been a real testimony to you 

all and to the leadership the Navy’s provided. So I just wanted to 

thank you for that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The last time I was there I went through the 

Southeast Federal Center and the new building for the Department 

of Transportation is really springing forth out of the ground; it’s 

quite exciting to watch that development. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

General WILLIAMS. Senator, I’d just like to add to that also. As 

you probably know we’ll be opening our Marine barracks that we’re 

building there this Summer, probably around the June timeframe 

and we certainly would—— 

Senator LANDRIEU. They look beautiful and you’ve done a beautiful job. 

General WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Senator LANDRIEU. And I just—because I live a few blocks from 

there so not only professionally do I focus on it but because I live 

in the general neighborhood I see it and I’ve been able to watch 

firsthand the development. The Marines have done a beautiful job, 

that whole corridor, and I just want to communicate how happy the 

people that live in this neighborhood are with the way that you 

have conducted yourself. And it’s going to be a tremendous help, 

not just to the, you know, to the neighborhood but to the whole region and a real feather in the cap of the Navy and Marines. 

General WILLIAMS. Yes ma’am. 

NEBRASKA AVENUE COMPLEX

Senator HUTCHISON. Just one last question on the Nebraska Avenue Complex and obviously the Navy is moving. I noticed in your 

testimony that you’re going to be in some cases going to lease 

space. All I would like to ask is, are you going to make sure that 

the Navy doesn’t incur any costs from moving out to accommodate 

the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes ma’am. To date we have not incurred any 

costs. Now, we incurred some costs because we planned some of the 

moves but not for the moves and not for the changes up in Nebraska Avenue. We can move approximately half of the people before we touch the BRAC requirements. The last two large organizations we cannot do that until we get permission from Congress, and 

there’s a bill over here, a legislative package. In that case the GSA 

folks will pay for our interim quarters and also the new buildings 
106 

up to their appraised value. Nebraska Avenue is being appraised 

by a third party and up to that level GSA will reimburse us. Every 

indication is that level is above what we need. We’ve also gotten 

the Department of Homeland Security to pay for the move, this is 

the last half again, and also to pay for the first year’s lease. Then 

GSA picks it up through the move to the final quarters. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I know you’ll be very attentive to that 

but certainly we don’t want any DoD cost. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And we appreciate your strong support in that 

area. 

Senator HUTCHISON. You have it. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HANSFORD T. JOHNSON

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

RECAPITALIZATION RATE

Question. Secretary Johnson, your testimony asserts the Navy will meet DOD’s 

67-year recapitalization goal by 2008. But your recapitalization rate is clearly headed in the wrong direction, moving from 116 years in fiscal year 2003 to 140 years 

in fiscal year 2004 and 148 years under this budget request. 

How is the fiscal year 2008 target of 67 years going to be met without extraordinary and unrealistic investments over the next couple of years? 

Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps are funded to meet the 67-year recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008 in the current President’s Future Year Defense 

Plan. This investment requirement will be met through a combination of initiatives 

such as (1) minimizing new footprint as appropriate while taking into account new 

mission requirements and (2) reducing footprint and therefore plant replacement 

value to ensure that we are investing in only needed recapitalization requirements. 

Question. What confidence do you have that the needed outyear investment will 

materialize? 

Answer. Through a combination of initiatives to reduce footprint thus plant replacement value, and investment of funds, I am optimistic that the Navy and Marine Corps will meet the 67-year recapitalization rate goal by fiscal year 2008. 

BRAC

Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy has not asked for any appropriations for BRAC cleanup this year. Your testimony states that you intend to spend $115 million in proceeds from land sales for BRAC cleanup. I applaud the Navy’s aggressive 

use of land sales to defray BRAC costs, but I am a little uneasy about making BRAC 

cleanup efforts dependent on this mechanism. 

If the land sale proceeds don’t materialize, what assurances do we have that the 

$115 million will be spent? 

Answer. It is possible that we will not receive all the proceeds anticipated in fiscal 

year 2005. If it appears that predicted land sales revenue may be delayed, the Department of Navy will take steps to preserve available cash to meet fiscal year 2005 

expenses. The Department of Navy had received substantially more land sale revenue in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 than anticipated, which was to be used 

to further accelerate environmental cleanup. The Department may opt to defer accelerating some of this cleanup work to carryover portions of these funds to cover 

the most critical projects planned in fiscal year 2005 until the planned land sales 

revenue materializes. 

Question. If you get more than $115 million from land sales, can you spend it this 

year? 

Answer. Generally, yes, substantially more than $115 million can be spent for 

BRAC cleanup in fiscal year 2005. The Department of Navy will ensure that all land 

sale revenue funds are spent prudently. Depending on the amount of additional 

funds received, environmental cleanup schedules, and regulator reviews, we may opt 
107 

to carryover some excess land sale revenue into fiscal year 2006 and beyond as we 

pursue the cleanup in the most effective manner we can. 

Question. Do you need any additional authorization to spend proceeds in excess 

of $115 million? 

Answer. We do not need additional authorization from the Congress to spend 

more than $115 million. However if land sales revenue exceeds our prediction in the 

budget, we would require additional obligation authority from OMB. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDING

Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy has requested no funding for BRAC environmental remediation in the fiscal year 2005 budget request because you intend 

to finance your fiscal year 2005 BRAC cleanup requirements out of the revenue from 

land sales. 

According to your prepared testimony, the Navy has realized $230 million from 

BRAC land sales at Tustin and Long Beach, California, and Key West, Florida. In 

addition, you are anticipating $115 million in revenues from the sale of Oak Knoll 

Naval Hospital at Oakland and property at El Toro to finance your fiscal year 2005 

program. 

What is the status of the $230 million you have already realized? Has that money 

been committed to specific projects, and if so, can you give the Committee a breakdown of those projects? 

Answer. Most of the $230 million received has been obligated and the remainder 

is funding critical projects this year and next. The bases that have received the most 

funding to date from these land sales are: 

NAF Adak, AK; NAS Alameda, CA; MCAS El Toro, CA; Hunters Point Annex, CA; 

NAS Moffett Field, CA; FISC Oakland (Point Molate) Richmond, CA; NAS South 

Weymouth, MA; NS Treasure Island, CA; MCAS Tustin, CA; Mare Island NSY 

(Vallejo), CA. 

Question. Secretary Johnson, your prepared testimony includes the following 

statement: ‘‘If necessary, we will use the funds from the Long Beach and Key West 

sales as a cash flow bridge if the Oak Knoll and El Toro sales are delayed.’’ 

It appears from that statement that you are uncertain when the El Toro and Oak 

Knoll land sales will be complete. 

What is your current estimated timetable for those sales—what level of confidence 

do you have that you will have proceeds from those sales available backfill the 

BRAC account by the beginning of the 2005 fiscal year in October? 

Answer. We expect both El Toro and Oak Knoll sales to be initiated this year (fiscal year 2004) and result in funds being available in fiscal year 2005, though it may 

be later in the year. As a precaution, we are prepared to defer fiscal year 2004 funds 

in hand, which were previously planned to accelerate cleanup, in case the land sale 

revenue does not materialize in time. There is sufficient funding and workload to 

assure a continuous and steady clean up effort in fiscal year 2005. 

Question. Was it a Navy decision or an OSD (Office of Secretary of Defense) decision for the Navy to self-finance it’s entire fiscal year 2005 BRAC cleanup program 

out of land sale revenues? 

What is the Navy’s remaining cost to complete its BRAC environmental cleanup 

program? 

Answer. Based on the data used to prepare PRESBUD 2005, the cost to complete 

for the BRAC environmental cleanup program is about $0.5 billion in fiscal year 

2006 to completion. 

Question. How much of that could you execute in fiscal year 2005, if additional 

funding were available? 

Answer. The Navy could execute about an additional $150 million. 

Question. What lessons has the Navy learned from the previous BRAC rounds 

that you plan to apply to the environmental cleanup requirements associated with 

the 2005 BRAC round? 

Answer. The following concepts are being pursued: 

—Combining cleanup with redevelopment saves time and money for all parties. 

—Use CERCLA ‘‘early transfer’’ authority to get property quickly to the developer. 

—Early transfer of BRAC property can accelerate redevelopment and parallel 

cleanup. 
108 

—Reliable characterization of the contamination allows potential new owners to 

consider cleanup costs as part of the purchase price of the property, and provides safe transfer with interim land use controls. 

—Cleanup program in far better shape than previous BRACs. Most sites are either done, cleanup is underway, or contamination is well characterized. 

—Local Redevelopment Authorities are best at traditional governmental functions 

of planning/zoning. 

—Developers are best at property development within established zoning rules. 

—Involve regulators early in process. CERCLA early transfer authority requires 

approval by State Governor, and EPA if it’s a National Priorities List site. 

MARINE ONE HELICOPTER (VXX)

Question. Secretary Johnson, in your testimony, you note that military construction is required to support the test and evaluation of three VXX helicopters scheduled for delivery in October 2006. 

What impact will the delay in awarding the VXX contract have on that delivery 

schedule? 

Answer. The delay in awarding the VXX contract is not expected to have any significant impact on the arrival of the first aircraft, currently planned for November 

2006. 

Question. Does the Navy have a new target date for awarding the VXX contract? 

Answer. Award of the VXX contract is expected by December 2004. 

Question. Given the delay in awarding the contract, has the Navy determined 

whether it still requires full funding for construction of the test and evaluation 

project requested in the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget submission? 

Answer. Because the delay in awarding the contract is not expected to cause any 

significantly delay in the arrival of the first aircraft, facilities are still required in 

the fiscal year 2005 budget. 

OUTLYING LANDING FIELD (WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA)

Question. Secretary Johnson, the Navy is requesting $61.8 million in fiscal year 

2005 MilCon to acquire land and begin construction on an Outlying Landing Field 

in Washington County, North Carolina, to support the basing of new F/A–18E Super 

Hornet squadrons in Virginia and North Carolina. In fiscal year 2004, this Committee appropriated $27.6 million for the first increment of land acquisition. 

I understand that there is opposition to this project from the local communities 

of Washington and Beaufort counties, and that several lawsuits have been filed. 

What impact has the lawsuits had on the Navy’s timetable or plans to acquire 

the land for the outlying field? 

Answer. Two lawsuits were filed in Federal District Court challenging the Navy’s 

decision regarding home basing of the Super Hornet on the east coast. These lawsuits allege that the Navy’s environmental analysis conducted pursuant to NEPA 

was inadequate to support the Navy’s basing decision, including the selection of a 

site for an outlying landing field (OLF) in North Carolina. The lawsuits were file 

under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Under the APA, the Federal District Court will review the adequacy of the analysis underlying the Navy’s decision 

and determine whether additional environmental analysis is needed. The court 

could enjoin the Navy from engaging in land acquisition activities until the additional analysis was completed. However, the court cannot substitute its judgment 

for that of the Navy and direct that the OLF be sited at a location other than Washington County, NC. 

Question. There was a hearing in Federal court on March 30 on a request from 

opponents of the landing field for a temporary injunction against the Navy. Has any 

ruling been made on that request, and if not, when do you expect a ruling? 

Answer. Plaintiffs in the two lawsuits on the Navy’s home basing decision requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from engaging in further activity regarding the OLF pending final adjudication of the lawsuits. On April 21, 2004, the Court issued a preliminary injunction precluding the 

Navy from engaging in any direct or indirect activities related to construction and 

operation of an OLF in Washington County, NC. On May 4, 2004, the Navy asked 

the Court to reconsider its decision to issue a preliminary injunction. The Court has 

yet to rule on the Navy’s request for reconsideration. In the meantime Navy is taking steps to move forward with the trial on the merits in order to obtain a final 

decision in the matter. 

Question. If the judge grants a temporary injunction, how will that affect the 

Navy’s acquisition process? 
109 

Answer. The Court did grant the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, 

prohibiting the Navy from engaging in any direct or indirect activities related to the 

construction and operation of an OLF in Washington County, NC. The preliminary 

injunction will remain in effect until the Court makes a final ruling on the lawsuits. 

The preliminary injunction is very broad in scope and prohibits the Navy from acquiring land, preparing management plans or even conducting environmental studies. At present the Navy has discontinued all of its land acquisition efforts, including negotiations for the voluntary sale of land to the Navy by private citizens, as 

well as studies that would form the basis for a Bird Aircraft Strike (BASH) Plan 

and the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan required by the Sikes Act. 

If land acquisition were precluded for an extended period, the effort to base Super 

Hornet aircraft on the East Coast could be delayed. On May 4, 2004, the Navy filed 

a request that the Court to reconsider its decision and either terminate the preliminary injunction or modify the scope of the injunction. The Court has yet to rule on 

the Navy’s request for reconsideration. 

Question. What is the status of the $27.6 million we appropriated for this project 

in fiscal year 2004? When do you expect to obligate that funding? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2004 funds consisted of $16.9 million for acquisition of 

3,024 acres of core land, and $10.7 million for design and construction of horizontal 

work, for a total of $27.6 million. 

Progress to date with fiscal year 2004 Funds: 

—1,157 acres of the 3,024 have been purchased, obligating $4.1 million of the 

$16.9 million. 

—Offers have been made to 9 owners for another 1,826 acres, 

—Navy is ready to make offers to the remaining 4 owners. 

—$539 thousand has been spent on planning and design. 

The Navy filed a request asking the Court to reconsider its decision and either 

terminate the preliminary injunction or modify the scope of the injunction. The 

court has not yet ruled on the Navy motion. Navy is prepared to obligate additional 

funds immediately if the judge relaxes the terms of the injunction he issued on 20 

April. 

Question. Is the Navy undertaking any further environmental studies on the potential impact of activities at the landing field on waterfowl? 

Answer. The Navy believes it has thoroughly analyzed environmental impacts on 

waterfowl in the Environmental Impact Statement that was completed in August 

2003. Therefore, no further environmental impact studies have been undertaken or 

believed necessary. The Navy had begun preliminary work on development of a Bird 

Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) plan. That preliminary work included radar studies 

of waterfowl activities in the vicinity of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 

and the proposed OLF site. Further progress on BASH was halted as a result of 

the Court’s decision. 

Question. In light of the lawsuits, how confident are you that the Navy will be 

able to obligate the fiscal year 2005 land acquisition funding requested during the 

2005 fiscal year? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for OLF totals $95.7 million ($33.9 

million for horizontal construction, $4.8 million for vertical construction, and $57.0 

million for buffer land acquisition. 

The Navy has filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider the scope of the 

injunction. If the Court agrees, the Navy will resume voluntary land sales and low 

impact design work such as soil borings and surveying. 

Under a best-case scenario, the fiscal year 2005 projects can be executed in fiscal 

year 2005. Under a likely-case scenario, land sales would be executable in late fiscal 

year 2005, but construction projects would not be executed until fiscal year 2006. 

NEBRASKA AVENUE COMPLEX

Question. Secretary Johnson, I understand that the Navy expects the appraised 

value of the Nebraska Avenue Complex to cover the cost of relocating Navy personnel. 

Have you determined what the final cost will be, where the Navy personnel will 

go, and whether the relocation will require any new MilCon? Would any MilCon requirements come out of the military construction appropriation, or would they be 

paid for by the GSA out of its appropriation? 

Answer. The appraisal of the Nebraska Avenue Complex will be completed in late 

April. We have defined the scope of the remaining work—the move out, interim 

leasing, permanent construction and move in of two Navy commands, SSP and 

NIPO. This involves 578 people. We expect the BRAC analysis process to determine 

in mid-2005 where the final location would be for these two commands. Since we 
110 

have not determined their final location, we cannot know the final cost of the replacement facility, but expect the costs to be within the appraised value of Nebraska 

Avenue Complex. It is premature to say what, if any, MILCON requirement would 

come out of the Military construction appropriation. 

Question. If GSA is responsible, how can you be sure that the Navy’s requirements will be met in a timely manner, since you have no control over the GSA’s 

budget? 

Answer. This is a legitimate concern. OMB has taken responsibility to manage the 

overall flow of funding to ensure that Navy does not pay for these moves, and that 

they are accomplished in a timely manner. 

Question. Did the Navy give any consideration to keeping the chapel at the complex and continuing to use it as a chapel? Do you have any concern about the reaction from the Navy community to turning this chapel into a conference room? 

Answer. Because of potential concern from the Navy community, consideration 

was given to keeping the Chapel. However, the chapel has not been used on a regular basis since the Security Group personnel moved out of NAC, and it does not 

meet a specific Navy requirement. Since that time it has only been used for weddings, funerals, retirements and a few all hands meetings for tenants aboard the 

Nebraska Avenue complex. The burden for financial upkeep, manpower requirements and the limited accessibility to military and families were also considered. 

In addition, Homeland Security’s decision to move all military off the complex would 

make access even more difficult to the Navy community. Plans for a deconsecrating 

service are being developed and consideration is being given to removing the large 

stained glass window, the E.B. Skinner pipe organ and other historical keepsakes. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

INSTALLATIONS IN IRAQ

Question. Secretary Johnson, soon, the United States will no longer maintain 

bases in Saudi Arabia. We will have to look elsewhere for basing opportunities in 

the Middle East. DOD has said Iraq will soon become a new locus for U.S. troops 

in the Middle East. In some cases, DOD plans to upgrade military installations used 

by Saddam Hussein for future use by American armed forces. 

What plans does the Navy have for long-term basing in Iraq? 

Answer. The Navy supports the interim Iraqi government and a peaceful transition of power to a democratic state. To complete this goal, the Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any long-term basing requirements in Iraq. 

Question. Does the Navy intend to build any facilities on Iraqi waters of the Persian Gulf, perhaps near Um Quasr? 

Answer. No. The Navy does not intend to build any facilities in Iraqi waters of 

the Persian Gulf. 

Question. How many sailor does the Navy intend to station in Iraq? 

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate the need to station additional personnel in 

Iraq outside of those already provided in support of the Central Command 

(CENTCOM) Commander and Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT)/Fifth 

Fleet Commander. 

Question. When will the Navy begin to budget for the military construction needed to house the U.S. Navy in Iraq? 

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any long-term 

basing requirement in Iraq. Hence, military construction will not be required to support our current presence. 

Question. Through a Supplemental Appropriation? 

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to maintain any long-term 

basing requirement in Iraq. Hence, additional military construction funding will not 

be required to support our current presence. 

Question. If not Iraq, what other countries within Central Command might the 

Navy seek to expand its presence? 

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate a requirement to expand its presence in 

the Central Command Area of Responsibility. 

DOD REALIGNMENT OF FORCES IN EUROPE

Question. Secretary Johnson, nearly 2 years ago, DOD began discussions on the 

realignment of forces in Europe. In that time, Congress has not received any concrete details for what DOD has in mind. We have seen reports that DOD plans to 

move some personnel and infrastructure out of Old Europe and into New Europe 

and the Former Soviet States. When asked for elaboration on these plans, DOD has 
111 

provided little. I am pleased to see this Subcommittee will hold a hearing on Europe’s realignment on April 21st. 

Can you shed any light on how many Navy sailors and ships/aircraft within Europe may be realigned from current installations to new installations? 

Answer. By our expeditionary nature, the Navy does not maintain a significant 

garrison force overseas. However, the Navy is reviewing its overseas posture to ensure that we can best support our existing operational assets. This support is being 

explicitly addressed in Secretary Rumsfeld’s Integrated Global Presence and Basing 

Strategy (IGPBS) initiative. In consultation with our friends, allies and partners, 

these basing initiatives are being closely scrutinized to ensure that they directly 

support Defense strategy. Although the Navy expects to reduce its permanent force 

structure in Europe, the final decision to modify existing base structure is still being 

reviewed. 

Question. What current facilities do you anticipate will continue to operate? 

Answer. The Navy does not anticipate closing any of its existing main operating 

bases in Europe. However, operations at a few of these bases may be significantly 

curtailed. The final decision to modify existing base structure is still being reviewed. 

Question. If we reduce forces in Europe, won’t we see an increase of sailors and 

equipment returning to the United States for basing? 

Answer. Yes. The Navy does expect to return some Navy assets based in the European theater to the United States. In order to maximize our existing infrastructure, the Navy intends to use the BRAC 2005 process to determine the final disposition and maximize Navy capabilities. 

Question. Does it make sense to enter into BRAC in 2005 if we have not yet fully 

determined the shape and size of our presence abroad? 

Answer. The Navy is committed to conducting a 2005 round of base realignment 

and closure (BRAC), as authorized by the Congress. The convergence of ongoing 

strategy and overseas basing actions, the transformational direction in all the Services and force structure changes together afford us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to truly transform the Services’ combat capability in an enduring way. 

The ongoing overseas basing review is nearly complete and those assets that are 

identified to return to the United States will be considered in the BRAC 2005 process. The timing of the overseas basing review and the BRAC 2005 process is perfect 

to ensure appropriate consideration is given to the optimal stationing of all of our 

naval assets. 

BRAC AT FORT POLK AND BELLE CHASSE—HOW CAN JOINT OPERATIONS BENEFIT THESE

BASES?

Question. Secretary Johnson, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that a high priority 

should be placed on the military value of Joint bases for the upcoming BRAC round. 

Do you share Secretary Rumsfeld’s vision for our military to move toward and 

support Joint bases? 

Answer. We strongly support Secretary Rumsfeld’s vision of joint use of installation assets because it helps us reduce lifecycle investments and share overhead. In 

addition, joint bases are a more accurate reflection of how our forces operate jointly 

in wartime. Navy is participating in DOD efforts to revise policies, processes, procedures, and practices to enhance joint base operations and support. 

I know you have visited Belle Chasse on a number of occasions. 

Question. Could you please discuss how Belle Chasse—the home to the Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Reserve, Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and 

Coast Guard—meets Secretary Rumsfeld’s vision for jointness? 

Answer. Joint use of installation assets is a way of life in Belle Chasse. The Navy 

serves as host of the air station, providing logistics support to its DOD and nonDOD tenants for airfields, air traffic control, bachelor quarters/barracks, family 

housing, galley, recreation activities, fire and safety, etc. None of these services are 

duplicated among the tenants. Also an Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) is 

under construction on the air base to accommodate additional Reserve units of the 

Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. This new facility consolidates these Reserve functions from other locations in or near New Orleans, reducing overhead and 

providing greater access to military personnel and family support programs available on the base. 

Question. Secretary Johnson, over 550 new town homes were recently built at the 

Naval Air Station/Joint Reserve Base New Orleans. This is uncommon because our 

Citizen Soldiers are not generally provided with military housing, although the base 

in Belle Chasse is actually a full-time Reserve base. 

How many installations within the Navy provide housing for the Reserve Component? 
112 

Answer. Three Navy installations provide military family housing primarily for 

the Reserve Component—Naval Air Station and Joint Reserve Base (NAS JRB) New 

Orleans, LA; NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX; and NAS JRB Willow Grove, PA. Reservists 

housed in family housing at these three bases are serving in the active component, 

i.e., for the training and administration of reservists or as part of an unit activated 

for more than 180 days and, therefore eligible for assignment to military family 

housing. 

Question. Are any Public Private Partnerships projects currently under way to 

provide housing for the Reserve Component? 

Answer. The housing at New Orleans has been privatized. There are currently no 

plans to privatize the housing at the other locations. However, it is possible that 

members of the Reserve Component could rent privatized housing at other locations. 

Question. How much funding out of the Family Housing budget is allocated for 

the Reserve Component? 

Answer. The Family Housing budget is used to support the overall operation and 

maintenance of military family housing, regardless of who occupies it. As such, 

there is no specific allocation of the Family Housing budget to the Reserve Component. 

KEEP NAVY RESERVE O&M SEPARATE FROM BIG NAVY

Question. Secretary Johnson, last year, DOD’s budget request called for the merging of Reserve and Active Personnel accounts, which Congress roundly rejected because Congress feared the Active Services would rob the Reserves of personnel funding. 

The Navy established the Commander of Navy Installations (CNI) for the management of in-shore installations in fiscal year 2003. As a result, CNI now provides 

O&M dollars to Belle Chasse, not the Commander of Naval Reserve Forces. 

Is CNI keeping the funding for Reserve Installations separate from Active Installations? 

Answer. Yes. Operations and maintenance funding for Reserve activities flows 

from the Operations and Maintenance, Navy Reserve appropriation while Operations and Maintenance funding for Active activities flows from the Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy appropriation. 

Question. Is there any effort to merge the Navy’s O&M and O&M Reserve accounts? I do not support such a merger if the Reserve cannot guarantee big Navy 

will not siphon funds. 

Answer. There is no current initiative to merge the Navy’s active and reserve Operations and Maintenance accounts. 

BELLE CHASSE—COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE—STILL ON TARGET

Question. Secretary Johnson, groundbreaking is scheduled for July on a new Commissary and Naval Exchange. It will serve the 7,500 men and women stationed at 

Belle Chasse and up to 100,000 veterans in Greater New Orleans. 

Is the groundbreaking still on schedule for July? 

Answer. Yes. Based on a construction contract award in July, the groundbreaking 

is still on schedule for that same month. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO REAR ADMIRAL MICHAEL LOOSE

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

BARRACKS

Question. Admiral Loose, your testimony expressed appreciation for the authority 

to build barracks to private sector, rather than military, standards. 

Can you tell us what plans the Navy has to make use of this authority? 

Answer. The Navy initially plans to use this authority in combination with our 

bachelor housing privatization initiative. 
113 

QUESTION SUBMITTED TO GENERAL WILLIE WILLIAMS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT—MARINES

Question. General Williams, the Navy has created the position of Commander, 

Navy Installations (CNI) to consolidate management of its shore infrastructure. 

Does the Marine Corps take a similar approach to consolidation and to what extent are you working with the Navy to share lessons learned? 

Answer. The Marine Corps is committed to managing its installations in ways 

that are both effective and efficient. With 15 major bases and stations to manage, 

Marine Corps installations are organized in a consolidated approach similar to 

CNIs. For example, while our installations are not regionalized exactly like those 

under CNI, Marine Corps operating force installations are consolidated under the 

most senior Marine Corps operational commanders: Marine Forces Atlantic, Pacific 

and Reserve. In this way, Marine Corps bases and stations are closely linked to 

those operational forces they directly support within their region. Our remaining installations (recruit depots, logistics bases and training bases), receive their support 

directly from Marine Corps headquarters much like Navy installations are supported by CNI. 

We continuously look for ways that improve installation management while supporting our operating forces requirements. We work very closely with CNI to share 

experiences and, where practicable, implement similar practices across both Services. Examples include employing similar readiness reporting systems, utilizing regional Facility Support Contracts, and managing Family Housing from a regional 

perspective. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator HUTCHISON. All right, well, that is all the questions that 

I have and I appreciate very much your time and effort and the 

great job that you’re doing. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thanks very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m. Wednesday, April 7, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Brubaker, Brigadier General David, Deputy Director, Air National Guard, 

Department of the Air Force, Department of the Defense ............................... 39 

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 25 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 34 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 23 

Dubois, Raymond F., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and 

Environment, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense ........................ 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 7 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 4 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California: 

Questions Submitted by................................................................... 35, 52, 80, 107 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 2 

Fox, Major General Dean, Civil Engineer, United States Air Force, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense .................................................. 39 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 40 

Gibbs, Honorable Nelson F., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, Environment, and Logistics, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 41 

Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas: 

Opening Statements........................................................................................... 1, 57 

Questions Submitted by........................................................ 33, 51, 106, 112, 113 

Johnson, Hansford T., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and 

Environment, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense ..................... 83 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 87 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 106 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................ 78, 110 

Loose, Rear Admiral Michael, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense ................................. 83 

Question Submitted to ..................................................................................... 112 

Lust, Major General Larry J., Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department of Defense ............................ 57 

Profit, Brigadier General Gary M., Deputy Chief, Army Reserve, Department 

of the Army, Department of Defense .................................................................. 57 

Prosch, Geoffrey G., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations 

and Environment, Department of the Army, Department of Defense ............. 57 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 59 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 78 

Pudlowski, Major General Walter F., Special Assistant to the Director, Army 

National Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense ................ 57 

Question Submitted to ..................................................................................... 80 

Rajczak, Brigadier General William M., Deputy to the Chief, Air Force Reserve, Department of the Air Force, Department of the Defense .................... 39 
Page

ii 

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska: 

Question Submitted by ..................................................................................... 34 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 3 

Williams, Brigadier General Willie, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics (Facilities), United States Marine Corps, Department 

of the Navy, Department of Defense .................................................................. 83 

Question Submitted to ..................................................................................... 113 
(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Page 

Accommodate New Missions ................................................................................... 43 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 51 

Air: 

Force BRAC ....................................................................................................... 54 

National Guard ................................................................................................. 46 

Beddown for C–17 and C–5 .................................................................................... 48 

Build-to-Lease Housing Overseas ........................................................................... 45 

C–17 .......................................................................................................................... 46 

Basing ................................................................................................................ 47 

Decision ...................................................................................................... 52 

Continue: 

Demolition of Excess, Uneconomical-to-Maintain Facilities ......................... 44 

Environmental Leadership .............................................................................. 43 

DERF Funds Use ..................................................................................................... 53 

Family Housing Requests ....................................................................................... 52 

Fitness Centers ........................................................................................................ 51 

General Officer: 

Housing ............................................................................................................. 51 

Quarters ............................................................................................................ 48 

Germany ................................................................................................................... 45 

Guard and Reserve .................................................................................................. 46 

Invest in Quality of Life Improvements ................................................................. 42 

McClellan AFB ......................................................................................................... 54 

Military Family Housing ......................................................................................... 40 

Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources ..................................................... 44 

Privatization ............................................................................................................. 40 

Reduced Request ...................................................................................................... 52 

Reserve ..................................................................................................................... 46

Sustain, Restore, and Modernize our Infrastructure ............................................ 42 

Vandenberg Air Force Base.................................................................................... 49, 50 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 78 

Army Family Housing: 

Construction (AFHC) ........................................................................................ 63 

Operations (AFHO) .......................................................................................... 63 

Army: 

Guard and Reserve Requests ........................................................................... 73 

Reserve Center—Puerto Rico .......................................................................... 76 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ................................................................ 64 

BRAC at Fort Polk and Belle Chasse—How can Joint Operations benefit 

these bases? .......................................................................................................... 79 

DOD Realignment of Forces in Europe .................................................................. 79 

Guard WMD/CST Facilities .................................................................................... 80 

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense ................................................................ 64 

Housing Privatization—CAP .................................................................................. 65 

Installation: 

As Flagships ...................................................................................................... 60 

In Iraq ............................................................................................................... 78 
Page

iv 

Installation—Continued 

Strategies .......................................................................................................... 60 

Jointness ................................................................................................................... 68

Milcon: 

Fort Stewart ...................................................................................................... 75 

To Support Returning Overseas Forces .......................................................... 67 

Military Construction .............................................................................................. 61 

Army: 

(MCA) ......................................................................................................... 61 

National Guard (MCNG) .......................................................................... 62 

Reserve (MCAR) ........................................................................................ 62 

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................... 64 

Overview ................................................................................................................... 59 

Required Milcon to Support Transformation ......................................................... 76 

Returning Overseas Forces ..................................................................................... 66 

Schools ...................................................................................................................... 70 

Sustainment ............................................................................................................. 72 

Unfunded Force Protection Requirements ............................................................. 80 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 106 

Barracks ................................................................................................................... 112

Belle Chasse—Commissary and Exchange—Still on Target ................................ 112 

BRAC ........................................................................................................................ 106 

At Fort Polk and Belle Chasse—How can joint operations benefit these 

bases? ............................................................................................................. 111 

Environmental Funding ................................................................................... 107 

DOD Realignment of Forces in Europe .................................................................. 110 

Efficiencies ............................................................................................................... 93 

Encroachment .......................................................................................................... 100 

Environmental: 

Cleanup ............................................................................................................. 96 

Quality ............................................................................................................... 98 

Facilities ................................................................................................................... 92 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Overview ........................................................................ 87 

Housing ..................................................................................................................... 88

Installation: 

In Iraq ............................................................................................................... 110 

Management—Marines .................................................................................... 113 

Joint Basing ............................................................................................................. 102 

Keep Navy Reserve O&M Separate From Big Navy ............................................ 112 

Marine One Helicopter (VXX) ................................................................................. 108 

Military Construction .............................................................................................. 91 

Nebraska Avenue Complex................................................................................. 105, 109 

New Orleans Joint Reserve Base ........................................................................... 103 

Outlying Landing Field (Washington County, North Carolina) .......................... 108 

Overseas Basing ....................................................................................................... 101 

Presidential Helicopter Program ............................................................................ 101 

Prior BRAC Cleanup & Property Disposal ............................................................ 95 

Recapitalization Rate .............................................................................................. 106 

Washington Navy Yard ........................................................................................... 104 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 33 

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................. 15 

BRAC ........................................................................................................................ 34

Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................... 35 

Environmental Work ............................................................................................... 24 

European Bases ....................................................................................................... 30 

Infrastructure Investment Strategy ....................................................................... 8 

Korea ......................................................................................................................... 32 

Minor Construction Thresholds .............................................................................. 37 

O&M Budget ............................................................................................................ 26 

Overseas Basing/BRAC ........................................................................................... 33 

Perchlorate ............................................................................................................... 20 

Renewable Energy Resources ................................................................................. 36 
Page

v 

Reserve Components ............................................................................................... 36 

Special Operations Forces ....................................................................................... 28 

Utility Privatization ................................................................................................ 34 

Æ