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

29–934 PDF 2006

BRAC IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CALAMITY? A REVIEW OF BRAC’S

IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR REGION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

AUGUST 31, 2006

Serial No. 109–181

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

LAWRENCE HALLORAN, Deputy Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on August 31, 2006 ........................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Kaine, Tim, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia ....................................... 9

O’Brien, Senator Jay, Commonwealth of Virginia; Keith E. Eastin, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment, accompanied by, Colonel Brian Lauritzen, Garrison Commander, Fort

Belvoir, and Jim Curran, traffic consultant, Fort Belvoir Project; Jeff

Shane, Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department

of Transportation; David B. Albo, Delegate of the 42nd District of

Virginia, Virginia House of Delegates; Gerald W. Hyland, Mount Vernon District supervisor, Fairfax County board of Supervisors; Dana

Kaufman, Lee District supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors;

Dean Tistadt, chief operating officer and assistant superintendent for

facilities and transportation, Fairfax County Public Schools; Kevin D.

Kirk, president, west Springfield Civic Association; Vivian Watts, Virginia House of Delegates; and Senator Toddy Puller, Mount Vernon/

Lee District .................................................................................................... 24

Albo, David B. ............................................................................................ 40

Eastin, Keith E. ......................................................................................... 25

Hyland, Gerald W. ..................................................................................... 48

Kaufman, Dana ......................................................................................... 53

Kirk, Kevin D. ........................................................................................... 65

O’Brien, Senator Jay ................................................................................. 24

Puller, Toddy ............................................................................................. 72

Shane, Jeff ................................................................................................. 33

Tistadt, Dean ............................................................................................. 62

Watts, Vivian ............................................................................................. 68

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Albo, David B., Delegate of the 42nd District of Virginia, Virginia House

of Delegates, prepared statement of ............................................................ 42

Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Virginia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 4

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

Environment, prepared statement of .......................................................... 27

Hyland, Gerald W., Mount Vernon District supervisor, Fairfax County

board of Supervisors, prepared statement of .............................................. 50

Kaine, Tim, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 13

Kaufman, Dana, Lee District supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, prepared statement of ....................................................................... 55

Kirk, Kevin D., president, west Springfield Civic Association, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 67

Puller, Toddy, Mount Vernon/Lee District, prepared statement of Mr.

Sickles ............................................................................................................ 73

Shane, Jeff, Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of ......................................... 35

Tistadt, Dean, chief operating officer and assistant superintendent for

facilities and transportation, Fairfax County Public Schools, prepared

statement of Mr. Dale ................................................................................... 63

Watts, Vivian, Virginia House of Delegates, prepared statement of ............ 70

(1)

BRAC IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CALAMITY? A REVIEW OF

BRAC’S IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION

AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR REGION

THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Springfield, VA.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., at Rolling

Valley Elementary School, 6703 Barnack Drive, Springfield, VA,

Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Also present: Representative Moran.

Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran, deputy

staff director; Ed Puccerella, Christopher Bright, and Chris Lopez,

professional staff members; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Michael

Galindo, deputy clerk; Ali Ahmad, staff assistant; Michael Sazonov,

research assistant; Bill Womack, legislative director; and Kim

Trinca, minority staff.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. If everyone could take their seats, the

hearing will come to order. I want to thank everybody for joining

us today to examine the Army’s plans for implementation of the

recommendations of the BRAC Commission and how they will affect northern Virginia, the metropolitan D.C. area, and the Army’s

ability to accomplish its mission.

Since 1988 the BRAC Commission and the BRAC process has

served as the mechanism to realign military installations to match

the challenges of an evolving world. The four previous BRAC

rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 brought about 97 major closures, 55 major realignments and 235 minor actions. Overall, DOD

claims that the previous BRAC rounds saved the American taxpayers around $18 billion through fiscal 2001 and a further $7 billion per year since. However, the 2005 BRAC recommendations

represent the most extensive BRAC ever proposed, affecting more

than 800 installations. DOD claims BRAC 2005 will cut excess

military infrastructure between 5 and 11 percent and save $48.8

billion over 20 years.

As part of the 2005 process, the Department of Defense made numerous recommendations to the BRAC Commission regarding activities in the metropolitan D.C. area. Many of these could be characterized as part of a concerted effort to move DOD functions from

leased office space to military posts. The main rationale was that

leased space did not meet the Army’s rigid force protection standards.

2

Along with my colleague Jim Moran who joins me here today, as

well as Senators Warner and Allen, we all argued vigorously

against the Army’s recommendations. We voted to disapprove the

mission’s final recommendations. I felt that the Department of Defense was using the BRAC process as a vehicle to advance an unrelated policy goal, mainly moving out of leased space. I also felt that

the entire BRAC process looked at these issues solely from a DOD

perspective. There was little coordination with other agencies regarding the impact of these moves.

For northern Virginia, the final result of the 2005 BRAC round

was that 23,000 personnel, a force the size of the Pentagon, will be

relocating to Fort Belvoir by 2011. In the BRAC game, the conventional wisdom has always been that those who saved or gained jobs

won, and those who lost jobs lost. The jobs coming to Fort Belvoir

are very desirable, highly skilled, high paying jobs with considerable economic spin-off, but that will be little consolation if the

tradeoff for these jobs is chaos on our roadways. Unfortunately I

think that’s where we’re headed. Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that the Washington, DC, region already has the second

longest average commute in the Nation. Without proper planning

and execution, the influx of traffic to Fort Belvoir could lead to the

collapse of the transportation infrastructure along the I–95 corridor, making the situation even worse. In February the Army awarded a $60 million contract for master

planning services at Fort Belvoir to handle BRAC-related issues.

As part of this process the Army also formed a board of advisers

comprised of Federal, State and local stakeholders to discuss issues

and concerns regarding BRAC implementation at Fort Belvoir. On

July 28th the Army announced its initial plan to site military activities in the fort.

This plan involves locating 18,000 personnel on the Engineer

Proving Grounds, a former live-fire range located on the western

side of I–95. The remainder will be located on the main post located off Route 1.

The Army also announced its intention to locate the National

Army Museum on the western portion of the Engineer Proving

Ground. The museum had been planned for the main post. I would

note that the museum is not part of the BRAC process.

Finally, the Army intends to build a new hospital to replace the

aging DeWitt Hospital on the main post, which hospital will also

host some of the services formerly provided at Walter Reed Army

Medical Center.

The Army’s plans raise a number of concerns, foremost among

them the effects they are going to have on regional traffic. How

does the Army propose to handle an estimated 15,000 extra car

trips per day? The Army’s answer is a number of transportation

projects, 14 of which they characterize as required. These include

the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway, widening of I–95

and new access ramps to EPG. However, only three of these

projects, the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway, widening

of I–95 between Fairfax County Parkway and Route 123 and the

Woodlawn road replacement are even partially funded.

The completion of the Fairfax County Parkway was once considered to be fully funded. However that’s now doubtful since the disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

pute regarding environment concerns has delayed construction for

years. So the question is, who’s going to pay for these projects?

Only two are in Virginia’s 6-year plan. Only two are included in

the most recent Federal transportation reauthorization bill, the

next version of which won’t be enacted until 2010 at the earliest.

Unless the Army plans to spend the money to fund these projects, which it estimates to cost about $626 million, it’s foreseeable that little if any new transportation infrastructure will be in

place before 23,000 new people report to Fort Belvoir.

Not to add insult to injury, but this figure does not account for

the private sector that’s likely to also move to the area along with

the agencies they serve, and clearly that’s just not an acceptable

situation. The Department of Defense got what it asked for from

the BRAC Commission. Now it has to figure out how to put those

pieces in place in only 5 years. Those with experience with large

projects will tell you that’s very little time. The concern is that the

short-term imperative of the deadline is outweighing long-term considerations. It could be likened to 2-minute drills in a football game

when caution is thrown to the wind in the desperation hope of

beating the clock.

A case in point: The Federal Government currently owns a General Services Administration warehouse facility in Springfield just

north of the EPG and adjacent to Interstate 95 and the Springfield

Metro and VRE stations. It strikes me that this property should be

used as something other than warehouse space next to a major

transportation center. However, time constraints have led the

Army to take the option off the table without giving it the consideration it merits.

I can certainly think of possibilities for the GSA site. As the

chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I have jurisdiction

over GSA and I intend to make sure these options are explored. If

it makes sense, we’re going to followup on them.

In closing, I called this hearing to highlight what I believe is an

unrealistic timeline and a flawed planning process. It’s my hope

that doing so will provide the justification for legislation that will

allow the process to move along in a rational manner.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

4

5

6

7

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just—I would ask unanimous consent that my colleague Mr. Moran be permitted to sit with this

hearing.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Tom. Tom, thank you very much for

having this hearing. It is as important as it is urgent. We took a

tour of this area earlier this morning, and we see what a difference

a commitment can make with regard to the Springfield Mixing

Bowl. That’s working. But it’s not going to work if the people driving through it have to spend half an hour on the road before they

get to it. All of this transportation situation is interrelated.

Now we’re going to hear from Governor Kaine. I very much appreciate your being here, Governor. You’ve spent a great deal of

time in northern Virginia, and I know that’s deliberate because you

understand that northern Virginia’s the economic engine that is

generating revenue for the rest of the State, is leading the rest of

the State, and really the country, in terms of jobs generated.

Northern Virginia is experiencing the strongest economic growth in

the country. In fact, in the last 5 years, more jobs have been created in northern Virginia than anywhere in the country. That’s terrific. But it also places an enormous responsibility on us to maintain that momentum. The economic health of the State is at stake

and, really, nationally as well.

We just saw an article as a result of the Census Bureau yesterday that showed that Loudon is the fastest growing and most affluent, Fairfax County is the third most affluent. But that will not

continue to be the case unless we make the kinds of decisions that

must be made now.

And, Governor, I say this with total conviction: that your transportation plan, if it is not funded, that will be the death knell of

this economy in the long run. We cannot continue to grow at the

rate that we’ve been growing—anywhere near the rate that we’ve

been growing—if we continue to have the worst transportation congestion in the country. And the commitment that you have made

to put a billion dollars a year into fixing this transportation situation is absolutely essential. And there’s no way—and I know that

Tom agrees, and Frank Wolf and our Senators agree—that there’s

very little that the Federal Government is going to be able to do

unless the State does its share as well.

So we’re anxious to hear from you, but this immediate situation

is born of a judgment that was wrong. Tom referenced the vote

that we took on BRAC, and we should also credit Senator Warner

as well, who did a tremendous job laying out why the decisions to

move people out of leased space were not consistent with the authorizing legislation. But we lost that vote. So now we have to deal

with the ramifications of moving 20,000 people out of Arlington

County. Arlington County will survive. Had those people moved out

of this area, though, this economy would have taken a major hit.

Now the reality is that 20,000 people are going to move into Fort

Belvoir, and in fact if you add in the contractors, it’s going to be

probably 24,000, 25,000 people. As Tom has said, this is more people moving into southeast Fairfax County than are employed at the

entire Pentagon. Imagine that: to move the entire Pentagon work

8

force into southeast Fairfax County, it’s the equivalent of four

major military bases. But the Pentagon has Metro, it has excellent

bus service, it’s right on 395 and Washington Boulevard, so it obviously has figured out how to accommodate that traffic. The reason

we’re having this hearing today is that we are not prepared at all

to accommodate the traffic that this move of more than 20,000 people will require. That’s why we’re here.

Now, the average commuter in northern Virginia loses 72 hours

each year to congestion. If we don’t fix this, that figure is going to

be in the triple digits. It will be over 100 hours a year on average.

This scenario is going to be a disaster for employees, for commuters, and in fact for everyone that lives and works in this area because we’re not just talking about those 20-plus thousand people in

southeast Fairfax, we’re talking about all the people that are traveling north on 95 or Route 1. All of them will be impacted by this

if we don’t do the right thing.

Now, it’s a good thing that the Army has decided to split up some

of these projects but, as Tom said, they’ve missed the boat in a

number of areas. For example, the GSA warehouse. That is so

much closer to public transportation, it’s Federal land, we need to

use that location. We need to use that property as part of this solution. The Army has identified 14 projects that are required to make

this work, 14 required projects. We agree. Gerry Hyland, Dana

Kauffman, our State delegates all agree these are required to make

this work. They estimate that it will cost $626 million, and yet only

3 of those 14 required projects have any identified funding source.

Now, it stands, Virginia’s 6-year plan has been cut by almost $800 million, $795 million. Without additional revenues, the State

funding will be limited to road maintenance and matching Federal

money beginning in 2010. That’s grossly inadequate. It doesn’t include meeting any of these needs.

Now, the Fairfax County Parkway certainly needs to be completed. There is some money for that, but it certainly is inadequate.

So we’re going to try to find answers to the questions as to what

the Army is prepared—willing to pay for, what kind of legislation

is going to be required by the Congress to enable the Army to meet

its funding responsibilities, what is the timetable for moving people, because we’ve had many discussions on this, and both Tom and

I agree, you’ve got to have the infrastructure in place before you

move 20,000 people into this area. So that timetable needs to

match the funding timetable.

We’ll talk a bit about the U.S. Army Museum when we hear from

the Army. We will try to refine some of these cost estimates, but

this hearing is really the kickoff of a campaign that can’t stop until

we find the funding and we find the solutions and we’re able to—

that will enable us to accommodate more than 20,000 people into

southeast Fairfax. So it’s going to be the best of worlds if we can

do it. It will be the worst of worlds if we cannot.

And, Tom, again let me conclude by where I started. I thank you

for holding this hearing as Chairman of the Government Reform

Committee. You have the authorization to hold a formal hearing.

This is such a hearing and it is just the kind of hearing we need.

So thank you again. And Governor Kaine, thank you for your leadership.

9

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Jim, thank you. And I know as a member

of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, on Armed Services, you will be playing a key role in this as it goes through. So

we are happy to have you here.

We are just very pleased to have the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia here today. Governor Kaine, you have proposed

a lot for transportation. I want you to know I have personally spoken to my State Senator in support of your transportation plan,

and we appreciate all of your initiatives in this and so many other

things, and it’s been a pleasure to work with you during your tenure as Governor. The partisanship and bickering aside, I think

we’ve had a great working relationship. We’re going to work together on this as well as so many other issues. So thank you very

much for being here. It’s our policy to swear witnesses in.

[Witness sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. Once again, thank

you for your leadership.

STATEMENT OF TIM KAINE, GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA

Governor KAINE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the

invitation. Congressman Moran, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I begin by thanking you again for this hearing on a matter

that is just critical to northern Virginia and the entire Commonwealth. The three of us have all spent time in local government.

We started our public service careers there, and we know as former

local government officials the critical balance that has to be struck

between land use decisions and the transportation planning and infrastructure. You’ve carried that local experience, both of you, to

Washington and are key leaders in transportation efforts.

And, Congressman Davis, I just want to mention that your focus

this year on the potential for Federal matching funds for expansion

of Metro and Metrobus is something that I mentioned to the legislature just 2 or 3 days ago as something that we need to focus on.

But we’re here today to talk about a different partnership, and

that’s what has been a long and productive partnership between

the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. military, a partnership

that is historic and important, and we want to make sure it continues to go forward in a positive way. And specifically, we’re talking

about the jobs that will come to Fort Belvoir, the Engineer Proving

Grounds. And also I’ll say a little bit about the growth of Quantico,

which does factor into this discussion today.

We are pleased with any decision to bring great jobs, you know,

to Virginia. And so the decision to relocate the National Geospatial

Intelligence Agency, in particular, high-quality technology jobs to

Virginia, what a natural thing, because we’re a great community

for these kinds of jobs. The idea of the Army History Museum, the

new hospital, other DOD consolidations at Belvoir and Quantico,

these present some wonderful opportunities. But the situation,

though, as you pointed out in your comments is really a microcosm

for the biggest challenge that faces our economy today as a Commonwealth. We have this exciting opportunity. We welcome highquality jobs, but can we successfully accommodate these additional

workers? This is not just an issue about northern Virginia. It’s an

10

issue about the entire Commonwealth because the entire Commonwealth for the last decade to a large degree has been yoked to the

success of this most dynamic economy in the State. And if we get

it right here, everyone in Virginia benefits. If we get it wrong here,

it’s tough for those in northern Virginia, it’s tough for those everywhere all across the Commonwealth.

The future growth of Fort Belvoir, the Proving Ground in

Quantico, represents a major land use decision by the Federal Government, with extraordinary ramifications. In just 5 years, the effect of these BRAC actions, as you indicated, will be the equivalent

of putting a Pentagon on this site or moving the entire population

of the town of Herndon to this site, and that is demonstration of

the significance of it. The impact will be substantial, and it’s an unplanned change to the quality of life and existing transportation

system of every northern Virginian touched by I–95 from the Beltway all the way to Fredericksburg.

Even the Army’s own analysis shows, given current funding levels, that we can’t meet the shared responsibility to ensure that the

commuter can get between home and work in a safe manner. Our

internal analysis indicates the effects of the relocation could extend

along I–95 from Belvoir to well south of Quantico where the addition of 3,000 employees there will add to the existing challenge

that we’re talking about today.

Our existing highways are overwhelmed, as you know. Current

employees at Fort Belvoir who must travel south on I–95 to get

home at night must contend with stop-and-go conditions that last

3 or more hours every evening, and the conditions on Route 1 are

not much better.

The Commonwealth has only funding to address—to partially address the current congestion levels. We have resources right now,

as you referenced, to widen I–95 to four lanes in each direction, significant construction to begin in 2008. However, even with this

major improvement, the engineers tell us by 2010 motorists traveling southbound in the evening will have 3 or more hours in the

evening of stop-and-go traffic, and that condition will exist even before we wrestle with this question of Fort Belvoir and the EPG.

Now, much has been said about the need to complete the Fairfax

County Parkway. We agree, and we have funds committed to that.

But the funds were committed to expand the parkway prior to the

assumption that we would be looking at 18,000 more people coming

to the area. Probably the most challenging piece of this—and I

would be glad to talk more about it if you would like—is to provide

transit service to the site. If indeed the relocated work force could

come from the north and east, the Army should consider direct

Metrorail extension to the site. If the relocated work force comes

from the south, consideration of VRA bus or hot lane access is incredibly important. Mr. Chairman, these are just suggestions, but

more hard analysis is needed.

We’ve received the Army’s proposed list of transportation projects

only recently to fully grasp the extent of the BRAC challenges and

the decisions we need to make in tandem. To that end, what we

would request is basically a series of things in the spirit of partnership. We would like the Department of Defense to take the following steps: First, that the Department work with the CommonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

wealth, the GSA, and the Federal Highway Administration and regional planning agencies to define the basic transportation assumptions. And particularly, we need to know how many private contractors, as you have indicated, will cluster around these Federal

employees who will move here. We will be talking about more than

22,000 jobs in Fort Belvoir and 3,000 at Quantico.

Second, the Department of Defense should work with VDOT and

the FHA and the Federal Transit Administration to define appropriate standards and methodologies for impact studies, I–95, the

parkway, Route 1 are all part of the national highway system, and

these national standards should be applied as rigorously here as in

any other case. In particular, we need to know if it’s appropriate

to base long-term travel forecasts on zip code questionnaires of current employees.

Third, DOD should work with VDOT, FHA, regional planning organizations to develop a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of

the direct and indirect transportation impacts of the BRAC relocations. In both Route 1 and I–95 corridors, the effort should include

a review of realistic and achievable strategies to use through teleworking, flex-time, maximizing transit and HOV usage, and incorporating security check impacts in the facility and operational

planning.

Next, DOD should work with the relevant agencies, VDOT and

the FHA, to look at realistic cost estimates for this list of project

improvements; as it was pointed out, only a few of which are contemplated in the current 6-year plan in Virginia and not contemplated to the extent that would be required by this plan. DOD

and the Commonwealth has to work together to secure funding for

traffic and environmental mitigation efforts. And Mr. Chairman,

the most important of all, the DOD must incorporate these impact

studies and the mitigation efforts into the environmental documents currently underway for both Fort Belvoir and Quantico.

That’s the only way to achieve the balance between transportation

and land use that we all have worked hard to achieve and want

to achieve in this instance.

Failing that, failing the incorporation, Virginia is prepared to do

what we can to lead the analytic effort, but it will not be nearly

as successful if we cannot do it in tandem.

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, we are proud, obviously, not only

of the strength of our economy and the fact that we can attract

great jobs, but of our long and successful history partnership with

the U.S. military. That’s a key part of who we are as Virginians.

We’re excited to have more Armed Forces, we are excited to have

more jobs, and we’re dedicated to working with our partners to do

all that we can to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible.

This may be—although there have been other transportation

challenges a lot in the media about particular items—this may be

the single most challenging, I would say from my perspective as

Governor, the Fort Belvoir situation and the growth of the Port of

Hampton Roads, the Port of Virginia, are the two most challenging

long-term transportation land use problems that we have in Virginia right now.

12

There is much work to do. I look forward to working in tandem

with you and doing all we can to partner with DOD to do the appropriate planning and then find the financing to make this something that doesn’t detract from the quality of life in northern Virginia.

[The prepared statement of Governor Kaine follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Governor, let me ask, I think your concern is one that both Congressman Moran and I raised as well; that is just getting our arms

around the scope of the problem. We don’t really know where the

people that will be moving into the area are going to live.

Governor KAINE. Right.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. It’s great to do zip codes of current employees, but a lot of these people will be new to the Commonwealth.

Hard to get a grip around that. Also in Crystal City, although it

will be vacated from DOD space, other businesses are going to

move in there. So a lot of the traffic that’s currently going to Crystal City will be going there for other jobs, wouldn’t you imagine?

Governor KAINE. Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The two planning assumptions that we just immediately kind of questioned, that we

really need to drill down on are—the first one, you are right.

Where are the people going to live and travel from? The Army’s assumption suggests that 60 percent or more will be traveling north

to south to come to Fort Belvoir. That is at odds with some of the

experience that we have right now. If it was north to south in the

morning, it will be slightly a bit of a reverse commute, but we

think from the expansion all the way down to Fredericksburg, it

may be the reverse, compounding the northbound traffic problems

every morning.

And the second assumption that right away we need to get a

handle on is, how many contractors will come? This Geospatial Intelligence Agency is one powerhouse enterprise in terms of attracting private commercial development and contractors. And so we

have to do the hard work to figure out what are the numbers we’re

actually dealing with.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would just guess that the people moving

into the area are more likely to locate south, where land is cheaper,

where they can get more acreage for fewer dollars and the like. So

we need to get a handle around that if we want to do proper planning.

You’ve seen the Army’s list of required transportation projects.

Does the Commonwealth agree with that or is there any supplement or any additions you would want to make? And you’ve seen

the Army’s cost estimates. Does the State lead any of its own cost

estimates?

Governor KAINE. Mr. Chair, we don’t either have our own list or

our own cost estimates yet because the list was only shared with

us recently. I think the list looks to be an appropriate list. We

didn’t look at that list and say gosh, you know, they’re clearly omitting something. But it’s a sizable list, about 14 projects, as you

mention, only two or three of which would be in the 6-year plan

right now, and some funded at a much more minimal level. And

so it is a sizable list. We want to work with the Army to understand some of their assumptions and see if it should be changed.

This are they coming from the north or from the south could well

change the projects that are necessary and we would want to work

with them on the cost estimates as well.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The keystone of the Army’s plan seems to

be the intersection of I–95 and the Fairfax County Parkway, but

no matter where you work on Belvoir or which direction you come

19

from, you probably have to use this interchange. I think that’s the

assumption. Does VDOT think this is a viable plan to rely so heavily on one interchange?

Governor KAINE. No. The current design of that interchange is

not adequate for 18,000 new jobs. And so if we’re going to make

the transportation infrastructure adequate, it’s going to be significant upgrades over the plan of that interchange. It’s going to be

some significant discussion about transit.

You mention the GSA warehouse, Franconia/Springfield, there’s

got to be some significant discussion about transit. The Fairfax

County Parkway current program for us has to be built to a very

different level to accommodate it, and then there is going to be a

whole series of other internal improvements, but the interchange

in and of itself will not handle the 18,000 employees scheduled to

come to the EPG.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And my final question, I have to ask this.

The project that is the most funded of all these right now is, of

course, completion of the Fairfax County Parkway. At one time it

was fully funded, but with the delays and with the upgrades the

road may need now, this may have some deficits in its funding as

well. But there have been environmental problems, as you know,

everybody’s afraid to take the leap and build the road and take it

over. We’ve put language in both the House and the Senate defense

authorization bills trying to allow the Army to manage it and build

it and turn it over. But how is that coming from your perspective?

Governor KAINE. Well, first, you were charitable when you said

that maybe we would have to revisit whether we funded it on our

side. It is not funded to the level it needs to be, the funding the

State put in and so many State legislators here who have worked

on this based on a particular assumption about the amount of traffic that with the addition of this 18,000 will change very dramatically. So there will be more funding. The staffs have talked about

this environmental issue, and I think we’ve actually had some positive discussions about, you know, if we could find the funding, the

way to manage a project to get around some of the environmental

concerns. We’re not at the end of that discussion, but I would say

that the discussion has been a cooperative one. But certainly, you

know, as we expand the scope of that project, some of the environmental issues get more significant.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, the delay is not only money at this

point. This road has to be completed. It’s got to be an A–1 order

by opening day or nobody’s going to be able to use the site.

Governor KAINE. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I appreciate your willingness to continue

your work on it.

Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Tim, Governor, you began your testimony by pointing out the fact

that all three of us started out in local government, Tom on the

Fairfax County Board, chairing the board for several years. I was

mayor of Alexandria. You were mayor of Richmond. And so you are

very much aware that while we generally focus on the

macroperspective, what really matters is the microperspective. It’s

that family who is working hard every day just to meet the mortVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
20

gage, to plan their daily commute, to get their kids to school or

daycare or whatever, and to try to maintain a standard of living

that they’ve dreamed of for their family. And it is that quality of

life which is really what we’re talking about here.

All these numbers and grand plans, it really comes down to how

does it impact the average family that lives in this area or south

of 95? I know it’s a little bit of—you know, it’s a different kind of

question to ask you. But I know that’s your perspective as well. So

would you elaborate a little bit on how you feel these issues are

going to impact that average family in northern Virginia?

Governor KAINE. Certainly. Well, you know you hate it when

people from Richmond say they understand what you’re going

through, because we really don’t. But for 5 years, 1 year when I

was running for Lieutenant Governor, and then 4 years as Lieutenant Governor, I spent a third of my time in northern Virginia. And

now when the legislature is not in session, which actually isn’t very

much time these days, I spend about a third of my time in northern Virginia. And so I’ve done that south-to-north trip that thousands and thousands of Virginians do every day, and seen it get

worse and worse and worse over the last 5 years. And I can kind

of in my mind’s eye say, OK, 22,000 more; add contractors, maybe

it’s 26,000, 27,000. Some come from the north, so maybe it’s 15,000

or 18,000 more in rush hour. It is not a pretty picture.

The circumstances that folks in this region live with in fighting

through traffic is grim. It’s grim in terms of the amount of time,

but the other thing that I never fully appreciated until recently, it’s

grim in the unreliability of it.

So people, you know, change their assumptions. This is going to

be rush hour so I will try to do this errand on a Sunday afternoon

or, you know, I’ll try to go to work an hour earlier or an hour later.

And so people change their behavior and then they find it’s just as

crowded. So that stop-and-go traffic time isn’t an hour in the afternoon. It’s 2 hours and it’s 3, and we are robbing—we are robbing

people of time with family, and we are robbing businesses of productivity.

I was talking to somebody here in the northern Virginia area recently who has a business that relies on crews going out to do cable

TV installations at folks’ homes. And it used to be that they could

schedule, you know, 10 trips a day for a crew and now it’s 5 or 6

trips a day.

So at every level, what we are seeing is, you know, we’re victims

of our success. We are a great place to live, but we have to have

the planning decisions made and then the infrastructure funding to

keep up with this, or people are going to be confined to less and

less of a high-quality life. And this is our opportunity now to try

to get this right.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Governor. Just one more, form of a comment really, but it will end with a question.

We just looked at the Springfield Mixing Bowl and we congratulate the Virginia Department of Transportation. It was on time,

and at least it was on budget in terms of the most updated budget,

but we got it done. You know, Tom remarked to me that this was

94 percent Federal money. The Wilson bridge, $2.5 billion Federal

21

initiative. The State has done its share on both projects, and that’s

why they got done.

But as my colleagues, Tom and Frank and our Senator Warner

said this many times—it is going to be very difficult, whatever party’s in power, whatever happens after this November in terms of

the House of Representatives, whatever happens after 2008 in

terms of the President, both Republicans and Democrats are first

going to look to us when we look for Federal money and say, you

know, your economy—and all of them are going to be able to say

this—your economy is so much stronger than my economy. Why

should you be getting the lion’s share of Federal money, whether

it’s for public transit or even for the infrastructure necessary to

bring in 20,000 jobs, which they would do anything to get 20,000

new jobs into their district, and likewise with rail to Dulles

through Tyson’s. Going to be very difficult.

And so we have to be able to say, the State and the locality is

doing its share, as much or more than your State or locality would

be willing or able to do. And without that State commitment, that

commandant State commitment, I don’t see how we’re going to address these issues. We will try to do everything we can, and if Tom

disagrees, he’ll say so but——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, Jim, if you’d just yield on that, and

then the Governor can respond.

As you know, we’ve been able to bring it home here. Woodrow

Wilson Bridge, the Mixing Bowl, rail to Dulles; and in the latest

$1.5 billion for Metro that we moved through the House, this was

targeted by a number of anti-tax groups, the club for growth as

being large—people are looking at northern Virginia as kind of

being pigs on this. Getting additional money’s tough, but one of the

things that was cited by some of these groups going after our appropriation for Metro was the fact that the State wasn’t stepping

up and, well, the State doesn’t want this to do this and the like.

And of course, Governor, you have to be such a leader in this. It’s

been tough. That’s why it’s imperative we pass a State package

down there. It is going to be hard for us to get money out of Washington without that cooperation.

Mr. MORAN. Let me amplify on that. Tom, you were able to get

a dedicated source of revenue for Metro. That was essential. We

could not have made our argument if we had not done that. But

that dedicated source of revenue again puts part of the burden in

your lap, Governor, and that of the localities. They’ve got to come

up with the matching money. As I say, this was largely the form

of a comment but it’s a comment I would like you to respond to.

Governor KAINE. Well, you know, my mom and dad taught me

to not ask people for help if I was not trying to help myself. And

one of the things that has been a critical part of this discussion

about transportation is that our Federal delegation, both parties,

and part of the State, have really gone to bat for us in an amazing

way.

Mr. Chairman, you started off talking about—putting differences

in partisanship aside—you will never hear them say anything but

positives about our Federal delegation, what they have done for us

on the transportation side. I have been with each of you in the last

2 days, asking you to heavy-lift on other projects. I hate to ask for

22

heavy lifting by our Federal delegation when I know that we are

not doing what we need to do as a Commonwealth, and we are not

doing what we need to do. And it is wrong for us as leaders at the

State level to say, boy, we hope the Federal Government will do

more and maybe, gosh, maybe local guys can do more, but we’ll

maintain a purity and maintain or remove from it all. We can’t do

that.

Plans that are currently pending, either the plan that I put on

the table, or the Senate of Virginia has a plan that’s pending over

in the House; if some version or some mixed version of those plans

were put together, double transit money statewide, put money that

would be available for Metro match, nearly double urban and secondary road construction funds, and so I want to do all that I can

to challenge—and there are other plans that are being discussed

that would be very helpful in this, and, as you know, we’re coming

back to the table down in Richmond on September 27th to try to

find a way so we can do what we can do, so I can look you guys

in the eye and say we are doing what we need to do, and then we

can go forward and make that partnership continue to work.

I think we owe it to you because when we ask you to produce

for us and you do, and then we don’t do what we need to do, we’re

just not being the serious leaders that Virginians demand that we

be.

Mr. MORAN. Well, thank you, Governor. That’s the bottom line.

Tom talks with his State Senator, I put pressure on my brother.

But it comes down—it’s ultimately going to come down to your

leadership. And I think your statement is the final line.

I don’t have any further questions.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Governor, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

We will take a 5-minute recess as we get our next panel up. We

are going to have Keith Eastin, the Assistant Secretary of the

Army for Installations and the Environment; Jeff Shane, the Under

Secretary of Transportation for Policy for the U.S. Department of

Transportation; David Albo, the Delegate for the 42nd District;

Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District supervisor, Fairfax County

Board of Supervisors; Dana Kauffman, the Lee District supervisor,

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dean Tistadt, the chief operating officer and assistant superintendent for facilities and transportation in the Fairfax County Public Schools; and Mr. Kevin

Kirk, the president of West Springfield Civic Association.

I would also like to ask Senator O’Brien, Delegate Watts, Senator

Puller I noticed is here, and Delegate Sickles, if you’d also like to

make a comment, we’d be happy to have that on the record and invite you up here, and we’ll make room. So we’ll take about a 5-

minute recess.

[Recess.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. All right. If we could have the panelists

take their seats and the audience take their seats, we’ll proceed to

the second panel.

We have a very distinguished second panel as well. We have

Keith Eastin, again, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment. Keith was kind of a point man for the

Army on this. We appreciate you being here. Keith, you have a couVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
23

ple people with you I think we’d like to swear in as well. Who are

they, for the record?

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Colonel Brian

Lauritzen who is the Garrison Commander, if you will, the mayor

of Belvoir. He may be asked to elaborate on some things, if you

could swear him in. And also Jim Curran who is our traffic consultant for the Belvoir project.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We’ll swear you in so you can answer

questions directly, should they come up.

Again, we have Jeff Shane, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy for the U.S. Department of Transportation.

We have David Albo, the Delegate from the 42nd District of Virginia, the Virginia House of Delegates. David, thank you for being

with us.

We have the Honorable Gerry Hyland, a member of the Board

of Supervisors from the Mount Vernon District, Fairfax County.

Gerry, thank you for being here.

Honorable Dana Kauffman. Dana is the Lee District supervisor

here, and I understand as well your testimony is for Chairman

Connolly, who I understand is recuperating today and has sent

you. And, of course, you preside over a good part of this area as

well.

My old friend Dean Tistadt, who is the chief operating officer and

assistant superintendent for facilities and transportation for the

Fairfax Public Schools. Thank you for being with us.

We have Kevin Kirk, a real citizen, here among everyone else;

the president of the West Springfield Civic Association, which is

going to be hugely impacted by this development and has taken the

lead in the past. Thank you for being with us as well.

We have the Honorable Vivian Watts, a member of the House of

Delegates, where the EPG sits as well. Vivian, thank you very

much; a former Secretary of Transportation in the Commonwealth

of Virginia as well.

And Senator Toddy Puller from the Mount Vernon Lee area is

sitting there. Fort Belvoir is in her district. Toddy, thank you for

being with us.

And we have Jay O’Brien, a State Senator from the district

where we’re sitting right here as well. Jay, thank you for being

with us.

It’s our policy we swear everyone in. If you would just rise and

raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. I am going to

break a little bit, and I know Senator O’Brien has another meeting.

And, Jay, I will let you lead off, and then I’m going to go right back

to Keith Eastin. We do have a light in front of you that’s green

when you start. It turns orange after 4 minutes, red after 5. To the

extent we can adhere to that, we’ll move along crisply. Thank you

for being with us.

24

STATEMENTS OF SENATOR JAY O’BRIEN, COMMONWEALTH OF

VIRGINIA; KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE

ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY, COLONEL BRIAN LAURITZEN, GARRISON COMMANDER, FORT BELVOIR, AND JIM CURRAN, TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, FORT BELVOIR PROJECT; JEFF SHANE, UNDER

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DAVID B. ALBO, DELEGATE OF THE 42ND DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA HOUSE

OF DELEGATES; GERALD W. HYLAND, MOUNT VERNON DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; DANA KAUFMAN, LEE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; DEAN TISTADT,

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, FAIRFAX

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; KEVIN D. KIRK, PRESIDENT,

WEST SPRINGFIELD CIVIC ASSOCIATION; VIVIAN WATTS,

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES; AND SENATOR TODDY

PULLER, MOUNT VERNON/LEE DISTRICT

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAY O’BRIEN

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis, Congressman Moran, it is a pleasure to be before your committee. I have

three particular interests in this discussion. First of all, as a resident of northern Virginia, my own commute through Springfield

and the Mixing Bowl; second as a representative for this area, the

concerns that my constituents have about their quality of life; and

third, as a recent military retiree, I just retired as a Reserve colonel in March, and plan on continuing my visits to Fort Belvoir for

the many benefits that they provide to the military community, be

they Active Duty, dependents, or retirees, such as myself.

After the first numbers of BRAC came out, we were all very surprised by the number, the impact that it would have. Recent revisions and polls show that many people who will be moving their

office to the Fort Belvoir area will not be relocating. While that

may be positive, I think there will be a significant physical impact

on new homes, schools, restaurants, entertainment, grocery stores

and the like.

Congressman, you mentioned the new hospital, the shift of

health care and health care services from Walter Reed to Fort

Belvoir. That impact, I cannot tell you how big that is. The number

of Army, particularly Army military that currently visit Walter

Reed will now be visiting Fort Belvoir instead. These are not regular work commuters, but people using the services of Fort Belvoir.

And last, of course, transportation. The highest priority to me is

the completion of the Fairfax County Parkway. I also have the Mixing Bowl here in my district, but there are so many other smaller

arteries that Senator Puller and I and our colleagues from the

House of Delegates will be concerned about.

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. I was very

pleased to hear the comments of our Governor, and I support his

priorities as well in terms of trying to get a real fix from the military in terms of the needs and then also the way the General Assembly can respond to assist in those needs. So thank you very

25

much. We will, all of us, follow your proceedings very, very closely

because it is a community of support that needs to come to the fore

here to solve this crucial problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you Senator O’Brien.

Keith, Honorable Secretary.

STATEMENT OF KEITH E. EASTIN

Mr. EASTIN. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, Congressman Moran.

Many people would view this hearing with some trepidation, especially if you were in my position, and one might want to take a vacation and probably blame it on the coming storm or something. I

don’t view it that way. I look forward to being here, and I thank

the chairman for having this hearing so that we can express our

views, hear what your concerns are, perhaps answer some of them.

We are in a very challenging time here, and we would be foolish

not to acknowledge that. I have prepared some written remarks.

Rather than read those, I would——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Written remarks will be in the record.

Questions will be based on the entire statement. Thank you.

Mr. EASTIN. I would like to clear up a couple of misimpressions

that I think some people have. There are two things about this

process that are important. One is that BRAC is a fact of life. The

BRAC Commission has deemed it necessary to move about 22,000

people from various other places in the National Capital Region to

Belvoir somewhere, somewhere on Belvoir property. That includes

both the South Post and the Engineer Proving Ground that we will

talk about sometime later. While some might question the wisdom

of putting so many people down there, this is a fact of life that we

the Army are required to move and prepare for that 22,000 people

coming down.

The second fact of life is that this all must be done by September

15, 2011. That’s in the legislation. That does not mean that they

have to come down here on September 14, 2011. They have to be

here on September 15th. So all of the decisions that are being

made in terms of citing the traffic problems, the moving problems,

the building problems, all have to be accomplished by that date.

So we do have a full 5-plus years. We have been working on this

for the better part of a year now, and a lot of planning exercises

have gone on, which is how you got the preliminary siting that you

see, which is under question here today. But we believe this is

going to be challenging, but we believe it can be done. We’re going

to have to keep our foot on the accelerator. We’re going to have to

manage this process very closely and insist that it be done.

Which brings you to the next question, the question that is on

everybody’s mind. This move is not necessarily about 22,000 jobs.

It is not about environmental problems. It is not about where to

locate on Belvoir. This process we are engaged in is all about traffic. We are talking about how to get the people into, in our case,

the EPG or the south post, and we want—they are coming here to

work, and we want to get them in a condition so that when they

get up in the morning and look in the mirror, they’re happy to

think about going to work rather than sitting in some sort of traffic

mess.

26

Traffic in northern Virginia, I think it’s an understatement probably to say that we are traffickly challenged here, and it is up to

the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense working with

VDOT and the FHA to see if we can’t solve these traffic problems

so that the workers can get here and work and do their jobs, so

that the neighbors don’t feel poorly about this influx of traffic.

After all, I believe the Governor has suggested before, we are looking for the quality of life of our employees. This is how they are

productive. And let’s not forget that the people here in many cases

are your neighbors. We are your neighbors. The people who are

working here are already your neighbors. We want to ease their

problems as much as we can.

The Army appreciates the friendship that the State of Virginia

has shown to the Army and the Defense establishment over the

years. We are particularly happy with Fairfax County’s welcoming

of the Army here at Belvoir and elsewhere in the county. We recognize these are problems. The Army, and Defense in actuality, does

not want to be someplace where they’re not welcome. We feel welcome. Your problems in traffic are our problems in traffic. We expect to fix those so that we can all get on about the business of defending the country and having a good quality of life down here not

only for us and our workers but for the various citizens of Fairfax

County. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Shane, thank you for being with us.

STATEMENT OF JEFF SHANE

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And good

morning, Congressman Moran. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask

that my prepared remarks be included in the record.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I will just note for the record, everyone

who submitted prepared remarks are in the record at this point so

you can use your 5 minutes to sum up or clarify or accentuate a

few points.

Mr. SHANE. Thanks very much. That is precisely what I’d like to

do. It is my pleasure today, Mr. Chairman, to represent my boss,

Acting Secretary of Transportation Maria Cino, and the entire Department of Transportation to discuss with you the potential impact on transportation congestion in our region that may result

from the implementation of the BRAC decision that we have been

discussing. I am going to even summarize my summary because

we’ve been talking a lot about the projects that will be a part of

the complex of responses.

What I’d like to point out is that the Department of Transportation is fully engaged with other Federal agencies and with State

and local entities in collecting and analyzing the data that will be

necessary to assess the impacts on transportation from these BRAC

realignments, and we are working with appropriate officials and all

of those entities to implement what we hope will be timely and effective multimodal responses. A working group has been established to review the transportation impacts of the Fort Belvoir expansion with members from the Army, VDOT, Fairfax County, the

Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Lands Division, and, of

course, DOD consultants.

While the master plan for the Fort Belvoir development, including the environmental impact statement, won’t be finished until

the summer of 2007, the working group has developed a preliminary list, as you’ve already referred, a preliminary list of transportation improvement projects for the region. Federal Highway Administration’s Virginia division office has been following the Defense Department’s plan very closely to determine the BRAC impacts on current and planned transportation projects. And all of

the projects that we have been discussing, of course, are in the mix

for further discussion. The division will continue to monitor the

BRAC plans to ensure that transportation issues, including impacts

on highway safety, are considered in any environmental documents

for BRAC installations, and that BRAC requirements are fully considered in the regional planning process. BRAC impacts will be

factored into the Interstate 95/395 ‘‘hot lanes project’’ and BRAC

impacts on the interstate interchange leading to the Marine Corps

base at Quantico will also be evaluated.

The Federal Transit Administration will assist the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and local transportation providers in coordinating future transit service enhancements and expansions to serve the growing transit market resulting from the BRAC

relocations.

As the master plan becomes more developed, local transit agencies, including the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

ity, the Fairfax Connector, Alexandria Dash, and the VRE will participate in the planning process to identify potential new transit

services.

The Federal Transit Administration is encouraging local agencies

to implement transit-supported site designs for the proposed new

construction and to identify opportunities for transit-oriented development that will increase accessibility to transit services. And I’m

pleased to note that just recently the Department of Transportation, through its Federal Railroad Administration, approved a

$72.5 million loan to the VRE under our railroad rehabilitation and

improvement financing program.

We know reducing traffic congestion is crucial for northern Virginia, for the entire Washington, DC, metropolitan area, and across

the country. Congestion wastes fuel, wastes time, and robs the

economy of productivity. Congestion costs Americans an estimated

$200 billion a year. That’s the conventional estimate. The Department of Transportation actually thinks that’s woefully understated

in terms of productivity as a result of congestion, and that’s why

in May of this year we announced the Department’s new national

initiative to address congestion across the country.

I guess what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that while we have

obviously a very important problem here as a result of BRAC decisions that were made and the 22,000 souls that will now be realigned and relocated as a result of those decisions, the fact is that

we have heard the extent to which northern Virginia is growing.

This is a problem we would have faced in any event. We may have

accelerated that problem somehow through the BRAC decisions,

but the fact is that northern Virginia must have—must address its

transportation problem, must address it with robust solutions, infrastructure, technology, a whole assortment of tools, including

those which Governor Kaine was talking about.

It may well be that this BRAC decision can be treated as a wakeup call and will force all of us to start focusing on the need for effective and timely decisionmaking and responding to these issues

in a far more effective way than we’ve done in the past, or, as Congressman Moran rightly said, the economic growth for which northern Virginia has been so rightly celebrated will begin to be compromised in a serious way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shane follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Delegate Albo, thank you for being with

us.

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. ALBO

Mr. ALBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Moran, I want to first of all thank

you for holding these hearings here in west Springfield, because I

think it shows that you know what the real problem is, and the

problem is how do we help the people here maintain their neighborhood quality of life. I want to welcome you to Rolling Valley.

This is my elementary school. And in 1974 I sat there, and a lunch

lady was yelling at me, telling me to be quiet; and now there’s no

lunch lady and they’ve given me a microphone. So I figure I’ve really made it.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Dave, is it true you were here for 9 years?

Mr. ALBO. Yeah, you know you can never beat you, Tom. That’s

one thing I have learned over the years.

My formal remarks are in there, but I wanted to kind of talk to

my friends at the Army and other friends on some more practical

solutions on this. I am not happy. I don’t think any of my constituents are happy that 22,000 jobs are moving here. Let’s face the

facts: The problem is that’s the way it is. We need to learn to live

with it, and we need to try to solve a problem.

So the No. 1 thing I think I’d like to ask the Army is—you see

this road here, Rolling Road. Rolling Road goes north to south

through west Springfield through Saratoga. It’s kind of a neighborhood road. It has kind of grown into something more, but that’s

what it is. It’s a neighborhood road. And if you have any access

onto the EPG for 18,000 jobs off Rolling Road, you will ruin this

neighborhood, absolutely ruin this neighborhood. You cannot have

Rolling Road become an access to the EPG whatsoever, not a single

interchange, because what will happen is people will use the neighborhoods here to commute into their 18,000 jobs in the EPG.

So how do you solve that problem? Well, first, the Fairfax County

Parkway has to be constructed. Now, it seems strange to me that

the Army decides it’s cheaper to move a bunch of offices into EPG,

and one of the reasons it’s cheaper is because they don’t have to

pay for the roads. As the Governor said and as our two Congressmen said, the Fairfax County Parkway is funded, but funded to a

lesser extent because no one knew we were going to have 18,000

jobs.

We’re kind of in a little bit of a quandary right now because we

have an environmental problem and the State law says that the

State cannot take over a road when there are environmental

issues. I proposed a bill that will be heard on September 27th that

allows the State to take possession of the road to complete it if

there’s a written agreement between the Army and the State to remediate, which is environmental lawyer talk for cleaning up the

oil. So if we pass that, then I think there will be two methods: your

method where the Army does it, or the State method. But that

should really break open the logjam on that.

The second thing is 22,000 jobs doesn’t just mean 22,000 jobs. It

means a heck of a lot more. It means all the contractors, it means

the dry cleaners, it means the stores, it means everybody who

41

serves the 22,000 jobs, it means all the subcontractors who do the

22,000 jobs, it means all the people who want to move closer to

work. So this actually has a very big school impact, too. Lee High

School and Hayfield High School will handle most of the population

brought in, but that’s going to leave South County, which is already overcrowded, in a real quandary.

Another practical solution I have is this. Imagine if you owned

a couple acres on Route 7 in Tyson’s Corner 30 years ago. You

would be really rich. And what the Army has done by moving

18,000 jobs here is they have created a huge financial windfall for

the land in this area. One of the things to do would be for the

Army to spin off a portion of the land, especially the very valuable

land at Route 1, and transfer it for the county. Gerry is very familiar with the PPEA, Public Private Education Act. We can use that

land to trade with the developer to build a South County middle

school so we can keep the capacity at Hayfield and at Lee and at

South County all for 5, 10 years when there will be an explosion

in population up here.

And with that I’ll close, and more details are in my written remarks.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thanks very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Albo follows:]

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Supervisor Hyland, thank you for being

with us.

STATEMENT OF GERALD W. HYLAND

Mr. HYLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing

and for Congressman Moran being here.

The Department of Defense’s decision to relocate over 22,000 employees to Fort Belvoir I perceive to be a challenge for Fairfax

County. It is an opportunity, but unless we find a way to fund the

substantial transportation infrastructure improvements, it won’t

work.

When the BRAC recommendation was first announced, Fairfax

County made its concerns and suggestions known to the Army, and

we suggested, frankly, that the agencies be spread among the various properties that comprise Fort Belvoir. However, after the

Army decided to locate 18,000 of these persons to the Engineer

Proving Grounds site as well as the National Museum of the U.S.

Army, which will attract a million and a half visitors a year, it appears that our concerns and suggestions, frankly, were ignored.

While the Army has said that these locations are not set in

stone, my gut tells me that not much is going to change unless,

through your committee, Mr. Chairman, and the Congress, through

its oversight, we establish a different direction and possibly a different time table.

Supervisor Kauffman will handle the transportation infrastructure issues and the time to put those in place on behalf of the county.

I would like to emphasize in the rest of my testimony the National Museum of the U.S. Army, which I have been intimately involved with when the Army first came to me a number of years ago

and said, Gerry, we would like to opportune you to give you the

chance to help us locate our Army Museum at Fort Belvoir, not at

Carlisle, not at some other location in the Washington area, but at

Fort Belvoir, and we have a site right next to Pence Gate with all

of the infrastructure in place.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors supported that concept.

We have made substantial financial contributions to that effort.

And the main reason that we supported that location was that you

can take advantage of the synergy of the existing historical sites

in Mount Vernon, Woodlawn, Gunston Hall, and you would have

in the center of all of those historic locations this museum, which

gave us the opportunity of capturing tourists to this part of Fairfax

County for a day, day and a half or 2 days. That means tourist income. It would help revitalization for Richmond Highway.

When Senator Strom Thurmond introduced legislation to locate

the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir, he stressed its proximity to

Washington, DC, and Mount Vernon and said Fort Belvoir was the

most suitable location. The Engineer Proving Grounds site, in our

opinion, is anything but suitable. What was envisioned from the beginning was a historic destination in southeast Fairfax County that

would give families a day or two to explore our country’s founding

and the leaders and soldiers who helped create it. In fact, the Army

Museum’s location is along the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route, the same route that the Army’s first commanding

49

general took as the Continental Army marched to victory at Yorktown. To move the Army Museum to the Engineer Proving

Grounds, you not only lose the sense of history that prompted its

placement there, you also lose the synergy of putting the Army Museum near Mount Vernon and other historic locations such as

Woodland Plantation and Gunston Hall.

We are a bit perplexed that the size of the museum has gone

from 60 to 125 acres, and we sort of hold our breath that the concept of a theme park approach that was suggested by some may

still be a reality. But at a minimum, what we are hearing is that

we were having a museum at EPG with 18,000 employees. We will

have a conference center, hotel. And you put a million and a half

visitors a year at EPG, 18,000 employees, and what Mr. Albo has

just suggested reminds me of the time that we talked about putting

Major League Baseball on the Engineer Proving Grounds site, and

the community surrounding the EPG site went ballistic, and with

good reasons. And this is analogous to what we are proposing.

So in closing, I would ask that we press the decisionmakers to

reconsider the decision to make the National Army Museum at

EPG to either reconsider the Pence Gate site or some other location

along Richmond Highway, and then, most important, that we address the substantial question of timing of putting the infrastructure in place to support what is being proposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyland follows:]

50

51

52

53

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Supervisor Kauffman, thank you for being

here as well.

STATEMENT OF DANA KAUFFMAN

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Moran.

As you indicated earlier, I am providing this testimony on behalf

of Chairman Connolly, who can’t make it, and the rest of our

board.

I would also like to thank the Department of Defense for recognizing Fort Belvoir’s key location, the dynamic community that

surrounds it, and also respecting the men and women who live in

our neighborhoods who work for the Department of Defense and

make this work for us every day.

Indeed, if this fact of life, as the Secretary has said, that is

BRAC was wedded to the transportation improvements, this could

be the single biggest economic opportunity our end of Fairfax County will ever see. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the proposal that

the civilian leadership has put on the table without the transportation improvements is a lose-lose; not the desired win-win for our

community.

From the first day this plan was rolled out, it came with an admitted funding gap of close to three-quarters of a billion dollars in

transportation funds, and that was funding just to support the 14

most critically needed transportation improvements, not all those

that need to work over time to keep this viable.

And it’s not just—well, it puts us in the position, if you will pardon the use of a modified movie line, that if you don’t build it, if

you don’t build these transportation improvements, they will still

come anyway. And that is unacceptable.

The idea of moving this forward quickly is also critical, because,

as you know, Mr. Chairman, even if you had the money on the

table today, the time it takes to make a transportation improvement real requires months and years of environmental review, then

the engineering, then the physical construction.

The plan assumes that the missing leg of the Fairfax County

Parkway, the spine to connect all of these commands together, is

going to be in place come September 2011 when this opens, and unless the decision is made in the next year of how to proceed, that

road won’t be in place. And also to add insult to injury, on the environmental cleanup, the contractor pulled out, just abandoned the

site, because the Army funding to complete the work isn’t there.

So this is just one of those 14 missing projects. You asked the

Governor, do you have a list of projects, and I’ll submit for the

record two pages single-spaced of projects that need to go into the

mix.

You also had asked the question about why are we objecting to

this huge economic largesse as presented. Well, I give you another

analogy. This morning we heard some great analogies on our bus

tour, but the—and what comes to my mind is someone giving you

a brand new car that doesn’t have an engine, doesn’t have the

wheels, doesn’t have the gas tank, and someone saying, don’t you

love the smell of the leather upholstery? Well, this proposal is like

that car without the tires, without the engine, without the gas

54

tank. Give it all to us, and I’ll join you in saying, hosanna, this is

a great economic opportunity.

My colleague Gerry Hyland has well captured the concerns of the

Army Board. It belongs to the highway located there. It will serve

the community’s and the Army’s best long-term interests.

I am also extremely grateful to have heard your comments on incorporating the GSA warehouses into the mix. However we define

smart growth, and I’ll admit that is a work in progress, it is dumb

to not include that land in the mix. Yes, it is hard, but that is why

you bring leadership together, to do the hard things. Let us make

that work. Personally I would love to see that as the location of the

hospital for the reason it can be collocated with the medical education campus of the Northern Virginia Community College,

George Mason Medical College of Virginia, and setting proximate

to Metro just as the Bethesda Naval Medical Center does. But

whatever it is used for, it needs to be in the mix.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, at a recent community meeting I was

asked a very simple question, just what do I think the Army was

thinking when they came forward with this proposal. My answer

then and my answer today is that I don’t have evidence that the

Army was thinking, at least when it comes to the immediate impacts on our community and what is in the long-term best interest

of the U.S. Army. I would remind folks that it isn’t unpatriotic to

question a proposal that is brought forward by our civilian leadership. We have to question it, and we will continue to.

We can have a win-win solution if the transportation is put on

the table and if we take a more long-term focus on where the commands are located.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kauffman follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Mr. Tistadt, thanks for being with us.

STATEMENT OF DEAN TISTADT

Mr. TISTADT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the

Fairfax School Board, we thank you for this opportunity to speak

this morning.

I’ll change the focus just a little bit initially, but I’d also touch

on transportation. The school system certainly applauds the notion

of the DOD trying to be more efficient and welcomes the idea of

creation of more jobs in the region, but we do have two concerns

to speak to. One was alluded to earlier; that is, the capacity of our

schools. If this change results in differences in residential development and rapid growth in this part of the county, we are limited

in our capacity to handle that. We have very little capacity of any

of the elementary level and very little at the middle and high

school levels.

On the transportation front, we have 1,200 buses transporting

110,000 children a day. Probably about a third of those are in this

part of the county to be impacted by traffic changes in this part.

We already struggle with getting children to school on time and get

them to programs that they need to take. We already open schools

earlier than parents would like and open elementary schools later

than they would like. And we’re worried that changes in transportation and traffic in this part of the county will impact negatively

our ability to get children to school, may require that we change

bell schedules to even more onerous times.

We have heard recently about potential budget cuts at Fort

Belvoir that might result in some closers of gate staff at that post

that would exacerbate these other challenges even further. So we

do have concerns in that regard.

Having said that then, we asked that the Fairfax Schools be invited to participate in the process so we could have an understanding of what’s happening; that under the National Environmental

Policy Act cooperating agency status can be assigned to the school

system as a means of facilitating an evaluation of potential impacts

in mitigation. Whether the part of the EIS team evaluates impacts

or potentially impacted governmental agencies, it is necessary for

EPS to have insight into the size, mobility, household income of

personnel to be located. We would also like to find out the status

of the new status plan for Fort Belvoir. So we welcome the opportunity to be involved in the process.

At the heart of our intent is to provide the best possible education to the military families we will be hosting and for the larger

community in which we live. This can be accomplished by allowing

the school system to be involved in the process.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dale follows:]

63

64

65

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We have our citizen member here. We

very much appreciate you being here.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN D. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am extremely

pleased to be here to represent the residents here of west Springfield and the folks that are probably going to be the most impacted

in the short term and eventually in the long term as a result of

the BRAC decision.

I am convinced after listening to you talk to Governor Kaine this

morning that you certainly have our major concerns in mind as far

as transportation, local infrastructure, quality of life for the residents that are going to be here.

What I would like to do is to bring just one other item up to your

attention, and that is that, one, the folks I represent in the civic

association are keeping an open mind toward the BRAC decision

and the impact it is going to have on us. And the reason we are

keeping an open mind is because we are watching you, our elected

representative at the Federal, State, local level, to see what actions

you are going to take to address the concerns that you already

know about.

And one of the things that I think that I would like to make you

aware of from the folks that I represent is that it is going to take

a significant amount of political will on the part of our elected representatives to make BRAC the forefront, I guess, of some of the

short-term legislation that is going to have to occur to either support the move, to terminate the move, whatever it is going to be.

The BRAC is a Federal decision, and the location was chosen by

the Federal Government. We may be the recipient of some excellent

largesse, but this has to be a Federal priority then if this is their

decision to move the Federal workers down to the Fort Belvoir

area.

Yes, we recognize we are going to have to do our part to support

this. We don’t hope to support all of it. And for the State folks, this

is, I think, going to have to result in some rethinking about how

the things—how things and business is done in Richmond. Northern Virginia is supporting the rest of Virginia in transportation

and education. If you are going to bring these people in here, we

may have to relook those formulas to redirect funds back up to the

northern Virginia area to allow us to prioritize and complete those

projects it is going to take to support the people that may be coming into this area to work 5, 6, 7 days a week or to live here.

For the county people what I would like to offer is the fact that

the BRAC is obviously going to have a significant impact on zoning

and how we prepare ourselves to accommodate this influx of people

and all of the associated local infrastructure that is going to be required, whether schools, water treatment plants, power facilities,

fire, police, the commercial activities to support recreation, entertainment.

The people in Springfield enjoy a suburban lifestyle. They moved

into this area many, many years ago with that thought in mind.

We certainly enjoy the open land in the county parks that we have

in this area. We certainly would not like to lose any of that to acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
66

commodate the BRAC and its decision to put a new Pentagon down

here.

Yes, we are going to have to live through the short-term issues

of going to work heading north or south. I think we can do that.

We are just in the end looking toward our elected representatives

to put forth that effort to make this thing a priority so we can get

through this in about as painlessly and about as reasonable a manner as we can without turning it into a cat fight, I guess, between

parties, between Federal and State representatives and State and

local folks.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much. That was excellent.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirk follows:]

67

68

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just assure you I think from the

State, the locals, Republicans, Democrats, I think we are staying

united on this. It is important we stay together on this, and I think

your admonition is warranted, and I appreciate it.

Mr. KIRK. I certainly appreciate that, and I wanted to let you

know that I don’t have a doubt that our elected representative in

Virginia is going to be able to do this. Where I have my concerns

is probably in the larger collective body either at the Federal level

or the State level. You are 1 out of 435 voices out there, and it’s

going to take a lot of leadership on your part and on the Virginia

contingent to make this thing happen.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

That is a good segment for you, Ms. Watts.

STATEMENT OF VIVIAN WATTS

Ms. WATTS. Thank you for including me to make remarks. There

is so much to say. I will start by simply associating myself with

most of the remarks that have been made by everyone this morning, particularly, I must say, my friend Dana Kauffman where I

think he hit a lot.

Five years is an impossibly short time, in my experience. So I am

going to take my time to go specifically into 3 years that were

raised in my mind as I looked at this flow of where the traffic is

supposed to come from.

Let me go first to access from the north via I–395 or Metro. All

employees using I–395 or those being shuttled from Metro under

the Army’s current plans if Metro is not extended will have to use

Franconia-Springfield Parkway, that is Route 7900, between I–95

and EPG. This travel pattern was not addressed at all in the siting

analysis of road capacity. It constitutes upwards of 10,000 commuters who do not currently use this stretch of road and were never

anticipated in its projected capacity use.

Two construction projects are imperative, and again this is my

district. EPG is in my district. First, a grade-separated intersection

must be built for the only at-grade intersection in this section of

the parkway at Spring Village Drive, Bonnie Mill Lane, which is

not addressed at all in the siting analysis and will cost $350 million. So that is one item to add to the list.

This intersection serves many residents including over 2,000 residents of Green Spring Village, a major continuing care retirement

community. The intersection is already presenting severe problems.

Second, improved ramps to and from EPG from I–95, which is

No. 3 on the Army list, must be completed before employees are relocated to EPG. Again, we are looking at 10,000 vehicles using a

stretch of highway that was not planned at all for that usage.

A second travel pattern, which is access from the north via

Backlick or Rolling Road, this travel pattern also was not addressed at all in the analysis. The interesting geographic division

in the analysis which separate employees commuting from the

north and those from the west obfuscates, masks this commuting

impact. The north grouping includes—and I have included ZIP

codes—Annandale, North Springfield, Springfield, Barcroft,

Lincolnia. These employees will use Backlick Road. They won’t

come out to Highway 395. In the west grouping, employees from

69

King Park, west Springfield, a good portion of Burke and some of

Fairfax 22032 will use Rolling Road. Again, they won’t be coming

out to 395. That is not northward—or, I am sorry, they won’t be

dropping down to the parkway. They will be coming straight across

on Rolling Road.

Sizable portions of Backlick and Rolling, as have already been

mentioned, are two-laned and/or were built as subdivision streets

with homes on half-acre lots, with front yards and driveways on

both sides directly facing the street. At least Route 1 was built and

developed as a commercial highway. Addressing the safety issues

on Backlick and Rolling Roads will be costly to the State and forever change these neighborhoods.

A final pattern that I wish to address is the access from the west

by the Fairfax Parkway, 7500, because it is so central. Again, our

designated panel addressed construction of the parkway across

EPG; however, I want to underscore the criticality of expanding its

capacity. The siting analysis severely underestimates the growth in

commuting from the west by focusing on the current employees’

place of residence instead of making a 20 years projection of travel

patterns, which is standard for road improvements. Whatever we

put in, we project 20 years. Because of the cost of housing, EPG

employees will increasingly come from Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon to the west. In addition, the travel pattern was not addressed

at all of the projected 1 million visitors to the Army Museum, many

of whom will also be drawn to the Air and Space Museum at Dulles, impacting the Fairfax County Parkway, where there will be

other intersections that are at grade.

Mr. Assistant Secretary, I implore you to include full funding of

these and many of the other transportation projects in the Army’s

congressional budget requests for these specific off-base transportation improvements and for the other critical projects in the siting

analysis. We have just 5 years that funding has to be in place.

I know that Congressman Davis and Congressman Moran agree

that our constituents deserve no less than a full and honest costing

of BRAC’s impact so that they are in the strongest position to ensure that Congress, all the rest of those folks that you were referring to, will deliver.

And finally, given the tight timeframe imposed for completion of

this realignment, adequate analysis and review will be challenges.

Today as I address you, I chose to wear not my normal Virginia

seal pin, which is Thus Always to Tyrants, because I didn’t want

to lay down the gauntlet on this decision, but instead borrowed a

pin that has the State of Virginia’s flag and the United States of

America flag joined together. Again, I will certainly offer my expertise both in transportation, but particularly as someone who has

driven these roads for 40 years and knows how these patterns develop. I look forward to working closely with you on these all-important details.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watts follows:]

70

71

72

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Senator Puller.

STATEMENT OF TODDY PULLER

Ms. PULLER. Thank you, Mr. Congressmen, for coming out here

and listening to the concerns of the people who will be impacted

by the BRAC decision.

Now, I represent all of the Fort Belvoir post. I do not represent

the Engineering Proving Ground. And I have been working for I

think it is 14 years trying to improve the Route 1 corridor in Fairfax and Prince William County. And currently over 20,000 people

come to the main post at Fort Belvoir every day, so our roads down

at southeast Fairfax County are in gridlock when those people

come to work and when they go back home. And many, many of

them come from the south, and it is almost impossible to go south

of Fort Belvoir in the evening commute.

So I was very glad, when they decided not to put 18,000 more

people on top of the 20,000 that already had come to Fort Belvoir

and to try to develop the Engineering Proving Ground and have the

new employees go there rather than to Crystal City, and I think

we are very fortunate that these employees didn’t go out of State.

That could have been a devastating impact to us in Virginia.

So I think what we need to do is try to do the best job we can,

because we are going to—this is a reality. It is going to happen,

and we have to make it happen in the least—with the least amount

of problems that we possibly can do. And our—and my—my commitment to you all, along with Delegate Watts and Delegate Albo

and Delegate Sickles, is that we are going back into session at the

end of September specifically to work on transportation, which we

have been doing most of the whole year without success, I might

add. But we need to go back and do something so that this State

steps up to its responsibility to make our transportation system

work not only in northern Virginia, but all across the Commonwealth. But in this instance, we really have to all go down there

and work together in the Senate.

We have been working together. We have passed several bills

that are sitting over in the house, and we need to go down there

and be serious about this and get our act together for the citizens

of northern Virginia and the whole Commonwealth and fund our

transportation infrastructure so that our citizens will not be even

more impacted than they are right—than they are currently, but

for the future. And we can expect no less, and I pledge to go down

and work with both sides of the aisle and try to get a plan. And

I don’t—I am not wedded to any plan. We are willing to talk about

anything, but we need to go down there and be serious about it and

get something done, and I plan to do that.

Thank you very much.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

I also wanted to note we have a statement from Mark Sickles if

he was offered an opportunity to speak and to put it in the record,

and we appreciate that very much as well.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sickles follows:]

73

74

75

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me start the questions.

Keith, I am going to start with you. I want to note for the record

that you didn’t make the BRAC decision. You came in to implement.

Mr. EASTIN. I was not around for the BRAC decision.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Makes the conversation go a little easier,

as you and I and Mr. Moran voted against the BRAC decision when

it came up before.

Let me ask you this: There has been discussions of an amusement park or something else to go with that. Can you give us a

clarification with the Army Museum, what is envisioned at that

point and where we are going?

Mr. EASTIN. I am not often quoted in the San Diego Tribune or

San Francisco Chronicle or Manchester Guardian in England, but

somehow I made it to those newspapers when I said this plan was

dead on arrival.

A plan was submitted a couple years ago to basically do more a

demonstrative use of EPG and the museum. That is just not in

keeping with what the Army wants out there, and it is not in keeping with the museum, what the museum wants. So amusement

parks and other flashy displays are—will not be considered.

What we are looking for in the museum is to present any museum that is comprehensive, that tells the Army story, and is a

tribute to the men and women who have served and sacrificed for

the Army and for the country. We believe we have had a good story

to tell, and we want to tell it completely rather than having what

might be termed an abbreviated museum.

So the question is why it’s been raised here, why would we move

the museum from what is known as the Pence Gate site down on

Route 1 out to the Engineer Proving Ground, and why do you need

all of that excess acreage.

This museum was put together with the idea that it would be

funded privately, that appropriate funds would not be used for the

building of the museum. The museum, we would estimate, is going

to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $175 to $200 million for

the building itself, and when we start adding exhibitry to that,

anyone in the museum business can tell you you don’t just move

a tank or a gun or out into a bullpen at the museum and let people

just go in and look at it. You have to tell a story. Stories are expensive. But we are looking at probably another $90 to $100 million

in exhibitry.

By the time we are finished, what are we looking at? A museum

that will cost maybe $300 million. This is a tall order for any private fundraising organization, especially in this rather austere

fundraising atmosphere that we have faced here in the last 5 or 6

years. So anything we can do to assist the fundraising on this museum I think is going to benefit the Army and benefit the story we

have to tell.

That is one of the reasons we moved it to EPG. Of course, the

other reason was I appreciate Gerry Hyland’s work on the museum. A lot has gone into getting the museum down to Belvoir, and

in a lot of ways it would not have happened without Gerry

Hyland’s help.

76

But after it was sited at Pence Gate, something came along

called BRAC, along with its massive traffic problems that we see.

That coupled with the fundraising constraints on building a firstclass museum, I think, caused us to think about putting this out

at the EPG.

What will be going out there, Mr. Chairman? We put out a request for information to the Department of Defense and public to

see if there was some interest in building a hotel and perhaps a

conference center, and incidentally, while you are at it, build me

a better part of my museum.

We have gotten a number of expressions of interest in that. We

will know more this fall, hopefully by early November, of what the

quality of that interest is. That is the reason we did that.

This will not be an amusement park under anybody’s stretch of

the imagination. There will be very little, if anything, outside of the

four walls of the museum that don’t relate to—directly to museum

experience.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just get a reaction, Mr. Hyland.

I am sure when Senator Thurmond introduced legislation to put in

Belvoir, he probably meant Belvoir. I wonder as you walk through

the line of thinking that has come from the Army since then, do

you have any thoughts or you, Mr.——

Mr. HYLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony, written and oral, and from the beginning—and I think Senators Thurmond, Warton and Allen were helpful in getting legislation passed.

We looked at the museum as an opportunity to, in effect, collocate

with other existing historical sites in the southeast and part of

Fairfax County, in the middle of them, and what we were trying

to do is to capture those persons who now come to those sites. We

have about a million visitors to Mount Vernon in a year as it is.

As a matter of fact, I have a proposal before the Fairfax County

Board if this happens, we would propose to have a shuttle that

would go among those various sites, and the synergy of having it

there made so much sense.

But, second, the opportunity to capture people in the county for

a day or 2 days as opposed to their going into Washington. If it’s

at EPG, the folks—I am not sure how many people are going to

come from Washington, DC, which is the major destination, out to

the museum. We can capture people coming up from 95 to go to

the museum, so they can go to the museum and go right into

Washington. So that denies us the opportunity to capture people in

Fairfax County for a day and a half to 2 days, which obviously is

tourist income. That is the best business in the world. They come,

they go, and we don’t have to educate their children.

The second question that I now have and the Army has proposed,

and I presume this will be on government land, they would propose

a hotel conference center. They’ve also talked about using enhanced

use leasing, which means putting public office space for the private

sector on government land, which obviously doesn’t do anything for

us as far as our tax base, but the whole concept of helping us with

revitalization, which was the main reason, the impetus, for our

pushing to put the museum at Fort Belvoir is lost. So I think it

is an opportunity for us that we anticipated was a good investment

77

for us, and unfortunately EPG just doesn’t do the same thing for

us.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Do you have anything to add to that?

Mr. KAUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the further clarification from the Secretary.

I go back to our initial concerns and seeing the opportunity for

this Army Museum. We were looking at this as being integral development; not seeing a significantly expanded site where the museum itself isn’t bigger, but what you have done is located a lot of

hotels, eating facilities, etc., on post, not on the economy where we

are trying to bring about redevelopment, where we are trying to

knock down eyesores. So that is a critically missing piece. Gerry

Hyland alluded to it, but this is supposed to be a stimulus to redevelopment as well by putting everything together. I will again use

the term Disney atmosphere, where you have the hotels next to the

bars next to the shock-and-awe rides to drive patriotism electronically. I think it needs to be a museum that gives us the opportunity

to leverage private investment off-post.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Secretary Eastin, I want to talk a little bit

about the money and the time line. It is not like it is vacant, and

all of a sudden September 15, 2011, everybody moves in. I assume

this would be staged, which means some of these transportation

improvements would have to be effectuated, completed sometime

prior to that.

We have 14 identified projects. Three of them have some level of

funding. None of them have completed funding. We have to do it

within 5 years.

The title of the World War II movie was A Bridge Too Far, and

I wondered with this, within that 5-year framework, even if we had

the money today, by the time you go through the planning, the

environmentals on this, send it out to contract, given everything

else, it is a tough reach, and we are talking about now we don’t

know where this money is coming from.

The Governor has stepped up today and said they want to be

part of the solution. They can resolve it with the General Assembly. They never said they don’t want to be part of the general solution. They can’t solve it all.

What kind of money does the BRAC have available for this? How

much were you looking to Congress to come back? You get to a

point you were worried about the implementation. How do you see

this going at this time? What additional help do you think you are

going to need outside of BRAC resources?

Mr. EASTIN. First off, I think, going back to the initial part of

your question, we are looking at the 14 projects Pierce Homer and

I have been discussing these. We will be meeting in the next couple

of weeks to try to agree on what we think is a likely list of projects

and to try to price those out so that we can get some idea of how

much they are.

Of the $625 million or so worth of projects, two of those are

largely financed already, and that is the widening of the I–95 and

the EPG part of the Fairfax County Parkway along with Woodlawn

Road, which, of course, is funded by Congress or will be completely

in the year 2008. So if you take those out, we are looking for about

$475 million, if the price holds up after analysis. But our engineerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
78

ing and traffic people tell us that should be enough to handle this

traffic.

What we are trying to do here is with EPG and with the Fairfax

County Parkway that is largely designed, probably almost ready to

go, with some enhancements due to the much larger traffic use

which will largely deal with the on/off ramps, probably not the

parkway itself. So a lot of that design has been done. The I–95 design, which every time we go down in this area, we see in painful

detail, that, as I am told, is largely finished. So what we really

need to do is figure out how to design and get people on and off

of 95 so that they don’t run through Delegate Watts’ neighborhood

and further complicate those problems.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And Delegate Albo’s neighborhoods. I

want to give credit on this.

I understand that does not include the cost for additional roads

on EPG that the Army would install as part of this development

program.

Mr. EASTIN. That is already included in the BRAC funding.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That is outside of money we are talking

about.

I’ve got a few other questions. The time line is still very tough,

particularly because of the identification of funds, the ability to go

out to bid, the ability for the design, the environmental assessments. Obviously the quicker we can start on that, the better opportunity we have.

Let me ask you, Mr. Shane. I mean, it is ambitious, isn’t it, to

try to get this done in the period of time that the BRAC allots?

These are the orders he was given, in fairness. But this is very ambitious, it seems to me, given where we are, isn’t it?

Mr. SHANE. That is certainly a fair statement.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I think one of the things that we want to

explore is some delay on this, and I think the BRAC calls for this

to be done by a date certain, but given some of the other funding

priorities coming within the Defense Department’s budget and the

MILCON’s budget, that is something we will explore with you, you

do have your orders at this point. I don’t expect you to say anything else. But from our perspective, we intend to explore the time

line on this. We think it is unrealistic, and we will try to work with

you on that, and that will give you some breathing room to try to

resolve some of those issues.

Let me ask, if I can, about the airport, Davidson Airport. What

is going to happen with the changes at Belvoir? Is it the utilization

will be somewhat different under the new plans?

Mr. EASTIN. Excuse me.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Go ahead.

Mr. EASTIN. We don’t anticipate any real change in the use of

Davidson. And, of course, it is an active airfield. It has very important security purposes here in the National Capital region flying

and ferrying various officials to the government here and there.

And it performs a great service as a platform during any times of

emergency.

We looked at a time perhaps using part of Davidson in the planning process for part of the jobs and locations here at Belvoir.

While that in the long term might be possible in the time we have,

79

I don’t think that is very realistic. We would have to find—it serves

a purpose. We would have to find another place for it if we wanted

to use that.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I would note for the record our office—we

discussed this further with you. It continues to get complaints on

noise emanations, and we need to have some further discussions on

that.

The GSA warehouses are sometimes—I discussed in my opening

statements, Mr. Kauffman discussed them, Mr. Moran has alluded

to it. Currently it seems to me that given the magnitude of the

issues we face on transportation, warehouse usage around a metro

center like we have at the Joe Alexander Springfield Center, where

you have the VRE coming in from the south, you have Metro coming in from the north and the east, is not a good utilization; that,

in fact, warehouses could be moved somewhere else probably much

more efficiently from a transportation perspective, and the area

that houses the warehouse could probably have the 18,000 people

move to EPG just from our government, 6,000 or 7,000 people could

move there and right on top of a transportation center. That would

greatly alleviate some of the problems that we face there on the

EPG.

I know that is outside of your charge, but would you be willing

to work with Mr. Moran and myself and GSA if we can find an appropriate location for that?

Mr. EASTIN. Absolutely. We have discussed this before. GSA—but

for the time that it would take to utilize that site, and, of course,

the money involved, it always seems to get back to that little bugaboo that we have to find funding. It is a utilized site already, and

we have to find another place for them and due to them moving.

But in the meantime, if we can come up with some, I think, innovative approaches to that, we would be more than happy to consider them.

By the way, consideration of that will be done in our environmental impact statement. We have considered that as an alternative.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I want to put that on the table because

I think that makes trying to put a size 8 foot into a size 5 foot

makes it a little bit easier. That is a lot of work to do.

Mr. EASTIN. Mr. Chairman, if you will let me clarify one thing

that came up before, that is the contractor tail on the employees

coming down there. As we know, the government does not work

alone. It has a gaggle of contractors that are of various degrees of

expense that follow them around and help them out. So it is proper

for the Governor and others to suggest that if you are bringing

18,000 people to EPG, gee whiz, there is probably a whole bunch

of contractors that are going to follow along with them.

What has not been clarified, I don’t think, in this is that we are

bringing 12,400 Federal employees to EPG. Also we are bringing

5,600 contractors, who will be collocated with those Federal Government employees. So the contractors are already in the mix, but

we are talking about the 18,000.

Are there going to be additional contractors? Probably. But the

lion’s share of them are already accounted for.

80

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The clarification itself will at least initially—who knows how this stuff grows in the outyears. We can

only work with the figures that we have here today.

Before I turn to Mr. Moran, I’ll have some other questions. Let

me just ask, we talked about the 14 projects. You were getting together with Pierce Homer, who is the Governor—Secretary of

Transportation, who I worked with for many years when he was in

Prince William County. He was very able in getting those funded.

I have heard from other members, Ms. Watts, solving those 14

projects, getting those fully resolved doesn’t necessarily make this

a livable item. Is that far enough?

Let me get a comment from the elected official or citizens on the

panel if they care to address that. Is that the end of it if we get

these projects? And I guess from Mr. Homer’s point of view, if you

look at this and work with the Army, I hope you’ll look at input

from these officials and maybe factor—if there were more we need

to factor in more. We have to get our arms around the problem—

I know Mr. Albo in his opening remarks alluded to the Rolling

Road situation—in trying to do that, give you a chance to clarify

your views on that.

Ms. Watts, I’ll start with you and then anyone else who wants

to chime in.

Ms. WATTS. Again, my statement was put in the record, and this

is why I went through the exercise of including the ZIP codes of

where I thought the traffic sheds would go to Rolling Road or to

Backlick Road. It’s something we identify. I am sure that on the

other side of 95, there still may be things that I’m not familiar

with, such as Telegraph Road and other things that are on that list

of 13. But I know again for various reasons this side of 95 has not

necessarily been on the radar screen.

And this may be the tip of the iceberg, but let me then also tie

in to my very strong concern that I started out with about the only

at-grade intersection on the parkway there at Spring Village and

Bonnie Mill. Again, it is already a problem intersection not just because of the 2,062-plus and they say 62-and-better aged residents

of Green Spring Village, but also because of the volume of traffic

that is going through there. If it’s 35 million at that one critical

interchange—intersection, when we talk about improvements to

the parkway, either that which goes across EPG or the parkway

that serves that, the region with the westerly traffic that I also was

alluding to, that gives you some idea of the magnitude of additional

costs that we have to be addressing when we say, well, we have

to do more as far as the design because of these 22,000 commuters

that haven’t been planned on. The more has a significant price tag.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And let me just say, Secretary Eastin and

Secretary Homer, as we look at this, if we can factor these in as

you come together, and you can prioritize them, you want to get a

list of every road where you approve of this project. But I do think

what you talked about on the Green Spring Village could be significant. If they need to be addressed, let us get them up front so we

can put them in the package.

Mr. Kauffman.

Mr. KAUFFMAN. I would not want the committee or the members

of the audience to walk away thinking that this is the golden 14

81

and solve for those and that is it. Fourteen to a certain extent does

dumb down or pare down to say this is what you need most critically, and those are the terms used to support the proposals as

ruled out. I think it has to be a combination of rethinking where

those commands are, and that would significantly alter what our

other priority projects are, and also those priority projects include

next to nothing for transit, which, particularly when the day is

done, I agree with other speakers, most of the folks coming here

will in the future years be coming from the south.

I appreciate the USDOT finally coming around on the dollars for

the VRE, but that little engine that has could to this point is now

breaking down and breaking down in a horrible fashion. We can’t

rely on it as a system. We need to do more, and transit has to be

integral from the south.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr. Albo.

Mr. ALBO. If you recall, when you were on the county board

building the Fairfax Parkway, one of the things you did, you got

the developers to build a parkway to enable people to get in and

out of their offices. This is kind of a messed up situation here because you have the Army, who, under Federal law, has the absolute right to do whatever they want to do on the EPG, and my

friends here in the county don’t have any ability to request proffers

from the Army to build transportation access or to alleviate school

overcrowding that is caused by the development.

But I would hope what could happen during this process is, Congressman Moran and Congressman Davis, with your oversight over

the Army because of your elected position, that you can be in the

position to, in a way, put your local government hats on that you

had many years ago and require some kind of proffers. That was

the idea behind my suggestion of spinning off some land to be able

to do a PPEA trade to build some school space. There’s a lot of assets. In my written statements as soon as the President of the

United States signed the order that put 22,000 jobs here, he compressed 30 years of appreciation on land into 1 year. The land out

here right now is worth tens of hundreds of millions of dollars, and

there’s a lot of assets that are to be used to be able to solve some

of these problems that we listed today.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. Hyland.

Mr. HYLAND. In direct response to your question, at the last

Board of Advisors meeting with Fort Belvoir, the Office of Transportation of the county prepared a list of additional transportation

improvements, which were given to the Army. I believe all of those

are referenced as an attachment in Supervisor Kauffman’s testimony. So there are many other improvements that we consider to

be helpful and necessary. So you have them.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Let me just finally explore something Mr.

Albo suggested with Mr. Eastin; that is, something we discussed.

If you have something—roughly 800 acres, what is it——

Mr. EASTIN. 804 acres.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. The county has 25, as I recall, that they

are giving us; is that about right?

82

Mr. KAUFFMAN. At one point there was 135 acres that were going

to be dedicated to parkland that has since slipped off the table.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I mean, one of the things that we may

want to explore with you is what you are going to need to do that,

and maybe Mr. Moran and I were successful on the Horton transfer, so take a look at doing something like that to help the county

in some other areas. If we can continue to talk.

Mr. EASTIN. I agree.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I recognize your orders come from a higher authority, and you are going to be a good soldier and implement

them.

Mr. EASTIN. Not the highest authority, but the higher.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, Mr. Moran and I have to answer to

everybody. We have to answer to our colleagues, our voters, to everybody on this. But we have been successful in the past when we

put our heads together. Again, he’s on a very critical Appropriation’s subcommittee, a respected member of that. I am chairman of

the committee that oversees GSA. Between us maybe we can continue to make the pie a little bigger to solve this and work on the

time line. So if we can work toward that, I think it gives us some

hope.

Finally, Mr. Kirk, what is it going to take to satisfy your citizens

at the end of the day? I appreciate you keeping an open mind on

this, but there has to be a lot of anxiety on this out there.

Mr. KIRK. Certainly there’s a lot of anxiety. It’s not going to be

something in the short term. I think it is going to have to be

worked through during the course of the years. It’s going to take

to identify what the issues are, to identify potential solutions to

them, whether you follow Dave Albo’s suggestion, whether you

come up with other ideas.

I think that really we are going to be patient and watch, and certainly it would be nice if occasionally we could, I guess, stay wired

in slightly somehow. We don’t have the resources, obviously, to influence the county planning or the State planning decisions, but we

certainly have some ideas or on-the-scene recommendations that

we can provide up through the folks that will spend more time

working with you on a regular basis.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Well, I intend to keep you involved, and

I know the other officials in the area wanted to keep you, and some

of the other officials involved as well. Even if we get a consensus

on the plan, implementing that plan is difficult given the financial

constraints and some of the time constraints that we have, and I

think that is something that Mr. Moran and I need to work on.

Mr. Moran.

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, when you were chair of the Fairfax County

Board, and this proposal were to have come before you, you would

have rejected it because there wasn’t an adequate infrastructure to

accommodate the development, and would have required that infrastructure be completed before the development itself was completed. Mr. Hyland and Kauffman, I trust, would take exactly the

same position today. So it is a private development; you would say

that infrastructure has to be in place before you bring 18,000 people onto the base, or including—all inclusive we are talking about

83

almost 20,000 to 25,000 really, perhaps more than that. So it

wouldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be approved.

Mr. HYLAND. It would be proper if it was taking care of this.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Shane, you are an expert, national expert, on

economic development and transportation planning. If you had

such a project that was going to see over 20,000 people coming into

a development, would you take the position that infrastructure has

to be in place before that development can proceed to completion?

Mr. SHANE. In my experience, we have never had so perfect a situation in which we could see the infrastructure is going to be there

before the people who need it begin to arrive. It is always imperfect. And what I see here is—forgive me for being the cockeyed optimist, I have to be to work in the Federal establishment—a huge

opportunity. We have a huge challenge coming at us. It is a firecracker that is under our seats, and it’s going to force all of the

agencies that have a role here, including several of the agencies

that comprise the Department of Transportation, to really step up

to this issue in a much more efficient way than we are going to do,

or we are going to have, as you have seen, gridlock. We can’t afford

that.

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. So the answer was yes? You would want at

least the funding to be identified.

Mr. SHANE. Yes.

Mr. MORAN. OK. Now, let’s move to Mr. Eastin.

Mr. EASTIN. How did I know you were going to get to me on this?

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. Are you going to recommend that at least the $626 million be—the source of all of that funding be identified before this project can be approved?

Mr. EASTIN. We expect to—as I have indicated before, Pierce

Homer and I and others are cooperating on this, on trying to find

it and put a handle on it, on what’s necessary and what the number, dollar number, is. We’re going to go ahead with the Fairfax

County Parkway. I assume they’re going to go ahead with the widening of I–95 and Woodlawn Road, and we’re going to have to identify where the money is coming from to finish these.

Now, all of the money is not very likely going to come from the

State of Virginia. Not all of the money is going to come from the

Army or the BRAC account. All the money’s not going to come from

the Office of the Secretary of Defense or some outside funding from

whatever you and the chairman can help with.

Mr. MORAN. If I could, if you do not have agreement on all of

those funding sources, are you prepared to recommend that this

project should not go forward until such agreement is reached?

Mr. EASTIN. My job under the BRAC law is to bring 18,000 people one way or another to EPG. I am confident, and as Jeff has indicated, this is going to be a challenge. It’s a challenge I look forward to. I think it can be done, but we’re going to perceive that

they’re coming down there, and I think we’re going to get the infrastructure to do it.

It would be very unwise to do that if we didn’t have the—didn’t

have the infrastructure, but our—our duty under the BRAC law is

to bring them down there. If the infrastructure’s not complete,

we’re going to have to take some other measures, staggered work

and various other things, but I am confident that between Pierce

84

and myself and the people on the Hill, we recognize we have a

problem, between a rock and a hard place, if you will, and I am

confident that wise people can get together and figure out how to

do this.

Mr. MORAN. Well, I am confident as well that we all recognize

this is a problem. I am not confident we all recognize that there

is a solution to this problem. The Fairfax County Parkway has

been on the boards for what, 14 years or something, and it’s still

not completed, and at this point, given the expansion necessitated

by BRAC, we don’t have the money even identified for completing

the Fairfax County Parkway.

Can you assure me that the Army is going to have this done?

The Fairfax County Parkway is all I am talking about. That’s the

first step, before these people are located at the base by 2011.

Mr. EASTIN. I can tell you that from what—my talking with Secretary Homer, that we will have this thing built long before September 15, 2011.

Mr. MORAN. When do you think you’ll have the Fairfax County

Parkway—I really want to get you on the record. When do you expect the Fairfax County Parkway to be completed?

Mr. EASTIN. I don’t know, but I think it’s time for our impasse

over who’s going to build this thing to end, and to use the funding

that VDOT already has supplemented as it might be necessary

from wherever, and get the thing built. Our staffs, the Pierce staff

and mine, are very, shall we say, animated in their discussions. It’s

time to eliminate the animation and get on with the business.

Mr. MORAN. I agree. It’s one thing to be animated in discussion.

It’s another thing to reach agreement. But you are on the record

saying this is going to—the Fairfax County Parkway is going to be

completed at a level adequate to accommodate at least the portion

of the BRAC expansion that is coming into the EPG and Route 1

well in time before 2011.

Mr. EASTIN. I will commit to that on the parkway. My commitment does not run to interchanges and other things.

Mr. MORAN. No. I understand that, but you’re going to have to

do these interchanges.

Now, the $626 million that has been identified is not provided for

in the budget resolution as it applies to the military construction

appropriations.

Mr. EASTIN. $407, that’s correct. I might add, Congressman, $626

is really $475 because the other $150 or so has been identified by

VDOT.

Mr. MORAN. OK. So we’re talking $475 million unidentified.

Mr. EASTIN. That’s right.

Mr. MORAN. And the 2007—it obviously is not in 2007. How

much is going to be in the 2008 request?

Mr. EASTIN. It’s going to depend on several things. One, our discussions with the State, the Commonwealth on appropriate shares

of these things. My discussion with the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, remember, 18,000 of 22,000 are not Army people. We are

the agent and landlord, but they are from elsewhere in the Defense

Department. And we will have ongoing discussions with your committee on where funds might come from.

85

Along with that, we’re looking at declaring some of these roads,

defense access roads, which would then ease the ability to fund

some of their necessary projects.

Mr. MORAN. Good. Labeling it a defense access road does help,

but as you know, you have a maximum of 3 months within which

to get that request into the 2008 fiscal year appropriation. It’s not

in there, it’s going to be very difficult to get any addition, because

that money would have to come from veterans’ healthcare within

the allocation to that subcommittee. So within 3 months, you’ve got

to figure out where you’re going to get that money, and that 2008

money doesn’t become available until 2009, and at that point you

have 2 years left to accommodate the influx of 18,000, you say the

20,000-plus people really, onto this base.

I know you know this, but I am kind of underscoring the timeframe within which we have to operate. From my perspective, it’s

impossible, not going to have the infrastructure in place. If you

didn’t have the infrastructure in place, and I ask this again, would

you not think it appropriate to delay the move of these 18,000 people to Fort Belvoir?

Mr. EASTIN. I do not have the option as given by the BRAC law

to delay their move. We have the perfect storm here, I mean quite

frankly. To get people in there, we have to put them in there by

September 15th. If we want them to be there and be productive,

we have to fix the transportation system, and I am confident the

State and Defense will do that.

Mr. MORAN. OK. Because your role and that of your—of the people that you answer to is to implement the law as passed by the

legislative branch. So if the Congress was to extend this deadline,

then that would resolve this issue that this—what I would consider

to be an insurmountable challenge. And it appears that’s the situation that we are going to be confronting.

2011 is not a reasonable timeframe. It’s not a possible timeframe

within which to accomplish this infrastructure, and we have all

agreed that without that infrastructure in place, you can’t move

18,000-plus people onto this base.

Another issue related to the fact that the Congress passes the

laws and the executive branch, as you know, implements those

laws, is the Army Museum. When I put the money into the defense

appropriations bill for the Army Museum to kick it off, and we accompanied it with language, that language was clearly intended to

locate it on the base on Route 1. As far as I am concerned, there

is no authorization nor money to locate it at EPG at this point. Do

you disagree with that?

Mr. EASTIN. It’s my understanding the law was to take the—put

the museum on Belvoir, which, of course, encompasses EPG. That’s

our thinking on this. And once again, as I indicated before, this is

supposedly or supposed to be a privately funded, financed museum,

and we’re hoping to put the museum in a condition where it can

be adequately funded in that manner.

Mr. MORAN. I understand that, but, of course, once the Army

used the money that was appropriated, they then assumed the obligation of expending it in the way that was intended by the Congress. Now, we’ll go back and look, but if there is need for clarificaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:16 Nov 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\29934.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
86

tion, we will simply have to clarify where the museum was intended to be located. You will concur with that?

Mr. EASTIN. Yes.

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. The county has suggested that in addition to

the $626 and you’re saying $475 million that is unaccounted for,

there also needs to be rail extension. Would you not agree, and I

would ask this of Mr. Shane as well, that there should be a rail

extension from Springfield Metro to those office buildings at EPG?

Mr. EASTIN. That’s not as easy an answer as it might at first

blush appear. The rail line is on the other side of 95 from EPG,

so whatever we’re going to do there, we’ll have to get the people

from that new rail station either under or over 95. Currently we

are—the plan is to bring them by shuttles, regular shuttle service

to EPG and Belvoir proper from Franconia-Springfield Metro station which serves—as you know, serves both VRE and Metro.

Given the results of the Washington Post study that someone alluded to before that was in yesterday, it’s quite surprising to see

that 9 percent of the people in Fairfax use public transportation,

and 70-some percent drive. So if we assume that, and our traffic

planners are looking for 10 to 15 percent possibly coming in the

Franconia-Springfield station, 10 to 15 percent of our 22,000, this

is not a panacea for all these problems.

We’re looking at it however you look at it, 2,500 or 3,000 per day

or so, so that the tendency is to think of this as a Lexington Avenue line in New York, and people ride up and down it all day long.

That’s not how northern Virginia, in fact, the National Capital region, commutes. We’d love to have that ability, but right now, as

you can see from our project list, extension of the Metro line down

there would be another third of a billion dollars, and given our

funding already, not to say it wouldn’t have some marginal value,

but that’s not in our current thinking.

Mr. MORAN. Is having at least some light rail down to Fort

Belvoir in your long-term planning?

Mr. EASTIN. Not right now. No, sir.

Mr. MORAN. It isn’t. At one point it was.

Do you think that it would be appropriate to put in your longterm planning widening of Route 1?

Mr. EASTIN. Right now our traffic studies, I believe the figure—

correct me, Jim, if I’m wrong—show a capacity of about 6,000 more

cars there per day on Route 1.

Mr. MORAN. Route 1 during rush hour?

Mr. EASTIN. I avoid it.

Mr. MORAN. I can understand why; 6,000. Maybe driving down

the breakdown lane or something like that.

Mr. EASTIN. We’re already putting a little north of 4,000 new

people down there already. And I think that’s going to pretty much

be the capacity of Route 1. That said, it may not be a pleasant

place to drive at rush hour. It is not as broke as, say, some of the

other roads are there, and this is not in our current plan, given the

way the 22,000 people would be.

Mr. MORAN. Well, I think that’s a terrible mistake. That’s so

short-sighted. I won’t pursue this. I think we know what the situation we confront with transportation is.

87

I have one other question, though, and that is the construction

of these office buildings, which we haven’t mentioned. The Secretary of the Army called when the BRAC—original BRAC recommendation came forward, must have been a couple—3 years ago

now or something, said that we’re planning on spending about $2

billion for this construction on the site. This is irregardless of the

infrastructure. This is for the construction of all these new buildings. Well, now it’s been estimated that was a real low-ball figure.

We’re probably talking about as much as twice that. How much is

going to be requested, do you know, for the actual construction of

the buildings and the military construction appropriations bill?

Mr. EASTIN. I do not know that. The request from the Army

proper will be pretty much on target. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency is bringing their own funding to this. I don’t

know what their arrangements are. And WHS is also. The final

business plan on WHS is not in, so I’m not exactly sure where

that’s going to come out.

Mr. MORAN. One last question. When are you going to complete

the public hearings, the EIS process?

Mr. EASTIN. The EIS process on our current target, the draft

EIS, the draft final will come out—excuse me, the draft EIS will

come out late December; holidays involved, probably the first part

of January. There will be public hearings and a public comment period after that before that EIS is issued sometime late spring.

Mr. MORAN. Late spring. So we’re talking about maybe May,

June.

Mr. EASTIN. The hearing will be shortly after the——

Mr. MORAN. February, March. Then you have to go back to the

drawing boards and presumably take seriously the public comment.

So you are looking at May, June at a minimum before you complete

your recommendations.

Mr. EASTIN. That’s right. And the record of decision currently is

early July.

Mr. MORAN. Early July. So that’s barely in time for the 2009 fiscal appropriations request, which becomes available in 2010, and

you’re going to have 20,000 people, you’re suggesting 18,000. You’re

suggesting these people are going to come a year later when, at

best, you will get your appropriations in 2010 for the 2011 infusion

of these 20,000.

Mr. EASTIN. The appropriations are included in our programming

process already for these outyears, and yes, your point is well

taken. We’re going to dovetail these together very carefully, and

we’re going to have to keep——

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Eastin, you are a good soldier and an unreasonable one. This isn’t going to happen in the timeframe. It shouldn’t

because we have no business bringing 20,000 people to a constricted site before we have the infrastructure in place.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. And we’re going to help make——

Mr. MORAN. Clearly from this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I think

we’ve come to this conclusion. We have some work to do in terms

of clarifying the intent of Congress and apparently adjusting some

of these deadlines to a more reasonable timeframe. But again, Mr.

Chairman, thanks for having this hearing. It’s been very informative.

88

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. I just have three quick questions, Mr.

Eastin. You talked about trying to stop the disagreement between

Virginia and the Army to getting the parkway built. I put an

amendment on the House side and Senator Warner on the Senate

side that would allow the Army to give you the authority to manage the project. Are you willing to take that over right now or at

least to manage it and get it constructed?

Mr. EASTIN. I think what is important for people to realize is

that the Army does not build roads. I don’t think VDOT builds

roads. Corps of Engineers doesn’t build roads. Highway Administration doesn’t build roads. We contract to build roads.

I think it’s incumbent on us to figure out which is the best contracting vehicle to get these roads built, whether it be the Army,

whether it be VDOT, but as I said earlier, I think to end the bickering and to get this done one way or another, we all have smart

lawyers who can work through this thing and go from there.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. We’ve had smart lawyers for years, and

I think that’s what’s frozen it, unfortunately.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, you are seen by some as a smart

lawyer, too.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I’m a recovering lawyer, Jim.

Ms. WATTS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN. Let me just ask, do you feel you could do this without the authorization that Mr. Davis is referring to? Because the

defense authorization bill isn’t going to get done this year.

Mr. EASTIN. I believe we can get this done; however, some of this

is a matter of interpretation between Secretary Homer’s staff and

my staff.

Ms. WATTS. Mr. Chairman, may I just add the critical element

of the memorandum of understanding: It’s not who oversees the

private sector building it, it’s who is going to pay for the change

orders if there’s ordnance and explosives that delay the project, or

change it as it’s being carried out, and that becomes the concern

under the laws of the Commonwealth and under the cost to the

project.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But it’s got to be the Army. I mean, they

put the ordnance there. At the end of the day, they are the ones

who would have to bear that cost there. Fairfax County didn’t put

the ordnance underground there. I think that’s a couple of the

questions.

Mr. ALBO. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question real quick? The

other problem is Virginia Code section 1–405, which states——

Chairman TOM DAVIS. David is a lawyer.

Mr. ALBO [continuing]. No land containing environmental contamination shall be transferred to the Commonwealth unless all

corrective action necessary to protect human health, etc., has been

undertaken.

So the problem is a legal one in that Virginia can’t, by code, accept a title to the land, so they can’t even start building. That’s the

legal loophole.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. That’s why we put it in, Army to manage

it. They don’t build it, but to construct it.

Mr. ALBO. And the purpose of my bill is if I can get it passed

on September 27th—I don’t think it will be a problem, it shouldn’t

89

be controversial—will be at least then to allow the Virginia VDOT

to take title to the land and get started.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I hate to interject here, but just so I fully

understand, would this not enable the State to get past this environmental mitigation issue? In other words, the Army took it, contracted it out; it could be done by a private firm with all—without

a lot of the constraints that the government requires in terms of

the environment, but then turn it over to the State after they could

assure the State that all the environmental problems were fixed.

That’s what you’re—just so I can understand in laymen’s language,

that’s what you think might be accomplished by doing that, by letting the Army contract out, get it done and then give it to the

State.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. But you’ve got to start construction. In the

meantime you have to settle this first. It never gets constructed.

That’s where it’s sat for years, unfortunately. And the other problem, of course, is the road may need to be redesigned, given the

new needs in that area. And so let’s get it built right and make

sure it is designed right, one of the points the Governor made.

Just a couple other questions, Mr. Eastin. The Governor asked

you if you could to incorporate the impact studies in the mitigation

efforts into the environment documents underway at Belvoir and

Quantico. Are you willing to do that?

Mr. EASTIN. Absolutely.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. OK. And finally, would you consider the

Fairfax County Public Schools’ request to be a cooperating agency

in the environmental process? This is something that Mr.

Tistadt——

Mr. EASTIN. I don’t have a problem in that end. All the input we

can get on some of these things is absolutely necessary.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

Let me just thank this panel. I want to thank our audience for

staying with us. There is a lot of interest in this community, a lot

of concern about this community, and both Mr. Moran and I recognize that at the congressional level, given our committee status, we

have a lot of work to do to make sure that we have a timeline

that’s reasonable and funding levels that are reasonable.

We look forward to cooperating, Mr. Eastin, with you and the

Army, with the State government, the Governor, our legislators,

with the County Board of Supervisors, and with our civic partners

as well, and, again, the school system.

Thank you very much. The hearing’s adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

90

91

92

Æ