S. HRG. 110–201, PT. 3

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1547

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

PART 3

READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

APRIL 10 AND 24, 2007

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008—Part 3 READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

39–437 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–201, PT. 3

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR

APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1547

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL 

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

PART 3

READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

APRIL 10 AND 24, 2007

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Replublican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

DANIEL K. AKAKA, HAWAII, Chairman 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

MILITARY INSTALLATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BASE CLOSURE PROGRAMS

APRIL 10, 2007

Page 

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

and Environment ................................................................................................. 5

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

Environment ......................................................................................................... 15

Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and Environment ...................................................................................................................... 25

Anderson, Hon. William C., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, Environment and Logistics ....................................................................... 41

READINESS OF UNITED STATES GROUND FORCES

APRIL 24, 2007

Beech, COL Michael F., USA, Commander, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th 

Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX ........................................................................ 96

Craparotta, Col. Lewis A., USMC, Commander, 1st Marine Regiment, Camp 

Pendleton, CA ....................................................................................................... 98

Orr, COL Timothy E., USARNG, Commander, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 

34th Infantry Division, Iowa Army National Guard ......................................... 99

(III) 

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2008

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2007 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

MILITARY INSTALLATION, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND BASE 

CLOSURE PROGRAMS 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:10 p.m. in room 

SR–232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K. Akaka 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Akaka, Inhofe, Sessions, 

and Ensign. 

Majority staff members present: Peter K. Levine, general counsel; and Michael J. McCord, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: Gregory T. Kiley, professional 

staff member; David M. Morriss, minority counsel; and Lucian L. 

Niemeyer, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: David G. Collins and Benjamin L. 

Rubin. 

Committee members’ assistants present: David E. Bonine, assistant to Senator Byrd; Jeremy Shull, assistant to Senator Inhofe; 

and D’Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator Ensign. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

CHAIRMAN 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Readiness 

and Management Support on the fiscal year 2008 budget request 

for the Department of Defense (DOD) installations and environmental programs will come to order. 

We now reconvene this hearing in open session. I want to publicly welcome our witnesses: Philip Grone, Secretary Keith Eastin, 

Secretary B.J. Penn, and Secretary William Anderson. It is good to 

have all of you back with us again this year. 

We meet this afternoon to discuss DOD’s fiscal year 2008 military construction (MILCON), housing, and environmental programs, as well as the implementation of the 2005 base realignment 

and closure (BRAC) rounds. Much has happened since our hearing 

with all of you a year ago. The fiscal year 2007 MILCON approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
2

priation bill got sidetracked by objections from a few members and 

ended up in a year-long continuing resolution. About $3 billion of 

funding requested to implement the 2005 BRAC round ended up 

being deferred from that bill to the pending supplemental. 

Lost for good was an appropriation to match the authorization 

for dozens of projects my colleagues and I in the House and the 

Senate had worked to secure to help the military and civilian workers at installations in our States. 

DOD now has a new Secretary of Defense and under the new 

leadership, DOD has reversed its opposition to increasing the size 

of the ground forces. This budget was submitted with placeholders, 

essentially seeking a blank check of over $2.5 billion for Army and 

Marine Corps facilities to support this proposal. Last week the 

Army started filling in the details of their proposal, but we have 

yet to receive similar details on the specific Marine Corps projects 

that you are requesting, and we will need more information from 

both Services if we are to properly address this important issue in 

our markup. 

This ‘‘Grow the Force’’ proposal will be a challenge for all of us. 

It appears that the proposal before us would commit taxpayer 

funds to facilities to support the entire 5-year planned growth in 

end strength, not just the end strength increases through fiscal 

year 2008 that we will be acting on in the personnel section of the 

bill. 

Due largely to those two factors, BRAC and the growing force, 

the fiscal year 2008 MILCON request is, I think, the largest any 

of us have ever seen, $21 billion, compared to $12 billion just 2 

years ago. Yet, absent these two factors, the underlying program is 

still the same size that it was back in 2006, about $10 billion. 

Because of the closed session that preceded this open session, we 

do not have as much time as we normally do. Therefore, without 

objection, all of your prepared statements will be made a part of 

the record, as will your responses to the advance questions sent to 

you by the committee. In addition, there will be questions for the 

record on topics we do not have time to address this afternoon. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

Good afternoon. We now reconvene this hearing in open session. I want to publicly 

welcome our witnesses: Mr. Grone, Secretary Eastin, Secretary Penn, and Secretary 

Anderson, it is good to have all of you back with us again this year. We meet this 

afternoon to discuss DOD’s fiscal year 2008 military construction, housing, and environmental programs, as well as the implementation of the 2005 base closure round. 

Much has happened since our hearing with all of you a year ago. The fiscal year 

2007 military construction appropriation bill got sidetracked by objections from a 

few members and ended up in the year-long continuing resolution. About $3 billion 

of funding requested to implement the 2005 base closure round ended up being deferred from that bill to the pending supplemental. Lost for good was the appropriation to match the authorization for dozens of projects my colleagues and I in the 

House and the Senate had worked to secure to help the military and civilian workers at installations in our states. 

In addition to this unfortunate delay in funding the implementation of this BRAC 

round, we now have, pending in conference on the supplemental, an attempt to reopen that BRAC round with respect to Walter Reed. Whatever one may think of the 

merits of any particular BRAC decision, if we start to reopen past BRAC decisions, 

that will greatly complicate our work on planning and building the infrastructure 

we need to support our troops. 

3

The Department now has a new Secretary of Defense, and under that new leadership, the Department has reversed its opposition to increasing the size of the ground 

forces. This budget was submitted with placeholders essentially seeking a ‘‘blank 

check’’ of over $2.5 billion for Army and Marine Corps facilities to support this proposal. Last week the Army started filling in the details of their proposal, but we 

have yet to receive similar details on the specific Marine Corps projects that you 

are requesting. We will need more information from both Services if we are to properly address this important issue in our markup. 

This ‘‘grow the force’’ proposal will be a challenge for all of us. It appears that 

the proposal before us would commit taxpayer funds to facilities to support the entire 5-year planned growth in end strength, not just the end strength increases 

through fiscal year 2008 that we will be acting on in the personnel section of the 

bill. 

Due largely to those two factors—base closure and growing the force—the fiscal 

year 2008 military construction request is the largest I think any of us have ever 

seen—$21 billion, compared to $12 billion just 2 years ago. Yet absent those two 

factors, the underlying program is still the same size as it was back in 2006, about 

$10 billion. 

Because of the closed session that preceded this open session, we do not have as 

much time during this open session as we normally do. Therefore, without objection 

all of your prepared statements will be made part of the record, as will your responses to the advance questions sent to you by the committee. In addition, there 

will be questions for the record on topics we do not have time to address this afternoon.

Senator AKAKA. Senator Ensign? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The 2008 budget request for MILCON and family housing programs supports the transformation of our forces around the world 

to more efficient bases and smarter alignments to address our Nation’s most urgent national security needs. DOD is proposing to 

spend billions in 2008 for barracks and other unit facilities to support BRAC, global realignments, modularity, and most recently the 

need to grow the Army and Marine Corps end strength. These are 

absolutely critical projects that must be funded as soon as possible 

to ensure that permanent facilities are ready when the forces arrive at each installation. 

But I am concerned that this limited budget request does not 

allow the military Services to construct all required facilities ahead 

of incoming forces. We cannot afford to risk the safety and security 

of our personnel by relying on trailers and inadequate facilities to 

be used as interim living quarters for the next 5 years. 

The unfortunate conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

have reaffirmed this committee’s consistent concern over the past 

years on the relatively low priority placed within each military 

Service on maintaining facilities and the replacement of deteriorated infrastructure. This year’s budget request for MILCON reinforces my concern that very little funding is being used to replace 

deteriorated facilities supporting current missions. 

The budget goals established by DOD for funds to sustain and 

recapitalize facilities have been persistently overcome by higher 

priorities. While we support DOD’s need to maintain flexibility in 

operations and maintenance expenditures, this flexibility must be 

accompanied by congressional confidence in DOD’s ability to use 

that flexibility wisely. This confidence was shaken by leaders in the 

Army who did not act quickly and decisively to correct the deplorable living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 

4

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the initiatives 

under way by military leaders to ensure adequate, safe facilities 

are provided to our military personnel and their families. What are 

you doing today to identify and quickly get rid of all the other 

Building 18s in the military? 

I also ask each of the witnesses to discuss the challenges they 

face in complying with environmental laws and regulations and the 

impact of encroachment on their ability to carry out force realignments, the introduction of new missions, and the conduct of realistic combat training. 

I look forward to a discussion of any new problems or changes 

in the law the witnesses believe Congress should consider. Again, 

Senator Akaka, I thank you for this hearing and look forward to 

it. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Ensign follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank our witnesses for testifying this 

afternoon, and for their dedicated service to our country. You have outlined in your 

written statements a tremendous amount of construction and environmental work 

in progress that will have a significant impact on our military for many years to 

come. 

The 2008 budget request for military construction and family housing programs 

supports the transformation of our forces around the world to more efficient bases 

and smarter alignments to address our Nation’s most urgent national security 

needs. The Department is proposing to spend billions in 2008 for barracks and other 

unit facilities to support base realignment and closure, global realignments, 

modularity, and most recently, the need to grow the Army and Marine Corps end 

strength. These are absolutely critical projects that must be funded as soon as possible to ensure that permanent facilities are ready when the forces arrive at each 

installation. But, I am concerned that this limited budget request does not allow the 

military Services to construct all required facilities ahead of the incoming forces. We 

cannot afford to risk the safety and security of our personnel by relying on trailers 

and inadequate facilities to be used as interim living quarters over the next 5 years. 

The unfortunate conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have reaffirmed 

this committee’s consistent concern over past years on the relatively low priority 

placed within each military Service on maintaining facilities and the replacement 

of deteriorated infrastructure. This year’s budget request for military construction 

reinforces my concern that very little funding is being used to replace deteriorated 

facilities supporting current missions. The budget goals established by the Department for funds to sustain and recapitalize facilities have been persistently overcome 

by higher priorities. While we support the Department’s need to maintain flexibility 

in operations and maintenance expenditures, this flexibility must be accompanied 

by congressional confidence in the Department’s ability to use that flexibility wisely. 

This confidence was shaken by leaders in the Army who did not act quickly and decisively to correct the deplorable living conditions at Walter Reed. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about initiatives under way by military leaders to ensure adequate, safe facilities are provided to our military personnel and their families. What are you doing today to identify and quickly get rid 

of all the other building 18s in the military? 

I also ask each of the witnesses to discuss the challenges they face in complying 

with environmental laws and regulations and the impact of encroachment on their 

ability to carry out force realignments, the introduction of new missions, and the 

conduct of realistic combat training. I look forward to a discussion of any new problems or changes in the law the witnesses believe Congress should consider. 

I again thank you, Senator Akaka, and look forward to an informative hearing.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Grone. 

5

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

Mr. GRONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief so that 

we can get to the questions and the dialogue with you, Senator Ensign, and the other members of the subcommittee. 

My colleagues and I are certainly pleased to appear before you 

today to discuss the budget request for the DOD for fiscal year 

2008, particularly for those programs that support the management of installation assets. As you noted, sir, the MILCON budget 

for this coming year is the largest in recent memory. In support of 

the responsibilities of all of us, all of us as portfolio managers 

across DOD, the budget request, whether it is MILCON, military 

family housing, BRAC, installation support, or environmental programs, the entire management portfolio of DOD to support installations is $56 billion in this budget request. 

The budget request supports a number of key elements of our 

comprehensive asset management strategy and I want to highlight 

just a few. The budget request supports a recapitalization rate of 

67 years. That includes the investment we are making through 

BRAC as we reposition missions to provide more modern facilities, 

to recapitalize those assets at aging locations, from which we are 

to realign or close. 

We have achieved our goal in this budget of a 67-year recapitalization cycle. In 2001 that rate stood at 192 years. 

The budget request provides 88 percent of the funds needed to 

sustain our facilities. Last year’s budget, as enacted, positioned 

DOD to fulfill our commitments to eliminate inadequate military 

family housing in the United States, and we remain on track to 

achieve the elimination of such units overseas by fiscal year 2009. 

Military housing privatization is central to our strategy. In the end 

state we expect 90 percent of DOD’s then-existing military family 

housing inventory to have been privatized. 

On the matter of encroachment, efforts such as the readiness and 

environmental protection initiative and our outreach to the States, 

local communities, private and nonprofit land trusts, and the environmental community are bearing fruit. DOD has requested $30 

million in the fiscal year 2008 budget to support this important 

program. 

We also continue our aggressive approach to energy conservation 

and the purchase and development of renewable sources of energy. 

In fiscal year 2006, military installations reduced their consumption by 5.5 percent, exceeding the energy conservation goal of 2 

percent. 

Certainly the largest portfolio of investment we have for the com- ing year is $8.2 billion in the request to support BRAC efforts all 

across the country, across the 800 locations all across America that 

will bear in one way or another closure, realignment, or an inbound 

mission. These moves are critically important to the future of the 

armed forces. The timely receipt of an authorization and appropriation to support these actions is critically important to keeping us 

on schedule to meet our legally mandated deadline of September 

15, 2011, to conclude implementation of the BRAC. 

Sir, thank you for your attention and certainly to the members 

of the subcommittee for all the support you have provided to DOD 

6

over many years. We look forward to your questions. Thank you, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. PHILIP W. GRONE

Chairman Akaka, Senator Ensign, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to address the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 and to provide an overview of the 

approach of the Department of Defense (DOD) to the management of the Nation’s 

military installation assets. 

OVERVIEW

As our Nation’s security challenges become more complex, the military must become an increasingly agile joint force that is dominant across the full spectrum of 

operations. Installations are a critical component to this Nation’s force capabilities. 

DOD is vigorously managing its facilities and infrastructure to ensure that it delivers cost effective, safe, and environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the National Defense Mission. 

Not only is the Department incorporating best business practices but it is also expanding these practices into new, previously unexplored areas. For example, DOD’s 

infrastructure investment strategy uses key metrics to provide quality facilities that 

directly support mission and readiness and also developed advanced business processes that align more closely to warfighter mission area requirements. Implementation of the Real Property Inventory Requirements document provides the basis for 

a more accurate and current asset inventory database which will maximize asset 

management and provide senior leaders with an improved decisionmaking tool to 

measure performance. With the development of a net-centric data warehouse for the 

Department’s real property infrastructure and utilization information, timely and 

accurate real property data will be readily available to support key facilities metrics. 

The rigor provided by these practices in planning, managing, and maintaining DOD 

installations improves overall efficiency while improving investment decisionmaking. 

GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE

The Department continues its efforts to realign its permanent base structure at 

home and abroad to effectively enable military transformation and to better deal 

with 21st century security challenges. The Department has begun the process of realigning or closing a number of large permanent bases overseas in favor of small 

and more scalable installations better suited for rapid deployments. The Global Defense Posture realignment effort identified an overall set of plans for returning overseas forces back to military installations in the U.S. These plans were integrated 

with the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process regarding relocations from 

overseas to domestic bases during the prescribed BRAC time period. All Services 

factored requirements of returning forces into their domestic infrastructure requirements and this resulted in recommendations to accommodate forces at U.S. installations. 

Some overseas changes have already been implemented in accordance with ongoing Service transformation efforts and within the framework of negotiations with 

host nations. In many cases, the changes involve units that are inactivating or 

transforming with no significant BRAC impact. As we begin implementing the 

BRAC recommendations there are overseas posture changes still being developed or 

being phased to be implemented after the BRAC implementation period. DOD will 

continue to consult with Congress on its plan and will seek your support as we implement these far-reaching and enduring changes to strengthen America’s global defense posture. 

IMPLEMENTING BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 2005

The President approved and forwarded the commission’s recommendations to Congress on September 15, 2005. Congress expressed its support of these recommendations by not enacting a joint resolution of disapproval and on November 9, 2005, the 

Department became legally obligated to close and realign all installations so recommended by the Commission in its report. BRAC 2005 affects over 800 locations 

across the Nation through 25 major closures, 24 major realignments, and 765 lesser 

actions. The significant transformation to the Total Force and its operational capaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
7

bility, the Departments business operations, and to the savings ultimately derived 

from BRAC require resources to meet adequately the challenges of implementation. 

Congress provided $1.5 billion to the Department in fiscal year 2006 ($1.9 billion 

was requested in the fiscal year 2006 President’s budget) to begin implementing the 

BRAC recommendations. This initial funding was used to begin planning, design 

and construction, program management, and the environmental studies that serve 

as the foundation for constructing and renovating facilities to accommodate missions 

at receiving sites. Notable examples include the Brigade Combat Team complexes 

at Fort Carson, CO; Fort Knox, KY; and Fort Bliss, TX; and a Division Headquarters and Sustainment Brigade Headquarters at Fort Riley, KS. 

The fiscal year 2007 President’s budget requested $5.6 billion to continue implementation. Previous continuing resolutions for fiscal year 2007 provided $542M to 

the Department for this purpose. However, the recently passed Joint Resolution limits fiscal year 2007 funding to $2.5 billion, a $3.1 billion (55 percent) reduction from 

the President’s budget. This seriously affects construction timelines because over 80 

percent of the BRAC budget in fiscal year 2007 directly supports military construction. This 55 percent reduction will significantly jeopardize our ability to execute 

BRAC 2005 by the statutory deadline of September 15, 2011, thereby sacrificing 

savings that could have been achieved during the delayed timeframe, and delay 

achievement of operational mission requirements. The magnitude of the reduction 

requires careful evaluation to support allocating the reduced funding within the Department so that only those projects with the highest priority, determined by their 

operational and/or business case effects, go forward on the schedule previously provided to Congress. While operational impacts are self-explanatory, business case 

considerations are worthy of note. These include cases where incrementally funded 

projects started last year must continue, and/or where projects support follow-on actions, produce significant savings, or lead to expeditious asset disposal. This evaluation formed the basis for the BRAC portion of the expenditure report required by 

the Joint Resolution that was provided to the appropriations committees on March 

16, 2007. Implementing BRAC 2005 actions represents a significant financial commitment by the Department. In the fiscal year 2007 budget justification material 

provided to Congress, the Department indicated that, in some cases, the out-year 

program did not fully reflect expected costs for the remainder of the BRAC implementation period (fiscal years 2008–2011). The Department of Army anticipated a 

shortfall as much as $5.7 billion and the Air Force estimated its shortfall at approximately $1.8 billion over the program. 

The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request is approximately $3.0 billion more 

than the fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget request and the $8.2 billion requested, 

as well as the outyear program, represents full funding for BRAC 2005 implementation assuming funding is restored for fiscal year 2007. In previous BRAC rounds, 

the third year of implementation was generally the peak of the ‘‘bell shaped’’ investment curve. For BRAC 2005, the fiscal year 2008 budget request represents the critical year of execution in the 6-year statutory implementation period and includes 

$6.4 billion for military construction, $1.2 billion for operations and maintenance 

(O&M) to relocate personnel and equipment, $112 million for environmental studies 

and remediation, and $453 million for ‘‘other’’ costs primarily associated with installation communications, automation, and information management system equipment in support of construction projects. 

The Department has embarked on assessing the domino impact the $3.1 billion 

reduction will have on the fiscal years 2008–2011 implementation program should 

it not be restored. The complexity and duration of many implementation actions required fiscal year 2007 funding. Military construction projects and other expenditures related to the movements of missions contained in the fiscal year 2008 President’s budget will need to be re-baselined. 

ASSISTING COMMUNITIES

The Department, through the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) and the Defense Economic Adjustment Program, continues to work with States and communities across the country as they respond to the effects of broad changes in Defense 

infrastructure, including efforts resulted from BRAC, Global Defense Posture Realignment, and modularity. In the context of BRAC, to date, the Department has 

recognized 121 Local Redevelopment Authorities (LRAs) that are responsible for creating a redevelopment plan for property made available for civilian reuse as a result 

of BRAC and to directing implementation of the plan. The majority of these communities, with assistance from OEA, are presently working to develop a consensus for 

redevelopment that reflects the specific market forces, public facility and service 

needs, and private sector circumstances found at each location and to gauge local 

8

homeless and community economic development interests in these properties. At the 

same time, efforts are being made between these LRAs and the military departments to link local civilian redevelopment activities with the Department’s environmental and property disposal efforts, including any necessary environmental remediation. 

At the same time, DOD is working with several communities where mission 

growth is projected to impact the surrounding region. Across these locations, resources are being applied to assist communities to understand and respond to anticipated impacts on local housing, schools, water and sewer, and transportation. Additionally, spousal employment, health care, public services, and child care are of 

some concern. A primary concern for all is how to develop and apply local, State, 

and private resources to address local need. Through this process, possible gaps in 

these civilian sources are also being recognized as opportunities for third party and 

Federal assistance. Presently, these communities are in close dialogue with the local 

installations to understand the timing and scope of these growth actions. 

The ability to capably assist these communities, regardless of whether there is 

downsizing or mission growth, must include our Federal agency partners. On behalf 

of the Secretary of Defense, I chair the President’s Economic Adjustment Committee 

(EAC) at the sub-cabinet level to coordinate efforts across 22 Federal agencies to assist these communities. Under the auspices of the EAC, team visits will likely be 

undertaken to locations to better understand the local adjustment challenge and 

more capably address potential needs for other Federal assistance. A report documenting the efforts of the EAC to date will be submitted shortly for your review. 

MANAGING INFRASTRUCTURE

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 will permit the Department 

to continue its efforts to manage installation assets comprehensively and efficiently. 

Along with continued improvement in business practices and a focus on environmental sustainability, the Department is focused on improving the quality of military installations as evidenced by the emphasis on more accurate Quality Ratings 

that are currently being collected by the military departments. Managing DOD real 

property assets is an integral part of comprehensive asset management. The Department currently manages over 533,000 buildings and structures, which reside on over 

51,400 square miles of real estate. 

The President’s Management Agenda Real Property Asset Management initiative 

focuses on improved asset management planning, inventory and performance measure data, and the disposal of unneeded assets. DOD has implemented an asset management plan and provides inventory and performance data to the Federal Real 

Property Profile annually. DOD’s Real Property Inventory Requirements implementation continues to refine the quality of data collected and reported to the government-wide database. We continue to improve our progress on the Real Property 

Scorecard. 

The quality of infrastructure directly affects training and readiness. To that end, 

the Department is incorporating installations assessments more fully into the Defense Readiness Reporting System. DOD has made significant progress in integrating its installations into this Department-wide program. There is currently an 

operational system in the Navy, Defense Readiness Reporting System-Navy, which 

is based on the contribution of installations to the achievement of mission essential 

tasks. To better manage infrastructure investments, the Department continues to 

develop models and metrics to predict funding needs. The Facilities Program Requirements Suite, a Web-based suite of real property inventory data models and fact 

sheets, continues to be refined and further expanded to more accurately determine 

requirements, predict funding needs, and better manage infrastructure investments. 

Sustainment 

Facilities sustainment provides funds for maintenance and major repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to occur periodically throughout 

the life cycle. Sustainment prevents deterioration, maintains safety, and preserves 

performance over the life of a facility. To forecast funding requirements, DOD developed the Facilities Sustainment Model using standard benchmarks for sustainment 

unit costs by facility type (such as cost per square foot of barracks) drawn from the 

private and public sectors. This model has been used to develop the Service budgets 

since fiscal year 2002 and for several Defense Agencies since fiscal year 2004. Full 

funding of facilities sustainment has been and continues to be the foundation and 

first element of the Department’s long-term facilities strategy and goals. In fiscal 

year 2007, the Department-wide sustainment was budgeted at 90 percent. In balancing risk across the Department’s program, the fiscal year 2008 budget request 

reflects a slight decrease in the department-wide sustainment funding rate to 88 

9

percent, although the total amount of funds requested for the program represent an 

increase of $466 million. The Department-wide long term goal remains full funding 

for sustainment to optimize the investment in our facilities and ensure their readiness.

SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST 

(President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars) 

Fiscal Year Request 

2007 2008 

Sustainment (O&M-like) * ................................................................................................................... 6,276 6,733

Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like plus) * ............................................................................. 992 1,353

Restoration and Modernization (MilCon) ............................................................................................ 6,093 6,736

Total SRM ................................................................................................................................... 13,352 14,822

* Includes O&M as well as related military personnel, host nation, and working capital funds and other appropriations such as RDT&E. 

Recapitalization 

Recapitalization includes restoration and modernization, provides resources for 

improving facilities, and is the second element of our facilities strategy. Recapitalization is funded primarily with either O&M or military construction appropriations. 

Restoration includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities damaged by 

inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other 

causes. Modernization includes alteration of facilities solely to implement new or 

higher standards, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components 

that typically last more than 50 years. 

The current DOD goal remains a recapitalization rate of 67 years. In fiscal year 

2001, the Department’s recapitalization rate was 192 years. This budget request 

supports a recapitalization rate of 67 years, an improvement over last year’s budgeted rate of 72 years. The improvement in the rate is largely due to investments 

associated with BRAC construction investments and the Global Defense Posture realignment. Currently, DOD is in the process of developing and fielding a new recapitalization model for assessing the replacement cycle that will improve upon the existing recapitalization metric through the inclusion of depreciation schedules and 

other benchmark improvements that are derived from private and public sector 

standards. 

The Department remains committed to maintaining a rate of investment in facilities recapitalization that will improve, modernize, and restore existing facilities 

while at the same time replacing facilities in support of efforts to reshape and realign infrastructure. However, as the Department consolidates and reshapes its infrastructure, it will also experience localized growth in the size of the facilities footprint. This is necessary to provide the quality and quantity of facilities and assets 

necessary to support military personnel and their families. These efforts include facilities to support Army Transformation, Navy and Marine Corps barracks, and facilities for the beddown of new weapons systems such as Predator, F–22, and the 

Joint Strike Fighter. 

On January 24, 2006, DOD joined 16 other Federal agencies in signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Federal Leadership in High Performance and 

Sustainable Buildings. The MOU indicates a commitment to incorporate sustainable 

design principles through a comprehensive approach to infrastructure management. 

The Department continues to emphasize the elimination of excess and obsolete facilities, and to encourage the aggressive pursuit of demolition to avoid unnecessary 

facilities sustainment and support costs. This effort to eliminate facilities that are 

no longer needed is separate and distinct from the BRAC process. With approximately 48 million square feet of infrastructure identified for elimination, the military Services and selected defense agencies are in the process of refining their annual targets for disposal and consolidation of excess capacity. 

The Department established a common definition for Facilities Operation, formerly referred to as ‘‘Real Property Services.’’ The budget request includes $7.15 billion for this program, to address utilities, leases, custodial services, grounds maintenance, and other related functions. The Facilities Operation Model was fielded to 

develop standard requirements, and the Department is continuing to refine the 

model with particular emphasis on Fire and Emergency Services, and Real Property 

and Engineering Management. 

10

Installations Support 

The Defense Installations Strategic Plan articulates the need to define common 

standards and performance metrics for managing installation support, and the Department has made considerable progress in this area. DOD’s objective is to introduce capabilities-based programming and budgeting within a framework for the 

Common Delivery of Installations Support which will link installation support capabilities to warfighter requirements. The Common Delivery of Installations Support 

also will play a large role in implementation of Joint Basing required by BRAC 

2005. Guidance for implementing Joint Basing was developed in coordination with 

the Military Components and is currently in the review process. 

During the past year, DOD made significant progress toward developing Common 

Output Level Standards for all other functions of Installations Support to include 

Environment, Family Housing Operations and Services (formerly known as Base 

Operations Support). This effort is yielding common definitions and tiered performance output levels. These metrics are currently being further refined and a costing 

model initiative will soon be underway. 

The military construction appropriation is a significant source of facilities investment funding. The fiscal year 2008 Defense Military Construction and Family Housing Appropriation request totals $21.2 billion. This funding will enable the Department to rapidly respond to warfighter requirements, enhance mission readiness, and 

provide for its people. This is done, in part, by restoring and modernizing enduring 

facilities, acquiring new facilities where needed, and eliminating those that are excess or obsolete.

COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS 

(President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars—Budget Authority) 

Fiscal Year Request 

2007 2008

Military Construction ........................................................................................................................... 6,390 9,480

NATO Security Investment Program .................................................................................................... 221 201

Base Realignment and Closure IV ..................................................................................................... 191 220

Base Realignment and Closure 2005 ................................................................................................ 5,626 8,174

Family Housing Construction/Improvements ...................................................................................... 2,092 1,080

Family Housing Operations and Maintenance .................................................................................... 1,989 1,851

Chemical Demilitarization ................................................................................................................... 131 86

Family Housing Improvement Fund .................................................................................................... 3 0.5

Energy Conservation Investment Program .......................................................................................... 55 70

Total ........................................................................................................................................... 16,698 21,165

IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE

A principal priority of the Department is to support military personnel and their 

families and improve their quality of life by ensuring access to suitable, affordable 

housing. Servicemembers are engaged in the frontlines of protecting our National 

security and they deserve the best possible living and working conditions. Sustaining the quality of life of our people is crucial to recruitment, retention, readiness, and morale. At the outset of this administration, the President and the Department’s leadership identified revitalizing housing, largely through privatization, 

as a central priority for the Department. An aggressive target of 2007 was established to meet that goal. By late fiscal year 2007, DOD will effectively complete all 

procedures to eliminate nearly all inadequate domestic family housing. More than 

90 percent of our inadequate housing will be turned over to the private sector for 

replacement or renovation and the remainder will be in the final stages of solicitation for award. As of February 2007, over 110,000 housing units determined to be 

inadequate have been privatized. Inadequate units are considered to be eliminated 

when they are conveyed to the private owner, who then revitalizes the housing. 

The Department continues to rely on three pillars to improve housing thereby, enhancing the quality of life for our servicemembers: (1) Provide the basic allowance 

for housing (BAH) at zero-out-of-pocket expense for the average servicemember living in private sector housing (achieved in 2005, now maintaining); (2) Privatization 

of family housing, where feasible; and, (3) Military Construction funding for all 

other domestic and all overseas locations. 

The Department relies on a ‘‘community first’’ (private sector) approach to provide 

quality housing to its members and their families. Only when the private market 

11

demonstrates that it cannot supply sufficient levels of quality, affordable housing 

does the Department provide housing to our military families; first through the use 

of privatization, and where that is not feasible through government-owned and 

leased housing. For example, in the absence of privatization authorities overseas, we 

address our housing needs there through military construction and leasing. 

To ensure the Department is making the best investment decisions when determining the appropriate level of housing, the government provides a single and consistent methodology for calculating its housing requirement. This methodology was 

introduced in January 2003 and is being utilized extensively by the Services. Currently, 75 percent of military families living in the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii receive BAH (with 60 percent living in the local community, and 

15 percent in privatized housing). An additional 22 percent of our military families 

are provided government-owned housing and 3 percent live in leased housing. DOD 

projects that by the end of fiscal year 2008 over 90 percent of military families will 

be receiving BAH, thus allowing families the opportunity to make housing choices 

according to their individual preferences. 

As of February 2007, the Department has awarded 71 privatization projects, 

which includes over 147,000 total military family housing units privatized. The private sector’s cumulative contribution to the 71 awarded deals awarded thus far totals over $20 billion (or 90 percent) of total project development costs. The Services 

have contributed $1.5 billion in development costs primarily through equity investment or government direct loans. 

For fiscal year 2008, the Department requests $2.93 billion, a decrease of $1.2 billion from the fiscal year 2007 President’s budget request. The decrease reflects cost 

savings realized by the Department achieving its respective goal to eliminate inadequate housing and to privatize the inventory on a cost-effective basis. The Department’s privatization plans in the fiscal year 2008 budget will ultimately result in 

the privatization of over 90 percent of its domestic family housing inventory, or 

roughly 194,000 units privatized by the end of fiscal year 2008.

• Fiscal year 2008 funding provides for the continuation of the privatization program to reduce costs to the government and provide quality housing 

to service members and their families. The fiscal year 2008 request will privatize 4,261 family housing. 

• Fiscal year 2008 request provides $353 million for the Army and Navy 

‘‘Grow the Force’’ initiative, which will provide housing support for endstrength increases. 

• 1.9 billion to operate and maintain approximately 80,000 governmentowned family housing units, and lease 38,000 units worldwide.

In fiscal year 2008 and beyond, DOD will monitor the military housing privatization projects over the next 40+ years and conduct oversight of their financial performance. DOD will protect the government’s interest while acknowledging that it 

is the responsibility of the private sector to take the lead on operating these 

projects. Current project highlights include:

• The majority of the awarded privatization projects initial development 

plans for renovation/construction are on schedule. 

• Thirteen projects have completed their construction/renovation schedules. 

• The privatization projects are achieving 90 percent occupancy across all 

projects. 

• There have been no defaults for the awarded projects. 

• Awarded projects are receiving high tenant satisfaction ratings.

Finally, in fiscal year 2008 DOD will continue to push expansion of the privatization authorities for unaccompanied housing and lodging. In fiscal year 2007, the 

Navy executed the first Unaccompanied Housing pilot project in San Diego in December 2006, with two additional projects planned—Hampton Roads, VA (award 

April 2007), and Mayport, FL (future date to be determined). The Army anticipates 

award of the first Lodging Privatization project in September 2007. 

COMPETITIVE SOURCING

The DOD continues to strongly support the President’s Management Agenda Initiative for Competitive Sourcing. Introducing private sector competition into commercial functions performed by the Department improves business efficiency and reduces cost to the taxpayer. Public/private competitions using the procedures of OMB 

Circular A–76 have demonstrated substantial savings whether the in-house or private sector wins the competition. During Fiscal Years 2000 through 2006, the Department completed 870 such competitions encompassing about 91,000 positions. 

These competitions will have resulted in over $9 billion in savings (cost avoidance) 

12

over the life of the resulting performance periods, normally about 5 years. The Department has an additional 7,969 positions currently undergoing competitions, plans 

to compete 10,000 positions in fiscal year 2007, and expects to maintain the same 

level of competitions in fiscal year 2008. 

These new competitions use the procedures of OMB Circular A–76 which evaluate 

public and private proposals concurrently using the Federal Acquisition Regulations. 

As the Department’s designated Competitive Sourcing Official, my office is working 

continuously to improve the competition process. For example, competitions that 

used to take up to 48 months to complete can now be completed in as little as 12 

months. Such improvements will reduce stress on our workforce and will make savings available earlier to reinvest in the Department’s operation. 

ENERGY MANAGEMENT

The Department continues to aggressively attempt to reduce its energy consumption and associated costs, while improving utility system reliability and safety. To 

that end, DOD developed a comprehensive energy strategy and issued updated policy guidance incorporating the provisions and goals of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) 

of 2005 and is implementing the recent enactment of the new chapter 173 of title 

10, U.S.C. The Department is also in the early stages of implementation of Executive Order 13423, recently issued by the President to strengthen Federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. This strategy will continue to optimize utility management by conserving energy and water usage, improving energy 

flexibility by taking advantage of restructured energy commodity markets when opportunities present themselves. DOD, as the largest single energy consumer in the Nation, consumed $3.5 billion 

of facility energy in fiscal year 2006. Though overall cost continues to increase due 

to commodity costs, consumption has decreased from the 2003 baseline. Our program includes investments in cost-effective renewable energy sources or energy efficient construction designs, and aggregating bargaining power among regions and 

the Services to achieve more effective buying power. 

The Department’s efforts to conserve energy are paying off. In fiscal year 2006, 

military installations reduced consumption by 5.5 percent, exceeding the energy conservation goal of 2 percent. Energy conservation projects accomplished through Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) typically account for more than half of 

all facility energy savings. Lapse of ESPC authority in 2004 negatively affected the 

Department’s ability to reach the 30 percent reduction goal under Executive Order 

13123. However, with ESPC authority reauthorized in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and extended for an additional 10 years in the 

EPAct of 2005, DOD has launched an aggressive awareness campaign and is well 

on its way to meeting the new goals established in the EPAct of 2005. Use of ESPC 

for 2006 increased 316 percent, reaching an award value over $586 million. 

DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable energy and developing resources on military installations. Renewable energy projects are consistently more expensive than similar conventional energy sources, resulting in limited 

opportunities but that are life cycle cost effective. The Department has increased the 

use of Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP) funds for renewable energy 

projects from $5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $17 million planned in fiscal year 

2007, and to $24 million budgeted for fiscal year 2008 out of a $70 million ECIP 

request. The fiscal year 2007 program for ECIP also contains $2.6 million in hydrogen fuel cell projects. The Department easily exceeded the EPAct 2005 renewable 

energy goal of 2.5 percent in fiscal year 2006. The Department’s total renewable energy purchases and generation accounted for 9.5 percent of all electricity use. Also, 

while EPAct 2005 did not articulate a specific water reduction goal, the new Executive Order 13423 does have a goal of a 2 percent water reduction per year. The Department has reduced water usage by an impressive 29.6 percent from the fiscal 

year 2003 baseline year. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Managing Cleanup 

The Department is committed to cleaning up property that, as the result of past 

military activities, is contaminated with hazardous substances and military munitions. DOD has achieved ‘‘remedy in place’’ or ‘‘restoration complete’’ status at 85 

percent (16,833 out of 19,796) of its environmental restoration sites on active installations. As of the end of fiscal year 2006, 85 percent (4,275 out of 5,010) of the environmental restoration sites at BRAC locations closed or realigned by the first four 

rounds of BRAC or closed in BRAC 2005 have a cleanup remedy constructed and 

in place and operating successfully, or have had all necessary cleanup actions comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
13

pleted in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) standards. Hazardous substance cleanup at 

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) has achieved ‘‘remedy in place’’ or ‘‘restoration 

complete’’ status at 53 percent (2,487 out of the 4,654) of known sites. 

As of the end of fiscal year 2006, DOD fulfilled its cleanup obligations at over 122 

of the approximately 373 identified Military Munitions Response Plan (MMRP) sites 

at BRAC installations, and has cleanup actions underway at 251 sites. A similar 

situation can be found at FUDS, where 29 percent of the MMRP sites identified 

have had all cleanup actions completed. Over 473 of the 1,633 FUDS with currently 

identified Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) contamination have been addressed, and another 1,160 are undergoing cleanup actions or study. 

Environmental Management Systems 

DOD implemented environmental management systems (EMS) as required by Executive Order 13148 at all appropriate facilities. This transformation embeds environmental management as a systematic process, fully integrated with mission planning and sustainment and is essential for continued successful operations at home 

and abroad. Implementing EMS helps preserve range and operational capabilities 

by creating long-term, specific and measurable targets in comprehensive programs 

to sustain capability while maintaining healthy ecosystems. Benefits accrued to date 

are an increased awareness of environmental issues and how they can impact operations, increased communication and cooperation between departments, new initiatives to mitigate environmental impact and risk, and strengthened relationships 

with communities and regulators. 

Pollution Prevention 

Maintaining compliance with environmental laws is an integral part of sustaining 

DOD operations. From fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2006 the Department reduced the number of new Federal and State enforcement actions received by 18 percent while the number of regulatory inspections increased by 6 percent during the 

same time period. In 2005, DOD installations reached a 95 percent compliance rate 

with wastewater treatment permits. For the 3.4 million customers served by DOD 

drinking water systems, in 2005, less than 7 percent of the population received notice that their water exceeded a drinking water standard (most ‘‘exceedences’’ were 

not immediate health concerns and both interim and long-term solutions are either 

completed or underway). The Department continues to demonstrate a commitment 

to reduce solid and hazardous waste. From 2000 through 2005, the Department reduced hazardous waste over 15 percent by using various pollution prevention opportunities. In 2006, over 3.7 million tons of solid waste was diverted from landfills 

which avoided approximately $153 million in landfill costs. This 59 percent diversion rate exceeds the Department’s diversion goal of 40 percent in 2005. Integrating 

a strong compliance program into installation environmental management systems 

will strengthen this program. 

SUSTAINING THE WARFIGHTER

Our Nation’s warfighters require the best training and the best equipment available. This means sustaining our vital range and installation infrastructure, both 

here and abroad, where we test equipment and conduct training. Development in 

the vicinity of DOD installations and ranges continues to challenge sustainability. 

The unintended consequences of this encroachment upon our ranges and installations are varied, and include such issues as more noise complaints from new neighbors; diminished usable airspace due to new structures or increased civil aviation; 

a compromised ability to test and train with the frequency needed in time of war; 

and a loss of habitat for endangered species. 

History and experience gained over decades demonstrate that proper training of 

U.S. troops will result in victory. Assured access to operational ranges is the only 

way to continue that training. In 2001 the Department undertook the Readiness and 

Range Preservation Initiative to achieve a balance between national defense and environmental policies. As a result, DOD has successfully balanced the statutory requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act with our National defense mission requirements. 

However, the Department continues to seek legislative clarification under the Clean 

Air Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Congress provided statutory authority to use O&M funds to create buffers around 

our ranges and installations. Using this authority the Department established the 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) and has worked with 

willing partners to cost-share land conservation solutions that benefit military readVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
14

iness and preserve natural habitat. In fiscal year 2005, REPI leveraged $12.5 million of O&M funding to secure $48.2 million worth of buffer land and easements, 

encompassing 10,238 acres at 7 installations. The 2006 and 2007 projects will continue to leverage REPI funds against partner contributions. REPI and partner funding has allowed DOD to protect the Navy’s one-of-a-kind La Posta Mountain Warfare Training Facility in California; to keep training areas open at Marine Corps 

Base Camp Lejeune, NC; and buffer live-fire training ranges at Fort Carson, CO. 

Overall in fiscal year 2006, REPI initiated 23 projects in 17 States, and for fiscal 

year 2007 an additional 32 projects have been identified for funding. The Department has requested $30 million in the fiscal year 2008 budget to support REPI. 

Partnerships are essential to success and the Department continues to work with 

State governments and other Federal agencies in the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). In 2006, the State of Alabama 

joined North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina as SERPPAS State 

members. Through this process, the partners hope to promote better planning related to growth, preservation of open space and protection of the region’s military 

installations. The regional approach to facilitate dialogue and to address issues of 

mutual concern is proving successful, and in 2006, the Department took the initial 

steps to establish a regional partnership in the western States. 

In 2006, DOD worked closely with other Federal agencies to sustain military readiness. At Fort Riley, KS, the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service and DOD signed a MOU to work together on conservation efforts 

that sustain agricultural productivity on private lands that will buffer military 

lands. On energy issues, the DOD is working with other Federal agencies to ensure 

that wind farm projects and energy transmission corridors are compatible with military readiness activities. The Department is also working with the Department of 

Homeland Security to ensure that our military readiness activities and infrastructure in border regions are not impacted by new security measures. Outreach to nonFederal and non-governmental organizations continues to be a significant part of 

the Department’s sustainability program, and today we are working with State, 

county, and local governments, Indian tribal, and environmental groups on issues 

of mutual concern to seek win-win solutions. Overseas, DOD is developing mission 

sustainment procedures to work with our host nations Global Defense Posture partners. To sustain today’s warfighters, and our Nation’s future warfighters, DOD will 

continue its engagement and partnering efforts. 

INTEGRATING BUSINESS ENTERPRISES

The Department as a whole has made significant strides in breaking down the 

cultural and information technology (IT) systems barriers that hinder business agility. There is an increased need for tighter alignment of end-to-end business functions, better management visibility into operations, and a definitive focus on execution excellence. The current climate of making measurable business improvements 

every 6 months, tied to releases of the DOD Business Enterprise Transition Plan, 

has succeeded in driving progress. Changing the cultural mindset has meant redefining Defense business in terms of functions performed and the customers served, 

rather than who performs them. Breaking down IT systems barriers has meant, 

among other things, using common standards to integrate the business data owned 

by the components. 

The Real Property and Installation Lifecycle Management (RP&ILM) Core Business Mission area has had tremendous success with business transformation because it has been driven by the top leadership and supported across all components 

and all levels. Over the past few years, RP&ILM has developed enterprise wide capabilities for real property accountability and visibility, environmental liability accountability and valuation, and hazardous materials operational controls. These capabilities are founded on requirements for standard business processes, data elements, and business rules. The military departments and agencies, in coordination 

with the DUSD (I&E), have begun implementation efforts for these capabilities. 

I&E community leadership actively oversees IT system investments to ensure that 

IT systems are being modernized to support the new business enterprise capabilities. I&E has become a leader in implementing DOD’s net-centric vision and has already stood up a site unique identifier registry, that will allow all IT systems (and 

communities) with a need for location information to easily get authoritative source 

information. All of this foundational and transformational work has been achieved 

because of the established RP&ILM governance processes. These governance processes support federated management because the business owners themselves drive 

business modernization and the associated support IT. This work has also been completely integrated into the activities of the Business Transformation Agency, ensurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
15

ing that RP&ILM capabilities support the broader DOD enterprise business transformation efforts. 

During the past year, the Department expanded its efforts beyond defining transformation requirements to actual implementation of business transformation. Each 

military Service has either completed and is implementing, or is developing implementation plans, to deliver these reengineered capabilities. Some of our recent successes include:

• Ability to assign unique identifiers to all DOD’s sites. For the first time 

in our history, the warfighter and business mission areas will have the ability to obtain access to real property site information at the push-of-a-button, with assurance that the data is authoritative and consistent from Service to Service. 

• Development of Real Property Inventory Requirements (RPIR) compliance assessment tools and procedures. These tools assure that the Services 

will implement and maintain consistent, accurate, and complete information on our vast and geographically diverse real property asset portfolio. 

• Update of antiquated policies. Policy change promotes behavioral change. 

Building on this best practice, DOD is in the process of updating policies 

to include modernized processes for construction in progress, real property 

acceptance, and workplace hazard communication. 

• Completion of standardized requirements for the management of regulatory and chemical hazardous materials information. This success allows 

the Defense Logistics Agency to serve the entire Department with standardized regulatory information on hazardous materials from a central repository of authoritative data. As the Services use this information in their 

business processes, DOD will realize cost savings, and more importantly, 

improve operational control of mission activities involving hazardous materials. 

• The funding of a pilot to utilize geospatial information systems and RPIR 

processes to determine official DOD boundaries for land parcels. The pilot 

also supports mapping any known environmental liabilities as outlined in 

the new Environmental Liabilities requirements. This pilot will enable 

DOD to reap many benefits as accurate geospatial information will be easily available and no longer isolated in the real property community. 

• The development of Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, 

and Environment (SDSFIE). Precision and speed are no longer unique 

qualifiers of the operational community alone. DOD is applying these drivers to core business mission areas as well. Fundamental to total asset management is knowing exactly where an asset is geographically located. The 

SDSFIE will ensure a level of accuracy and consistency never before seen 

as the Department geospatially enables its business areas. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to highlight 

the Department’s successes and outline its plans for the future. I appreciate your 

continued support of our installations and environment portfolio, and I look forward 

to working with you as we transform these plans into actions.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Grone, for keeping it 

brief. 

Secretary Eastin. 

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

Mr. EASTIN. Thank you. I will try to be even briefer. 

The Army brings to you this year a rather ambitious program 

and it is ambitious only because we have a lot going on there. We 

are in the midst of transforming our Army from a division-centric 

to a brigade-centric force that can be more reactive to world situations. We are involved in the BRAC procedures. We are involved 

in bringing back some of our soldiers from Korea and bringing back 

some likely from Germany. Then on top of that, the President has 

asked us to try to grow the Army, both the Active, Reserve, and 

Guard components. 

16

So we have a lot going on. In the BRAC realignment itself we 

are looking at something like 45,000 people moving about installations, here and there, between military and civilians. Global Defense Posture Review (GDPR), you may recall, brings back people 

from Korea and Germany, is another 50,000. All these people need 

places to stay, need places to train, and need places to raise their 

families. 

Add to that the growth of the Army, give or take 74,000 (65,000 

Active, 8,200 Guard, and 1,000 Reserve) here in the next 5 years. 

They too need places to stay, places to train, places to deploy from, 

and the installations to go along with it. 

We are under no illusions that this is not just a heck of a lot of 

money, but it also is a heck of a lot of jobs that we have in front 

of us to make this all work. So we look forward to answering your 

questions today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. KEITH E. EASTIN

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear before 

you to discuss the Army’s military construction budget request for fiscal year 2008. 

We have a robust budget that is crucial to the success of the Army’s new initiatives 

and sustains vital, ongoing programs of critical importance to the Army. We appreciate the opportunity to report on them to you. We would like to start by thanking 

you for your unwavering support to our soldiers and their families serving our Nation around the world. They are and will continue to be the centerpiece of our Army, 

and they could not perform their missions so successfully without your steadfast 

support. 

OVERVIEW—TRANSFORMING INSTALLATIONS WHILE THE ARMY IS AT WAR

Installations are the home of combat power—a critical component of the Nation’s 

force capabilities. Your Army is working hard to ensure that we deliver cost-effective, safe, and environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the National defense mission. 

The tremendous changes in our National security environment since the terrorist 

attacks on our Nation clearly underscore the need for a joint, integrated military 

force ready to defeat all threats to U.S. interests. To meet these security challenges, 

we require interrelated strategies centered on people, forces, quality of life, and infrastructure. Regarding infrastructure, we need a global framework of Army installations, facilities, ranges, airfields, and other critical assets that are properly distributed, efficient, and capable of ensuring that we can successfully carry out our assigned roles, missions, and tasks that safeguard our security at home and abroad. 

Army infrastructure must enable the force to fulfill its strategic roles and missions to generate and sustain combat power. As we transform our operational forces, 

so too must we transform the institutional Army and our installation infrastructure 

to ensure this combat power remains relevant and ready. We will accomplish these 

efforts by the combined stationing efforts of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

2005, Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR), Army Modular Force Transformation, and the President’s ‘‘Grow the Force’’ initiative. 

Stationing 

The stationing initiative is a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization 

of base realignments and closures, military construction and renovation, unit activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces to and from current global commitments. Our decisions to synchronize activities associated with stationing and realigning our global basing posture continue to be guided by the following key criteria:

• Meeting operational requirements 

• Providing economic benefits 

• Using existing infrastructure to reduce cost and excess capacity 

• Funding critical requirements to achieve unit mission 

• Compliance with applicable laws 

17

• Minimizing the use of temporary facilities 

• Giving facility priority to ranges, barracks, housing, vehicle maintenance 

shops, headquarters and operations, dining, and instruction facilities

Completion of this combined set of initiatives will result in an Army that is better 

positioned to respond to the needs and requirements of the 21st century security 

environment, with our soldiers and families living at installations that are truly 

‘‘Flagships of Army Readiness.’’

Infrastructure Quality 

In addition to mission support, our installations provide the base of support for 

soldiers and their families. The environment in which our soldiers train, our civilians work, and our families live plays a key role in recruiting and retaining the high 

quality people the Army needs. Through efforts such as Barracks Modernization and 

Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) housing privatization, the Army has made 

tremendous progress in improving the quality of life for soldiers and their families. 

These efforts will combine with the Army’s stabilization of the force to forge greater 

bonds between units, soldiers, families, and the communities in which they live. 

The quality of our installations is critical to support the Army’s mission, its soldiers, and their families. Installations serve as the platforms we use to train, mobilize, and rapidly deploy military power. When forces return from deployments, installations enable us to efficiently reset and regenerate combat power for future missions. In the past year, the Army has made tremendous progress in enhancing training and improving its ability to generate and reset the force. 

Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) 

The United States’ global defense posture defines the size, location, types, and 

roles of military forces and capabilities. It represents our ability to project power 

and undertake military actions beyond our border. Together with our overall military force structure, our global defense posture enables the United States to assure 

allies, dissuade potential challengers, deter enemies, and, if necessary, defeat aggression. The new global defense posture will be adjusted to the new security environment in several key ways: (1) expand allied roles, build new partnerships, and 

encourage transformation; (2) create greater operational flexibility to contend with 

uncertainty; (3) focus and act both within and across various regions of the world; 

and (4) develop rapidly deployable capabilities, and lastly, the United States and its 

allies and partners will work from a different paradigm than in the past: GDPR will 

relocate approximately 45,500 soldiers and their families from Europe and Korea to 

the United States over the next 5 to 6 years. These moves are critical to ensure 

Army forces are properly positioned worldwide to support our National Military 

Strategy. The new posture will yield significant gains in military effectiveness and 

efficiency in future conflicts and crises and will enable the U.S. military to fulfill 

its many global roles. The new posture will also have a positive effect on our military forces and families. While we will be moving toward a more rotational and unaccompanied forward presence, these rotations will be balanced by more stability at 

home with fewer overseas moves and less disruption in the lives of spouses and dependents. 

Army Modular Force 

The Army Modular Force initiative transforms the Army from units based on the 

division organization into a more powerful, adaptable force built on self-sufficient, 

brigade-based units that are rapidly deployable. These units, known as Brigade 

Combat Teams (BCTs), consist of 3,500 to 4,000 soldiers. BCTs increase the Army’s 

combat power while meeting the demands of global requirements without the overhead and support previously provided by higher commands. The main effort of Army 

transformation is the Army Modular Force, which reorganizes the Total Army: the 

active component, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve into modular theater 

armies, theater support structure, corps and division headquarters, BCTs, and 

multi-functional and functional support brigades. The Army is reorganizing from a 

division-based to a modular brigade-based force to achieve three primary goals: 

First, increase the number of available BCTs to meet operational requirements 

while maintaining combat effectiveness equal to or better than previous divisional 

brigades. Second, create brigade-size combat support and combat service support 

formations of common organizational designs that can be easily tailored to meet the 

varied demands of the geographic combatant commanders and reduce the complexities of joint planning and execution. Third, redesign organizations to perform as integral parts of the joint force, making them more effective across the range of military operations and enhancing their ability to contribute to joint, interagency, and 

multinational efforts. By implementing the Army Modular Force, the Army is transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
18

forming to be better prepared to meet the challenges of the new security environment characterized by continuous full-spectrum operations against adaptive enemies 

in complex environments. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget includes projects to ensure that our facilities continue 

to meet the demands of force structure, weapons systems, and doctrinal requirements. As of fiscal year 2006, we have funded 93 percent of the military construction requirements for the Stryker BCTs, including Army National Guard requirements in Pennsylvania. Remaining construction funding for both the Active Army 

and Army National Guard will be requested in future budget requests. 

New facility requirements for transforming units are being provided, where feasible, through the use of existing assets. Where existing assets are not available, 

the Army is programming high-priority projects to support soldiers where they live 

and work. The Army is requesting $414 million for fiscal year 2008 to provide permanent facilities in support of the BCTs. The remaining Army Modular Force requirements will be addressed in future budget requests. 

Grow the Army 

The President’s recent Grow the Force initiative announced on January 10, 2007, 

will increase the Army by 74,000 soldiers over the next 5 years. Part of this year’s 

request, $2.363 billion, supports this initiative. Grow the Army projects include essential facilities required to support the increase in end strength such as brigade 

complexes and associated combat support, combat service support, training, and 

quality of life facilities worldwide. Funding is requested for planning and design and 

military construction projects in the active Army, Army National Guard, and for 

Army Family Housing. Details for these projects will be provided separately. 

THE WAY AHEAD

To improve the Army’s facilities posture, we have undertaken specific initiatives 

or budget strategies to focus our resources on the most important areas—Range and 

Training Lands, Barracks, Family Housing, and Workplaces. 

Range and Training Lands. Ranges and training lands enable our Army to train 

and develop its full capabilities to ensure our soldiers are fully prepared for the 

challenges they will face. Our Army Range and Training Land Strategy supports 

Army transformation and the Army’s Sustainable Range Program. The Strategy 

identifies priorities for installations requiring resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and acquire training land. 

Barracks. Providing safe, quality housing is a crucial commitment the Army has 

made to its soldiers. We owe single soldiers the same quality housing that is provided to married soldiers. Modern barracks are shown to significantly increase morale, which positively impacts readiness and quality of life. The importance of providing quality housing for single soldiers is paramount to success on the battlefield. 

The Army is in the 15th year of its campaign to modernize barracks to provide 

134,500 single enlisted permanent party soldiers with quality living environments. 

The new complexes meet DOD ‘‘1+1’’ or equivalent standard by providing two-soldier suites, increased personal privacy, larger rooms with walk-in closets, new furnishings, adequate parking, landscaping, and unit administrative offices separated 

from the barracks. 

Family Housing. This year’s budget continues our significant investment in our 

soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to have contracts and funding in 

place to eliminate remaining inadequate housing at enduring overseas installations 

by the end of fiscal year 2009. The U.S. inadequate inventory was funded for elimination by the end of fiscal year 2007 through privatization, conventional military 

construction, demolition, divestiture of uneconomical or excess units and reliance on 

off-post housing. For families living off post, the budget for military personnel maintains the basic allowance for housing that eliminates out of pocket expenses. 

Workplaces. Building on the successes of our family housing and barracks programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of Army infrastructure by 

focusing on revitalization of our workplaces. Projects in this year’s budget will address requirements for operational, administration, instructional, and maintenance 

facilities. These projects support and improve our installations and facilities to ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet its national security mission. 

Leveraging Resources 

Complementary to these budget strategies, the Army also seeks to leverage scarce 

resources and reduce our requirements for facilities and real property assets. Privatization initiatives such as RCI, utilities privatization, and build-to-lease family 

housing in Europe and Korea represent high-payoff programs which have substanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
19

tially reduced our dependence on investment funding. We also benefit from agreements with Japan, Korea, and Germany where the Army receives host nation funded construction. 

In addition, Congress has provided valuable authorities to utilize the value of our 

non-excess inventory under the Enhanced Use Leasing program and to exchange facilities in high-cost areas for new facilities in other locations under the Real Property Exchange program. In both cases, we can capitalize on the value of our existing 

assets to reduce unfinanced facilities requirements. 

The Army is transforming military construction by placing greater emphasis on 

installation master planning and standardization of facilities as well as planning, 

programming, designing, acquisition, and construction processes. Looking toward 

the immediate future, we are aggressively reviewing our construction standards and 

processes to align with industry innovations and best practices. In doing so, we expect to deliver quality facilities at lower costs while meeting our requirements more 

expeditiously. By encouraging the use of manufactured building solutions and other 

cost-effective, efficient processes, the Army will encourage nontraditional builders to 

compete. Small business opportunities and set-aside programs will be addressed, as 

well as incentives for good performance. Work of a repetitive nature coupled with 

a continuous building program will provide the building blocks for gaining efficiencies in time and cost.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Military Construction Appropriation Authorization Request 

Authorization of

Appropriations

Request 

Appropriation

Request 

Military Construction Army (MCA) ........................................... $3,385,329,000 $4,039,197,000 $4.039,197,000

Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG) ............... N/A 404,291,000 4O4,291,000

Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR) ........................... N/A 119,604,000 119,684,000

Army Family Housing Construction (AFHC) ............................. 419,400,000 419,400,000 419,400,000

Army Family Housing Operations (AFHO) ................................ 742,920,000 743,920,000 742,920,000

BRAC 95 (BCA) ........................................................................ 73,716,000 73,716,000 73,716,000

BRAC 2005 (BCA) .................................................................... 4,015,746,000 4,015,746,000 4,015,746,000

Global War on Terrorism MCA ................................................. 730,850,000 738,850,000 738,850,000

Total ................................................................................ $9,375,961,000 $10,553,804,000 $10,553,804,000

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $10.6 billion for Military 

Construction appropriations and associated new authorizations, Army Family Housing, and BRAC. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)

The Active Army fiscal year 2008 Military Construction budget request is 

$3,385,329,000 for authorization and $4,039,197,000 for authorization of appropriations and appropriation, including $1,608,129,000 for Grow the Army. This year’s 

projects support the infrastructure necessary to ensure continued soldier readiness 

and family well-being. 

Soldiers as our Centerpiece Projects. The well-being of our soldiers, civilians, and 

families is inextricably linked to the Army’s readiness. We are requesting $590 million of our MCA budget for projects to improve soldier well-being in significant 

ways. 

The Army continues to modernize and construct barracks to provide enlisted single soldiers with quality living environments. This year’s budget request includes 14 

barracks projects to provide improved housing for 3,703 soldiers and new barracks 

in support of major stationing moves as we recast the footprint of the Army. With 

the approval of $1,392 million for new barracks in this budget, 82 percent of our 

requirement will be funded at the ‘‘1+1’’ or equivalent standard. 

We are requesting the third increment of funding, $47.4 million, for the previously 

approved, incrementally funded, multiple-phased barracks complex at Fort Bragg, 

NC. In addition, we are requesting the second increment of funding, $102 million, 

for the brigade complex at Fort Lewis, WA. We will award the complex as a single 

contract to gain cost efficiencies, expedite construction, and provide uniformity in 

like facility types. The budget also includes a $175 million for two training barracks 

complexes at Fort Benning, GA; and another at Fort Bragg, NC, which will house 

2,580 training soldiers. 

Overseas Construction. Included in this budget request is $382 million in support 

of high-priority overseas projects. In Germany, we continue our consolidation of 

20

units to Grafenwoehr as part of our Efficient Basing—Grafenwoehr initiative. This 

allows us to close numerous installations as forces relocate to the U.S. and within 

Europe reducing base support requirements and enhancing soldier training. In 

Korea, we are again requesting funds to further our relocation of forces on the peninsula. This action is consistent with the Land Partnership Plan agreements entered into by the U.S. and Republic of Korea Ministry of Defense. Our request for 

funds in Italy is GDPR related and relocates forces from Germany to Vicenza to create a full Airborne BCT as part of the Army’s transformation to a modular force. 

The Airborne BCT complex also includes new barracks to house 513 soldiers. Additional locations in Germany will close as construction is completed. 

Mission and Training Projects. Projects in our fiscal year 2008 budget will provide 

maintenance facilities, brigade complexes and headquarters, operational and administration facilities, and training ranges. These projects support and improve our installations and facilities to ensure the Army is deployable, trained, and ready to respond to meet our National Security mission. The budget request also includes two 

overseas Forward Operating Site base camps for $74 million that will provide a brigade (minus)-sized operational facility to support rotational training, allow for increased U.S. partnership training, and promote new military to military relationships. 

We will also construct a battle command training center and simulations training 

facility, urban operations terrain, urban assault course, modified record firing 

ranges, and digital multipurpose training ranges. These facilities will provide our 

soldiers realistic, state-of-the-art live-fire training. We are requesting a total of $177 

million for these high-priority projects. We are also requesting funding of $22.3 million for two defense access roads. 

Army Modular Force Projects. Our budget continues support of the transformation 

of the Army to a modern, strategically responsive force and contains $315 million 

for three brigade complexes and other facilities. The new barracks will house 1,156 

soldiers in support of the Army Modular Force. 

Southern Command Headquarters Project. Our budget supports a new consolidated headquarters building with other support facilities. Our budget request contains $237 million for the new facilities that will replace multiple leased facilities 

scattered throughout the Miami, FL, metropolitan area. The new consolidated building will support over 2,800 Active, Reserve, and civilian personnel whose mission 

is to achieve U.S. strategic objectives within their area of responsibility which spans 

32 countries. 

Global War on Terrorism Projects. The budget request also includes $738.8 million for 33 critical construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom including $19.4 million for planning 

and design. These funds will provide force protection, airfield facilities, operational 

facilities, support facilities, fuel handling and storage, and roads. 

Other Support Programs. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes $481 million for 

planning and design of future projects, including $383 million to Grow the Army. 

As executive agent, we also provide oversight of design and construction for projects 

funded by host nations. The fiscal year 2008 budget requests $23 million for oversight of approximately $800 million of host nation funded construction for all Services in Japan, Korea, and Europe. 

The budget request also contains $23 million for unspecified minor construction 

to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot 

wait for the normal programming cycle. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

The Army National Guard’s fiscal year 2008 Military Construction request for 

$404,291,000 for appropriation and authorization of appropriations, including $77 

million for Grow the Army, is focused on current readiness, transformation, other 

support, and unspecified programs. 

Current Readiness. In fiscal year 2008, the Army National Guard is requesting 

$36.9 million for four projects to support current readiness. These funds will provide 

the facilities our soldiers require as they train, mobilize, and deploy. Included are 

one logistics building and three readiness centers. 

Army Modular Force. The Army National Guard is also requesting $237.8 million 

for 28 projects in support of new missions. There are 13 projects for the Stryker 

BCT initiative, 4 for the Army Division Redesign Study, 8 range projects to support 

the Army Range and Training Land Strategy, and 3 Aviation Transformation 

projects to provide facilities for modernized aircraft and change unit structure. 

Other Support Programs. The fiscal year 2008 Army National Guard budget also 

contains $43.8 million for planning and design (including $17 million for Grow the 

21

Army) of future projects and $8.7 million for unspecified minor military construction 

to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot 

wait for the normal programming cycle. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE

The Army Reserve fiscal year 2008 Military Construction request for $119,684,000 

(for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is for Current Readiness, 

other support, and unspecified programs. Current Readiness. In fiscal year 2008, the Army Reserve will invest $73.2 million to build five new Army Reserve Centers, $17 million for a combined maintenance 

facility, and $8.5 million to construct a regional medical training facility—for a total 

facility investment of $98.7 million. Construction of the five Reserve centers will 

support over 1,700 Army Reserve soldiers and civilian personnel. In addition, the 

Army Reserve will invest $7.0 million to construct a training range and a training 

range support facility, which will be available for joint use by all Army components 

and military services. 

Other Unspecified Programs. The fiscal year 2008 Army Reserve budget request includes $10.9 million for planning and design for future year projects and $3.0 million for unspecified minor military construction to address unforeseen critical needs 

or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming 

cycle. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION (AFHC)

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 family housing request is $419,400,000 for authoriza- tion, authorization of appropriation, and appropriation, including $266 million for 

Grow the Army. It continues the successful Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative approved by Congress in fiscal year 1992 and our RCI program. 

The fiscal year 2008 new construction program provides a whole neighborhood re- placement project at Ansbach, Germany, in support of 138 families for $52.0 million 

using traditional military construction. 

The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our housing revi- talization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2008, we are requesting $266.0 

million in support of Grow the Army, as well as $99.4 million for direct equity investment in support of the privatization of 3,998 homes at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, 

Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina. 

In fiscal year 2008, we are also requesting $2.0 million for planning and design 

for future family housing construction projects critically needed for our soldiers. 

Privatization. RCI, the Army’s housing privatization program, is providing quality 

housing that soldiers and their families can proudly call home. The Army is 

leveraging appropriated funds and existing housing by engaging in 50-year partnerships with nationally recognized private real estate development, property management, and home builder firms to construct, renovate, repair, maintain, and operate 

housing communities. 

The RCI program will include 45 locations, with a projected end state of over 

86,000 homes—99 percent of the on-post family housing inventory in the U.S. To 

date, the Army has privatized 35 locations, with almost 75,000 homes. Initial construction and renovation at these 35 installations is estimated at $9.8 billion over 

a 3 to 10 year development period, of which the Army has contributed about $0.8 

billion. Although most projects are in the early phases of their initial development, 

since 2001 our partners have constructed 8,613 new homes, and renovated 8,415 

homes. The fiscal year 2008 budget request of $99.4 million will allow the Army to 

expand the portfolio of privatized family housing to three additional installations. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS (AFHO)

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 Family Housing Operations request is $742,920,000 

(for appropriation and authorization of appropriations), which is approximately 64 

percent of the total family housing budget. This account provides for annual operations, municipal-type services, furnishings, maintenance and repair, utilities, 

leased family housing, demolition of surplus or uneconomical housing, and funds 

supporting management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. 

Operations ($139 million). The operations account includes four subaccounts: management, services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. All operations 

subaccounts are considered ‘‘must pay accounts’’ based on actual bills that must be 

paid to manage and operate family housing. 

Utilities ($145 million). The utilities account includes the costs of delivering heat, 

air conditioning, electricity, water, and wastewater support for family housing units. 

While the overall size of the utilities account is decreasing with the reduction in 

22

supported inventory, per-unit costs have increased due to general inflation and the 

increased costs of fuel. 

Maintenance and Repair ($216 million). The maintenance and repair account supports annual recurring projects to maintain and revitalize family housing real property assets. Since most family housing operational expenses are fixed, maintenance 

and repair is the account most affected by budget changes. Funding reductions result in slippage of maintenance projects that adversely impact soldier and family 

quality of life. Leasing ($206 million). The leasing program provides another way of adequately 

housing our military families. The fiscal year 2008 budget includes funding for 

11,836 housing units, including 3,680 existing Section 2835 (‘‘build-to-lease’’—formerly known as 801 leases) project requirements, 1,907 temporary domestic leases 

in the United States, and 6,249 foreign units. Privatization ($37 million). The privatization account provides operating funds for 

implementation and oversight of privatized military family housing in the RCI program. RCI costs include selection of private sector partners, environmental studies, 

real estate surveys, and consultants. These funds support the preparation and execution of partnership agreements and development plans, and oversight to monitor 

compliance and performance of the privatized housing portfolio. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

The Army is requesting $4,015,746,000 for BRAC 2005 which is critical to the suc- cess of the Army’s new initiatives, and $73,716,000 for legacy BRAC to sustain vital, 

ongoing programs. All BRAC activity takes place within the context of achieving the 

Army’s goals of winning the global war on terrorism, transforming from a divisionstructured, forward-deployed force to one comprised of agile BCTs stationed on U.S. 

soil and growing the Army in a manner that maintains the Army’s ability to win 

decisively any time, any where. 

BRAC 2005 is carefully integrated with the Defense and Army programs of 

GDPR, Army Modular Force, and Grow the Army. Collectively, these initiatives 

allow the Army to focus its resources on installations that provide the best military 

value, supporting improved responsiveness and readiness of units. The elimination 

of Cold War era infrastructure and the implementation of modern technology to consolidate activities frees up financial and human resources to allow the Army to better focus on its core war fighting mission. These initiatives are a massive undertaking, requiring the synchronization of base closures, realignments, military construction and renovation, unit activations and deactivations, and the flow of forces 

to and from current global commitments. If done efficiently, the end results will 

yield tremendous savings over time, while positioning forces, logistics activities, and 

power projection platforms to efficiently and effectively respond to the needs of the 

Nation. 

As an essential component of Army transformation, BRAC 2005 decisions optimize 

infrastructure to support the Army’s current and future force requirements. Under 

BRAC 2005, the Army will close 13 Active component installations, 387 Reserve 

component installations and 8 leased facilities. BRAC 2005 realigns 53 installations 

and/or functions and establishes Training Centers of Excellence, Joint Bases, a 

Human Resources Center of Excellence, and Joint Technical and Research facilities. 

To accommodate the units relocating from the closing Reserve component installations, BRAC 2005 creates 125 multi-component Armed Forces Reserve centers and 

realigns the Army Reserve command and control structure. By implementing BRAC 

2005 decisions, the active Army will maintain sufficient surge capabilities to expand 

to 48 maneuver brigades and handle increased production, training, and operational 

demands now and in the future. BRAC 2005 better postures the Army for an increase in end strength by facilitating the Army’s transformation to a modular force 

and revitalizing and modernizing the institutional Army through consolidation of 

schools and centers. 

In total, over 150,000 soldiers and civilian employees will relocate as BRAC is implemented over the next 5 years. The over 1,300 discrete actions required for the 

Army to successfully implement BRAC 2005 are far more extensive than all four 

previous BRAC rounds combined and are expected to create significant recurring 

annual savings. BRAC 2005 will enable the Army to become a more capable expeditionary force as a member of the joint team while enhancing the well-being of our 

soldiers, civilians, and family members living, working, and training on our installations. 

BRAC 2005 Implementation Strategy 

The Army has an aggressive, carefully synchronized, fully resourced, BRAC fiscal 

years 2006–2011 implementation plan, designed to meet the September 2011 deadVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
23

line, while supporting our National security priorities. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements necessary to support our implementation plan were 

initiated in fiscal year 2006 to enable the early award of essential construction 

projects. Our BRAC construction plan is fully coordinated and carefully synchronized to support our overall strategy for re-stationing, realigning, and closing 

installations while continuing to fully support ongoing missions and transformation 

initiatives. This construction plan identifies requirements, defines scope, and considers existing installation capacity and infrastructure needs. It is an extremely 

complex plan that manages numerous construction projects, re-stationing actions, 

BRAC moves, and deployment timelines to allow the Army to implement the BRAC 

statute while supporting critical missions worldwide. 

Seventy-five percent of all required construction projects are planned for award 

by the end of fiscal year 2009, and 100 percent by the end of fiscal year 2010. This 

will enable the major movement of units and personnel in fiscal years 2010 and 

2011, with expected completion by the mandated BRAC 2005 deadline. 

In fiscal year 2006 the Army awarded 11 BRAC military construction projects to 

support restationing and realignments, including: three projects to support GDPR; 

two incremental projects for BCTs, and five Armed Forces Reserve Centers, totaling 

over $788 million. In fiscal year 2007, the Army plans to award and start construction on 75 projects: 23 projects to support GDPR; 27 Reserve component projects in 

14 States, and 25 other Active component projects estimated to cost over $3.3 billion, including planning and design for fiscal year 2008 and 2009 projects. This will 

lay the foundation for follow-on projects, and in earnest, start the implementation 

of our synchronized construction program. 

As signed into law, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110–5) does not allow us to accomplish our fiscal year 2007 BRAC construction and threatens to derail our carefully integrated implementation plan. The Appropriation provides less than half of the total BRAC funds requested, creating a 

shortfall of approximately $2 billion for the Army. If the Army program is not fully 

funded, we will be significantly challenged to execute BRAC as intended. Construction of required facilities will be delayed, and the resulting impact will cascade 

through our restationing, transformation, and growth plans for years to come. 

BRAC 2005 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget 

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 budget request of $4,015,746,000 will continue to 

fund both BRAC and GDPR actions necessary to comply with BRAC 2005 Law. The 

Army plans to award and begin construction of 89 military construction projects, 

plus planning and design for fiscal year 2009 and 2010 projects. This is estimated 

to cost $3,241,521,000 and includes: 16 additional GDPR projects, 31 Army National 

Guard and Army Reserve projects, and an additional 42 Active component projects. 

A significant portion of the Army’s BRAC request supports the transformation 

and restationing of the operational force. BRAC military construction projects support major realignments of forces returning to the United States from Europe, as 

well as several stateside relocations. The fiscal year 2008 budget request also funds 

projects supporting Reserve component transformation in 19 States. This is a 

healthy start to addressing BRAC 2005 recommendations impacting the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. 

The BRAC budget request will also fund furnishings for 86 BRAC projects awarded in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 as the buildings reach completion and occupancy. 

The request also funds movement of personnel, ammunition, and equipment associated with 25 BRAC Commission Recommendations. 

The Army will continue to procure investment type equipment in fiscal year 2008 

in support of our BRAC military construction program as part of the ‘‘other procurement’’ budget line. This equipment exceeds the investment and expense unit cost 

threshold of $250,000 each and includes information technology infrastructure and 

equipment for the 86 previously awarded BRAC projects, which will be impacted if 

fiscal year 2007 funding is not fully restored. 

In fiscal year 2008, the Army will initiate environmental closure and cleanup actions at 14 BRAC properties. These activities will continue efforts previously ongoing under the Army Installation restoration program and will ultimately support future property transfer actions. The budget request for environmental programs is 

$86,756,000, which includes Munitions and Explosives of Concern and Hazardous 

and Toxic Waste restoration activities. 

Prior BRAC 

Since Congress established the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission in 1990, the Department of Defense has successfully executed four rounds of 

base closures to reduce and align the military’s infrastructure to the current secuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
24

rity environment and force structure. As a result, the Army estimates approximately 

$11.7 billion in savings through 2007—nearly $1 billion in recurring, annual savings 

from prior BRAC rounds. 

The Army is requesting $73.7 million in fiscal year 2008 for prior BRAC rounds 

($3.4 million to fund caretaking operations of remaining properties and $70.3 million for environmental restoration) to address environmental restoration efforts at 

147 sites at 14 prior BRAC installations. To date, the Army has spent $2.7 billion 

on BRAC environmental restoration for installations impacted by the previous four 

BRAC rounds. We disposed of 235,361 acres (89 percent of the total acreage disposal 

requirement of 258,607 acres), with 23,246 acres remaining. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Army’s fiscal year 2008 Operation and Maintenance budget includes $2.740 

billion in funding for Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM) and 

$8.133 billion in funding for Base Operations Support (BOS). The S/RM and BOS 

accounts are inextricably linked with our military construction programs to successfully support our installations. The Army has centralized the management of its installations assets under the Installation Management Command to best utilize this 

funding. 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization. S/RM provides funding for the active and Reserve components to prevent deterioration and obsolescence and restore 

the readiness of facilities on our installations. 

Sustainment is the primary account in installation base support funding responsible for maintaining the infrastructure to achieve a successful readiness posture for 

the Army’s fighting force. It is the first step in our long-term facilities strategy. Installation facilities are the mobilization and deployment platforms of America’s 

Army and must be properly maintained to be ready to support current missions and 

future deployments. 

The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is recapitalization by restoring 

and modernizing our existing facility assets. Restoration includes repair and restoration of facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization includes alteration or modernization of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, including regulatory changes to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components 

that typically last more than 50 years, such as foundations and structural members. 

Base Operations Support. This account funds programs to operate the bases, installations, camps, posts, and stations for the Army worldwide. The program includes municipal services, government civilian employee salaries, family programs, 

environmental programs, force protection, audio/visual, base communication services, and installation support contracts. Army Community Service and Reserve component family programs include a network of integrated support services that directly impact soldier readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to military life 

during peacetime and through all phases of mobilization, deployment, and demobilization. 

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2008 Military Construction and BRAC budget requests are balanced programs that support our soldiers and their families, the global war on terrorism, Army transformation, readiness, and DOD installation strategy 

goals. We are proud to present this budget for your consideration because of what 

this budget will provide for our Army:

• 138 homes replaced or renovated 

• 3,998 additional homes privatized 

• Approximately 42,600 government-owned and leased homes operated and 

sustained at the end of fiscal year 2008

• Portfolio management of 78,426 privatized homes 

• 33 projects in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom 

• 9,461 soldiers get new barracks 

• $254 million in Training Ranges 

• $6.1 billion invested in Soldier/Family Readiness 

• $2,363 million to Grow the Army

Base Realignment and Closure:

• Statutory compliance by 2011 for BRAC 

• 89 Military Construction projects 

• Planning and Design for fiscal years 2009–2010 Projects 

25

• Remaining NEPA for BRAC 2005 actions 

• Continued Environmental Restoration of 23,246 acres

Army National Guard:

• Improved Readiness Centers and an Armed Forces Reserve Center 

• Completion of eight range projects 

• Continued support of our Stryker BCT 

• Three Aviation Transformation projects 

• Three maintenance facilities

Army Reserve:

• Medical personnel get new training facility 

• New combined maintenance facility 

• New live-fire training range facility 

• 1,743 soldiers get new Reserve centers 

• Center of gravity for Army Reserve families

Base Operations Support:

• Goal is to meet essential needs for all BOS programs: Base Operations, 

Family, Environmental Quality, Force Protection, Base Communications, 

and Audio/Visual.

Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization:

• Funds Sustainment at 86 percent of the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

requirement, with plans to achieve 90 percent of the requirement through 

efficiencies.

Our long-term strategies for installations will be accomplished through sustained 

and balanced funding, and with your support, we will continue to improve soldier 

and family quality of life, while remaining focused on Army and Defense transformation goals. 

In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and for your continued support for America’s Army.

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Penn? 

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

THE NAVY, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. PENN. Chairman Akaka and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the 

Navy installations and environmental efforts. I would like to briefly 

highlight a few topics that are discussed in more detail in my written statement. 

I am pleased to report a very substantial increase in the investment for installations and environment programs in this budget. 

We are asking for a total of $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2008, which 

is an increase of $1.8 billion above last year’s request. I appreciate 

the efforts by Congress to restore $3.1 billion for BRAC 2005 implementation in the fiscal year 2007 supplement. The funds are critical to allow us to stay on track and attain the attendant operational efficiencies while maximizing further turbulence in the future of our personnel and communities affected by BRAC ’05. 

We continue to finance our prior BRAC environmental cleanup 

and property disposal from the sale of prior BRAC property. We 

have budgeted to spend the last of the $1.1 billion in land sale revenue in fiscal year 2008, while our cost to complete environmental 

cleanup on all remaining prior BRAC property has increased by 

$725 million since last year. Most of the increase is due to recognition last year of substantial low-level radioactive contamination at 

the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. The 

low-level radioactive material is buried underground, undetectable 

on the surface, and poses no risk to humans, if left undisturbed. 

26

We are working this issue with the city, the regulators, and the 

congressional delegation. 

I commend the Marine Corps for its commitment to eliminate by 

2012 its barracks shortfall for enlisted marines for their current 

approved 175,000 end strength. The budget includes $282 million 

for 10 barracks projects at 7 Marine Corps locations. The budget 

also includes about $950 million across the baseline and supplemental budgets for a mix of facilities to grow the Marine Corps permanent end strength to 202,000 by 2011. This initiative, which is 

separate from the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, will 

allow the Marine Corps to reduce the strain on individual marines 

by establishing a more stable deployment-to-dwell ratio and enhanced irregular warfare capabilities. 

Both the Navy and Marine Corps continue the family housing 

privatization efforts. Our investment of less than $600 million has 

attracted over $6.6 billion in private sector capital to eliminate inadequate homes for our sailors and marines with families. The 

Navy is successfully applying privatization to improve housing for 

unaccompanied sailors. The Navy signed the first DOD barracks 

privatization contracts in December 2006. Located in San Diego, 

the project will provide 941 new two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartments and privatize an existing building. Construction will be completed in 2009. The Navy is in exclusive negotiations with a developer for a second barracks privatization project in Norfolk. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Penn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. B.J. PENN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today to provide an overview of the Department of Navy’s (DoN) shore infrastructure. 

THE NAVY’S INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES

The DoN’s shore infrastructure is where we train and equip the world’s finest 

sailors and marines, while developing the most sophisticated weapons and technologies. The DoN manages a shore infrastructure with a plant replacement value 

of $187 billion on 4.5 million acres. Our fiscal year 2008 shore infrastructure baseline budget totals $11.5 billion, representing about 8 percent of the DoN’s fiscal year 

2008 baseline request of $139 billion. There is an additional $410 million for facilities in the fiscal year 2007 global war on terror supplemental, and $169 million in 

the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror request. Together, that represents a $1.8 

billion increase compared to the fiscal year 2007 request of $10.3 billion. 

The Base Operating Support (BOS) request of $5.6 billion, excluding environmental, comprises the largest portion of the Navy’s facilities budget request. This 

account funds the daily operations of a shore facility, e.g., utilities, fire and emergency services; air and port operations; community support services; and custodial 

costs. 

27

Our fiscal year 2008 request of $5.6 billion for BOS reflects a $558 million increase from the enacted fiscal year 2007 level. The Navy increase of $356 million 

and Marine Corps increase of $202 million will return capability levels to those executed in fiscal year 2005, restoring reductions taken during fiscal year 2007 that 

are unsustainable, particularly in the area of information technology and counterterrorism and security guards as we substitute civilian and contract personnel in 

place of military personnel. 

The fiscal year 2008 military construction (MILCON) (Active + Reserve) baseline 

request of $2.2 billion is $992 million more than the enacted fiscal year 2007 level 

of $1.2 billion. The fiscal year 2008 request includes $59 million for Navy and Marine Corps Reserve construction efforts. This level of funding supports traditional 

recapitalization projects for the existing infrastructure. It also provides facilities for 

15 new Navy weapon systems, new facilities for the Marine Corps’ plan to Grow the 

Force from the current 175,000 permanent end strength to 202,000 by 2011, and 

new barracks to ensure that all unaccompanied enlisted Marines are suitably 

housed by 2012. 

The fiscal year 2008 Family Housing baseline request of $670 million is $140 million less than the fiscal year 2007 enacted level of $810 million. Within this sum, 

there is $299 million for replacement family housing on Guam and Marine Corps 

privatization. Housing operations and maintenance funds decline to $371 million as 

government-owned worldwide inventory of 26,335 homes in fiscal year 2007 falls by 

15,481 homes to 10,854 homes in fiscal year 2008 due to privatization. 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM) includes MILCON and operation and maintenance funds. Our fiscal year 2008 request of $1.83 billion represents only the amount of S/RM funded with Operations and Maintenance, and is 

$133 million above the enacted fiscal year 2007 level of $1.70 billion. Although fiscal 

year 2008 funding is 8 percent higher than fiscal year 2007, sustainment levels are 

lower because of inflation and an increase in modeled requirements. 

Our fiscal year 2008 request of $898 million for environmental programs at Active 

and Reserve bases is comprised of operating and investment appropriations. This 

amount is about the same as the fiscal year 2007 request. 

Our Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program consists of environmental 

cleanup and caretaker costs at prior BRAC locations, and implementation of BRAC 

2005 recommendations.

• Our fiscal year 2008 prior BRAC program of $179 million is $163 million 

below our fiscal year 2007 program of $342 million. The entire prior BRAC 

effort continues to be financed with revenue obtained from the sale of prior 

BRAC properties. We have not sought appropriated funds for prior BRAC 


410red1.eps
28

since fiscal year 2005, however, the fiscal year 2008 program depletes the 

remainder of the land sale revenue received in previous years from disposing prior BRAC property. 

• The fiscal year 2008 budget of $733 million to implement the BRAC 2005 

recommendations is $434 million above the amount allocated by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the DoN following the reduction enacted in 

the House Joint Resolution 20. 

Impact of House Joint Resolution 20 

The DOD has been proceeding with BRAC 05 implementation through most of fiscal year 2007 under a series of Continuing Resolutions (CRs). The enactment of the 

House Joint Resolution 20 on 15 February provided an annual DOD BRAC 05 appropriation, albeit at a substantial $3.1 billion reduction to the PB–07 $5.6 billion 

request. The DoN had received $66 million of the $690 million budget request under 

the CRs, with most of the funds provided in January. The duration of the CR, and 

the magnitude of the funding reduction, has severely complicated program execution. 

The BRAC 05 account is a DOD account. The Office of the Secretary of Defense 

has now allocated $297 million of the $2.5 billion appropriated by Congress in fiscal 

year 2007 to the DoN, leaving us with a $398 million shortfall in fiscal year 2007. 

There is, however, no doubt that a 55 percent reduction from the President’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget request will create substantial turmoil in all of the Services and 

defense agency implementation plans and schedules. Our BRAC 05 design and construction projects represent 81 percent of the fiscal year 2007 (49 construction 

projects at 20 locations) and 69 percent of the fiscal year 2008 request (29 construction projects at 18 locations), so any reduction of funds in fiscal year 2007 will require that we defer numerous construction projects, causing a bow wave of construction projects into fiscal year 2008. This will require a wholesale review of fiscal year 

2008 execution plans and schedules as we accommodate construction projects deferred from fiscal year 2007. Delaying closures and realignments also requires us 

to replace funds which had been taken as savings in the budget. Finally, it adds 

further uncertainty in the lives of our military, civilian, and contract employees as 

they ponder their future, and jeopardizes our ability to meet the September 2011 

deadline to complete all closures and realignments. 

The President submitted an amended fiscal year 2007 request on 8 March 2007 

with accompanying offsets for $3.1 billion in additional BRAC 05 funds. I urge your 

support for the amended fiscal year 2007 budget submitted to Congress. 

Here are some of the highlights and additional details on these programs. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military Construction Projects 

The DoN’s fiscal year 2008 MILCON program requests appropriations of $2.1 billion including $110 million for planning and design and $10 million for Unspecified 

Minor Construction. This fiscal year 2008 baseline request is $975 million above, 

and nearly doubles, the fiscal year 2007 enacted level of $1.129 billion. The fiscal 

year 2008 authorization request is $1.8 billion. This level of construction funds presents what I believe will be a substantial, long-term commitment for naval facilities. 

The Active Navy program totals $1,126 million and includes:

• $486 million for 15 construction projects supporting the fielding of new 

weapons system platforms or research facilities for future weapon systems. 

All construction projects are scheduled to finish building and outfitting the 

facility just-in-time to coincide with the arrival of the new platform and its 

planned initial operating capability. The new platforms include: LPD–17, 

T6–A, LCS, SSN–774, E2–D, JPALS, FA–18E/F, MH–60, MUOS, EA–18G, 

T–AKE, and D5 LE. One example of these new platforms is a $101.8 million extension to Kilo wharf in Guam to support the arrival of the new T–

AKE class Combat Logistics Force ships in fiscal year 2010 that provide underway replenishment to Navy ships at sea, replacing the current T–AE 

and T–AFS class ships; 

• $175 million to continue funding for six previously approved incrementally funded construction projects. An example is a $16.6 million recruit 

training center infrastructure upgrade at Naval Training Center Great 

Lakes IL. This project is the final phase of the infrastructure improvement 

effort at Great Lakes. In accordance with administration policy, there are 

no new incrementally funded construction projects in this budget request; 

29

• $146 million for four other waterfront recapitalization projects not associated with new weapons systems. An example is a $91 million CVN maintenance pier replacement at Naval Base Kitsap, WA; 

• $139 million for utilities infrastructure improvements to meet current 

mission and operational requirements at Naval Base Guam and Naval Support Activity Diego Garcia; 

• $24 million for training projects at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, TX 

and Naval Station Great Lakes, IL; and 

• $22 million in three infrastructure improvement projects at Camp 

Lemonier in Djibouti in support of CENTCOM’s forward operating base.

The active Marine Corps program totals $1,037 million, including:

• $361 million for facilities to support the ‘‘Grow the Force’’ initiative, 

which I will discuss this in greater detail below; 

• $282 million for 10 bachelor quarters at 7 locations including Marine 

Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, and Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, CA; 

• $167 million for 11 operations and training facilities, including an Infantry Squad Defense Range at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA, and 

3 facilities for the Marine Corps Special Operations Command units at 

Camp Pendleton, CA, and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC; 

• $52 million for two training facilities, including student quarters for the 

basic school at Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA; 

• $32 million for three other quality of life projects, including a fitness center at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, CA; 

• $31 million for four maintenance projects including a jet engine test cell 

at Marine Corps Air Station New River, NC; and 

• $13 million for infrastructure improvements including main gate improvements at the Blount Island Command, FL, and Marine Corps Base 

Camp Pendleton, CA.

The Navy and Marine Corps Reserve MILCON appropriation request is $59.2 million, $16 million more than the enacted fiscal year 2007 level of $43 million. There 

are three Reserve centers at various locations and a Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Unit operation facility at Naval Station Everett WA. 

Marine Corps Grow the Force 

To meet the demands of the Long War and respond to inevitable worldwide crises 

that arise, the Marine Corps must be sufficiently manned in addition to being welltrained and properly equipped. A key objective is to establish a 1:2 deployment-todwell ratio for all Active component forces. This ratio relates how long our forces 

are deployed versus how long they are at home. The goal is for every 7 months a 

marine is deployed, he will be back at his home station for 14 months. Marine operating forces are routinely falling short of this target. To fix this imbalance, the 

President announced in January a need to increase the Marine Corps permanent 

end strength from 175,000 to 202,000 by 2011, along with a larger increase for the 

Army. The Marine Corps growth will occur in stages, the first of which will build 

3 new infantry battalions and elements of their supporting structure of about 5,000 

marines. 

The fiscal year 2008 baseline budget includes $4.3 billion for pay and allowances 

for the first increment of marines, MILCON and BOS for permanent barracks and 

operations centers, procurement of additional H–1 aircraft and increased aviation 

support, along with recruiting, training, equipment, and ammunition to bring units 

to full operational capability. The funding for infrastructure and facilities to initially 

support this initiative are in three separate budget documents now before Congress:

• The fiscal year 2007 supplemental includes $324 million for planning & 

design, and eight MILCON projects; 

• The fiscal year 2008 global war on terror includes $169 million for planning and design, 10 MILCON projects, and family housing privatization 

seed money for follow-on projects; and 

• The fiscal year 2008 baseline budget includes $458 million for planning 

and design, 20 MILCON projects including 2 Wounded Warrior barracks, 

and additional family housing privatization seed money for follow-on 

projects.

Because marines will begin to arrive before construction at many locations is complete, the Marine Corps is planning to lease, rent, or purchase temporary support 

facilities. Based on the composition of the additional units, we are determining the 

optimal permanent bed down locations for these units for future construction requirements. 

30

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) 

The DOD uses a sustainment model to calculate life cycle facility maintenance 

and repair costs. These models use industry-wide standard costs for various types 

of building and geographic areas and are updated annually. Sustainment funds in 

the Operation and Maintenance accounts are used to maintain facilities in their current condition. The funds also pay for preventative maintenance, emergency responses for minor repairs, and major repairs or replacement of facility components 

(e.g. roofs, heating, and cooling systems). Both the Navy and the Marine Corps have 

accepted more risk in facilities sustainment funding in fiscal year 2008 to fund higher priority requirements. With respect to the table, the Marine Corps moved additional funds to sustainment in fiscal year 2006 to restore reductions taken in fiscal 

year 2005. The Navy would require $240 million and the Marine Corps $64 million 

to fund sustainment to the DOD goal of 100 percent of model requirements in fiscal 

year 2008. 

Restoration and modernization provides major upgrades of our facilities using 

MILCON, Operation and Maintenance, Navy Working Capital Fund, and Military 

Personnel funds. The DOD uses a ‘‘recap’’ metric to gauge investment levels. The 

‘‘recap’’ metric is calculated by dividing the plant replacement value by the annual 

investment of funds and is expressed in years. The DOD goal is to attain a 67-year 

rate by fiscal year 2008. This is a relatively coarse metric, as demonstrated by the 

dramatic improvement in execution as a result of funds from the fiscal year 2006 

Hurricane Supplemental, which substantially improved only those bases affected by 

the storm. The Navy recap rate also benefits from MILCON included in BRAC 05 

implementation. We are working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 

other components to develop a recap model similar to the Sustainment model, 

planned for release in the next budget cycle. 

Naval Safety 

The DoN has embraced the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP), which seeks to foster a cooperative relationship between management, labor, and OSHA as a means to improve workplace 

safety. The VPP focuses on four major tenets: increased leadership and employee 

involvement in safety; effective worksite hazard analysis; a focus on hazard prevention and control; and effective safety and health training for employees. The DoN 

has achieved ‘‘Star’’ status, OSHA’s highest level of achievement, at four sites representing over half of the VPP star sites in DOD. The naval activities include three 

naval shipyards, our largest industrial facilities. Statistical evidence for VPP’s success is impressive. The average VPP worksite has a Days Away, Restricted or 

Transferred (DART) injury case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry, which is consistent with what we have seen. 

Joint basing 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense released a draft Joint Base Initial Implementation guidance on 31 January 2007 for coordination by the components. The 

Navy and Marine Corps have been working closely with the components for over a 

year in developing a common framework and standards to establish joint bases. The 

DoN supports the transfer of funding and real estate from the supported component 

to the supporting component for installation management functions, which will be 

the responsibility of the supporting component to provide at the joint base. 


410red2.eps
31

Encroachment Partnering 

We are successfully applying the authority in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to enter into agreements with State and local governments 

and eligible nongovernment organizations to address potential incompatible development near our installations and ranges, and to preserve nearby habitat to relieve 

current or anticipated environmental restrictions that might otherwise restrict military training, testing, or operations on the installation. Both the Navy and Marine 

Corps are using this authority to reduce or eliminate encroachment concerns. 

Through fiscal year 2006 DoN has protected nearly 16,000 acres near its installations under this program at a cost of $12.5 million while our partners have contributed $20.5 million. The DoN has also entered into several longer-term agreements 

under which we and our partners will seek additional encroachment buffering opportunities. Examples include:

• An agreement with Beaufort County, South Carolina under which we will 

share costs to acquire interests in the vicinity of Marine Corps Air Station 

Beaufort. 

• An agreement with Churchill County, Nevada under which we will share 

costs to acquire interests in the vicinity of Naval Air Station Fallon. 

Energy 

The DoN is pursuing ways to meet the requirements of Executive Order 13423 

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Central to this plan is our continued development of geothermal power plants. Navy has partnered with the renewable energy 

industry on a 270 MW geothermal plant at Naval Air Warfare Station China Lake, 

CA; awarded a geothermal power plant contract for Naval Air Station Fallon, NV; 

and is evaluating a project at Naval Facilities Engineering Center El Centro, CA. 

Other on-base renewable projects include photovoltaic, wind, wave and ocean thermal energy conversion projects. I issued a new DoN policy last fall requiring all new 

buildings to be built to a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 

Silver level. 

HOUSING

Our fiscal year 2008 budget continues to improve living conditions for sailors, marines, and their families. We have programmed the necessary funds and expect to 

have contracts in place by the end of fiscal year 2007 to eliminate all inadequate 

family housing. Renovation and new construction will be completed such that sailors 

and marines are no longer occupying inadequate homes by fiscal year 2012. We continue to provide homes ashore for our junior shipboard unaccompanied sailors, to 

provide appropriate living spaces for our junior enlisted bachelor Marines, and to 

address longstanding family housing deficits. We have programmed the necessary 

funding to eliminate over 99 percent of the inadequate permanent party unaccompanied bachelor quarters (BQs) housing spaces still served by ‘‘gang heads.’’ As we 

near finishing privatizing existing military family housing, we are making tangible 

progress in applying that same privatization approach to meet our unaccompanied 

housing needs. 

32

Family Housing 

As in past years, our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad:

• Reliance on the Private Sector. In accordance with longstanding DOD 

and DoN policy, we rely first on the local community to provide housing for 

our sailors, marines, and their families. Approximately three out of four 

Navy and Marine Corps families receive a Basic Allowance for Housing 

(BAH) and own or rent homes in the community. 

• Public/Private Ventures (PPVs). With the strong support from this committee and others, we have successfully used PPV authorities enacted in 

1996 to partner with the private sector to help meet our housing needs 

through the use of private sector capital. These authorities allow us to leverage our own resources and provide better housing faster to our families. 

Maintaining the purchasing power of BAH is critical to the success of both 

privatized and private sector housing. 

• MILCON. MILCON will continue to be used where PPV authorities don’t 

apply (such as overseas), or where a business case analysis shows that a 

PPV project is not financially sound. 


410red4.eps
33

As of 1 March 2007, we have awarded 24 privatization projects for over 50,000 

homes. As a result of these projects, over 30,000 homes will be replaced or renovated, about 5,000 new homes will be built, and the remaining 15,000 were 

privatized in good condition and did not require any improvements. Through the use 

of these authorities we have secured over $6 billion in private sector investment 

from $588 million of our funds, which represents a ratio of almost twelve private 

sector dollars for each taxpayer dollar. 

During the remainder of fiscal year 2007 and in fiscal year 2008, we plan to 

award 9 Navy and Marine Corps family housing privatization projects totaling over 

13,000 homes. By the end of fiscal year 2007, the Navy and Marine Corps will have 

privatized 95 percent and over 99 percent, respectively, of their U.S. housing stock. 

Our fiscal year 2008 and out-year family housing privatization projects are targeted at reducing family housing deficits by constructing additional housing for our 

families where the private sector cannot accommodate their needs. These authorities 

will ensure the availability of housing to address increased requirements associated 

with the Marine Corps’ ‘‘Grow the Force’’ initiative, stand-up of the Marine Corps 

Special Operations Command, and address our remaining housing deficit. 

Our fiscal year 2008 baseline family housing budget request includes $298 million 

for family housing construction and improvements. This amount includes $188 milVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB

410red5.eps
34

1 Excludes two Marine Corps Wounded Warrior barracks.

2Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees. 

lion for the Government investment in family housing privatization projects planned 

for fiscal year 2008 award. It also includes the replacement or revitalization of housing in Guam and Japan where privatization is not planned. Finally, the budget request includes $371 million for the operation, maintenance, and leasing of remaining Government-owned or controlled inventory. The latter represents a 66 percent 

decline since 1999 when the DoN began in earnest to privatize its inventory of government owned housing. In addition, our fiscal year 2008 family housing global war 

on terrorism request includes another $12 million for the Marine Corps in family 

housing improvements. 

Unaccompanied Housing 

Our baseline budget request of $323 1 million for 11 unaccompanied housing 

projects continues the emphasis on improving living conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. Marine Corps has an additional BQ for $41 million in 

the fiscal year 2007 global war on terror supplemental, and another BQ and dining 

hall in the fiscal year 2008 global war on terror. There are three challenges: 

1. Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors. Approximately 

13,000 E1–E3 unaccompanied Sailors worldwide lived aboard ship even 

while in homeport. The fiscal year 2008 budget supports Navy’s goal of providing ashore living accommodations for these sailors. It includes one 

‘‘homeport ashore’’ construction project for $47 million to complete Naval 

Base Kitsap Bremerton, WA (198 modules). We are requesting a second 

phase of funding for this project previously authorized in fiscal year 2005. 

The primary demographic are sailors assigned to the nuclear carrier U.S.S. 

John C. Stennis, which is homeported in Bremerton. Efforts to build this 

barracks as a pilot BQ PPV proved uneconomical due to the large number 

of vacancies that would occur when Stennis deployed. 

In addition to the E1–E3 shipboard sailors, there are approximately 6,000 

unaccompanied E–4 sailors with less than 4 years service who are assigned 

to sea duty. Although they are entitled to receive BAH, funding for housing 

allowances remains un-programmed. We will accommodate those sailors 

within our existing unaccompanied housing capacity to ensure they do not 

return to live aboard ship upon promotion to E4. 

2. Ensure our Barracks Meet Today’s Standards for Privacy. We are 

building new and modernizing existing barracks to increase privacy for our 

single sailors and marines. Reflecting the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps’ priority to ensure single marines are adequately housed, the fiscal 

year 2008 budget includes $282 million in MILCON funding (a 124 percent 

increase over fiscal year 2007 funding levels) for the construction of 3,750 

permanent party and trainee spaces at seven Marine Corps installations. 

The Marine Corps has programmed the necessary funding from fiscal year 

2008 through –11 to ensure marines for their current approved 175,000 end 

strength are adequately housed by 2012. These barracks will be built to the 

2 + 0 room configuration, as have all Marine Corps barracks since 1998. 

We appreciate Congress authorizing the Services to adopt private sector 

standards for the construction of military unaccompanied housing. We believe that we can provide market-style housing with improved amenities 

(such as increased common space for residents) at a cost equivalent to that 

associated with building smaller modules to rigid military specifications. In 

implementing this authority, we will ensure that Service-specific operational requirements are not compromised, such as the core Marine Corps’ 

tenets for unit cohesion and teambuilding. 

3. Eliminate Gang Heads. The Marine Corps had programmed all necessary funding, through fiscal year 2005, to eliminate inadequate unaccompanied housing with gang heads 2 for permanent party personnel. They will, 

however, continue to use these facilities on an interim base to address 

short-term housing requirements resulting from temporary end strength increases in recent supplemental appropriations. The Navy will achieve over 

99 percent of this goal by fiscal year 2007. 

Unaccompanied Housing Privatization 

We awarded our first pilot unaccompanied housing privatization project to Pacific 

Beacon LLC in December 2006. When complete in apartments for E–4 and above 

enlisted personnel in San Diego, CA who are unsuitably housed in the private sector 

or who are living in Government quarters that could be used by shipboard sailors. 

35

An existing unaccompanied housing building, containing 258 modules, was also 

privatized as part of this agreement. Our partner will provide additional quality of 

life amenities to existing buildings, such as a swimming pool. 

We are in exclusive negotiations with a prospective private partner for a second 

pilot project at Hampton Roads, VA. This project is set for contract award this 

spring, after the required Congressional notices. This project will build more than 

1,000 new two-bedroom/two-bathroom apartments and privatize over 700 existing 

unaccompanied housing modules for unaccompanied shipboard E1–E3 personnel. 

We appreciate Congress extending the authorities and streamlining the notification process in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. We continue to pursue candidates for the third pilot, targeting the Mayport/Jacksonville, FL, area, and 

expect to have preliminary results this spring on a feasibility study. We will also 

look at other candidates including additional phases at San Diego and Hampton 

Roads. 

Recognizing that these are long-term endeavors, we take seriously our responsibility to monitor the agreements to ensure that the Government’s interests are adequately protected. We have instituted a portfolio management approach that collects 

and analyzes financial, occupancy, construction, and resident satisfaction data to ensure that the projects remain sound and that the partners are performing as expected. Customer surveys show overall improvement in member satisfaction after 

housing is privatized. 

BUILDUP ON GUAM

U.S. national interests and treaty commitments require strengthening of U.S. 

military capabilities in the Western Pacific. U.S. forces must be positioned to maintain regional stability, ensure flexibility to respond to regional threats, project power 

throughout the region, defend our assets as well as those of our allies, and provide 

forces to respond to global contingencies. 

The relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force personnel from Okinawa to 

Guam under U.S.-Japan Alliance Transformation and Realignment is part of a 

broader realignment that, when implemented, will strengthen our regional posture, 

deter potential aggressors, and provide capabilities that can be flexibly deployed in 

contingencies, which are essential for the Defense of Japan and for peace and security in the region. For the marines, this development will balance the Marine Air 

Ground Task Force (MAGTF) lay down across the region with improved flexibility. 

The 8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents leaving Japan will reduce the footprint of U.S. forces in Okinawa. This will facilitate consolidation of U.S. bases on 

Okinawa to allow additional land returns in Japan, while reinvigorating Guam’s 

economy through economic stimulus, infrastructure improvements, and external investments. 


410red6.eps
36

The Government of Japan will fund most of the infrastructure construction costs 

over the planned 7-year time period to implement the realignment actions in mainland Japan, Okinawa, and Guam. On Guam, Japan will contribute $6.09 billion of 

cost sharing toward the estimated $10.27 billion development cost associated with 

the realignment of marines from Okinawa to Guam. Japan’s contribution consists 

of $2.8 billion in cash for operational facilities, barracks, and quality of life facilities, 

and $3.29 billion in equity investments and loans to special purpose entities that 

will provide housing and utilities for the marines on Guam. 

The Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to establish a Joint Guam 

Program Office (JGPO) to coordinate and manage the relocation of the marines from 

Okinawa to Guam. There will be JGPO offices in Arlington, VA, and in Guam, along 

with a liaison billet in Hawaii with USPACOM, and another in Japan with USFJ. 

The JGPO will work closely with the Office of Economic Adjustment and the Government of Guam to ensure this initiative is mutually beneficial to DOD and to the 

people of Guam. 

JGPO will oversee National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies that will 

provide the foundation for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and parallel 

development of a Guam Master Plan. We have $10 million in fiscal year 2007 and 

are requesting $28 million in multiple appropriations in the fiscal year 2008 baseline budget to continue these efforts. My office released the NEPA Notice of Intent 

in the Federal Register on 7 March 2007. The Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record of 

Decision, including public comment periods could take up to 3 years to complete. 

The EIS will address the impact of relocating III MEF with the Air, Ground, and 

Combat Service Support elements from Okinawa to Guam. The housing, operational, quality of life, and services support infrastructure for the marines will be 

identified during the planning process, and assessed through the environmental 

analysis. It will also assess the impacts of improving the Apra Harbor waterfront 

to construct a pier capable of berthing a transient aircraft carrier as well the infrastructure requirements needed to station a U.S. Army ballistic missile defense task 

force on Guam. We will ask for the necessary MILCON funds beginning with the 

fiscal year 2010 budget submission. 

ENVIRONMENT

Endangered Species Protection 

For nearly a century, San Clemente Island, CA, was ravaged by the destructive 

forces of invasive species, which severely degraded the island’s entire ecosystem. 

Eleven endemic and/or native plants and animals neared extinction, and are now 

protected under the Endangered Species Act. 

Today, the status of most of these species has been significantly enhanced because 

of the Navy’s environmental stewardship. The Navy eradicated all non-native feral 

grazing animals in the early 1990s and removed exotic plants which were overwhelming native species. The island has been healing through natural processes and 

Navy protective measures and restoration efforts. In response to a request from the 

Navy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October 2006 recommended delisting the 

Island Night Lizard on San Clemente Island as a result of a 5-year review. The final 

decision is still pending. 

Camp Pendleton uses its Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) to manage the ecosystem on this 125,000-acre installation, recognizing 

that the military mission as a central and integral element of the ecosystem. During 

the last 2 years, the INRMP demonstrated its benefit by excluding the base from 

Critical Habitat (CH) designations by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

for seven species. In each case, the Secretary of the Interior found that Camp Pendleton’s INRMP provided a benefit to the species, and agreed to exclude all Basemanaged lands from designation as critical habitat, per Section 4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act., and required no further restrictions on military training activities. 

In 2006, the USFWS released 5-year status reviews for two species inhabiting 

Camp Pendleton: the least Bell’s vireo and the California least tern. The USFWS 

recommended both birds be upgraded from ‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘threatened’’ due in 

large measure to Camp Pendleton’s management efforts, such as habitat enhancement, cowbird control, and focused predator management. A final decision is pending. 

Navy Marine Mammals/Sonar R&D investments 

The Navy recognizes the need to protect marine mammals from anthropogenic 

sound in the water. The Navy invests $10 million to $14 million per year for research into hearing and diving physiology, behavioral response to human-generated 

37

sound, mitigation options, and simulation tools. Approximately 33 universities, institutes, and technical companies are supported by Navy research grants. All the research is aimed a developing a broad, scientific understanding of marine mammals. 

The Navy recently expanded its research on the effects of mid-frequency sonar to 

include effects on fish. 

MMPA National Defense Exemption 

On 23 January 2007 the DOD issued a National Defense Exemption (NDE) under 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for all military readiness activities that 

employ mid-frequency active sonar or Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys 

during major training exercise, within established DOD maritime ranges, or establish operating areas. A 6-month NDE had expired on 30 December 2006. 

The Navy is working closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has jurisdiction on MMPA enforcement, to address procedural issues, identify and implement mitigation and monitoring measures to minimize potential effects to marine mammals, and establish mutually acceptable 

threshold criteria. The Navy has also established an outreach workgroup with the 

many non-governmental organizations that have a vested interest in the protection 

of marine species. The Navy has begun the public NEPA process on its three most 

active ranges—Hawaii, Southern California, and east coast, and is committed to 

completing environmental documentation for all ranges by the end of 2009. 

Shipboard Programs 

The Navy continues modernizing its vessels to comply with more stringent environmental regulations. The Navy completed its Afloat Pollution Prevention Equipment installations in September 2006 with 152 installations on Navy surface ships. 

The equipment reduces the need for hazardous material, and the generation of hazardous waste. The Navy continues to convert its shipboard air conditioning and refrigeration plants from Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) to non-ODS refrigerants. 

As of 1 March 2007, we had completed 516 of 690 conversions of shipboard air condition systems and 600 of 614 conversions of shipboard refrigeration systems. Navy 

expects to complete its transition to non-ODSs by 2014. 

The Navy has also completed 114 of 334 upgrades to its plastic waste processors 

(PWPs), which allow ships at sea to compress plastics into a solid disk for disposal 

or recycling ashore. The new PWPs reduce maintenance, improve reliability and 

throughput, and include a self-cleaning future, giving our sailors the best equipment 

to meet no-plastics discharge requirements while at sea. 

Environmental Compliance by Shore Installations 

The Navy continues to improve its shore installation compliance environmental 

standards. Solid waste diversion has climbed from 42 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 

60 percent in fiscal year 2006 for combined municipal waste and construction and 

demolition debris, compared with an EPA national average diversion rate of 32 percent. Our hazardous waste disposal amounts are down to an all time low of 54 thousand tons of hazardous waste, compared to 207 thousands tons when DOD starting 

using this metric in 1992, this despite increased optempo to support the global war 

on terror. Domestically, 91 percent of Navy permits are in full compliance with 

Clean Water Act standards, and 97 percent meet all Safe Drinking Water Act standards, both increases from recent years. 

The Marine Corps has made similar progress. For example, the number of new 

enforcement actions against the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2006 has declined by 

25 percent compared to the average number in fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 

2005. This decrease occurred at a time of high operational tempo and more regulatory inspections. 

Alternative Fuel Vehicles 

The Navy has many initiatives to reduce its reliance on imported oil. Last year, 

Navy doubled biodiesel usage for non-tactical vehicles. Biodiesel fuels are now available at Navy Exchange fuel stations in Norfolk, VA; Crane, IA; and Charleston, SC. 

After successfully completing a pilot scale system, the Naval Facilities Engineering 

Services Center (NFESC) is building a full-scale biodiesel production facility at 

Naval Base Ventura County, Port Hueneme, CA. NFESC distributed 92 neighborhood electrics last year. These electric vehicles can be charged at any 110 volt outlet 

and are well-suited for use in ports, air stations, and large supply buildings. 

Installation Restoration Program (IRP) 

The DoN has completed cleanup or has remedies in place at 78 percent of our 

3,700 contaminated sites. We plan to complete the program by 2014. The cost-tocomplete the installation restoration program continues a downward trend with effiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
38

ciencies of $600 million over the past 10 years. Use of new technologies, land use 

controls, remedy optimizations, contract efficiencies, and a dedicated professional 

staff have contributed to these efficiencies. Our fiscal year 2008 request of $301 million consists of $271 million for IRP, and $41 million for program management, and 

$43 million for munitions response. 

Munitions Response Program (MRP) 

The DoN is proceeding with cleanup of Munitions and Explosives of Concern 

(MEC) and Munitions Constituents (MC) at all Navy and Marine Corps locations 

other than operational ranges. We plan to complete preliminary assessments this 

year at all 213 known sites on 56 active installations. Site inspections and sampling 

will be completed by 2010. We will not have credible cleanup cost estimates until 

these assessments are completed in 2010. 

Navy continues clearing munitions from Vieques, PR. About 65 acres of beaches 

have been surface cleared of munitions on the eastern side of the island, and we 

are removing surface MEC and MC on 1,100 acres of the former bombing range Live 

Impact Area and the artillery range. A total of 290 acres, including the ‘‘Red’’ and 

‘‘Blue’’ beaches have been cleared. Our revised cost to complete for Vieques is $255 

million, with completion expected in 2020. 

BRAC 05

In developing the BRAC 2005 recommendations, the DoN sought to eliminate excess capacity, improve operational readiness, capitalize on joint basing opportunities 

with the other components, maintain quality of service, and achieve cost savings. 

The BRAC 2005 Commission recommendations became legally binding on the DOD 

on 9 November 2005. In contrast to prior BRAC commissions, the BRAC 2005 recommendations have fewer closures and many more realignments, particularly realignments that involve more than one military Service or Defense Agency. The 

DoN has 6 ‘‘fence line’’ closures and 81 realignment recommendations involving 129 

bases. Our remaining environmental cost to complete for fiscal year 2008 and beyond is $94 million. 

Accomplishments 

Given that all closures and realignments in BRAC 05 must by law be completed 

by September 2011, we must move quickly to construct the necessary facilities to 

relocate units from their current location to their new location. We initiated BRAC 

05 implementation in fiscal year 2006 by awarding 12 BRAC construction projects 

at the ‘‘receiver’’ locations. The DoN obligated 96 percent of the total fiscal year 

2006 $252 million BRAC 05 funds we received. 

Nearly all impacted communities have established a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to guide local planning and redevelopment efforts. The DOD Office of Economic Adjustment has been providing financial support through grants and technical assistance to support LRA efforts. 

To date, the Navy has terminated leases at 11 Reserve centers, thereby returning 

these properties to their owners; and completed 14 surplus determinations, allowing 

us to proceed with disposal actions to non DOD recipients at these locations. We 

expect to complete the remaining two surplus determinations this spring. We also 

completed 23 Environmental Condition of Property Reports, providing copies to local 

communities and Federal agencies to support their redevelopment efforts. These environmental reports provide a comprehensive summary of all known environmental 

contamination, as well as the studies, analyses, and cleanup that have been done, 

are now underway, or remain to be done. 

Navy has completed operational closure of 12 bases. We have received approval 

from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) for 58 out of 64 business plans 

for which the DoN is the executive agent. These business plans, which average 40 

pages in length, include extensive details on costs, savings, schedules, and support 

documents for each construction project. We continue efforts to gain OSD approval 

for the remaining business plans, which involve more complex moves and joint basing decisions. 

PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP & PROPERTY DISPOSAL

The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in reducing 

our domestic base structure and generating savings. The DoN has achieved a steady 

state savings of approximately $2.7 billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All that 

remains is to complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions 

of 17 of the original 91 bases. 

39

3 42 U.S.C. Section 9620(h). 

Property Disposal 

Last year we conveyed 906 acres in 12 separate real estate transactions at 6 prior 

BRAC bases. We also completed Findings of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) for 940 

acres. The FOST certifies that DOD real estate is environmentally suitable for 

transfer by deed under section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).3

Land Sale Revenue 

We have continued our success in using property sales to assist in funding environmental cleanup and property disposal as well as recover value for taxpayers from 

the disposal of Federal property. Through a combination of cost Economic Development Conveyances, Negotiated Sales, and Public Sales, the DoN has received over 

$1.1 billion in revenues from the sale of prior BRAC property. Nearly all of this revenue has been generated since fiscal year 2003. In fiscal year 2006, we completed 

the sale of 3,719 acres at the former Marine Corps Air State El Toro, CA for $649.5 

million. We also sold 167 acres at the former Naval Hospital Oakland, CA for $100.5 

million. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, we have used these funds to accelerate environmental cleanup, and to finance the entire DoN prior BRAC effort including caretaker costs since fiscal year 2005. 

We have put this land sale revenue to good use! We have issued Findings of Suitability to Transfer for over 4,500 acres which enabled us to continue our disposal 

efforts. A few of the significant disposals include the last parcels at Naval Shipyard 

Charleston, SC; Naval Air Station Key West, FL; San Pedro Housing Area for Naval 

Shipyard Long Beach, CA; and Naval Hospital Oakland, CA, as well as the first parcel at Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard. In addition, Navy accelerated cleanup on the 

majority of MCAS El Toro, a National Priorities List (NPL) site. We have also completed the cleanup of over half of Naval Station Treasure Island and determined it 

acceptable for transfer. Significant cleanup activities were undertaken at both Hunter’s Point Naval Shipyard, as well as Alameda Naval Air Station, all of which are 

NPL sites, greatly improving the protection to human health and the environment. 

Two significant property sales remain, both planned to begin in fiscal year 2009: 

approximately 176 acres at the former Naval Training Center Orlando, FL; and 

about 1,450 acres at the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, PR. We will spend 

the last portions of the $1.1 billion in land sale revenue in fiscal year 2009. Revenue 

projections for Orlando and Roosevelt Roads are unknown, but are expected to be 


410red7.eps
40

well below that obtained from the sale of California property at El Toro and Tustin. 

In the absence of additional land sale revenue, we are evaluating the need to resume appropriated funds in future budgets. 

Prior BRAC Environmental Cleanup 

The DoN has spent about $3.5 billion on environmental cleanup, environmental 

compliance, and program management costs at prior BRAC locations through fiscal 

year 2006. With our planned programs of $342 million in fiscal year 2007 and $179 

million in fiscal year 2008, we expect the environmental cost to complete for fiscal 

year 2009 and beyond at $1.168 billion. This is an increase of $725 million since 

last year. Nearly all of this cost increase is due to the recent discovery of substantially more low level radioactive waste at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard 

in San Francisco, CA and some at the former Naval Air Station Alameda, CA. 

Hunters Point Naval Shipyard 

Hunters Point Shipyard represents one of the most unique prior BRAC challenges. Maritime use of Hunters Point began in the 1850’s. The Navy purchased the 

property in 1939, and began to expand the shipyard and build facilities. Between 

1939 and 1974, Hunters Point was one of the Navy’s largest industrial shipyards 

and was home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory (NRDL). The Navy 

used Hunters Point to decontaminate ships that had been used during atomic weapons testing under Operation Crossroads. NRDL conducted radiological research in 

numerous buildings on the base. 

The Navy closed Hunters Point in 1974, and then leased most of the property in 

1976 to a private ship repair company. The Environmental Protection Agency placed 

the shipyard on the National Priorities List in 1989. The DOD listed the shipyard 

for closure as part of BRAC 1991. 

The Navy has conducted expansive records and data search to identify all areas 

of potential contamination, as required under CERCLA. This included conducting a 

Historic Radiological Assessment and extensive sampling to identify potential contamination from past radiological activities. There are 78 installation restoration 

sites and 93 radiological sites, and Navy has spent about $400 million on cleanup 

efforts. While the base does not present a risk to human health, the additional data 

has revealed a much greater degree of contamination than previously known. The 

previous cost to complete was $110 million. The revised fiscal year 2008 cost to complete is $670 million, which excludes submerged lands. We will have an independent 

outside consultant review the situation and seek options that balance cleanup costs 

and health risks to humans and the environment. Land use controls must be part 

of the remedy for Hunters Point. 

The City of San Francisco recently proposed building a new football stadium using 

a portion of Hunters Point. Such a proposal represents a very compatible reuse that 

could be effectively integrated into the cleanup program. While this appears to be 

an excellent opportunity for combining cleanup with transfer and redevelopment of 

Hunters Point, it will require significant financial resources in the near term that 

are not now budgeted. 

HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS

Following the experience learned from Hurricane Ivan in 2004, the Navy was prepared to respond quickly to the Hurricane Katrina and lesser storms in 2005 that 

affected eight major Navy bases. With supplemental funds provided by Congress, we 

have made the necessary repairs to get our facilities back to full mission capability. 

The funding allowed us to begin the cleanup as the long term reconstruction. We 

have awarded 37 percent of the $493 million in MILCON and family housing construction projects to date, with plans to award the balance by the end of this fiscal 

year. 

MEETING THE CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION CHALLENGE

The ambitious programs I have outlined, encompassing military and family housing construction, continuing recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast, BRAC-related construction, and support for the global war on terror represent an execution effort of 

over $4 billion in fiscal year 2008 compared to the fiscal year 2005 effort of $2.5 

billion. The Grow the Force and barracks initiative by the Marine Corps, and the 

buildup on Guam initiative will add a sustained annual program of $2 to $3 billion 

through the FYDP. 

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFACENGCOM) has, with the 

exception of fiscal year 2006, obligated between 92 percent to 98 percent of all authorized and appropriated DoN construction projects (including congressional adds) 

in the first year funds became available. That obligation rate dropped to 74 percent 

41

in fiscal year 2006, primarily due to pricing issues caused by material and labor 

shortages in the aftermath of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. 

NAVFACENGCOM has substantial additional contracting capacity, and will seek 

to aggregate related projects while preserving competition and small business interests. For example, NAVFACENGCOM sponsored an industry conference in January 

2007 to explore opportunities for cost and scheduling efficiencies. This is an execution challenge that NAVFACENGCOM can do. 

CONCLUSION

The Navy cannot meet the threats of tomorrow by simply maintaining today’s 

readiness and capabilities of our physical plant. We must continue to transform and 

recapitalize for the future without jeopardizing our current readiness and the 

strides we have made—and continue to make—in managing our shore infrastructure. With our partners in industry, the acquisition community, and with the continuing support of Congress, the DoN will build and maintain installations that are 

properly sized, balanced—and priced for tomorrow. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. I look forward to 

a productive dialogue with Congress on the DoN’s shore infrastructure.

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Anderson? 

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

Mr. ANDERSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of America’s airmen, it is a pleasure to be here and thank this subcommittee for 

its continued support of America’s Air Force. 

As our Nation and Department finds itself engaged in hostilities 

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

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

Force is getting smaller, but our commitments are not. Airmen perform critical installations, environmental, and logistics tasks that 

are intrinsic to every facet of the success of our missions. 

During these challenging times, the Air Force priorities remain 

constant: winning the global war on terror, developing and caring 

for our airmen, and recapitalizing and modernizing our air and 

space systems. Among our priorities is the Air Force’s energy program, with efforts geared to reduce energy demand, increase supply, and create a culture where all airmen take energy as a consideration in everything that we do. 

One initiative focuses on aviation fuel. During fiscal year 2006, 

our aviation operations accounted for 82 percent of all of Air 

Force’s energy use. To wean us off of foreign energy sources, last 

year we began testing and certifying a coal-to-liquid synthetic jet 

fuel for our aviation fleet beginning with the B–52. We will continue this program, with a goal to certify the entire fleet by 2010. 

Another Air Force initiative is targeted at work-related injuries, 

a problem that is costly to the Air Force and, more importantly, it 

is a problem that negatively impacts the quality of life for our airmen and their families. The Secretary and Chief of Staff have directed launching OSHA’s voluntary protection program across the 

Air Force. Once fully implemented, every airman will be empowered to actively identify and take action to eliminate safety and 

health hazards in their workplace. 

Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs 

are key to supporting Air Force priorities. At home our installaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
42

tions provide stable training environments as we equip and reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and overseas bases provide 

force projection platforms to support combatant commanders. Our 

bases are weapons systems to the Air Force and in order to support 

these base-centric concepts of operations the Air Force has developed an infrastructure investment strategy that focuses on enabling combatant commanders. 

The fiscal year 2008 presidential budget request for traditional 

MILCON is $1 billion and this budget carefully balances our needs 

for facility operation and maintenance accounts so that we can enable support of the Air Force mission. That budget request also includes $363 million for housing investment, which balances new 

construction, improvements, and planning and design work. Housing continues to be a good news story for airmen and our families, 

including privatization, as my colleagues have discussed. 

Our request also includes $933 million for direct-funded nonBRAC environmental programs—restoration, compliance, conservation, and other environmental efforts. 

To continue the BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal year 

2008 budget requests $1.2 billion in BRAC-related activities, of 

which $910 million is for construction. Full support of this funding 

request is critical to ensure we remain on track to meet the requirement of compliance by 2011. 

We are committed to making BRAC and joint basing a raging 

success. However, several joint basing policy elements run counter 

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

property services would serve as a disincentive to cost savings, efficiency, and effective execution on customer expectations. These customers, our operational commanders, should define the requirements necessary to execute the mission and manage the funds to 

meet their needs. The Air Force believes that joint basing provides 

a unique opportunity to actually improve the quality of life for 

every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and their families. 

This year we commemorate the 60th anniversary of our proud 

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

proven through decades of progress and achievement. 

We look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM C. ANDERSON

Mr. Chairman, Senator Ensign, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

as our Nation, and Department, finds itself in a transition period, the Air Force continues to evolve and remain indispensable as threats emerge and change. The Air 

Force is the preeminent force for operations beyond the bounds of earth, and is vital 

and relevant in the conduct of ground operations as well. The Air Force has been 

continually engaged in War for the past 16 years. The Quadrennial Defense Review 

guides the Air Force and enables us to deliver sovereign options for the defense of 

the United States of America and its global interests. The Air Force is getting smaller, but our commitments have not. Airmen performing critical installations, environment and logistics tasks are intrinsic to every facet in the success of our missions. 

My Civil Engineers are critical to every facet in the success of our missions. We currently have over 2,500 engineers in the theater of operations directly supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In order to fulfill our mission, we 

are making process changes at every level of the Air Force with results in resource 

savings and more efficient operations. We have more work to do, but by institutionalizing Air Force Smart Operations 21 concepts into our daily operations we are 

43

leaning our internal processes to reduce workload and reduce or eliminate unnecessary work. These efforts allow us to meet the enormous challenges of today, the 

foreseeable future, and ultimately, sustain and modernize the world’s best air, 

space, and cyberspace force. In these tumultuous times our priorities remain consistent: fighting and winning the war on terror, developing and caring for our airmen and their families, and recapitalizing and modernizing aging aircraft and 

spacecraft. 

Air Force facilities, housing, environmental, and BRAC programs are key components of our support infrastructure. At home, our installations provide stable training environments as we equip and reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and 

overseas bases provide force projection platforms to support combatant commanders 

(COCOMS). Our bases use weapons systems and in order to support our base-centric concept of operations, the Air Force has developed an infrastructure investment 

strategy that focuses on enabling COCOM’s to fight and win the war on terror, providing quality of life facilities, implementing BRAC, protecting and restoring our 

natural environment, sustaining our infrastructure and striving to recapitalize our 

aging infrastructure, while proactively supporting the operational environment. We 

are the DOD’s leader in expeditionary combat support and continue that role with 

pride. Our total force military construction (MILCON), family housing, environmental and sustainment, restoration, and modernization programs are paramount 

to successful operations and maintaining the quality of life that our men and women 

in uniform and their families deserve. 

The fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request for Air Force construction is over $2.3 billion, comprised of traditional MILCON ($1.0 billion), BRAC 2005 ($910 million) and housing investments ($363 million). The Total Force MILCON portion ($1 

billion) of Air Force fiscal year 2008 President’s budget (PB) construction request 

reflects our highest construction priorities. This request includes $912 million for 

Active MILCON, $86 million for the Air National Guard, and just over $27 million 

for the Air Force Reserve. While the 2008 traditional MILCON budget request is 

approximately $300 million lower than last year’s, it reflects our highest priorities 

and most urgent needs. Unfortunately, we face demands on our resources that require some very tough choices. Our current challenging budgetary environment includes: increased operations, maintenance, and personnel costs; the cost of the long 

war; reduced Air Force total obligation authority (TOA); and absorbing inflation factors that reduce overall buying power. These factors have forced us to self-finance 

the centerpiece of future dominance—a massive and critical recapitalization and 

modernization effort of our aging air and space force. In order to accomplish this 

we are accepting manageable risk in facilities and infrastructure funding in order 

to bolster our recapitalization and modernization efforts. This budget carefully balances our facility operations and maintenance accounts for sustainment, restoration, 

modernization with MILCON programs to make the most effective use of available 

funding in support of the Air Force mission. The Air Force Total Force sustainment 

funding in fiscal year 2008 is $2 billion, 92 percent of the amount called for by the 

Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). The fiscal year 2008 Total Force restoration and 

modernization (R&M) funding is $346 million. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2008 PB request of $363 million for the Military Family 

Housing investment program balances new construction, improvements, and planning and design work. While we continue to strive to eliminate inadequate housing, 

we cannot allow more housing to fall into disrepair. In addition to the $363 million 

requested for housing investment, we request nearly $688 million for operations and 

maintenance, for a total housing investment of more than $1 billion. 

To continue our proactive and responsive environmental compliance, conservation, 

pollution prevention and restoration programs, the fiscal year 2008 PB request includes $933 million for direct-funded non-BRAC environmental programs. In addition to the $429 million we requested for traditional environmental restoration activities, the fiscal year 2008 PB request includes $321 million for environmental 

compliance activities and projects, $84 million for pollution prevention initiatives, 

$51 million for funding environmental conservation activities, $29 million for munitions response activities, and $19 million in investments in promising environmental 

technologies. 

To continue our aggressive BRAC implementation schedule, the fiscal year 2008 

PB request includes $1.2 billion for BRAC related activities of which $910 million 

is construction. The Air Force is lead for 64 BRAC business plans and has equity 

in an additional 16 business plans. Full support of this funding request is critical 

to ensure we remain on track to meet the requirement for compliance by 2011. 

Sound investment in our installations postures the Air Force to support our priorities of winning the global war on terror, support our airmen and their families, and 

recapitalize and modernize our force. We believe the fiscal year 2008 President’s 

44

budget proposal will provide the construction bedrock for continued success of our 

mission. 

FIGHTING AND WINNING THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

The Air Force’s first priority is to fight and win the global war on terror. We plan to invest $192 million on global war on terror-related projects that support and enhance the AF’s ability to deliver intelligence, maintenance, and operational capabilities to our COCOMs. At MacDill Air Force Base (AFB), FL, the Air Force is executing two projects at Central Command (CENTCOM) by completing the Joint Intelligence facility and altering the CENTCOM headquarters facility. CENTCOM’s area 

of responsibility is the geographic and ideological heart of the global war on terror. 

A war without borders, it spans 27 countries in the Central Asian region of the 

world. The Joint Intelligence Center provides the CENTCOM Commander with the 

situational awareness and long range analyses needed to defeat adversaries within 

the area of responsibility, promote regional stability, support allies, and protect U.S. 

national interests, all aimed toward victory in the global war on terror. Two projects 

at Royal Air Force (RAF) Menwith Hill Station, U.K. and one at Offutt AFB, NE, 

enhance intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities for the United States and 

our allies. The Basic Expeditionary Airman Skills Training at Lackland AFB, TX, 

provides facilities for expanded field training that will equip our airmen as they 

enter the Air Force with the warfighting skills and mindset vital in today’s operational environment. 

DEVELOP AND CARE FOR AIRMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES

The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of life. The Air 

Force is committed to creating and maintaining a consistent, high quality, and safe 

environment in locations where airmen work, reside, and recreate. Our Total Force 

airmen are the most valuable assets we have in fighting the global war on terror 

and ensuring our air, space and cyberspace dominance. We have to continue to recruit, train, equip, and retain the airmen of tomorrow. As our Air Force becomes 

more capable, more efficient and more lethal, so will our airmen. The quality of life 

we provide for our airmen and their families is a distinct determining factor in how 

long they remain in our service. The sacrifices our airmen and their families make 

are enormous. We are deeply committed to providing every airman and their family 

with the best possible quality of life as they serve our Nation. In this year’s budget 

we strive to promote a wide spectrum of projects that take care of our airmen and 

their families; from quality family housing for our families, quality dormitories for 

unaccompanied airmen, functional fitness centers, and safe child development centers, to exceptional training and operational facilities. 

Workplace 

Work-related injuries cost the Air Force over $130 million annually and have a 

significant impact on operational capability. Most importantly, workplace injuries 

negatively impact the quality of life for our airmen and their families. One program 

being used to achieve a reduction in workplace injuries is OSHA’s Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). The SECAF and CSAF have directed ‘‘launching the VPP 

throughout the Air Force . . . for service-wide implementation.’’ Through VPP, 

every airman and his wingman are empowered to actively identify and take action 

to eliminate safety and health hazards in the workplace. Our goal is to offer an accident-free work environment for each and every airman. 

At Home 

When airmen deploy, time spent worrying whether their families are safe and secure is time not spent focusing on the mission. Quality of life initiatives are critical 

to our overall combat readiness and to recruiting and retaining our country’s best 

and brightest. Our quality of life initiatives reflect our commitment to our airmen. 

Family Housing 

The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing MILCON, operations and maintenance, and privatization efforts. It is designed to ensure safe, affordable, and adequate housing for our members. To implement the plan, our fiscal 

year 2008 budget request for family housing is over $1 billion. Consistent with Department of Defense Strategic Planning Guidance, the Air Force is on track to fund 

projects through 2009 that will eliminate inadequate overseas housing. 

For fiscal year 2008, the requested $363 million for our housing investment program will replace and improve approximately 2,100 housing units at eight overseas 

bases. An additional $688 million will pay for operations, maintenance, utilities and 

leases to support the family housing program. 

45

We have used the privatization authorities granted by Congress to accelerate our 

family housing improvement program. By the beginning of fiscal year 2008, we will 

have privatized over 44,000 housing units, or 72 percent of our U.S. housing inventory, far exceeding the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) goal of 60 percent. 

The Air Force is strategically leveraging its $596 million investment to bring in 

$7.37 billion in equivalent MILCON investment from the private sector; that is 

nearly $15 of private investment for each public tax dollar. The Air Force is aggressively researching privatization at remaining U.S. MILCON installations where feasible. 

Unaccompanied Housing (Dormitories) 

The fiscal year 2008 total Air Force requirement for dormitory rooms is 60,200. 

We have made great progress using the three-phased investment strategy outlined 

in our Dormitory Master Plan. Phase I, now construction complete, eliminated central latrine dormitories. With the fiscal year 2007 MILCON we have funding necessary to complete phase II of our Dormitory Master Plan, our dorm room shortage 

(deficit), by building new dormitories. In Phase III, now underway, we will replace 

existing dormitories at the end of their useful life with a standard Air Force designed private room configuration under the ‘Dorms–4-Airmen’ concept. Our 

‘Dorms–4-Airmen’ concept capitalizes on our wingman strategy and keeps our dorm 

residents socially and emotionally fit. Our fiscal year 2008 Program reflects this strategy. The $47 million request for 

dormitory investment will replace 368 rooms for unaccompanied personnel at both 

stateside and overseas bases. We are equally committed to providing adequate housing and improving the quality of life for our unaccompanied junior enlisted personnel as we are to our families. 

Fitness and Child Development Centers 

The Air Force maintains its strong commitment to the ‘Fit-to-Fight’ program. Our 

goal is for airmen to make fitness and exercise a regular part of their lives and prepare them to meet the rigors of a deployed environment, not simply to pass an annual fitness test. Our goal is to replace at least one fitness center per year until 

we have the resources to do more. This year we will construct a new fitness center 

at Tyndall AFB, FL. 

We also remain committed to the children of our airmen and are dedicated to provide them with adequate and nurturing day care facilities. In 2008 the most urgent 

need is at Patrick AFB, FL. Our $12 million effort at Patrick AFB will provide supervised care for 266 infants and preschool children, replacing a child development 

center that was established in a warehouse built in 1958. 

Operations and Training 

Our MILCON program supports our expanded view of quality of life for airmen 

by providing facilities from which to train in and operate. A new Security Forces 

Operations Facility at Scott AFB, IL, will provide the men and women of the active 

duty and National Guard in one of our most stressed career fields a functional, consolidated facility. The Fire Training Facility at Ramstein AB is jointly funded by 

NATO and provides military critical live-fire and structural fire/crash rescue training. Finally, a recapitalization project at the Air Force Academy continues the 

phased upgrade of Fairchild Hall academic building. The final renovation and upgrade of Fairchild Hall will be complete with a $15 million effort programmed in 

our fiscal year 2009 MILCON program. 

Environmental Management Programs 

Our environmental management programs continue to ensure our most basic 

quality of life needs are being met for our airmen and surrounding communities: 

clean air, clean drinking water, and healthy working and living conditions for our 

workforce and base residents. We are also implementing refinements to our environmental management approach to incorporate best practices where we find opportunities:

• A comprehensive Air Force Green Procurement Program policy was implemented last year to require our purchasing systems to consider environmentally-preferable products as a first choice; 

• All 174 Air Force installations have implemented and continue to utilize 

their Environmental Management Systems to identify environmental aspects of base operations, assess their impacts, and allow commanders to 

make informed decisions and investments to reduce environmental risks 

and compliance costs; 

• I also challenged our installation commanders to significantly reduce new 

environmental enforcement actions last year, and I’m proud to tell you we 

46

cut our new enforcement actions by 40 percent last year from the previous 

year—a major success story; 

• Our restoration program continues to increase the use of performancebased contract mechanisms as one tool to reduce the cost and time to 

achieve remedy-in-place or response-complete (RIP/RC). As an example, one 

of our major commands, Air Combat Command, has shaved 10 years and 

almost $40 million off the restoration projections with a four-base regional 

performance-based contract. 

RECAPITALIZATION AND MODERNIZATION

Our third priority is to modernize and recapitalize the Air Force. Air forces succeed when they anticipate and are allowed to shape the future strategic environment, and ultimately develop the capabilities required for the next fight. Air forces 

succeed when they are able organize, train, and equip themselves properly for both 

the current and future fights and purposefully build in the flexibility to operate 

across the spectrum of conflict and deliver effects at all levels of war -tactical, operational and strategic. Air forces succeed when they remain focused on their primary 

mission of providing asymmetric range and payload as an independent force that 

is part of an interdependent joint team. Our 2008 MILCON program is a direct reflection of our strong commitment to the success of our Air Force and is heavily 

weighted toward modernization and recapitalization support. The fiscal year 2008 

Total Force MILCON program consists of 43 projects that are essential to modernization and recapitalization, totaling $544 million. 

The F–22A Raptor is the Air Force’s primary air superiority fighter and key enabler, providing operational access, homeland defense, cruise missile defense and 

force protection for joint forces. Combat-capable Raptors are in full rate production 

on the world’s only 5th generation production line. Elmendorf AFB, AK, will be the 

second operational Raptor base. We are constructing five Active-Duty and Reserve 

projects to beddown the world’s premier fighter at a cost of $75 million. The F–35A 

Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is our 5th generation multi-role strike fighter aircraft optimized for air-to-ground attack. The F–35A will recapitalize combat 

capabilities currently provided by the F–16 and A–10 and will complement the capabilities of the F–22A. Projects at Eglin AFB, FL, begin the beddown for joint F–35 

training squadrons and combines Air Force and Navy funding totaling $74 million. 

Our legacy aircraft remain a vital part of our National defense. We are constructing 

much needed facilities for the Reserve F–16 Wing at Hill AFB, UT, and the active 

duty F–15 Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK. 

We are also modernizing the weapons these 5th generation aircraft and legacy 

stalwarts will carry. The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) enhances our payload and 

strike capability while increasing the standoff distance for our pilots. We are constructing munitions storage igloos at RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom and 

Ramstein AB, Germany to provide this capability to the warfighter where storage 

capacity does not exist. Our Tactical Air Controllers are embedded with ground 

forces, directing Air Power, like the SDB, in support of ground operations. This 

year’s MILCON program provides active duty and Guard Air Support Operations 

Squadrons the facilities they need on Army installations like Fort Carson, CO; Fort 

Riley, KS; Camp Beauregard, LA; and Fort Indiantown Gap, PA. These facilities 

support U.S. Army brigade transformation and provide the Air Force Tactical Air 

Controllers the training space required to support the critical Close Air Support 

mission. 

We are modernizing and recapitalizing our facilities in support of large-frame aircraft as well. The C–17 continues its outstanding support for humanitarian operations and the Joint warfighter. MILCON projects at Altus AFB, OK; Hickam AFB, 

HI; and Travis AFB, CA, nearly completes the beddown of our intertheater mobility 

workhorse. The C–5 provides the strategic span in our air bridge and we are investing in six projects worth $50 million at Memphis, TN, and Martinsburg, WW. Hangar projects at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, and Cannon AFB, NM, increase maintenance capabilities for Combat Search and Rescue EC–130s and AC–130s, respectively. 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), communications, and space 

systems play an ever-increasing role in what we do. The Distributed Common 

Ground System (DCGS) provides real-time, net-centric, decision-quality information 

to commanders. Projects that enable the DCGS operations will be constructed at 

Hickam AFB, HI; Hulman RAP Terre Haute, IN; and Otis ANGB, MA. MILSTAR 

is a joint service communications system that provides secure, jam-resistant, worldwide communications to meet essential wartime requirements for high priority military users. Investments at McGhee Tyson IAP, TN, support this vital communicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
47

tions beddown. The lethal combination of air and space assets the United States 

possesses gives us capabilities that are unmatched. The Air and Space Integration 

facility at Schiever, AFB, CO, enables us to continue this dominance and widen the 

gap on our adversaries. Finally, the Communications Frame facility at Bolling AFB 

will modernize this critical node for communications in the National Capital Region. 

Depot Maintenance Reengineering and Transformation remains essential to revitalizing depots using LEAN principles to increase aircraft availability by reducing 

depot cycle time, defects, and costs. This program has played a significant role in 

transforming our industrial base to support warfighter requirements more effectively. The 2008 program continues with four projects at Hill AFB, UT; Robins AFB, 

GA; and Tinker AFB, OK, totaling $66 million. 

The 2008 MILCON program has six other modernization infrastructure projects 

worth $178 million. These projects span the globe; from a Mobility Processing Center in Germany and storm damage repair in the Gulf of Mexico, to an infrastructure 

project on Guam that provides increased force protection for the entrance to Anderson AFB. These projects recapitalize our aging infrastructure and enable us to support our vision for a modernized force. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

As we continue supporting our three main priorities, implementing the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations is an important vehicle for the Air 

Force to ensure we are more lethal, agile, and capable of maintaining total dominance in air, space, and cyberspace domains. While the Commission’s final decisions 

fell short of the Air Force’s overall goals for BRAC, particularly in eliminating excess physical capacity, they did help the Air Force take a major step towards reshaping its Total Force structure. The Joint Cross Service Group recommendations 

which make up the vast majority of the fiscal year 2008 PB request are pivotal to 

transforming the way the Air Force and our sister services train and fight together. 

The Air Force developed and is implementing an aggressive schedule for its BRAC 

2005 recommendations, and we are working in close partnership with our Joint 

partners and with the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, and our major 

commands to further develop and refine this schedule. 

The Air Force is lead military service for 64 BRAC Business Plans, and has equity 

in an additional 16. Our fiscal year 2008 BRAC program is comprised of $910 million in MILCON, $223 million in 0&M, and the balance in the personnel and environmental accounts. Of the $910 million in MILCON projects, $749 million is driven 

by Joint Cross Service Group recommendations. Joint interdependence adds complexity to the execution of this BRAC funding. Business Plans developed to assist 

in execution of BRAC actions have been coordinated and approved by OSD and also 

coordinated with other Service agencies. Coordinating, completing, and implementing these plans will ensure the Air Force is successful in effectively and efficiently implementing the BRAC 2005 recommendations. We are confident the Air 

Force is heading in the right direction. We believe if we stay on course we can meet 

all expectations and objectives of the BRAC 2005 round, while minimizing disruptions to the mission, our warfighters, their families, and the communities that support our Air Force. 

Given the many external influences, and as good stewards of taxpayer dollars. we 

cannot look at BRAC implementation as an isolated activity. To be successful, we 

must orchestrate BRAC implementation activities in concert with new Air Force 

mission beddowns, legacy weapons systems and force drawdowns, emerging missions, Total Force Integration (TFI), and cross Service initiatives. An example of our 

attainment of this objective from BRAC 2005 recommendations is at Kulis Air National Guard Base, AK. The 2005 BRAC Commission recommended that, contingent 

on the availability of adequate MILCON funds to provide the necessary replacement 

facilities at Elmendorf AFB, Kulis ANGB be closed. After an in depth analysis of 

detailed concepts of operations and available infrastructure, the Air Force, the Air 

National Guard, Pacific Air Forces, and my staff, collectively concluded on Jan 30, 

2007, that operations at Kulis ANG Base could and would be relocated to Elmendorf. 

When this move is complete, the 176th Wing, Kulis ANGB and the 3rd wing, Elmendorf AFB will form one, in a growing number of, Air National Guard and active 

duty associate units in the Air Force. This association will facilitate a unique opportunity for the Air Force to merge all our Total Force elements—Air National Guard, 

Air Force Reserve and active-duty operations—across multiple mission areas, including airlift, Combat Search and Rescue, Airborne Warning and Control Systems 

and 5th generation fighters, all in one location and in a theater key to our global 

activities. 

48

Joint Basing 

The concept of Joint Basing poses new BRAC implementation challenges and is 

also an example of transformational joint activity. Under this concept, adjoining 

Service installations or installations in close proximity would share common in installation, support and management activities. Of the 12 recommended joint bases, 

10 of them involve Air Force installations, with the Air Force designated as the lead 

service for 6. A Senior Joint Base Working Group, led by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment), developed guidance to implement 

the Joint Basing concept by October 1, 2007. The Air Force continues to work with 

OSD to refine the implementation guidance. 

The Air Force believes that for the welfare of the warfighter and their families 

that Joint Basing must be a raging success. To that end, the Air Force stands ready 

to step into the lead role at each installation where the Air Force has equity. 

Environmental Cleanup and Property Transfer 

As stewards of public assets the Air Force must manage them to achieve maximum value for the taxpayer while at the same time overseeing those assets with 

the utmost regard for environmental issues. 

Environmental clean up and transfer of BRAC real property is often technically 

challenging and has involved extended timeframes to complete. Nevertheless, the 

Air Force has deeded 82 percent of 87,000 acres of BRAC property from previous 

BRAC rounds. Our real property disposal efforts have led to the creation of more 

than 54,000 reuse jobs in the affected communities. To complete the clean up and 

transfer of the remaining property, the Air Force is attempting to leverage private 

sector experience in redeveloping former industrial property similar to Air Force facilities. Our way ahead for legacy BRAC property includes an emphasis on performance-based contracting including guaranteed fixed price terms, regionalized contracts, and innovative tools such as early transfer, negotiated sales, and privatization. Our objectives remain clear: (1) provide reuse opportunities that best meet the 

needs of the Air Force and local communities, (2) move the process along smartly 

in each situation to get property back into commerce as soon as practical, and (3) 

provide transparency in the process. 

The Air Force takes its responsibility to protect human health and the environment seriously. Since 1991 we have spent $2.6 billion on environmental clean up 

at our BRAC installations—an investment that protects human health and the environment for our airmen, our communities, and future generations. 

Way Ahead 

As you are well aware the House and Senate recently approved a Continuing Resolution Authority which approved $2.5 billion in BRAC funding for the Department 

of Defense, which is $3.1 billion less than requested for fiscal year 2007. If left unchanged, the reduction will result in the Air Force receiving far. less than expected 

in fiscal year 2007 funding. If not corrected, the Air Force, and our sister Services 

will have to re-evaluate our plans and will likely experience delays and disruptions 

in construction and the movements of our people and assets. Delays could impact 

mission readiness and the ability to meet mandated completion deadlines. 

Prompt action and restoration of full funding will permit the Air Force to stay 

on course in executing our obligation for timely completion of the BRAC recommendations approved by Congress. 

We solicit your support in advocating that action. 

ENHANCED USE LEASING

At remaining non-BRAC facilities, the Air Force is reshaping our infrastructure 

to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Air Force seeks fair market value and 

utilizes new tools such as Enhanced Use Leasing to optimize our resources and obtain value from our excess capacity—value we can return to the warfighter. Enhanced Use Leasing allows undeveloped and unused military facilities to be used 

by private industry, by leasing them to private entities. For example, an Enhanced 

Use Lease of a vacant 8.33-acre parcel on Kirtland AFB, NM, allows the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology to construct a 20,000 square feet commercial 

office building lab research facility and secondary educational facility, which provides rent to the Air Force and will improve scientific and educational opportunities 

for Kirtland AFB, the Air Force Research Laboratory, New Mexico Tech and the 

public in general. The Air Force has six current and pending Enhanced Use Lease 

projects and twenty potential Enhanced Use Leases across the country. 

49

MAINTAINING OUR FACILITIES AND OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and modernizing our 

operational infrastructure. We have been benchmarking the ‘‘best of the best’’ asset 

managers that our country has to offer. We are finding and implementing ways to 

manage better, utilize resources more wisely, leverage private sector investment potential, and use smart information technology. Our aim is to manage assets by optimizing resources to deliver operational infrastructure for the warfighter at our installations and ranges. In 2008, we have focused sustainment funding on keeping 

our ‘‘good facilities good’’ and targeted limited Restoration and Modernization 

(R&M) funding to fix critical facility and infrastructure deficiencies to maintain 

readiness. 

Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our facilities and infrastructure in order to preserve our existing investment. Without proper 

sustainment, our facilities and infrastructure wear out more rapidly. In addition, 

commanders in the field use operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts to address facility requirements that impact their mission capabilities. 

When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a balanced program 

of O&M and MILCON funding to make them ‘‘mission ready.’’ Unfortunately, restoration and modernization requirements in past years exceeded available O&M 

funding, causing us to defer much-needed work. It is important for us to steadily 

increase the investment in restoration and modernization in order to halt the 

growth of this backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the life of our 

facilities and infrastructure. 

The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2008 is $1.99 billion, 

92 percent of the amount called for by the FSM. The fiscal year 2008 Total Force 

R&M funding is $346 million, a slight improvement over our fiscal year 2007 PB 

request. This is an area where the Air Force is taking manageable risk given our 

other budgetary priorities. 

DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, OBSOLETE FACILITIES

In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are focused on facilities we need, not 

on sustaining those we do not. For the past 9 years, the Air Force has aggressively 

demolished or disposed of facilities that were unneeded or no longer economically 

viable to maintain. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2006, we demolished 

21.9 million square feet of non-housing facilities and infrastructure at a cost of $260 

million in O&M funding. This is equivalent to demolishing more than three average 

size Air Force installations and has allowed us to target our O&M funding on facilities we need for the long-term mission. For fiscal year 2008 and beyond, the Air 

Force will continue to aggressively identify opportunities to eliminate excess and obsolete facilities. 

PLANNING AND DESIGN/UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION

This year’s Air Force MILCON request includes $75 million for planning and design, of which $12 million is for military family housing. The request includes $52 

million for active duty, $8 million for the Air National Guard, and $4 million for 

the Air Force Reserve. These funds will allow us to complete the design work for 

fiscal year 2009 construction programs and to start the designs for fiscal year 2010 

projects, allowing us to award contracts in the year of authorization and appropriation. 

This year’s request also includes $26 million for the Total Force unspecified minor 

construction program which is our primary means for funding small, unforeseen 

projects that cannot wait for the normal MILCON process. Because these projects 

emerge over the course of the year, it is not possible to program the total funding 

requirement. 

UTILITY PRIVATIZATION

Similar to our efforts in privatizing housing, the Air Force is privatizing utilities 

where it makes economic sense and does not adversely affect readiness, security, or 

mission accomplishment. Because our installations are key to our operational capabilities, our network of bases provides necessary infrastructure for deploying, employing, and sustaining air and space operations and re-deploying and reconstituting 

the force afterwards. Reliable utility systems are critical infrastructure components 

and essential to air operations and quality of life at every Air Force base. Additionally, these systems must be consistent with modern technology to optimize energy 

50

conservation. We believe privatization offers the best solution for simultaneously 

meeting both these requirements. 

To date, under OSD’s utilities privatization program, the Air Force has conveyed 

11 systems under 10 U.S.C. 2688 and 6 additional systems using standard FAR 

clauses, for a total of 17 privatized systems with a plant replacement value in excess 

of $300 million. We are currently evaluating an additional 338 systems for privatization. We anticipate that we will more than double the number of our privatized 

utility systems in fiscal year 2008. By the time the program concludes, we anticipate 

more than 120 of about 500 systems could be privatized. During the course of this 

process, we expect many competitive solicitations will end up as sole source procurements from local utility companies. 

ENERGY

The Air Force is serious about being a global leader in facility energy conservation 

and renewable energy. In the last year the Air Force chartered a Senior Focus 

Group and set its strategic vision of making energy a consideration in all we do. 

Our strategy is built around a balance of supply side energy assurance and demand 

side energy efficiency. Our new energy strategy for the 21st century is focused on 

meeting the President’s new energy mandates outlined in Executive Order 13423. 

Our strategy covers not only our facilities infrastructure, but also fuel optimization 

in our aviation operations and ground transportation fleet. 

The Air Force facilities infrastructure strategy is to eliminate waste in energy use 

as the major conservation priority. Conducting effective energy audits to identify energy waste streams is the first step. Optimizing the efficiency of heating and cooling 

systems, and eliminating overlighting are just two of the initiatives in our energy 

toolbox. 

Our traditional project goals of delivering high quality facility projects on schedule 

and within budget is expanding the term ‘‘quality’’ so that our goal becomes the creation of functional, maintainable, and high performance facilities. Under Executive 

Order 13423 the Air Force will employ the Federal Leadership in High Performance 

and Sustainable Building Guiding Principles to reduce total cost of ownership, improve energy efficiency and water conservation, to provide safe, healthy, and productivity enhancing environments. We currently employ Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria created by the U.S. Green Building Council as 

design guidelines. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the Nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance 

green buildings. We are incorporating day-lighting and improved building envelop 

designs to reduce heating, ventilation, and air conditioning loads and power use. By 

fiscal year 2009, 100 percent of Air Force eligible MILCON projects will be ‘‘capable 

of certification’’ in LEED registration. High quality energy-efficient facilities is our 

goal. 

The Air Force is responding to the effectively doubling of the energy conservation 

mandate of Executive Oorder 13423 by strengthening management of our energy 

programs from base level Energy Management Steering Groups, and technically 

competent energy managers through major command and headquarters United 

States Air Force governance groups. Additionally, we are building an investment 

program based on high value initiatives that save energy and help the Air Force 

mitigate the impact of rising utility costs. We are hiring energy professionals to assist our major commands and installations target the right initiatives. We are also 

partnering with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Energy, 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others to implement best practices 

across our enterprise. 

In the area of renewable energy, this year we awarded a contract that will result 

in an 18 megawatt (MW) peak power photovoltaic (PV) solar array at Nellis AFB, 

NV—projected to be the largest PV array in the world once on line in late 2008. 

The Air Force is building on a long history of facility energy conservation success. 

Our new energy initiatives will enhance our campaign to meet or exceed the goals 

of the new executive order. 

Our efforts were recognized in fiscal year 2006 when we received the EPA Climate 

Protection Award as the number one purchaser of renewable energy in the Nation. 

The Air Force continues to be the largest user of renewable energy as defined by 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with the purchase of 990,319 MW of green power representing 9.6 percent of our total electrical consumption last year. Also, for the third 

year in a row, the Air Force heads the EPA’s list of Top 10 Federal Government 

green power purchasers in the Green Power Partnership. 

51

CIVIL ENGINEER TRANSFORMATION

The Air Force Civil Engineers have a long history of supporting all the critical 

Air Force programs mentioned earlier. The engineers are also benchmarking with 

the private sector and aggressively transforming their business processes to be more 

effective and efficient. The Air Force civil engineers developed several initiatives to 

minimize the impact of Air Force-wide personnel reductions on their ability to provide combat capability and home-station installation support. Rather than settle for 

a fair share distribution across specialties and major commands, these transformational initiatives targeted specific process improvements which resulted in realignments for military and civilian authorizations to balance workload and increase 

combat capability. The civil engineers are transforming civil engineer functions at 

all organizational levels to centralize the core engineering capabilities and streamline their processes. This includes centralizing the execution of new and current 

mission MILCON, housing, and environmental restoration construction projects at 

the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence in San Antonio, TX. The civil 

engineers also applied operational risk management concepts to the way we accomplish the fire emergency services support mission. By accepting capability-based 

risks, civil engineers can provide the same level of fire and crash rescue service for 

the airfield and installation, while reducing the numbers of firefighters required on 

duty during times when events are less likely to occur. The transformational initiatives mentioned above will allow us to execute our civil engineer mission more effectively and increase our combat capability for Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Air 

Force heavy construction units, known as Red Horse Squadrons. As a whole, these 

initiatives ensure civil engineer support to the warfighter remains steadfast and our 

garrison installation support remains at an acceptable level. 

CONCLUSION

September 18, 2007, marks the 60th anniversary of the creation of our independent United States Air Force. This year we commemorate this anniversary of 

our proud Service—a Service born of revolutionary ideas, forged in combat, and 

proven through decades of progress and achievement. The readiness and capability 

of our fighting force to fight and win our Nation’s wars, now and in the future, depends heavily upon the state of our operational infrastructure. As the Air Force continues to modernize and recapitalize, we will continue to wisely invest our precious 

MILCON, BRAC, and environmental funding to fight and win the war on terror, develop and care for our airmen and their families, while recapitalizing and modernizing our air and space systems. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Secretary Eastin, last week the Army briefed the committee staff 

on your proposal on how to use your ‘‘Grow the Force’’ funds in fiscal year 2008. This involved investments at most major ActiveDuty Army installations with maneuver units. A notable exception 

was Hawaii. When the staff asked the reason for this, they were 

told that the Army was going to be cautious about making any further investment in Hawaii until the Stryker lawsuit was resolved. 

We understand that the flaw the court found in the Stryker Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not unique to Hawaii, 

though this is where the challenge came from. Therefore, it seems 

unfair to me that Hawaii would now be treated differently from 

other States based on a case involving Federal and not State law. 

My question is, is Hawaii going to get equal consideration with 

other States in terms of basing new brigades or other units, or is 

it going to be penalized due to this lawsuit? 

Mr. EASTIN. We have no intention of penalizing Hawaii or, for 

that matter, any other installations where we have substantial operations. As was pointed out in the Stryker litigation, there was a 

failure to perform a programmatic EIS on where else these 

Strykers could have been based—Fort Carson, Fort Lewis, or some 

other installations. 

52

So we went back and are in the process of redoing that. We expect that the EIS will be out probably late September. We cannot 

at this time commit to you where any of the ‘‘Grow the Force’’ assets in terms of brigade combat teams (BCTs) will be located because we are in the process of doing another programmatic EIS for 

stationing those additional six brigades. 

So it would be totally premature to tell you that we are going to 

put a brigade in Hawaii or not put one there. We do not know 

whether we are going to put one at Fort Bliss or Fort Bragg or Fort 

Benning or any of the other installations either. It is just premature and we have to await the EIS and its record of decision, 

which we also expect will probably be released in the October-November timeframe. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Grone, based on actions of the courts in the 

Hawaii Stryker brigade case and the North Carolina outlying field 

case, is the Department getting a better understanding that making sure EISs are done right the first time ultimately saves time 

and trouble down the road? 

Mr. GRONE. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the specifics of any particular litigation. But suffice it to say I think it is 

imperative that we ensure that we execute the administrative procedures required under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), clearly and crisply. There is always an avenue potentially 

for disagreement. There is always an avenue potentially for litigation. But my view on this is that we should be very, very clear and 

very crisp in terms of how we implement studies and how we administer that process, because occasionally, it does create circumstances to which you have alluded, which in some cases are 

avoidable. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Grone, what is the DOD’s legal interpretation of the impact of section 1906 of H.R. 1591, as passed by the 

House of Representatives on March 23, on the Department’s ability 

to construct new medical facilities at Fort Belvoir, VA, and Bethesda Naval Medical Center, MD, pursuant to the 2005 BRAC recommendations? 

Mr. GRONE. Mr. Chairman, the Office of General Counsel has not 

issued a legal interpretation, but suffice it to say that DOD and the 

administration oppose any attempt to prohibit or otherwise redirect 

actions of the BRAC Commission which have been duly enacted 

and which we have an obligation to implement. 

The realignment of Walter Reed and the effort we have under 

way at Fort Belvoir, both of which you referred to, are critically important to the delivery of medical care in this region, and it is also 

critically important to the implementation of the round overall. So 

certainly we oppose any attempt to undo any of that. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Anderson and Secretary Eastin, the 

Army wants to expand its force structure and the Air Force has underutilized infrastructure at Cannon Air Force Base (AFB) in New 

Mexico. The Air Force plans to put some Air Force Special Operations Forces there. My question is, in cases like this, are the Services going to look for joint basing opportunities that may exist or 

are we only going to see joint basing take place when it is forced 

upon you, as in the last BRAC? 

53

Mr. ANDERSON. Senator, as you pointed out, let me give just a 

little bit of background for the committee on the status of Cannon 

AFB. As you all are probably well aware, Cannon AFB was in the 

2005 BRAC recommendations to be closed unless the Secretary of 

Defense determined an alternative mission for Cannon AFB. About 

June timeframe of last year, working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Air Force determined that the Air 

Force Special Operations Command (SOCOM) had an alternate 

mission which very nicely fit into the footprint of Cannon AFB. 

That decision was approved by the Secretary of Defense. 

During that time period and subsequent to that, SOCOM has 

been determining whether there are alternatives or additional uses 

for Cannon AFB which are consistent with the Air Force SOCOM 

activities that are moving there, and the command will stand up 

in October of this year. 

I do not want to necessarily comment for SOCOM. I do not think 

it is appropriate for me to speak in their place. But I do know that 

there are active discussions going on as to additional activities that 

could work within the footprint and the mission that has been assigned for Cannon AFB, and we are certainly open to that. It does 

not require any legislative action at all. We are open to that. If it 

meets the needs of the military and it fits within the footprint, we 

are more than happy to talk about those opportunities. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, any comment? 

Mr. EASTIN. A little bit out of my lane, since my role is mainly 

having to do with installations. But I agree with Secretary Anderson. If it makes some sense to put some of our Special Forces out 

at Cannon AFB we do not have a problem doing that, at least in 

theory. The devil is always in the details on these things. But if 

we have available training land somewhere within the military, I 

think we ought to take our best advantage of that. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Ensign. 

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have a supplemental pending before Congress. We have 

passed that in the Senate and waiting for the House and the Senate to get together and have action on that. Have each one of you 

studied what the impacts would be on delaying the implementation 

of the supplemental and how that would impact readiness, installations, MILCON, the various other aspects of our military operation? 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, sir. Certainly the Secretary of Defense and the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense and others, including most recently 

the Service Chiefs by letter, have spoken to the question of delay 

of the supplemental itself. It certainly would represent a fairly significant and very difficult harm to the mission. We certainly urge 

Congress to expedite consideration of the supplemental so that we 

can get funds to operating forces as quickly as we can. 

Senator ENSIGN. When is the date that you are going to start 

seeing effects, the drop-dead date that we absolutely will start 

doing harm to our military? 

Mr. GRONE. Sir, my colleague, the Under Secretary of Defense, 

Comptroller, keeps very careful tabs on that and, frankly, I would 

not want to misspeak or misrepresent a date. So I would like to 

get that back to you for the record. 

54

[The information referred to follows:] 

Mr. GRONE. As I say, certainly from my perspective, the supplemental also carries implications for the implementation of the 


410red8.eps 410red9.eps
55

pending round of BRAC. Because this round is so heavily weighted 

toward MILCON, because the time lines for implementation are 

challenging, every bit of delay that we have eats into the 70 

months of implementation time that we have. Although it is quite 

clear that members understand the importance of funding itself, 

and we are very grateful for that, but the issue of delay has effect 

on having forces ready as we get ready to move missions, as you 

in your opening statement indicated, Senator, was such a strong 

concern of yours. 

We desire to have all of our installations have adequate facilities 

at the point at which the new mission arrives, when personnel arrive, the mission arrives. 

Senator ENSIGN. How does the delay affect cost? Does it increase 

costs, does it save money if you delay it, or does it have no effect? 

Mr. GRONE. I think inevitably if you get into a circumstance 

where if the extraordinary were to happen and the $3 billion was 

not forthcoming, that requirement would roll into fiscal year 2008 

and beyond. Given that the program is so heavily weighted toward 

MILCON, it is inevitable that we would see increased costs. 

Senator ENSIGN. I am just talking about a delay. Let’s just say 

the $3 billion is in there and we have a delay. We have certainly, 

at least anecdotally, been told that does increase the cost. If you 

cannot sign the contracts on time, with construction costs going up, 

I know certainly in my home town each month that you delay the 

cost of concrete, the cost of steel, the cost of all materials, continues 

to go up almost on a monthly basis. 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, sir. We are very much concerned about that. 

Senator ENSIGN. Would each one of the secretaries like to comment on the supplemental? 

Mr. EASTIN. Senator, we have a little north of $2 billion hanging 

up in the supplemental in the BRAC area alone. What this is going 

to cause us to do is basically we can with the money we have, 

award only 36 out of 75 MILCON contracts. The rest will have to 

be deferred until the supplemental money comes to us, assuming 

it does. 

As I think everybody knows, we are working against a September 15, 2011, deadline to get BRAC put together. All of these 

projects are interdependent. If you design something this year, you 

expect to begin constructing it next year, and you expect to begin 

constructing it at the cost that you would expect it to have put in 

when you had it designed. 

Sticking this out another 8, 10, 12 months even, not only puts 

your deadline in jeopardy, but it increases your costs and fouls up 

other schedules that we have interrelated in the BRAC operation. 

Senator ENSIGN. I know all of you so far have been concerned 

about just the BRAC aspect of it. But last year when the supplemental was delayed we received feedback—this was one of the 

things we hopefully learned from the mistake that was made last 

year by delaying the supplemental—that readiness was actually 

hurt, that training was hurt, that folks had to be laid off that were 

involved in training, that readiness of our troops was actually affected. 

Mr. EASTIN. Let me add another aspect to it, at least as far as 

the Army is concerned. We went painfully, and more so embarrassVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
56

ingly, through this type of operation last year. Rightly or wrongly, 

installations and base operating support (BOS), and sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization (SRM) happen to be a handy place 

that can be borrowed from while you are trying to operate the rest 

of the Army and run a war. So if we get pressed down to the wire 

and do not have enough money to pay our troops and conduct our 

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they look elsewhere within the 

Army to get the money. Here we are in the installation community 

with grass that could be cut later, roofs that could be repaired 

later, dining facility lines that we could stretch out another half an 

hour, gates that could be closed because we are only going to run 

them until 11 o’clock at night instead of having an extra shift at 

there. 

What that leads to is layoffs. It leads to not paying the light bill 

at Fort Sam Houston, as we did last year because we had a better 

priority and we were pretty sure the city was not going to turn us 

off. Luckily, we were right. I am not sure they are going to be so 

patient this year when we come back. 

But it hits us in the installation community in a way that perhaps people do not realize, because we are the low man on the 

totem pole in terms of priorities when the chips are down and we 

have to support our troops. 

Senator ENSIGN. Any of the other secretaries want to comment? 

Mr. PENN. I agree, the delay will impact our schedule. It will 

definitely do that. The Navy has already started working the requests for proposals to 1391, so as soon as some money hits we will 

be able to spend it. A delay will create a domino effect across many 

interrelated moves. As you said, it will affect costs. 

But I am more worried about the impact it will have on our military and civilian communities. That is something we cannot measure. 

Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I have to agree with everything that I have 

heard coming down the table here. Quality of life is always an 

issue. Pushing stuff off as the year progresses, as we have done 

analysis, not only are you facing inflation, which is very real in 

many communities, Senator, as you rightfully pointed out, but as 

we have done our analysis prices actually creep up just as you 

move through the year, inflation-adjusted. As you come to the end 

and you rush, that drives price up. 

As far as the Air Force is concerned, I do not think we have a 

hard broke date for our non-BRAC activities. Our people are working very hard, as Secretary Penn had suggested, in posturing everything ready to go the moment the money comes. There are some 

work-arounds going on, as is obvious. 

On the BRAC side we do know, though, because we have detailed 

project plans for every single one of the BRAC actions and they are 

domino effect one over another. We have of course the September 

2011 deadline. We estimate that if we do not get the second 

tranche of money by, say, July, we will begin to be hard broke on 

some of these projects, that they will either begin to significantly 

affect mission or we will have to tell you that we cannot make the 

2011 deadline because of the pieces that have to come into play to 

make that happen. 

57

Senator ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That is the main reason I came to this meeting. I can remember 

so well last year when General Cody came around and he was really, really desperate. We were not talking about little things we 

could put off. They always talk about what used to be called the 

Real Property Maintenance (RPM) accounts. RPM accounts are 

now called SRM, where you do not put the roofs on and those kids, 

every time there is a storm, they are out there protecting their 

equipment. 

Those things can happen. But what happens when you get to the 

point where we are looking at reenlistment bonuses, we are looking 

at widow’s benefits? That is where I would like to get as specific 

as possible. 

Secretary Grone, I was hoping we would get a more specific answer right now, because I want to stop that trauma before it gets 

here. If we do not exaggerate, if we do not talk about that now, we 

are not going to be able to get anything done. People in the United 

States Senate and the United States House of Representatives 

have to know the dire consequences of inaction, and I do not think 

they are getting it. 

I really want you to come forth, because if we are faced with the 

same thing we were last year then you guys have not really done 

a good enough job of letting us know the crisis is coming. I know 

it is not so much you, but it is more the Army, I think, Secretary 

Eastin, than anyplace else. 

So anyway, I have already beat that one up. The other thing, too, 

I would have to say, Mr. Chairman: These communities that are 

around military installations, they make commitments having to do 

with the BRAC policies. When they come out with this they say: 

All right, we will take care of housing, we will do this, some of the 

things, some of the health care for the troops and their kids. Quite 

frankly, that is predicated on the timely release of these funds to 

get the things done in conjunction with BRAC. So I am very much 

concerned about that. 

Last week I was at Vicenza, Italy, where they have the Southern 

European Task Force and they are working on the European Airborne BCT there. They are doing a great job with the resources 

they have, limited resources. But I am a little bit concerned about 

what is going to happen there as we look at the restructuring of 

our European forces. 

Now, some time ago I went to Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, 

and places in Eastern Europe where they have resources available 

for us where they would actually billet our people. They do not 

have the environmental encroachment that Senator Ensign talked 

about. I think that is very serious. In Western Europe right now, 

we know there are times when they cannot use live ranges more 

than so many days a week and so many hours a day. We do not 

have that problem in some of the other places. 

So I guess I just ask you to comment on what you envision the 

final shape of our forces in Europe and what sufficient training 

58

grounds will be available to them as they transform into the BCTs? 

That is addressed to Secretary Eastin or Secretary Grone. 

Mr. GRONE. Senator Inhofe, I very much appreciate the question. 

As we move forward with the implementation of the GDPR, we remain of the view that issues like the transition, the transformation 

of the 173rd at Dal Molin, Vicenza, remain very critical to our overall strategy. The notion of the use of other locations that you have 

suggested for training and other purposes are all critically important to us and we believe that they can continue to be executed in 

exactly the way we have laid it out for you previously. 

Senator INHOFE. I watched Vicenza. That is where they have the 

173rd. Remember when they would not let us go through Turkey 

to go to Northern Iraq. Those guys were up and gone. We came 

back, we enhanced their deployment area. In fact, if it had been 

raining at that time they would have had a hard time in their staging area getting that thing done. So I think that is important. 

The concept of joint basing emerged out of the BRAC 2005 as a 

tremendous cost-saving measure. However, the Services seem to be 

progressing rather slowly on that. Secretary Anderson, I understand the Air Force has some concerns about that. Do you have any 

comments to make about that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir, Senator. First of all, let me state that 

the baseline concept and purpose behind joint basing, that is to 

save money, to be more efficient, we could not be more behind that 

one at all. We think that is exactly the right way to go. Consolidating contracts, consolidating work effort, what have you, is going 

to save the American taxpayer money. 

The question is not the ‘‘what,’’ because I think we are all in 

total agreement on the what. The question is ‘‘how.’’ Our concern 

is on two levels. The first is we want to make sure that as we move 

into this joint basing construct that quality of life is paramount in 

this process. The Air Force is very proud of its installations. It is 

very proud of the way it does quality of life for its airmen, and it 

is based in large part on the retention profile of the Air Force. 

We want to make sure that as we move forward in joint basing 

that the DOD, the military, uses this as an opportunity to improve 

quality of life across the board, not to go to some mediocre level of 

quality, but to improve it for everyone, every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and, most importantly, their families. 

The ‘‘how’’ from our perspective is, we look at this as an opportunity to use market pressures, where you have a provider of service who provides a service for a fee, the customer who wants the 

service defines what the service ought to be, goes out and gets the 

budget to pay for that service, and then pays for it when it is appropriately delivered. 

So the tension between the customer and the supplier, just like 

everybody deals with every day when you get your lawn mowed or 

you get your air conditioning fixed, we believe is the right way to 

go after joint basing, therefore leaving the real property and the 

budget, the dollars, with the customer and have a service provider 

provide that service at a mutually agreeable price, where that tension continues all the time. 

Senator INHOFE. I think you’ve covered that. I wanted to ask you 

one more question. We talked about the synthetic fuels, the coalVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
59

to-liquid. I was participating in the decision to try that out in the 

B–52. Are they using that in more than two engines at this time? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir. First of all, I really do want to thank 

you for your leadership last year. If it would not have been for your 

pushing this, we would not have had the 100,000 gallons of synfuel 

that we needed to complete the test. 

Senator INHOFE. I think it is really critical. We never dreamed 

10 years ago that we would have the needs that we would for fuel. 

Yet the other committee that I am on, Environment and Public 

Works Committee, they are opposed to the coal-to-liquid concept. 

I would just like to have you, for the record, not now, give me 

some of the strongest points that you can give me in favor of the 

particular program. Would you do that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir, I will do that. 

[The information referred to follows:]

The benefits of the Air Force synthetic fuel program are numerous both from environmental as well as security and economics. The Air Force is currently testing and 

certifying the fleet to use a blend of synthetic fuel and JP–8. If successful, the entire 

Air Force fleet will be certified by 2010. It also is the goal of the Air Force to acquire 

50 percent of its domestic fuel requirements from domestic alternative fuel sources 

by 2016. The goal is focused on acquiring a synthetic fuel blend produced by domestic plants that have carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). 

The Air Force recognizes that the production of synthetic fuel from coal using the 

Fischer Tropsche (FT) process can produce 1.8 times as much CO2 as a conventional 

oil refinery. This fact makes it imperative that the production of synthetic fuel be 

done in an environmentally-friendly manner. In this respect, the Air Force will expect any domestic producer of synthetic fuel to use CCS technology and procedures. 

It should be noted that one major difference concerning the FT process versus an 

oil refinery is that the CO2 is concentrated and more easily captured. An oil refinery 

is unable to capture the CO2 it produces. The concentrated stream of CO2 captured 

in the FT plant is compressed and can be sold, or sequestered in old or tired oil 

fields for enhanced oil recovery which has been shown to increase oil production by 

300–800 percent, or it can be injected into saline aquifers or limestone for permanent storage. This technology is being studied by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency and it has been shown the United States has over 

3,900 gigatons of CO2 storage capacity (11,000 GtCO2 worldwide). 

In addition to capturing and sequestering the CO2, the Air Force and Department 

of Energy are looking at adding biomass to the coal feedstock to further reduce the 

CO2 emissions. Biomass is considered CO2 neutral because it captures CO2 during 

its life. Current testing is focused on introducing 20–30 percent biomass to the feedstock (coal). 

The FT process has the ability to extract the mercury, ammonia nitrate, sulfur, 

and other chemical properties in coal that can be used for other products, i.e. fertilizer and munitions. This serves to produce a synthetic fuel that is free of SOx and 

has very little particulate matter. If the FT process is tuned to make clean diesel, 

the fuel has shown decreased levels of NOx. 

The testing performed on the TF–33 engines on the B–52 has shown that CO2 

is reduced 1.6–2.0 percent from the exhaust (after being burned). While not substantial it is a reduction that is beyond that of oil-based fuels. 

The implementation of new ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel standards in the United 

States has the potential of making FT coal to liquids a substantial source of ‘‘clean 

diesel’’ in the near future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this expanded, written response to your 

question. I have attached a copy of the Air Force’s schedule for testing and certifying the entire fleet. I thought you would find it of interest based on your strong 

support of this program. 

If you should have any additional questions concerning the Air Force’s work with 

synthetic fuels, please feel free to contact me at anytime.

60


410red10.eps
61

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Grone, it is really a challenge you are facing. We have 

the redeployment from Europe. Our goal is to bring about 70,000 

back from Europe. You have the South Korean move, 10,000, 

12,000, 15,000 from South Korea. We are moving from Okinawa to 

Guam, I know. Then the end strength increases that have been 

projected for the military, and the whole BRAC transformation at 

the same time. 

I guess my question to you is, are we possibly on course to do 

that? Do we really have the money in the budget and the supplemental to get there? If not, how much more do we need? Because 

I think these are all good decisions. I support the BRAC. I really 

support the European reduction. There is no reason for us not to 

do that. Senator Chambliss, Senator Enzi, and I visited Ramstein, 

Brussels, Vicenza, Rota, Sigonella, and Naples a couple of years 

ago. Those, I believe, will be surviving bases. 

But all of this was to discuss the realignment in Europe. Are we 

on track? Can we do it with what you have been given? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator Sessions, certainly from the perspective of 

finances we continue to be on track. The budget request contains 

a number of initiatives, to include facilities for the 173rd at 

Vicenza. It includes funding to continue the return of forces from 

Germany to the United States through the BRAC process. 

Each of these major initiatives that you have mentioned has a 

funding stream almost solely dedicated to themselves. One of the 

things that we will do for you is to demonstrate how those funding 

streams are related to the initiative, so you can see where they are 

in the budget and how they are financed, because it is an enormously complicated, complex process, as you described, where we 

have issues associated and financing associated with ‘‘Grow the 

Force,’’ BRAC, the regular MILCON program, global defense posture. All of those initiatives are out there. All of them are present 

to one degree or another in the various funding proposals that are 

currently pending before Congress. 

I do believe that we are generally on track with what we desire 

as a Department to accomplish. Timely receipt of those funds, of 

course, is a major factor in that equation, as well as receiving the 

funds that we’ve requested for those purposes is a major part of 

that equation. 

So certainly we look forward to working with you. But yes, I do 

believe that we are well-positioned from a budget and program perspective to accomplish a good deal of what we have laid out for you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure. I believe it was 

Secretary Rumsfeld or senior DOD leaders that talked about the 

advantages of consolidation of bases. One of them is, someone expressed a goal that the average soldier could expect in his deployments to stay at a given base for as long as 7 years. The bigger 

the base is, the more chance you have to be promoted and not have 

to be moved, and that sort of thing. 

62

Maybe, Secretary Eastin, you would comment on the quality of 

life for soldiers. Is there any hope or plan that we might be able 

to create stronger bases, larger bases, so that it would reduce perhaps the number of moves a family might expect in a person’s career? 

Mr. EASTIN. I cannot say that it is going to reduce them substantially. But what we have right now is a continual in-and-out of 

troops going through, going to the front, with the pressures on 

their families that they have. 

Senator SESSIONS. But those families get to stay at the facility 

and you would expect the soldier to return to that facility. 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, I would. 

Senator SESSIONS. If you come up for promotion or some other 

cause, and you are moved from one base to another, would it reduce the number of moves for that reason? 

Mr. EASTIN. I would once again not want to step out of my lane 

and affect what other senior Army leaders might want to do about 

moving people around. The tendency, of course, is to maintain as 

much flexibility as you have. If you need a major someplace and 

you do not need one where he happens to be, the Army has a criticality of needing to move him or her to the other place. 

Of course, the larger the operation, the larger the installation 

you have, the more opportunities there are going to be on that particular place. But it might be just coincidental that where that 

major would be needed would be on, say, Fort Bragg when they 

had been living at Fort Bragg. 

What we are trying to do is to keep them in the Army, and you 

keep them in the Army by providing them a quality of life that is 

roughly equivalent to what they might get in the private sector, especially the quality of life for their families. While they are deployed, they want to know that their families are safe, and wellprovided for, back in the States. So that is our goal here in the 

Army installation community. 

Senator SESSIONS. I could not agree with you more. We are asking incredible things of our men and women in uniform and they 

are being deployed far more regularly in harm’s way than we 

would like that to be. They have performed exceedingly well, and 

reenlistment has remained high. I do not know in the last couple 

of months, but last year it was remarkably high in light of the demands we are placing on them. 

So I am concerned that we not go too far and that we have to 

think about the quality of lives, the men and women who serve. 

That means better housing. It means I think where possible longer 

stays at posts. Wives often have jobs. Kids are in school. 

I do not know if any of the others would like to share thoughts 

with that. But I assume those are factors that are involved in any 

of your decisions about BRAC or redeployment. 

Mr. PENN. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. When we look at the challenges that we face, 

I believe that we need to complete the move from Europe. In fact, 

I have doubts whether we should keep as many troops in Europe 

as we presently are planning to keep. I believe we should move forward with the South Korean redeployment, pulling those numbers 

down from well in the 30,000s now. For over 50 years we have been 

63

there. South Korea is a healthy, strong, vibrant, free country that 

all of us can be so proud of, and I think they are willing to accept 

more responsibility. 

I absolutely do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that anybody should 

see the reductions that we are planning to undertake in South 

Korea as any sort of lack of commitment to South Korea and its 

independence, its willingness to help them resist any attack from 

the North that could come. I think, in fact, we will be better positioned and better able to do that. 

So we have a lot of movement going on. You have been really 

challenged. General Schoomaker in his last testimony talked about 

these delays in getting the supplemental done, the raiding of accounts and budgets that come as a result of it, coming from your 

accounts often times. He said it was like wading through a bog 

waste-deep, trying to do your job, fight a war, deploy and redeploy 

all these people, and then never know whether you have the money 

to do so. 

We need to do better. It does cost us in any number of ways, I 

think, when we are unpredictable in Congress in meeting the commitments that we have given you and that we have approved and 

we have said we want you to do. So I believe we can do better. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

I want to thank the witnesses today. As was mentioned by Senator Sessions, we have huge challenges ahead of us. We look forward to the 21st century and all of these movements are parts of 

that. I just wanted you to know that our feeling here is that we 

want to work together with you in trying to do the best we can for 

our troops, and especially for our country. We are doing this together and I look forward to continuing to do that. 

So again, thank you so much for your responses. This hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Philip Grone prior to the 

hearing with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

POLICY ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ON LEASED LAND

Question. What is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) policy on the use of military 

construction (MILCON) funds to construct facilities on land that is leased from a 

non-Federal entity? 

Answer. 10 U.S.C. 2852 and 10 U.S.C. 18239 (for Reserve components) provide for 

the waiver of certain restrictions, one of which is ownership in fee simple of the underlying land to accommodate a MILCON project. A MILCON or family housing 

project may proceed if the Secretary concerned determines that the interest to be 

acquired (lease, easement, et cetera) is sufficient to support the project. 

The Department prefers to own the land upon which MILCON funds are used to 

construct facilities. If the land is not held by the government, the Department 

should have sufficient real property interests in order to protect the Federal Government’s interests and investment. 

Question. If no policy exists, what guidance is provided to the military departments and defense agencies regarding the use of MILCON on leased land? 

Answer. Guidance to the components is provided in DODI 4165.71, Real Property 

Acquisition. 

Question. Does the DOD currently lease land on which MILCON funds have been 

used to construct facilities? 

Answer. Yes, the Air Force (Active, Reserve, and Air National Guard) has several 

long-term leases at airports where MILCON funds have been used. Section 801 

housing is also on leased land. DODI 4165.71, Real Property Acquisition, states that 

64

if the Government’s requirement cannot be reasonably met by fee simple acquisition 

than a lesser interest may be acquired. The lease must be for a government purpose. 

Question. If so, what are the general terms of the leases and specifically the status of the ownership of improvements upon the land upon termination of the ground 

lease? 

Answer. DODI 4165.71 states that if DOD plans to construct facilities, then the 

lease must address the disposition of the facilities at the end of the lease. 

ASSESSING THE 2005 DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ROUND

Question. How would you assess the success of the 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round? 

Answer. I would assess the success of the 2005 round in terms of meeting a series 

of key strategic objectives. Among the objectives the Department established were:

• Supporting force transformation through global repositioning, modularity, 

and Total Force management (IGPBS and Modularity). 

• Rebasing forces and missions to address strategic threats and force protection considerations. 

• Consolidating business-oriented support functions. • Promoting joint and multi-Service missions and basing. • Achieving savings.

The BRAC 2005 process strengthened national security by reshaping the domestic 

installations at which U.S. military forces perform their assigned missions and 

aligns the Department’s base structure with the force structure that is expected to 

be needed over the next 20 years. Additionally, the recommendations accommodate 

the Department’s global reposturing of its forces; facilitate the ongoing transformation of U.S. forces to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century; and restructure important support functions to capitalize on advances in technology and business practices. 

Question. Are all BRAC 2005 business plans fully funded through 2011 in the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008? If not, what is the current funding 

shortfall by Service? 

Answer. Yes—the business plans are fully funded through 2011. 

STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT FOR OVERSEAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Question. What is the current DOD policy on MILCON in foreign countries that 

have not entered into a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States? 

In absence of a SOFA, what other types of agreements are required? 

Answer. SOFAs concern themselves primarily with privileges and immunities for 

DOD personnel (i.e.. entry/exit, jurisdiction, taxation). They do not normally address 

access to facilities and construction, et cetera. 

For a project to qualify as MILCON, it must be on a military installation. In the 

case of an activity in a foreign country, that means property ‘‘under the operational 

control of the secretary of a military department or the Secretary of Defense, without regard to the duration of operational control.’’ Whatever the nature of the agreement with a foreign country, the Department ensures it has ‘‘operational control’’ 

before undertaking MILCON. 

GLOBAL DEFENSE POSTURE

Question. What is the status of the implementation of the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, now known as the Global Defense Posture (GDP) Realignment? 

Answer. During the past year, DOD has made important strides in transforming 

its GDP and associated infrastructure needs. The objective is to realign and reshape 

the structure of installations abroad to better support individual services and joint 

warfighting needs while making the best use of limited defense resources. Funding 

for the GDP program for fiscal years 2008–2011 is $3.7 billion; of which $1.7 billion 

is funded through the BRAC 2005 account. The Department continues to review its 

requirements on a global scale and lo implement the plan. 

USE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS FOR FACILITY LEASING AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

ACTIVITIES

Question. What is the current DOD policy on the use of service contracts to enter 

into contracts for the lease of facility space or to construct or improve facilities? 

Answer. Our policy is simple and straight forward. We do not condone the use 

of services contracts to procure office space or to construct or improve facilities. 

65

STANDARDS FOR DOD MEDICAL FACILITIES

Question. Does the Department have a standard or guidance regarding the minimally acceptable condition of DOD medical facilities? If so, how are these standards 

enforced? 

Answer. DOD meets the same facility condition requirements as the private sector 

and are inspected/accredited by the same agency, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organization. In addition, DOD requires medical facilities to 

comply with DOD-wide criteria assessment and reporting requirements through the 

military departments. Each facility is inspected on an annual basis at the installation level to ensure adherence to these condition standards. 

REQUIREMENT FOR STRATEGY FOR URBAN OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES

Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364) prohibits the DOD from carrying out projects to construct facilities to provide training in urban operations, such as Combined Arms 

Collective Training Facilities, until the Secretary of Defense approves a strategy for 

such operations that would establish the requirements for such facilities. The Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is also required to certify that such 

projects comply with this strategy, once it has been approved. 

Is the DOD in compliance with this provision? When did or will the Secretary approve a strategy for facility requirements to support training in urban operations? 

Answer. The Department is complying with the provision. The Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) is implementing the 

strategy through issuance of DOD Instruction 1322.27, dated April 13, 2007. Certifications arc expected to be signed by the USD(P&R) by early May. 

ENHANCED USE LEASES

Question. Has the DOD issued guidance to the military departments and defense 

agencies about the use of transparent, competitive procedures to assess, review, and 

carry out transactions for enhanced-use leases? 

Answer. DOD is in the process of considering the issuance of Enhanced Use Lease 

(EUL) policy guidance that would standardize the process Department-wide and 

provide general guidelines for assessing, reviewing, selecting, and executing EULs. 

All EULs are accomplished in accordance with OMB Circular A–11 which provides the OMB scoring rules for lease-purchases and leases of capital assets. 

CHILD CARE FACILITIES

Question. Does the DOD have a position on extending the temporary authority 

provided by section 2810 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 for increased MILCON thresholds to construct child development centers, 

which is set to expire on September 30, 2007? 

Answer. In recent testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community 

and Family Policy requested that the authority to construct child care development 

centers with operations and maintenance funding be extended. 

POLICY ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LAND PURCHASES IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

Question. What is the Department’s policy on the use of government funds to purchase land in accident potential zones (APZs) adjacent to runways? 

Answer. DOD Instruction 4165.57 covers use of government funds to purchase 

land in airfield APZs. That policy states (4.2.2.2.2) that Services should ‘‘program 

for the acquisition of interests first in APZs and second in high noise areas only 

when all possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have 

been exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is manifestly 

threatened.’’

LEGAL IMPACT OF PROHIBITION OF CLOSURE OF WALTER REED

Question. What is the Department’s legal interpretation of the impact of section 

1906 of H.R. 1591, as passed by the House of Representatives on March 23, on the 

Department’s ability to construct new medical facilities at Fort Belvoir, VA, and Bethesda Naval Medical Center, MD, pursuant to the 2005 base closure recommendations? 

Answer. Undertaking a legal interpretation prior to receiving enacted legislation 

is premature. The Department strongly opposes any provision that would alter the 

approved recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission. The BRAC process, as 

66

authorized by Congress, requires that both the President and Congress approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s recommendations in their entirely to allow the process 

to remain apolitical. Legislating a specific change to a BRAC Commission recommendation would adversely affect the integrity of the BRAC 2005 process. 

[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. Keith E. Eastin prior to 

the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

IMPROPER USE OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS

Question. Can you provide the status of the Army investigations, including investigations of potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations, into the use of operations and 

maintenance funds for military construction and procurement activities through the 

Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) in Iraq? 

Answer. The Army opened five investigations of potential Antideficiency Act violations related to the potential improper use of operations and maintenance funds for 

the procurement of items through LOGCAP. Cumulative dollar value of the five investigations is approximately $38 million. Army tasked the Department of Defense 

(DOD) Inspector General to conduct one of the five investigations due to potential 

involvement of senior level personnel. 

Completed investigations are provided to Congress and include the nature of the 

violation, accountable personnel, and disciplinary action taken. 

Question. What is the status of the Army Audit Agency (AAA) report on the expenditure of operations and maintenance funds in support of the development and 

construction of the National Museum of the United States Army at Fort Belvoir, 

VA? 

Answer. The AAA completed their report on 31 January 2007. The AAA analysis 

covered contract actions from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005, as well as 

fiscal year 2006 contract solicitation requirements. 

The executive summary of the audit found the Center for Military History (CMH) 

and its National Museum Division failed to follow all of the required procedures for: 

setting contract requirements, using the proper type and fiscal year of funds to execute contracts, providing the necessary guidance for contractor personnel, and accounting for property furnished to contractors. Several recommendations were 

issued, which the Army and CMH agreed with, and the recommendations are being 

implemented. The key recommendations implemented were to enhance training for 

personnel overseeing contract performance, as well as cancelling a draft contract solicitation. 

The Army is currently conducting two separate investigations of potential 

Antideficiency Act violations involving the potential improper use of operations and 

maintenance funds in support of the National Museum of the United States Army. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AT DAL MOLIN, ITALY

Question. Has the Government of Italy authorized the United States to commence 

military construction at Dal Molin, Italy? If not, when is this approval expected? 

Answer. No, not yet; formal approval is expected within the next few days, as 

Italian Defense Minister Parisi told U.S. Ambassador Spogli on 3 April 2007. According to Minister Parisi, U.S. embassy officials in Rome should receive formal approval sometime the week of 9–13 April 2007. 

Question. When will a contract for the military construction authorized in fiscal 

year 2007 be awarded? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 projects are slated for award in September 2007. 

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

Question. What is your position on proposals to delay, reverse, or accelerate the 

2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decision related to the Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center? 

Answer. Soldiers are the centerpiece of our Army, and the quality of their care 

is non-negotiable. Closing Walter Reed, as required by BRAC law by September 15, 

2011, will improve the health care of our servicemembers and their families. 

The Army is opposed to reversing the current BRAC recommendations for 

WRAMC. The implementation of the recommendation is necessary to replace and 

expand the Army Community Hospital at Fort Belvoir and construct and expand facilities at Bethesda, to be named Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. 

67

When the projects are completed, we will be better equipped to provide world class 

health care for soldiers, veterans, and their families well into the future. 

Proposals to accelerate the BRAC projects at Bethesda and Belvoir are currently 

being evaluated.

Question. In your opinion, will the BRAC Business Plan for the closure of Walter 

Reed, which is managed by the Department of the Army, result in adequate capabilities and facilities being built at the designated receiving locations? 

Answer. BRAC Business Plan 169, Walter Reed, is developed with input from 

physicians, medical support personnel, architects, and engineers. The plans are formally coordinated with the Navy, Air Force, Medical Joint Cross Service Group, and 

TRICARE Management Activity/Health Affairs. All concurred that the scope and 

cost of the projects in the business plan provide adequate capabilities and facilities 

required at the designated receiving locations. 

REQUIREMENT FOR STRATEGY FOR URBAN OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES

Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364) prohibits the DOD from carrying out projects to construct facilities to provide training in urban operations, such as Combined Arms 

Collective Training Facilities, until the Secretary of Defense approves a strategy for 

such operations that would establish the requirements for such facilities. The Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (USD(P&R)) is also required to certify that such projects comply with this strategy, once it has been approved. Is the 

Department of the Army in compliance with this provision? 

Answer. At this time the DOD Instruction 1322.jj which establishes an overarching Urban Training Facilities Strategy has not been approved by the Secretary 

of Defense. According to USD(P&R) it is in the final stages of the approval process 

and should be approved within the next week. The Army has submitted the fiscal 

year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 Urban Operations Training facilities project lists and 

has received notification from USD(P&R) that they meet the requirements of the 

strategy. Once the strategy has been approved the DOD can certify the projects and 

will notify Congress. 

SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION ACCOUNTS

Question. Do you believe the amount requested for sustainment, restoration, and 

modernization in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 is adequate? 

Answer. Yes. The Army is requesting 86 percent of the DOD Facility Sustainment 

Model and intends to achieve 90 percent level of effort through efficiencies. 

Question. What is the Department of the Army doing to identify and, if necessary, 

correct facility conditions similar to those found at Building 18 at Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center that may exist at other medical hold facilities across the Army? 

Answer. Installation Management Command (IMCOM) MHO facilities meet life/

health/safety standards. 

Garrisons reviewed their requirements to support the MHO program. Thirty-nine 

projects totaling $24 million were tentatively identified. 

These projects focus on improving quality of life and increasing our capability and 

capacity to support current and future MHO populations. 

We will further canvass installations for any additional projects and conduct an 

analysis of all projects to ensure they comply with all applicable statutes and makes 

the best use of taxpayer dollars. 

POLICY ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LAND PURCHASES IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

Question. What is the Department’s policy on the use of government funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways? 

Answer. The Department of the Army follows DOD policy set forth in DOD Instruction 4165.57 on use of government funds to purchase land in airfield accident 

potential zones (APZs). That policy states, ‘‘. . . program for the acquisition of interests first in Accident Potential Zones and second in high noise areas only when all 

possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have been exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is manifestly threatened.’’ 

In compliance with that policy, when local governments do not enact effective land 

use controls to prevent incompatible development or where it believes existing zoning will not be an effective long-term strategy due to local development pressures, 

the Army attempts to acquire appropriate interests in lands in APZs. When acquisition of an interest in real property interests is required to protect operational integrity, the Army seeks to prevent development or use of property in APZs that would 

68

be incompatible with the mission of the installation by entering into agreements 

with eligible entities using authorities in section 2684a of title 10, U.S.C. Budgeting 

for acquisition of property interests as part of the military construction program is 

only considered when these measures are not practicable or effective. 

[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. B.J. Penn prior to the 

hearing with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

OUTLYING LANDING FIELD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC

Question. What is the status of the Navy’s plan related to the outlying landing 

field (OLF) in Washington County, NC? 

Answer. The proposed OLF will add an essential training capability to support the 

East Coast basing of the F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet at NAS Oceana, VA, and MCAS 

Cherry Point, NC. On February 23, 2007, Department of the Navy published the 

draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for public review and 

comment. The public comment period on the draft SEIS, originally scheduled to 

close on April 24, 2007, has been extended until May 9, 2007, to assure that all interested parties have the opportunity to provide comments on this important matter. Public hearings have been held in Perquimans, Bertie, Washington, Hyde, Craven, and Beaufort Counties. An additional public hearing is scheduled in Charlotte 

on April 17. The Navy will fully consider all comments received during the comment 

period, and will respond to such comments in the final SEIS, scheduled for completion in fall 2007. Not less than 30 days following publication of the final SEIS, the 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment) may sign a Record 

of Decision (ROD). 

Unless constrained by further legal actions, after the ROD the Navy will commence activities to implement the decision, which would include acquisition of required property interests (fee title and/or easements) and project design and construction. We expect that property acquisition activities would commence in fiscal 

year 2008, and that the OLF will be fully operational by 2012. 

Question. What is the status of the SEIS? 

Answer. On February 23, 2007, Department of the Navy published the draft SEIS 

for public review and comment. The draft SEIS provides additional analysis of potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of an OLF at five alternative OLF sites while addressing the SEIS deficiencies identified by Federal district and appellate courts. The draft SEIS is the culmination of 20 weeks of 

fieldwork and 12 technical reports produced through consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Cooperating Agency), wildlife experts, and acoustic engineers. 

The Navy obtained the services of three noted waterfowl experts (PhDs) to provide 

technical expertise and independent peer review of the study. 

As noted above, the public comment period on the draft SEIS, originally scheduled 

to close on April 24, 2007, has been extended until May 9, 2007, to assure that all 

interested parties have the opportunity to provide comments on this important matter. The Navy is holding seven public meetings during the public comment period 

to receive comments on the draft SEIS from interested parties. Each public meeting 

is preceded by an open information session to enable interested parties to review 

information presented in the draft SEIS. The Navy will fully consider all comments 

received during the comment period, and will respond to such comments in the final 

SEIS. 

We are aware from media reports of Senator Dole’s letter to the Secretary of the 

Navy regarding OLF, but have not received a copy. We will respond to her concerns 

upon receipt of the letter. 

Question. What further actions by the Department of the Navy are required to 

satisfy the legal requirements of the Federal court? 

Answer. The Department of the Navy must complete and publish a SEIS that addresses the deficiencies in the 2003 final EIS identified by the Federal district and 

appellate courts, and publish a ROD. 

REQUIREMENT FOR STRATEGY FOR URBAN OPERATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES

Question. Section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364) prohibits the Department of Defense from carrying out 

projects to construct facilities to provide training in urban operations, such as Combined Arms Collective Training Facilities, until the Secretary of Defense approves 

a strategy for such operations that would establish the requirements for such faciliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
69

ties. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) is also required to 

certify that such projects comply with this strategy, once it has been approved. Is 

the Department of the Navy in compliance with this provision? 

Answer. The Department of the Navy is in compliance with this provision and the 

proposed DODI ‘‘Urban Training Facilities’’ 1322.XX instruction. Final approval of 

the instruction is currently in staffing. P–1063 Military Operations in Urban Terrain Enhancements at Camp Lejeune has been reviewed and certified by the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Urban Training Facilities 

Review Group as being an appropriate and valid project. P971C at Twentynine 

Palms is an additional phase of a previous congressionally-approved project and as 

such does not need to be further validated. This project will be funded with fiscal 

year 2008 Grow the Force military construction (MILCON) funds. 

SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION ACCOUNTS

Question. Do you believe the amount requested for Navy and Marine Corps 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 is adequate? 

Answer. SRM funding requirements are based on a mature DOD model with inputs from the Services and which uses industry standards for comparable types of 

facilities. As a general rule, I believe the Department of the Navy should sustain 

its existing facilities, or dispose/demolish excess inventory before building new facilities. Both the Navy and Marine Corps opted to take additional risk compared to previous budgeted levels by reducing SRM in fiscal year 2008 and applying the asset 

to other priorities:

Budgeted percent of model requirement Funding to achieve 100 percent 

of model requirement 2007 2008

Navy ....................................................................... 95 83 $240 million 

Marine Corps .......................................................... 93 89 $63 million 

With limited SRM Funds, facility managers at the installation level will have to 

prioritize requirements and execute only critical sustainment project with limited or 

no renovation and modernization projects in fiscal year 2008, particularly for the 

Navy. 

While the DOD goal of 100 percent sustainment may be a bit ambitious given the 

risk routinely taken in other DOD programs, I would prefer that Navy and Marine 

Corps budgeted and executed facilities sustainment in the range of 93 to 95 percent 

of the model requirements. I have accepted the risk proposed by the Navy and Marine Corps as an exception, and hope to raise facility sustainment levels in future 

budgets to where I believe they belong. The Navy has committed to an enhanced 

effort to reduce the existing inventory through demolition and footprint reductions. 

POLICY ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LAND PURCHASES IN ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

Question. What is the Department’s policy on the use of government funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways? 

Answer. The Department of the Navy follows DOD policy set forth in DOD Instruction 4165.57 on use of government funds to purchase land in airfield accident 

potential zones (APZs). That policy states, ‘‘. . . program for the acquisition of interests first in Accident Potential Zones and second in high noise areas only when all 

possibilities of achieving compatible use zoning, or similar protection, have been exhausted and the operational integrity of the air installation is manifestly threatened.’’ 

Consistent with that policy, Department of the Navy seeks to acquire interests in 

lands in APZs when local governments do not take pro-active and effective measures 

to prevent incompatible development through land use controls. When acquisition 

of property interests is indicated to protect operational integrity, Department of the 

Navy seeks first to prevent development or use of property in APZs that would be 

incompatible with the mission of the installation by entering into agreements with 

eligible entities using authorities in section 2684a of title 10, U.S.C. Budgeting for 

acquisition of property interests as part of the MILCON program is only considered 

when these measures are not practicable or effective. 

[Prepared questions submitted to Hon. William C. Anderson 

prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]

70

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES

STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Question. What is the current status of the environmental impact statement (EIS) 

related to the realignment of special operations missions to Cannon Air Force Base 

(AFB), NM? If not yet completed, what is the schedule? 

Answer. The EIS is on schedule to meet beddown requirements.

EIS Timeline: July 2006–September 2007. 

Public scoping meetings held: Noise, public leases and range fires from air operations were main issues. 

Public release of Draft EIS: 30 Mar 07 (starts 45-day comment period). 

Public hearings: April 2007—scheduled the week of April 16. 

Projected date to sign Record of Decision: September 2007. 

FACILITY RECAPITALIZATION RATE

Question. What is the facility recapitalization rate for the Air Force, with and 

without consideration of the amounts for the 2005 base closure round, as reflected 

in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008? 

Answer. BRAC reduces the overall Air Force recap rate by 56 years in fiscal year 

2008. The Active Duty recap rate includes those large infrastructure projects that 

contribute to total force training and mission. The following table shows the Air 

Force recap rates as reported in the Office of the Secretary of Defense facility database:

Air Force Fiscal Year 2008

Without BRAC ................................................................................................................................................. 153

With BRAC ...................................................................................................................................................... 97

ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES

Question. What is the Department’s policy on the use of government funds to purchase land in accident potential zones adjacent to runways? 

Answer. The Air Force policy is to not use government funds to acquire real estate 

interest in the accident potential zones. The Air Force endeavors to only acquire the 

minimal interest necessary to protect the Air Force mission. 

SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION, AND MODERNIZATION

Question. Do you believe the amount requested for Air Force sustainment, restoration, and modernization (SRM) in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2008 

is adequate? 

Answer. Fiscal year 2008 President’s budget request adequately funds Air Force 

Total Force SRM to include addressing our most critical facility and infrastructure 

mission requirements. The funds will preserve the value of existing investment in 

facilities and infrastructure by maximizing service life and preventing premature 

deterioration, in essence keeping good buildings good. Air Force recognizes adequate 

FSRM is a mission readiness issue, and investment in infrastructure translates to 

readiness of Air Force power projection platforms. 

Question. What is the current status of the Air Force initiative to purchase land 

in the clear zones and aircraft accident potential zones at Luke AFB, AZ? 

Answer. Congress specifically provided $13 million in fiscal year 2003 and $14.3 

million in fiscal year 2004 for acquisition of land in the clear zones (CZs) and accident protection zones (APZs) at Luke Air Force Base. To date, $12.6 million of the 

fiscal year 2003 appropriation and $7.0 million of the fiscal year 2004 appropriation 

have been obligated. We arc proceeding in the following order: addressing CZs first 

and then addressing APZs. The Air Force is moving forward consistent with its policy to acquire the minimal interest necessary to protect the Air Force mission. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL ON THE AIR FORCE MEMORIAL. 

Question. What are the estimated annual costs to the taxpayer should the Department of Defense legislative proposal regarding the management, maintenance, and 

repair of the Air Force Memorial be enacted? 

Answer. The estimated annual costs for maintenance of the memorial are 

$376,000. Maintenance includes grounds and landscaping; custodial services; pest 

control; snow removal/ice treatment; trash removal; spiral cleaning; and O&M services. The Pentagon Force Protection Agency baseline program has been suppleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
71

mented to cover the incremental $135,000 annual cost for protection of the memorial. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

AFRICAN COMMAND

1. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Grone, what are the potential overseas basing implications 

related to the establishment of the African Command? 

Mr. GRONE. [Deleted.]

2. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Grone, are permanent bases envisioned as part of the new 

command? 

Mr. GRONE. [Deleted.]

3. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Grone, what criteria will be used to determine the size, location, and management of these locations, including the site of a permanent headquarters somewhere on the continent? 

Mr. GRONE. [Deleted.]

4. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Grone, what, if any, additional cooperative security locations does the Department of Defense (DOD) hope to establish in Africa? What is 

the estimated cost of establishing and operating these locations? 

Mr. GRONE. [Deleted.]

DJIBOUTI

5. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Grone, what, if any, plans does DOD have to expand the 

size of military presence and/or facilities (temporary or permanent) at Camp 

Lemonier in Djibouti? 

Mr. GRONE. [Deleted.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

TRAINING RANGE EXPANSION AT TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA

6. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Penn, the proposal to increase the size of the Marine 

Corps is likely to require additional training space. I understand the Marine Corps 

believes there is the potential to expand its premier training facility at Twentynine 

Palms, CA. Is the Navy going to move quickly to reach the agreements necessary 

to expand your training range and then fund those agreements? 

Mr. PENN. The Marine Corps has identified a requirement to conduct large-scale 

Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) training exercises to allow for the training 

of three to four battalions simultaneously in live-fire MAGTF operations. The DOD 

currently lacks a comprehensive training opportunity that exercises all elements of 

the MAGTF beyond two battalions simultaneously in an environment that replicates 

current operational conditions—something that is critical for our forces in today’s 

deployed environment and which will meet future warfighting capabilities and technology. The Marine Corps prepared a Required Capabilities Document (RCD) that 

defined the optimum land area requirements for this training. The RCD, along with 

other documented studies, supported the requirement for extensive contiguous land 

areas capable of supporting live-fire and maneuver training. The Marine Corps has 

proposed that the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA, 

be considered to accommodate this requirement by the acquisition of an additional 

198,000 acres of land at Twentynine Palms. The land considered for acquisition is 

approximately 95 percent government-owned, undeveloped, and managed by Bureau 

of Land Management with the remaining 5 percent owned privately. Acquisition is 

planned to occur in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 through a combination of 

public land withdrawal and fee simple acquisition pending the successful completion 

of environmental analysis and documentation. Funding for the acquisition is included in the fiscal year 2008 Future Years’ Defense Plan (FYDP), beginning in fiscal year 2012.

72

7. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Penn, I am not aware of such initiatives in the 2008 

budget request, yet if you are serious about growing the force, isn’t this an essential 

part of that effort? 

Mr. PENN. Having adequate, state-of-the-art training facilities is absolutely critical to our requirement to train marines for current and future MAGTF operations. 

The expansion of the Marine Corps’ premier training facility at Twentynine Palms 

is a key element in being able to meet this requirement, particularly in our efforts 

to grow the force. Fiscal year 2007 appropriations included funding to begin the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, real estate assessment, and encroachment control plan development for the expansion effort at Twentynine Palms. 

Approximately $50.3 million has been programmed for this initiative in the fiscal 

year 2008 FYDP.

MARINE CORPS ‘‘GROW THE FORCE’’ PROJECTS

8. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Penn, the President’s budget requested $361 million 

as a lump sum place-holder for Marine Corps ‘‘Grow the Force’’ military construction 

projects, plus an additional $57 million for unspecified family housing construction 

funds. The Department has yet to provide the necessary information to Congress on 

the locations or specific projects for which these funds are being sought. Please provide this information as soon as possible. 

Mr. PENN. The Marine Corps is currently completing a cost review of the indi- vidual military construction projects associated with the $361 million lump sum 

place-holder. The detailed project documentation will be provided once this cost review is complete this month. 

The Marine Corps included project documentation for the individual family housing projects with the detailed budget submission provided to Congress in February 

2007.

9. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Penn, is an environmental impact statement (EIS) 

required before these funds can be executed? Please provide a proposed timeline for 

any such EIS. 

Mr. PENN. The Marine Corps will comply with the requirements of the NEPA in 

executing Grow the Force actions for both temporary and permanent beddown of 

marines. 

An EIS will be required for proposed Grow the Force actions at MCB Camp 

Lejeune, MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry Point, NC. At this time other Marine 

Corps installations are planning environmental assessments and the use of categorical exclusions where appropriate.

ARMY ‘‘GROW THE FORCE’’ PROJECTS

10. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, the President’s budget requested over $2 

billion in lump-sum amounts for military construction and family housing as a 

place-holder for the Army’s ‘‘Grow the Force’’ proposal. Please provide the specific 

locations and projects for which these funds are being sought, including the intended function of the new companies or other units that would be based in these 

new facilities. Please provide this information as soon as possible. 

Mr. EASTIN. Detailed project information for the $2.3 billion requested for Army 

growth in fiscal year 2008 was provided to Congress at the end of March 2007. This 

$2.3 billion in military construction funding includes $1.76 billion in critical Combat 

Support and Combat Service Support requirements, $266 million for family housing 

privatization, and $77 million in Army National Guard training requirements.

11. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, is an EIS required before these funds can 

be executed? Please provide a proposed timeline for any such EIS. 

Mr. EASTIN. No, execution of these finds is not dependent on an EIS. The Army 

takes compliance with the NEPA very seriously. Many of the fiscal year 2008 

projects are already covered in environmental assessments or EISs, or are categorically excluded. Those that require some analysis or documentation will be completed 

in the near future. All growth projects requested for fiscal year 2008 are expected 

to be awarded within the fiscal year.

12. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, I understand the funds requested in fiscal 

year 2008 to ‘‘Grow the Force’’ are not related to the six new combat brigades the 

Army proposes to add. What then is the rationale for adding these units and these 

projects? 

73

Mr. EASTIN. Growing the Force is more than building six new brigade combat 

teams (BCTs). The fiscal year 2008 funds will support projects for the growth of fiscal years 2007–2009 Combat Support and Combat Service Support (CS/CSS) units 

such as Military Police, Engineer, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Transportation, 

Chemical, and Personnel Service Units. This initiative will grow and rebalance capabilities in order to mitigate high demand/low density shortfalls and increase CS/

CSS capacity.

13. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, please identify the location estimated cost 

of any temporary facilities the Army plans to use in conjunction with these projects 

or with the overall plan to ‘‘Grow the Force.’’

Mr. EASTIN. The Army will use existing facilities across all installations to the 

maximum extent possible, temporarily use facilities vacated by deploying units and, 

when absolutely necessary, use relocatables. We will provide details on the costs and 

locations for required facilities, to include relocatables if necessary, by the end of 

the year.

TRAINING RANGE EXPANSION AT FORT POLK, LOUISIANA

14. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, the proposal to increase the size of the 

Army by adding six light infantry brigades is likely to require additional training 

space. I understand the potential exists to significantly expand the Army’s Joint 

Readiness Training Center for light infantry units at Fort Polk, LA, if Forest Service land can be acquired. What is the Army doing to reach the agreements necessary 

to expand this training range and then fund those agreements? 

Mr. EASTIN. In December 2006 the Army’s maneuver land shortfall was 2 million 

acres. It is projected to be 4.9 million acres after base realignment and closure 

(BRAC), Army Modular Force (AMF), and Global Defense Posture Realignment 

(GDPR). While the Army’s requirement for training land grows, the capacity of, and 

accessibility to Army lands is decreasing. There are significant challenges that must 

be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness. The Army is competing 

with its neighbors for access to land, airspace, and frequency spectrum. Urbanization and urban sprawl are encroaching on military lands and creating ‘‘islands of 

biodiversity’’ on Army installations. Urbanization concentrates endangered species 

and their habitat on areas traditionally used for military training. Increases in the 

concentration of endangered species at Army installations cause increased environmental restrictions. Environmental restrictions tend to translate into reduced accessibility to training land. 

In 2003, Headquarters, Department of the Army G–3, approved the Range and 

Training Land Strategy (RTLS). The purpose of the RTLS is to address the increasing land deficit facing the Army. The RTLS serves as the mechanism to prioritize 

Army training land investment, and helps to optimize the use of all Army range and 

training land assets. The RTLS provides a long-range plan for the Army to provide 

the best range infrastructure and training land to units. The deliberate phases of 

the RTLS provide the framework for the Army to select the most appropriate course 

of action to address training land shortfalls. The options that the Army can pursue 

include focused management to maximize existing land holdings, buffering through 

partnerships, utilization of other Federal lands where possible, and land acquisition. 

Fort Polk is an installation where the Army would want to assess the potential for 

expansion. Current agreements with the United States Forest Service provide much 

of the training land used by units at Fort Polk. A detailed assessment could result 

in a request for acquisition should it be deemed feasible. We base any specific 

project on the doctrinal need, availability of large contiguous parcels, cost of land, 

and a number of environmental issues.

15. Senator AKAKA. Secretary Eastin, I am not aware of such initiatives in the 

2008 budget request, yet if you are serious about growing the force, isn’t more training land for light infantry forces an essential part of that effort? 

Mr. EASTIN. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming Grow the Army stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities and training resources, 

particularly maneuver land and range sustainability. The Army currently has available space at multiple installations to build facilities for additional Army Growth 

combat and combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing 

analysis for the six BCTs will include consideration of training land and ranges as 

a significant factor. However, while the Army’s requirement for training land grows, 

the capacity of, and accessibility to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant 

challenges that must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness. UrVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
74

banization and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental restrictions 

are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

AUTHORIZED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ADDED BY CONGRESS

16. Senator AKAKA. Mr. Grone, it is my understanding that under the fiscal year 

2007 spending plan for military construction, family housing, and BRAC submitted 

to Congress by Deputy Secretary England on March 15, 2007, pursuant to section 

113 of the Revised Continuing Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110–5), no military 

projects that were authorized in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) that were added by Congress and 

not contained in the original fiscal year 2007 budget request submitted by the President in February 2007 were funded or will be carried out with fiscal year 2007 military construction or family housing appropriations. Is that correct? 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, that is correct. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK PRYOR

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE

17. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Eastin, BRAC and GDPR can yield significant gains 

in military effectiveness and efficiency in future conflicts and crisis and will enable 

the U.S. military to fulfill its many global roles. What is the Army doing to ensure 

this transformation runs smoothly and does not adversely affect readiness and 

training? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army is working hard to execute BRAC and GDPR actions, along 

with other MILCON projects, to adjust our global footprint. The resulting changes 

in our strategic posture will enable the Army to better execute the National Defense 

Strategy, support operational deployments, and sustain operational rotations. 

The Army synchronizes and integrates its BRAC and GDPR actions with all of 

its other title 10 activities, such as training and readiness, manning, and equipping, 

through the Army Campaign Plan (ACP). The ACP directs planning and execution 

of Army operations and transformation within the context of ongoing strategic commitments. Additionally, the ACP Management process, codified within the ACP, provides an active, Army Senior Leader forum to coordinate, integrate, and synchronize 

BRAC, GDPR, and other title 10 functions with operational requirements, ensuring 

there are no adverse affects on readiness and training. 

With respect to BRAC and GDPR specifically, the Vice Chief of Staff, Army 

(VCSA) chairs a Senior Stationing Review Group (SSRG) monthly to ensure the 

Army synchronizes ongoing BRAC, GDPR, and MILCON actions with operational 

requirements. This forum proactively manages the execution plans for BRAC and 

GDPR based on changing conditions, such as delays in funding and changes in unit 

deployment schedules to meet increased operational requirements. Additionally, the 

Army reviews the results of these SSRGs monthly in the broader ACP forum to ensure synchronization of BRAC and GDPR actions across the Army. The VCSA also 

chairs this forum and senior representatives from every major Army Command attend via worldwide video teleconference. In combination, these forums ensure the 

Army’s execution of BRAC and GDPR actions is smooth, timely, and efficient and 

does not adversely affect our ability to provide trained and ready forces to combatant commanders.

18. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Eastin, how is funding for the global war on terror 

affecting BRAC, housing, military offices, and training facilities? 

Mr. EASTIN. Full and timely funding is essential to meet the Army’s increasing 

global commitments, facilitate growth, and ensure soldier and family quality of life. 

Any delay in receiving supplemental funding negatively impacts the Army’s carefully synchronized stationing plan and puts BRAC, Army growth, and global war on 

terrorism operations at risk. If $2 billion BRAC funding is not restored, the Army 

must re-prioritize projects, which puts at risk the Army’s requirement to complete 

all BRAC actions by September 2011. 

The fiscal year 2007 supplemental request includes $844 million in Active Army 

MILCON for projects supporting global war on terrorism operations in accordance 

with combatant commander requirements. These projects provide theater force protection, airfield facilities, operational facilities, support facilities, billeting, fuel handling and storage, utility systems, and roads. 

75

In addition, $445 million requested in the supplemental funds replacement for a 

critical intelligence facility recently destroyed by fire at Fort Meade, MD, site preparation for a BCT at Fort Riley, KS, and facilities to Grow the Army. 

There are no Army family housing requirements associated with the fiscal year 

2007 supplemental funding; thus, delayed receipt of the supplemental has no impact 

on the Army family housing appropriation.

19. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Eastin, the Army’s modular force initiative transforms units into a more powerful, adaptable force built on self-sufficiency and the 

ability to rapidly deploy. In order to provide quality training for new modular units 

like a BCT, the Army must significantly expand its range facilities. What is the plan 

for acquiring more land for training purposes? 

Mr. EASTIN. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming Grow the Army stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities and training resources, 

particularly maneuver land and range sustainability. The Army currently has available space at multiple installations to build facilities for additional Army Growth 

combat and combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing 

analysis for the six BCTs will include consideration of training land and ranges as 

a significant factor. However, while the Army’s requirement for training land grows, 

the capacity of, and accessibility to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant 

challenges that must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness. Urbanization and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental restrictions 

are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

20. Senator PRYOR. Secretary Eastin, as you’ve said, BRAC 2005 implementation 

strategy is an extremely complex plan that manages numerous construction projects 

and re-stationing actions. How does the Army determine which critical MILCON 

projects have priority? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army established a banded hierarchy with priority for BRAC 

MILCON projects to the operational Army, followed by training base consolidation, 

industrial base realignments and lastly, headquarters moves. We then synchronized 

the construction program to accommodate deployment schedules and sequential 

moves necessary to free up space at gaining installations required to meet BRAC 

law. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN

USE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS TO ENTER INTO PROPERTY LEASES

21. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, the DOD Inspector General (IG) released a report 

in January of this year which highlighted their concerns about the award of a service contract by the Department of the Interior on behalf of the DOD’s counter intelligence field activity to provide leased office space and the installation of communication and other equipment. The DOD IG contended that ‘‘the 10-year, $100 million lease was disguised as a service contract and exceeded all thresholds that require congressional notification and approval.’’ As a result of the DOD IG review, 

the DOD Comptroller is currently conducting an investigation to determine whether 

any violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA) may have occurred. Do you know 

the status of the internal DOD investigation into ADA violations? 

Mr. GRONE. Under the Department’s established potential ADA investigation 

process, the Department completed the preliminary review and has determined that 

a formal investigation is now required.

22. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, if not, please provide a current status, the estimated completion date, and at the conclusion of the investigation, the results and 

any punitive or corrective measures. 

Mr. GRONE. The formal investigation will commence shortly and the estimated 

completion date is no later than January 2008.

23. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what is the current DOD policy on the use of 

service contracts to enter into property leases? 

Mr. GRONE. Our policy is simple and straight forward. We do not condone the use 

of services contracts to procure office space or to construct or improve facilities.

24. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, the DOD IG also identified the use of a 

service contract to lease and install an administrative facility at Fort Belvoir, VA. 

The Department of the Army has since determined that this contract for the buildVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
76

ing may have been awarded in violation of the ADA. Please provide a current status 

of the investigation, the estimated completion date, and at the conclusion of the investigation, the results and any punitive or corrective measures. 

Mr. EASTIN. This case, Army 06–02, is currently under investigation. Once completed (anticipated end of August), we will provide the results and any punitive or 

corrective measures to the proper oversight authorities.

BRAC ACTIONS AT WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

25. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, in 2005, the DOD recommended, and the BRAC 

Commission concurred, on the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the 

transfer of its functions primarily to Bethesda and Fort Belvoir by September 2011. 

In light of the recent disclosure of poor facility conditions and outpatient processes 

at Walter Reed, certain Members of Congress have introduced legislation to delay 

or reverse that BRAC decision. Is the closure of Walter Reed still the right thing 

to do? 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, the closure of Walter Reed is still the right thing to do. The Department’s decision to realign Walter Reed was based on a rigorous assessment of 

the capacity, military value, and beneficiary population of the National Capital Region’s four inpatient hospitals at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Andrews Air Force Base 

(AFB), and Fort Belvoir. The analysis indicated that excess capacity (including 

surge) exists in the region, Walter Reed and Andrews had the lowest military value 

of the four facilities, the beneficiary population lives primarily south of the Potomac 

River and Fort Belvoir and Walter Reed suffer from significant space, functional, 

and building system deficiencies. These assessments (and the projected savings) 

supported the Department’s recommendation to realign Walter Reed by creating 

state-of-the-art facilities at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir.

26. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what would be the impact of a reversal or delay 

to a 2005 BRAC decision on the Department’s ability to carry out the decisions of 

the 2005 BRAC round? 

Mr. GRONE. Reversing this or any other recommendation would adversely impact 

the overall BRAC process. The BRAC process, as authorized by Congress, requires 

that both the President and Congress approve or disapprove the Commission’s recommendations in their entirety to allow the process to remain apolitical. Legislating 

a specific change to a BRAC Commission recommendation would adversely affect 

the integrity of the BRAC 2005 process. Additionally, legislatively overturning a 

BRAC action establishes a precedent that could open the door to other recommendations being overturned.

27. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, the Department of the Army is responsible 

for ensuring that adequate facilities are constructed at receiving locations to transfer functions from Walter Reed and to maintain at a minimum the same capabilities 

as the existing campus. In recent testimony before this committee, Army leadership 

has voiced concerns that the current plan may not accomplish this goal due to funding restrictions. Is the construction plan to support the closure of Walter Reed fully 

funded to ensure all functions and capabilities transferred to new locations will exceed current capabilities? If not, what parts of the plan are not fully funded and 

why? 

Mr. EASTIN. The BRAC decision did not intend to exceed current capabilities of 

Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Army plan to execute the BRAC decision 

was fully coordinated with the Navy, Air Force, Medical Joint Cross Service Group, 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) TRICARE Management Activity 

and Health Affairs. All concurred that the scope and cost of the projects provide adequate capabilities and facilities required at the designated receiving locations. The 

DOD-approved plan, as is, fully funds the BRAC decision.

28. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, in your answers to our advance policy questions for this hearing, you did not provide a response on whether you support a congressional initiative to accelerate construction related to the closure of Walter Reed. 

Why? 

Mr. EASTIN. At this time, we are analyzing our ability to accelerate construction 

related to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Fort 

Belvoir and will provide our position as soon as we complete that analysis. 

(Note: Subsequent to the hearing, on May 1, 2007, the Acting Secretary of the 

Army signed a memo that affirms the Army’s support for the facility enhancements 

and construction acceleration proposals for WRNMMC and Fort Belvoir for a total 

77

cost of $443 million above BRAC-approved project costs to accelerate construction 

related to the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Accelerating the National Capital Region military health system projects will allow construction completion in late fiscal year 2010, vice the currently projected May 2011. Earlier completion of construction will afford more time to complete initial outfitting of the buildings and allow more time to transition staff and patients from Walter Reed Army 

Medical Center to the new WRNMMC and Fort Belvoir community hospital.)

PROPER USE OF FUNDS FOR FACILITY REPAIRS

29. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, on the issues of Walter Reed, in my review 

over the past 2 months into the facility conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center, I have come to the conclusion that the appalling conditions in Building 18 

were the result of a failure in leadership to respond to and correct identified deficiencies. We heard witnesses testify that the Army and Defense Health Affairs did 

receive adequate resources from Congress, despite the pending BRAC decision to 

close Walter Reed by 2011, to maintain this facility at an acceptable level. In fact, 

over $630,000 was spent on renovations for this facility between 2000 and 2005. 

What struck me is that in order for this money to have been spent in Building 18, 

a military engineer needed to have walked through the facility, talked to building 

residents, and identified problems. So, this wasn’t an issue of lack of oversight, it 

was an issue of misplaced priorities. My concern is that this prioritization still exists 

today in the deteriorated barracks at Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, and Fort Sill, just 

to name a few. What is the Army doing to ensure we don’t waste $630,000 on the 

next Building 18 by, to use a little known veterinary term, putting lipstick on a pig? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army is continuously challenged to balance facility sustainment, 

restoration, and modernization projects to meet mission and life/safety/health requirements. This sometimes means some projects must be phased over a period of 

years using available funding rather than being completed as a single project in a 

single year. Phasing certain projects is the most practical way to meet overall facilities requirements within constrained resources and competing priorities. I view the 

problems with Building 18 as an anomaly in an otherwise well-run prioritization 

system for facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization.

30. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, Secretary Eastin, Secretary Penn, and Secretary 

Anderson, Congress provides operations and maintenance funds to the military services for facility sustainment with the understanding that these funds will be applied 

wisely by military leaders to address the most urgent requirements: on dormitories 

to fix failing roofs instead of new drapes and carpets for senior officer quarters; on 

deteriorated runways to protect our pilots and aircraft instead of upgrading golf 

courses; and on piers, ranges, and motor pools that are in such poor condition that 

training and readiness are significantly impacted. What is each Service doing to ensure we direct the taxpayers’ funds to ensure there are no more building 18s out 

there in the DOD inventory? 

Mr. GRONE. Each military Service has developed specific tools, systems, and processes suitable to its mission to identify, prioritize, and fund its facilities’ requirements. Significant effort is invested in this process, and often involves a combination of centralized control of large-scale projects and local control of smaller-scale 

requirements. Typically, installation commanders make the final decisions on the 

best use of sustainment funds to support their mission readiness, and Service Chiefs 

hold them accountable for these decisions as for their stewardship of their people 

and any other resources in accomplishing their missions. 

Mr. EASTIN. For the last 2 years, the Army has protected and focused sustainment 

funding on those facilities most critical to our high-priority missions and those in 

the worst condition. The Installation Management Command (IMCOM) has developed and implemented a Project Prioritization System to assist in focusing discretionary funding on the most urgent facilities requirements. Barracks are among our 

highest-priority facilities and have received over $400 million of sustainment, restoration, and modernization work over the last 2 years. To ensure this money is 

spent wisely, IMCOM developed a focused facility inspection system that gives a 

higher priority to living space and bathrooms in barracks. The Installation Status 

Report-Infrastructure (ISR–I) is a very valuable tool in assessing the condition of 

facilities. The ISR–I condition reports are used extensively in focusing funding on 

our worst-condition facilities. 

Mr. PENN. The Marine Corps executes its Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and 

Modernization funding through two tracks to ensure that day-to-day repairs are accomplished and the highest priority major repairs are completed. The first track lies 

78

with the base commander who receives funding to cover day-to-day maintenance requirements. The commander has full control of these funds to apply them to cyclic 

maintenance and emergent small repairs. The second track lies with Headquarters 

Marine Corps who field validates and selects all major repair projects. Readiness 

ratings and quality of life concerns, along with base priority, arc major factors in 

project selection. We believe this process protects and repairs the facilities most 

needed for mission readiness and quality of life. But even given our emphasis on 

spending money properly, there are still problems. The Marine Corps has approximately a billion dollars worth of repairs and improvements needed to improve facilities to an acceptable readiness condition. This is a result of historic underfunding 

that occurred before the sustainment metrics and other facilities metrics were developed that have resulted in increased funding for facilities. Because of this, as you 

travel around bases, you will, from time to time, see buildings in a poor state of 

repair. 

The Navy ensures that facilities sustainment funding is directed to maintenance 

and repair of class I and II real property by closely monitoring the execution of 

maintenance and repair programs at the installation, region, and Navy level. Commander, Navy Installations Command distributes funds to regions based on detailed 

requirements generated by the OSD approved Facilities Sustainment Model, which 

provides facility sustainment requirement details down to the facility level. Accounting records are systematically reviewed to ensure that funds are expended in the 

proper accounts. 

Mr. ANDERSON. The Air Force is committed to making the best use of every taxpayer dollar so that each one goes towards only those programs providing the highest mission capability rate and quality of life for our airmen. 

We have a keen interest in caring for our facilities because of the unique emphasis the Air Force places on its installations, which are our warfighting platforms. 

Our bases provide stable training environments and force projection platforms for 

the Nation’s combatant commanders. 

Within the Air Force, the single person responsible for this warfighting platform, 

as well as the readiness of the unit, is the wing commander. He or she is responsible 

for ensuring limited facility dollars go towards only our most critical requirements—

the appropriate roofs, runways, and dorms that best support the unit mission and 

the airmen. 

To help these commanders care for the facilities, we’ve increased funding in both 

our restoration and modernization and facility sustainment accounts in fiscal year 

2008. 

In regards to our medical facilities, it has been a long-standing practice of my engineers to put ‘‘eyes on’’ as many facilities as possible when they visit bases. This 

practice includes our medical facilities. My team has personally inspected five facilities this year looking beyond the front lobby and doctors’ offices to the patient care 

areas, staff locker rooms, loading docks, mechanical rooms, et cetera. Additionally, 

the Air Force recently completed a full review of all our medical facilities in the 

wake of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center situation.

FUNDS FOR THE SUSTAINMENT OF FACILITIES

31. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, Secretary Penn, and Secretary Anderson, 

on the issue of facility sustainment, you note, Secretary Eastin, in your answers to 

advance policy questions that in fiscal year 2008 the Army has proposed a budget 

that funds 86 percent of requirement, as opposed to the 100 percent goal established 

by the DOD. Secretary Penn, in your witness statement, you note that the Navy 

only actually funded 79 percent of your facility sustainment requirement in 2006 

after having proposed a budget to Congress for 95 percent of the total requirement. 

Secretary Anderson, in your testimony, you state that the Air Force is ‘‘accepting 

manageable risk’’ by reducing facilities and infrastructure funding in order to bolster other accounts. My concern is that this chronic underfunding of facility 

sustainment accounts has resulted in deteriorated facility conditions in barracks 

and working facilities around the DOD that don’t become an issue until the public 

sees them or they result in a tragic accident. In your view, are we spending enough 

money on facilities to ensure our servicemembers have safe and adequate facilities 

to live and work? If not, how do we fix it? 

Mr. EASTIN. Quality of life is a top Army priority to ensure soldiers and families 

have safe and adequate facilities to live, work, and train. The Army has made substantial progress in the last 4 years increasing Base Operations Support 41 percent 

and Facility Sustainment/Restoration and Modernization 15 percent since 2004. Although we are still not doing as much as we would like in this time of war and 

79

constrained resources, we continue to make consistent and steady progress towards 

improving the installation services necessary to sustain the All-Volunteer Force. 

Mr. PENN. Given competing priorities, the Department of the Navy views the reduced investment in sustainment as an acceptable risk. The overall strategy to reduce this risk is an effort to aggressively validate facilities sustainment requirements, and reducing footprint in order to reduce sustainment costs. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I assure you Air Force facility programs have my personal attention as I’m watching them close to ensure they support the highest mission capability rates and quality of life for our airmen. That’s what I meant when I said we’re 

accepting ‘‘manageable’’ risk. 

We built this budget by carefully balancing our facility sustainment, restoration, 

and modernization and MILCON accounts to make the most effective use of available funding to support Air Force missions. We did this by making a conscious decision to take some risk in the MILCON program for the next couple of years. This 

is not a permanent reduction to the program; we just chose to delay some facility 

investment for a few years to help us re-capitalize the aircraft fleet. In the meantime, to ensure our facilities did not deteriorate to an unacceptable level, we increased funding to our restoration and modernization account and funded our facility sustainment program to 92 percent of the requirement. This will allow us to 

‘‘keep our good facilities good’’ as we re-capitalize the fleet.

32. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, are we tracking the increasing backlog of 

facility maintenance and repair requirements in order to inform investment decisions? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army tracks the backlog of facility maintenance and repair requirements via the Installation Status Report, a system designed to improve installation management and decisionmaking by providing information on the condition 

and readiness of facilities, infrastructure, and services. Investment decisions are 

also influenced by the Army’s operational requirements to restation and reconfigure 

units as a result of BRAC, GDPR, and AMF transformation. 

Strong congressional support for the Army’s MILCON and base support programs 

has helped tremendously to offset and decrease the facility maintenance backlog.

33. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, how is each Service assessing the risk to 

readiness and training associated with underfunded facility accounts? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army uses the Installation Status Report, portions of which are 

incorporated in the Defense Readiness Reporting System, to assess risk to readiness 

and training in several ways. 

First, ratings for mission support, quality, and quantity provide commanders a 

picture of the health of facilities and infrastructure at each installation, both for individual facility types and for a broader view of all facilities. The associated quality 

and quantity improvement costs provide a means to quantify funding required to 

improve facility quality to standards and reduce existing facility deficits. 

Second, a more focused facilities assessment on readiness and training impacts is 

rendered by the Commander’s Readiness Ratings for nine separate facility classes. 

They are based on the commander’s experience, judgment, and knowledge of current 

and future mission requirements and take into consideration ratings for mission 

support, quality, and quantity, as well as any other factors the commander considers appropriate. 

A C1 readiness rating means facilities fully support primary unit missions without limitations to readiness. A C2 rating means facilities support the majority of primary unit missions with only minor limitations to readiness. A C3 rating means facilities present challenges to primary unit missions with impaired mission performance, requiring units to establish alternative means to support readiness. A C4 rating means facilities present significant challenges to the primary unit missions, requiring units to expend considerable additional effort to compensate for shortcomings. These considerations collectively provide a clear vision of factors which enable commanders and the Department of the Army to assess the impact of underfunding on readiness and training.

REQUEST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION

34. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, in your written statement you advocate for 

congressional support for the authorization in 2008 for $237 million to construct a 

new headquarters complex for Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Miami, FL. 

The Army is proposing to build this complex on land leased from the State of Florida. The lease for part of the land will expire in 2015, with four 10-year options 

80

upon mutual agreement by both parties. The lease requires that the new construction must be used for a SOUTHCOM headquarters, or the lease is terminated. Finally, upon termination of the lease for any reason, ownership and control of the 

headquarters complex will revert to the State of Florida, and the State has the option to require the DOD to tear down the headquarters at DOD expense and to restore the land to a pre-existing condition. The lease also requires SOUTHCOM to 

grant the State of Florida access and inspections rights to any part of the headquarters complex, including areas for classified and coalition forces operations. Does 

the Department of the Army or DOD have any policy or guidelines for the construction of facilities on land that is subject to these types of conditions? If so, please 

provide. 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, the Army and DOD have general policy for construction of facilities where the interest in land is leasehold contained in Army Regulation 405–10 

(Acquisition of Real Property and Interests Therein) and DOD Instruction 4165.71 

(Real Property Acquisition).

35. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, does the Department of the Army have a 

precedent for this type of request? If so, please provide details. 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, the Department of the Army has leased land for a construction 

project. For instance, the Army leased 20 acres of land under a 50-year minimum 

term at a nominal rental consideration of $1.00 at the Manhattan Regional Airport, 

Manhattan, KS. This lease supports a fiscal year 2006 Fort Riley, KS, project to construct a $5.5 million Deployment Facility Ramp Expansion, which includes an airfield operations building, aprons, staging area, and vehicle parking.

36. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, did the Department of the Army ever request an outright deed transfer of the land from the State of Florida in order to 

secure ownership? If so, what was the State’s response? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Department of the Army has not requested an outright deed 

transfer of the land from the State of Florida in order to secure ownership. However, USSOUTHCOM has been conducting discussions with the State of Florida regarding a deed transfer. Early feedback is that the State of Florida may transfer 

title to the land if approved by the State Board of Trustees and if the U.S. Government pays fair market value or exchanges land of comparable value.

37. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, currently, Homestead Air Reserve Base 

(ARB) supports the training and operation of the 482 Fighter Wing and 24 F–16 

Falcons. The Marine Corps recently decided to locate USMARSOUTH headquarters 

at Homestead ARB. I’ve also heard that the Air Force is considering new missions 

for Homestead, to include the stationing of C–130 aircraft and Active-Duty Forces 

as part of total force integration initiatives. Please provide a brief review of the current proposals to be considered for Homestead and their status. 

Mr. ANDERSON. As part of our Total Force Integration effort, numerous associations were explored to maximize the utilization of our installation and range infrastructure. The Air Force routinely explores scenarios as to the viability and effectiveness of the proposals. Some proposals advance beyond the concept stage to site 

surveys and opportunities. Others prove not to be viable early in the concept exploration stages, often as a result of costs, equipment availability, or infrastructure environmental incompatibility. Other non-Air Force units exploring locating on Homestead ARB are required to go through a site survey approval process to ensure their 

proposed relocation does not interfere with ongoing or planned actions at Homestead 

ARB. As such, there we have no announced proposals for new mission activities at 

Homestead ARB beyond those identified in BRAC 05. 

Turning to the question on the Marines, United Stated Marine Corps South 

(MARFORSOUTH) is currently located in leased facilities in Miami, FL. Due to 

planned demolition of these leased facilities in 2010, MARFORSOUTH is evaluating 

other locations in the Miami vicinity. Analyses are still ongoing. The final decision 

is pending determinations of these analyses and other options under consideration.

38. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, if the Air Force decided to station Active-Duty Forces at Homestead ARB, what facilities supporting military community 

services would be required to be constructed at Homestead? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Construction requirements would depend on the number of Active-Duty Force that might be assigned to Homestead ARB. No such plan is currently being contemplated.

81

TOTAL COSTS TO GROW THE FORCE

39. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, regarding the decision 

to grow the Army by 74,000 personnel and the Marine Corps by 27,000 marines over 

the next 5 years, do you have an estimate of total investment required in equipment, facilities, and increased base operating expenses to complete the growth for 

each Service? 

Mr. EASTIN. At this time, we are refining estimates for the overall cost to Grow 

the Army (GTA). Once stationing decisions for the six additional BCTs are made 

later this year, we will have greater fidelity on the expected costs and can provide 

an estimate for GTA at that time. 

Mr. PENN. The total estimated fiscal years 2008–2013 cost to grow the Marine 

Corps by 27,000 was initially calculated at $30.8 billion. That amount was reflected 

in our fiscal years 2008–2013 President’s budget submission. Within that amount, 

$7.025 billion was for the procurement of equipment, $3.230 billion was for 

MILCON and family housing projects, and $620.6 million was for additional base 

operating expenses.

40. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, is the Army and Marine Corps planning to address these costs as an increase to each Service’s top line, 

or do you anticipate that other existing requirements will have to be deferred? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army’s top line will increase to accommodate GTA. 

Mr. PENN. The President’s decision to increase Marine Corps end strength to 

202,000 was accompanied by a top line increase of $30.8 billion across the FYDP 

(2008–2013).

41. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, what do you expect 

will be the impact to the MILCON account over the next 5 years in terms of recapitalizing existing deteriorated facilities and infrastructure? 

Mr. EASTIN. GTA construction funding will provide facilities for the incremental 

increase in the strength of the Army. The Army will utilize existing facilities wherever possible and build new facilities when mission requirements dictate. While an 

indirect impact of construction will be a general overall improvement in the condition of Army facilities, GTA funding will generally not recapitalize existing deteriorated facilities and infrastructure. There may be some cases where deteriorated infrastructure will have to be replaced or upgraded to support construction of new facility complexes, but this will only be done on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis. If any existing 

requirements must be deferred to fund growth, the existing requirements will be reviewed during development of the fiscal years 2010–2015 FYDP. For this reason, it 

is important that the GTA requirements be fully funded. 

Mr. PENN. Many of the projects in the Department of the Navy baseline and supplemental requests will recapitalize some of the existing deteriorated facilities in anticipation of new marines arriving at our installations. As we begin to build new 

structures in 2010 and beyond, these new facilities (as they come on line and are 

added to the Marine Corps plant value) will actually increase our recapitalization 

requirements in the future.

42. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin and Secretary Penn, are the Services considering the increased use of privatization authorities for unaccompanied housing as 

a tool to address the challenge of a constrained budget environment? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army will execute five privatized unaccompanied personnel housing projects for single staff sergeants and above. The first project at Fort Irwin, CA, 

includes 200 apartments. The second project is at Fort Drum, NY, and includes 180 

apartments. The remaining three projects are based on the lack of available adequate off-post housing for single staff sergeants and above at Fort Bliss, TX; Fort 

Bragg, NC; and Fort Stewart, GA. Apartment quantities at these three locations 

will be determined during the development of the privatization plan at each installation. We expect the existing Residential Communities Initiative developers to execute these projects. 

Mr. PENN. The Marine Corps has no planned unaccompanied housing privatization projects. Thus far the unaccompanied housing privatization projects have not 

been cost effective or feasible for the Marine Corps. Under current rules, the Marine 

Corps would be unable to assign young single marines to barracks. This would negatively impact the unit integrity and unit cohesion that are so important in developing the camaraderie essential to unit readiness.

43. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, does the Department of the Army have 

available land on your military bases in the United States in order to support the 

82

basing, training, and operations of additional combat and support brigades? If not, 

what plans are underway to satisfy the land requirement? 

Mr. EASTIN. Analysis being conducted to support upcoming GTA stationing decisions include evaluation of installation facilities and training resources, particularly 

maneuver land and range sustainability. The Army currently has available space at 

multiple installations to build facilities for additional Army growth combat and combat support brigades. From a training perspective, the stationing analysis for the 

six BCTs will include consideration of training land and ranges as a significant factor. However, while the Army’s requirement for training land grows, the capacity 

of, and accessibility to, Army lands is decreasing. There are significant challenges 

that must be actively addressed to sustain Army training readiness. Urbanization 

and urban sprawl, endangered species, and environmental restrictions are encroaching on military lands at Army installations.

44. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, does the Department of the Navy have available land on your military bases in the United States in order to support the basing, 

training, and operations of additional combat and support brigades for the United 

States Marine Corps? 

Mr. PENN. Yes. The basing, training, and operations of additional combat and support brigades will be sited on existing Marine Corps installations.

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO SCORING RULES FOR PRIVATIZED PROJECTS

45. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, according to the August 2005 memo by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), the DOD will be required beginning in 2010 to 

follow traditional scoring rules for approval of co-owned limited liability corporation 

structures for privatization of family and unaccompanied military housing. What do 

you see are the near-term and long-term impacts from this guidance on the ability 

of the DOD to use privatization as a tool to address the military housing challenges 

emerging from recent end strength increase initiatives? 

Mr. GRONE. In the near-term, the August 2005 OMB memorandum should not affect the Department’s pursuit of the 2007 goal to eliminate DOD-owned inadequate 

housing within the continental United States. New projects or modifications to executed projects supporting troop increases can be pursued through fiscal year 2010 

according to current scoring rules provided to DOD by OMB in June 1997. In the 

long-term, it is not clear what impact the limitations will have. The August 2005 

OMB memo does not define traditional scoring, so if a military Service proposes any 

Military Housing Privatization Initiative projects for execution after fiscal year 

2010, DOD will seek clarification of scoring rules to be applied. In any case, the restriction applies primarily to the use of partnerships and would still allow use of 

lease agreements such as those structured in current Air Force projects.

BRAC PROPERTY RE-USE POLICIES

46. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, I have a question about the DOD’s policy related 

to the proposed use by the local community of land made available by the 2005 

BRAC round. In your testimony before this committee last year, you stated ‘‘The Department will not dictate a re-use approach to the community. We will not dictate 

the form of disposal. It is a partnership and a collaboration.’’ This was good news 

for the committee and the local communities affected by BRAC. But recently, the 

Department of the Army stated in a formal letter signed on March 16, 2007, to local 

communities that ‘‘the Army will select the methods of property disposal’’ and furthermore ‘‘the Army will employ a highest and best use analysis of your redevelopment plans.’’ These statements seem to contradict your position stated to this committee last year. Do you agree? 

Mr. GRONE. Regarding the seeming contradiction between the Army’s letter and 

the Department’s policy, let me clarify that the Department’s policy is to work in 

close collaboration with affected communities throughout the closure, disposal, and 

redevelopment process. The Department takes great care to ensure Local Redevelopment Authorities have information on surplus property for the community’s consideration in their formulation of a redevelopment plan, including data derived through 

military department site assessments and highest and best use studies. At the same 

time, DOD strives to preserve local ownership of the uses identified in these plans 

and does not subject redevelopment plans to any highest and best use analysis. On 

the contrary, the Department views the redevelopment plans as the community’s 

foreseeable use of the property and uses it to inform any highest and best use analysis of the property. In disposing of surplus property, the Department is careful to 

83

not preclude any disposal method until a redevelopment plan is completed. As part 

of the NEPA decision, the military departments give substantial deference to the 

Local Redevelopment Authority’s redevelopment plan and flexibly apply disposal 

methods from our ‘‘mixed tool kit,’’ ranging from those that may be at no cost or 

discounted consideration to those that yield fair market value to the Department, 

to be responsive to the Department’s BRAC and community redevelopment needs.

47. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, has the DOD changed their policy on the relationship between the local community and each military department regarding proposed 

use of BRAC property? If so, how? 

Mr. GRONE. The Department’s policy on the relationship between the local community and each military department has not changed from that expressed in my 

prior testimony and the DOD BRAC implementation policy guidance contained in 

the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual issued March 1, 2006.

48. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, if a conflict exists, will the Army clarify its 

position in writing? If so, will you ensure that this committee is notified of any future guidance provided to local communities regarding this matter? 

Mr. EASTIN. As the disposal agency, the Army has the responsibility of selecting 

the methods of disposal. However, the Army does give substantial deference to the 

redevelopment plan submitted by the redevelopment authority when preparing decision documents. If a disposal decision is inconsistent with the approved redevelopment plan, the Army will clarify its position to the community in writing. The Army 

is working diligently with local communities to preclude this from happening. We 

will notify the committee of any future guidance provided to the local communities 

regarding this issue.

SCOPE REDUCTIONS FOR BRAC CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

49. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, in the area of funding for MILCON related to the 

2005 BRAC round, the military services testified last year about a significant shortage of funds planned for BRAC construction activities. I note that the 2008 budget 

request seems to address that issue. My concern is that as each military Service 

attempts to keep BRAC construction costs for each project in check, they are reducing the scope of construction for each project by as much as 40 percent to stay within the pre-determined budget. This unacceptable approach will result in realigned 

units and functions to be moved into new facilities that do not meet their requirement and may detrimentally affect their mission and operations. Who has the responsibility to determine whether the size and capability of a new facility built as 

a result of BRAC decisions will meet mission requirements? 

Mr. GRONE. The component responsible for implementing a BRAC recommendation is also responsible for ensuring that necessary MILCON projects are properly 

sized/scoped to meet mission requirements and that it is fully funded and justified 

in the budget documentation provided to Congress. Additionally, the Department 

continues an important oversight role of the Infrastructure Steering Group (ISG). 

This senior group reviews and approves all business plans to ensure the Department’s resources are effectively applied to implement recommendations efficiently 

and in a manner to ensure the Department’s missions are supported.

50. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what is the DOD position or guidance on adhering to the project scopes as described in BRAC business plans? 

Mr. GRONE. The DOD position is that the responsible component should adhere 

to the scope of a MILCON project as described in the approved BRAC business plan. 

Recognizing that the requirements necessary to support the operations of the DOD 

are fluid, changes to project scope may be necessary. Those changes should be evaluated by the component business manager assigned to that recommendation and forwarded for review and processing for approval along with other business plan updates. The Department continues the important oversight role of the ISG which reviews and approves all business plans to ensure the Department’s resources are effectively applied to implement recommendations efficiently and in a manner to ensure the Department’s missions are supported.

51. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, are BRAC 2005 construction projects subject to 

the statutory requirement provided by section 2853 of title 10, U.S.C., for authorized 

cost and scope of work variations? 

Mr. GRONE. The Department provides congressional notification of changes to 

BRAC 2005 MILCON projects through the annual reporting requirements specified 

84

in the BRAC Act (Public Law 101–510, as amended). Specifically, as directed by Section 2906A(c), the Department notifies Congress of any changes to BRAC construction projects, explaining the differences between what was included in the budget 

justification material and what actually occurred, with appropriate explanation of 

changes, including changes to cost or scope.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN STANDARDS IN DOD FACILITIES

52. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, regarding the concept of sustainable design 

standards incorporated into MILCON projects, Congress is currently considering a 

bill which would require all Federal facilities to achieve certain standards for energy 

efficiency and environmental impact as dictated by the Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, as developed by the 

U.S. Green Building Council. What is the current DOD policy on incorporation of 

LEED standards into MILCON projects? 

Mr. GRONE. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4170.11, Installation Energy Management, states: ‘‘The DOD components shall strive to obtain the U.S. 

Green Building Council’s LEED level of performance or equivalent. ‘‘ DODI 4170.11 

also requires sustainable development cost to be documented on DD Form 1391, the 

form used for MILCON projects. Additionally, Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, requires 

new construction and major renovation to comply with the Guiding Principles for 

Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings set forth in the 

Federal Leadership and High Performance Buildings Memorandum of Understanding, which established several energy conservation and environmental compliance requirements.

53. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what is the Department’s position on the mandatory compliance with LEED standards? 

Mr. GRONE. Through DODI 4170.11, Installation Energy Management, the Department has established LEED level of performance as the standard for new construction.

54. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what are the costs and benefits associated with 

mandating the standard? 

Mr. GRONE. Empirical evidence shows the cost of complying with LEED level of 

performance varies with facility type and location, but in general adds 1 to 3 percent 

to the overall building cost. In return, we gain the benefit of a proven industrybased standard for reducing energy demand and improving building performance. 

Evidence shows the combined energy and environmental benefits generally cover 

the costs over the life of the facility.

DOD POLICY ON USE OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES

55. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, I am concerned that the massive amount of 

MILCON required over the next 5 years to support current operations, BRAC, Army 

modularity, the Global Base Posture Realignments, and now Grow the Force, will 

not be constructed in time to meet the demand of incoming forces at each affected 

location. As a result, the military departments will turn to the acquisition of temporary facilities and trailers as a last minute solution, and once we ask our military 

personnel to live and work in these trailers, they’ll be forgotten as the Services turn 

to other priorities. What policies and programs can the DOD implement to ensure 

the minimum use of and the quick replacement of temporary facilities with permanent construction? 

Mr. GRONE. The most important practice is to fully identify the need for permanent facilities and program for them as early as possible, which is what was done 

in the Department’s rebasing plans submitted last year. The Department is prepared to execute those plans. When relocatable (or ‘‘temporary’’) facilities are required, permanent facilities are programmed to replace them as soon as feasible. 

For example, in July 2004 the Army approved 91 temporary buildings for an incoming BCT at Fort Drum, NY. Eight MILCON projects have been programmed for 

permanent facilities to replace the temporary buildings. Three of these projects were 

started this fiscal year, three will be awarded in fiscal year 2008, and the remaining 

two are programmed for fiscal year 2011. These projects will include all the necessary facilities for a complete BCT complex, including brigade headquarters, battalion headquarters, company operations facilities, and other buildings.

85

56. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, please provide DOD’s definition of a temporary 

facility. 

Mr. GRONE. ‘‘Temporary Facility’’ is not a defined DOD term. DOD uses the term 

‘‘relocatable’’ to refer to facilities filling a temporary need. Relocatable facilities are 

facilities designed to be readily moved, erected, disassembled, stored, and reused.

57. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, what is the Department of the Army’s current status and plan to eliminate trailers and other modular facilities purchased in 

the last 4 years to support emerging modularity requirements? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army continues to utilize relocatable facilities to accommodate 

modular force transformation. Our strategy is to phase out relocatable facilities and 

replace them with permanent construction. In our fiscal year 2007 base budget, we 

requested funds which Congress supported to begin this effort at several of our installations. For the fiscal year 2008 budget, the Army is requesting funds to construct permanent facilities to continue replacing these relocatable facilities, and requesting funds to accommodate Army growth in permanent facilities rather than 

purchasing relocatable facilities.

58. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, please provide a schedule detailing the 

plan, timing, and costs to replace the temporary facilities in the United States acquired in the past 4 years. 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army will use a phased approach to replace relocatable facilities 

acquired in the past 4 years as quickly as possible within available funding. Later 

this year, we can provide details on the plan, timing, and costs once our analysis 

is complete, but, in essence, we have already begun to construct permanent replacement facilities beginning in fiscal year 2007 and will continue to request funds in 

succeeding budgets.

DOD POLICY ON LOCAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT RELATED TO BRAC 2005

59. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, as the DOD gets into the heart of carrying out 

the decisions of the 2005 BRAC, Congress is seeing an increasing call by local communities for assistance related to housing, roads, and schools to support those bases 

that will experience a significant increase in their military and civilian populations. 

Can you provide a review on how the Department is handling requests by local communities seeking Federal assistance with the construction of roads and schools to 

support incoming personnel? 

Mr. GRONE. Upon request from affected State and/or local government officials, 

the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) will tailor a responsive program of technical and/or financial assistance in light of their specific needs and resources. This 

assistance may include organizational staff, growth management planning, and follow-on specialized studies: for example, planning for public facilities, schools, roads, 

and other community development initiatives. OEA may also coordinate other Federal agency support and participation to assist locally. 

As specific needs for assistance are identified for road and/or school support, the 

involved military department and OEA will work with the cognizant Federal programs, State, local resources, and private sector to develop a responsive program. 

Generally, each location will present a unique situation and a responsive program 

will likely involve Federal, State, local, and sometimes private participation.

60. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, in you opinion, will the availability of local housing, roads, and schools in communities gaining large populations have an impact on 

the DOD’s schedule and implementation of the 2005 BRAC decisions? 

Mr. GRONE. The Department intends to meet the statutory deadline of September 

15, 2011 for BRAC 2005 implementation.

61. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, this committee continues to hear complaints from 

local communities that the Department still cannot provide accurate projections for 

incoming populations and school-age children. This uncertainty seriously impacts 

the ability of local communities to plan for and to address the need for schools, 

roads, and support services. What is the DOD doing to address this problem? 

Mr. GRONE. The Department is working with the Services to refine the timelines 

and schedules of military, DOD civilian, and associated contractor movements to include student projections. The Department, through the OEA and the Economic Adjustment Committee, is working to link the Services with the Department of Education, Military Community and Family Policy (MC&FP), in the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and local community initiatives 

86

so those trying to respond to this growth have adequate information on the nature, 

timing, and scope of military growth. 

In November 2006, DOD, through MC&FP, provided a Report on Assistance to 

Local Educational Agencies for Defense Dependents Education, which contained student growth projections at continental United States (CONUS) installations. An update to this report is due in January 2008. In May 2007, the Department, through 

the Army, provided Congress and the Department of Education with an update on 

CONUS military personnel increase projections (student projections included). It is 

anticipated that as projections change DOD will provide both Congress and communities the most current information.

CONSTRUCTION OF OUTLYING LANDING FIELD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, NC

62. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, the Department of the Navy has a requirement to acquire land and to construct an OLF on the east coast of the United States 

to support aircraft operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, VA, and Marine 

Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, NC. For the past 4 years, the Department 

has studied an area in Washington County, NC, as the preferred location approximately half way between NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point by air. As required 

by the NEPA, an EIS was prepared by the Department to study the impact of a 

new OLF on the local environment and nearby nature preserves in North Carolina. 

This study has been the subject of intense scrutiny and a lawsuit, which eventually 

resulted in a Federal court order to the Department of the Navy to expand its scope 

of the environmental study. 

The Department of the Navy has included in the budget request for fiscal year 

2008 MILCON funds totaling $10 million to be used to acquire land and initiate 

construction activities. This is the fourth year in which the Department has requested funds for this project, and in each of those years, Congress has rescinded 

funds due to the inability of the Department to obligate them in a timely manner. 

What is the current status of the Navy’s SEIS actions? 

Mr. PENN. The Draft SEIS was released for public comment on 23 Feb 07. Public 

hearings have been conducted in each of the six counties in Northeastern North 

Carolina that could be impacted by a final decision on the OLF site. At the request 

of Senator Dole, a seventh public hearing will be held in Charlotte, NC, on 17 April. 

The public comment period is scheduled to end on May 9, 2007. The Navy is collating and cataloguing the public comments which will be included in the Final 

SEIS along with the Navy’s response where appropriate.

63. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, what is the estimated date for a release of 

a record of decision? 

Mr. PENN. The Final SEIS is expected in fall 2007, to be followed by a Record 

of Decision in late 2007.

64. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, what further actions are required by the 

U.S. Government to satisfy the Federal court order and to be able to proceed 

unencumbered with the land acquisition and construction of the OLF? 

Mr. PENN. The Navy must complete and publish the Final SEIS and the Record 

of Decision to satisfy the Federal court order. At Record of Decision the Navy can 

advertise for a construction contract and can begin to acquire the necessary property 

interests at the selected OLF site unless there is further litigation and an injunction 

that prevents us from proceeding.

65. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, in light of the results of the EIS and continued opposition by certain representatives in the local community, has the Department given consideration to a reassessment of the final location of the OLF? If so, 

would this reassessment include reconsideration of the 2003 decision by the Department of the Navy to base eight squadrons of F–18 Superhornets at NAS Oceana and 

another two squadrons at MCAS Cherry Point? 

Mr. PENN. While the Washington County, NC, location remains the Navy’s preferred site among the five OLF alternative sites in Northeastern North Carolina 

considered in the Final EIS and the draft SEIS, the views that have been expressed 

about those alternatives by the citizens of North Carolina and their elected leaders 

deserve our most careful consideration before final decisions are made. If the Navy 

receives new information about additional sites that potentially meet our OLF siting 

requirements, the Navy will consider and evaluate that new information and determine whether adjustments in the current SEIS process are warranted to enable formal analysis and consideration of additional sites under the NEPA. 

87

There is no plan at this time to reconsider the aircraft homebasing decision.

66. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Penn, does NAS Oceana have the capability in 

terms of aircraft parking ramps, hangars, and support facilities to be able to accommodate the basing of all 10 F–18 squadrons? If so, would a revised decision to base 

all 10 squadrons at NAS Oceana expand the range of potential locations for construction of a new OLF to meet the training requirements for carrier pilots? 

Mr. PENN. The two F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet squadrons scheduled to be 

homebased at MCAS Cherry Point could be based at NAS Oceana in currently available facilities (and will be while facilities at MCAS Cherry Point are being upgraded 

to support these two squadrons), but permanent stationing would require additions 

to two hangars to meet recommended Facilities Planning Criteria. 

Siting all 10 F/A–18 E/F Super Hornet squadrons and the Fleet Replacement 

Squadron at NAS Oceana does not expand the range of potential locations for construction of a new OLF based on current OLF siting criteria. The study area radius 

around a homebase is based primarily upon fuel consumption rates for flights to and 

from the OLF, performing field carrier landing practice, and the required safety 

margin.

FUTURE STATUS OF FOB #2, ARLINGTON, VA

67. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, DOD has proposed legislation for consideration 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that would amend 

existing law to delay from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2013, the transfer of certain real property to Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) that is currently under the 

control of the Washington Headquarters Service (WHS). The property, known as 

FOB #2, contains multiple office buildings currently occupied by military tenants 

displaced by the ongoing renovation of the Pentagon. These office buildings are 

scheduled to be torn down prior to transfer of the property to the ANC. The justification accompanying the legislation states that ‘‘the proposed change is necessary 

to take into account more recent projections on ANC out-year requirements as well 

as realignments mandated under the BRAC process.’’ What projections have 

changed in reference to out-year requirements for ANC that supports the delay in 

the transfer of the property? 

Mr. GRONE. The ANC stated they do not require the land prior to 2014 at that 

time they will begin to prepare the land for gravesites for use in 2020 or later. The 

Navy currently has 900 occupants in FOB #2 which must relocate to the Arlington 

Service Center. Our request to defer this transfer until January 1, 2013 is economically prudent since occupants of that building are included in BRAC relocations currently programmed to occur in 2011. Demolition of the facility and site preparation 

will occur in 2012 once it is vacated. The Army will receive the property from WHS 

after the buildings are demolished and the site is cleaned at which time it will be 

made available to ANC for the use of gravesites. Extension of the transfer date prevents needless double moves of Department of the Navy and Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) relocating under BRAC, as well as hundreds of personnel relocated back to 

the Pentagon upon completion of the Pentagon Renovation in late 2011. Loss of FOB 

#2 in 2010 would needlessly cause thousands of employees to be temporarily moved 

at a very high cost.

68. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, which functions and how many personnel currently occupy FOB #2? 

Mr. GRONE. Current population - 3,464.

Population 

Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) to Pentagon (PNT) @ closing of FOB #2 ......................................... 225 

WHS to PNT @ at closing of FOB #2 .................................................................................................................. 26 

MDA BRAC’d to Huntsville, AL and Fort Belvoir .................................................................................................. 838 

Marine Corps to PNT (after renovation)/Arlington Service Center (ASC) (after BRAC) ...................................... 908 

OSD to PNT after renovation ................................................................................................................................ 25 

Navy to ASC after BRAC ...................................................................................................................................... 880 

Functions—Administrative policy/management/manpower for the USN/USMC.

69. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, since the Pentagon’s renovation is on track to be 

completed in December 2010 and BRAC actions are required by law to be completed 

by November 15, 2011, specifically which functions and how many personnel are 

planned to occupy FOB #2 in 2011 and 2012? 

88

Mr. GRONE. FOB currently has a total population of 3,464, broken out by entity 

as follows: PFPA (225); WHS (26); MDA (1,400); Marine Corps (908); Navy (880); 

and the OSD (25). The Department will relocate all entities affected by BRAC by 

the statutory deadline of September 15, 2011. The Department will relocate all 

other entities, upon completion of the Pentagon renovation, currently anticipated to 

occur in October 2011. After the completion of both actions, there will no longer be 

any tenants in FOB #2. Demolition of FOB #2 and site preparation for the cemetery 

will occur once the facility is vacated, and is expected to take approximately 12–

14 months. The departure of tenants in September–October 2011 together with the 

12–14 month demolition and site preparation timeline, generates the requirement 

to retain ownership of the facility until Jan. 1, 2013.

70. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, the DOD justification accompanying the request 

for legislation states that ‘‘in a period of 2 years alone, office space at FOB #2 will 

cost approximately $20 million less than the equivalent office space elsewhere in the 

National Capitol Region.’’ Exactly how was this estimate developed in terms of estimated lease costs and operating costs of the existing buildings? 

Mr. GRONE. The cost to relocate personnel, prepare new space, and procure furniture for a 2-year period is dramatically more expensive than the personnel remaining in FOB #2 until the new space is complete. Total program cost comparison 

is: FOB #2 Option = $113.25 million vs. Leased Space Option = $186.4 million. The 

comparable lease costs were calculated by analyzing over 100 current leases which 

WHS has and applying a projected increase in current lease costs based on antiterrorism/force protection compliance issues (setback, hardening of building, et 

cetera) and historic inflationary increases. In essence, the cost to relocate everyone 

to more expensive space is far more than is currently incurred. Being housed in a 

federally-owned building limits ‘‘rent’’ to the cost of operation and maintenance of 

the building. These costs are significantly lower than the rent and General Services 

Administration fees currently paid. In addition, costs associated with vacating in 

2009 (such as furniture, moving costs, et cetera) are estimated to total over $91.7 

million that when added to the additional rents yield a significant result in unnecessary expense to the Department and the taxpayer.

FAMILY HOUSING FOR U.S. MILITARY FORCES IN KOREA

71. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, the DOD has proposed legislation for consideration in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that 

would amend existing law to increase the amount the Secretary of the Army can 

pay to lease a house for a military family stationed in the Republic of Korea. Currently, the Secretary has the authority to lease up to 5,200 housing units in Korea. 

For those units, the Secretary has the authority to pay up to $34,481 annually for 

each unit or approximately $2,873 per month. The proposed legislation would permit the Secretary to pay up to $51,824 per year per house, or $4,319 per month per 

house for 2,800 of those units. The Congressional Budget Office recently determined 

that this provision, if adopted, would have a budget impact equal to $530 million 

in potential additional expenses. Congress previously gave the authority to the Secretary of the Army to be able to enter into lease agreements for a 15-year time period with the intent that the longer period would provide an opportunity to seek a 

lower annual lease cost. We would also anticipate that the Secretary would be able 

to negotiate a lower lease cost per house if soliciting for a large block of housing 

to be constructed on land already owned by the Federal Government, which is the 

plan for new housing in Korea. This committee is also aware that a favorable contracting climate in Korea has resulted in the MILCON projects we have authorized 

for Korea over the past 3 years being awarded at approximately 60 percent of their 

planned amount, meaning construction costs are relatively cheap right now in 

Korea. With all these factors affecting the potential cost of a lease, why does the 

Department estimate they will need to spend up to $4,319 per month per house, 

which exceeds most monthly mortgage costs for a decent house even in this area, 

one of the most expensive in the country? 

Mr. EASTIN. Actually, the leasing authority in Korea at the $34,481 annual level 

you mentioned pertains to the 1,175 units authorized at the $25,000 lease cap, the 

substantive majority of which are currently encumbered. The proposed legislation 

is solely for the 2,800 units authorized and intended by Congress to provide the 

leased housing required to honor the various agreements between the United States 

and the Republic of Korea. The leased housing will not reside on land owned by the 

United States Federal Government, and every effort will be made to ensure the lowest leasing costs under competitive sourcing. 

89

While it is true that there has been a favorable bidding climate in Korea in the 

past for construction projects funded by Congress, some of this can be attributed to 

the differences between the official exchange rate and the market rate of exchange 

in the time interval between the budget request and award. The planned housing 

is similar to three to five bedroom condominium units that include underground 

parking and similar other amenities typically found in condominium common areas. 

The $4,319 per month per house figure you cite is the maximum possible for the 

2,800 units authorized and includes the base rent, operations, utilities, maintenance, taxes, insurance, and management costs. Moreover, Army leases in Korea are 

paid in Korea Won, so the dollar cost of these leases rises with dollar depreciation. 

A weaker dollar translates into higher adjustments in the annual lease cap, which 

is determined by a formula under existing statute.

72. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, in you opinion, is $4,319 per month per 

house an acceptable amount to pay in a build-to-lease (BTL) transaction? 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, the figure is acceptable for two reasons. First, there has been 

significant and sustained depreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Korean Won 

since the original authority for the $35,000 lease cap was enacted in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The depreciation of the dollar since 

fiscal year 2002 has resulted in a reduction of 20 percent in purchasing power. Second, the dollar figure incorporates all the costs associated with newly constructed 

housing for Army families including all utilities, operations, maintenance, and repair of the facilities over the lease term. I want to stress that this is the maximum 

authorization for this housing, and the Army intends to remain under this ceiling. 

The final project costs will be determined by a number of factors, including the business conditions of the local Korean real estate market, private financing available, 

the currency exchange rate, and the cost of labor and materials.

73. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, can you briefly summarize where the Department of the Army has entered into similar BTL arrangements around the world 

and the costs to the Department of the Army for these leases? 

Mr. EASTIN. The Army has successfully completed several BTL projects in Germany and is finalizing negotiations for a project in Italy. However, there are differences between all of the BTL projects that affect the cost structure of the leases. 

These cost structures are influenced by local market conditions and the manner in 

which the Status of Forces Agreements in the various theaters are governed. For 

example, besides differences in exchange rates, labor, and materials costs, the Germany BTL projects are in rural locations that are not expected to see increases in 

population comparable to Camp Humphreys, and the lease is between the owner 

and the German government with a real property obligation document held between 

Germany and the United States. The distinct differences between legal and economic conditions worldwide have demanded unique approaches to leasing in overseas theaters. The annual costs for the active BTL project at Grafenwoehr, Germany, are currently about $21,000 per unit per year.

74. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Eastin, has this government estimate been validated by any actual contracting action which would allow the market to competitively bid on the lease cost? If not, why not? 

Mr. EASTIN. Yes, construction cost estimates based on recently constructed Army 

family housing, as well as market and economic analyses, constitute the basis for 

the requested lease authorization for our BTL Army family housing program. We 

have not competed under current authorities because our estimates indicate this 

program would not be financially viable. Further, our timeline to meet our treaty 

obligations is a solicitation during fiscal year 2008 with the first units available for 

occupancy in fiscal year 2010.

JOINT BASING

75. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, the 2005 BRAC Commission approved a recommendation by the DOD to establish 12 joint bases. This decision will result in 

the consolidation of installation management activities at multiple military bases of 

close proximity to each other in the United States. In his written statement for this 

hearing, Secretary Anderson noted that ‘‘The Air Force believes that for the welfare 

of the warfighter and their families that joint basing must be a raging success.’’ Yet, 

this committee has received testimony today that the Air Force is concerned about 

the potentially detrimental impact of implementing the joint basing decision. Can 

90

you describe the intent and goals of the DOD in implementing the BRAC decision 

related to joint basing? 

Mr. GRONE. The goal is to ensure that the Department fully implements the 

BRAC 2005 Joint Basing recommendations in a way that expeditiously achieves the 

optimal level of long-term savings, while preserving or enhancing the Department’s 

warfighting capabilities. Currently, the Department is developing guidance to establish a comprehensive framework for joint basing implementation to capture and continue the most practical savings for DOD through the consolidation of installation 

support functions while meeting mission requirements.

76. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, can you comment exactly what concerns 

the Air Force has with the intent, goals, and implementation of the decision? 

Mr. ANDERSON. The Air Force is committed to making BRAC and joint basing a 

raging success. However, several joint basing policy elements currently under development by OSD run counter to the spirit, efficiencies, and costs savings intended 

under the joint basing construct. The Air Force believes total obligation authority 

and real property transfer would serve as a disincentive to cost savings, efficiency, 

and effective execution of customer expectations. Installation customers, specifically 

operational commanders, should define the requirements necessary to execute the 

mission and manage the funds to meet their needs, regardless of the activity that 

executes those requirements. The Air Force believes that joint basing provides a 

unique opportunity to actually improve the quality of life for every soldier, sailor, 

airman, and marine, including their families, by establishing the highest standards 

at each joint base. 

The Air Force is very concerned that as we move into the joint basing construct, 

that quality of life and support to the warfighter are paramount in this process and 

that neither is degraded as a result of joint basing. In our approach to reach common standards for these joint bases, we cannot move to some mediocre level of quality or service, but we must strive to either maintain existing high levels or improve 

low levels to a common performance level that supports everyone on a joint base, 

every soldier, sailor, airman, marine, civil servant, and most importantly, their families. 

The Air Force will continue to work with the OSD and our sister Services to establish policy and guidance to the field that supports these goals. We look forward 

to pressing on with these endeavors and developing the anticipated efficiencies and 

reduction in duplication that these consolidations will produce, however, we need to 

establish the common standards first, or this will fail.

77. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, is your statement that joint basing 

‘‘must be a raging success’’ ultimately determined by the impact to the Air Force, 

or to the entire DOD? 

Mr. ANDERSON. The Air Force is fully committed to making joint basing a raging 

success in providing quality installation support as efficiently as possible. The Air 

Force has been working diligently with the OSD as well as our sister Services in 

developing policy to implement joint basing that will benefit all the installations involved, not just the Air Force. Joint basing is an opportunity to drive the highest 

standards that will impact the Air Force and all our sister Services . . . every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine as well as their families. To ensure joint basing is 

a raging success, we must guard against accepting standards that are least common 

denominator or an average and we must allow the natural tension between customers and suppliers to exist by keeping the buying power and ownership with 

those acquiring and needing the services, our commanders. 

The success of joint basing will be ultimately judged based on whether we take 

this opportunity to improve the quality of life of every individual who puts on the 

uniform and their families. At the same time, this effort will be evaluated based on 

whether operational commanders retain the ability to impact all inputs necessary 

to execute their assigned mission.

78. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, can you respond to this committee what the DOD 

is doing to address the concerns of the Air Force related to this matter? 

Mr. GRONE. The OSD has been working closely with all the military Services to 

ensure their concerns are addressed in the development of implementation guidance.

91

CLOSURE OF WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

79. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, in light of the recent concerns about the quality 

of care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC, this committee 

has been reviewing the business plan to close Walter Reed as required by the 2005 

BRAC round and to establish a joint National Medical Center at the current Naval 

Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, and to construct a new community hospital at 

Fort Belvoir, VA. I have substantial concerns that the costs to establish fully integrated and state-of-the-art facilities for the new hospital complexes are not fully 

funded within the amounts included in the BRAC budget request for fiscal year 

2008 and subsequent years. Can you confirm whether the Department of the Navy 

and/or Army has identified additional requirements at Bethesda or Fort Belvoir 

needed to provide a state-of-the-art facility to include renovations to existing hospital facilities for realigned support functions from Walter Reed? If so, can you briefly describe the scope of these requirements and the estimated cost of each project 

to satisfy the requirements? 

Mr. GRONE. The Department is in the process of assessing the requirements and 

costs necessary to accelerate the establishment of the National Military Medical 

Center at Bethesda and the community hospital at Fort Belvoir. The types of 

projects and a range of associated costs will be provided to Congress after the internal review is completed.

80. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, what is the Department’s plan to accomplish this 

work? 

Mr. GRONE. As previously noted, the Department is in the process of assessing 

the requirements and costs necessary to accelerate the establishment of the National Center at Bethesda and the community hospital at Ft. Belvoir. The Corps of 

Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command have begun to work on 

the detailed planning and contracting activities necessary to execute the construction projects associated with these efforts. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs and the Departments of the Army and Navy are working closely to 

ensure the projects adhere to the accelerated schedule and all necessary funds are 

available.

81. Senator ENSIGN. Mr. Grone, will the work be accomplished prior to the final 

realignment of activities from Walter Reed? 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, the work will be accomplished prior to the final realignment of 

activities from Walter Reed.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND AT CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, NM

82. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, in May 2005 after 2 years of thorough 

analysis and review, the Secretary of Defense forwarded his recommendations for 

base closures and realignments to the 2005 BRAC Commission. One of those recommendations was to close Cannon AFB, NM, which would have saved the Air 

Force over $206 million annually and over $2.6 billion over the next 20 years. The 

Commission responded by agreeing to close Cannon by 2009 if the Secretary of Defense could not find ‘‘other newly-identified’’ missions to replace the F–16s currently 

operating out of Cannon AFB. The Secretary of Defense announced in 2006 that Air 

Force Special Operations (AFSOC) units would be relocated to Cannon AFB. The 

Air Force did not conduct a formal analysis of alternatives of other potential receiving installations, as is done with all other Air Force weapon system beddowns. The 

Air Force is currently preparing an EIS to study the environmental impact of basing 

various aircraft and missions associated with the AFSOC mission at Cannon and 

on the Melrose training range. This study does not consider alternative locations for 

AFSOC missions, as most EISs do, but only addresses Cannon AFB. If the record 

of decision for the EIS concludes that the introduction of AFSOC aircraft operations 

at Cannon AFB will result in unacceptable impacts to the environment, what is the 

Air Force’s plan for Cannon AFB? 

Mr. ANDERSON. The Air Force is currently preparing an EIS on moving an AFSOC 

mission to Cannon AFB, which should be completed in the fall of 2007. If the EIS 

process finds impacts to the environment that cannot be overcome, the Air Force 

would be compelled under BRAC law to either identify another mission for Cannon, 

or close the base. 

With that being said, and for clarification on the genesis of this mission search, 

I offer the following background information in support of the potential AFSOC mission relocation to Cannon AFB. 

92

AFSOC has desired for some time to base assigned forces in the western United 

States. In support of that effort the command has evaluated several bases, finally 

focusing on both Davis-Monthan AFB and Cannon AFB. Site surveys have been conducted at each. 

AFSOC’s search for another base began back in the mid-1990s with a plan called 

Commando Vision. This plan looked at several locations in the western United 

States. Unfortunately, the plan could not get enough support to implement. Since 

Commando Vision was originally conceived, AFSOC has added 4 AC–130, 9 U–28 

(light administrative airlift), medium unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), 12 MC–

130W, and CV–22s to their inventory, and they are continuing to grow. 

The relevance of special operations in the war on terror is demonstrated in the 

approximately 30 percent growth in the Special Operation Forces (SOF) ground 

components and the addition of a U.S. Marine component to SOCOM. Steps are 

being taken to ensure SOF airlift capability grows commensurate with the other 

SOF components in order to guarantee the level of support they need to conduct operations. A key factor is that any additional aircraft and personnel will need a home 

and place to train. 

Also being considered by AFSOC is the implications of the Secretary of Defense’s 

global defense posture that could bring OCONUS special operation groups based at 

Kadena AB, Japan, and RAF Mildenhall, U.K., back to the United States, which will 

drive beddown/training requirements. 

AFSOC’s challenge can be summed up by considering range, ramp, and weather 

conditions at their current location at Hurlburt Field, FL. 

AFSOC’s primary range is the Eglin range. This range is saturated and cannot 

support additional training requirements. 

The Hurlburt ramp is also quickly reaching maximum capacity. By fiscal year 

2008, the ramp will be full. Another limiting factor is Hurlburt Field is located in 

the middle of hurricane alley. There is no alternate location to train or operate 

should Hurlburt be devastated by a hurricane. 

As mentioned, AFSOC conducted site surveys at both Davis-Monthan AFB, and 

Cannon AFB. Using Hurlburt Field as a base line, each location was evaluated on 

its ability to support the addition of an AFSOC mission, based on the areas highlighted below. Hurlburt is the benchmark as it has been a SOF base since AFSOC’s 

inception. 

OPSEC 

Ability of base to support low visibility operations with joint/other customers. SOF 

prefer to train as far away as possible from the general populous to avoid curiosity 

seekers wanting to see what is going on when different looking individuals, aircraft, 

or vehicles are operating nearby. Hurlburt was rated moderately desirable due to 

its location in a relatively remote area of the Florida gulf coast, within close proximity to Highway 98. Davis-Monthan was rated least desirable due to its location 

within the Tucson city limits and near a major interstate. Cannon was rated most 

desirable due to its location 8 miles from the nearest built up area and its ability 

to support low visibility operations. 

Weather 

Number of Visual Flight Rule (VFR) flying days. Hurlburt was rated moderately 

desirable. Both Davis-Monthan and Cannon were rated most desirable. Although all 

three bases have over 300 good days of VFR flying weather (Hurlburt = 307, Cannon and Davis-Monthan both over 325 days), the southeastern United States is 

plagued by daily thunderstorms particularly in the spring/summer. This affects the 

Hurlburt local flying area and along the low-level training routes in Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee. 

Encroachment 

Proximity of civilian population and possible limitations on day and night operations. Population density near a base limits its ability to expand as new capabilities or facilities are added to an installation. Persons located under the runway 

flight path or aircraft traffic pattern are the first to express their displeasure of aircraft operating over their property. This is of course compounded when aircraft are 

operating late at night when people are normally trying to sleep. Having a base located away from population minimizes the potential noise complaints and allows 

room to expand the base if needed. Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated least 

desirable due to proximity of civilian populace and quiet hour restrictions. DavisMonthan AFB observes ACC ‘‘Quiet Hours’’ from 2230 to 0600 local time. Cannon 

was rated most desirable due to its remote location and least restrictive flying limitations (no quiet hours imposed). 

93

Training/Mission Essential Task List 

Ability to accomplish SOF-unique training requirements. Hurlburt was rated 

moderately desirable due to the competition for range time on the Eglin range complex. Davis-Monthan was rated moderately desirable because AFSOC forces would 

have to compete for range priority due to the number of customers using the Barry 

M. Goldwater Range (BMGR). Cannon was rated most desirable because AFSOC 

forces would be replacing the 27th Fighter Wing as the primary user and would control usage of Melrose range. Melrose/BMGR and the terrain features in the States 

of New Mexico/Arizona provide more efficient training opportunities than those 

found in the Florida panhandle. Training sorties are more efficient because of the 

short distance to training ranges. Although approximately 95 percent of the mission 

training events that are required to keep SOF combat ready can be accomplished 

in very close proximity to both Cannon and Davis-Monthan, the Cannon/Melrose 

combination is highly desirable because ability to own a range and to be able to lure 

other SOF components to New Mexico and train with Cannon-based units (for hours 

at a time) vice Cannon-based units burning up scarce flying hours to go to someone 

else’s base and conduct training on someone else’s limited range time. 

Community Support 

During site visits, the AFSOC team was received favorably by all communities. 

No differentiation was made between the bases. 

Flexibility 

Ability of AFSOC to control operations on the base and local ranges. Ownership/

control of airspace and range operating hours were major factors. Hurlburt and 

Davis-Monthan were rated moderately desirable due to competing with other users 

for the same airspace/ranges under AETC/ACC/AFMC control. Cannon was rated 

most desirable because AFSOC would own/control the base and Melrose range. 

Melrose is 70 percent utilized and BMGR is 85–90 percent utilized. Approximately 

95 percent of the Melrose Range availability is utilized by Cannon aircraft. Once 

the 27th Fighter Wing leaves Cannon, AFSOC at Cannon would become the primary 

user and control all operations on the range. This opportunity is highly desirable 

because controlling the range schedule would mean that the range would operate 

around SOF training requirements. This would not be the case in the BMGR. Luke 

AFB range office believes that adding over 100 AFSOC aircraft to Arizona would 

completely saturate the complex. This would put the AFSOC west base in the same 

position that the Hurlburt wing faces today with Eglin Range saturation. Additionally, BMGR has only three impact areas that can support live munitions expended 

by over 18 military squadrons in Arizona. When given a choice, sharing range priority at BMGR with Yurna, Luke, and other Davis-Monthan aircraft is not ideal. 

Growth Potential 

Availability of land within or adjacent to the base or range to expand the existing 

base or range complex. Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated least desirable because the bases are surrounded by geographic features or civilian developments. 

Cannon was rated most desirable due to 400+ undeveloped acres on base and adjacent property on three sides of the base to support other growth. Additionally, Melrose range could be expanded to support SOF-unique requirements to include projected use by joint Special Forces. 

Terrain 

Proximity of mountainous terrain to support training. Hurlburt was rated moderately desirable due to the distance to/from mountainous terrain. Davis-Monthan 

and Cannon were rated most desirable due to the close proximity of mountainous 

terrain. 

Facilities 

Availability of facilities to support projected force structure. The force list used to 

evaluate Davis-Monthan and Cannon were based on a smaller force projection because Global SOF Posture hadn’t been approved as of winter/spring 2006. The final 

Cannon site survey included a more robust force projection (included AFSOC 

OCONUS forces). Hurlburt and Davis-Monthan were rated least desirable due to 

the lack of available facilities and the requirement to build all new facilities. Cannon was rated most desirable due the facilities freed up by the 27 FW departure. 

MILCON 

The QDR move will create a duplicate wing mirroring what is currently at 

Hurlburt. For this reason, the MILCON projection to build a similar wing was based 

on the cost to duplicate the Hurlburt wing’s Plant Replacement Value (PRV) and 

94

then adjusted for available facilities and local construction costs. Hurlburt’s PRV is 

∼$1.1 billion. Adjusting for increased construction costs in Tucson, the cost to build 

a similar wing at Davis-Monthan is ∼$1.4 billion. At Cannon, the cost is ∼$886 million due to available facilities when the 27 FW departs. 

In support of the language in the Defense BRAC Report to the President, which 

stated ‘‘seek newly-identified missions . . . for possible assignment to Cannon AFB,’’ 

the Air Force used an eight-step process to determine the future use of Cannon 

AFB. During this search process, there were six inquiries of interest that were reviewed. AFSOC was the only permanent re-use proposal for Cannon AFB received. 

The AFSOC requirement was evaluated by Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary 

of Defense and Cannon AFB was selected to host the AFSOC mission. 

In summary, the selection of Cannon was the primary focus of the mission search 

due to the language in the Defense BRAC Report to the President, but it was not 

the only base reviewed by AFSOC for use as a west base.

83. Senator ENSIGN. Secretary Anderson, the Air Force has announced that the 

AFSOC mission will be established at Cannon AFB starting October 1, 2007, and 

will include the relocation of UAV operations from Nevada. What regulations and 

policies must be followed in order to operate an UAV in U.S. airspace and is the 

Air Force in compliance with all laws, policies, and procedures regarding the operation of UAVs at Cannon? 

Mr. ANDERSON. To the maximum extent practical, the DOD conducts UAV operations or more commonly referred to as unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations 

in restricted areas or warning areas. For those operations that cannot be contained 

wholly within restricted areas or warning areas, UAS operations are conducted in 

accordance with procedures outlined in FAAO 7610.4, paragraph 12–9–3. 

In general, specific authorization to conduct unmanned aircraft operations in the 

national airspace system outside of active restricted, prohibited, or warning area 

airspace must be requested by the proponent. The two methods of approval are either a certificate of authorization (COA) or the issuance of a special airworthiness 

certificate. As a public applicant, DOD utilizes the COA process while civil applicants must utilize the special airworthiness process. Although DOD is allowed to 

self certify under title 10, U.S.C., under the authority of title 49, U.S.C, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may inspect, at any time, any 

operator issued a COA or special airworthiness certificate for compliance with any 

provision or limitation specified by this guidance document. 

Unless specifically authorized, UAS operations in non-segregated airspace other 

than Class A airspace would require visual observers, either airborne or groundbased. While considerable work is ongoing to develop a certifiable ‘‘detect, sense, and 

avoid’’ system, no acceptable solution exists. As a result, compliance with the ‘‘see 

and avoid’’ aspect of 14 Code of Federal Regulation 91.113, Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, becomes one of the primary issues in UAS operational approvals. Alternate methods of compliance are required to accomplish the ‘‘see and 

avoid’’ function. An applicant may propose any reasonable type of mitigation or system, however, the FAA will approve only those UAS flight activities that can demonstrate that the proposed operations can be conducted at an acceptable level of 

safety. 

By summer of 2008, AFSOC plans to conduct MQ–1 Predator and MQ–9 Reaper 

operations utilizing new airframes from the production line at Cannon AFB and utilize Melrose Range and White Sands Missile Range for this training. Because the 

aircraft will be based out of Cannon AFB, a COA for Class D operations will be required and COAs will be required to allow the aircraft to transit to/from the ranges. 

AFSOC is actively working prerequisites for the COAs to include coordinating 

with local airspace representatives and base officials to ensure that they have captured all the requirements and have solid operating procedures and guidance in 

place. Chase aircraft are planned as a mitigation strategy and AFSOC recently held 

a meeting to explore using Civil Air Patrol to provide chase aircraft.

[Whereupon, at 5:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 

(95)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2008

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2007 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

READINESS OF UNITED STATES GROUND FORCES 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m. in room 

SR–232A, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K. Akaka 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee member present: Senator Akaka. 

Majority staff members present: Michael J. McCord, professional 

staff member; and William K. Sutey, professional staff member. 

Minority staff members present: Derek J. Maurer, minority counsel; and Lucian L. Niemeyer, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Micah H. Harris and Benjamin L. 

Rubin. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Darcie Tokioka, assistant to Senator Akaka; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; M. 

Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator Pryor; Todd Stiefler, assistant 

to Senator Sessions; and D’Arcy Grisier, assistant to Senator Ensign. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

CHAIRMAN 

Senator AKAKA. The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support will come to order. 

Good afternoon to our witnesses, and welcome to what I believe 

may be one of the most interesting and useful hearings we will 

have on the current readiness of our ground forces. 

My welcome today will be brief, because I want to make the most 

of our time today to ensure that our witnesses can fully share with 

us their observations, insights, and opinions, as well as to give our 

members plenty of time to ask questions. 

I also want to welcome the spouses and members of families that 

we have here today. 

Our committee, and, indeed, the entire Congress, shares the concern that our ground forces are under tremendous stress and may 

be on the threshold of breaking. We have watched with apprehenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
96

sion as the scope and pace of combat operations over the last 5 

years in Iraq and Afghanistan have degraded the readiness of our 

Army and Marine Corps. All of our military readiness systems are 

challenged. At the moment, recruiting and retention in general are 

stable, but not assured. Troops and their families are enduring 

multiple and longer separations, but not without risk. Equipment 

is not available to meet all unit requirements, and it is wearing out 

faster than it can be repaired or replaced. Training is compromised 

by equipment shortages and compressed time limits to meet accelerated deployment schedules. 

This afternoon, we welcome Colonel Michael Beech, U.S. Army, 

Commander of the 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, at Fort 

Hood, TX; Colonel Lewis Craparotta, U.S. Marine Corps, Commander of the 1st Marines at Camp Pendleton, CA; and Colonel 

Timothy Orr, Commander, 2nd Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, 

Iowa, Army National Guard. 

In my preparation for today’s hearing, I enjoyed learning about 

the inspiring accomplishments of your units. It is abundantly clear 

that your soldiers and marines are proud of what they do, and are 

eager to write another glorious chapter in your distinguished histories. When you return to your units, in addition to explaining 

that testifying before the United States Senate is really not too 

painful, please pass to your soldiers and marines, and especially 

their families, how deeply we appreciate their service, professionalism, and their sacrifice. 

As commanders, today’s witnesses are responsible for everything 

that their units do, or fail to do. These officers are entrusted with 

the planning, organization, management, and evaluation of their 

units’ preparation for war, and, when called upon by the Nation, 

they must lead their soldiers and marines in combat. This is an 

awesome responsibility for which we have the utmost respect and 

gratitude. We appreciate your willingness to help us better understand the challenges of executing that responsibility, and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

I want to say that our ranking member, Senator Ensign, is not 

here today, but I know he’s here in spirit. He is presently on the 

floor, participating in a bill that’s being considered. So, as a result, 

not knowing that was going to happen, he has to be there, instead 

of here, and we’ll continue without him. Of course, we’ll miss him, 

as he has a deep interest in what this committee is doing. 

I’d like each of you to take a moment to very briefly introduce 

your units and what they are doing currently and when you expect 

to deploy next, if that’s on the schedule. I would ask you that, if 

you have any family members here, will you please introduce them 

before you give your testimony. 

So, with that, let me call on Colonel Beech, and ask for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF COL MICHAEL F. BEECH, USA, COMMANDER, 

4TH BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM, 4TH INFANTRY DIVISION, 

FORT HOOD, TX 

Colonel BEECH. Thank you, sir. 

97

Chairman Akaka, distinguished members of the committee, it is 

my pleasure to appear before you today and give my testimony on 

the readiness of my brigade. 

I entered the Army in 1984, and participated in Operation Just 

Cause, Operation Joint Endeavor, and, most recently, Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I currently command the 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and have commanded it since its activation in December 2004. I also commanded the brigade for a 1-year tour in 

Iraq that just recently ended, this past December. 

While in Iraq, my brigade conducted security operations in the 

Rashid district of Baghdad. We were also responsible for securing 

the international zone, and my brigade was responsible for training 

and operating with both Iraqi Army and national police units. 

My brigade, the 4th Brigade, is a life-cycle manned unit under 

the Army unit manning system. We are nearing the end of our life 

cycle, and will change out a significant portion of our leadership by 

the end of June. We currently anticipate the brigade will redeploy 

to Iraq sometime within the next year. Our brigade is a fully 

digitized, modernized, and we are a modularized heavy-brigade 

combat team with all the latest of Army equipment. We are currently equipped with M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks, M2A3 infantry 

fighting vehicles, and M109A6 Paladin howitzers. 

For the past 3 months, my brigade has been focused on reset and 

reconstitution, as we have left the majority of our combat equipment in Iraq. We expect to be fully resourced again with the majority of our combat systems, come mid-May. These, along with thousands of other pieces of equipment that we are currently being 

fielded and issued will be sufficient to conduct our training as we 

prepare and conduct our training prior to our redeployment to Iraq. 

However, until deployed, we will continue to have shortfalls in 

some pieces of equipment which could limit our capability if called 

upon to perform other strategic contingencies. If called upon to do 

so, my brigade would require some equipment augmentation or 

theater-provided equipment. 

We have also been conducting sustainment training on our critical individual tasks as we begin again our training cycle in preparation for deployment. This train-up will include crew qualification, 

counterimprovised explosive device training, and countersniper 

training. It will include collective training to prepare our combat 

platoons and our combat companies. Our training will culminate 

with a mission rehearsal exercise at the Joint Readiness Training 

Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, LA. That exercise is currently scheduled for this September. On completion of this exercise, I know our 

brigade will be fully prepared to redeploy to Iraq and conduct security and counterinsurgency operations. 

Although we have optimized our training cycle to suit specific 

counterinsurgency operations, I believe our training strategy is sufficiently broad to support a variety of other contingencies. However, 

if deployed in support of other emerging contingencies, I would be 

concerned with the atrophy of some specific tactical skills unique 

to the higher-intensity conflicts. My brigade is currently fully 

manned, near our full authorization of over 3,700 soldiers. I am 

projected to maintain this current level of manning. However, we 

98

are also going through a significant period of turbulence associated 

with the end of our life cycle, which is in June. 

My most significant personnel challenge is with my new junior 

officers who are to lead my platoons during the ongoing crew qualification and the upcoming platoon training, in June. We are projected to have these leader shortfalls filled prior to our mission rehearsal exercise in September. 

Our soldiers continue to amaze me in their dedication and patriotism that we face in this long and difficult war. Many of my soldiers are preparing for their second or third year-long tour in Iraq. 

In spite of this, our brigade met all our recent retention goals. We 

met our first-quarter goal, our second-quarter goal, and we are on 

target to meet our third-quarter retention goal in all categories. 

Recent targeted incentives offered to the population specifically 

in the mid-careerist and the captain level, where we’re experiencing our biggest challenges on retention, are particularly worthwhile investment to the long-term quality of our Army. The 

strength of our Army has always been in our sergeants and in our 

junior officers. 

In conclusion, I’d like to thank this committee for your time and 

interest in the training and welfare of our fine young men and 

women who sacrifice so much for our freedoms. I look forward to 

answering your questions on the combat readiness of the 4th Brigade. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Colonel Beech. 

Colonel Craparotta? 

STATEMENT OF COL. LEWIS A. CRAPAROTTA, USMC, 

COMMANDER, 1ST MARINE REGIMENT, CAMP PENDLETON, CA 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for the opportunity to speak today. 

I currently command the 1st Marines at Camp Pendleton, and I 

took command in June 2006. During the 10 months that I’ve been 

in command, I’ve had the opportunity to oversee and supervise the 

training of four subordinate infantry battalions, and three of those 

battalions are currently deployed; the fourth will deploy this summer; and the regimental headquarters will deploy in December of 

this year. 

During this period, my headquarters and the subordinate battalions have been able to train and to maintain the capability to execute our required mission-essential tasks. 

Our number-one priority is to ensure that our marines are 

trained and ready for deployment. Our current schedule, and the 

pace of operations, dictates that we primarily focus our training for 

operations in Iraq. 

Now, the deployment schedule requires us to closely manage our 

training time while ensuring that personnel and equipment are in 

place and available during that same period. So, the real task is 

effectively managing personnel and equipment resources in a timeconstrained environment. 

In my regiment, we’ve maintained the ability to provide the necessary resources to meet the training requirements. I think that 

our past readiness reporting indicates that fact. I believe that the 

current readiness reporting system has allowed us to accurately reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
99

flect readiness, based both from a numbers and percentages perspective, as well as from an analysis by the commanders. 

Our greatest challenge is, and will remain, available training 

time, and, because that time is limited, our training will continue 

to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. 

This has, and will continue to limit our ability to train for other 

operations. For example, we do not have time to send units to jungle or mountain warfare training. We have not conducted largescale amphibious training, and we have not conducted large-scale, 

high-intensity, combined-arms exercises. 

The second challenge is manpower. Again, to ensure we have the 

personnel in place at the right time to allow us to maximize our 

training window. Current policies have allowed battalions to reach 

required staffing between 150 and 120 days prior to deployment. 

This allows them to execute the necessary training, and then to deploy. I suspect that these policies will remain in place and effective 

in the future. 

My third challenge is equipment availability. Currently, we have 

enough equipment to train at home station, but they’re somewhat 

limited, in that each battalion does not have its own complete set. 

Therefore, I’m forced to transfer equipment between units to support training. But, again, we have been able to support all the necessary requirements, and I expect that will continue. In fact, we 

have a plan to ensure that that continues. 

Additionally, ongoing efforts in maintenance, recapitalization, redistribution within the division will improve equipment availability, as will new fieldings and other efforts to replace some of 

our aging and worn out equipment. 

I will close by saying that we’re meeting our current requirements. Units that are deploying are trained, manned, and equipped 

for the mission. In some cases, our nondeploying units are paying 

a tax in manpower and equipment while we prepare these other 

units to deploy, but this allows us to meet current requirements 

and focus on marines preparing for combat. 

I believe, as our end strength increases and our deployment cycle 

improves beyond the current one-to-one dwell, we’ll begin to gain 

additional flexibility in our scheduling, and we’ll have more opportunity to train for missions other than Iraq. 

Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Colonel Craparotta. 

Colonel Orr? 

STATEMENT OF COL TIMOTHY E. ORR, USARNG, COMMANDER, 

2ND BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM, 34TH INFANTRY DIVISION, 

IOWA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

Colonel ORR. Good afternoon, Chairman Akaka and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the 3,800 soldiers of 

the 2nd Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, Iowa National Guard, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to address you today and address the readiness of the 2nd Brigade. 

I’m currently the commander, and have been for the last 3 years, 

of the brigade. I’m what we call an Active Guard/Reserve officer, 

dual status, also serving as a commander. I’m also the Director of 

100

Operations, Training, and Mobilization for the Iowa National 

Guard. 

Since 2001, the 2nd Brigade has provided the Nation with soldiers and units to fit the mission required. Unlike other infantry 

teams in the Army, the 2nd Brigade has not deployed as an entire 

combat organization. Instead, the brigade deployed individual battalions, companies, and select individuals of command and staff 

leaders based on theater requirements. The total number of the 

2nd Brigade soldiers that have mobilized is 4,200 soldiers. Over 

1,000 of those soldiers have volunteered to mobilize more than 

once, with the brigade and with other units within the State of 

Iowa. Currently, the brigade has 765 soldiers deployed with the 1st 

Brigade, 34th Infantry Division, in Iraq. These troops mobilized in 

September 2005. They spent 6 months at the main operating base 

(MOB) station at Fort Shelby, Mississippi, completed 1 year bootson-the-ground, and have been extended for up to 125 days. By the 

time these soldiers complete their end-of-tour leave, they will have 

completed 24 months of continuous Active Duty. 

In addition to this mobilization, we have 48 soldiers and leaders 

mobilizing for the Afghanistan National Army Embedded Training 

Team mission, two battalions for the Kosovo campaign, and two 

companies for Iraq. Within the next 3 months, the 2nd Brigade will 

mobilize over 845 soldiers, and we will demobilize 765 soldiers. As 

part of our homeland security mission, the 2nd Brigade supported 

the Midwest snowstorm this past February, with over 200 additional soldiers on State Active Duty. 

Despite all these missions and the increased operational tempo 

(OPTEMPO), the 2nd Brigade has been able to exceed its enlistment, accessions, and retention goals for the last 3 years. Much of 

this success has been credited to the variety of State and Federal 

recruiting, retention, and educational incentives that have been offered to our soldiers. However, this success has not been without 

its challenges. The increased OPTEMPO and the need to cross-level 

personnel and equipment from nondeploying units to increased 

readiness of deploying units over the last 5 years has resulted in 

a decline of readiness in the brigade. 

We continue to reset units from deployment, conduct 

premobilization training, provide equipment sets for postmobilization training, and unit deployment equipment packages, while simultaneously maintaining a capability in the State to react to 

homeland missions. Our ability as a brigade to perform these missions continues to be degraded by continued equipment shortages, 

substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment between the 

State and Nation to support our deploying units. These practices 

hinder our ability of my units to conduct premobilization training 

to standard and add time at the mobilization station before deployment. It can also slow our ability to respond to disasters and terrorist incidents within the State and the region. 

One of the greatest assets of the 2nd Brigade is our extremely 

dedicated full-time workers. That small team of Active, Guard, Reserve, and military technicians back in our communities look after 

our soldiers and their families on a day-to-day basis. The lack of 

full-time manning continues to be a critical issue for the brigade, 

and with all of our units, which has an adverse effect upon our reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
101

tention and the quality of life for our soldiers and their families. 

The 2nd Brigade’s current full-time manning is at 59 percent of the 

Army-validated requirement. 

Finally, the current policy on the reintegration of our soldiers 

and their families back from deployment into the Reserve status 

hampers our ability to properly identify and meet our soldiers’ and 

their families’ postdeployment needs in a timely manner. 

Mr. Chairman, the 2nd Brigade continues to answer the call of 

duty. Given the proper amount of resources, training, and deployment predictability, we will be able to continue our support for our 

State and our Federal missions while minimizing the impacts on 

our soldiers, their families, and employers. 

I am grateful for this opportunity to address this committee 

today, and I welcome your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Colonel Orr. 

Before we begin with the questions, I want to introduce a group 

that’s here today. We are visited today by a group of West Point 

Cadets from the United States Military Academy, Department of 

Social Sciences. [Applause.] 

Will you please rise, Cadets? Thank you very much. 

We welcome you all, and thank you for your willingness to serve 

our Nation as future Army officers. The witnesses that we have 

today are icons for you, and officers that you can look forward to 

following, because they’ve served our Nation now for a number of 

years. 

I think all of you have been serving for about 20 years already, 

so, let me ask a question to all of you. Congress has consistently 

expressed concern, as I did in my opening statement, over the readiness of forces, deployed and preparing to deploy, in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Short dwell time at home station 

drives compromises in manning, training, and equipment that impact unit readiness and increase risk. I’m quoting: ‘‘What keeps you 

awake at night?’’ Because you are the billpayers, how would you 

characterize the readiness of your units for your mission-essential 

tasks and worldwide deployment? What are the greatest challenges, in terms of people, equipment, or training? Please paint for 

us a picture of your units’ readiness, without getting into details 

that may be classified? 

Colonel Beech, will you begin, please? 

Colonel BEECH. First and foremost, what characterizes the readiness of my brigade is the process of reset and reconstitution. Right 

now, my brigade is in the process of being issued all our major 

combat systems, so that is the focus of what my brigade is doing. 

We have not even yet begun the full training cycle for our redeployment to Iraq, which will happen sometime in the next year. So, 

right now we’re in the process of receiving equipment, having 

change-over in personnel, and then we’ll begin our training cycle. 

So, as it stands today, my brigade is focused on the reset and reconstitution, and that characterizes everything we’re doing. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Yes, sir. My experience over the past 10 

months is that we’ve had the ability to shift manpower, personnel, 

and resources to prepare our forces for combat. There is a very 

short period of time when a unit returns from deployment, where 

102

we send the marines on leave, giving them an opportunity to reunite with their families; during that same period, we reconstitute 

equipment sets. So, within that 7-month period, there’s 6 months 

where they have adequate time, adequate people, adequate equipment to do the training they need for the next rotation. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, our strength in the brigade is personnel. We 

continue to have our citizen soldiers and volunteers step up to the 

plate. Our retention and recruiting—our numbers are good. I think 

our challenge is the equipment piece. Our challenge here is that 

when our soldiers leave the mobilization station and go overseas, 

they’re very well-equipped, and they’re very well-trained. We have 

this continuing challenge, since September 11, as a brigade, that 

was a non-enhanced brigade; we were at about 63 percent of equipment going into the current war. We’ve currently dropped to about 

53 percent, and a lot of that is because we’ve transferred equipment within the State to support other units. We’ve also left about 

5.7 million in theater as part of what we call the stay-behind 

equipment, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. 

What’s concerning, as a brigade commander, is our ability to 

train. We have four training sets that we’re required to use, and 

the first one is, is to train our soldiers to prepare for mobilization. 

We then move into what we call the equipment set that we need 

for the actual mobilization station. They train for a series of days 

with the equipment set that they’ll actually fight with. Finally and 

foremost, we train for our State mission. The homeland mission, we 

train with the equipment we need for a natural disaster and any 

kind of terrorist incident that we could potentially see in our area. 

I think what’s important here, as a brigade, is that training with 

equipment builds confidence, and it’s more than proficiency, it’s 

their ability to work together as teams and to certify our soldiers. 

My readiness really revolves around my ability to train on equipment, and equipment availability, sir. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

To all of you, our soldiers and marines have tremendous combat 

experience, but is that enough? What are your observations with 

regard to the quantity and quality of your mid-grade and junior officers, and your quantity and quality of noncommissioned officers 

(NCOs) among your subordinate units? Do your officers and NCOs 

have the education, training, and experience necessary to provide 

the most effective management and tactical leadership for their soldiers and marines? What steps are you taking to mitigate these 

challenges? 

Let me begin with Colonel Beech. 

Colonel BEECH. Certainly, I have seen no degradation in performance or capability of our junior officers and our NCOs. The soldiers, 

those sergeants, lieutenants, and captains that are on the streets 

of Iraq in Baghdad, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, they’re where 

the rubber meets the road in this war on terrorism. It is my experience that the soldiers, the sergeants, the lieutenants, and captains 

are performing magnificently. 

During our recent deployment, I know our NCOs and our officers 

did everything we asked of them. But the challenge I have is for 

my NCOs and officers, 40 percent of whom who have been to Iraq 

103

once already and are looking at going back on their second or third 

time, is retaining those mid-grade NCOs and those junior officers. 

They’re the future of our Army, and they’re the decisive element 

in this war on terrorism. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Our mid-grade and junior officers, and our 

NCOs, are in the best shape that I have seen them in 24 years of 

service. They have combat experience, they’re educated. We take 

the time to send them to professional military education. I have no 

indication that any of them, in numbers that would differ from generations, are leaving the service to do something else, other than 

serve their country. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, in 29 years of service, I’ve probably worked 

with the best corps of NCOs, enlisted soldiers, and officers that I’ve 

ever seen. Not only are they professionals in the military, but 

they’re professionals in their civilian occupation, and what they do 

for their communities. We currently have 1,000 of the brigade soldiers that have deployed two or more times, which is significant in 

the eyes of the quality of folks that we have that continue to step 

up and volunteer to go two, three times. Our retention rate has 

stayed above an 85-percent, which is very significant. It’s lower 

than the national average for the National Guard, which is at 18 

percent. 

I think that the significance for our force is the education. The 

majority of my soldiers and leaders are in the education field, 

they’re going to get an education, and they’re taking advantage, 

and so, we have very highly-qualified educated soldiers that I think 

that, thanks to our State and the Federal incentives, are staying 

with our force and helping us through these times. 

Senator AKAKA. Each of you have indicated, and have mentioned, 

the word ‘‘retention,’’ especially in the middle grades. What do you 

think about retention among our mid-grade, junior officers, and 

NCOs? If you are short in key leaders, what impact does that have 

on your ability to effectively plan, organize, and manage your material and training readiness? How are you dealing with this kind of 

challenge on retention? 

Colonel Beech? 

Colonel BEECH. The shortage I have in junior officers is particularly infantry and armor lieutenants as we go into our crew qualification phase in our platoon lanes. I’m confident that those shortages we do have in those positions will be filled prior to going into 

our mission rehearsal exercise. So, I’m confident we’ll be prepared 

with qualified leaders for our deployment. However, during this period right now, what we’re experiencing is a challenge meeting our 

retention goals both for junior officers and for mid-grade NCOs. Of 

course, the targeted incentives at those populations help us significantly to maintain the qualified leaders that we need to conduct 

our training, conduct operations. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. I have not experienced any shortages of 

junior officers or NCOs. My recent first-term re-enlistment requirement was raised from 27 to 34 percent of a very small population, 

104

and we’re already at 83 percent of that goal. So, retention is not 

going to be a problem for me, either. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, we continue to maintain our level of the senior 

leaders, both at the junior grade and at the NCO grade. I think the 

challenge for us is our families and employers, and that’s really 

where our retention effort helps us carry our soldier on to another 

term of service. Really, what we’re looking at is, there’s a lot of incentives that are currently out there that benefit both our enlisted 

soldiers and our officers. However, I do think there needs to be 

some targeted incentives at that senior captain to major level, 

where we’re making some decisions at the 20-year mark with their 

civilian career that causes them to make a decision whether they 

want to stay in or they pursue their professional degree as part of 

their civilian career. 

So, I think, overall, we’ve maintained a fairly solid percentage of 

soldiers that remains in the ranks, both in senior-level officer and 

NCO. I think we’re a solid force because of their experience. 

Senator AKAKA. Equipment has always been a concern. What are 

your general observations about the numbers and state of repair of 

your most important vehicles, weapons, and communications systems? 

Colonel Beech? 

Colonel BEECH. Sir, the equipment we are receiving now out of 

the Army Reset Program—obviously, we receive equipment from 

many different sources, but I know the equipment that we have received thus far has been fully mission-capable. It certainly has 

some deficiencies on some items of equipment that our maintenance folks, our technicians, have to repair during the process. 

However, the vehicles that we’re receiving now, particularly the 

combat systems—the Bradleys, the tanks, and the howitzers, and 

those issues that are ongoing right now—they are in better shape 

than the ones that we received 21⁄2 years ago when we started this 

process. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Our equipment is old—certainly, the equipment that we have at home station for training. We’re wearing it 

out quicker than we have in the past. At this point, we have had 

plenty of, certainly, money for maintenance, and we’ve had no 

problems maintaining our equipment well above 80 percent. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. We continue to reset equipment coming back from 

theater. We receive that weekly in our State. We’re also receiving, 

in the brigade, new equipment fielding, which we’ve seen more new 

equipment today than we’ve ever seen in my history of being in the 

brigade. 

I think our challenge becomes the fact that we move equipment, 

though, from the brigade to those units that are deploying, as our 

priority. Our ability to train, and to train to standard, is affected 

by the fact that we’re moving equipment to cover down on these 

different deployments as we move forces into theater. 

Senator AKAKA. I’d like to know a little more about your reset 

programs. What is your experience with your Service’s equipment 

reset programs? How much of your unit equipment would you say 

105

is working its way through the reset system? Or do you have visibility on its progress? How would you characterize the condition of 

equipment that comes back to you out of the reset system? 

Colonel Beech? 

Colonel BEECH. Of course, reset is a complicated process, and I 

want to start out by saying that I left all my major combat systems 

in Iraq—tanks, Bradleys, howitzers, uparmored Humvees; that all 

stayed in Iraq. When I came back to home station, of course, there 

was some equipment that I was able to repair and bring back to 

fully mission-capable status myself. Those items that I couldn’t do 

that were turned into a local or field reset program. Then, I was 

issued new equipment from the Army Support Command for those 

systems that I left behind. 

It’s been my experience, thus far—and we are still in the midst 

of equipment reconstitution—that the major combat systems we’re 

getting from the Army Support Command are in good shape; in 

other words, they’re fully mission-capable. Again, they do have deficiencies, routine-type of maintenance shortfalls on those combat 

systems, but they are certainly shortfalls that we can repair. 

Furthermore, we have been augmented with maintenance technicians to help us overcome any deficiencies that we should find in 

the early stages of the training process. So, it has been my experience, thus far, within the reset and reconstitution program, that 

it’s meeting the requirement, and I will be able to meet my 

predeployment training timeline, as we currently have it planned. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. We do not do reset like the Army. When 

my battalions deploy to Iraq, they do not take their equipment with 

them. They fall in on equipment sets in the theater. So, the equipment that is left behind, currently two battalion sets that I am 

maintaining, we turn to on that gear with a maintenance battalion, 

and repair it, and we won’t have any issues having that equipment 

ready when those battalions return to train for the next round of 

deployments. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, in my brigade, we’ve done reset through the 

National Guard, and in Maine is where we do the reset for our 

Humvees. We are receiving those back in the State. We’re receiving 

those in pretty good quantity, in pretty good shape. 

I think the issue that we have is we continue to leave and transfer weapons systems, night-vision systems, from unit to unit, we’re 

getting the reset equipment, and we’re also getting new equipment 

as part of the transformation effort and the equipment modernization. I think our real challenge is the individual weapons systems 

and night-vision systems that we pass on to our units that are deploying out the door that pull the readiness away from the brigade. 

Senator AKAKA. I’d like to ask you about your training. With regard to training, what are your general observations about the 

quality of training among your subordinate units? What are your 

greatest challenges regarding individual skills and occupational 

specialty qualification? What are your challenges in achieving 

standards for individual and crew-served weapons qualifications? 

What are your challenges in providing combat maneuver training 

for subordinate combat units? 

106

All of these are under training, so let me call on Colonel Beech. 

Colonel BEECH. Sir, our training that we’re currently ongoing is 

primarily individual skills. It’s focused on medical training and 

weapons qualification. That’s based upon the amount of equipping 

we currently have, because we don’t have complete combat systems 

for all our units, because we’re still in the process of drawing them. 

We’re focused on the individual training. As of yet, based upon the 

reset program, many of our small arms, of course, are still in the 

reset program. So, we are doing all the training we can at the individual training level until we have all our combat systems. At that 

point, later in June, July, and August, we will begin our training 

cycles that focus on the collective training tasks, and then complete 

our collective training at the JRTC. 

Based upon the current resourcing plan for our materiel, I believe that we’ll be able to meet our training timelines as we prepare to go back to Iraq. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. As I mentioned earlier, I think our biggest 

challenge is time available to train. That forces us to focus specifically on the mission at OIF, in Iraq, and prevents us from doing 

things that we might have done in the past, large combined-arms 

maneuver, and amphibious operations. 

Our entry-level training allows us to integrate new marines into 

our units very effectively. They’re well-trained. They get a great 

deal of training on weapons systems that they’re going to employ, 

so it’s very easy to integrate them. They go through, I would say, 

about 90 to 120 days, starting off with basic skills. It’s a buildingblock approach. It’s very specific. We end with the Service Assessment at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat 

Training Center, which we call ‘‘Mojave Viper,’’ before a unit goes 

to OIF. 

So, our biggest challenge is time. As I mentioned earlier, we’re 

able to address that challenge, and I don’t have any concerns with 

integrating new marines and training them for the mission at 

hand. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, our training focus is what we call premobilization training, focused on individual leader. As we move through, 

right now, in a transformation process of what we call the ‘‘reduction of postmobilization training,’’ we’re working very close with the 

Army and the National Guard Bureau to push training in the 

premobilization requirements. Slide it to our weekends and our annual training, in order for us to be able to maximize time at home, 

and allow our soldiers to spend more time with their families, and 

less time at the mobilization station. 

Our challenge becomes, as we move those tasks to the home station for us to train, because we have the quality trainers, and we 

have the facilities—it’s the equipment that we need in order to be 

able to do that premobilization training. 

Our biggest challenge is: to train to standard, you have to have 

the proper equipment. As we look at the rapid-fielding initiative, 

we don’t see that until we get to the mobilization station, and 

107

that’s important for us to build confidence, important for us to be 

able to train to standard. 

Senator AKAKA. On the topic of training, I would like to know a 

little bit more about what you do with headquarters-type personnel, as well as support services. What are your challenges in 

getting command-and-control training for your headquarters and 

your subordinate unit headquarter staffs? Do you have challenges 

getting the appropriate training for your support personnel and 

units? 

Colonel Beech? 

Colonel BEECH. Sir, the biggest effect on training my battalion 

and brigade headquarters is the personnel turbulence that is currently undergoing, and will go through the end of June and into 

July. Of course, we are a life-cycle unit. The end of our life cycle 

is in June. We’ll see the changes of command of all six of my battalions and the brigade headquarters. We’ve seen a significant personnel turbulence in our field-grade ranks, those staff officers, 

those majors at the battalion and brigade level. So, the personnel 

turbulence associated with the end of my life cycle, which is in midJune, is the primary detractor from battalion and brigade headquarters training proficiency. Of course, that’ll be resolved once the 

new officers come in to take command of these units, and the new 

officers are assigned to the staff position. 

Likewise, from an equipment perspective, our command-post 

fielding, those command-and-control mechanisms that the brigade 

uses to operate its six battalions, and those command posts for the 

six battalions, will be out of the reset program and be fielded to 

my units beginning in May and, again, complete in June. Of 

course, the primary training exercise to get after that is the JRTC 

mission rehearsal exercise, as well as some intermediate-level command-post exercises at Fort Hood. 

From a support capability, we are just now receiving our wheeled 

vehicle fleet, and we’ll have sufficient light-, medium-, and heavywheeled vehicles to conduct our training. We will not have all the 

medium- and heavy-wheeled vehicles we are authorized, but we 

will have enough to conduct our training. 

For my brigade at Fort Hood, the medium- and heavy-wheeled 

vehicles we have are all light-skinned vehicles. There is a small 

training set of armored vehicles that we can use to conduct driver’s 

training, but, by and large, the entire set of equipment that I’ll be 

training with is light-skinned vehicles. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Really, my headquarters goes along two 

tracks. One is, as I mentioned earlier, to prepare the battalions for 

deployment. The other is to prepare the regimental headquarters. 

The current construct, we have our operations center in place. The 

newest unit-operations center was fielded to us in January. Currently, the headquarters is in the field, conducting the second in a 

series of exercises. The headquarters will be fully manned by June 

of this year, which is 6 months prior to deployment. We’ll have no 

problem getting in training that we need on the systems that we’ll 

use in theater. We’ll have all the people in place in order to do that 

training. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

108

Colonel ORR. Sir, I have a unique challenge, in the fact that, 

since the beginning of my command time, I’ve deployed individual 

units, and our priority has been to push leaders and key members 

of the staff down to be able to support those units that are deploying. What this causes me is a shortfall at the brigade headquarters 

in the ability to do what we would call collective staff training. 

Now, that being said, the officers I do have I’ve put through the 

schooling system, the total Army schooling system. They’re qualified in the level that they’re expected to perform at. The other piece 

that’s significant here is, in this last deployment, as we’re currently 

preparing, I’ve sent three teams of Afghan National Army Embedded Training Teams out, and that pretty much takes the majority 

of my staff and any senior leader that I have remaining in the brigade as we move into this deployment year for the brigade. There’s 

not much left at the brigade headquarters for me to be able to do 

a collective-level training, though we still assist the units, and 

their preparation is our priority. 

Senator AKAKA. Congress is concerned that the low levels of 

readiness in our National Guard is handing the States additional 

risks of public safety. The lack of equipment leaves the States very 

concerned about the Guard’s ability to respond to domestic contingencies and emergencies. 

Colonel Orr, how do you report to the National Guard Bureau of 

the Department of the Army the readiness of your unit for their domestic support missions? How does Iowa measure and monitor the 

readiness of your unit for your domestic support missions? What 

are you doing to try to manage your readiness to meet your domestic support missions and reduce risks to public safety for your 

State? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, unlike my wartime mission, we take our State 

mission and the homeland defense mission as a State mission. So, 

we collectively monitor the 10 key areas of equipment that we are 

required to be able to respond, whether it’s communications vehicles, water capability, or aircraft. But we monitor that at the State 

level, and we report it at the State level through our Joint Force 

Headquarters. So, I don’t report it as strictly a brigade level, but 

it’s a State-level reporting system that we use through the Joint 

Force Headquarters that reflects our ability to respond to the State 

emergencies. 

Just like in February, with the State emergency we had with the 

winter storms, though I’m missing equipment and I have equipment that’s overseas, we, collectively, had to pull together, within 

the State, the equipment needed for the brigade to be able to go 

out and accomplish the highway-assist mission and some of the cordon-and-searches we did within our communities. But we still have 

a shortfall of equipment, and we still have a need that requires us 

to pull that equipment together in a collective effort. 

Senator AKAKA. Each of you report the current readiness of your 

units using the Global Status of Resources and Training Systems. 

We have seen reports of units, not yours, in which they have the 

lowest objective rating for equipment or personnel. But a commander somewhere in the chain, and within their authority, has 

subjectively upgraded the unit to the highest rating. How has each 

of you personally used this authority over time? What analysis or 

109

criteria do you use in the application of your professional judgment? What, in your views, are the strengths and the weaknesses 

of this readiness reporting system? That is, what is it about this 

system that gives you confidence or frustrates you in communicating your evaluation of the readiness of your command up the 

chain? 

Colonel Beech? 

Colonel BEECH. I think the biggest advantage of the current reporting system that I find useful as a commander is the qualitative 

narrative statements that I communicate to the Army staff and my 

higher headquarters, my division commander, every month. As I 

put in what I think are the biggest challenges that I have, in a narrative format, I always see feedback, not only from my division 

commander and his staff, but, on occasion, I have gotten calls from 

the Army staff directly to my brigade looking at ways to help or 

improve the readiness of my unit, particularly as it applies to personnel and readiness. So, those qualitative comments that I write 

in there, myself, every month, I find very useful. 

Less useful in the readiness reporting, on occasion, is the quantitative personnel reporting, because in that reporting, there are 

often hidden personnel issues, as I send NCOs off to schools for, 

say, recruiting or drill-sergeant schools, those key leaders might 

still be assigned to my unit, but they’re not available to me to deploy, making me look more healthy than I actually am in personnel. So, those are the types of challenges that we see with the 

reporting. How I overcome any kind of hidden issues with the 

quantitative reporting, I address through my commander’s narrative to the Army staff. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Craparotta? 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. I think the strength of the system is that 

you balance numbers and percentages with the commander’s assessment. As Colonel Beech stated, the commander’s assessment 

and those narrative comments are what gets read by our commanders up the chain, it’s what I review specifically from my subordinate commanders, but it’s a balance between those comments 

and what the percentages and the numbers are telling you that is 

the strength of the system. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, I report quarterly from the brigade and the 

State perspective. I believe that the system we currently use is 

much better than the old system that we replaced within the last 

year. I think that the commander’s card accurately reflects the 

strengths and weaknesses in my organization and my ability to 

support the full-spectrum operation brigade. 

There’s two challenges that I have, and the first one deals with 

equipment, predominantly focusing on the substitution in the Unit 

Status Report (USR). Though I have equipment on hand, and it 

may be old equipment that’s outdated that continues to be on our 

inventory, we’re allowed to substitute that for new equipment, 

which doesn’t truly reflect our true readiness and the ability to go 

do our full-spectrum mission. The other challenge that I have is not 

within the USR system, but how we reflect the data higher. That 

is a transmission line called a Secure Internet Protocol Route 

(SIPR) line, which is a secure line that allows us to send our inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:18 Dec 20, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\39437.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
110

mation forward. When you look at Fort Iowa, and we’re spread out 

among all the communities, I have organizations 3 to 4 or 5 hours 

away from the headquarters, I don’t have the capability to transmit 

the data. It’s a significant problem, not just within our State, but 

across the National Guard, in the fact that the infrastructure and 

the dollars are not there to provide the SIPR lines. For us, that 

takes time, and it takes a lot of energy in order to report that data 

forward. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Beech, Secretary Gates recently announced that Active-Duty Army combat tours would be extended 

from 12 months to 15 months. How were the families of your brigade informed of this decision? Did you, or they, know this before 

the Secretary of Defense announced it in a press conference? 

Colonel BEECH. No, sir. We learned of this when the Secretary 

of Defense made the announcement. Of course, that was followed 

up widely in the media, even out there at Fort Hood, TX. Of course, 

we’ve been communicating with our junior leaders ever since. That 

has not specifically changed the situation for my brigade, as of yet, 

and we’re waiting to see what the impacts of that might be. But 

we’re currently proceeding along our training and preparation 

original timelines. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Beech, how is this impacting the morale 

of the families of your brigade? Has the Army or you put any special programs in place to address the family issues this unanticipated combat tour extension is sure to create? 

Colonel BEECH. Right now, sir, we do not have a deployment 

date, although we expect to deploy sometime in the next year. So, 

we’re anticipating what the results might be of these unit extensions. For my particular families, what this means is that we may 

have a year or more dwell time at home between rotations. What 

was challenging to my brigade, as about 40 percent of my junior 

officers and NCOs have just completed their second tour, looking 

at their third tour, any short-term turns back to Iraq in less than 

a year would be very difficult on our families. So, the soldiers are 

looking forward to the prospect of having additional time at home. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr, until recently involuntarily mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve personnel were limited to 

24 cumulative months. Recently, the Secretary of Defense changed 

this policy to limit each mobilization to 12 months, but removed the 

24-cumulative-month limitation. As a result, National Guard and 

Reserve units who have already served their complete tour are 

being mobilized again. How do the families of your brigade feel 

about this change in policy? Do you think it will have an impact 

on your soldiers’ civilian employment? 

Colonel ORR. From the brigade’s perspective, we have nobody 

that’s currently being remobilized under that new policy. The folks 

that we currently are sending out to the MOB stations, we’ve 

known for approximately a year, year and a half, of their deployment. We do have units within the State, outside of the brigade, 

that fall into that category. I think that there’s always that issue, 

dealing with families and employers, when we turn around and we 

send a unit back-to-back, but I think what’s probably more important here is what I would call—is the deployment cycle support, 

and that is, is the ability, when we bring soldiers home, to reset 

111

them, and their families and their employers, for the potential next 

deployment. I think there’s some work that we need to do, as an 

organization and as a State, to help facilitate that. The current policy, the hands-off policy, eliminates us from being able to voluntarily get to our soldiers, upon return home from mobilization, for 

90 days. We’re finding that the problems that are surfacing from 

deployments, whether medical, physical, psychological, family, 

occur between the time they take leave from returning from deployment, to about that 90-day window. Compound that, along with the 

fact that we’re spread over, in my case, a battalion’s worth of 211 

communities, we have some unique challenges there to communicate with our soldiers. It’s important that we have a reintegration process very similar to Colonel Beech, 4th Infantry Division, 

and the Active Army, where we’re able to bring the families, the 

soldiers, in sooner, and have funding that can support that, so we 

can do a reintegration and take care of their physical and family 

needs prior to finding about it 90 days later, and when they return 

back to duty. 

Senator AKAKA. Colonel Orr, do you think that we need new or 

different programs for families of National Guard personnel who 

are mobilized a second time? 

Colonel ORR. Sir, I think that, in dealing with the families, we 

have a pretty solid family support program, as long as we continue 

to fund our family support personnel, and that we continue the 

support programs that are there. I think, as I mentioned in my earlier statement, the challenge becomes, for us, is the hands-off policy 

in the reintegration of our families. Many of the States—specifically, Minnesota, went out for the 1st Brigade that—to include 

some of the soldiers from my battalion that belong with them—

they were extended for 125 days. They’ve worked very hard with 

their congressional folks to receive additional funding in order to 

be able to support a reintegration program that engages the families, prior to the soldiers arriving, and then, through a series of engagements after the soldier and their families come home. I think 

that really is the key for us to maintain readiness, retention, and 

really take care of our families and the employers, that early engagement with our soldiers and their families. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to thank you, Colonel Beech, Colonel 

Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, for your thoughtful and frank testimony today. As I expected, this has been an interesting and very 

useful hearing. Although your units face serious readiness challenges, we can see that you are trying to deal with them in a realistic and creative way. You have given us much to think about as 

we consider how best to support you, your soldiers and marines, 

and your families in this year’s National Defense Authorization 

Bill. So, all of this information you’ve given us will help us do that. 

I want to tell you that we are proud of you. We are proud of what 

you’re doing and proud of your soldiers and marines and what 

they’re doing for our country. These training programs are so important to prepare them for whatever the mission will be. So, the 

effort here is to try to learn what is there, the status of training 

at this point. You have given that to us, and we hope we can then 

prepare the proper National Defense Authorization Bill that will 

112

help you continue to do the good job that you’re doing with your 

brigades. 

So, with that, I want to say thank you so much, again, for being 

here today, and I want to also extend that to your families and to 

all the soldiers and marines that you command. So, thank you very 

much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK PRYOR

TRAINING

1. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, how adequate is your training for convoy operations? 

Colonel BEECH. Before the end of this fiscal year every one of my platoons will 

have completed a very detailed and deliberate train-up on convoy procedures, 

counter-improvised explosive device (IED) operations, counter ambush, and medical 

treatment and evacuation. In June and July, all of our platoons will execute a basiclevel IED identification and reaction course where they will drive a route in convoy 

and attempt to identify and react to IEDs similar to those found in theater. Following this, platoons will move to a more complex situational training exercise 

where they will have to react to enemy snipers, more sophisticated IEDs, and a complex enemy ambush. Platoons will be externally evaluated in this exercise and will 

have to deal with local civilians and treat and evacuate wounded personnel. In order 

to familiarize soldiers with the unique challenges of operating in a dense urban environment, we will require every platoon to conduct a convoy operation (unarmed) 

through the traffic in our surrounding communities. This will teach convoy leaders 

how to maintain cohesion and communications in a high traffic environment and 

how to treat locals appropriately while maintaining force protection. Our logistics 

patrols have a unique burden in Iraq given the nature of the threat and will receive 

additional training. In July we will conduct a series of convoy live-fire exercises for 

each one of the logistics elements in this brigade. This scenario will build on the 

force-on-force exercises in June but employ live ammunition. Logistics convoys will 

have to respond to a series of threats first while stationary and then on the move. 

They will have to develop methods to synchronize and distribute their fires, discriminate between hostile and non-hostile targets, and take all the appropriate safety precautions inherent in live-fire training. Finally, prior to deployment every soldier who will occupy the commander’s or gunner’s seat in a combat vehicle in Iraq 

will be required to qualify in a series of externally evaluated live-fire gunnery tables 

on the type of vehicle that he will operate in Iraq. 

Our greatest challenge in the training of convoy operations is the lack of 

uparmored M1114 HMMWVs at home station because of the demand in theater. I 

currently do not have any uparmored trucks of any kind in my brigade. The M1025 

Scout HMMWV is our surrogate vehicle for training purposes but lacks the weight 

and other characteristics to adequately replicate driving this armored truck. The 

shortage of M1025 and M1026 HMMWVs also limits crew training and qualification. 

In my brigade we have attempted to mitigate this by pooling and rotating a training 

fleet of M1025s among units to accomplish required predeployment training. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Marine Corps convoy operations training is sufficient for the 

current operating environment. Marines receive the level of convoy operations training commensurate with their deployment assignment. In our Pre-deployment Training Plan (PTP) block approach, all marines deploying to the Central Command 

(CENTCOM) theater, regardless of assignment, are required to receive Blocks I and 

II training which include driver and convoy operations training. Blocks III and IV 

contain unit-specific convoy operations training. 

The training and education continuum begins with entry level training and ascends through formal schools, home station, professional military education, and 

culminates with a final exercise such as Mojave Viper, Desert Talon, or Mountain 

Warrior. This ascending-levels-of-competency approach allows marines of all ranks 

to be trained at the right level, at the right time, and the right place. This further 

provides a disciplined approach to studying, thinking, and discussing the profession 

of arms. The threading of convoy operations training throughout the continuum ensures that all marines will be well-prepared for the types of challenges they may 

face. 

113

Finally, a rapid, continuous lessons-learned process ensures the latest enemy and 

friendly tactics, techniques, and procedures are used in training. Above all, the Marine Corps takes pride in ensuring much of the individual training, and virtually 

all unit training, is conducted with the oversight of combat experienced NCOs and 

Officers. 

Additional Information: 

• Block I: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is conducted at home 

station to establish mastery of basic warfighting skills. These skills include:

• Enhanced Marksmanship Package 

• Common Combat Skills 

• Annual Training Requirements (Physical Fitness Test, Gas Chamber, 

Swim Qualification and Rifle Range) 

• Military Occupational Specialty Proficiency Skills 

• Incidental Driver Training 

• Vehicle Familiarization and Preventive Maintenance 

• Immediate Action Drills 

• Basic Driver Skills 

• Crew-served Weapons Training 

• Weapons Assembly/Disassembly and Maintenance 

• Weapons Loading, Unloading, and Immediate Action

• Block II: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is conducted at 

home station with a focus on current operating environment skills. This training includes:

• Marksmanship 

• Improvised Explosive Devices-Defeat 

• Motorized Operations 

• Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation 

• Vehicle Control Point/Entry Control Point/Escalation Of Force/Law Of 

War 

• Pre-combat Actions 

• Aspects of Culture 

• Fixed Site Security 

• First Aid 

• High Risk of Capture

• Block III: Focused training for combat support units with the following tasks 

in their Mission Essential Task List (METL) (these are collective tasks, usually 

involving convoy operations, conducted at service level training events):

• Conduct Defensive Actions 

• Conduct Relief in Place 

• Forward-deploy Units 

• Conduct Intelligence Operations 

• Perform Logistics and Combat Service Support (CSS) 

• Exercise Command and Control 

• Protect the Force 

• Conduct Civil Military Operations (CMO) in the Joint Operating Area 

(JOA) 

• Train Forces and Personnel

• Block IV: For ground combat elements, combat aircrews, and those that will 

be exposed to hostile action on a recurring basis. This block is conducted at 

service level training events. These units will typically have the following tasks 

in their METL:

• Conduct Offensive Action 

• Control or Dominate an Operationally Significant Area 

• Clear Enemy Forces from an Area 

• Conduct Defensive Action 

• Conduct Relief in Place 

• Interdict an Area or Route 

• Forward Deploy Units 

• Conduct Intelligence Operations 

• Provide Fires in Support of Maneuver 

• Perform Logistics and CSS 

• Exercise Command and Control 

• Protect the Force 

• Conduct CMO in JOA 

• Train Forces and Personnel

114

Training culminates in a full-scale, intelligence-driven, controlled, and evaluated 

mission rehearsal exercise conducted at Twentynine Palms, Bridgeport, Yuma, or a 

joint venue. 

Colonel ORR. Convoy operation training is integrated into both our weekend and 

annual training requirements. The requirement is for every soldier to complete convoy operation training within an 18-month cycle of weekend and annual training 

events. Every unit conducts a minimum of two 8-hour convoys annually as they 

travel to their annual training site. Once we get to the annual training site, I require every soldier in the brigade to participate in a live-fire convoy lane as part 

of their annual training program. Within this training program, every soldier is 

qualified on individual and crew served weapons, has completed advance weapons 

marksmanship, and completed numerous iterations of convoy training in a crawl, 

walk, and run methodology. In addition, my units will conduct numerous convoys 

throughout the 2 weeks as they conduct combat and logistics operations. My greatest challenge is the lack of equipment to train my soldiers to standard. Many times, 

I am forced to train my soldiers on a convoy lane without the proper individual 

weapons, vehicles, and crew served weapons. I can train soldiers and give them 

some experience, but once they get overseas, they will usually have to retrain with 

the updated equipment and vehicles.

2. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, how are 

you training to identify and defeat IEDs? 

Colonel BEECH. As I stated above, IED identification and reaction are two of the 

most basic and important individual skills that we will train prior to redeployment 

to theater. The 4th Infantry Division has invested a great deal of resources into developing appropriate training lanes that teach soldiers how to detect, avoid, and respond to IED threats. I have added the completion of this IED lane to our routine 

gunnery certification requirement so that it receives the attention that it deserves 

from every vehicle crew in the brigade. 

We are enrolling many of our mid-level noncommissioned officers (NCOs) from my 

two engineer companies into the Route Reconnaissance and Clearance Operators 

Course (R2C2) taught at the Engineer School in Fort Leonard Wood, MO. This 

course teaches NCOs the fundamentals of counter-IED and route clearance operations using the latest techniques that are being developed in theater. 

Like convoy operations, our biggest challenge with respect to counter-IED training 

comes down to a shortage of equipment at home station. The Army has fielded some 

exceptional and specialized route clearance equipment in Iraq including the Buffalo, 

RG–31, and Husky. Unfortunately, due to resource limitations, these vehicles are 

not available for home station training. Route clearance platoons will receive a 2-

week block of instruction in Iraq on this equipment once we arrive but we will be 

unable to incorporate these critical tools into our home station train-up and mission 

rehearsal exercise. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. To ensure all marines receive appropriate training prior to 

deploying to theaters of operations and potential combat operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps established the U.S. Marine Corps PTP in 2006. Within the PTP, unit commanders build on the individual and collective IED-defeat 

(IED–D) skills learned in the institutional training domain. The hallmark of IEDD training within this domain is the ability of the marine and leader to apply those 

previously learned individual and collective task skills in increasingly more complex 

scenarios and situations. This integrated, building-block approach incorporates the 

traditional crawl/walk/run methodology to create marines, leaders, and units capable of defeating an insurgent IED system and mitigating its effects on operations. 

This training progression starts with home station training and culminates with a 

Mission Rehearsal Exercise at the Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Twentynine Palms, CA, or at an approved alternate training venue. 

The training and education continuum provides the strong foundation upon which 

individual marines and units develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to defeat 

the evolving IED threat. These tasks include both common combat and military occupational specialty-specific individual and collective skills. We are currently developing the standardized master lesson files (MLF) to cover all common IED–D individual and collective skills, and will update these with the evolving threat.

• MLF 1: recognition of IED indicators, reaction to a suspected IED, and 

reaction to an IED detonation. 

• MLF 2: small unit leader training in mounted and dismounted movement 

in an IED threat environment, including actions to predict, avoid, and protect against various IED threats. 

115

• MLF 3: operation and employment of the new counter radio-controlled 

IED electronic warfare devices/systems, and an introduction to the fundamentals of ground electronic warfare. 

• MLF 4: staff actions for planning, preparing, and executing counterinsurgency operations where IEDs are the enemy’s weapon of choice. Staff 

actions include terrain visualization, predictive analysis, site exploitation, 

ground EW operations, integrating joint IED enablers, and enemy network 

surveillance and targeting.

Lastly, in conjunction with the Joint IED–D Organization, we will continue to explore every avenue of defeating IEDs through the paradigm of Defeat the System, 

Defeat the Device, and Train the Force. 

Colonel ORR. IED training is integrated into both our weekend and annual training requirements. The requirement is for every soldier to complete IED training 

within an 18-month cycle of weekend and annual training events. I have procured 

a variety of IED simulators that can be used by the units to integrate into their 

training lanes. I have created a new assignment in the BCT Headquaters and every 

battalion headquarters for an IED Master Gunner. This person attends a series of 

training courses at Fort Leonard Wood on IEDs and the proper methods of identifying and defeating IEDs. They come back to the unit and become the IED expert 

for their units. However, because of how the enemy is always changing their tactics, 

most of the IED training occurs once my units are at the post mobilization training 

site and can receive the most current information. Also, once the mobilized unit gets 

to Kuwait, they spend several weeks receiving training on IEDs, using the newest 

tactics, techniques, and procedures.

3. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, what new 

technologies would you like to see employed on the battlefield? 

Colonel BEECH. Our brigade was superbly equipped in Iraq with the latest technologies. I am not an expert on the research and development process in the Army 

and don’t have visibility on what is already in the development pipeline. 

Certainly the proliferation and expansion of persistent surveillance intelligence 

collection capabilities among all echelons should continue along with any and all efforts to protect our soldiers from and allow us to defeat IEDs. 

As important as new technologies is the full resourcing of unit equipment authorizations. I want to thank the committee for your continued support of the Army in 

these efforts. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. The Marine Corps articulates its technology needs in its biennial Science and Technology Strategic Plan. This document provides science and 

technology objectives across all of the battlefield functions. Representative of these 

technology priorities are the following:

• Achieve persistent, focused, wide-area surveillance over the battlespace 

• Be able to find and pre-detonate IEDs 

• Halve the weight of the basic fighting load of infantryman 

• Incorporate common electrical power without the variety of short life batteries 

• Make infantrymen essentially bulletproof and climatically controlled 

• Provide a combat helmet with a pilot-like heads-up display containing optics, protection, data display and communications that is both lighter than 

the current helmet and which provides more protection 

• Develop training simulators that support realistic infantry training requirements 

• Provide systems that support combat identification of friendly forces and 

display of friendly force position location information in near real time 

• Develop adaptive camouflage that conforms to any environment and light 

conditions 

• Provide devices that will permit near-synchronous voice translation 

Colonel ORR. I think new technology is great, but I would like to see it and the 

newest equipment get filtered down to my units, prior to mobilization. The Army 

has done a great job in fielding my units at the mobilization stations with the best 

equipment and technology, but prior to mobilization we do have the same capability. 

As I bring units home from deployment, they are either leaving equipment in theater for other units or having to turn it in to supply, so that other units can have 

it to mobilize. My challenge is to reset the force and maintain our skills from deployment, which is very hard with the lack of equipment and technology. I have tried 

to procure simulation systems that will provide some relief to the shortage, but it 

does not fill the gap created by the shortfall in equipment and technology.

116

4. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, a suicide 

bomber exploded a truck near a U.S. military outpost in Baqubah, Iraq, yesterday, 

killing 9 soldiers and wounding 20 others. Do you have the tools necessary in your 

training to better identify and defeat these bombers? 

Colonel BEECH. I am not familiar with this incident beyond what I have read in 

DOD press releases. I can’t say with certainty that my brigade could do a better 

job of identifying this type of threat than the soldiers of this unit did in April. A 

committed and well-equipped suicide bomber is a very difficult opponent to stop. We 

are doing everything in our capability to train and equip our soldiers with the tools 

to identify this kind of threat and react appropriately. We will train force protection 

operations during our field exercises at home station and at our mission rehearsal 

exercise using mock scenarios similar to the one in Baquba. This fall, I am sending 

my staff engineer officers to a course that will train them on the fundamentals of 

constructing blast walls and security barriers that can withstand these kinds of attacks. We also train our soldiers to look for intelligence and environmental indicators of pending attacks such as the abnormal behavior or absence of local children. 

Good force protection is fundamentally about discipline and vigilance and these are 

skills that our NCOs attempt to instill everyday into the soldiers of this brigade. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Yes, in our PTP block approach, all marines deploying to the 

CENTCOM theater, regardless of assignment, are required to receive Blocks I and 

II training which include IED–D and Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation training. Blocks III and IV contain unit-specific intelligence collection, protect the force. and civil-military operations training. 

The training and education continuum begins with entry level training and ascends through formal schools, home station, professional military education, and 

culminates with a final exercise such as Mojave Viper, Desert Talon, or Mountain 

Warrior. This ascending-levels-of-competency approach allows marines of all ranks 

to be trained at the right level, at the right time, and the right place. This further 

provides a disciplined approach to studying, thinking, and discussing the profession 

of arms. The threading of force protection training throughout the continuum ensures that all marines will be well-prepared for the types of challenges they may 

face. 

Finally, a rapid, continuous lessons-learned process ensures the latest enemy and 

friendly tactics, techniques, and procedures are used in training. Above all, the Marine Corps takes pride in ensuring much of the individual training, and virtually 

all unit training, is conducted with the oversight of combat experienced NCOs and 

Officers. 

Additional Information: 

• Block I: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is conducted at home 

station to establish mastery of basic warfighting skills. These skills include:

• Enhanced Marksmanship Package 

• Common Combat Skills 

• Annual Training Requirements (Physical Fitness Test, Gas Chamber, 

Swim Qualification and Rifle Range) 

• Military Occupational Specialty Proficiency Skills 

• Incidental Driver Training 

• Vehicle Familiarization and Preventive Maintenance 

• Immediate Action Drills 

• Basic Driver Skills 

• Crew-served Weapons Training 

• Weapons Assembly/Disassembly and Maintenance 

• Weapons Loading, Unloading, and Immediate Action

• Block II: Mandatory for all deploying marines, this block is conducted at 

home station with a focus on current operating environment skills. This training includes:

• Marksmanship 

• Improvised Explosive Devices-Defeat 

• Motorized Operations 

• Urban Tactics Techniques and Procedures Orientation 

• Vehicle Control Point/Entry Control Point/Escalation Of Force/Law Of 

War 

• Pre-combat Actions 

• Aspects of Culture 

• Fixed Site Security 

• First Aid 

• High risk of Capture

117

• Block III: Focused training for combat support units with the following tasks 

in their Mission Essential Task List (METL) (these are collective tasks conducted at service level training events):

• Conduct Defensive Actions • Conduct Relief in Place • Forward-deploy Units • Conduct Intelligence Operations • Perform Logistics and Combat Service Support (CSS) • Exercise Command and Control • Protect the Force • Conduct Civil Military Operations (CMO) in the Joint Operating Area 

(JOA) 

• Train Forces and Personnel

• Block IV: For Ground Combat Elements, Combat Aircrews, and those that 

will be exposed to hostile action on a recurring basis. This block is conducted 

at service level training events. These units will typically have the following 

tasks in their METL:

• Conduct Offensive Action • Control or Dominate an Operationally Significant Area • Clear Enemy Forces from an Area • Conduct Defensive Action • Conduct Relief in Place • Interdict an Area or Route • Forward Deploy Units • Conduct Intelligence Operations • Provide Fires in Support of Maneuver • Perform Logistics and CSS • Exercise Command and Control • Protect the Force • Conduct CMO in JOA • Train Forces and Personnel

Training culminates in a full-scale, intelligence-driven, controlled, and evaluated 

mission rehearsal exercise conducted at Twentynine Palms, Bridgeport, Yuma, or a 

joint venue. 

Colonel ORR. Suicide bomber is the number one problem in counterinsurgency operations in OIF. Currently there is no official program for defeating the suicide 

bomber. Defeating a suicide bomber is a very difficult task. We developed an entire 

spectrum of countermeasures, identified indicators, and continue to train and raise 

the situational awareness of our soldiers in relation to the threat. But threat tactics 

continue to evolve in the face of our countermeasures, and we will never come to 

a point when we are completely protected from suicide bombers. The U.S. Army has 

a Center for Army Lessons Learned that continues to provide great information on 

the suicide bomber and how we can defeat it. They have provided to its readers tools 

to develop a Suicide Bomber Defeat program.

5. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Orr, what readiness challenges do you face when balancing your unit’s responsibility to the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)? 

Colonel ORR. I have no real challenges when it comes to balancing my DOD and 

DHS mission. We train every year focused on our war fight mission. The tasks that 

we are expected to execute overseas are the same tasks that are expected for us to 

execute in our DHS mission. The only addition to my training program is teaching 

the civil disturbance training. Over the last 2 years, we have deployed most of the 

BCT, while supporting several homeland security missions. We supported the Midwest Winter Storms and Operation Jump Start along the border without degrading 

our ability to support the Nation. The greatest challenge for me is the lack of equipment issue. The same equipment required for pre-mobilization training, post-mobilization training, and the DOD deployment is the same equipment required for a 

DHS mission. My soldiers have exceeded in every mission they have received from 

DOD or DHS. I believe if we can perform the warfighter mission, then we will be 

able to support the DHS mission.

6. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, are your 

soldiers and marines effectively training for irregular warfare (IrW)? 

Colonel BEECH. Yes. Our training strategy is focused on full-spectrum operations. 

This strategy breaks down into three major components: (1) leader training, (2) individual soldier training, and (3) collective or unit training. 

118

We have an aggressive program to train our junior leaders on a variety of subjects 

that they will need in Iraq or any other environment. This summer and fall our 

leaders will attend classes on Cultural Awareness and Sensitivity, Counterinsurgency operations, and antiterrorism. Additionally, all of the senior leaders in 

the brigade will travel to Fort Polk for a week to study and practice techniques for 

planning complex operations in an IrW environment. 

Our individual training emphasizes the fact that every soldier is a rifleman. We 

will train marksmanship very heavily this next quarter. Other training will include 

basic cultural awareness, rules of engagement, IED detect and defeat techniques, 

and basic first aid. 

Our collective unit training focuses on building tough realistic scenarios that replicate the complexity of the irregular battlefield. This summer our focus will be on 

training at the company level and below so that we build those cohesive and capable 

teams that are so critical in this type of warfare. The culmination of our collective 

training will be a deployment to the JRTC at Fort Polk where we will fully exercise 

all the capabilities of the brigade in a full-spectrum and realistic environment. I 

think this training strategy adequately prepares us to fight IrW. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Yes. The Marine Corps is preparing its operating forces to 

operate, today and in the future, in IrW environments. The essence of our Maneuver 

Warfare doctrine is outsmarting a thinking enemy by exploiting key weaknesses to 

defeat the enemy’s center of gravity. In many aspects, this philosophy closely parallels IrW. From forward-looking IrW-related concepts to present day-focused IrW 

doctrine, emerging lessons learned and training, we instill in marines the importance of understanding the irregular threat and the nature of today’s battlefield. Additionally, we maintain close coordination with joint force and external agencies on 

IrW issues within a variety of forums. 

A sampling of some of our ongoing IrW training efforts is provided below:

• We recently published Countering Irregular Threats: A Comprehensive 

Approach; the Tentative Manual for Countering Irregular Threats: An Updated Approach to Counterinsurgency; and the Small Unit Leader’s Guide 

to Counterinsurgency intended to stimulate debate and facilitate combat 

development. Our Small Unit Leader’s Guide to Counterinsurgency provides a ready reference incorporating recent lessons learned. A similar 

project is underway to capture lessons in the urban environment. Additionally, the Multi-Service Concept for IrW was published in collaboration with 

SOCOM; and we are collaborating with the Army on FM 3–24/MCWP 3–

33.5 Counterinsurgency providing guidance for battalion level and higher 

commanders and staff. 

• Our Small Wars Center of Excellence Web site (www.smallwars.-

quantico.usmc.mil) provides an unclassified, interactive information resource and management tool for the understanding of the history, nature, 

and relevance of small wars in the 21st century security environment. It 

supports the marine who is seeking relevant information including cultural 

intelligence, IrW, counterinsurgency, and after action reports. 

• Marine Corps University has placed an increased emphasis on IrW by 

hosting subject matter experts as guest speakers, incorporating seminar 

discussion and planning exercises. In 2005, we established the Kim T. Adamson Chair of Insurgency and Terrorism to focus on the theory and nature 

of terrorism and insurgencies. At the senior level, the Marine Corps War 

College devotes approximately 84 hours, half its War Policy and Strategy 

Course, to the study of IrW. The intermediate school, Command and Staff 

College program of instruction called ‘‘Small Wars and Operations other 

than War’’ totals 107.5 instruction hours. Students explore counterinsurgencies, transnational threats, stability operations and reconstruction; 

while also receiving instruction in operational culture, language, interagency issues. At the primary level, Expeditionary Warfare School devotes 

3 weeks to an IrW-specific program. 

• All new officers receive entry-level training in the operational aspects of 

foreign cultures and counterinsurgency, and our schoolhouses include IrW 

in their lesson plans. An IrW/Distributed Operations mission training plan 

is under development to identify IrW Collective and Individual Training 

Standards to be incorporated into the relevant training and readiness 

manuals. 

• The Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning provides pre-deployment training focusing on operational culture and language learning for 

operating forces and on schoolhouse instruction and curricula support. We 

are working to establish satellite Language Learning Resource Centers to 

119

support focused pre-deployment language training and to build distance 

learning products for the Career Marine Regional Studies program. 

• Our Marine Air Ground Task Force Staff Training Program supports the 

operating forces by preparing a Marine Expeditionary Force staff for deployment to any theater of operations. MSTP constructs a five-part exercise 

package across two of four quadrants of war while tailoring its program to 

current requirements, notably, IrW. 

• The Security Cooperation Education and Training Center is leading the 

development of formalized Marine Corps civil-military operations training 

and education for Civil Affairs Groups and Artillery Regiments in their secondary mission of Civil Affairs. They also conduct pre-deployment and IrW, 

advisor-specific training for all Marine Corps Transition Teams. 

• Based on lessons collected from recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned has identified a number 

of performance gaps in IrW training. Solution sets for tactical questioning, 

detainee handling, evidentiary collection, biometrics, civil military operations, advisor training, and non-lethal weapons are under development.

During 2006, we assessed the current state of IrW training and education, and 

identified gaps and areas of potentially greater risk, to meet the Secretary of Defense and warfighting commanders’ requirements for Marine forces more agile and 

capable of countering irregular threats, and conducting counterinsurgency operations. This is leading to changes to the curricula at schoolhouses and training 

venues that shift the balance between conventional and IrW, and better prepares 

marines for the modern battlefield. 

Colonel ORR. I train my soldiers to fight in a full-spectrum of operations, which 

includes IrW. I do not specifically focus their training on IrW only; I try to ensure 

that we include elements within our training program. Since the beginning of the 

war, my units have only been executing theater security operations, which are focused on route and convoy security. However, we try to implement elements of 

training that will help them in the event that their mission changes. As part of the 

post mobilization training, each soldier receives training in the country’s language, 

culture, and customs. The soldiers I sent to Afghanistan this summer received training for 2 weeks with members of the Afghanistan National Army (ANA). They were 

part of a new training process focused to help our soldiers learn how to communicate and operate with ANA soldiers, before going into country. This concept of 

training has proven to be very beneficial and should continue as we develop our 

teams for deployment. Also, once my soldiers arrived in Afghanistan, they spent one 

week attending the counterinsurgency academy at Kabul. At the academy, everyone 

received the most updated information and training on the counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. The feedback was very positive from all soldiers.

7. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, do you 

have access to adequate facilities that specialize in urban warfare? 

Colonel BEECH. We have two dedicated urban training facilities at Fort Hood, TX, 

and several smaller ‘shoot-houses’ that allow for live-fire exercises. The two large 

urban sites are adequate for a platoon or smaller company operation. They allow 

for the development and training of basic small units tactics and procedures for operations in urban terrain. While more and larger facilities would be desirable, our 

current training resources allow us to effectively train our platoons and companies. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. Yes, my subordinate battalions have had access to required 

training sites to conduct necessary urban training. There are currently three sites 

available at Camp Pendleton to train in urban warfare. These sites were available 

for my battalions. In some cases we had to share these training sites with other 

units but we were always able to get the necessary training completed. 

Because of the high demand on current urban training sites, the Marine Corps 

is investing to improve existing sites as well as adding sites on Camp Pendleton. 

While I don’t have all the details, I know there has been construction at the existing 

site (range 131), and that there are plans which will dramatically improve the other 

two older sites aboard Camp Pendleton. So while we have had access to required 

training sites, we have also identified a requirement to improve existing facilities 

and the Marine Corps is investing significant money to upgrade urban training centers where my units conduct training. 

I would add that the Marine Corps has invested significant money into urban 

training at our training center in Twentynine Palms for both live-fire and non-livefire training. Both of these facilities are operational and have been for some time. 

Units train at these facilities as part of our service-level assessment before deployment to Iraq. 

120

My assessment is that there has been adequate availability of urban training sites 

and that the sites at our training center have improved dramatically. We are also 

investing now to improve facilities so that we can maintain the best possible facilities for future urban warfare training. 

Colonel ORR. I feel that we have the required facilities and simulations to support 

urban warfare training in a simulated, virtual, and live-fire capacity. In the State 

of Iowa, we have built a simulation room that allows my leaders the ability to train 

room-clearing procedures to new soldiers and understand the training principles, before moving into a higher level of training. After the simulation, the soldiers move 

to a mobile container facility that can be used to teach them the fundamentals of 

entering and clearing a room using blank ammunition and simunitions. We are also 

updating our urban training facility with additional buildings, environmental injects, and constructing a live-fire shoot house that can be used to train soldiers 

under a simulated and live-fire environment. At our annual training site at Camp 

Ripley, MN, they also have a live-fire shoot house and an urban training facility.

MORALE

8. Senator PRYOR. Colonel Beech, Colonel Craparotta, and Colonel Orr, what effect 

has the recent decision to extend deployments from 12 months to 15 months had 

on morale of your soldiers and marines as well as their families? 

Colonel BEECH. Our brigade’s deployment timeline has shifted in large part because of this policy. This will allow the soldiers and families in this brigade additional dwell time at home station with their loved ones and an adequate opportunity 

to reset and train the brigade in preparation for the next rotation. Overall this has 

had a positive impact on my soldiers and their families. I think that, as our deployment date draws closer, more families will become concerned about the long rotation 

and the impact it will have on their lives. For this reason, I am most concerned 

about our younger married soldiers. 

Colonel CRAPAROTTA. The U.S. Marine Corps has not extended any marines from 

12 to 15 months. The morale of our marines is extremely high. Marines and their 

families are experiencing stress due to deployments, something which we hope to 

reduce with our goal of a 1:2 dwell time. 

Colonel ORR. For my unit, we have fallen under the 1-year mobilization policy, 

which includes the post mobilization training and deployment. I feel the new policy 

will greatly enhance the morale of soldiers, their families, and employers. In the 

past, I have had some units that spent 6 months at a mobilization station training, 

prior to their 1-year deployment overseas. By the time they return to the States and 

go on leave, they have been deployed for over 19 months, not including any extensions. I think the new policy will not only minimize the impact for families and employers, but it will allow the State leadership the ability to manage their dwell time 

for future deployments.

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

Æ