U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

67–392 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–43] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING 

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FOR MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE, 

ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION 

AND MAINTENANCE 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 13, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

BILL OWENS, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

DAVE SIENICKI, Professional Staff Member 

VICKIE PLUNKETT, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTINE WAGNER, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, April 13, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request for Military Construction, Base Closure, Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance .................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 ..................................................................................... 25 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE, ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 3 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy, a Representative from Virginia, Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness ...................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Hammack, Hon. Katherine G., Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations, 

Energy, and Environment ................................................................................... 6 

Pfannenstiel, Hon. Jackalyne, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy, Installations and Environment ............................................................................... 8 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installations and 

Environment ......................................................................................................... 5 

Yonkers, Hon. Terry A., Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, 

Environment, and Logistics ................................................................................. 9 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Forbes, Hon. J. Randy ...................................................................................... 29 

Hammack, Hon. Katherine G. ......................................................................... 51 

Pfannenstiel, Hon. Jackalyne .......................................................................... 67 

Robyn, Dr. Dorothy ........................................................................................... 31 

Yonkers, Hon. Terry A. .................................................................................... 99 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 117 

Mr. Courtney ..................................................................................................... 118 

Mr. Gibson ......................................................................................................... 118 

Mr. LoBiondo .................................................................................................... 117 

Mr. Schilling ..................................................................................................... 118 
Page

IV 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 128 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 123 

Ms. Sutton ......................................................................................................... 131 
(1) 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, BASE CLOSURE, ENVIRONMENT, FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS, Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 13, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:30 p.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Randy Forbes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. RANDY FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON READINESS 

Mr. FORBES. Well, I want to welcome all our Members and our 

distinguished panel of experts to today’s hearing that will focus on 

how our military construction program is aligned with our Nation’s 

priorities. 

Fundamentally, our Nation is at war with an aggressive adversary. Our forces have been successful in engaging this war on the 

doorsteps of foreign nations, and I am grateful that the 

underpinnings of our security have kept our citizens safe and ensured our free-market economy thrives. 

However, we have seen changes in this dynamic recently with 

the crisis in several Arab nations, with the rise of a rapidly developing China, and even with the sustaining of combat operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not confident that the Department of 

Defense has the necessary infrastructure and strategic partnerships that are necessary to confront these diverse and dynamic 

challenges. 

I believe that our force structure needs to be better aligned with 

emerging threats. A good example of this realignment effort is located in my Ranking Member’s home of Guam. I believe that this 

location will serve to enhance our forces in Eastern Asia against 

those who believe that we are not committed to freedom and prosperity in this strategic region. 

In addition to Guam, I believe that it is critical that we expand 

our basing structure in the Western Pacific to encompass nontraditional partners that are aligned with our strategic interest. 

On the other hand, an example of a strategic misalignment is at 

Naval Station Mayport, where the Navy has proposed to place a redundant capability that will cost significant funds to support a second carrier homeport on the East Coast. Our strategic investment 

should be both wise and cost-effective. Unfortunately, the Navy’s 
2 

support of a second homeport in Mayport is neither and reverses 

a series of decisions by previous Navy leadership to limit strategic 

homeport concepts. 

As to other issues included in the President’s budget request, I 

am also concerned about financial parameters that drive poor decisionmaking. For example, I was surprised to note that the Navy 

decided to enter into an energy-efficiency contract where the financial payback was reported as an astounding 447 years. Even after 

this was pointed out by the inspector general, the Department decided to continue with this project. 

I was also surprised that the entire Department of Defense uses 

construction cost indices that are 25 percent to 40 percent more 

than similarly commercially built facilities. 

My friends, with savings of only 25 percent in the military construction program, which could represent an annual savings of almost $4 billion, we could build significant capabilities and really 

provide a result that would correct years of neglect and allow us 

to make prudent strategic investments in diverse areas around the 

world. Good enough is not good enough for the fine men and 

women in uniform. 

On a final note, we are in the final year of implementing the 

BRAC [Base Closure and Realignment] program, and there are 

many recommendations that contain significant risk in completing 

by the statutory deadline of September 2011. I want to be very 

clear that any risk to the mission of the United States in this time 

of war needs to be properly limited to ensure the success of our efforts. 

I will not jeopardize patient care for our wounded warriors if 

their care will be impacted by a BRAC move. And I look forward 

to our witnesses’ discussing the risk of the BRAC moves to determine if additional time is necessary to properly complete the remaining BRAC recommendations. 

Joining us today to discuss these issues are four distinguished individuals. Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment. We also have the Honorable 

Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations, Energy, and Environment; the Honorable Jackalyne 

Pfannenstiel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Energy, Installations and Environment; and the Honorable Terry Yonkers, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Installations, Environment and Logistics. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you all for your service to our 

country and thank you so much for taking time to share your experience and expertise with us this afternoon. I know our Members 

are going to appreciate and learn a great deal from your testimony. 

And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Bordallo, for any comments she may have. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

FROM GUAM, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS 

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

And to all our witnesses, I look forward this afternoon to your 

testimonies. 

Today, we are going to discuss a critical component of our military’s readiness, which is the Department of Defense’s military construction program. The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget request 

for military construction and BRAC is $14.7 billion. However, this 

represents a 21-percent reduction in military construction funding 

over the previous fiscal year. 

This amount includes necessary investments to modernize aging 

facilities, construct new facilities, accommodate the realignment of 

military forces abroad to bases within the United States, and complete the 2005 base closure recommendations. 

I do remain concerned about the 21-percent reduction in military 

construction funding over the previous year. I recognize that, as 

BRAC 2005 winds down, the construction requirements will diminish, as well. But we appear to be taking a shortsighted approach 

to sustaining these new facilities by not funding sustainment to the 

Department’s own standards. 

Military construction is a proven jobs creator. In a time of economic downturn, I hope the Department and each of the Services 

will continue their efforts to modernize their current facilities that 

warrant such investments. 

On Guam, for instance, we are beginning a significant military 

buildup. Secretary Pfannenstiel, I know that task orders were recently awarded after the signing of the programmatic agreement, 

and I am pleased to see major construction groundbreaking finally 

taking place. 

The military buildup on Guam is not only a job creator, but is 

important to our national security interests in the Asia Pacific region. We live on a tough block on the world stage. And having freedom to access from Guam is hard to quantify. Although the military buildup on Guam requires tangible progress in Japan, I believe as Admiral Willard testified to the full committee last week, 

that we are seeing signs of tangible progress, and there will be a 

number of milestones along the way. 

Further, I would reiterate the Admiral’s point that the Japanese, 

despite the horrific disaster they have experienced, remain committed to the Guam international agreement. As we move forward, 

I know this committee will continue its strong support for this strategically important move, and we must continue to take steps to 

ensure that this buildup is done right. 

Our hearing is also going to focus on the Department’s and each 

Service’s effort to diversify their installation energy demand. It is 

important to note that our energy conservation and alternative energy development efforts both support our warfighter in an operational capacity, as well as reduce demand on our installations. 

But today, we will be focusing only on our installations. It is esti- mated that our military installations spend nearly $4 billion per 

year in energy costs. Finding ways to reduce this cost and diversify 

our energy portfolio while still protecting readiness will improve 
4 

our national security by reducing demand on foreign oil, as well as 

reducing costs. 

I am interested in what efforts as part of the Secretary of Defense’s efficiencies initiative have been focused on reducing costs 

through alternative energy savings. I feel this is something that 

needs to be continued to be addressed, and I know this committee 

wants to work with the Department to make these efforts successful. 

Finally, I want to hear more from each of the Services about 

their ability to finalize their plans for completing BRAC moves by 

the end of this fiscal year, which is a mere 6 months from now. 

What steps are the Services taking to complete their BRAC moves 

on schedule and can all of the moves be completed on time without 

unnecessary cost increases or unwarranted impacts on local communities? 

If not, what action is the Department contemplating to ensure 

that local communities are not overburdened? And what tools is the 

Department providing the Services to complete their BRAC actions 

in a timely fashion? We want to know how this committee can help 

make this effort successful. 

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. And, again, I feel this 

hearing is very important to the readiness of our forces. Having the 

facilities needed to complete missions is essential, and I look forward to the questions and the testimonies. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

And we discussed prior to the hearing, I ask unanimous consent 

that we dispense with the 5-minute rule for this hearing and depart from regular order so that Members may ask questions during 

the course of the discussion. I think this will provide a roundtabletype forum and will enhance the dialogue on these very important 

issues. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here. We are looking forward to your comments. 

I think I have explained to each of you privately that we have 

a little different format. It is a very bipartisan committee. We work 

very well together. And rather than having the complete staccato 

kind of questioning you get in a lot of committees, if one of their 

Members, it is their time to ask a question and somebody has a 

brief follow-up, we will allow them to do that, even if it is out of 

turn, just to keep that train of thought. 

Also at the end, if there is anything else you want to say or correct that you said, don’t think you are in a box and can’t do that. 

We are going to give you plenty of time to do it. If someone says 

something and you would like to extrapolate on what they said, feel 

free to let me know and we are happy to recognize you. We hope 

that this just gets information out that helps us make sure that 

our forces are ready. 

So if you don’t have any questions, Secretary Robyn, we are 

going to let you start off, if you would. And we will give each of 

you about 5 minutes. Don’t hold you hard and fast to that time period, but I know you have given us prepared remarks. We read 

those, and we have already gotten them. If you can, just talk to us 

for—take 30 seconds or 5 minutes, whatever you need, and tell us 
5 

what you think are the most important things. You don’t have to 

read those prepared remarks. But if it makes you more comfortable, feel free to do it. 

Ms. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY ROBYN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

Dr. ROBYN. Let me thank you, Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman Bordallo, distinguished subcommittee Members. It is a 

pleasure to be here today to talk about the President’s budget request for military construction and environmental programs. 

Let me throw out three numbers, and let me address two crosscutting themes or crosscutting priorities. First number, which Congresswoman Bordallo mentioned, $14.8 billion. That is our request 

for MILCON [Military Construction], family housing programs, and 

BRAC. That is down about $4 billion from last year. And as you 

say, that is predominantly due to the fact that we are nearing the 

end of the BRAC process. Second number, $17.9 billion. That is our request for 

sustainment and recapitalization of existing facilities. That number 

is up by about $4 billion, due largely to the efforts by the Army 

and the Air Force to upgrade their existing facilities. Third number, $4.3 billion for environmental programs. That 

represents steady state, and it is a reflection of the maturity and 

stability and, I would say, the success of our ongoing efforts in that 

area. 

The two crosscutting themes, priorities that I want to briefly talk 

about is energy and then technology. In the energy area—and, Mr. 

Chairman, I know this is a strong interest of yours, and I loved 

your op-ed, and I think you said it very, very well. In fact, I am 

going to quote one sentence. ‘‘Energy efficiency is often framed as 

an environmental issue, but it is first and foremost a national security issue.’’ And that is very much how we think about it. 

It is important to the Department, the facility energy, for two 

reasons. The first is cost. We spend $4 billion a year on facility energy, and even by DOD [Department of Defense] standards, that is 

real money. 

Second is mission assurance. Our installations support combat 

operations more directly than ever before. We fly UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles] from our installations. We fly long-range 

bombers. We analyze battlefield intelligence data in real time. Our 

installations in turn depend on a commercial electricity grid that 

is vulnerable to potentially serious disruptions. So that is the mission assurance part of our concern about energy. 

We have a multifaceted strategy: reduce demand, expand supply 

of alternative energy sources, and improve our energy security. 

These efforts, I just want to reiterate, are not designed—they will 

green our military installations, but that is not the reason we are 

doing them. We are doing them because they will achieve significant cost savings and improve our mission assurance. 

We believe they are smart, with a couple of exceptions, and we 

can address the one that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. These are 

smart investments that will pay for themselves over time, many 

times over. 
6 

Second, I want to—I want to highlight technology. This is the 

Department’s strong suit. This is why we are able to prevail in an 

operational setting. And the same is true in an installation setting. And let me give you two examples. The Department has a $17 

billion bill for cleanup of unexploded ordnance, UXO. That is 

known ordnance above ground; that is not what is underwater. The 

reason it is so expensive is because we don’t have—we have not 

had the technology to distinguish between bombs and beer cans. 

We can’t discriminate between unexploded ordnance and scrap 

metal. 

A program that I oversee has spent 10 years investing in industry and universities to develop the technology to—that can distinguish between bombs and beer cans. And we now have that technology. We need to demonstrate it in a lot of different settings in 

order to get regulatory buy-in, but we think that can save the Department between $10 billion and $12 billion. That is the power of 

technology. 

And let me give you another example. The same organization 

that has been so successfully investing in UXO discrimination technology 2 years ago began a program, a competitive program to— 

that uses our installations as a virtual test bed for next-generation 

energy technology. These are technologies that have the potential 

to dramatically improve our energy performance, but that face 

major impediments to commercialization because of the unique nature of the building energy industry. 

We have been doing this for 2 years. For those technologies that 

prove—that succeed, that prove out in the demonstration, we can 

then go on and use our significant buying power as the Department 

to make a market for those technologies, much as we did with aircraft, electronics and the Internet. We have about 40 projects underway, and we expect to have results beginning this year. 

So there is a lot of exciting work going on. And I didn’t even 

mention BRAC, Guam, and construction costs, but I would be delighted to talk with you about those. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Robyn can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. FORBES. I think you can rest assured that you will get an 

opportunity to do that as we move forward. 

Secretary Hammack. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHERINE G. HAMMACK, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

Secretary HAMMACK. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman Bordallo, and other distinguished Members. Delighted to be 

here, and I want to thank you for your support of the Army over 

the years. 

Certainly, the three things that I want to talk about are BRAC. 

Also efficiencies and energy, as you both cited, were critical components, especially of interest to this committee. We are fighting two 

wars, and we have been working over the last several years to diligently support our forces with the facilities that they need in order 

to train and then to come back and reset from some of the challenges that they are facing. We are working to reduce our energy 
7 

footprint and remain good stewards of the environment. So with all 

of those coming on at once—and then BRAC, at the same time. 

And to the Army, BRAC was an $18 billion program of which 

$13.5 billion was in construction. And doing that at the same time 

you are rotating the forces, at the same time you are fighting the 

wars has been an extreme challenge. We are closing 12 bases. We 

are closing 176 Reserve installations and 211 Guard closures. At 

the same time, we are creating three new four-star headquarters 

and eight joint and Army Centers of Excellence, at the same time 

we have sort of a new concept, which is the Armed Forces Reserve 

centers, where we have both the Guard and Reserve in the same 

location. We have 125 of those we have stood up. 

And so these BRAC programs that we have been undertaking 

will return efficiencies and savings over the long term, but right 

now, we are still in the middle of it. We are coming to closure. And 

we are on target to meet the deadline. 

We have six projects, which we consider high-risk. One of those 

is Walter Reed Medical Center. And we want to ensure that we 

don’t do anything that would jeopardize a soldier or any military 

personnel, so we are watching very closely to ensure that the new 

facilities we need are stood up and properly certified so that we can 

move our soldiers over and not jeopardize care. So that is probably 

the most critical to the Army that we are watching right now. 

But again, we are on target. The schedules are in place. We are 

just watching them very carefully. 

The efficiencies—I mean, I talked about the efficiencies through 

BRAC, but there are other efficiencies, one of which is under discussion with Secretary Gates. We deferred $1.4 billion in MILCON. 

And I know some have thought that that is a risk, and certainly 

we looked at it and we feel it—the projects that we deferred are 

low- and medium-risk to readiness. 

And I use the word ‘‘deferred’’ purposefully, because those 

projects that were deferred will recompete on a basis of need. And 

we are looking very closely at our facilities strategy to ensure that 

we are correcting capacity and condition. And those are two reasons to build new, in that you are overcrowded or you have moved 

a new unit in, and they are in temporary structures, and you need 

to build the facility, or that the condition is a very poor condition 

or you have a roof collapsing or there is a real need. 

So our—as we go forward, our military construction program is 

going to be much more closely scrutinized and evaluated with—as 

Dr. Robyn pointed out—more focus on the restoration and modernization of existing facilities and using what we have now more 

prudently. 

We have had some bid savings in construction. And in those bid 

savings, we have returned about $1 billion to the Treasury. We 

have retained some of the bid savings to help out in areas where 

there have been challenges or areas that were unanticipated. Some 

of these reprogramming are to repair storm-damaged facilities, 

such as at Fort Leonard Wood. We also had some freeze challenges 

in the Southwestern United States over this winter. Or it can be 

to unanticipated challenges, and we have a couple of those we can 

talk about later. 
8 

But as I said, we are reviewing our facility standards model, 

also, what kind of facilities we are using. Is it the most prudent 

design? We are undertaking several simulations of the buildings to 

look at energy use. So we are really taking a whole new look at 

the way we do MILCON in the Army. 

Energy is very important to us. Reducing our energy use per 

square foot, more efficient structures, more efficient power generation, looking at reducing the amount of energy we use first, and 

then looking at repurposing energy and, last of all generating energy, and doing it in a cost-effective manner is very important. 

So I don’t want to take up too much time. I look forward to working closely with you and answering any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Hammack can be found in 

the Appendix on page 51.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Secretary Pfannenstiel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. Thank you, Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman Bordallo, and Members of the committee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to provide an overview 

of the Department of the Navy’s investment in shore infrastructure. I did provide an extensive written statement. I won’t go over 

that. I would just like to highlight a couple points from that statement. 

In overview, the Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a $13.3 billion investment in our installations. That includes 

military construction, sustainment, restoration and modernization, 

BRAC, family housing, environment, and base operating support. 

The military construction portion of that request of $2.5 billion 

is significantly less than our 2011 request of $3.9 billion, primarily 

due to the completion of the Marine Corps’ barracks initiative and 

a more deliberate pace for the Guam buildup. 

The military construction budget, though, does include further 

investments to relocate the Marines from Okinawa to Guam. The 

Marine Corps relocation, with other Department of Defense efforts 

to align forces and capabilities at Guam, represents a unique opportunity to strategically realign the U.S. force posture in the Pacific for the next 50 years. This is a major effort and one that we 

must get right for both the military families and the people of 

Guam. 

I am pleased to share with you that we recently achieved an important milestone in the realignment, the finalization of the programmatic agreement. After 3 years of consultations, we may now 

move forward with executing military construction associated with 

the realignment and preparing a record of decision for the training 

ranges. 

Fostering a long-term positive relationship with the people of 

Guam is essential to the success of the Marine Corps mission in 

the Pacific. The finalization of the programmatic agreement is evi-
9 

dence that the Government of Guam and the Department of Defense can work closely together on solutions. 

This is an important year for the realignment program. As Congresswoman Bordallo pointed out, construction is imminent and additional contracts will be awarded over the next several weeks and 

months at a sustainable pace that Guam can support. 

Building on the fiscal year 2010 and 2011 projects, the projects 

we are proposing in fiscal year 2012 enable future vertical construction, support the introduction of off-island workers, and support future operations. Further, the Government of Japan’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget includes financing for critical utilities projects 

that will support relocating Marines in the long run and the rampup of construction in the near term. 

The Department is on track to implement BRAC 2005 realignments and closures by the statutory deadline of September 15th. 

Going forward, our fiscal year 2012 budget request of $26 million 

enables ongoing environmental restoration, caretaking, and property disposal at BRAC 2005 installations. 

The Department has made significant progress in the past year 

and to date has completed 328 of the 485 realignment and closure 

actions as specified in our business plans. 

Additionally, the Department of the Navy has increased its investment to support President Obama’s energy challenge and Secretary Mabus’ aggressive energy goals to include energy security, 

reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and to promote good stewardship. We have requested $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2012 and $4.4 

billion across the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program] for shore 

and operational energy efficiencies. 

Members of the committee, your support of the Department’s fiscal year 2012 budget request will ensure that we build and maintain the facilities that our sailors and marines need to succeed in 

their military and humanitarian missions, even as the challenges 

we face multiply. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Pfannenstiel can be found 

in the Appendix on page 67.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Secretary Yonkers. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TERRY A. YONKERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, INSTALLATIONS, ENVIRONMENT, AND LOGISTICS 

Secretary YONKERS. Chairman Forbes, Congresswoman Bordallo, 

and Members of the House Armed Services Committee, first of all, 

let me say thanks for the invitation to be here today and have the 

chance to talk to you about the Air Force’s military construction 

and family housing, environmental, BRAC, and sustainment, restoration, modernization programs. 

And I would like to start off by saying thank you, also, for the 

hard work last week to get us through this critical juncture on the 

business of shutting down the Government and looking forward to 

the next critical step, and that is the continuation for the appro-
10 

priations that we are going to need to execute our fiscal year 2011 

programs. The Air Force’s fiscal year 2012 budget includes $2 billion for construction in BRAC; $1.4 billion of that is for military construction, $500 million is for family housing, and $125 million is for legacy BRAC, and most of that is going into environmental cleanup. 

BRAC 2005, our most recent BRAC round, as with the Navy, we 

are on target to hit all of the statutory goals by the September 15th 

deadline. Out of the 400 or so separate actions that we have in our 

business plan, we are at about 320 right now, and we don’t expect 

any hiccups in the eventuality of fulfilling all of those. Our budget 

is $3.8 billion, and we are staying within that budget for BRAC 

2005. 

Want to talk a little bit about sustainment, restoration and modernization. Our fiscal year 2012 budget request is for about $3 billion for SRM; $2 billion of that is for sustainment; the remainder 

is for restoration and modernization. 

I know there has been some concern about the investment in 

sustainment, and that is $300 million less than it was in fiscal year 

2011. But I want to tell you, over the course of the last few years, 

we have taken a look to try to get more efficient and identified requirements more vigilantly with regards to sustainment. 

And so we are looking at this from a business point of view. We 

are looking at it from a return-on-investment point of view. We are 

looking at it from a better contracting point of view. And we are 

also infusing dollars into demolition and consolidation that by virtue of reducing our footprint in our facilities, that will also reduce 

the investment that we need to put into sustainment. At the same 

time, we are increasing our dollar investment in restoration and 

modernization. 

I want to talk a little bit—as have my cohorts—about efficiencies. 

We all recognize how critical it is to deal with deficits and debts, 

and we are all in it with you together here. Congresswoman 

Bordallo asked about some of the efficiencies, so let me tell you 

about a few of the ones that the Air Force has implemented. Over 

the FYDP, for example, through this SRM [Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization] reduction in the facility sustainment in 

particular, we are looking at a $1.6 billion reduction in cost. 

As we looked at our weapons system sustainment, we would look 

at efficiencies on the order of $3 billion over the FYDP and doing 

business better in our weapons systems. 

In our environmental cleanup program, we have refocused our efforts on closing sites and using innovative contracting mechanisms 

like performance-based restoration. We are expecting, as has the 

Army already experienced, somewhere on the order of a 30 percent 

to 40 percent reduction in our overall cleanup program through the 

FYDP based on a $500 million investment that we are using right 

today. 

Likewise, we have also taken a look at our environmental impact 

analysis process. And we are going to be looking at that from a getback-to-basics point of view, looking at the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and streamlining the process. We are 

expecting to find somewhere between $10 million and $15 million 

a year from that. 
11 

The point I am trying to make is that every day we wake up, we 

look at, what is it that we need to do to get a bit more efficient 

than we have in the past? And there is nothing in the portfolio that 

we are not looking at. 

I want to talk a little bit about energy, if you will allow me, as 

well. We are using the smart tools. And as we have seen across the 

Department, with regards to finding better efficiencies in our facilities, and have actually achieved a 33 percent reduction in the last 

7 or 8 years, even though costs of business have increased. We are 

utilizing LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design] 

silver standards to increase efficiency for all our new buildings. And in operational energy, ma’am, we are looking at $700 million 

savings over the FYDP and looking at better ways of reducing 

loads in the way we fly, the routes that we fly, and our utilization 

of jet fuel. Our goal for the Air Force is 10 percent. That will 

equate to about $700 million per year, once we are able to achieve 

that goal. 

So I want to stop it at that point in time, and I want to say 

thank you very much, again, for your strong support of the United 

States Air Force over the past and what you do for our airmen. 

And I also look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Yonkers can be found in 

the Appendix on page 99.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Secretary Yonkers. 

And I want to thank all of you for your testimonies. And I always 

defer my questions until the end so the Members can ask theirs, 

and hopefully they have covered everything. 

But I am going to start with just one question for you, any of you 

that want to take it. And I want to begin where Secretary Yonkers 

left off. He said there is not a day that you don’t ask the question, 

what is it we need to do to be more efficient than we were in the 

past? 

And as all of you know, we are wrestling with budget cuts every 

place we look and so-called efficiencies and things that are taking 

place. I saw a story the other day that somebody was telling me 

about, when somebody opened a fuel tank and they couldn’t tell 

how much fuel that was in there, so they took the top off and lit 

a match to see. I don’t have to tell you, it wasn’t a happy ending. 

And I remember when they told me, I said, ‘‘Tell me that is not 

true.’’ And they said, ‘‘I hate to tell you, it was true.’’ 

We are looking—we are going to have some questions later that 

talks about the fact that when DOD budgets for a facility, it is normally as much as 40 percent more than the private sector would 

do. That is something we would just say, ‘‘Tell us that is not true.’’ 

We have a Navy project we are going to talk about in a little 

while that the I.G. [Inspector General] says has a 447-year return 

on investment. And we know that may not be totally true, but anyone of those parameters, we are going to say, ‘‘Tell me that is not 

true.’’ 

But here is the question. Right before I came over here, I got 

handed some information on the Mark Center down here. You 

know the albatross we are looking at. We don’t have the infrastructure. We might not get in there and be able to use it. And we have 

got information breaking that we are thinking about spending 
12 

$600,000 for a statue, one of the finalists being a fairy riding a 

toad. 

To the American people, that is just as foolish as if we opened 

that tank and hold a match over it. I have just got to say: ‘‘Tell 

me that is not true.’’ With all these cuts, we are not spending 

$600,000 for a statue in front of that center, especially when one 

of the—I don’t care if it is Ronald Reagan shaking hands with Bill 

Clinton. I mean, it is still $600,000 of money that people are going 

to go livid over. 

Can you shed some light on that story? Is it accurate, or—— 

Secretary HAMMACK. I can certainly shed some light on it. And 

it is, I think, entertaining to all of us that sometimes the media 

picks that which will gain the most attention. 

Mr. FORBES. That one has. 

Secretary HAMMACK. And the fact that it broke on April Fool’s 

Day—— 

Mr. FORBES. So it is not true? 

Secretary HAMMACK [continuing]. Made it much more interesting. That was a submitted entry in a competition run by the city 

of Alexandria. In the development of the transportation center, 

which is the public face of the Mark Center, the city of Alexandria 

said, you need to do something. It is concrete walls. It looks like 

a bomb shelter. You need to do something. Can you dress it up? 

And they referenced the GSA [General Services Administration] art 

initiative, which is half of 1 percent of construction costs goes toward some sort of public art. 

So we took a look at it and came up with a much lower figure 

of not to exceed $600,000 for some sort of mural and potentially a 

statue in the transportation center. And a competition was set up. 

That was one of the submittals. We are taking a look at all of 

the submittals. We are also taking a look at some of the offers we 

have had of more military-themed statuary that could go there, but 

we are looking at some sort of mural on the wall. 

Mr. FORBES. But wasn’t that more than just a submittal? Wasn’t 

it one of the four finalists? 

Secretary HAMMACK. The artists were demonstrating their capability for artwork, and that was a demonstration of the kind of artwork that that artist—— 

Mr. FORBES. And I don’t want to play this. We have got a lot of 

other issues. The only thing I just want to let you know, it is—we 

don’t even have the roads to go to that building. We may not be 

able to occupy it. And when we tell the public—I am just telling 

you what we are wrestling with. When we tell the public we are 

going to spend $600,000, I don’t care what we are beautifying—I 

mean, you know, we could put that to infrastructure to get there— 

it is a hard sell for us. 

And we are over here fighting for you guys. And I am not blaming any of you. I know this is out of your hands. But I am just saying, that is a tough thing for us to have to go back and argue we 

can’t make cuts when we are spending that kind of money for statues. 

Ms. Bordallo. 
13 

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

can get some private donations for such artwork. I know I just saw 

it. 

First of all, I want to ask a couple of questions here, and I would 

like to start, Mr. Chairman, by asking a few questions for my good 

friend, Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She is a member of the 

Readiness Committee, and she has consistently been a champion 

on Capitol Hill for DOD energy efforts. She was also the author of 

the DOD Energy Security Act. 

So this is for any of the witnesses. I think maybe, Dr. Robyn, you 

might be able to answer this. I know Gabby applauds the Services’ 

proactive development of strategic thought toward energy and how 

it is used. She would like to ensure the DOD has all the resources 

and permissions required to continue your efforts. 

However, some issues remain. So who and where is the single 

agency responsible for DOD’s operational energy research and development? How does DOD disseminate lessons learned and best 

practices for operational energy projects? And do you think that if 

DOD had a formal process that all service members with boots on 

the ground would be equipped with a solar portable alternative 

communication energy system or spaces or rucksack enhanced portable power system or REPPS [Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power 

System]-like capability? 

So if you could, just enlighten me on those three. Yes? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes, I met with Congresswoman Giffords last year, 

a year ago January, and I know that Senator Udall is working with 

her to reintroduce the Energy Security Act, which I think is terrific. And we worked fairly extensively with her staff over the 

course of a couple of months last year, one member of whom is here 

today. 

Most of her questions pertain to operational energy, and within— 

that is actually a separate person in the Department of Defense, 

Sharon Burke. You all created the position of Assistant Secretary 

for Operational Energy, and we nominated and the Senate confirmed Sharon Burke. She has been on board about a year now and 

doing a terrific job of being the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] person who heads up that. 

Each of the Services is being very, very active. And so, for example, Jackie can talk about the amazing things that the Marines are 

doing in their expeditionary—their EXFOB [Experimental Forward 

Operating Base] at Quantico and the technology they are taking to 

theater. 

But the single point of contact cutting across the Department is 

Sharon Burke in this newly created office. And it has gotten a lot 

of visibility. We put on an Energy Awareness Day this year, and 

Chairman Mullen, among others, came and spoke very, very passionately about it, so it has really—I think it is a very, very high 

priority for the Department. And I think the Services are working 

very closely to share lessons learned on it. 

I am not sure—I don’t think I can speak to the issue of whether 

there are authorities or resources that we need that we don’t have. 

I will let my colleagues—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. I think a follow-up question would be, could you 

explain what fiscal efficiencies would be gained from a department- 
14 

level research and development effort similar to the Marine Corps 

EXFOB, which was what you were talking about, experimental forward operating base? 

Dr. ROBYN. I think—let me take—do you want to—— 

Secretary HAMMACK. And that came out of a joint effort. Out at 

Fort Irwin, the Services got together, and so it was work on tents, 

it was work on operational energy, it was work on generators, it 

was work on power distribution, and the Services got together. 

You talk about the rucksack enhanced power system, REPPS, 

which is called SPACES [Solar Portable Alternative Communication Energy System] in the Marines, it is the same system. We just 

have two different names. The Army has deployed several hundred 

of them. The Marines have deployed several of them, as well. It is 

the same system. It is a shared system that we are both using. So 

there are some great work, joint work that is going on between the 

Services on operational energy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Pfannenstiel. 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. Yes, let me just add that the—part of 

this is homegrown within the Services. They find needs. And with 

the Marines, they have offered a couple rounds now where they 

have asked for technology providers who might be able to meet 

their needs in theater to come to Quantico or to Twentynine Palms 

and demonstrate what they have. 

And in a couple of these cases, I think it is really telling that 

from the first demonstration at Quantico or Twentynine Palms, the 

Marines then take the technologies that seem the best fit for their 

needs and try them out in some test form, and then they are in 

theater in some cases in 6 months or 8 months. I mean, and then 

they share this across the Services so that they are all understanding the technologies. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Dr. Yonkers, did you want to add—— 

Secretary YONKERS. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the chance. You 

probably are well aware of the efforts that we all have underway 

with regard to alternative fuels, and particularly synthetics and 

bios and cellulosics. And I think it is fair to say that we spend a 

fair amount of time talking to each other and sharing information 

about how we can look at alternative fuels and the certification 

process that we are utilizing right now for our jet aircraft. 

I mentioned the $700 million efficiencies that we have already 

identified and the $700 million that we will try to get to. Part of 

it is hinged on the utility or using biofuels and synthetic fuels as 

a replacement for fossil fuels in our aircraft. 

And Jackie and I have been speaking closely about this, because 

the Navy and the Marine Corps fly aircraft like we fly aircraft, and 

also with Katherine, because we have tactical vehicles that could 

use the same fuel. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

And I have another question for another one of my colleagues. 

This is on behalf of my good friend, Congressman Sam Farr. 

Dr. Robyn, can your office assist with joint civilian-military 

projects which also need coordination between Active and Reserve 

units who wish to perform an innovative readiness training pro-
15 

gram that will have positive benefits on the environment? Is that 

a yes or a no? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, you can. Well, okay, for example, there is a 

situation in Congressman Farr’s district concerning the removal of 

the San Clemente Dam and redirecting the Carmel River that 

would provide a training opportunity for National Guardsmen or 

reservists. The dam removal project is an effort that seems bogged 

down in bureaucracy, despite its benefits, such as training for the 

service members, removal of a hazardous dam, and restoration of 

key fish habitat. 

The land in question is slated to be conveyed to the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) once the dam is gone. It is rare that 

our service members have this kind of real-life training opportunity, so I know that this type of innovative readiness training 

has been done in California before, especially along the border with 

construction of a new fence. 

So can you work with me and Congressman Farr to see if there 

is a way to give our National Guardsmen or reservists the practice 

and training they need in real life, real time, while at the same 

time using your expertise on DOD environmental issues to establish civilian-military collaborations like at the San Clemente Dam? 

And what can be done in this situation or others like it? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes, I would be happy to work with you and Congressman Farr on that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you very much. 

Dr. ROBYN. I will take that as a question for the record. 

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

page 117.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have my own questions, but I will wait for 

the second round. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Madeleine. That is kind of you. 

I would like to now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, 

Mr. LoBiondo, for 5 minutes. 

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

And to our panel, thank you for being here today and for the 

work you do on behalf of our Nation. 

For Dr. Robyn, as you have stated previously, the U.S. Department of Defense has set aggressive goals to procure 7.5 percent of 

its electricity from renewable energy by 2013 and 25 percent by 

2025. As the price of oil continues to skyrocket due to the conflicts 

in the Middle East and for other reasons, replacing costly fossil 

fuels with proven and effective renewable energy technologies is a 

necessary move for the taxpayers for their pocketbook and for our 

Nation’s security. I think it is a big homeland security issue. As the world’s largest consumer of energy, spending over $20 billion a year as I understand it, DOD has a special responsibility to 

lead by example when greening the Government. Its enormous purchasing power helped create a new market for renewable energy 

technology projects, making them more affordable for everything. 

However, when the Department makes it renewable energy procurement decisions, are the implications of those purchases on our 

Nation’s energy security considered when those are made? 
16 

And there will be one more question here. New Jersey is the 

sixth-largest solar market in the world and, within the United 

States, the second-largest, only behind California. A lot of people 

don’t realize that. The solar sector is one of the segments in New 

Jersey’s economy that is growing, bringing with it jobs. 

As such, I am interested to know if the DOD is purchasing foreign-manufactured solar panels. And if the answer is yes, were 

American-manufactured options considered in such instances? If 

yes, why were they rejected? And also, what efforts, if any, is the 

Department taking to provide the proper guidance to the energy 

managers on the ground to at least consider American renewable 

technology in their procurement portfolios? 

Dr. ROBYN. Thank you. Thanks for the question. 

We certainly are taking security into account when we think 

about renewable projects. I am not saying we have not in the past 

been compliance-oriented. We are. We have got goals. We are trying to meet those goals. 

But particularly in the renewable area, we look at them with an 

eye to, will this enhance the security of an installation when combined with other investments, in particular microgrid technology, 

where we are doing a lot of fairly cutting-edge work? 

The combination of microgrid technology, renewables, and storage capacity, again, that is cutting-edge technology, but will allow 

us to island, to separate off critical—not necessarily the entire installation, but critical missions on an installation, and we increasingly see that as an important thing to be able to do in order to 

assure our mission. 

You would be surprised how many stories we hear about an installation—yes, I am sorry. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me for interrupting, and I want to be responsible to the time, and we are winding down. 

Dr. ROBYN. I am sorry. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The question—I am interested to know, is DOD 

purchasing foreign-manufactured solar panels? 

Dr. ROBYN. My understanding—there is new legislation, Buy 

America. I think the reason that legislation was passed was because, without it, most purchases would not be of—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, so the answer is—— 

Dr. ROBYN. It is a cost issue. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. So there were—so we rejected buying 

American-made solar panels because they were more expensive? Is 

that what you are telling us? 

Dr. ROBYN. Yes, that is my understanding. Can anybody else—— 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. Congressman, I can say that we in the 

Department of the Navy have looked very carefully, and we will be 

buying American solar panels. I can’t tell you whether there are 

any that currently have been bought in the past from non-American companies, but going forward, they will all be American-produced. 

Secretary HAMMACK. And from the Army’s standpoint, I was just 

out at an installation that is doing a groundbreaking on a onemegawatt power plant. And they are panels that are made in the 

United States. They are actually made in New Jersey. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. 
17 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you again to our 

panel. 

Mr. FORBES. And if we could just ask all of our panelists, if they 

don’t mind, if you could just check and, for the record, submit to 

the gentleman from New Jersey if we have been purchasing any in 

the past. Would that make you—— 

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

page 117.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be 

very helpful. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Kissell. 

Mr. KISSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our panelists for coming, and especially, Dr. 

Robyn, good to see you again. It would be fair in saying that you 

have been very forthcoming in working with us and the BRAC operation down at Fort Bragg, where we have two of the four-star 

commands coming in, and we still face a lot of challenges as we 

look towards finishing this up and in terms on the base and also 

within the community. And we probably still have some conversations in that area forthcoming. 

A gentleman named Richard Kidd came to my office not long ago, 

is Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability. Where does he fit in the—Secretary Hammack, where does 

he fit in, in terms of the reporting structure? 

Secretary HAMMACK. He works for me. 

Mr. KISSELL. Okay. Well, I thought maybe that was the case. 

And we had good conversations. One of the concerns that I brought 

to him and had talked to, Mr. Chairman—actually, somebody 

else—Jamie Lynch, on our committee—is that the fact that there 

are ideas out there that we think or we may see as congresspeople 

that we think are pretty good, and we may not know how they 

compare to others, but we like to be able to show that to our committee staff or to have you guys look at it, because, you know—as 

good as you are, I doubt that you can see everything. 

And just wondering, you know, what might you all’s process be 

for when there are ideas being brought to you, that—maybe that 

little guy, that they may not have the name or the background that 

might normally catch your attention real quickly, but they have 

some pretty good ideas? What is your response? And how does that 

fit in? And this is something that Mr. Kidd and I spent quite a bit 

of time talking about. 

Secretary HAMMACK. In the Army, we have RDECOM [Research, 

Development and Engineering Command]. That is up in Aberdeen. 

And what they do is they do a lot of filtering, that they take in a 

lot of different technologies and do a look at them and test them 

in comparison with other things. And if it looks like it is worthwhile, then it might go from their bench testing to a larger scale 

testing on an installation. 

Mr. KISSELL. Well, and I am not going to ask each of the Members, but, you know, as different things might come your way, I do 

ask that we be open to this process, because we never know where 

that next best mousetrap may be, because it may not come from 

the normal way. And sometimes I think we get set in our patterns 

of purchasing and procurements and where we expect things to 
18 

come from, and we may not—you know, gee, maybe I have seen everything I want to see for a while. 

You know, and sometimes I guess you reach that point, but 

please be open to that process, you know, because it is not about 

selling somebody’s—we are not salespeople for businesses. But, you 

know, when we see ideas, that is what made this Nation great. 

And I would like to emphasize the idea of American ideas. So 

many times, we tend maybe not to recognize and reward those 

folks in America as much as we should. 

Secretary Hammack, you mentioned something about there were 

five or six things you were watching to make sure that they did 

happen, and you mentioned one being Walter Reed. I am curious, 

what are the others? 

Secretary HAMMACK. Three of them are National Guard or Reserve facilities. One of those facilities has had unfortunate ground 

conditions, in that the ground was prepared, and the next morning 

we went out there and there was a big sinkhole. And so we did additional soil testing and filled that sinkhole and got ready to start 

again. And I was just informed over the weekend that several more 

appeared. 

So we are not sure what is going on at that site, but it might 

be a non-buildable site, and we might have to find a new one. We 

are trying to figure out what is the best thing to do, because we 

certainly don’t want to put up a building that is going to sink. 

We have some renovations that are going on over at Fort Belvoir, 

and those buildings are sort of waiting to be renovated until the 

group that is there moves to their next location. And so it is sort 

of the domino effect. 

When their facilities are ready, they move in. We renovate their 

facilities so the next group can move in. And it is a very tight 

schedule. We are watching it very closely. We think we will make 

it, but we don’t want to do anything that would not make sense, 

and we want to be prudently watching the dollars and watching 

the deadlines. 

We are watching Mark Center, which is ready for occupancy August 9th, and looking at the move schedule to see how many people 

can move in there in that time, and that is something that is being 

handled by the DOD and OSD on the move schedule. 

So those are—I think I named all three, then. 

Mr. KISSELL. Okay. Well, thanks so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Larry. 

The gentlelady from Missouri, Mrs. Hartzler, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I wanted to thank you, Secretary Hammack, for your work 

helping with Fort Leonard Wood after the tornado. That was very, 

very obviously destructive, and we are very thankful there wasn’t 

any loss of life there. But I have been in close contact with General 

Quantock, and he has assured me that you all have been working 

on that and able to supply the funds to help rebuild. 

And I know they are going to come back even stronger. I know 

General Casey has been very supportive of that, and hopefully—are 
19 

we still on track, I mean, by the end of this year, having that up 

and back and running, fully functioning? 

Secretary HAMMACK. We are still on track. I won’t say everything 

will be done by the end of the year, but we are working to ensure 

that we don’t sacrifice mission. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. I had talked, I know, with General Quantock 

about building storm shelters. I have a little bit of experience growing up in the Midwest with tornadoes, as my—when I was in high 

school, my grandparents’ entire farm and their house, anyway, was 

lost in a tornado. Thankfully, they barely made it to the basement. 

But I have seen firsthand that devastation. And I was shocked 

after the tornado to learn that they—all of the housing was on 

slabs. There was no storm shelters in the community. All the training sites had no storm shelters, and that is the case in other installations I have come to find out. 

But I understand that you all are re-looking at that and trying 

to be proactive, and we can learn from this. What steps are taken 

now with storm shelter building after the tornado? 

Secretary HAMMACK. That is something we are taking a look at. 

We are taking a look overall at climate change impacts, whether 

there might be increased risk of storm or increased risk of earthquake or other mitigation strategies we need to implement, but certainly tornado shelters are one of those, and I think it is certainly 

made us all aware of the need for it. 

We do have great training programs on the base, and that is one 

of the things that helped out in that situation, no loss of life, but 

we are evaluating if we need to take some other steps there to ensure that we are more protected for the future. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yes, I would just like to advocate that, and I 

don’t think tornadoes are because of climate change in the Midwest. We have had them forever. But, anyway, I think that is just 

common sense there. 

But I did want to just ask all of the panel about BRAC. I know 

you are just wrapping up the 2005 BRACs. And do you anticipate— 

have you heard any move afoot to have any more BRACs in the future? 

Dr. ROBYN. We have not asked for authorization for another 

BRAC. I think we are focused very single-mindedly on trying to get 

through the current one and meet our current deadlines. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Very good. Okay. Everybody okay with that? 

Just in the final question, regarding the 2005 BRAC, the situation there, I know there are 30 BRAC recommendations yet to be 

completed within 3 months of the completion date, and you all are 

considering six projects at high risk of being able to complete that. 

So I just wondered, what steps is the Department taking and what 

cost to complete all these recommendations by September of this 

year? 

Dr. ROBYN. Katherine just reviewed some of the key ones. We are 

focusing on trying to meet the deadline in every case. We are determined to satisfy our legal obligation, but we are certainly not going 

to put patient safety at risk. 

So, for example, one of the ones we are watching closely is the 

move from Walter Reed to Bethesda, and we absolutely will not— 

we think that we are on schedule on that one, but should some-
20 

thing go wrong—we do have only a small margin—we will absolutely not do anything to jeopardize patient safety. 

And as a matter of fact, under the law, we can’t do that. We have 

to certify that Bethesda has the capability to receive the soldiers 

from Walter Reed before we can move them. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yes, that is good to know. I mean, wounded warriors obviously are a high priority for all of us, and make sure they 

have the utmost care. 

And being new—I wasn’t here in 2005—is there a penalty? I 

know there is a goal, September 2011, but what happens if you 

aren’t able to—— 

Dr. ROBYN. It is a legal obligation. We are not concerned about 

a fine, but it is a legal obligation, and the Department has never 

missed a BRAC deadline through five rounds. 

I will say that this is the biggest one we have had, 222 actions, 

but I think, more important, there was a conscious decision by the 

Department around 2006 to move the implementation to the right 

for budget reasons. So we are implementing this BRAC round systematically later in the 6-year implementation phase or implementation period than we have the earlier BRAC rounds, and so that 

is why we are coming so close to the deadline on a number of these. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. Courtney. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the witnesses for your service and testimony 

today. It is nice to see two graduates of the University of Hartford 

graduate programs doing so well and serving our country. 

I actually want to follow up with Congresswoman Hartzler’s 

question, because this is not just sort of an academic question that 

she asked. There was a speech given in Boston by Senator Kerry, 

who was telling the audience that New England has to start getting ready for a BRAC round in 2015 or a BRAC process in 2015. 

You know, Under Secretary Robyn, you said again that there was 

nothing that is in the works right now, there is no request. I actually would appreciate it if the other witnesses could just confirm, 

as well as—again, Secretary Mabus was very strong before the 

committee a couple of weeks ago, but, again, I just would for the 

record ask that all of you just indicate whether there is anything 

happening. 

Secretary HAMMACK. There is no Army request. As Dr. Robyn 

said, we are focused on completing the round that we have right 

now and would sort of like to take a deep breath after we complete 

it. 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. And, Congressman, we have no intention—the Navy has no intention of seeking another BRAC. 

Secretary YONKERS. Congressman, the same thing is true for the 

Air Force. We are focusing on what it is that we need to complete 

right now, but I will also say that we still have excess infrastructure. So it would be a preferable—I mean, not preferable. It would 

be of use to us, I think, if we looked down that road farther, a reduction through another Base Realignment and Closure. 

Mr. FORBES. Would the gentleman yield? 
21 

Mr. COURTNEY. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Let me suggest you not look too far to this committee, because I don’t think we would be very receptive to another 

round of BRAC, and I think that is what Mrs. Hartzler and Mr. 

Courtney are trying to convey. 

And I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I mean, again, we—again, I have only gotten some sort of updates in terms of the net savings through this process. And, frankly, I think, you know, a lot of us are going to be looking at that 

very closely. 

I mean, in theory, there is probably always excess capacity, but 

the question is really whether this process is generating much in 

terms of real savings down the road. 

And why don’t we just set that subject aside, because I actually 

have another question for you, Mr. Yonkers, which is that your 

budget that was submitted for 2012 for Air National Guard has a 

40-percent reduction for facilities for Air National Guard. We, 

again, have a new mission in Connecticut for the C–17s [Boeing 

Globemaster III military transport aircraft], which is going to require some new facilities. The FYDP at this point is looking at 

2015 for those facilities. And they are expecting to get those planes 

in 2013. 

So I can tell from the look on your face I may be hitting you with 

something a little too unexpected, and if you want to answer for 

the record. But, frankly, there is some concern about just where 

your budget is, in terms of the requirements for the C–17 missions, 

not just in Connecticut, but I believe it is five other states that are 

slated to get that project from the Air National Guard. 

Secretary YONKERS. Well, sir, I am confused, because our budget 

for the Air Guard this year is actually pretty robust. They are actually getting about 14 percent of the total military construction 

budget, which is about $1.4 billion. I am not aware of any detriment or any issues with regards to the C–17 in particular—— 

Mr. COURTNEY. C–27 [Alenia Spartan military transport aircraft]. 

Secretary YONKERS. C–27? 

Mr. COURTNEY. The cargo—yes, the air cargo. 

Secretary YONKERS. Ah, okay. Yes, I would like to take it for the 

record. 

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

page 118.] 

Mr. COURTNEY. Okay, that is fine. But there is, obviously, some 

concern about the way the numbers—and, again, if I am wrong, 

that is even better. But if you could help us with that, that would 

be much appreciated. 

Secretary YONKERS. You bet. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And, again, I just would—in terms of some of the 

prior questions about energy efficiencies, we just cut the ribbon on 

a new Submarine Learning Center in Groton recently, which had 

geothermal as part of the installation, which actually everybody 

was just so excited about it. 

But, again, Secretary Mabus testified before committee, again, a 

couple weeks ago about every $10 per barrel is a $300 million price 
22 

tab for the Navy. I mean, obviously, no one wants to spend money 

on that if we don’t have to, so those efforts I think are for the taxpayer, you know, setting aside any environmental reasons. So, you 

know, I just wanted to at least go on the record saying that we are 

seeing real tangible results with your efforts, so congratulations. 

And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. We are going to have a series of votes. 

I don’t know how our panelists are on time, but Mrs. Bordallo has 

asked to come back because she has a number of questions. Some 

of our Members may. Would that be too great—we apologize for 

that inconvenience. And, unfortunately, it could be as much as 50 

minutes. So I just want to—Mr. Schilling, we are going to yield to 

you for 5 minutes, and then we are going to recess—and we will 

come back for any Members that want to ask questions after that. 

Mr. Schilling. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Thank you, Chairman. And I won’t need my full 

5 minutes, because my colleagues here have already asked the 

questions on BRAC’ing. I just wanted to delve in a little bit more 

onto basically the ‘‘Made in America’’ and how we buy product and 

how we do the pricing. 

One of the things that was brought to my attention—and, actually, I am from the district that—we represent the Rock Island Arsenal, so when we hear that we have no plans for BRAC’ing right 

now, that is music to our ears. 

But I had a gentleman that came to me, and he makes tools for 

a living. He has a firm in Milan, Illinois. And he indicated to me 

that we had the ‘‘Made in USA,’’ and basically the toolbox was 

made in America, but everything inside of it was not. 

And, you know, I am one of those people where I buy everything 

I can made in America. And, you know, I guess, you know, can you 

kind of give me an idea of how that works? I am pretty new to this, 

also, and any help you can give me would be appreciated. 

Dr. ROBYN. Well, I don’t know that I can give you a definitive 

answer, but let me say, we have gained an enormous amount as 

a country from the international trading system. We had done very 

well in selling our goods overseas, and that requires us in turn to 

buy goods from other countries. And consumers benefit from that, 

as well. We have trade laws by which we are bound, which protect 

us, but require us to buy—to not discriminate in favor of U.S. products. 

My understanding is that, in the case of the solar panels, that 

at least with respect to China, which is where many of them are 

coming from—and maybe wind turbines, as well—that they have 

not signed the international agreement under which we said we 

would buy products from that country. So even trade sticklers 

would say that there is a—that legally under international trade 

law we are justified in buying at least non-Chinese products. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Okay. That is a good enough answer. 

And then lastly I just wanted to thank you, because I know you 

are all sincerely dedicated to the cause, and I just want to thank 

you for your service, also. 

So with that, I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. Could I just follow up real quickly on what Mr. 

Schilling said? Would it be possible for you to submit for the 
23 

record—we don’t expect you to have it—an explanation or perhaps 

send somebody back to his office to brief him on that policy? And 

the reason is because we understand with a lot of our agencies, but 

with DOD, one of the things we are concerned about, if we get in 

a conflict, we want to make sure that some other country doesn’t 

cut off the supply. 

And I think this is what Mr. Schilling is concerned about. So if 

you need to submit it for the record or contact his office and just 

have him briefed on that. 

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

page 118.] 

Mr. FORBES. Chris, did you have a quick question? 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am just going to submit for 

the record, because I am not going to be able to come back—— 

Mr. FORBES. Take 60 seconds, and then we are going to get Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Apologize for not being 

here earlier, so I will look forward to reading the transcripts on energy efficiencies, and particularly interested in for modular nuclear 

reactors, where the Department is going forward, hearing your 

views on that. 

And then the question for the record: I am concerned about the 

deaths at Fort Bragg. I know that this is partially in your lane, 

and it cuts across others, but with regard to military construction 

and environment, 12 deaths there, 3 in one home. And we certainly 

have great personal experience with Picerne, very responsible I 

found them in my time that our family lived at Fort Bragg, but I 

am especially concerned about these deaths and would like to be 

kept apprised of what the investigations are going forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

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

page 118.] 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Yonkers, I will not be able to come back after the series of 

votes, but I represent Robins Air Force Base. And I would appreciate it if we could schedule some time for you to come by. I would 

like to discuss the 30 percent reduction that is, as I understand it, 

across the board for the Air Force in energy consumption with the 

September 30th of 2015, I believe it is, deadline. And I would like 

to—I would just like more details on that and how that number 

was derived and how we intend to get there. 

Certainly, manufacturing installations are very different than 

other installations, maybe. I would just appreciate your time, if we 

could schedule that, and Jim Dolbow of my staff is in the back. 

Secretary YONKERS. Congressman Scott, we would be delighted 

to come by and talk to you some more about that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Steve, do you have any questions? Do you want to 

come back or are you okay? Okay. 

Then we are going to have some of our Members submit questions for the record. I am told Ms. Bordallo is still in a markup and 

will be a while getting back. I have got a number of questions I 
24 

am just going to submit to you for the record. Please answer them, 

you know, because they are things we need for our markup when 

we get them. 

So we will submit those to you. And if you would just be kind 

enough to submit those for the record, then we don’t have to hold 

you and bring you back. And I know that will be good news to you. 

Thank you guys so much for taking your time and being with us. 

And with that, if no one has any follow-up questions, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 13, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 13, 2011 

(29) 

Statement of Hon. J. Randy Forbes 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Readiness 

Hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget 

Request for Military Construction, Base Closure, 

Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance 

April 13, 2011 

I want to welcome all our Members and our distinguished panel 

of experts to today’s hearing that will focus on how our military 

construction program is aligned with our Nation’s priorities. Fundamentally, our Nation is at war with an aggressive adversary. 

Our forces have been successful in engaging this war on the doorsteps of foreign nations and I am grateful that the underpinnings 

of our security have kept our citizens safe and ensured our freemarket economy thrives. 

However, we have seen changes in this dynamic recently. With 

the crisis in several Arab nations, with the rise of a rapidly developing China, and even with the sustaining of combat operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not confident that the Department of 

Defense has the necessary infrastructure and strategic partnerships that are necessary to confront these diverse and dynamic 

challenges. 

I believe that our force structure needs to be better aligned with 

emerging threats. A good example of this realignment effort is located in my Ranking Member’s home of Guam. I believe that this 

location will serve to enhance our forces in Eastern Asia against 

those who believe that we are not committed to freedom and prosperity in this strategic region. In addition to Guam, I believe that 

it is critical that we expand our basing structure in the Western 

Pacific to encompass nontraditional partners that are aligned with 

our strategic interests. On the other hand, an example of a strategic ‘‘misalignment’’ is at Naval Station Mayport where the Navy 

has proposed to place a redundant capability that will cost significant funds to support a second carrier homeport on the East Coast. 

Our strategic investments should be both wise and cost-effective. 

Unfortunately, the Navy’s support of a second homeport in Mayport 

is neither and reverses a series of decisions by previous Navy leadership to limit strategic homeport concepts. 

As to other issues included in the president’s budget request, I 

am also concerned about financial parameters that drive poor decisionmaking. For example, I was surprised to note that the Navy 

decided to enter into an energy-efficiency contract where the finan-
30 

cial payback was an astounding 447 years. Even after this was 

pointed out by the Inspector General, the Department decided to 

continue with this project. I was also surprised that the entire Department of Defense uses construction costs indices that are 25 to 

40 percent more than similar commercially built facilities. My 

friends, with savings of only 25 percent in the military construction 

program, which could represent an annual savings of almost $4 billion, we could build significant capabilities and really provide a result that would correct years of neglect and allow us to make prudent strategic investments in diverse areas around the world. Good 

enough is not good enough for the fine men and women in uniform. 

On a final note, we are in the final year of implementing the 

BRAC program and there are many recommendations that contain 

significant risk in completing by the statutory deadline of September 2011. I want to be very clear that any risk to the mission 

of the United States in this time of war needs to be properly limited to ensure the success of our efforts. I will not jeopardize patient care for our wounded warriors if their care will be impacted 

by a BRAC move. I look forward to our witnesses’ discussing the 

risk of the BRAC moves to determine if additional time is necessary to properly complete the remaining BRAC recommendations. 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 13, 2011 

(117) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO ON BEHALF 

OF CONGRESSMAN FARR 

Dr. ROBYN. The Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program is grounded in 10 

USC 2012. Our military personnel and units volunteer to participate in training 

events in the civilian communities throughout the US and territories. While an underserved community will benefit from the military’s presence in the community, 

the focus of the program is on pre-deployment and post-deployment readiness training. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (ASD(RA)) has 

been in contact with Congressman Farr’s office to discuss the San Clemente Dam, 

and ASD(RA) remains available to answer further questions. [See page 15.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOBIONDO 

Dr. ROBYN. The specific products on the military construction project being discussed were manufactured in New Jersey. However, existing law specifically authorizes the procurement of photovoltaic devices that are manufactured in other countries. Therefore, the Department of Defense does procure these devices from other 

countries when doing so is determined to be the best value to the Government, 

which may include consideration of the lowest price, technically acceptable offer. 

[See page 17.] 

Secretary HAMMACK. The Department of the Army includes the Buy American Act 

provision in its contracts which requires U.S. made Photo Voltaic (PV) devices and 

solar cells. 

In addition, the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act further requires that 

contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) include a provision requiring PV devices provided under the contract to comply with the Buy American Act 

to the extent that such contracts result in ownership of PV devices by the Department of Defense. 

The Army, including Active, Reserve and National Guard components, has many 

projects that use U.S. made PV and solar cells. The table below presents a sample 

of current and proposed projects during the period FY 2009–FY 2012. [See page 17.] 

LOCATION PROJECT TITLE 

Sea Girt, NJ Photovoltaic Electric System, 400 kilowats (kW) 

Pohakuloa Training Area, HI Solar Water Heaters & Solar Daylighting 

Fort Dix, NJ Photovoltaic Roof System, 500kW 

Bethany Beach, DE Solar PV System, 378kW 

Presidio of Monterey, CA Solar PV System, 378kW 

Vicenza, Italy Photovoltaic Installation, 750kW 

Fort Hunter Liggett, CA Solar Micro Grid, 1 megawatt (MW) (2 systems) 

Lawrenceville RC, NJ Solar PV System, 295kW 

Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands Solar PV System, 468kW 

Sacramento, CA Solar Electric System, 126kW 

Wailuku, HI Solar Electric System, 100kW 
118 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. It is likely that the Navy has purchased foreign manufactured solar panels in the past. Any foreign manufactured solar panels purchased 

have been compliant with the Buy American Act (BAA), which permits the purchase 

of construction materials from certain countries that are signatories of the trade 

agreements specified in BAA. Designated foreign countries we are allowed to purchase from and remain compliant with the BAA include: a World Trade Organization country, a Free Trade Agreement country, a least developed country, or a Caribbean Basin country, as defined in the BAA language. BAA requirements also allow 

the Navy to purchase foreign construction material if the cost of the domestic construction material exceeds the cost of the foreign material by more than 6 percent. 

[See page 17.] 

Secretary YONKERS. Section 846 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11 NDAA) requires DoD to comply with the Buy American Act 

in specified solar energy contracts requiring photovoltaic devices. Since the FY11 

NDAA was passed, the Air Force has not purchased any solar panels subject to this 

requirement. 

Third party financing, such as Power Purchase Agreements, enable the Air Force 

to promote the development of renewable energy projects on its installations. These 

projects, in turn, increase the available amounts of renewable energy and improve 

the Air Force’s energy security posture. Third party financing that does not result 

in full ownership by the Air Force is not covered under Section 846. The Air Force 

does not track where panels for such projects are manufactured. [See page 17.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COURTNEY 

Secretary YONKERS. The Air Force projects a manufacturing/delivery plan for C– 

27 aircraft that has begun to provide aircraft at some locations, and will continue 

through fiscal year (FY) 2015. In the time between aircraft delivery and bed down 

project construction, each Air National Guard unit will prepare 

C–27 aircraft for combat deployments and aircrew training using workarounds involving existing capabilities and facilities. 

In determining which MILCON projects get funded in a given FY, the Air Force 

uses an Integrated Priority List (IPL) in which a scoring model is applied to all Active, Guard and Reserve projects. Projects compete based on mission requirements, 

and those projects that have temporary workarounds tend to score lower (and are 

sequenced for construction later) than those where no workarounds are available. 

[See page 21.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCHILLING 

Dr. ROBYN. While my organization does not make actual buys, the Department 

policies comply with Sec 846(a) of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA), H.R. 6523, (P.L. 111–383), which requires the Department to ensure that 

photovoltaic devices provided under contract comply with the Buy American Act (41 

U.S.C. 10a et seq.), subject to the exceptions provided in the Trade Agreements Act 

of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.). The restrictions of the Buy American Act (BAA) 

currently cover the procurement of Photovoltaic Devices, federal supply classification 6117, as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 25 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 225. With limited 

exceptions, the procurement of Photovoltaic Devices is required to be a domestic end 

product when used in the United States. [See page 23.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GIBSON 

Dr. ROBYN. The infant deaths at Fort Bragg have been fully investigated. The Office of Compliance and Field Operations of the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, on February 7, 2011 reported that the indoor environmental and building 

systems investigation did not identify any issues or contaminants that would potentially pose a health concern to residents. The Army’s Criminal Investigation Command’s broader investigation into the possible causes of these deaths has been concluded with a press statement that ‘‘after extensive testing and investigating, the 

review did not discover any evidence of information that points to criminality associated with the deaths, or any identifiable common environmental link.’’ The Medical 

Command investigation is ongoing, to date they have not discovered any evidence 

of any potential exposures that could cause or contribute to these deaths. Further 
119 

findings indicate a lower infant mortality rate in Fort Bragg housing residents compared to the rates of the United States, the state of North Carolina, and the counties surrounding Fort Bragg. [See page 23.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 13, 2011 

(123) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

Mr. FORBES. How is the DOD organized to review renewable energy applications 

in a timely manner and protect DOD equities from encroachment? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department created the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to comply with 

Section 358 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and is 

publishing a rule for inclusion in the Code of Federal Regulations to provide a process to review applications received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

under its 49 U.S.C. 44718 process. 

When renewable energy applications are received from the FAA, the Clearinghouse tasks subject matter experts from the DoD Components to review the applications and ensure that DoD equities in training and readiness, test and evaluation, 

operations, and homeland defense are protected. If DoD equities are protected, the 

Clearinghouse recommends that the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) provide a ‘‘no objection’’ to the FAA. However, if the project 

has a potential to adversely impact the Department, the Clearinghouse tasks a 

team, comprised of the DoD Components that are potentially affected, to conduct negotiations with the project proponent to mitigate the adverse impacts. If the negotiations are successful, the DoD can then provide a ‘‘no objection’’ comment to the FAA. 

If the mitigation negotiations are not successful, or the project proponent refuses to 

discuss mitigation, the Clearinghouse can recommend that the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense request a determination of hazard from the FAA. If the Deputy Secretary 

determines the project will present ‘‘an unacceptable risk to the national security 

of the United States,’’ the Clearinghouse will transmit the objection to the FAA. 

Mr. FORBES. The President’s vision for a secure energy future highlights the Interior Department’s commitment to issue permits for a total of 10,000 megawatts of 

renewable power generated from new projects on public lands and in offshore waters 

by the end of 2012. 

• How is the DOD organized to review renewable energy applications in a timely 

manner and protect DOD equities from encroachment? 

• How is the DOD prepared to mitigate the impact to military ranges, testing, 

and training activities? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department created the DoD Siting Clearinghouse to ensure that 

all renewable energy applications are reviewed in a timely matter, while protecting 

DoD equities in training and readiness, test and evaluation, operations, and homeland defense. When renewable energy applications are received from the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), the Clearinghouse tasks subject matter experts from the 

DoD Components, such as the Services and the Joint Staff, to review the applications and ensure that DoD equities are protected from encroachment. The Clearinghouse then presents the collective recommendations to its Board of Directors, which 

is comprised of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment (co-chair); the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness (co-chair); 

the Principal Deputy Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (co-chair); the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense; the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Installations, Energy, and Environment; the Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment; the Assistant Secretary of the Air 

Force for Installations, Environment, and Logistics; and the Joint Staff’s Vice Director of Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J–5). After their review of a renewable energy 

project application, the Directors either approve a statement of ‘‘no objection’’ to the 

BLM, task a team comprised of the DoD Components most affected by the project 

to conduct negotiations for mitigation with the project proponent, or recommend to 

BLM that the project be disapproved. 

In cases where mitigation is possible (the vast majority), the negotiation team 

works in close coordination with the cognizant BLM office and the project proponent 

to examine a variety of mitigation options. For example, the Clearinghouse, Service 

representatives, and BLM representatives worked for more than a year to determine 

suitable routes for a transmission line close to White Sands Missile Range. Additionally, the Department is a cooperating agency in BLM’s Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and will use forthcoming Air Force and Navy studies to 

determine acceptable amounts of electromagnetic interference from solar and wind 
124 

installations near the Nevada Test and Training Range, Edwards Air Force Base, 

and Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake. Only in cases where all mitigation options are exhausted, or agreement on mitigation cannot be reached, will DoD recommend that BLM disapprove the project. 

Regarding offshore renewable energy projects, the Clearinghouse co-chairs and 

the Services have supported the Department of the Interior’s Atlantic Offshore Wind 

Policy Group and the various state task forces led by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). 

Mr. FORBES. The Department of Defense is expected to meet several installation 

energy-related goals and mandates. This includes reducing facility intensity by 30% 

by 2015 and 37.5% by 2020. Another goal requires the DOD to consume 7.5% of 

electric energy from renewable resources by 2013. An additional goal requires DOD 

to produce or procure 25% of facilities energy from renewable sources by 2025. 

• Do you believe DOD will meet all of these installation energy goals and mandates? 

• What do you see as your biggest challenge or impediment to meeting the goals 

and mandates, particularly while ensuring necessary oversight and appropriate 

stewardship of taxpayer dollars through a demonstrated return on investment? 

Dr. ROBYN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

Mr. FORBES. The President recently provided his vision for a secure energy future, 

one tenet of which is the expansion of ‘‘clean energy’’ in the United States. 

• How is the Department of Defense expected to contribute to the President’s 

goal? 

• What is the plan to expand the use of clean energy on its installations? 

Dr. ROBYN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

Mr. FORBES. DOD construction costs include many requirements that drive the 

overall costs to include federal contracting requirements (Davis-Bacon wages, federal subcontracting and small business goals, bonding requirements (Miller Act)), 

federal design requirements, energy efficiency objectives, and a robust quality assurance capacity to manage construction contracts. These costs generally add 25–40% 

in construction costs over private-sector construction requirements. 

• What steps is the Department taking to mitigate the overall costs of construction and reduce overall barriers to entry in DOD construction market? 

• What can Congress do to assist in reducing statutory burdens and reduce overall construction costs? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department has taken several measures to lower construction 

costs and mitigate the additional costs imposed by federal contracting requirements 

and unique DoD requirements and constraints, to include: 1) adopting industry design and construction standards and criteria in lieu of military standards; 2) allowing use of all commercial construction types (Types I through V), including woodframe construction; 3) standardizing facility designs to reduce total design costs; and 

4) packaging similar facilities into a single construction project, where possible, to 

achieve economies of scale. 

The Department continually strives to reduce barriers to entry in the DoD construction market. In addition to mitigating costs, items 1) and 2) above have enabled a larger number of construction firms to compete for military construction 

projects because familiarity with unique defense design and construction standards 

is not required. Likewise, the Department’s move to electronic distribution of bid 

documents has greatly increased the accessibility of the military construction program to the construction market and has significantly lowered the administrative 

and cost barriers to compete for a project during the last decade. 

Mr. FORBES. The Army has decided to reduce the number of Brigade Combat 

Teams in Europe from four to three. 

• What capabilities would be lost if BCT forces were reduced in Europe? 

• How does the Department balance this capability degradation in Europe with 

the cost savings associated with stationing forces in the United States? 

Secretary HAMMACK. The mix of capabilities offered by the three distinct types of 

BCTs remaining in Europe (Heavy, Stryker, and Airborne) enables EUCOM to meet 

a wide array of engagement, building partner capacity, and interoperability objectives while supporting the full range of military operations needed for plausible European contingencies. This BCT mix ensures we maintain a flexible and easily 

deployable forward-based defense posture that optimizes our ability to meet NATO 

commitments and training/engagement objectives and to satisfy security objectives. 
125 

We believe that retaining three BCTs in Europe strikes the best balance between 

a stringent fiscal environment and the need to maintain a flexible and easily 

deployable ground force to meet commitments with Allies and partners. 

Mr. FORBES. The Army is responsible for the implementation of several complex 

BRAC recommendations that will likely not be completed by the statutory BRAC 

deadline of September 2011. 

• Considering the magnitude of movements occurring this summer to implement 

the BRAC decisions, how will the Department be able to retain mission capabilities and complete the BRAC decisions by the statutory deadline? 

• What is the risk in completing the BRAC decisions by the statutory deadline? 

• Will Wounded Warrior care in the National Capital Region at the conclusion of 

BRAC be on a par with the standard of care that is provided today? 

Secretary HAMMACK. Throughout the BRAC process, the Army has been managing 

the transition to new facilities closely and specifically asking commanders in the 

field for their assessment of impact on mission capability. Based on the assessments 

received, the department believes that it will meet the BRAC deadline and sustain 

mission capabilities. In terms of risk in meeting the deadline, we are constantly in 

contact with the field to monitor and if necessary mitigate risk. For example, I receive weekly reports from the commander of Walter Reed that provides their assessment of the move to Bethesda and their ability to meet the mission requirement. 

Wounded Warrior care in the National Capital Region at the conclusion of BRAC 

will be consistent with today’s standard of care. The new facilities will provide an 

optimal healing environment and support structure for transitioning Wounded Ill 

and Injured (WII) and their Family members while better aligning healthcare delivery with the population centers of the National Capital Region (NCR) beneficiaries. 

Mr. FORBES. The Army is taking very aggressive steps to establish net-zero pilot 

programs across installations. This is a very innovative approach for net-zero water, 

net-zero energy, and net-zero waste. 

• Has the Army conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the return on investment for achieving these goals? 

• If so, what is the result, or is the Army prepared to adjust the goals to ensure 

it makes appropriate investments with a demonstrated payback? 

• How will this help the Army become less reliant on the commercial grid? 

Secretary HAMMACK. The Army’s Net Zero Installation Initiative is a strategy that 

strives to bring the overall consumption of resources on installations down to an effective rate of zero. The program establishes a framework of reduction, re-purposing, 

recycling and composting, energy recovery, and disposal to guide them towards 

achieving net zero in an environmentally responsible, cost-effective and efficient 

manner. While the Army has not conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine return on investment on the Net Zero Installation approach, we know that reducing 

energy and water use reduces cost. 

The Army does align with the U.S. Department of Energy concerning life-cycle 

cost methodology and criteria established by the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) (NIST Handbook 135, 1995 Edition), as it relates to specific projects. 

Net zero projects will be evaluated on a life cycle cost basis to identify the best investments and return on investment. 

As with our weapon system investments to ensure national security, we are moving ahead with our aggressive steps to ensure the Army’s future access to resources. 

Net zero initiatives will allow: 

• Increased reliability of installation energy and water in support of mission requirements. 

• Reduction in greenhouse gases and vulnerability to external supply disruption. 

• Lower installation and facilities utilities costs (in light of rising fuel prices in 

commercial and foreign markets). 

Cost-benefit analyses will include more than the monetary aspects to allow for 

best decisions and these aspects noted above are heavily weighted in favor of net 

zero investments. 

The Net Zero Installation program provides the framework to decrease the Army’s 

reliance on the commercial grid. As part of the Army’s overall effort to conserve precious resources, Net Zero installations will consume only as much energy or water 

they produce and eliminate solid waste to landfills. 

Mr. FORBES. The Government of Japan has not yet established the final laydown 

of the Marine Corps aviation realignment on Okinawa. In its FY12 budget request, 

the Department of Defense request of $155 million is imbalanced compared to the 
126 

Government of Japan funds request of $472 million that is pending consideration 

of the Japanese Diet. 

• Why did the President’s budget request not match the funding amount requested by the Government of Japan? 

• How does the lack of tangible progress regarding the configuration of the 

Futenma Replacement Facility on Okinawa impact the Department in its decision to request funds to support the Marine Corps realignment in Guam? 

• How has the Government of Japan responded to the budget request with regard 

to the FY12 level of funding for the Marine Corps realignment in Guam? 

• How will the most recent natural disasters in Japan impact Japan’s ability to 

fiscally support this major realignment? 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The funding request for FY–12 is the result of careful 

consideration of many planning and execution factors, including the Futenma Replacement Facility. The Department considered the concerns noted by Congress in 

the FY–11 National Defense Authorization Act Joint Explanatory Statement and is 

committed to executing the realignment in a deliberate manner. Funding decisions 

were made to take the time to work towards resolution of these issues. Additionally, 

as discussed in the Record of Decision for the Guam and Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands Military Buildup, the Department will use Adaptive Program Management to adjust the pace and sequencing of construction projects so 

that the buildup does not exceed Guam’s infrastructure capacities. Efforts are underway to increase the capacity of Guam’s commercial port, using $50 million in 

DOD funding and $54 million in USDA financing; improve roadways using Defense 

Access Road funding ($49M appropriated in FY10 and $67M authorized for appropriation in FY11); and address critical improvements to Guam’s utilities systems by 

applying financing from the Government of Japan. As these upgrades come online, 

the pace of construction can be adjusted accordingly. Projects requested in FY–12 

are those that are necessary at this time to support future vertical construction and 

also to support the introduction of off-island workers necessary to ramp-up construction over the next few years. 

In the wake of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters, the Government 

of Japan has reiterated and demonstrated that it remains committed to the relocation of Marines from Okinawa to Guam. We have communicated with the Government of Japan regarding the amount of our FY12 MILCON budget request and they 

understand our decision-making rationale based on the factors noted above. The 

Diet has approved the JFY–11 budget, which includes $167 million in direct cash 

contributions for facilities construction and design, and $415 million in utilities financing. At $167 million, the Government of Japan’s direct cash contribution is 

comparable to DOD’s $156 million military construction funding request. Of the 

$415 million in utilities financing, $273 million of this utilities financing will be applied to critical upgrades to wastewater systems off-base, which will support the relocating Marines and Guam’s population growth in the long-term and in time to 

support the requirements of the off-island construction workforce. The balance of the 

JFY–11 utilities financing will be used for improvements to the Navy’s water system 

on base and will eventually be married up with the P–2048 Finegayan Water Utilities FY12 MILCON project request. Coupled with the efforts noted above, these improvements will allow for the construction program to ramp-up. 

Mr. FORBES. The United States and the Government of Japan concluded an agreement in 2006 that stipulated the movement of Marine Corps forces to Guam and 

provided a framework to share the $10.2 billion in costs associated with the Marine 

Corps movement. Since the 2006 agreement, the Marine Corps has indicated that 

the overall cost estimate does not provide for the full spectrum of training to support their requirements. 

• What is the overall cost to move Marine Corps forces to Guam? 

• Does this cost estimate include the required training elements to support the 

Marine Corps? 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The overall cost estimates are currently under review 

at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. While I cannot answer when the information will be validated by OSD, I can state that the cost estimate includes all required training elements to support the relocating Marines. 

Mr. FORBES. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a $15 million military 

construction project for road improvements at Naval Station Mayport (FL) and $15 

million in planning and design costs for future projects. While GAO believes that 

the Navy’s costs are overstated, this request is the first of several military construction projects that the Navy anticipates will cost $564 million to provide the supporting infrastructure for a nuclear aircraft carrier. The Navy cites the strategic 
127 

risk of locating all nuclear aircraft carriers on the East Coast at a single location 

as the principal reason to relocate an aircraft carrier to Mayport. 

1) Has the Navy adopted a consistent strategic risk assessment regarding the 

basing of ballistic missile submarines, nuclear aircraft carriers, and other 

critical assets in the United States? If not, why not? 

2) If strategic dispersal is central to the Navy’s decision, why did the Navy 

abandon strategic dispersal in the Gulf of Mexico in BRAC 2005 through 

the closure of Naval Station Ingleside and Naval Station Pascagoula? 

3) In the decision process, why did the Navy not evaluate Norfolk, VA, against 

those qualities expected in Mayport, FL, in the range of alternatives? 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The one-time infrastructure cost associated with the creation of a second CVN homeport at Mayport, FL is $489M in Military Construction 

(MILCON) projects including Planning and Design. Specifically, in FY 2012 the 

Navy requested $15M for the Massey Avenue Corridor Improvement Project (P503) 

and $2M for Mayport Planning and Design efforts. 

1) Thorough, formal strategic risk assessments include vulnerability, threat and 

trend analyses and are routinely conducted and updated by Navy, Joint Staff, FBI, 

and Department of Homeland Security officials and others. These risk assessments 

inform Navy basing decisions. The Navy applies strategic risk assessments as a factor when evaluating basing options and alternatives across the force. Other factors 

include overall dispersal, strategic/operational impacts, balanced port loading, maintenance and logistics, existing infrastructure, sailor/family quality of life, environmental impacts and costs. 

2) Strategic dispersal of Navy ships is not a new concept, and is not unique to 

nuclear aircraft carriers. The Navy emphasized strategic dispersal in BRAC 2005; 

it was a key requirement in analysis conducted to support recommendations for closure and realignment as forwarded to the Secretary of Defense. As contained in the 

BRAC 2005 report, Navy established rules to guide the Department of the Navy 

(DON) analysis and infrastructure groups’ scenario development. Among the DON 

rules used to bound recommendations were: ‘‘(1) to ensure that the model did not 

result in unbalanced force levels on each coast, at least 40 percent of the requirements had to be located on each coast; (2) one strategic nuclear submarine homeport 

per coast was required to ensure that this key infrastructure capability was maintained; and, (3) two ports on each coast capable of cold iron berthing a nuclear-powered carrier must be retained in order to allow for dispersal.’’ Strategic dispersal 

was evaluated with respect to the closure of Naval Station Pascagoula, as contained 

in the Department of Defense Base Realignment and Closure Report of May 2005, 

within Volume IV (Department of the Navy Analyses and Recommendations). For example, report justification for closure of NS Pascagoula states, ‘‘Sufficient capacity 

and Fleet dispersal is maintained with East Coast surface Fleet homeports of Naval 

Station Norfolk and Naval Station Mayport, FL.’’ 

3) The strategic dispersal of a nuclear aircraft carrier on the East Coast is not 

a competition between Norfolk and Mayport, the positive qualities of both ports 

combine to ensure prudent positioning and sustainment of critical national assets. 

Mr. FORBES. The Secretary of the Navy established energy goals that far exceed 

the requirements for the other military services. 

• What is the impetus for these targets, and why do you believe this is critical 

to national security? 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) has set forth five 

energy goals to reduce the Department of the Navy’s (DON’s) overall consumption 

of energy, decrease its reliance on petroleum, and significantly increase its use of 

alternative energy. Meeting these goals requires that the Navy and Marine Corps 

value energy as a critical resource across maritime, aviation, expeditionary, and 

shore missions. 

The impetus for these energy goals is to ensure DON’s Energy Security and Energy Independence. Energy Security is sustained by utilizing sustainable sources 

that meet tactical, expeditionary, and shore operational requirements and force 

sustainment functions, and having the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs. Energy Independence is achieved when Naval forces 

rely on energy resources that are not subject to intentional or accidental supply disruptions. As a priority, energy independence increases operational effectiveness by 

making Naval forces more energy self-sufficient and less dependent on vulnerable 

energy production and supply lines. 

DON’s Energy Program for Security and Independence will lead the Navy and 

Marine Corps efforts to improve operational effectiveness while increasing energy 

security and advancing energy independence. DON will achieve the SECNAV goals 

by adopting energy efficient acquisition practices, technologies, and operations. 
128 

Mr. FORBES. The Navy has proposed to defer investments in facilities restoration 

and modernization. 

1) Why did the Navy elect to take risk in the facility accounts and delay critical sustainment, restoration and modernization activities? 

2) What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this facility maintenance 

account? 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. 1) To maximize our support for warfighting readiness 

and capability, the Navy reduced its facilities sustainment posture to 80 percent of 

the Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment Model. 

2) The Navy will attempt to mitigate the inherent risk to this strategy, the attendant operational impacts, and to ensure the safety of our Sailors and civilians 

by prioritizing projects that address facilities with the lowest quality rating as well 

as the facilties and building systems that have the most significant impact to our 

personnel. Less critical maintenance and repair actions will continue to be deferred. 

Mr. FORBES. The Air Force has proposed to defer investments again in facilities 

restoration and modernization. 

• Why did the Air Force elect to take risk in the facility accounts and delay critical sustainment, restoration and modernization activities? 

• What is the long-term effect of a delay in funding this facility maintenance account? 

Secretary YONKERS. Overall, in FY12, the Air Force increased investment in facilities O&M accounts (restoration & modernization, and demolition) and decreased investment in its facilities sustainment account. The net was $160M in growth from 

FY11. In response to the OSD-directed initiative to reduce overhead, the AF instituted a number of O&M account efficiencies and reinvested resources into critical 

weapon systems programs. As a result the Air Force will achieve $1.6B in facility 

sustainment and operations efficiencies across the FYDP without mission impact. 

We shall ensure capabilities are not degraded by leveraging sustainable facility design, demolishing excess infrastructure, sourcing strategically, enforcing common 

standards, and employing sound asset management support practices. It is our view 

that the Air Force did not take risk in facilities or delay critical SRM activities. 

Mr. FORBES. The term ‘‘energy security’’ is defined by the QDR as having ‘‘assured 

access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient 

energy to meet operational needs.’’ 

• How is the Air Force developing renewable energy projects on its installations 

that are compatible with this goal, and providing redundant power in the event 

of a failure of the public grid? 

Secretary YONKERS. The Air Force has a strategic rationale and operational imperative to decrease demand and diversify sources of supply to enhance energy security, including by implementing a portfolio of renewable and alternative energy 

projects, as energy availability and security impacts all Air Force missions, operations, and organizations. 

By taking a balanced approach between Air Force focused investments to reduce 

energy intensity and leveraging the renewable energy market through 3rd part investment to increase energy resiliency and redundancies, the Air Force is focused 

on diversifying its sources of energy to meet its operational needs and in turn enhance its energy security posture. The Air Force currently has 85 operational renewable energy projects on 43 bases, totaling 34 MW of renewable energy capacity. Additionally, there are projects lined up for FY11–13 that total more than 1,000 MW 

of operational energy, including large-scale solar projects at Luke Air Force Base in 

Arizona, and Edwards Air Force Base in California. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

Ms. BORDALLO. You mention in your testimony that contemporary urban planning 

techniques and modern energy technologies will be used as part of the development 

on Guam. Can you elaborate on what these contemporary urban planning techniques are and how they will be incorporated on Guam? Further, I am concerned 

that base planning really does not take into account local planning laws and master 

plans. As we move forward, does the Department have the authorities necessary to 

do a better job of planning new installations or in the expansion of current installations? 

Dr. ROBYN. The Department currently has all the necessary authorities for planning to support the Marine relocation to Guam or any other expansion of a current 

installation. The plan for development on Guam includes sustainable planning tech-
129 

niques such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rated 

buildings, the nationally accepted benchmark for design and construction of high 

performance green buildings. We also plan to incorporate energy efficiency strategies, taking advantage of exterior shading, natural lighting, and passive solar orientation with sustainable landscapes with native vegetation. In fact, the Federal 

Planning Division of the American Planning Association recognized the ‘‘Guam Joint 

Military Master Plan Sustainability Program and Implementation Tools’’ submission 

as its 2010 annual award winner in the Outstanding Sustainable Planning, Design, 

or Development Initiative category. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What Operational Energy Initiatives is the Army engaging in? 

Further, what policies are the Army considering or implemented to improve energy 

efficiency on its installations and how are the Guard and Reserves being integrated 

into any such policies? Finally, what can this committee do to assist with the development or implementation of these policies? 

Secretary HAMMACK. In regards to Operational Energy, the Army is undertaking 

a range of initiatives to enhance operational energy performance and is deploying 

solutions throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. Improving the Army’s Operational Energy Posture will increase mission effectiveness by enhancing or preserving adaptability, versatility, flexibility and sustainability, as well as reducing costs. 

At existing forward operating bases, we continue implement new and efficient 

ways to expand the use of solar power, turning waste to energy, reuse of grey water 

such as reusing shower water for toilets, using waste heat for steam to electricity 

generation, solar hot water, micro power grids and other technologies to reduce the 

demand for resources. 

The Army has replaced ‘‘point generation’’ power production with 22 minigrid/ 

power plants supporting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. This approach is achieving efficiency improvements of over 50%. Roughly 1⁄3 of these power plants incorporate 

‘‘smart’’ technology to optimize power production based on demand. 

The Army is on track to field a new family of tactical generators, the Advanced 

Medium Mobile Power Sources family, or AMMPS, starting in 2012. The generators, 

ranging in size from 5 kW to 60 kW, use an average of 20 percent less fuel than 

the current sets in the field. 

The Army is deploying the Tactical Fuels Manager Defense (TFMD), an automated fuel inventory management system that is configured to enhance tactical fuel 

accountability procedures. TFMD provides enterprise-level asset visibility of fuel operations, automated inventory management, theft deterrence, and business process 

improvements. This will lead to more effective fuel management practices. 

The Army is fielding systems to reduce weight and increase the capabilities of energy-related Soldier systems, such as the Rucksack Enhance Portable Power System 

(REPPS), a lightweight, portable power system capable of recharging batteries or/ 

and act as a continuous power source that reduces the weight in batteries that a 

soldier needs to carry. One hundred systems have been delivered to units supporting 

Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Soldiers of the 1–16 Infantry Battalion received training on advanced power and 

energy systems at Fort Riley, Kansas to use during their recent deployment to Afghanistan. Technologies include a suite of advanced soldier power capabilities such 

as rechargeable batteries, power networking devices, and solar and fuel cell chargers that will bring power to the most disadvantaged operating environments. These 

innovations in expeditionary Soldier power will help to reduce the overall volume 

and weight of the Soldier’s combat load, and will allow the small tactical unit to 

sustain themselves throughout extended mission durations. 

The Army also plans to significantly reduce operational contingency base camp 

energy demand by 30–60% through integrated solutions such as smart micro-grids, 

renewable energy sources, insulated shelters, more efficient generators and engines, 

better energy storage, power conditioning devices, and onsite water production. 

Regarding your question on installation energy, the Army is working to significantly improve energy efficiency across our installations and has recently published 

policies to standardize energy efficiency in Army operations, to include energy efficient lighting requirements, implementation of the highest building efficiency standards in the Federal Government and an Acquisition Policy requiring energy productivity to be a consideration in all Army Acquisition Programs. 

The Army, in concert with the Department of Energy is researching a range of 

technologies to improve vehicle efficiency. The Army is replacing 4,000 non-tactical 

fossil-fueled GSA-leased vehicles with low-speed electric vehicles and is also leasing 

more than 3,000 hybrid vehicles, the largest such fleet in the Department of Defense 

to undergo this transition. These efforts will reduce risks associated with the volatility of oil prices and result in affordable, efficient vehicles for the Army and the 

public. 
130 

With respect to integrating the Guard and Reserve Components, as part of the 

Army’s overall effort to conserve precious resources, the Army is focusing on Net 

Zero installations which will consume only as much energy or water as they produce 

and eliminate solid waste to landfills. The Army recently identified six Net Zero 

Pilot Installations in each of the energy, water, and waste categories and two integrated installations striving towards net zero by 2020. Two of the Net Zero energy 

pilots include Army Reserve installations (Camp Parks and Fort Hunter Liggett, 

CA). Additionally, the Oregon Army National Guard volunteered to pilot a unique 

Net Zero Energy Initiative to include all of their installations across the state. The 

Army will prepare a programmatic NEPA document to examine the impact of selected net zero technologies and actions in implementing net zero Army-wide. This 

initiative will establish Army communities as models for energy security, sustainability, value and quality of life. 

Lastly, regarding where the committee can be helpful, the Army believes the key 

to meeting our energy goals will be to expand the use of the Energy Conservation 

Investment Program (ECIP) and improve utilization of the authorities that Congress 

has already provided. Existing authorities include the Energy Service Performance 

Contracts (ESPC), Utilities Energy Service Contracts (UESC), Power Purchase 

Agreements (PPA) and Enhanced Use Leases (EUL). These authorities will allow 

the Army to leverage significant private sector investment for large scale renewable 

energy projects. Continued Congressional support of these authorities and of other 

Army energy initiatives will help us to achieve our energy goals. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The age of earmarks, regrettably, is over here in Congress. The 

Department and Congress have played games for years about funding requirements 

in different portions of the budget. Of relevance to this subcommittee is funding of 

military construction projects for the National Guard and Reserves. Since 1996 both 

the Army and Air National Guard budgets have been over 200% higher than the 

President’s budget with the authorization and appropriations process are complete. 

How will the Army and Air Force alter their requirements process for military construction to make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists are getting equitable 

treatment in the President’s Budget for facilities now that we cannot move up 

projects in the Future Years Defense Program? The Guard and Reserves are an 

operational force and their requirements are changing. What is being done to address this matter? 

Secretary HAMMACK. The Army funds military construction (MILCON) projects 

across all components based on programming guidance and priorities. The initiatives receiving the highest priority for MILCON in Fiscal Year 12 include completion of support to Grow the Army and Global Defense Posture Realignment; the 

Army’s transformation to a modular force and permanent party and training barracks buy outs. Reserve Component requirements are integrated into the 

prioritization process and compete well when they support high priority initiatives. 

Army senior leaders strive to ensure balance and equity of resource distribution 

across all components and review the program through that lens. This will be especially important as MILCON investments become limited in future years. 

Ms. BORDALLO. We took an important step forward with the Guam build-up with 

the signing of the programmatic agreement. I see that several task orders were recently awarded to firms that had MACC contracts. My question is a follow-up to 

something I asked at our hearing back in March. What steps have been taken to 

develop milestones or triggers as part of the adaptive management program? I believe working groups met recently and will present at the next CM–CC meeting. 

What are those triggers? How clearly understood will they be by the local community, local leaders and the contractors? Further, how will the CM–CC ensure compliance with these milestones and triggers? I’d like to learn more about these matters. 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The Initial Civil-Military Coordination Council (CMCC) 

Charter, included as Attachment 1 to the Record of Decision, established a process 

that will be used to identify, coordinate and synchronize actions to avoid or reduce 

significant environmental impacts associated with the military buildup. Possible responses to identified impacts could include: 1) change to the pace of construction 

(i.e. contract awards or construction start dates), and/or 2) modification to the sequence of construction projects. Decisions regarding the pace and sequencing of construction are to remain with the appropriate organizations. 

The CMCC will provide overarching guidance to topic-specific Council Working 

Groups (CWGs), and milestones and triggers will be unique to each CWG. Five 

CWGs (Construction, Utilities, Transportation, Housing, and Natural Resources) 

have been established thus far, and the CMCC is flexible to adding additional 

CWGs in the future as necessary. The CWGs have taken concrete steps to assess 

potential resource impacts, data requirements, and triggers, with the intent to have 
131 

them reviewed and approved by the CMCC before major construction efforts. Some 

baseline metrics have been identified, and there is an ongoing effort to scrutinize 

metrics as to applicability. Some metrics are easy to determine (water turbidity) 

while others are more subjective/qualitative (unacceptable traffic congestion). As 

Adaptive Program Management is a new approach, it is still very dynamic in nature. Triggers will be continuously reviewed for effectiveness or applicability 

throughout the buildup process, allowing for changes or modifications if appropriate. 

CWGs have formed sub-groups that that will concentrate on specific areas (such 

as terrestrial, marine and cultural under the Natural Resources CWG) and have 

identified resource impacts that should be monitored, such as storm water pollution/ 

direct impact to coral reefs, water supply and quality, labor supply, port throughput, 

power capacity, and demand and stresses on essential public services. The CWGs 

will determine if additional sub-groups are necessary as the process matures. Thus 

far, most CWG efforts have been inclusive of all sub-areas during discussions. As 

the level of effort or application of resources increase in a specific area, a sub-group 

may be initiated. 

The federal government, which includes representatives from DOD and various 

resource agencies, continues to collaborate with the Government of Guam to identify 

and mature, relevant metrics and triggers that can be appropriately managed with 

APM and that can be communicated effectively. 

The CWGs are to utilize available sources of data including reports, surveys, ongoing projects and similar sources generated by local, federal and other organizations that are derived from existing programs. CMCC leadership is considering the 

development of a dashboard that can easily display data for both decision-makers 

and the general public. The CMCC meetings are open to the public and have had 

substantial media coverage to this point. 

As more detail and fidelity emerge, concepts and procedures will be matured and 

incorporated into a Final CMCC Operating Charter. The CMCC itself has no authority to ensure compliance with its recommendations, apart from efforts by individual member agencies consistent with their respective existing authorities. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What types of alternative energy projects or programs are you 

looking at implementing at Andersen Air Force Base or in the overall Joint Region 

Marianas? How can I help make Guam an example of successful alternative energy 

programs? 

Secretary YONKERS. Joint Region Marianas (JRM), which includes former Andersen AFB, represents 21% of the Guam Power Authority’s consumer base and is expected to increase to 25% after the military buildup. To help alleviate this increase, 

the DoD and Guam Power Authority have Memorandum of Understanding regarding the buildup and long-term power requirements. In the JRM, Navy is the lead 

for alternative energy projects, and the Air Force is currently cooperating with them 

to evaluate the technical, economical, political, legal and environmental challenges 

and feasibility of projects on Guam, such as waste-to-energy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. The age of earmarks, regrettably, is over here in Congress. The 

Department and Congress have played games for years about funding requirements 

in different portions of the budget. Of relevance to this subcommittee is funding of 

military construction projects for the National Guard and Reserves. Since 1996 both 

the Army and Air National Guard budgets have been over 200% higher than the 

President’s budget with the authorization and appropriations process are complete. 

How will the Army and Air Force alter their requirements process for military construction to make sure that our Guardsmen and Reservists are getting equitable 

treatment in the President’s Budget for facilities now that we cannot move up 

projects in the Future Years Defense Program? The Guard and Reserves are an 

operational force and their requirements are changing. What is being done to address this matter? 

Secretary YONKERS. We thank the committee for its past support of increases to 

Military Construction (MILCON) in the President’s Budget, and for its support of 

the Military Construction program in general. With regard to equitable treatment, 

the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves currently receive a fair share of the 

total Air Force Military Construction budget. We clearly recognize the critical role 

played by the Air Reserve Components, so the Air Force will continue to ensure that 

they receive at least their fair share of MILCON funding during our annual budget 

processes during these times of fiscal restraint. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SUTTON 

Ms. SUTTON. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are critical aspects of the infra-
132 

structure of the United States that must be addressed, including the toll corrosion, 

stress, and fatigue are taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure. 

Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a minimum of $1.9 

billion in annual direct costs. 

• What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you partnering with the DOD 

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on this issue? 

• For the record, I would like to know what each of the other members testifying 

today are doing in regards in combating corrosion and would appreciate your 

input. 

Dr. ROBYN. As the OSD proponent for facilities policy, our plan to address corrosion of facilities is addressed in the Department’s overall corrosion control and prevention strategy, which includes identification of cost effective corrosion control 

technology, transitioning technology into criteria and specifications, and funding our 

facilities sustainment program. Installations and Environment actively partners 

with the DoD Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office, which is also located under the 

oversight of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, regarding facilities corrosion issues. 

Ms. SUTTON. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must be addressed, including the toll corrosion, 

stress, and fatigue are taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure. 

Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a minimum of $1.9 

billion in annual direct costs. 

• What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you partnering with the DOD 

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on this issue? 

• For the record, I would like to know what each of the other members testifying 

today are doing in regards in combating corrosion and would appreciate your 

input. 

Secretary HAMMACK. As the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy & Environment), I am an active member of the Army’s Corrosion Prevention 

and Control (CPC) program. I cooperate and collaborate with the Army’s Corrosion 

Control and Prevention Control Executive (CCPE) in planning and executing the 

Army’s CPC Strategic Plan, which includes support the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) Director, Corrosion Policy and Oversight office. My staff is active 

members of both the Army’s and OSD corrosion working-level integrated product 

teams. A component of the Army’s and OSD corrosion program is to explore, demonstrate, and implement new technologies directed toward the Department of Defense (DoD) infrastructure. 

As new technologies have been successfully demonstrated we then update the 

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS), 

and Design Guides. As construction projects are designed and executed, these UFC, 

UFGS, and design guides are used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

In addition, our engineers and scientists share their experience and knowledge with 

various industry associations and communities to advance the application of these 

technologies in the US infrastructure. 

We are exploring the use of a number of different sensor technologies to identify 

and inform us of deterioration, stress and fatigue. Over time, the knowledge we gain 

from this information will aid us in determine the materials that will provide the 

optimum corrosion resistance of our infrastructure. We believe that this knowledge 

will also enable us to predict the health and well-being of the various infrastructure 

elements. This, we believe, will enable us to better determine and project the infrastructure maintenance workload. 

Ms. SUTTON. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must be addressed, including the toll corrosion, 

stress, and fatigue are taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure. 

Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a minimum of $1.9 

billion in annual direct costs. 

• What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you partnering with the DOD 

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on this issue? 
133 

• For the record, I would like to know what each of the other members testifying 

today are doing in regards in combating corrosion and would appreciate your 

input. 

Secretary PFANNENSTIEL. The Navy’s shore infrastructure Corrosion Prevention 

and Control program is addressed by Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

(NAVFAC) through an organizational structure that incorporates Research, Development, Technology, and Evaluation criteria research and development; design policy; execution and sustainment, restoration and modernization policy; and program 

administration. NAVFAC corrosion subject matter experts interface regularly with 

the Navy Corrosion Executive as well as the DoD Office of Corrosion Policy and 

Oversight. NAVFAC representatives actively participate in the DOD Corrosion Prevention and Control Integrated Product Team and specialized working groups. 

Ms. SUTTON. Dr. Robyn, the President of the United States and Members of Congress, among many others, have stated that there are critical aspects of the infrastructure of the United States that must be addressed, including the toll corrosion, 

stress, and fatigue are taking on bridges, roads, buildings, pipes, and other infrastructure. 

Corrosion in DoD infrastructure alone costs the Department a minimum of $1.9 

billion in annual direct costs. 

• What is your plan to address corrosion, and are you partnering with the DOD 

Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight on this issue? 

• For the record, I would like to know what each of the other members testifying 

today are doing in regards in combating corrosion and would appreciate your 

input. 

Secretary YONKERS. We recognize that our aging infrastructure is an important 

issue and that corrosion degradation is a factor affecting the sustainment of Air 

Force real property. 

Our policy direction for corrosion control of facilities and infrastructure is defined 

in Air Force Instruction 32–1054. This guidance directs the consideration of corrosion control in project designs and mandates use of corrosion control measures in 

our infrastructure. Areas that are addressed are the use of protective coatings, cathodic protection and industrial water treatment. Our bridges are inspected, per the 

federal requirements, for corrosion deficiencies of structural members. We submit 

annual updates to the national Bridge Inventory database to indicate condition and 

status. We are partnering with the Defense Logistics Agency to inspect and repair 

our fuels infrastructure including fuel storage tanks and underground piping for corrosion degradation. Key aspects include tank bottom inspections, evaluations of cathodic protection systems and pipeline condition evaluations. We are also evaluating 

our fuels infrastructure to determine any corrosive or material degradation effects 

from the proposed use of alternative jet fuels. 

To better manage real property assets, we have instituted improved processes to 

better manage corrosion degradation and overall facilities and infrastructure 

sustainment. We have successfully partnered with industry reviewing asset management practices by visiting corporate leadership of national companies who manage 

large scale properties and infrastructure similar to our Air Force. To implement improvements, the Air Force is instituting systematic and integrated processes to manage built infrastructure, their associated performance, risk and expenditures over 

their lifecycle. Success to date includes adopting the International Infrastructure 

Management Manual processes, reorganization of personnel better aligning with 

strategic objectives and comprehensive analysis of our IT needs. We are also institutionalizing detailed condition and performance assessments across our vertical and 

horizontal infrastructure to better understand risks and to strategize investment 

planning. While this transition is on-going, we are staging introductory phases 

leveraging existing IT systems and personnel. We will continue implementation as 

our new IT systems evolve and as our Air Force’s asset management practices mature. 

We participate in the Corrosion Policy and Oversight Office under the Secretary 

of Defense’s (OSD) Integrated Product Team (IPT) process. Under the OSD IPT, we 

participate in the Facilities/Infrastructure working group and interact with OSD 

and the technical corrosion representatives of our sister Services. This working 

group addresses corrosion control technologies and knowledge transfer to the working field. 

Æ