U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–875 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–255 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2528 

MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE FUNCTIONS 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, THE 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND

RELATED AGENCIES

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

(ex officio) 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

Professional Staff 

DENNIS WARD

SEAN KNOWLES

DENNIS BALKHAM

CHRISTINA EVANS (Minority) 

B.G. WRIGHT (Minority) 

CHAD SCHULKEN (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 

Page 

Department of Defense ............................................................................................ 1 

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 69 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 

Department of Veterans Affairs: Office of the Secretary ..................................... 89 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005 

Department of Defense: 

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 139 

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 165 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 

Overseas Basing Commission ................................................................................. 183 

Department of Defense ............................................................................................ 205 

(1) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison, Allard, Feinstein, and Landrieu. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF HON. TINA W. JONAS, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) 

ACCOMPANIED BY PHILIP W. GRONE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF 

DEFENSE (INSTALLATION AND ENVIRONMENT) 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. I will call the Military Construction Subcommittee meeting to order and say that I am very pleased this is 

our first hearing of the year. I am very happy that I am able to 

chair this subcommittee once again. It is a subcommittee I have 

really enjoyed, and I also very much enjoy my partnership with my 

Democratic colleague. We have been chairman and ranking member together in order, reverse order, and order again, and we have 

always worked very well together. And I am very happy that we 

have this team again. We have been able to have the experience 

now to know some of the issues, and I think it is going to be a very 

good year. 

I will just say for the record too that I think Senator Feinstein 

and I have had some major impact since we have been chair and 

ranking member of this subcommittee in two areas. Senator Feinstein particularly has been attuned to environmental cleanup that 

has been so important for closed bases and making sure that that 

is done correctly. 

I think together our efforts on the Overseas Basing Commission 

and really focusing on getting a timely assessment of foreign bases 

and problems in foreign deployments before we address our own 

BRAC, which we are now in the beginning stages of addressing, are 

beginning to pay off. 

I am pleased that the Department of Defense did start looking 

at foreign bases and training constraints and operational con-
2 

straints and made the announcement last year that they are, indeed, going to have a global realignment. I think it is going in the 

right direction. I think the Department of Defense did look at this 

and is making some very wise decisions for the long term for not 

only the best training and the best way to operate, but also better 

quality of life for our military and its families. So I am very 

pleased with that and glad that we are all here once again. 

This year’s military construction budget request is $12.1 billion, 

up 27 percent from last year’s request. There is a wedge of $1.9 billion intended to cover the initial costs of the 2005 round of base 

realignment and closure, and I think that is going to be something 

we are going to want to have some specificity about as we go down 

the road. 

I am pleased that for the third consecutive year the administration’s request for Reserve Component funding is up significantly 

from last year’s request. Reserve Component facilities have long 

been underfunded through the years, and this Department has 

made good on its commitment to improve that situation. We all 

know the huge load the Guard and Reserve are sharing in this war 

on terrorism, and I think bringing their facilities up to a higher 

standard is not only the right thing to do but well deserved. 

I am also pleased to receive what I believe is a more focused request for construction at overseas bases. In the past few years, we 

have had a dialogue with the Department regarding these overseas 

bases, and I think we are now coming to a very good point where 

Congress is going to be able to evaluate the overseas facilities 

through our own Overseas Basing Commission, and I think we are 

going in the right direction. 

Related to overseas construction is the NATO Security Investment Program. The request for this program is up 25 percent over 

last year. I do support NSIP, but I am concerned that the program 

is increasingly funding non-infrastructure expenses in favor of high 

technology electronics and software systems. NATO is now considering what could be a significant expenditure for a battle management command and control system for missile defense. I certainly 

support missile defense, but I think we are getting farther away 

from the intent of the Security Investment Program, which is to 

fund common infrastructure projects, and we need to assure that 

the United States gets more than a one-for-one return on the investments it is making in the program. So I intend to look carefully 

at this program and make sure that we are doing what we intended to do. 

A major initiative this year is the 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure. That commission is in the process of being appointed. Sixteen percent of this budget request is for beginning to 

implement that 2005 BRAC if Congress agrees with the BRAC recommendations made later this year. While we all know and hope 

that BRAC will save in the future, we also know that it does not 

save in the short term, that you have the costs of closing bases, 

and we are now looking at major restructuring of the Army and the 

Marine Corps; bringing 70,000 troops home from bases abroad; and 

repositioning remaining forces overseas into new facilities. So we 

know this is going to cost money and we certainly want to have a 
3 

close look at the recommendations that will be coming from the Department to prepare for this kind of a realignment. 

I also want to comment on the housing privatization program, for 

which the Department is requesting $216 million this year. I am 

a strong supporter of the privatization program. I have seen the results. They are terrific. But I also think we need to make sure that 

we are making good decisions on these privatization projects and 

that we are monitoring the way the money is spent. In a few instances the privatization has not gone the way it was intended, and 

we need to make sure that where we do appropriate this money, 

it is being spent on quality construction that is doing the job we 

are asking be done. 

I certainly will have a number of questions, but I would like at 

this time to turn the microphone over to Senator Feinstein, my 

able ranking member who has been a great partner through the 

years on this subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and I think you know that it has also been a pleasure for me to 

work with you, and I look forward to the year. I also look forward 

to the year because there is much more money to deal with and 

some new challenges in this. So I am delighted. 

I do not want to repeat what you said but there are a few things 

that kind of come through to me. I just want to point them out. 

The fact that the Army is down 16.5 percent over the requested 

amount, or 24.6 percent below the enacted amount of last year’s request, I would like to ask about that. 

I am delighted to see that the BRAC environmental cleanup is 

nearly $132 million, 33.5 percent up from last year’s request. I 

think that is very good news. 

The Navy’s request this year includes $143 million, plus an estimated $133 million derived from land sales at El Toro and Oakland, totaling $276 million. My understanding is the Navy has 

planned to spend at least $172 million of that in California. I am 

very grateful for that. We had 29 bases closed in the last round, 

and just getting the environmental cleanup done has been a huge 

problem. 

It is also my understanding that the military family housing request has increased by $70 million and that the initiative of DOD 

to privatize over 75,000 housing units are designed to reach its goal 

by 2007. I think that is good news as well. 

You and I have worked together on overseas basing. That total 

is $782 million: $238 million for Germany, $28 million for Italy, 

$215 million for Korea, $125 million to Guam, and $109 million to 

the UK. So that is 25 percent over last year’s request, and I think 

we need to take a look at it as well. 

Let me just forewarn the people. I have been very concerned 

about, in your State and my State and about 26 other States, the 

advent of perchlorate. Perchlorate comes from rocket fuel. It is 

really all a military responsibility. This was their subcontractors. 

It has leached into groundwater. It has contaminated drinking 

water wells. And so my question will be whether some of this envi-
4 

ronmental cleanup money can be used for perchlorate cleanup, and 

we will get to that. 

I do not want to take any more time. We will get on with it and 

say welcome to the witnesses. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would like to now call on our newest member of the subcommittee. We welcome him, and we are very pleased 

that he is a new member of the full committee. I am pleased that 

he is now on our subcommittee as well. Senator Allard from Colorado. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I do not 

have much of an opening statement. I look forward to working with 

you and Senator Feinstein from California. I know that you vacation from time to time in Colorado. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We both do actually. 

Senator ALLARD. I really appreciate that. 

I just look forward to the opportunity to serve here. 

You have seen me now in front of a number committees, Ms. 

Jonas. You never know when I might pop up, but I have a different 

set of questions for you this time around. So you will perhaps appreciate that. So I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TINA W. JONAS

Senator HUTCHISON. Now we welcome the Under Secretary of 

Defense who is the Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the 

Department of Defense, Secretary Tina Jonas. Welcome. 

Ms. JONAS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to just quickly summarize a few things. I have got 

a written statement for the record and request that it be placed in 

the record. I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and Senator 

Feinstein, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and with 

the rest of the members of the committee. 

I would specifically like to thank this committee for its strong 

support of our men and women in uniform. We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that our armed forces have everything they need to carry out their difficult and dangerous missions. 

The President’s budget request for the Department of Defense for 

2006 is $419.3 billion. This is a $19.2 billion increase over the 2005 

enacted level, and this will sustain the President’s pledges to defeat 

global terrorism, restructure America’s armed forces and global defense posture, as well as take care of our forces and develop advanced warfighting capabilities. 

Of special importance to this committee, the President’s budget 

shows his clear commitment to our military people and their families, with emphasis on quality facilities and family housing and on 

restructuring our military basing. I will not go over the specifics. 

As you have pointed out, Madam Chairman, $12.1 billion is the request for military construction and family housing requirements. I 

would like to reemphasize our commitment to funding the elimination of all inadequate housing in the continental United States 
5 

by 2007 and the elimination of all overseas inadequate housing by 

2009. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I know that you will have plenty of questions. You are well 

aware of the issues regarding the restructuring overseas in our 

BRAC process, so I will not belabor that. 

I would just like to say thank you for the opportunity to be here 

and I look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TINA W. JONAS

Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, I am honored to be here to discuss military construction and other quality of life components of President Bush’s 

fiscal year 2006 defense budget request. 

First, I want to thank this committee for its strong support for our men and 

women in uniform. We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that 

our armed forces have everything they need to carry out their difficult and dangerous missions. 

The President’s budget request for the Department of Defense (DOD) for fiscal year 2006 is $419.3 billion in discretionary budget authority, a $19.2 billion increase 

(4.8 percent) over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Combined with fiscal year 2005 

supplemental appropriations, this request includes sufficient funding to sustain the 

President’s pledges to defeat global terrorism, restructure America’s armed forces 

and global defense posture, develop and field advanced warfighting capabilities, and 

take good care of our forces. 

Of special importance to this committee, the President’s budget shows his clear 

commitment to our military’s quality of life—with emphasis on military compensation and health care, quality facilities and family housing, and restructuring our 

military basing. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION AND HEALTH CARE

The fiscal year 2006 budget maintains the President’s commitment to take good 

care of our military people and their families. It reflects our conviction that people 

are the Nation’s most important defense asset. The budget includes a 3.1 percent 

increase in military base pay and provides significant funding to ensure high quality 

health care for our military families. The fiscal year 2006 budget provides about $20 

billion for the Defense Health Program and $7 billion for the military personnel who 

support the health care program. The budget sustains our commitment to no outof-pocket costs for military members living in private housing. 

FACILITIES AND FAMILY HOUSING

The President’s request for Military Construction and Family Housing appropriations totals $12.1 billion in discretionary budget authority and funds the Department’s most pressing military construction and family housing requirements. The 

request will improve our military’s working and living conditions through strong 

sustainment and modernization for existing facilities and replacement of facilities 

that are no longer economical to repair. 

Family Housing.—The fiscal year 2006 budget keeps the Department on track to 

fund by fiscal year 2007 the elimination of all inadequate military family housing 

units in the United States, and to fund by fiscal year 2009 the elimination of all 

inadequate units worldwide. To reach the fiscal year 2009 goal, the Army will complete funding the elimination of inadequate housing at its overseas bases in 2008, 

and the Air Force will complete funding its overseas eliminations by 2009. The Department’s privatization program is key to its progress in eliminating inadequate 

housing. It enables the Department to leverage its funding and get more military 

families into top quality accommodations much sooner than would otherwise be possible. 

RESTRUCTURING U.S. BASING

Two closely related initiatives will substantially affect our military’s quality of life 

in the years ahead: the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 

and President Bush’s restructuring of America’s global defense posture. 
6 

BRAC 2005.—The work of the 2005 BRAC Commission will be critical to streamlining DOD facilities and saving billions of dollars that would be better spent on 

our military people and capabilities, not excess facilities. The President’s budget includes funding for implementation of BRAC 2005 decisions, beginning with $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2006. 

Global Posture.—Closely linked to the BRAC process is the President’s global posture restructuring, which will ensure that United States forces and equipment are 

located where they can best respond to likely requirements in today’s security environment. It will return 70,000 military personnel and 100,000 family members to 

the United States, and relocate forces and equipment that must remain overseas. 

As the 2005 BRAC Commission considers how to streamline and restructure the Department’s installations, it will have the benefit of our global posture restructuring 

plan. 

Congressional support of both these initiatives is critical. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

Before closing, I want to thank this committee for beginning work quickly on the 

President’s fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations request of $74.9 billion for 

the Department of Defense. Rapid and full approval of the request is crucial to fulfilling our military’s requirements for the rest of this fiscal year. 

Of critical importance, this supplemental provides significant resources to address 

wear and tear on our military equipment, to create a larger and more combat capable Army and Marine Corps, and to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan security forces 

to empower them to take the fight to the extremists and to help them take control 

of their future. 

The President’s supplemental request includes $5.3 billion for restructuring the 

Army and Marine Corps because acceleration of this effort is urgent and vital to 

the war on terror. In fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, the Department proposes 

to fund Army restructuring through supplemental appropriations, which will accelerate the restructuring of the ground forces moving into the combat theater and 

reset those forces rotating out of theater. This effort will expand the operating combat force of the Army—making our forces more effective and reducing the demand 

and strain on our military units and troops. About $.3 billion of the request is for 

military construction to support this force restructuring, and again that is an immediate and critical requirement for our forces in the war on terror. 

The supplemental also includes $1.0 billion for military construction in the U.S. 

Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. This will fund urgently needed facilities and improve the living and working conditions for U.S. troops in the 

theater. The request includes $303 million for force protection for key facilities; $253 

million to improve airfields and their operations and safety; $155 million to improve 

the movement, handling, and storage of munitions and fuel; $146 million for temporary troop billeting; and $59 million for troop medical facilities. The vast majority 

of these CENTCOM projects are designed to temporary standards and do not reflect 

a United States commitment to permanent basing in the area. 

CLOSING

In closing, I thank you for this opportunity to describe the President’s commitment to military quality of life in his fiscal year 2006 budget. The request will enhance the well being of our service members and their families, strongly support 

current requirements and missions, and support the needed streamlining and recapitalization of DOD facilities. I urge your support for the President’s fiscal year 

2006 budget and his fiscal year 2005 supplemental appropriations request. Thank 

you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you so much, Madam Secretary. 

Now we have Mr. Philip Grone, the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Installations and Environment. Welcome to the committee. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. GRONE

Mr. GRONE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans 

Affairs, I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon to discuss 
7 

the President’s budget request for the Department of Defense for 

fiscal year 2006. 

Madam Chairman, I have prepared a written statement and, 

with the committee, request that it be placed into the record. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Without objection. 

Mr. GRONE. At the outset, I want to associate myself with the 

statement made by my colleague the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller). The President’s budget request for the Department 

of Defense continues the efforts of the administration to place our 

military infrastructure on a sound management foundation. 

The business area comprising the Department’s support of military installation and the stewardship of natural resources includes 

programs totaling over $46 million in the budget for the coming 

year. The Department’s management responsibilities extend to an 

infrastructure with 510,000 buildings and structures and a plant 

replacement value of $650 billion and stewardship responsibilities 

for roughly 29 million acres, or 46,000 square miles of land, which 

is roughly the size of Connecticut and my native Kentucky combined. 

Military construction and military family housing and funds necessary to support Base Realignment and Closure, which the subcommittee will consider, are a portion, but a vitally important portion, of our management approach. The President’s management 

agenda contains three key elements for which my office has primary responsibility, including the privatization of military housing 

and real property asset management, the last of which is the focus 

of Presidential Executive Order 13327, issued on February 4th last 

year. 

On those areas of focus for which the subcommittee is concerned, 

we have made significant progress with the assistance of Congress. 

The military housing privatization initiative, as the chairman indicated, is achieving results. As of the beginning of this month, 

leveraging the power of the market and the expertise of industry, 

we have awarded 43 projects privatizing 87,000 units, contributing 

$767 million in appropriated funds. To achieve the scope of these 

43 projects, the taxpayer would need to provide $11 billion in military family housing construction, and over the life cycle, these 

privatized projects will save the taxpayer 10 to 15 percent, even 

when taking into account the allowances paid to our military personnel. Ten of those projects have reached the end of their initial 

development phase and tenant response is very positive. By the 

end of fiscal year 2007, we expect 185,000 units of housing, 84 percent of the inventory, to be privatized. 

The Department’s efforts to more properly sustain and recapitalize our facilities inventory are also demonstrating results. Four 

years ago, the recapitalization rate stood at 192 years. The President’s budget request supports a recapitalization rate of 110 years, 

and we remain committed to our goal to achieve a 67-year recapitalization rate in fiscal year 2008. 

Facilities sustainment is budgeted this year at 92 percent of the 

requirement. In both cases, we have built the program around private sector best practices and commercial benchmarks wherever 

they can be applied, and we continue to refine our models and 
8 

guidance to keep them current with those practices and benchmarks. 

We also continue our effort to strengthen the Nation’s defense 

through the Global Posture Review and BRAC. Abroad, we will reconfigure our basing and presence abroad to meet the challenges 

of the 21st century as opposed to the static defense of the Cold 

War. At home, we will rationalize our infrastructure to further 

transformation and to improve military effectiveness and business 

efficiency. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our most recent defense installations strategic plan issued last 

year, entitled Combat Power Begins at Home, reflects our focus on 

improving the management of our installation assets and to ensure 

their ability to contribute to military readiness. All of our efforts 

are designed to enhance the military value of our installations and 

to provide a solid foundation for the training, operation, deployment, and employment of the armed forces, as well as to improve 

the quality of life for military personnel and their families. 

While much remains to be done, we have accomplished a great 

deal. With the support of this subcommittee, we will continue to do 

so. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP W. GRONE

Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to address the President’s Budget 

request for fiscal year 2006 and the plan of the Department of Defense to improve 

its infrastructure and facilities. 

The Department of Defense recognizes the long-term challenges associated with 

its infrastructure strategy. The Department has developed a strategy and several 

tools to address these challenges. The President’s Management Agenda recently 

added the stewardship of Federal real property as a new initiative. The Department 

is a full participant in the Federal Real Property Council established by Executive 

Order 13327. 

Working in full cooperation with the military services and other Defense components, the Department set out in 1997 to build a corporate-wide inventory of assets. 

The idea was and remains that the Department’s funding requirements for installations is a function of the assets currently on hand and planned for the future. 

Hence, an accurate inventory and a forecast of those assets are fundamental to determining and assessing budget requirements. The Department is continuing to improve its inventory process and is working extensively in the interagency process to 

support a more useful Federal inventory that can be used for management purposes. 

In 1998, the Department set out on a 6-year program to eliminate 80 million 

square feet of obsolete and excess facilities. Six years later, we concluded that effort 

by exceeding our target—removing a total of 86 million square feet. As part of a 

continuing effort to dispose of unneeded facilities, the Department recently completed a new survey of demolition requirements. 

In 2001, the Department issued its first ever Defense Facilities Strategic Plan. In 

September 2004, we issued a comprehensive, capabilities-based, and performanceoriented Defense Installations Strategic Plan. Our new plan begins to integrate 

more fully environmental management systems, safety, and occupational health into 

a comprehensive approach to asset management. The 2004 plan addressed recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and was approved by OMB as being consistent with the guiding principles of the Federal Real 

Property Council in meeting the objectives of the President’s Management Agenda. 

Global Posture Realignment 

While the Department addresses better business practices, we also are working 

to realign our infrastructure to deal effectively with military transformation and 
9 

21st Century threats. The Defense posture of the past 50 years reflects the Cold 

War strategy, with U.S. forces forward deployed primarily to fight near where they 

were based. Today’s environment requires more agile, fast and lean forces able to 

project power into theaters that may be distant from where they are based. This 

agility requires not only a shift in military forces, capabilities and equipment, but 

also a new basing strategy. 

Last fall, the Department completed a 2-year comprehensive review of its global 

posture and basing strategy, which will result in the most profound restructuring 

of U.S. military forces overseas since the end of the Korean War. This review was 

conducted with extensive participation by the Combatant Commanders, the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, and our interagency partners. We provided the Congress with a copy 

of the report in September 2004. 

The new posture will enable the Department to respond more quickly to worldwide commitments and make better use of our capabilities by thinking of our forces 

globally. In terms of ‘‘footprint’’, we will tailor our forces to suit local conditions 

while strategically pre-positioning equipment and support. We anticipate realigning 

or closing a number of large permanent bases in favor of small and scalable installations better suited for deployments to trouble spots. This will also reduce friction 

with host nations. For example, removal of the U.S. Air Expeditionary Wing from 

Prince Sultan Air Base should help improve our relations with Saudi Arabia, and 

relocating U.S. forces out of densely-populated Seoul, Korea, to hubs further south 

will resolve problems with the Korean public while bolstering our military capabilities on the peninsula. 

Senior officials of this Department and the Department of State have already 

begun the process of consulting with our friends and allies around the world to incorporate their input into our plan. We recognize that our allies are sensitive to 

changes in our overseas posture, and we will continue to consult with them as we 

make final decisions and begin executing the strategy. We will continue to consult 

with Members of Congress on our plan and will seek your support as we implement 

these far-reaching and enduring changes to strengthen America’s global defense posture. 

Since some overseas personnel will return to the United States, global posture 

changes will influence BRAC recommendations that will be announced in May 2005. 

Even though global posture changes will be executed over several years and will 

continue to be adjusted as strategic circumstances change, the Department will incorporate projected overseas posture changes into the BRAC process. 

BRAC 2005 

The domestic BRAC round and the global posture review are key elements that 

support transformation. A well supported, capabilities-based force structure should 

have infrastructure that is best sized and placed to support emerging mission requirements and national security needs. DOD must configure its infrastructure to 

maximize both warfighting capability and efficiency. Through BRAC and the global 

posture changes the Department will support the warfighter more effectively and efficiently. The Secretary will provide his recommendations for domestic closures and 

realignments to the Commission and Congress by May 16th as required by the 

BRAC 2005 statute. 

From a domestic perspective, the Department recognizes it has an obligation to 

assist communities impacted by BRAC 2005. The Defense Economic Adjustment 

Program will include assistance for communities to plan for the civilian redevelopment of available real and personal property; and implement local adjustment actions to assist impacted workers, businesses, and other affected community interests. The Department will work to partner with affected communities as we both 

seek opportunities for quick civilian reuse of former military installations. For communities engaged with installations that will receive new missions, we also recognize the importance of cooperatively planning to ensure our mission can effectively 

be stood up and supported. 

MANAGING INFRASTRUCTURE

The Department currently manages nearly 517,000 buildings and structures with 

a plant replacement value of over $650 billion, and over 46,000 square miles of real 

estate. We have developed models and metrics to predict funding needs and have 

established goals and performance measurements that place the management of Defense infrastructure on a more objective, business-oriented basis. 

Infrastructure Investment Strategy 

Managing our facilities assets is an integral part of comprehensive asset management. The quality of our infrastructure directly affects training and readiness. 
10 

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

Facilities sustainment, using primarily operations and maintenance-like 1 appropriations, funds the maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep an inventory in good working order. It includes regularly scheduled maintenance and major 

repairs or replacement of facility components that are expected to occur periodically 

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

To forecast funding requirements for sustainment, we developed the Facilities 

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

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

beginning in fiscal year 2004. 

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

and we have made significant progress in achieving this goal. The Department increased funding for facilities sustainment consistently from fiscal years 2002 

through 2005, sustaining facilities at an average of 93 percent of benchmarks. In 

the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the Department shows a slight decrease in the 

department-wide rate to 92 percent. The budget request, however, is an improvement upon the plan for the fiscal year 2006 contained in the fiscal year 2005 FYDP, 

which funded facility sustainment at 90 percent. Our priorities have not changed 

and with the support of the Congress our goal remains to reach full sustainment 

by fiscal year 2008. 

Restoration and modernization, collectively termed recapitalization, provide resources for improving facilities and are funded with either operations and maintenance or military construction appropriations. Restoration includes repair and replacement work to restore facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive 

age, natural disaster, fire, accident or other causes. Modernization includes alteration of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, to accommodate new 

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

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

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

have a replacement cycle of about 67 years on average. In fiscal year 2001, the Department’s recapitalization rate stood at 192 years. This budget request supports a 

recapitalization rate of 110 years, and we remain committed to achieving our 67 

year recapitalization goal in fiscal year 2008. 

SUSTAINMENT AND RECAPITALIZATION REQUEST 

[President’s Budget in Millions of Dollars] 

Fiscal year 2005 

request 

Fiscal year 2006 

request 

Sustainment (O&M-like 2) ....................................................................................................... 6,515 6,529 

Restoration and Modernization (O&M-like) ............................................................................ 1,321 1,008

Restoration and Modernization (MilCon) ................................................................................ 3,161 3474 

Total SRM .................................................................................................................. 10,997 11,011 

2 Includes O&M as well as related military personnel and host nation. 

As a key component of our facility program, the Military Construction appropriation is a significant contributor to the Department’s comprehensive approach to 

asset management practices. The fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense Military 

Construction and Family Housing appropriation request totals $12.05 billion. This 

budget request will enable the Department to transform in response to warfighter 

requirements, to enhance mission readiness, and to take care of our people. We do 

this, in part, by restoring and modernizing our enduring facilities, acquiring new facilities where needed, and eliminating those that are excess or obsolete. 

COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS 

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

Fiscal year 2005 

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2006 

request 

Military Construction ............................................................................................................... 4,745 5,284 
11 

COMPARISON OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING REQUESTS—Continued 

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

Fiscal year 2005 

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2006 

request 

NATO Security Investment Program ........................................................................................ 166 207

Base Realignment and Closure .............................................................................................. 246 2,258 

Family Housing Construction/Improvements .......................................................................... 1,622 2,020 

Family Housing Operations & Maintenance ........................................................................... 2,547 2,220 

Chemical Demilitarization ....................................................................................................... 81.9 ........................

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

Family Housing Improvement Fund ........................................................................................ 2.5 2.5 

Energy Conservation Investment Program .............................................................................. 50 60 

Total ........................................................................................................................... 9,460 12,052 

Improving Quality of Life 

At the outset of this Administration, the President and Secretary Rumsfeld identified elimination of inadequate family housing as a central priority for the Department and set an aggressive target of 2007 to meet that goal. Greatly expanded use 

of the privatization authorities granted under the fiscal year 1996 Military Housing 

Privatization Initiative has enabled achievement of that target at United States 

based installations where those authorities apply. Sustaining the quality of life for 

our military families is crucial to recruitment, retention, readiness and morale. The 

fiscal year 2006 budget funds elimination of all inadequate domestic family housing 

by 2007, and eliminates remaining inadequate houses overseas by 2009. 

DOD policy relies on the ‘‘community first’’ (private sector) to provide quality 

housing. Only when the private market demonstrates that it cannot supply sufficient levels of quality housing does the Department provide housing to our military 

families using privatization as its primary option followed by government-owned 

and leased housing. For example, we address our housing needs overseas through 

military construction and leasing in the absence of privatization authority. 

To ensure the Department is making the best investment decisions in determining 

the appropriate level of housing, the government provides a single and consistent 

methodology for calculating the requirement which was introduced in January 2003 

and is being extensively utilized by the Services. Currently, 73 percent of military 

families reside in privately owned housing, including 11 percent in privatized military housing and 27 percent in government-owned housing areas. 

The Department has skillfully used privatization to more quickly eliminate inadequate housing and to provide additional housing where shortfalls existed. As of 

February 2005, the Department has awarded 43 projects. This includes over 87,000 

military family housing units, which is a 58 percent increase since January 2004. 

DOD policy requires that privatization yield at least three times the amount of 

housing as traditional military construction for the same amount of appropriated 

dollars. The 43 awarded projects have permitted the Department, in partnership 

with the private sector, to provide housing for about $767 million in military construction investment. The same level of construction activity would otherwise have 

required over $11 billion if the traditional military construction approach was utilized. This reflects an average ratio of over 14 to 1, well exceeding program expectations. 

The Department’s privatization plans in the fiscal year 2006 budget will privatize 

84 percent of its domestic family housing inventory, or roughly 185,000 units 

privatized by the end of fiscal year 2007. By the end of fiscal year 2006, we will 

have privatized 172,400 housing units. For fiscal year 2006, the Department requests $4.243 billion in new budget authority for family housing construction and operations and maintenance: —$1.9 billion to construct 3,447 new/replacement units and improve 3,584 existing units. —$2.2 billion to operate and maintain approximately 123,452 government-owned 

family housing units, and lease another 26,281 units worldwide. 

Funding to support the privatization of family housing is programmed and budgeted in the family housing construction appropriations and is transferred to the 

DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund (FHIF) when the privatization projects 

are executed. The fiscal year 2006 construction account requests a total of $281 million in funding for privatization. Of this amount, approximately $182 million is anticipated to be transferred to the Family Housing Improvement Fund during fiscal 

year 2006 along with $428 million in previously appropriated construction funds. 
12 

This $610 million will be used to finance the privatization of approximately 34,964 

units. 

Utilities Privatization and Energy Management 

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

while improving utility system reliability and safety. The Department has developed 

a comprehensive energy strategy and issued new policy guidance that will continue 

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

when opportunities present themselves, and modernize our infrastructure by 

privatizing our deteriorated and outdated utilities infrastructure where economically 

feasible. The comprehensive energy strategy supports the use of meters to manage 

energy usage at locations where the monitoring justifies the cost of installing, maintaining and reading the meter. Metering in itself does not save energy, however, use 

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

DOD, as the largest single energy consumer in the Nation, consumes over $2.8 

billion of energy per year. Conserving energy and investing in energy reduction 

measures makes good business sense and frees up resources for sustaining our facilities and for higher DOD priority readiness and modernization. Recent dramatic 

fluctuations in the costs of energy significantly impact already constrained operating 

budgets, providing even greater incentives to conserve and seek ways to lower energy costs. These include investments in cost-effective renewable energy sources or 

energy efficient construction designs, and aggregating bargaining power among regions and Services to get better energy deals. 

Conserving energy in today’s high-priced market will save the Department money 

that can be better invested in readiness, facilities sustainment, and quality of life. 

Our efforts to conserve energy are paying off; in fiscal year 2004, military installations reduced consumption by 1.1 percent despite an 8.8 percent increase in the cost 

of energy commodities from fiscal year 2003. With a 26.8 percent reduction in standard building energy consumption in fiscal year 2004 from a 1985 baseline, the Department has deviated slightly from the track required to achieve the 2005 and 

2010 facility energy reduction goals stipulated by E.O. 13123. This is mostly attributable to the lapse of Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) authority which 

typically accounts for more than half of all facility energy savings. However, with 

ESPC authority reauthorized in the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization 

Act, DOD has launched an aggressive awareness campaign and plan to get back on 

track to meet fiscal year 2010 reduction goals. 

DOD has significantly increased its focus on purchasing renewable energy and developing resources on military installations. The Department has increased the use 

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

projects from $5 million and $11 million in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, 

respectively, to $13 million and $18 million in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, 

respectively. 

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

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

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

historically obtaining about $4 in life-cycle savings for every dollar invested. The fiscal year 2006 budget contains $60 million for the ECIP program to implement energy saving measures in our existing facilities. 

To improve utility systems, the Department has reaffirmed its preference to modernize military utility systems through privatization. The DOD Utilities Privatization Program has made solid progress over the past 2 years. The Services have 

greatly simplified and standardized the solicitation process for obtaining industry 

proposals. Request for Proposal (RfP) templates were clarified to improve industry’s 

ability to obtain private sector financing and manage risks. Of 2,601 utility systems 

serving the DOD, 463 systems have been privatized and 733 were already owned 

by other entities. Over 950 systems are currently under solicitation as each Service 

and the Defense Logistic Agency continue aggressive efforts to reach privatization 

decisions on all systems. 

Installations Support 

The Installations Support function consists of two major programs: Installation 

Services (formerly referred to as ‘‘base operations support’’) and Facilities Operations (formerly referred to as ‘‘real property services’’). The current budget request 
13 

of $22.5 billion includes $16.8 billion for Installations Services and $5.7 billion for 

Facilities Operations in fiscal year 2006. The Defense Installations Strategic Plan 

articulates the need to define common standards and performance metrics for managing Installations Support. The Department has initiated an effort to define and 

model each sub-function of Facilities Operations (utilities, leases, custodial services, 

snow plowing and the like) by fully utilizing commercial benchmarks. For the more 

diverse tasks within Installation Services, the Department has established a crossDepartmental working group to examine definitions and budget structures. 

Range Sustainment 

In concert with the President’s August 2004 Executive Order ‘‘Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation’’ the Department has developed a program of Compatible 

Land Use Partnering that promotes the twin imperatives of military test and training readiness and sound conservation stewardship through collaboration with multiple stakeholders. The Executive Order defines ‘‘cooperative conservation’’ as actions that relate to use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both, and that involve collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments, private for-profit and nonprofit institutions and other nongovernmental entities and individuals. The Department’s Range 

Sustainment Program is fully consistent with the President’s goals in this area. Section 2811 of the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes the Services 

to take a proactive role in developing programs to protect our installations and 

ranges from urban sprawl by working with States and non-governmental organizations to promote compatible land use through cooperative conservation efforts. This 

authority has enabled DOD to initiate the Readiness and Environmental Protection 

Initiative (REPI)—a multi-year program to sustain test and training space for our 

troops while simultaneously assisting in the protection of valuable habitat and open 

space. This program provides a lasting solution and a long-term framework for developing new policies, partnerships, and tools to assist communities and other interested stakeholders in executing compatible land use partnerships around our test 

and training ranges and installations, as well as work with our other Federal landowners on cooperative conservation projects. In the coming years, military readiness 

will still require substantial resources, air, land and water areas where military 

forces can test and train as they would fight. It is imperative that we be able to 

posture our test and training infrastructure for transformational and sustainable 

operations. 

The Department appreciates greatly the $12.5 million in fiscal year 2005 funding 

provided by Congress to fund the REPI program, and the military Services are already executing critical projects in many States. A recent agreement to address encroachment at Fort Carson, Colorado, and to enhance regional environmental conservation is one example of this win-win approach. Other projects are under consideration in Hawaii, at MCB Camp LeJuene, North Carolina, and in California and 

Florida. In fiscal year 2004, the Services implemented successful partnerships with 

State and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) at locations such as NAS Pensacola (Navy and Escambia County), Camp Blanding (National Guard Bureau and 

State of Florida). These multi-faceted conservation partnerships will ensure the 

long-term sustainability of test and training centers supporting the military mission. Thus, the Administration has requested $20 million for the REPI program for 

fiscal year 2006 and we are in the process of refining the Service priorities for those 

funds. I have requested that the Services prepare and submit requirements associated with fiscal year 2007 and out-years to support a long-term funding strategy for 

the REPI program. These compatible land use partnering efforts will become even 

more critical to our ability to protect and preserve our test and training missions 

as we enter our post-BRAC transformational environment. We look forward to participation in the White House Cooperative Conservation Conference later this year 

to find ever more innovative ways to work with others to help secure critical test 

and training ranges. I look forward to working with Congress to ensure our ability 

to fulfill the important programming requirements for these new efforts. 

Safety and Occupational Health 

The Department is aggressively supporting the SECDEF’s priority to reduce mishaps in DOD by implementing SOH management systems and by making it a priority in our Defense Installations Strategic Plan. Our programs focus on continuous 

incremental improvement in Safety and Health, but we’re also involved in implementing significant changes in safety through our partnership with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, who chartered the Defense Safety 

Oversight Committee (DSOC). Together, we are leading DOD’s efforts to cut mishaps in half by the end of fiscal year 2005. The DSOC, composed of senior leaders 
14 

throughout the Department, is finding ways to decrease the detrimental effect on 

our readiness caused by mishaps. We are focusing on acquisition; base operating 

support; training; and deployment operations. For acquisition and training, the 

Army and Marine Corps is responding to deaths from HMMWV rollovers by acquiring improved seat belt systems for tactical vehicles and by training deployed soldiers 

and marines to improve their driving skills. For deployment health protection, we 

began a program for the factory treatment of Army and Marine Corps combat uniforms with permethrin. This will provide protection against mosquitoes, and the diseases that they transmit, for the life of the uniform. Factory treatment ensures that 

all uniforms are treated and deployment-ready and that soldiers are not exposed to 

concentrated pesticides. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

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

and are committed to pursuing a comprehensive environmental program. 

Environmental Management Systems 

To make our operations more efficient and sustainable across the Department, we 

are continuing our aggressive efforts to implement environmental management systems (EMS) based on the ‘‘plan-do-check-act’’ framework of the international standard for EMS (ISO 14001). We are embedding environmental management as a systematic process, fully integrated with mission planning and sustainment. This 

transformation is essential for the continued success of our operations at home and 

abroad. Implementing EMS will help preserve range and operational capabilities by: 

—creating a long-term, comprehensive program to sustain training and testing capability while maintaining healthy ecosystems; 

—conducting environmental range assessments to ensure that we protect human 

health and the environment; and, 

—funding and implementing the INRMPs for our ranges. 

In addition, EMS will help maintain and preserve our historic properties, archaeological resources, Native American, and other cultural assets for the benefit of future generations. Today, DOD has a large inventory of historic properties: 75 National Historic Landmarks, and nearly 600 places on the National Register of historic places, encompassing more than 19,000 individual properties, including buildings, structures, objects, and sites located at over 200 installations. Over the next 

two decades, tens of thousands more buildings will reach an age requiring evaluation of their historical significance. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM—SUMMARY OF REQUEST 3

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

Fiscal year 2005 

as appropriated 

Fiscal year 2006 

request 

Environmental Restoration ...................................................................................................... 1,352 1,370 

BRAC Environmental 4 ............................................................................................................. 328 449 

Compliance .............................................................................................................................. 1,666 1,561 

Pollution Prevention ................................................................................................................ 142 143 

Conservation ............................................................................................................................ 175 205 

Technology ............................................................................................................................... 274 206 

International 5 ......................................................................................................................... 3 3 

TOTAL ......................................................................................................................... 3,937 3,934 

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

4 Funding levels reflect total requirement. 

5 International is included in Pollution Prevention and Compliance. 

In fiscal year 2006, the budget request includes $3.9 billion for environmental programs. This includes $1.4 billion for cleanup, $0.4 billion for BRAC environmental, 

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

$0.2 billion each for conservation and environmental technology. 

Managing Cleanup 

The Department is committed to the cleanup of property contaminated by hazardous substances, pollutants, and military munitions. We have achieved remedy in 

place or restoration complete at 15,950 out of 19,710 sites on active installations. 

At the end of fiscal year 2004, 4,046 out of the 4,832 BRAC sites requiring haz-
15 

ardous waste remediation have a cleanup remedy constructed and in place, or have 

had all necessary cleanup actions completed in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) standards. Hazardous waste cleanup at Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) achieved remedy in 

place or response complete at 1,539 out of the 2,647 sites. 

Managing Compliance and Preventing Pollution 

The Department is committed to going beyond mere compliance. But compliance 

with existing laws and regulations is the base line for our program and we continue 

to plan and fund for this requirement. Our ability to meet these compliance driven 

goals continues to improve. In a letter to the editor of USA today, acting EPA Assistant Administrator Skinner publicly complemented the Department by stating, 

‘‘The Department of Defense (DOD) has been a leader in pollution prevention and 

implementing environmental-management systems that serve as models for other 

facilities.’’ Pollution prevention techniques continue to save the Department needed 

funds as well as reduce pollution. The Department continues to demonstrate pesticide use risk reduction on installations and was recognized by the EPA as Pesticide Environmental Steward Program Champion, for the third year in a row. 

Emerging Contaminants 

In January 2005 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a review of the 

science used to determine the public health risks from perchlorate, a chemical with 

important national defense applications due to its use in missile and rocket propellants, munitions, pyrotechnics, and flares which was funded jointly by DOD, DOE, 

EPA, and NASA. Even before the start of the NAS study, Federal agencies were 

working hard to understand and address potential risks of perchlorate. The NAS report yielded an independent assessment of the available science. Now Federal agencies will be able to take actions based on sound science to address the issue of perchlorate in our Nation’s drinking water supply. 

We continue to develop more comprehensive strategies to enable us to protect 

public health while sustaining our assets and better managing our liabilities. In 

2004, in advance of any legally promulgated standard for perchlorate, the Department issued a policy to sample for perchlorate that has enabled the Department to 

better characterize the nature and extent of perchlorate plumes associated with its 

facilities. Over the last year, a joint effort between the Department and the State 

of California yielded a sampling prioritization protocol to ensure that active and 

former DOD sites with the greatest potential to cause a perchlorate-based health 

threat were investigated first. All current and formerly used DOD sites have now 

been jointly assigned a priority for sampling according to that protocol. 

The Department is moving ahead with efforts directed toward removing perchlorate from the environment. In advance of any requirement, DOD proactively initiated remediation demonstration projects at several sites in California, Texas, and 

Massachusetts. We have taken corrective measures to ensure proper disposal and 

added additional wastewater treatment to manufacturing facilities using perchlorate. We continue to fund remediation technology research and, this year, we 

launched a $9.5 million wellhead treatment demonstration effort with several 

Southern California communities. The Army’s effort to find substitutes for some of 

its training uses of perchlorate is also yielding positive results. 

We are using these comprehensive approaches as a model to more proactively and 

cooperatively address other emerging contaminants such as trichloroethylene (TCE) 

and Royal Demolition eXplosive (RDX). The Department continues to engage with 

other agencies in a sustained collaborative effort to address emerging contaminants 

by creating mutually satisfactory sustainable solutions. Last fall, DOD began working with the Environmental Council of States to define opportunities for States, 

DOD, DOE, and EPA to address emerging contaminants more effectively in the future. 

BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION

Business Management Process Transformation 

The Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) was established 3 

years ago and has made significant progress in establishing key foundational elements necessary to enable broad business transformation across the Department. In 

April 2003, the DUSD (I&E) was designated as the Domain Owner for the Installations and Environment Domain of BMMP. Because the foundation is now laid, the 

program is redefining itself to focus on facilitating rapid delivery of DOD Enterprise 

capabilities. 

The I&E Domain has achieved significant accomplishments over the past year. 

We developed a real property unique identification concept that will enable greater 
16 

visibility of real property assets and associated financial resources. Our efforts focused on reengineering the business process for real property inventory, resulting 

in standard data elements and data definitions for physical, legal and financial attributes of real property. Our efforts also produced, for the first time in DOD, an 

end-to-end process of real property management that articulates the interfaces with 

real property asset accountability and financial records. Our focus on data (data 

strategies, elements and definitions) will facilitate rapid implementation of the real 

property inventory capability upon deciding on our systems implementation strategy. Additionally, we developed a process model for environmental liabilities recognition, valuation, and reporting that contributes to our overall auditability. During this past year, we also established the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure project to implement DOD-wide policies and resource oversight for 

geospatial information resources that support the Installations and Environment 

business mission area. 

During this fiscal year, we will conduct an analysis of system alternatives and 

prepare a transition plan to determine the best implementation strategy for the real 

property inventory reengineering effort. We will continue to make improvements 

across the Department in managing hazardous material by developing an enterprise-wide procedure for hazardous materials management. We will define I&E 

geospatial information needs and continue to minimize redundant acquisition of 

I&E geodata resources. Lastly, we are aggressively working to put into operation 

a DOD registry for physical locations. This registry will identify all DOD sites with 

a unique identifier and will be associated with firm boundary information. The registry will be available across the DOD enterprise and to potential users include the 

warfighting community and business mission areas. The site registry will allow for 

personnel and weapons system information systems to be linked to DOD’s sites. 

Competitive Sourcing 

Competition is a driving force within the American economy, causing organizations to improve quality, reduce cost, and provide rapid delivery of better products 

and services. The President’s Management Agenda identifies Competitive Sourcing 

as one of the five primary Federal initiatives. The Department of Defense has long 

been the Federal leader in using public-private competition under the process defined by OMB Circular A–76 to decide the least costly and most efficient source for 

commercial functions. It is essential that we continue to utilize the process, where 

it makes good military and business sense, to improve support to the warfighter and 

increase readiness. Many important base support functions fall into this category. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget supports continued use of the improved process described in the recent revision to OMB Circular A–76 competitions for functions involving approximately 100,000 full time equivalents (FTE). This will allow achievement of the Department’s targets in the President’s Management Agenda. 

CONCLUSION

The Department is transforming its installations and business practices through 

an asset management strategy, and we are now seeing the results of that transformation. We are achieving the President’s goal to provide quality housing for our 

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

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

our facilities. We also are transforming our environmental management to become 

outcome oriented, focusing on results. We are responding vigorously to existing encroachment concerns and are putting a long-term installation and range 

sustainment strategy into effect. 

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

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

key means to transform our infrastructure to be more flexible to quickly and efficiently respond the challenges of the future. Together with the Global Defense Posture Review, BRAC 2005 will make a profound contribution to transforming the Department by rationalizing our infrastructure with Defense strategy. 

In short, we have achieved significant accomplishments over the past few years, 

and we are well on our way to achieving our goals across the Installations and Environment Community. In closing, Madam Chairwoman, I sincerely thank you for this 

opportunity to highlight our successes and outline our plans for the future. I appreciate your continued support of our installations and environment portfolio, and I 

look forward to working with you as we transform our plans into actions. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 
17 

I will start with a few questions. I am going to try to give everyone a chance to do round one, and then I will likely come back with 

round two. 

MORE SPECIFICITY FOR BRAC FUNDING

First of all, Mr. Grone, the budget request includes $1.9 billion for the 2005 BRAC round. There are $392 million for costs associated with the Global Presence and Basing Strategy, but the rest is 

not earmarked at all. I wondered if you would tell us how the Department intends to determine the uses for this money. What do 

you plan for this, and will we have a mechanism by which you will 

come to Congress with more specificity for almost $2 billion? 

Mr. GRONE. Madam Chairman, that is an excellent and quite appropriate question. As we were budgeting for base realignment and 

closure activities at the Department for the coming fiscal year, of 

course, the first year of implementation is always a bit of a challenge. We do not know at the time we build the budget what the 

recommendations of the Secretary will be, nor do we know, obviously, what the recommendations of the commission and the disposition of those recommendations by Congress will be. 

We took a good, hard look at lessons learned from the past, as 

we were building the budget. In 1993, the Department had requested funds which, if inflated appropriately, would amount to approximately $1.5 billion. We took a look at the 1995 round, applied 

the appropriate inflators to that, and the request was about $1 billion. 

Having said that, the General Accounting Office on numerous occasions, in commenting on the 1995 round, indicated to the Secretary and to the Congress that the Department’s recommendations in that year were smaller than it had projected at the start 

and that their analysis, the GAO’s analysis, at the time found that 

the services’ concerns over closing costs played a role in limiting 

the number of options that were actually recommended to the commission and ultimately enacted into law. 

So when we took a look at the lessons of the past, as well as considering the costs associated with the initial phase of realigning 

forces to the United States from abroad, we came to the conclusion 

that that level of funding, approximately $1.9 billion, was an appropriate level for the first year. 

As to the process, in 1995, as with prior rounds of BRAC, the Department’s budget justification included simply a reference that we 

had requested a certain level of funding. Once the Congress disposes of the commission’s recommendations, we will provide a report to the Congress that details the first year implementation 

funding associated with the amount appropriated by Congress, and 

subsequently for fiscal year 2007 and beyond, we will include a 

complete breakdown of how we expect to expend those funds, as we 

would with any other budget justification. So we certainly will not 

begin to expend funds until we provide such a report for the committee’s review, but we believe that that initial tranche of funds is 

an appropriate level to get us started. 

We do not have a target for the number of bases we expect to 

close, nor do we have a target for the expected amount of savings. 

But we have taken a good, hard look at lessons learned from the 
18 

past, and we want to put ourselves in the position to begin to expeditiously implement BRAC recommendations and we do not, obviously, want to be short of the resources necessary to make that 

happen. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. We will look forward to having 

something that assures that we will have some specificity as you 

get to the point. I understand, obviously, we do not know what 

bases are being closed and what the needs are at this time. 

PROCEEDS FROM SALES OF CLOSED FACILITIES

Speaking of lessons of the past, after nearly a decade of debate 

over the future of the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station 

property, which was closed in the 1993 BRAC, the Navy has sold 

the property to a developer for a reported almost $650 million. We 

are told that the Navy probably will sell much of the property at 

the now-closed Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico. 

Is this something you expect the Navy and other services to do 

following the 2005 BRAC round? If so, will it offset some of the 

costs of base closing? How will that money be allocated? And is this 

sort of a new mode of operation that is different from trying to 

work with community redevelopment corporations and giving property back to the community to the best extent possible? Just in 

general, the overview of is this a harbinger of the future. 

Mr. GRONE. It is an indicator of, in many ways, where we would 

like to be after the 2005 round. And at the outset I want to emphasize that in both the case of El Toro and in the case of Roosevelt 

Roads, should the Navy proceed with sale—and Mr. Penn who will 

follow us in the next panel can elaborate on this point. But in both 

cases, those decisions and those redevelopment packages are reflective of what we have taken to refer to as the mixed tool kit. In both 

instances, there are public purpose conveyances. There are economic development conveyances, as well as parcels for public sale. 

Both resulted from extensive consultation with local governments 

concerned, and that is the way in which we see a good deal of the 

future. 

Our approach, taking good lessons learned from the past, we 

probably significantly as a Department over-estimated our ability 

to sell in the early stages of the first BRAC rounds. Later on, given 

a whole history, which I will not belabor, we probably took that 

pendulum too far over to the right. Where we want to be—and we 

have had extensive conversation with redevelopment authorities, 

local governments, State governments, the National Association of 

Installation Developers, and others, and we expect we will continue 

to have dialogue with the Hill on these points as well. 

Where we would like to be is to put ourselves in the position 

where we proceed from a series of four or five key principles. One 

is if we choose to close a base, we need to look at ways to accelerate 

the movement of that mission. Doing so will enable the second 

principle, which is to put the property into effective economic reuse 

as expeditiously as we can. As we do that, our approach will be a 

highly tailored, locally tailored effort, working with State and local 

governments and redevelopment authorities, to put that mixed tool 

kit parcel into place and, where it is appropriate, to sell. 
19 

As we sell property and we take revenue in, of course, that will 

offset some of the cost, particularly over the long term, of our environmental remediation and caretaker cost activities. So it is not insignificant in that regard. But we recognize that our ability to do 

that is entirely dependent upon our ability to work in cooperation 

and in partnership with local government. We cannot sell and 

maximize value on our own. We must work together, and that is 

a foundation of our policy as we are developing it in the middle of 

our policy review going forward. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

I will now turn to my ranking member, Senator Feinstein, and 

I do have a couple of other questions, but I would like to spread 

the opportunity. 

CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEMILITARIZATION

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I will try and be brief. 

Let me ask my first question because Senator Allard is here hailing from Colorado, and that is about chemical weapons demilitarization. There is no funding for the chem demil construction in 

your 2006 MILCON request, and I think there has been a great 

deal of discussion of how Defense intends to proceed with the destruction of munitions stockpiled at the Blue Grass, Kentucky and 

the Pueblo, Colorado facilities. In 2005, we appropriated a total of 

$81.8 million for construction of the Kentucky and Colorado facilities. In 2004, $104 million was appropriated for construction. And 

this is all on top of nearly $100 million that was appropriated for 

these facilities in prior years. So that is almost $300 million that 

has already been appropriated. 

You are not requesting any chemical demil funds. I would like 

to know why not. I would like, if I might, to know whether the Department intends to proceed with construction of the Kentucky and 

Colorado facilities, and if these facilities are delayed or ultimately 

canceled, how will that affect DOD’s ability to comply with the 

deadlines for chemical stockpile destruction imposed by the Chemical Weapons Convention? 

And are you considering the feasibility of shipping these weapons 

from these facilities across State lines, and what is the status of 

the funding? How much has been spent and how much of it remains unobligated? I have got them written down. So if you forget 

one, I will get you on another. 

Ms. JONAS. Senator, let me start out and then I will let Mr. 

Grone talk to some of the specifics on the MILCON piece. 

Senator Allard was present at a Senate Budget Committee where 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense committed to working with the 

Congress on the issue. We understand that there are concerns here 

and working some alternatives to deal with the situation as it is. 

Mike Wynne, who is the acting Under Secretary for AT&L, of 

course, is the principal in charge of this program. I would be happy 

to make sure that we get for you for the record all the answers to 

those questions. I am not sure I have them all. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department has released funding previously withheld in fiscal year 2005 to 

commence the redesign and construction of the destruction facilities managed by the 
20 

Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program. The ACWA program 

has completed sufficient analysis of methods that balance cost, schedule and performance objectives to make a determination as to which is the most prudent design 

approach to maximize the opportunity to meet the extended 100 percent Chemical 

Weapons Convention destruction deadline of April 29, 2012. The fiscal year 2005 

funds and those funds requested for fiscal year 2006 should be sufficient to manage 

the ACWA program through the end of fiscal year 2006. 

Ms. JONAS. My understanding is that—and I do not have the specific numbers on the obligations, but on the prior year obligations, 

a good portion of those funds have been obligated. There are some 

that have not been, and Mike Wynne is looking at a spend plan on 

that to try to deal with the situation. 

But I would say that the Deputy Secretary of Defense committed 

to working with the Congress on potential alternatives regarding 

those two sites. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you really have not answered the questions. But what you are saying is we are working on it. $285.5 million has been appropriated by this committee. 

Ms. JONAS. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What I am asking for, I guess, if you are not 

going to use it at these sites, tell us now. Tell us what you are 

going to do with the money. 

Ms. JONAS. Certainly. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This has been going on for what? This is the 

third year now. 

Ms. JONAS. Senator, I would be happy to get with Mike Wynne 

and get back with you and your staff to give you the exact information that you are requesting. My understanding is there is some 

money that Mike has got on a withhold because he is concerned 

about a spend plan and some cost overruns on that. But I would 

be happy to work with you on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Can you tell us if you are going to go ahead 

with these two sites? Yes or no? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, where I think are now—and I would like to 

elaborate on a couple of the points that my colleague has made. 

So far through the program, we have met all our required milestones to date, to speak to the point on demilitarization. We have 

destroyed 35 percent of the stockpile. The next milestone requires 

destruction of 45 percent of the stockpile by December 2007, and 

as we sit here today, that deadline is achievable. 

As the subcommittee is aware, we have seen significant cost 

growth in the chemical demilitarization program overall. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I do not want to take up your time. I am asking about two sites: Pueblo, Colorado and Kentucky. 

Mr. GRONE. The acting Under Secretary has asked for a number 

of alternatives to be looked at. Once that spend plan and those alternatives are assessed, we would be in a better position to answer 

the question. All options are on the table. None are off the table. 

And in order to fulfill our responsibilities as a Department to ensure that we have a cost effective, safe, treaty-compliant program, 

we need to look at all the options given the cost growth that we 

have had in the program, and that is what we are trying to do. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just ask this. You basically have 

not answered the question. You may not be able to. I appreciate 

that. But for 3 years we have appropriated money. It seems to me 
21 

we ought to know whether this money is going to be used for that. 

It is a lot of money. And if it is not, whether it is unobligated and 

it can be used for other things. 

Ms. JONAS. Senator, I would be happy to get with you in the next 

couple of days. I will work with Mike Wynne to make sure that we 

get an answer to that question. But my understanding was that he 

was looking at a spend plan on it and that is why the withhold 

took place. 

[The information follows:] 

Yes, we are going to go ahead with these two sites. The Department has now released all prior years and fiscal year 2005 appropriated funds for Blue Grass and 

Pueblo. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, but the bottom line is you are uncertain whether you are going to go ahead or not go ahead. Right? 

Ms. JONAS. I need to talk with Mike Wynne about where they 

are with respect to his spend plan. I will not make any assumptions right now, but I will be glad to get back to you in short order. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. When you get back to us, if you could bring 

the information, exactly how much has been spent and for what it 

has been spent, and also what the alternatives are that you are 

considering. 

Ms. JONAS. Absolutely. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. 

I will reserve my questions so others have a chance. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We will have a second round. 

Senator Allard. 

Senator ALLARD. Madam Chairman, thank you very much, and 

I want to thank Senator Feinstein for pursuing that line of questioning. It is exactly the same line of questioning that I put before 

you, Ms. Jonas, in previous hearings. I have asked the same line 

of questions at the Subcommittee on Defense, asked the same line 

of questions at the Budget Committee when we had our hearing 

there, and we have the same line of questions here. I think they 

are very important questions that we are asking. 

We are not going to be in compliance with the Chemical Convention Treaty which has been ratified by the Senate. We had testimony from the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, saying that if 

we do not comply with the treaty, it just makes her job that much 

more difficult. So this is an important issue to the country, not just 

Kentucky and Colorado. 

Mr. Grone—did I pronounce your name right? Grone? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Grone. 

Senator ALLARD. I am sorry. 

Mr. GRONE. That is quite all right. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Grone, I apologize. 

But the point I want to make is that you say all options are on 

the table and the study that you are making includes all options. 

Now, we have in Federal law a provision that says that you will 

not ship interstate chemical weapons or material from these chemical weapons stockpiles without permission from the Governor or a 

declared emergency by the President. And none of those conditions 

exist in either Kentucky or Colorado or the neighboring States. 

We have already had three studies in Colorado at the Pueblo 

site. Now, why in the world, after we have had three studies, are 
22 

we having another study? We are spending $150,000 on that, which 

could easily be used to begin to put in some of the infrastructure 

ahead of time. To me it seems like an absolute waste of taxpayer 

dollars. 

Now, if you have problems with cost overruns, then I think we 

ought to address that issue. But I do not see why you are spending 

taxpayer dollars on a study on an activity that is illegal. You are 

not going to ignore the law, are you? 

Mr. GRONE. No, sir. 

Senator ALLARD. So I do think this does require serious consideration. The Pentagon has simply just not treated this as seriously 

I think as they should, and I hope they do. 

Ms. JONAS. Senator, I would just add that it was the Deputy Secretary that committed to work with you and other Senators on this 

very matter. 

Senator ALLARD. That is correct. 

Ms. JONAS. And I know he is hard at work at that. It is very 

much on his plate, and I know he has held several meetings on it 

already. So we would be happy to get back to this committee on 

plans for the future. 

Senator ALLARD. I for one would be very interested in getting the 

information that was requested by Senator Feinstein, and she 

would probably be interested in getting the information that you 

might provide to my office too. 

BUFFER AREA AROUND FORT CARSON, COLORADO

I am going to go on to something that is probably a little easier 

subject. One of the things that we are looking at Fort Carson—we 

have introduced legislation for this—is a buffer area around the 

base. National bases all around the country are having urban encroachment occurring on them. I think we have probably all experienced this in our States. As a result of that, it is difficult for them 

to carry out their mission. 

We have a unique situation in the State of Colorado in that we 

have a large amount of open space around Fort Carson that is 

owned by very few landowners. This provision, which was just 

passed by Congress last year, has not been applied to any base. So 

Fort Carson I think is going to be our first test as far as this is 

concerned. 

I would like to get some of your views on this. We are in the 

process now of negotiating with the local property owners and it is 

strongly supported by the local community, strongly supported by 

the commanders at the base. From what I can tell, everybody in 

the Pentagon is enthusiastic about it. I would just like to have 

maybe some comments that you might have on this approach and 

what concerns you may have, if any. 

Mr. GRONE. Well, Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it because the general initiative is managed by my office. 

We had requested funds last year. Several years ago we had 

sought authority from the Congress to begin this type of important 

buffer initiative which Congress graciously enacted. We would have 

the ability with this to improve the long-term stewardship and 

management of encroachment around many of our installations. 
23 

We had requested $20 million in funds last year from the Con- gress, and through the budget process, we ended up with $12.5 million for fiscal year 2005. We followed up that request with an additional request which will be pending in the Defense Subcommittee 

for $20 million in fiscal year 2006. 

The issues at Fort Carson are a high priority issue. For us it is 

a priority for the Army. We are working now on how to begin to 

implement a good deal of the program there. We do have some initial experience with these kind of initiatives. A lot of what we are 

doing now was rooted in some local initiatives in and around Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina, and pursuant to the authority provided by 

Congress 3 years ago, we have conducted two agreements in the 

State of Florida, one around Camp Blanding to benefit the Florida 

National Guard, and the other around NAS Pensacola, Eglin Air 

Force Base, between the Navy and Escambia County. 

So we are looking at locations all across the country not just to use the defense-wide fund, the $20 million we have requested this 

year, but also the services have the ability to tap their own O&M 

funds for this if they have a willing seller and if it is something 

that needs to be critically executed in that fiscal year. So we are 

looking very hard at it. 

It is a very, very positive initiative. It rests on a serious of cooperations and cooperative relationships between us, the State, and 

nongovernmental entities. It holds out the long-term prospect of 

being a very key part of our ability to guard against encroachment 

at our installations. We certainly support those efforts. 

Senator ALLARD. I thank you for your response and look forward 

to working with you on that. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Landrieu has joined us. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say 

how glad I am to be again joining you on this committee. There 

was some question as to our organization. I am happy that our 

committee not only survived but picked up the oversight of veterans and look forward to working with all of you in that regard. 

I also have a statement for the record, and I apologize for being 

late. So I will just submit it. But I would like to just refer to part 

of that opening statement and then get to my questions. 

I wanted to mention in the opening the success that we have 

had—and to thank our panel—in Louisiana for our public/private 

venture program, as we refer to it, PPV. Many of our States have 

experienced similar successes. But, Madam Chair, that success that 

was experienced at our naval air station, now the joint reserve base 

in Belle Chasse, is very worth noting. 

Because of the basic radical transformation in an extremely positive way of the housing there and the establishment of a brand 

new school, which was done, as I understand, because I helped to 

do it, in quite a unique way, a new partnership between the State, 

the local school board, and the Federal Government, at minimal expense to the Federal Government, frankly at minimal additional 

expense, based on the way that it was done, we now have just an 
24 

excellent school operating right here next to this base with 600 

children and plans for a second, brand new housing, morale lifted, 

families together. 

It leads me, as we begin this cycle, to really think about the 

quality of life and retention related to keeping families together 

and happy. We might recruit a soldier, but we retain families. And 

part of our committee structure is underlining and supporting the 

notion that whether you are the soldier or the spouse or the child, 

the whole family is really serving, and the obligation that we have 

to that entire family for their housing, their security on base and 

off of base. 

So I wanted to cite that in my opening and submit the rest of 

my statement. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Madame Chairman: Thank you for calling this hearing to review the President’s 

budget for Defense-Wide and Navy and Marine Corps Military Construction. We use 

very clinical terms in the present setting like ‘‘BAH’’ (Basic Allowance for Housing), 

and ‘‘BEQ’s’’ (Basic Enlisted Quarters) of MHA’s (Military Housing Areas). While 

every field needs its acronyms, I wonder if we don’t sterilize the items we are referencing. One of the core missions of this portion of our defense budget is to provide 

homes for our soldiers. Not housing but homes. 

When you think of it in those terms, questions about quality of life flow more naturally. If this base is a home for our sailors returning from a year or more at sea, 

or leaving their families behind as they deploy to the far corners of the earth, what 

kind of place is it? Do these homes give comfort to our troops when they are deployed or do they generate more worry? Has the government helped create a community, or have we simply ‘‘housed’’ our military families like we do equipment. 

These are the questions that we must ask ourselves as we give closer scrutiny 

to the President’s request for Defense-wide, Navy and Marine Corps military construction. Madame. Chairman, I’d like to mention one area that has been a notable 

success, and that is the execution of the Public, Private Venture program, or PPV, 

by the Department of the Navy. I know, because our former Naval Air Station, and 

now Joint Reserve Base, in Belle Chasse, Louisiana has been through this process. 

At minimal cost to the government, dilapidated housing stock was completely replaced with new on-base accommodations. They are clean, comfortable and worthy 

of the commitment that our men and women make to their government. It has also 

had a notable impact on the number of geographic bachelors serving at Belle 

Chasse. So-called geographic bachelors are servicemen and women who leave their 

families behind at their previous service station because they do not want to move 

them to new locations. 

There are a variety of reasons for geographic bachelors lack of base housing, poor 

public schools, and lack of economic opportunity for non-military spouses. What we 

do know is that the proliferation of geographic bachelors contributes to high military 

divorce rates. Compound that fact with the current operations tempo for all the 

branches of service, and you begin to understand why military families are under 

stress. In light of this strain, we must make every effort to eliminate geographic 

bachelors in order to support our troops and military families. The PPV program 

has been a valuable tool in this mission. 

The other excellent aspect of PPV for our State is that the project request was 

made in such a way that local Louisiana companies could compete for the work. To 

me, that is a win, win, win situation. Our servicemen and women get homes much 

faster than they would have under the status quo, the Navy and the DOD get high 

quality homes at a fraction of the cost of building it themselves, and the local economy benefits as jobs are created in the surrounding community. What is more, unlike other projects, you actually have an accountable developer who is tied to the 

local community, and therefore, whose reputation will suffer if the work is not up 

to par. 

In too many construction projects undertaken by the DOD, the RFP’s are designed 

so that only the usual suspects can participate. They are so enormous in scope, and 

carry such high requirements for previous experience that only a handful of companies in the country can compete, much less local firms. I do not believe that this 

approach is good for the bases, good for the contracts, or good for the taxpayer’s dol-
25 

lar. When it comes to craftsmanship, schedules and oversight, bigger is not always 

better. 

Finally, let me say a word about Base Realignment and Closure. There are two 

items that concern me about this process. The first is that I am unconvinced that 

there has been sufficient communication between the DOD and its sister agencies 

about the BRAC process. In particular, I am concerned about a lack of consultation 

with the Department of Homeland Security. Many military facilities and certainly 

some in my State, have a dual function. Belle Chasse is not just an airfield for the 

Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. It also plays host to aviation assets of the Customs Service. It does not appear that there has been any systematic attempt to consider the needs of other Federal agencies in the BRAC process. Nor does there appear to be any coherent way for the full Federal Government to participate in realignment. Are there Federal agencies that would benefit from integrating functions 

and facilities with a defense installation? Absolutely. Would the Department benefit 

from tenants, and shared overhead? Certainly. Yet, there is no way in this BRAC 

process to identify and quantify these prospects or savings. 

Secondarily, and this returns to the issue of quality of life, as we consider relocating our troops in Europe to locations that may be closer to perceived fault lines, 

it is important that we again consider the impact of our global footprint on military 

families. It may be possible to save some transportation costs by forward deploying 

our troops into countries where they will not bring their spouses and families. But 

contributing to the unaccompanied spouse phenomenon is not in the long-term interests of the military. As my friend Max Cleland was fond of saying, we recruit a soldier, but we retain a family. So if we expect to dig ourselves out of the recruitment 

and retention holes in which we currently find ourselves, it is vitally important that 

we keep an eye on the future. If we force our soldiers to choose between their families and their uniform, we must expect that they are going to leave their uniforms 

behind in many instances. 

Madame Chairman, Senator Feinstein, thank you both for your leadership on 

these issues. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES IN BRAC ANALYSIS

Senator LANDRIEU. These are my two questions, again getting 

back to this separation, Mr. Secretary. As you know, one of them 

is about separation. This is about BRAC. 

As you know, we are going through the BRAC process. We are 

all engaged in that. Because of the conversations I have had with 

folks in my State, my question is, is there a process, formal or informal, that you engage in with other non-military but Federal tenants related to decisions related to BRAC? In other words, is that 

taken into consideration, other Federal tenants in or around military bases? And if that is taken into consideration, how do you? 

And if not, why are we not taking that into consideration? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, the way I can answer the question best, 

maybe not completely, but the best way I can answer it at the 

present time is that the statutory authority for a 2005 round of 

base closure and realignment requires us to take into account the 

effect of our actions on other Federal agencies. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Requires you to do so. 

Mr. GRONE. Requires us to take into account our actions on other 

Federal agencies, and we are doing that. I would prefer not to detail how that is being done, as it is part of the internal deliberations over the BRAC process, but we do have a statutory mandate 

to take into account the effect of the Secretary’s recommendations 

on other Federal agencies, and we will certainly comply with the 

statutory requirement. 

Senator LANDRIEU. I appreciate that, and I will discuss that with 

you further because there is some concern about that process basically related to the Belle Chasse area because there are other Federal agencies that have plans for the future already firmly in place. 
26 

That would have some bearing on the outcome of that. But I will 

follow up. 

KEEPING MILITARY FAMILIES TOGETHER

The other is on the issue of families. Secretary Rumsfeld announced he wants to reshape our military global footprint. This 

committee is in the process of working with him to do that. As you 

know, we had a lot of bachelors basically based in Okinawa and 

Korea. Whether they were real or military bachelors, it is because 

their families could not join them. 

Now, as we reshape that base, what is our philosophy or plan for 

keeping families together, given the rise of divorce rates sometimes 

with our military families, our values to keep families together, 

keep families happy, keep them encouraged, keep the morale up 

because deployments are high? Could you just give us a comment 

about your views about reshaping this footprint relative to keeping 

spouses and children serving together where possible? 

Ms. JONAS. I will let Phil talk to the bachelors quarters. 

I will say I am the wife of a retired marine, and I am quite familiar with the separation and understand the importance to families 

of support. 

There are some initiatives in our overall budget and in the supplemental also for recruiting and retention bonuses. We do have a 

family support center that we have begun. I would be glad to provide for you all those types of things for the record that we are 

doing to make sure that the families get the support they need. 

This Military One Source is a center that is available 24/7 to military families to answer a plethora of questions apparently from 

where can I find a plumber to can you help me with my health 

care. So there are many initiatives like that. 

[The information follows:] 

The following bonuses, authorized in Chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, 

were included in the Department of Defense fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

(NOTE: Programs marked with an asterisk (*) are for members on active duty; 

all others are for Reserve Component personnel on other than active duty.) 

Enlistment/Accession 

—*Enlistment Bonus 

—*Accession Bonuses for Nuclear Officers, Dental Officers, Pharmacy Officers, 

and Registered Nurses 

—Selected Reserves Non-Prior Service Enlistment Bonus 

—Prior Service Enlistment Bonus 

—Accession or Affiliation Bonus for New Reserve Component Officers 

Retention 

—*Selective Reenlistment Bonus 

—*Critical Skills Retention Bonus 

—*Special pay for retention of Aviators, Nuclear Officers, Special Warfare Officers, Surface Warfare Officers, Officers in the Health Professions (Medical and 

Dental Officers, Optometrists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists), and 

Pharmacy Officers 

—Reenlistment Bonus for Selected Reserves 

—Special pay for retention of Critically Short Wartime Health Specialists in Selected Reserves 

Other 

—*Incentive Bonus for Conversion of Military Occupational Specialty to Ease Personnel Shortages 

—Affiliation Bonus for Service in Selected Reserves 

—IRR Enlistment, Reenlistment or Extension Bonus 
27 

Senator LANDRIEU. Well, I am generally familiar with those. I 

guess I was not specific. If I could, Madam Chair, have just a 

minute. 

I am generally familiar with the variety of services that are offered, but specifically when it comes to the part of our budget, 

which is partly housing and building housing and a new footprint, 

are we building the family housing units, whether renovating the 

current ones that we are in like one of the examples I just gave, 

or as we develop this new footprint, is our goal to build them in 

such a way that families can basically not deploy, of course, to the 

front line together, but if they are building in the Mideast or Europe or back here where they can be housed at least together and 

serve from a base together? Is that part of our philosophy or are 

we doing something different? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, let me attempt to answer the question in 

this way. Currently roughly two-thirds of our military families live 

in the private economy. As we develop our on-base housing for privatization options, those are being renovated and new construction 

constructed to appropriate commercial private sector standards. So 

they provide and will provide our families with more housing options, better quality housing options, whether they choose to live off 

base, on base in a concentrated military community, or elsewhere. 

We are also looking at barracks privatization as one of our options to continue to advance this program forward to be able to 

begin to deal with quality of life concerns of the unaccompanied. 

The senior enlisted recently testified before your colleagues in 

the House. Ms. Jonas and I were before Chairman Walsh not too 

long ago, and the question arose with regard to child care specifically as an example where the senior enlisted have expressed concern. The Congress and the leadership of the Department have always responded, and I think responded appropriately and well, 

when the senior enlisted have raised issues and we have begun a 

process, internal to the Department, to look at ways in which we 

can improve child care options for our people. We do not have a 

program yet to bring forward with a revised set of priorities or policies, but we are taking a hard look at it. 

So whether it is the family support centers that my colleague referenced or housing privatization, child care, we are doing the 

things that we think we can to improve the ability of the military 

community to be supported and supported appropriately. 

ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you so much. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Secretary Jonas, I notice that—and Senator 

Feinstein mentioned this—the Army MILCON request is down 16 

percent from last year. Air Force is up 61 percent. I realize that 

every service has its own spending plans and you cannot tie them 

together necessarily. 

However, it seems that the Army is facing the most severe facility demands. They are bearing the biggest brunt of the war on terror, and they are also going to be the primary forces moving back 

from overseas. Yet, the restationing of the Global Posture Review 

is going to come out of the Army’s own MILCON, meaning that you 

are going to be asking them to take $2.5 billion out of their own 
28 

FYDP. This is a concern to me, and I wonder if it is a concern to 

you and if the Department has really looked at this carefully. 

Ms. JONAS. Well, let me begin. I certainly understand your concerns. 

With all services, as you know, they build their budgets and we 

work very carefully and closely with them. The Army made a 

choice—and Mr. Grone may want to discuss this a little bit—to realign some of their resources. As you may know, there are many 

things going on within the Army. I will mention the Army’s 

modularity program and restructuring of their forces. If you are not 

familiar with it, let me just explain. 

General Schoomaker is trying to increase the operational size of 

his Army and adjusting his brigades so that where you might have 

had for a division with three brigade combat teams, you now would 

have four. So our supplemental request is asking for funds to outfit 

that fourth unit. The importance of that, of course, is to take the 

strain off the force. If you have four units instead of three, you do 

not have to call up the Guard or Reserve units to go. So that is 

an important part of this mix there. 

I am not intimately familiar with the BRAC process. I have been 

outside of that process. But that is consistent with the global posture things that they are doing. This was the Army’s best judgment 

as to how to realign its resources. 

I understand your concerns. Maybe Phil can further speak to 

their specific judgments there, but I understand your concerns, 

Senator. 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, I would just add one point to that. While 

the Army did accept a little bit more risk with this budget request, 

in terms of comparing one budget request to the other, comparing 

it to the appropriate level, the Army’s recapitalization rate, for example, is just about right on the corporate profile at 111 years. So 

they are not, with this budget request, too far out of phase with 

the overall general direction of the Department. 

And certainly within the context of BRAC, as we rebase forces 

from abroad, as we realign missions domestically, a good deal of 

construction activity will accompany that through the BRAC account. Historically roughly one-third, or 30 percent, of the $22 billion we spent in prior BRAC activity was for military construction 

and military family housing purposes. We do not know precisely 

how much yet and we do not know what the phasing of it will be 

and how much of it would be Army in the first year of implementation, but there will be money that will be coming back to the Army 

in terms of the Army’s ability to reset the force through basing as 

a result of BRAC. 

So certainly there are things we would like to continue to accelerate for the Army, but the Army’s program, given all the other demands on the Army, is reasonably well balanced. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me just say I am familiar with what 

General Schoomaker is doing, but I think the Department has a responsibility to look at the allocations that it is giving to each of its 

services. I believe the Army is doing the most restructuring. It is 

bearing the greatest part of the war that we are fighting now. The 

Marines are as well, but that is a smaller unit. And to say that 

they are going through this upheaval with four brigades instead of 
29 

three means, it seems to me, that they are going to need more, not 

less. 

I have visited every kind of base. I have visited Air Force, Navy, 

Army, and Marine. I think basically the Army is behind and getting further behind. I do not think that is the right trend when we 

are asking them to do so much. I have never talked to General 

Schoomaker about this. He has never raised it with me, but when 

I step back and look at all the other things he is doing and then 

look at this program, it does not seem balanced to me. 

So I would just ask you to look at that again very carefully. I 

know that you probably give each of the services a top line and this 

is what they have to spend, and he has chosen wisely on his first 

priority to spend it on the reconfiguration. But I do not think that 

means he does not also very much need more in this area. 

I have been out to Fort Bliss and Fort Hood, and we are putting 

more troops particularly into Fort Bliss where they are going to 

have to do a lot of temporary housing for the troops that are going 

in. They have plenty of space at Fort Bliss. It is a great place to 

add, and it can take another 5 or 10 brigades. But I just think we 

need to be planning for all of that and making sure we are looking 

at what this influx back from Europe is doing, plus the reconfiguration, plus the added troops they are putting in combat to relieve 

guard and reserve. 

All the things that are being done are very efficient from an 

operational standpoint when it is done, but it just seems to me that 

you also are going to need to take care of the housing and schools 

and the things that are going to be necessary to augment those 

changes. This does not, on its face, show that. 

Any comments? 

Ms. JONAS. We appreciate your comments. We will certainly 

work with the Army on that. I would just note the supplemental 

request does ask for some funds associated with the restructure in 

the MILCON area. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. It may be that we have to do some 

things in a supplemental, which I am prepared to do. 

MARINE CORPS RESTRUCTURING

Just one last point and then I will go to the others. On that same 

point, the Marine Corps is, in the supplemental, asking for $77 million for restructuring from its force structure review, but that does 

not look like it is enough. You are probably going to have to have 

some temporary housing for the marines from everything that we 

can tell. So is $77 million enough to do what you are going to need 

to do with the marines arriving this summer at their new locations? I think they are coming in this summer. 

Ms. JONAS. Of course, we are working with them. At the time we 

put the supplemental together, the $75 million was where we were. 

Of course, requirements always change and I understand that they 

had some additional requirements for explosive ordnance disposal 

and other things. We will continue to work with the Marine Corps. 

We do a lot also during the year and the year of execution to understand where people are at and where the services are at with 

respect to their requirements. 
30 

Senator HUTCHISON. Be sure you do this before we pass the supplemental. If there need to be adjustments, we certainly want to 

do it now and not to have to have another supplemental. As you 

know, it is very difficult to get these and to manage them. 

Ms. JONAS. Absolutely. But we will have a mid-year execution review here shortly, so we should have a good idea of where we are. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. Thank you very much. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BRAC FUNDING

Mr. Grone, the MILCON budget request includes a $1.88 billion wedge to implement the 2005 BRAC round, of which $314 million 

is earmarked for the Pentagon’s global basing plan. Now, that is 

a large amount of money to be obligated within 1 year, particularly 

given the long budgetary lead times that the Department so often 

cites in justifying decisions to fund such Army modularity through 

the supplemental. 

What types of activities will be funded in 2006 with the BRAC 

wedge? And how did the Department come up with the figure of 

$1.88 billion? What metrics were used? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator Feinstein, the purposes of the account support all of the activities associated with the closure and realignment decisions. So military construction, operations and maintenance, PCS costs, family housing, environmental remediation—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is $1.5 billion. 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, ma’am. 

From the perspective of how we put it together, again what we 

did was we took a lesson from our prior BRAC activity. In the 1993 

round, we asked for an amount of funds in the first year that was 

roughly equivalent in today’s dollars to $1.5 billion. In 1995, we 

asked for a request that would be in today’s dollars approximately 

$1 billion. Knowing that we are not able to know precisely today, 

given the state of the recommendations, what we are able to sort 

of work through, we took a good, hard look at those lessons. The 

GAO’s criticisms of the Department from the 1995 round suggested 

that we hold back on recommendations we might otherwise have 

brought forward out of cost considerations. So when looking at the 

experience of history, when looking at the needs for global posture 

realignment that would be executed through BRAC, $1.9 billion 

seemed an eminently reasonable figure, and I would fully expect 

that we would expend those funds. 

As I indicated to Senator Hutchison earlier during a question, we 

will provide a full report upon the disposition of the BRAC recommendations that will detail at great length how we will expend 

those funds in fiscal year 2006, and then in all subsequent fiscal 

years, it would become part of the normal budget justification process where we will detail all of that expenditure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could we also get an analysis of how these 

funds were spent in the past round? 

Mr. GRONE. Yes, ma’am. But I can give you a very broad overview at this point, and we can certainly provide more detail for the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 
31 

DOD Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Justification Data for previous 

BRAC rounds was provided to Congress in February 2005. A copy of that report is 

attached. 

DOD BASE REALIGNMENT & CLOSURE

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE OVERVIEW

Background 

The Defense Secretary’s Commission on Base Realignment and Closures was 

chartered on May 3, 1988 to recommend military installations within the United 

States, its commonwealths, territories, and possessions for realignment and closure. 

The Congress and the President subsequently endorsed this approach through legislation that removed some of the previous impediments to successful base closure actions. The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment 

Act, Public Law 100–526, as enacted October 24, 1988, provides the basis for implementing the recommendations of the 1988 Commission. Under this Act, all closures 

and realignments were to be completed no later than September 30, 1995. Funding 

for these actions was included in the Base Realignment and Closure Account—Part 

I (BRAC I) which covered fiscal years 1990 through 1995. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1990 and 1991, Section 

2831, allowed for the one-time transfer of $31 million from BRAC I into the fiscal 

year 1990 Homeowners Assistance Fund (HAP). The HAP funds are used to assist 

employees who are forced to move as a consequence of base closures and who find 

that they must sell their homes in real estate markets which have been adversely 

affected by the closure decision. 

In the Committee Reports accompanying the fiscal year 1990 Military Construction Appropriations Act, the Congress began applying some restrictions on the use 

of BRAC I funds. Concerned that the one-time implementation costs had increased 

by $1 billion when compared to the 1988 Commission’s estimate, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) adopted a spending cap for military construction and 

family housing of $2.4 billion. This cap was reflected in the fiscal year 1990 act 

itself. The fiscal year 1992 Military Construction Appropriations Act lowered the cap 

to $1.8 billion commensurate with the budget request. 

On November 5, 1990, The President signed Public Law 101–510, Title XXIX, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, establishing an independent commission known as the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission which 

met only during calendar years 1991, 1993, and 1995. The purpose of the Commission was to ensure a timely, independent, and fair process for closing and realigning 

U.S. military installations. The actions to implement the recommendations of the 

1991, 1993, and 1995 Commissions are underwritten from the Base Realignment 

and Closure Account 1990 (BRAC II). By statute, action must be initiated no later 

than 2 years after the date on which the President transmits a report to Congress 

and all closures and realignments must be completed no later than the end of the 

6 year period beginning on the same date. The implementation period for the 1995 

authorized round of base closure was complete as of 13 July 2001. 

Public Law 101–510 included a number of other provisions affecting base closure, 

one of which, section 2923, designated the Base Closure Account (BRAC I) to be the 

exclusive source of funds for environmental restoration projects at round one closure 

sites. The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1992, Section 2827, 

designated Base Closure Account 1990 as the exclusive source of funds for environmental restoration projects at closure sites approved by the 1991, 1993, and 1995 

Commissions. 

The intent of this section was to preclude the cleanup actions at bases slated for 

closure from competing with other sources of funding for environmental cleanup 

such as the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). A total of $9,007.1 

million has been made available for cleanup for the four rounds of base closures 

through fiscal year 2005. The fiscal year 2006 budget program includes $449.1 million for environmental restoration at BRAC bases. 

The fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, authorized an additional 

round of base realignment and closure in 2005 by amending the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–510). The Secretary of Defense’s 

BRAC 2005 recommendations for base closure and realignment must be provided to 

the BRAC 2005 Commission not later March 16, 2005. The Department of Defense 

Base Closure Account 2005 (Treasury code 0512) has been established as a single 

account on the books of the Treasury to execute actions to implement BRAC 2005 

approved closures and realignments. 
32 

Budget Justification Requirements 

The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, 

Public Law 100–526, is specific in the types of information required as to budget 

justification. The Act states, ‘‘As part of each annual budget request for the Department of Defense, the Secretary shall transmit to the appropriate committees of Congress: 

—A schedule of the closure and realignment actions to be carried out under this 

title in the fiscal year for which the request is made and an estimate of the total 

expenditures required and cost savings to be achieved by each such closure and 

realignment and of the time period in which these savings are to be achieved 

in each case, together with the Secretary’s assessment of the environmental effects of such actions; and 

—A description of the military installations, including those under construction 

and those planned for construction, to which functions are to be transferred as 

a result of such closures and realignments, together with the Secretary’s assessment of the environmental effects of such transfers.’’ 

The fiscal year 2006 budget justification material has been developed to comply 

with the above requirements. The BRAC Executive Summary Book provides an 

overview of the BRAC costs and savings for each DOD Component through the 6 

year implementation period. The DOD Components have prepared separate justification books providing detailed information by realignment and closure package, 

broken out by one-time implementation costs, anticipated revenues from land sales, 

and expected savings. This comprehensive approach addresses the total financial 

impact of realignment and closure actions and provides justification for the funds 

requested in the Base Closure Accounts. 

DOD Base Closure Account Capitalization and Funding 

The Department has complied with the guidance contained in the House of Representatives Report 101–76, Military Construction Appropriations Bill, 1990, July 

26, 1989, to determine the proper method of capitalizing the DOD Base Closure Accounts. In denying general transfer authority to the Secretary of Defense, the Committee expressed the belief that the necessary one-time costs to implement base realignments and closures be requested as new appropriated amounts to facilitate improved accounting of the funds appropriated. Additionally, the Committee indicated 

that any savings or cost avoidance due to base realignment or closure should be reflected through reduced requirements in the annual budget requests for the affected 

appropriations. 

The manner in which the impacts of base realignments and closures are reflected 

in BRAC appropriations accounts is consistent with this language. The new BRAC 

appropriations requested represent the costs of environmental restoration and caretaker functions at bases closed under the prior rounds of base closure authority. 

Also included in the appropriation request are funds to be transferred to the Homeowner’s Assistance Program for the purpose outlined in Section III. Since the fiscal 

year 1991 budget request, parcels of land have been transferred, without compensation to the Department, thereby reducing projected offsetting receipts. Section IV 

provides examples of anticipated revenue from the sale of land and facilities and the 

anticipated revenue loss from land transfers. 

The implementation of base realignment and closures requires the relocation of 

units and activities from one site to another. Recurring savings (reduced base operations costs) are realized through the increased efficiencies inherent in the consolidation of functions on fewer bases. The net savings are reflected as savings in the 

specific appropriations, primarily operation and maintenance, and are not incorporated in the DOD Base Closure Accounts. 

Estimates for savings or cost avoidance have been incorporated into the DOD 

Component appropriation account where they are to accrue, resulting in corresponding reduced budget requests for those appropriations. The annual recurring 

saving from the four prior rounds of base closure and realignment are projected to 

be about $7 billion after the implementation period ending in fiscal year 2001. 

Financial Management Procedures 

The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, 

Public Law 100–526, established the Defense Base Closure Account (BRAC I) as a 

mechanism to provide the required funding to implement the approved recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commissions. Public Law 101– 

510, Title XXIX, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, established 

Base Closure Account 1990 (BRAC II) as a mechanism to provide the required funding to implement the approved recommendations of the BRAC 1991, 1993, and 1995 

Commissions. From aspects of management, budgeting and accounting, both Ac-
33 

counts are treated in the same fashion. Funding approved by Congress in both Accounts is appropriated and authorized in a lump sum amount and may be spent for 

construction, planning and design, civilian severance pay, civilian permanent 

change in station, transportation of things, and other costs related to the realignment or closure of the subject bases. The management structure of the program is 

described below. 

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) is responsible for issuing policy for management of the BRAC program and overseeing the 

DOD Components’ execution of the program. 

To properly account for and manage appropriated fund resources, the DOD Base 

Closure Accounts were established on the books of the Treasury to aid the DOD 

Components in the closure and realignment of certain military installations. Treasury has assigned account symbol 97–0103 to identify the DOD Base Closure Account—Part I, 97–0510 to identify DOD Base Closure Account 1990—Part II, Part 

III, and Part IV, and 97–0512 to identify DOD Base Closure Account 2005. 

Funds made available to the DOD Components are subdivided and distribute to 

the activities responsible for base closure actions. Separate allocations are made for 

each of the accounts by program year. Each DOD Component distributes the base 

closure funds in accordance with its normal fund distribution procedures. The applicable reporting requirements include: 

Military Construction: 

—Construction 

—Planning and Design 

Family Housing: 

—Construction 

—Operations 

Environmental 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M): 

—Civilian Severance Pay 

—Civilian Permanent Change of Station (PCS) costs 

—Transportation of things 

—Real Property Maintenance 

—Program Management (civilian work years, TDY travel, and related support 

dedicated to implementation efforts) 

Military Personnel (limited to PCS expenses dedicated to implementation efforts) 

Other (including procurement-type items) 

The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) makes funds available to the DOD 

Components based on their official financial plans. Financial plans are prepared by 

the DOD Components in cooperation with and at the direction of the program manager, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment). The 

DOD Components’ financial plans and the subsequent allocation of funds are supported by detailed, line-item military and family housing construction justification. 

Separate narrative explanations for other planned expenditures are also submitted 

to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in sufficient detail to support the 

DOD Component’s Financial plan. The DOD Components are allowed to revise 

planned execution as the situation dictates but must notify the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) and the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) of all changes. To keep the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

apprised of these changes, the DOD Components are required to submit a revised 

current year financial plan and supporting documentation on a quarterly basis to 

reflect the status of the current plan being executed. When a military construction 

or family housing construction project is to be executed, but does not appear on the 

approved construction project list, the prior approval of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and Congress is required. This will ensure that the Department 

has complied with the notification requirements of the House of Representatives Report 101–176, Military Construction Appropriation Bill, July 26, 1989, prior to the 

expenditure of DOD Base Closure Account funds. Each DOD Component is allocated 

funds based upon its official budget justification and financial plan. 

Decision Rule for Determining the Validity of Charging Cost to the DOD Base Closure Accounts.—In addition to being supported by the detailed budget justification, 

the general criterion to be applied when deciding whether to charge specific costs 

to the DOD Base Closure Account is that the cost in question is a one-time implementation cost directly associated with the overall base closure effort. For example, 

the one-time operation and maintenance-type costs at R&D-funded installations are 

charged to the appropriate sub-account of ‘‘Operation and Maintenance.’’ Low-dollar 

value construction projects budgeted as lump sum under the real property maintenance category are charged to that sub-account and not the construction subaccount 

of military construction, which is reserved for projects listed individually on the fi-
34 

nancial plan accompanying the fund allocation document. Recurring costs driven by 

the transfer of workload from one location to another is budgeted for and charged 

to the non-base closure accounts. 

BUDGET SUMMARY

The tables on the following pages provide information on one-time implementation 

costs, expected savings, and revenues from land sales by DOD Component and approved BRAC closure round. BRAC I closures and realignments have been projected 

to cost $2.8 billion and will generate total savings of $2.4 billion and land sale revenue of $65.7 million during the fiscal year 1990–1995 implementation period. 

BRAC II closures and realignments have been projected to cost $5.2 billion and will 

generate total savings of about $8.1 billion and land sale revenue of $25.7 million 

during the fiscal year 1992–1998 implementation period. BRAC III closures and realignments have been projected to cost $7.6 billion and will generate total savings 

of $8.3 billion and land sale revenue of $3.4 million during the fiscal year 1994– 

1999 implementation period. BRAC IV closures and realignments are projected to 

cost $6.8 billion and will generate total savings of $6.2 billion and land sale revenue 

of $230.2 million during the fiscal year 1996–2001 implementation period. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006—BUDGET ESTIMATES BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT PARTS I– 

IV 

[In millions of dollars] 

Fiscal year 

2003 2004 2005 2006 

BRAC Parts I–IV Continuing Environmental and 

Caretaker Costs 

Army: 

Environmental ...................................................... 162.821 61.851 92.050 89.380 

Operations & Maintenance .................................. 18.557 10.145 8.255 4.473 

Navy: 

Environmental ...................................................... 462.166 96.509 101.700 236.581 

Operations & Maintenance .................................. 12.268 13.402 13.350 39.392 

Air Force: 

Environmental ...................................................... 125.569 193.141 127.749 117.167 

Operations & Maintenance .................................. 22.975 4.796 18.062 17.560 

Defense Logistics Agency: 

Environmental ...................................................... 10.168 9.811 6.652 5.974 

Operations & Maintenance .................................. ........................ 1.000 300 300 

Total Environmental and Caretaker Costs ...... 814.524 390.655 368.118 510.827 

Homeowner’s Assistance Program ................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

Prior Year Financing ..................................................... 27.216 18.228 6.952 ........................

Estimated Land Sale Revenue ..................................... 211.738 2.000 115.000 133.000 

BRAC IV Budget Request ............................................. 575.570 370.427 246.116 377.827 

The fiscal year 2006 budget requests $377.8 million of new budget authority for 

environmental restoration and caretaker cost for facilities closed under the previous 

four rounds of base closure authority. This funding will ensure bases are continuing 

to be cleaned efficiently to speed the transfer of property to redevelopment authorities. 

Anticipated land sale revenue of $133 million will be used to offset a portion of 

the department’s fiscal year 2006 BRAC requirements of $510.8 million. 

Annual recurring savings from the four rounds of base closure and realignment 

are projected to be about $7 billion after the implementation period ending in fiscal 

year 2001. 

BRAC 2005

BRAC 2005 will make a profound contribution to transforming the Department 

by eliminating excess capacity and reconfiguring infrastructure. The fiscal year 2006 

budget request includes $1,881.0 million to implement the anticipated approved recommendations from the BRAC 2005 Commission. 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) provides assistance to eligible service 

members and civilian employee homeowners who have suffered losses through the 

depression of the real estate market resulting from actual or pending base closures. 

Pursuant to section 2832 of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 

2831 of Public Law 101–89, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

1990 and fiscal year 1991, the Secretary of Defense was granted authority to transfer $31 million of funds appropriated in BRAC I to HAP. Accordingly, the Department of Defense transferred $31 million in fiscal year 1990 to accommodate valid 

homeowner assistance requirements arising from implementation of the 1988 Commission’s recommendations. From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1999 the required homeowners assistance funding associated with base realignments and closures was budgeted in the Homeowners Assistance Program administered by the 

Department of the Army as executive agent for the program. Beginning in fiscal 

year 2000, funds were appropriated in the BRAC program for transfer to the Homeowners Assistance Program during budget execution to allow more effective and efficient use of these funds in support of BRAC implementation. No funds are budgeted 

within the BRAC program for transfer to the Homeowners Assistance Program in 

fiscal year 2006. 

REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF LAND AND FACILITIES

In capitalizing the base closure accounts, the additional appropriations to pay for 

the onetime costs of implementation have been offset by the amount of revenues 

that are anticipated due to the authorized sale of land no longer required by the 

Department. Since the fiscal year 1991 budget request, parcels of land have been 

transferred, without compensation to the Department, thereby reducing projected 

offsetting receipts. The tables on the following pages show the anticipated land sale 

revenue and examples of projected land sales no longer anticipated due to loss revenue resulting from transfers of property outside of the Department. Land sale receipts from base closures have amounted to $595.1 million through September 2004. 

These receipts are used to offset anticipated BRAC costs. Anticipated land sale revenue of $133.0 million will be used to offset a portion of the department’s fiscal year 

2006 BRAC requirements of $510.8 million. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART I 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Kapalama Military Reservation, HI ...................................................................................................................... 38,529 

Pontiac Storage Facility ....................................................................................................................................... 3,100 

Fort Holabird, MD ................................................................................................................................................. 100 

USA Reserve Center Gaithersburg, MD ................................................................................................................ 785 

Stand-Alone Housing, Various Locations ............................................................................................................. 23,199 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 65,713 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET EXTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURES—PART I LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Lexington .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,379 

Army Material Tech Lab ....................................................................................................................................... 3,124 

Jefferson ............................................................................................................................................................... 28,925 

AMC Other ............................................................................................................................................................ 8,030 

Presidio ................................................................................................................................................................. 42,986 

Hamilton ............................................................................................................................................................... 49,550 

Sheridan ............................................................................................................................................................... 59,092 

Fort Douglas, UT .................................................................................................................................................. 7,379 

Fort Meade, MD .................................................................................................................................................... 447,770 

Cameron Station, VA ............................................................................................................................................ 212,624 
55 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET EXTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURES—PART I LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—ARMY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Stand Alone .......................................................................................................................................................... 62,053 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 928,912 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART I 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—NAVY AND PART I LOSS OF LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

NRC Coconut Grove, FL ........................................................................................................................................ 7,134 

NH Philadelphia, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 25 

NTB Salton Sea, CA ............................................................................................................................................. 14 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 7,173 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART I LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Naval Station New York (Brooklyn, NY) ............................................................................................................... 57,000 

Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point), WA ..................................................................................................... 60,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 117,000 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART I 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Chanute Air Force Base, IL .................................................................................................................................. 13,000 

George Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 90,000 

Mather Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 305,000 

Norton Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Pease Air Force Base, NH .................................................................................................................................... 120,000 

Total 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 26,582 

1 All anticipated/realized land revenues are accounted for in BRAC IV. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART I LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

George Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 90,000 

Mather Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 305,000 

Norton Air Force Base, CA ................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Chanute Air Force Base, IL .................................................................................................................................. 13,000 

Pease Air Force Base, NH .................................................................................................................................... 120,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 628,000 
56 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Cameron Station, VA ............................................................................................................................................ 15,661 

Fort Ben Harrison, IN ........................................................................................................................................... 4,634 

Sacramento Army Depot, CA ................................................................................................................................ 299 

Fort Devens, MA ................................................................................................................................................... 1,998 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 22,592 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Fort Devens, MA ................................................................................................................................................... 112,000 

Fort Dix, NJ 1 ......................................................................................................................................................... 83,000 

Fort Ord, CA ......................................................................................................................................................... 399,750 

Harry Diamond Lab, VA ........................................................................................................................................ 30,000 

Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN .................................................................................................................................. 102,227 

Sacramento Depot, CA ......................................................................................................................................... 24,879 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 751,856 

1 Note: The anticipated revenues from Fort Dix were reduced from $83.0 million to zero. The basis of the reduction is the proposed utiliza- tion of Fort Dix by other Federal and State agencies which precludes disposal of the anticipated excess land. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

MCAS Tustin, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 203,500 

NAS Chase Field, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 791 

NCBC Davisville, RI .............................................................................................................................................. 63 

NAS Moffett Field, CA .......................................................................................................................................... 6,250 

NH Long Beach, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 14,075 

NS Philadelphia, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 226,679 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

NAS Chase Field, TX ............................................................................................................................................ 2,000 

NCBC Davisville, RI .............................................................................................................................................. 22,000 

NH Long Beach, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 1,400 

NS Long Beach, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 21,250 

NS Philadelphia, PA ............................................................................................................................................. 18,000 

NS Puget Sound (Sand Point), WA ...................................................................................................................... 12,800 

NCCOSC San Diego, CA ....................................................................................................................................... 3,000 

MCAS Tustin, CA .................................................................................................................................................. 468,500 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 548,950 
57 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Carswell Air Force Base, TX ................................................................................................................................. 178 

Castle Air Force Base, CA .................................................................................................................................... 4,136 

England Air Force Base, LA ................................................................................................................................. 783 

Grissom Air Force Base, IN .................................................................................................................................. 5,981 

Loring Air Force Base, ME ................................................................................................................................... 335 

Lowry Air Force Base, CO ..................................................................................................................................... 9,461 

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC ......................................................................................................................... 10,455 

Richards-Gebaur Air Force Reserve Station, MO ................................................................................................. 300 

Rickenbacker Air Guard Base, OH ....................................................................................................................... 600 

Williams Air Force Base, AZ ................................................................................................................................ 4,431 

Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI .............................................................................................................................. 49 

Total 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 36,709 

1 All anticipated/realized land revenues are accounted for in BRAC IV. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART II LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Williams Air Force Base, AZ ................................................................................................................................ 8,000 

Eaker Air Force Base, AR ..................................................................................................................................... 8,000 

Castle Air Force Base, CA .................................................................................................................................... 27,000 

Lowry Air Force Base, CO ..................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

MacDill Air Force Base, FL ................................................................................................................................... 50,000 

Grissom Air Force Base, IN .................................................................................................................................. 8,000 

Loring Air Force Base, ME ................................................................................................................................... 8,000 

Wurtsmith Air Force Base, MI .............................................................................................................................. 8,000 

Richards Gebaur Air ForceReserve Station, MO .................................................................................................. 8,000 

Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, OH ........................................................................................................ 8,000 

Myrtle Beach Air Force Base, SC ......................................................................................................................... 8,000 

Bergstrom Air Force Base, TX .............................................................................................................................. 8,000 

Carswell Force Base, TX ...................................................................................................................................... 8,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 257,000 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART III 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Various Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 798 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 798 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART III 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

DOD Family Housing Niagara Falls, NY ............................................................................................................... 1,125 

MCAS El Toro, CA ................................................................................................................................................. 525,000 

NAWC Trenton, NJ ................................................................................................................................................. 1,812 

NTC Orlando, FL ................................................................................................................................................... 11,126 

NAS Cecil Field, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 48 
58 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART III 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—NAVY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

NTC San Diego, CA .............................................................................................................................................. 80 

NH Oakland, CA (Oak Knoll) ................................................................................................................................ 15,000 

PWC San Francisco, CA ....................................................................................................................................... 10,330 

NS Staten Island, NY ........................................................................................................................................... 602 

NSY Charleston, SC .............................................................................................................................................. 1,100 

Various Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 1,107 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 567,330 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART III LOSS OF 

LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

NS Mobile, AL ....................................................................................................................................................... 28,000 

Various Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 309,263 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 337,263 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART III 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Gentile Air Force Station, OH ............................................................................................................................... 54 

Griffiss Air Force Base, NY .................................................................................................................................. 82 

Homestead Air Force Base, FL ............................................................................................................................. 488 

March Air Force Base, CA .................................................................................................................................... 995 

O’Hare IAP ARS, IL ............................................................................................................................................... 65 

Plattsburg Air Force Base, NY ............................................................................................................................. 1,288 

Total 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 2,972 

1 All anticipated/realized land revenues are accounted for in BRAC IV. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART IV 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—ARMY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Fort Devens, MA ................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 

Fort Ben Harrison, IN ........................................................................................................................................... 938 

Cameron Station, VA ............................................................................................................................................ 14,861 

Stratford AAP, CT ................................................................................................................................................. 6,590 

Army Material Technology Lab, MA ...................................................................................................................... 6,284 

Bayonne MOT, NJ .................................................................................................................................................. 278 

Hamilton AAF, CA ................................................................................................................................................. 944 

Jefferson Proving Ground, IN ............................................................................................................................... 55 

Detroit, ATP, MI .................................................................................................................................................... 5,924 

Fort Sheridan, IL .................................................................................................................................................. 5,150 

Stand Alone Housing ............................................................................................................................................ 110 

Savanna AD .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Fort Ritchie ........................................................................................................................................................... 54 

Fitzsimons AMC .................................................................................................................................................... 172 

City of Chicago .................................................................................................................................................... 15,980 

Fort McClellan ...................................................................................................................................................... 460 
59 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART IV 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—ARMY—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

Fort Ord ................................................................................................................................................................ 7,250 

New Orleans MOT ................................................................................................................................................. 275 

Defense Depot Ogden ........................................................................................................................................... 680 

VHFS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 992 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 69,505 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART IV 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—NAVY 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

San Pedro (Housing) Long Beach, CA ................................................................................................................. 66,000 

NAWC Warminster, PA .......................................................................................................................................... 63 

NAF Key West, FL (Housing) ................................................................................................................................. 15,100 

NAS Key West, FL ................................................................................................................................................. 600 

Various Locations ................................................................................................................................................. 700 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 82,463 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET ESTIMATES—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE—PART IV 

ANTICIPATED/REALIZED LAND REVENUE—AIR FORCE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Total 

City of Chicago, Illinois—O’Hare International Airport 1 .................................................................................... 94,602 

Kelly Air Force Base, TX ....................................................................................................................................... 478 

McClellan .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,218 

Reese Air Force Base, TX ..................................................................................................................................... 53 

Roslyn Air Guard Station, NY ............................................................................................................................... 3,031 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 99,382 

1 Revenue from the City of Chicago for the movement of the Air National Guard facilities to Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. 

Mr. GRONE. Of the $22 billion that was expended for prior BRAC 

activity, 30 percent of that went to construction and construction 

activity. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. I mean tell us for what. 

Mr. GRONE. Oh, yes, ma’am. But 30 percent of it went to environmental remediation and 40 percent went to PCS, O&M, and caretaker costs. But we will certainly try to break that down for you 

for the record. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think the time has come, as we go through 

these BRAC rounds, to really know dollar for dollar where this 

money goes, and I would sure like to know. 

Mr. GRONE. The justification material for the current fiscal years’ 

request for prior BRAC, the $377 million, should, I believe, provide 

a comprehensive breakdown of the accounts from prior years. And 

we certainly would include that in the record here so that it is comprehensive. 
60 

SELLING EXCESS PROPERTIES AND APPLYING THE PROCEEDS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Now, the Navy has done a good job selling its excess properties 

and applying those proceeds to BRAC environmental restoration. I 

think this year the Navy has requested a $143 million appropriation and expects to apply another $133 million from property sales. 

Could we have your assurance that, if appropriated, the sum of 

these funds will be applied to Navy environmental remediation? 

Mr. GRONE. I believe I can give that assurance, yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. And that further land sales will 

be treated the same? 

Mr. GRONE. Treated the same in which sense? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In that the money is then applied for environmental cleanup. 

Mr. GRONE. For prior BRAC, almost all of our costs at this point 

for prior BRAC is environmental remediation and a very, very 

small, modest amount for property caretaker costs. So to the extent 

we have any additional land sales from BRAC rounds one through 

four, that is certainly how they would be applied. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That is very helpful. 

STATUS OF GLOBAL REBASING

Mr. Grone, through global rebasing in the coming years we can 

expect to see the largest reduction of troops permanently based 

overseas since the end of the Cold War. A series of global rebasing 

decisions will be subject to BRAC 2005. What is the status of the 

global rebasing plan? In particular, are there negotiations with foreign countries? Is there a green light? Are we moving ahead? Are 

we not moving ahead? 

There are $314 million set aside in the BRAC wedge, as you 

mentioned, for global rebasing. Is any of that funding intended to 

be spent overseas on closed bases in Germany or elsewhere? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, to the latter part of your question, BRAC 

funds are not an eligible source of funds for closure costs for closure and realignment activity installations abroad. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So the answer is no. 

Mr. GRONE. The answer is no. 

The scope of our BRAC authority, with regard to global posture. 

We intend to use the BRAC round to facilitate the return of U.S. 

forces in the following way. Without BRAC, we would largely be 

asked to address the question of where could we fit them, in terms 

of our present basing configuration. BRAC gives us the ability, because the entire domestic chessboard will be open, to ask ourselves 

a different question, which is where are they best positioned. 

Through their realignment activities of domestic bases, we will 

have an ability to put those returning forces where the services and 

the Secretary believe they are most effective for the future. We 

will, through BRAC, execute construction activity to support those 

forces through the BRAC appropriation, but other costs associated 

with cost overseas would be paid for other accounts that the services have under their financial control. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. That is helpful. 
61 

RENEWABLE ENERGY ASSESSMENT OF DOD BASES

Some time ago, Senator Hutchison and I asked your Department 

to give us a renewable energy assessment of the bases. We have 

not received it. Could you give us a sense of the major findings? 

Mr. GRONE. I can give you a very direct sense of where the report 

is because it just hit my desk yesterday. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. 

Mr. GRONE. I am aware and certainly apologize for the initial 

part of the report being late. It was due in December. That part 

of the report was to basically do the assessment. What the committee also asked us for was an implementation plan based on our 

assessment. When you see the report in a matter of days, if not 

this week, it will contain both the assessment that we have done, 

as well as the implementation plan. So it will contain both elements. 

We think that there is a lot of benefit that we have gained 

through this assessment and the study that the subcommittee had 

requested. In fiscal year 2003, about $5 million of our energy conservation investment funds went to renewable projects. This year 

it is going to be $18 million principally in geothermal and in solar. 

We also think, as a result of the study that we have gone 

through, that there are opportunities on the purchase side of it for 

us to begin to engage on a supplier basis with certain suppliers 

who specialize in renewable energy sources. 

So we are learning a great deal through the assessment. We 

would welcome a continuing dialogue over the implementation plan 

certainly and would look for any views that you may have on it because we do think it has been a very valuable exercise as we have 

gone through it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. We look forward to receiving that. 

PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION

Now my perchlorate question. I will admit I am reaching here. 

Is there a way to use some of these environmental cleanup monies 

to take some of the most contaminated sites where they most have 

affected drinking water and get a commitment to participate in 

cleanup efforts? 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, that question is not a difficult—it is a difficult one but one that sort of, I think, bears a little bit of a sense 

of sort of where we are now. I am not trying to avoid the question, 

but I do think this, as you well know, is a very, very complicated 

issue. 

There has been a lot of uncertainty, scientific uncertainty, associated with perchlorate. The National Academy of Sciences recently 

conducted a review of the toxicity of perchlorate, and that review 

was completed in January and the administration, including the 

Department, supported the conclusions reached by the NAS. In 

fact, EPA has used the conclusions reached by the NAS to develop 

a reference dose which commonly would be referred to as a 24.5 

parts per billion reference dose. We will use that reference dose as 

a factor in our risk-based assessments. 
62 

And I would say also with regard to the work that we are going 

with the State of California in the prioritization protocol, that work 

is proceeding very well with a high degree of cooperation between 

the State and the Department. Certainly as we proceed, we understand that the State of California may well consider a regulatory 

standard for perchlorate. Once the State establishes, if they should 

choose to do so, a State standard, as well as once a Federal standard, if one should be promulgated, we certainly will comply with 

that standard. 

Where we are in terms of remediation today is that it becomes 

part of the risk prioritization as we go through it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me stop you because I need to understand this. Are you saying that you are waiting for the State to declare a standard? Because the State does have a standard. 

Mr. GRONE. No. I am not suggesting that. A standard for regulatory purposes. If any State or the Federal EPA declares a standard for regulatory purposes, not a draft, but for regulatory purposes, we certainly will comply with that. But even today we are 

putting the 24.5 parts per billion reference dose that EPA has promulgated and including that as part of our risk-based prioritization 

standard. And in those instances certainly where there is a level 

of significance, we will remediate based on the prioritization of remediation as we develop it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I want to make this point, though. DOD, as 

you know, tried to get liability protection on perchlorate and we 

were able to stop that. Perchlorate is now turning up in mother’s 

milk. In one person tested, it was like 91 parts per billion. It is 

turning up all over in the food chain. The bottom line fact is DOD 

has a responsibility to help with the cleanup. We have got towns 

where the drinking water is really severely compromised, small 

areas, Rialto, for example. In California their wells are compromised. They have to get cleaned up. The process we know is expensive. It is about $2 million a well 

with reverse osmosis. 

I have been trying for years now to move EPA to come up with 

a standard. EPA is not about to be moved to come up with a standard. In the meantime, you are finding it in milk products, you are 

finding it in lettuce products, and now you are finding it in nursing 

women’s breast milk at three times the level that you just mentioned of 24 parts per billion. 

So my view is we have to get cracking and get it cleaned up. It 

seems to me that this might be a place to start. 

Mr. GRONE. Well, Senator, all I can tell you right at the present 

time, so far we have expended $50 million in toxicological and analytical research. We are continuing to work with the scientific community—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. $50 million on research on perchlorate? It 

cannot be. 

Mr. GRONE. Groundwater treatment technologies for perchlorate 

and possible substitutes for perchlorate in military applications. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. $50 million on studies? 

Mr. GRONE. In research. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Do you have a product for the $50 million? 
63 

[The information follows:] 
64 

Mr. GRONE. We can supply for the record what we have been 

doing on the analytical agenda on both the toxicological side, the 

science-based side of perchlorate, as well as looking for alternatives 

for the use of perchlorate, both of which we have as active parts 

of the agenda. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I do not want to take up the chairman’s 

time, although the chairman has a problem in her State as well. 

But if we could talk with you about it, we need to come to some 

agreement of what DOD is willing to do. I have been trying now 

for 3 or 4 years, and at some point one runs out of patience. That 

is all I want to say. 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, I am prepared to have whatever discussions 

you deem necessary. I am prepared to meet with you whenever you 

feel it appropriate—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, that would be great. 

Mr. GRONE [continuing.] To have the continuing discussion. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION AT GUANTANAMO BAY

And the last question. It is a question I asked Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs Myers at the supplemental hearing of approps, and 

that is the justification for siting the facility in Guantanamo. 

Now my understanding was the original justification was to 

avoid review by United States courts. Now, putting aside the question of whether that is good policy or not, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that much, if not all, of the legal argument which was based for that justification was unfounded. Simply 

put, the original justification is no longer compelling. 

Now, Senator Hutchison and I with the Secretary had a chance 

to go to Guantanamo 3 or 4 years ago, and so we saw pretty much 

the temporary facilities. I think an argument can certainly be made 

for improvement. But the question is to build a permanent facility, 

$42 million I guess in this MILCON budget, when the rationale for 

putting people at Guantanamo may no longer exist. 

My question is, with that rationale gone, do you still want to go 

ahead and build a permanent facility? 

Ms. JONAS. Senator, let me just take a few minutes on this. My 

understanding is that the upgrades were for the humanitarian and 

operational concerns that they have down there. These are some of 

the things that were identified by the ICRC. So the security fence 

and then making the facility a little bit more compliant there on 

humanitarian purposes not on any permanent basis. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I just said perhaps we should go back and 

take a look before we do this. You are saying the $42 million is just 

an upgrade for humanitarian purposes. It is not a permanent facility? 

Ms. JONAS. Well, I understand the upgrades are to deal with the 

humanitarian concerns, some of the things that were identified by 
65 

the ICRC and force protection or security, I should say, the security 

fence around the area. The security fence that they are going to develop there, if funds are provided, would reduce the military personnel there by 350. So I guess that is one of the pieces, but we 

would sure be glad to have you make a visit and would be glad to 

provide additional—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Perhaps we can get the detail on that request. 

Ms. JONAS. Absolutely. 

[The information follows:] 

GUANTANAMO NAVAL STATION, CUBA—CAMP 6 DETENTION FACILITY 

Item U/M QTY Cost Cost 

Primary Facility: $26,848 

Confinement Facility ......................... SF ................................... 43,111 $501.58 (21,624 ) 

Medical Station ................................. SF ................................... 7,889 537.29 (4,239 ) 

Sound proofing cell interior wall ...... SF ................................... 20,000 12.26 (245 ) 

Sound proofing cell ventilation ........ EA ................................... 200 90.30 (18 ) 

Prison design recessed sprinkler 

heads.

EA ................................... 280 122.55 (34 ) 

Security Lighting ............................... EA ................................... 40 4,644 (186 ) 

Information Systems ......................... LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (300 ) 

Building Information Systems .......... LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (202 ) 

Supporting Facilities: ......................................... ........................ ........................ 5,345 

Electric Service ................................. LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (2,556 ) 

Water, Sewer, Gas ............................. LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (2,194 ) 

Paving, Walks, Curbs And Gutters ... LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (80 ) 

Storm Drainage ................................. LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (129 ) 

Site Imp (67) Demo ( ) .................. LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (67 ) 

Information Systems ......................... LS ................................... ........................ ........................ (319 ) 

Estimated Contract Cost ........................... ......................................... ........................ ........................ 32,193 

Contingency Percent (5 percent) ............... ......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,610 

Subtotal ........................................ ......................................... ........................ ........................ 33,803 

Supervision, Inspection & Overhead (6.50 

percent).

......................................... ........................ ........................ 2,197 

Total Request ............................... ......................................... ........................ ........................ 36,000 

Total Request (Rounded) .............. ......................................... ........................ ........................ 36,000 

Installed EQT-Other Appropriations ........... ......................................... ........................ ........................ (99 ) 

Description of Proposed Construction.—Construct a maximum security facility at 

Camp 6 to detain 220 personnel. Primary facilities include pre-engineered concrete 

modular building units on concrete foundations, isolation cells, showers, restrooms, 

indoor and outdoor exercise areas, security operations, administrative spaces, interview spaces, security and perimeter fence, lighting, associated pedestrian and vehicular gates, and a Level II detainee medical station which includes a medical ward 

with 5 total beds; 2 general treatment rooms, a single dental treatment room and 

a medical administration area. Supporting facilities include communication/security 

systems, electrical substation and site utilities. Air conditioning is estimated at 120 

tons. Project also includes the demolition of existing, substandard, water distribution line to the area. 

REQ: 1 Each; ADQT: None; SUBSTD: 1 Each 

Project.—Construct a durable maximum security detention facility to support the 

JTF Detainee Operations. 

Requirement.—Provide an adequate maximum security detainee facility to house 

220 detainees to support the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The facility will use 

Federal Bureau of Prison Standards and provide a more humane housing for longterm detainees. Provide facility standards meeting provisions highlighted in the Geneva Convention. These include providing housing units and core functions that are 

contiguous and allow for communal conditions where practical. Address facility and 

operational concerns of GWOT Allies. Upgrading facility standards will decrease the 
66 

personnel required to operate the facility safely. Provide necessary utility infrastructure to support all facilities. 

Current Situation.—Current facilities are temporary and no longer meet the mission requirement. The facilities are labor intensive for both security and maintenance resources. Current operations require 150 more personnel than will be required for the requested facility. The new facility will free up this significant number of personnel for combat operations in support of GWOT. The inefficiencies experienced in proper separation, seclusion, and control of occupants forces JTF to maintain a much larger workforce to conduct the mission. Existing temporary facilities 

at Camps 1, 2, and 3 do not provide the communal living conditions. These facilities 

are also close to exceeding the utility systems capacity. 

Impact if not Provided.—Existing Camps 1, 2, and 3 were designed as temporary 

facilities and are at the end of their useful life. Maintenance and operation of these 

facilities will continue to be a significant draw of manpower, materials, and money 

due to their deteriorating conditions. Mission operations in these antiquated cell 

blocks will continue to be strained and require an increased number of security and 

medical personnel due to the weaknesses in the design and materials of the existing 

facilities. Existing facilities will not meet the Geneva Convention requirements, and 

there will be continued scrutiny by the International Committee of the Red Cross 

(ICRC) and the international community until facility standards are raised. The waterline security will remain compromised and the water quality will remain degraded if this project is not provided. The electrical distribution system will become 

overloaded, unreliable, and a potential safety hazard. Outages will result due to circuit overloading creating additional equipment maintenance and repairs. 

Additional.—This project has been coordinated with the installation physical security plan and all physical security measures are included. All required antiterrorism/force protection measures are included. Alternative methods of meeting 

this requirement have been explored during project development. This project is the 

only feasible option to meet the requirement. Sustainable principles will be integrated into the design, development, and construction of the project in accordance 

with Executive Order 13123 and other applicable laws and Executive Orders. 

Mr. GRONE. Senator, the only thing that I would add to my colleague’s comments is I believe the Chairman indicated that what 

we are doing, and the Secretary as well, but I know the Chairman 

had indicated what we are doing is we are transitioning to a longterm detention mission which in the context of both the humanitarian end of this, as well as the reduction—and to be able to operate the facility in a way that provides for a safer and more efficient 

operation, it will, (a), reduce the manpower but, (b), provide a safer 

environment for our own military personnel to manage the facility. 

The most cost effective construction method for the structure is 

as it has been detailed to the subcommittee. It will be much easier 

to sustain than the metal structures we have there now. As the 

Comptroller indicated, we have a number of important reasons for 

seeking the funds at this time. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I just was handed the request, and it 

says, under description of proposed construction, construct a maximum security facility at Camp 6 to detain 220 personnel. Primary 

facilities include pre-engineered concrete modular building units on 

concrete foundations, isolation cells, showers, rest rooms, indoor 

and outdoor exercise areas, security operations, administrative 

spaces, interview spaces, security and perimeter fence, lighting, 

and associated pedestrian and vehicular gates. So from what I 

gather from this, I mean, this is a whole new permanent facility. 

The word ‘‘permanent’’ is used and ‘‘maximum security.’’ 

Now, I would just like to know. It may well be that despite the 

fact that the United States is not going to be able to deny people 

basic due process rights, you still want to have the facility. But one 

of the things I think we do not want to do is authorize the money 

and then find out you change your mind, which has happened. 
67 

Mr. GRONE. Certainly, Senator—I am sorry, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I think there is another factor here which 

is where is the safest place to house prisoners. I think there has 

always been a concern about having them in America and within 

the 48 States because of actions that might be taken to get them 

released. I do not think it is necessarily a treatment issue so much 

as where do you put potential terrorist prisoners where you do not 

endanger the lives of the people around and where is it harder to 

get to. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Except, Madam Chairman, we do house 

known terrorists who have committed terrorist acts here in the 

United States. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, but we also have a number of them 

that are not in the United States. They are in Guantanamo Bay. 

I think having a prison that is pretty hard to get to is a factor to 

be considered. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I thought they were detainees. I mean, we 

have people convicted doing time, the 1993 World Trade Center 

bombing, et cetera. We have a place in Colorado where a number 

of them are incarcerated. 

I just feel I want to be told the truth about this facility, why it 

is being built, instead of building it somewhere on ex-surplus military land here, why you are building it in Guantanamo. Because 

none of these people have been convicted of anything. They are all 

detainees. 

Mr. GRONE. Senator Feinstein, what I can best tell you is that 

the location represents the best military judgment that we have in 

terms of the location. Neither of us have policy cognizance for this. 

The Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) and the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs are the responsible policy 

officials, and certainly the combatant commander of Southern Command also has very significant responsibilities in this area. I believe we can work to arrange whatever briefings are necessary for 

you and the chairman and any other member or staff that may be 

required to address the question. 

But the Secretary and the Chairman I believe addressed the immediate requirement pretty directly. And the type of construction 

involved that you cited is the most cost effective construction at 

that location to build the kind of facility that will allow our military personnel to operate in a safe and efficient manner and also 

provide, consistent with our standards, a more humane environment with a little bit more room for detainees to live in the facility. 

But certainly we can arrange for whatever briefings may be necessary in that regard. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. I think that is the end for this 

panel. We very much appreciate your time in coming. 

(69) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

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

(INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT) 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

REAR ADMIRAL WAYNE ‘‘GREG’’ SHEAR, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

ASHORE READINESS DIVISION, UNITED STATES NAVY 

BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIE WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT, INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS (FACILITIES), 

U.S. MARINE CORPS 

Senator HUTCHISON. I want to now ask our second panel to come 

forward. Making his first appearance before our subcommittee is 

the Honorable B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment. Joining him are Rear Admiral Wayne 

Shear, United States Navy Deputy Director for the Ashore Readiness Division; and Brigadier General Willie Williams, U.S. Marine 

Corps, Assistant Deputy Commandant for Facilities. 

Secretary Penn, if you would give us a summary of your statement, we would be happy to hear it, and then we will ask questions. 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chairman, my pleasure. Madam Chairman, 

members of the subcommittee, being in this job for about a week, 

I assure you I have no trouble in being brief. 

I am accompanied by Brigadier General, soon to be Major General, Willie Williams for Marine Corps Installations, and Rear Admiral Greg Shear from Commander Naval Installations. 

I have spent most of my initial days getting acquainted with my 

staff and senior leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps. I am 

quite impressed with their skills and dedication. 

I remember when I was on active duty as a naval aviator, serving as commanding officer of Naval Air Station North Island in 

California in the late 1980s thinking what new policy approaches 

from Washington might improve installation management. Be careful what you dream of. 

Things have obviously changed since that time. I will soon begin 

visiting bases and stations so that I can listen firsthand to the 

needs and concerns from installations commanders, sailors, marines, their families, along with the civilian employees and contractor personnel who live or work at our shore installations and 

surrounding communities. I hope during my tenure to meld their 

views with those inside the beltway, of Congress, the Secretary of 

Defense, the service Secretaries, chiefs of staff, to shape a future 

for naval installations that provides cost effective support for the 

needs of our warfighters. Clearly implementation of BRAC 2005 decisions will be a major focus of my efforts. 

I have submitted a rather detailed statement for the record on 

our fiscal year 2006 budget request. From a macro perspective, 

funding levels are strong, although I am admittedly on the front 
70 

end of the learning curve on the details. General Williams and Admiral Shear helped shape this budget, so I will rely heavily on 

them. 

I would, however, like to talk about one specific aspect of our fiscal year 2006 budget request—the financing of our prior BRAC 

cleanup and caretaker needs with the mix of $143 million in appropriated funds and an estimated $133 million in land sales revenue. 

It is important to view the fiscal year 2006 prior BRAC request 

in the context of the 2005 request. The Department expected to finance the entire fiscal year 2005 BRAC program from the sale of 

the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, California and did 

not request nor receive any appropriations in fiscal year 2005. That 

sale was delayed by unforseen circumstances. Fortunately, the sale 

of the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, California in 2003 

gave the Department the financial flexibility to slow 2004 program 

executions to conserve cash to cover its fiscal year 2005 environmental commitments, most of which are in the State of California. 

With fiscal year 2005 execution depleting prior year BRAC funds 

and the public auction of the El Toro property still a future event, 

the Department last fall opted to include appropriated funds in fiscal year 2006 to finance its minimum cleanup and caretaker status, 

along with a conservative estimate for land sale revenue to accelerate environmental cleanup. Although the auction of the El Toro 

property has now been completed, with a winning bid of nearly 

$650 million, I must caution the members of this committee that 

there is still some measure of risk ahead until the buyer and Navy 

complete the sales transaction at settlement. 

I want to emphasize that we cannot be absolutely sure of having 

land sales revenue until settlement occurs, which is planned for 

July. The buyer of previous property in 2003 defaulted at settlement. Even after settlement, our past experience is that it often 

takes well over 4 months for the sale proceeds to be processed 

through DOD accounting systems before the funds are available to 

the Navy for program execution. 

We still have a substantial cost to complete environmental cleanup, primarily at closed bases in California, and we are developing 

plans to responsibly accelerate cleanup. That would be our first priority for use of the land sales revenue. 

Even with successful settlement of the El Toro property in July, 

we may still need some measure of fiscal year 2006 appropriated 

funds to finance first quarter program commitments. 

I look forward to working with the Congress on resolving this situation, along with more challenging installations and facilities 

issues. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF B.J. PENN

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before 

you today, accompanied by Brigadier General Willie Williams, Assistant Deputy 

Commandant of the Marine Corps for Installations and Logistics, and Rear Admiral 

Wayne Shear, Deputy Director of the Navy’s Ashore Readiness Division. We will 

provide an overview of the Navy and Marine Corps team’s shore infrastructure programs and base closure efforts. 
71 

1To avoid double counting in the graph, environmental is shown separately from BOS, and 

MILCON is shown separately from SRM funds. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET OVERVIEW

Our bases and stations provide the essential services and functions that help us 

train and maintain our Naval forces, and enhance the quality of life for our Sailors, 

Marines and their families. Winning the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is our 

number one priority while we transform our force structure and business processes 

to meet the readiness needs of today and tomorrow. The Department of the Navy 

(DoN) has a considerable investment in shore infrastructure: 104 installations in the 

continental United States and 18 overseas locations with a combined plant replacement value of about $181 billion. 

The DoN fiscal year 2006 budget request for installations and environmental programs totals $9.8 billion 1 and provides the funds to operate, recapitalize and transform our shore installations. In this budget, we have focused our efforts on balancing the risks across the operational, institutional, force management and future 

challenges identified by the Department and the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The Base Operations Support (BOS) request of $4.8 billion, excluding environmental which is shown separately, provides fundamental services such as utilities, 

fire and security, air operations, port operations, and custodial care that enable the 

daily operations of our bases. The increase of $471 million to the fiscal year 2005 

enacted level is primarily due to functional transfers to properly align Navy Marine 

Corps Internet with Base Operating Support and program growth to accomplish 

utilities privatization preparation, improve overseas Morale, Welfare and Recreation 

Programs supporting our forward deployed forces, and to restore funding required 

to execute shore mission support without degrading quantity or quality of support. 

We believe we have properly priced BOS to avoid execution year adjustments as we 

have experienced in the past. We are also working with the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and the other Components to define common standards and performance 

metrics for managing installations support. 

Our Military Construction Navy and Naval Reserve request is a very robust 

$1,074 million, about the same as the enacted fiscal year 2005 level of $1,114 million after excluding the $139 million the DoN received in the Emergency Hurricane 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005. This level of funding keeps us on track to 

eliminate inadequate bachelor housing, and provides critical operational, training, 

and mission enhancement projects. 
72 

The Family Housing request of $813 million is about the same as the enacted fiscal 2005 level of $835 million after excluding the $9 million the DoN received in 

the Emergency Hurricane Supplemental. It provides $219 million in family housing 

construction and improvements funds, 80 million above the enacted fiscal 2005 level 

of $139 million. Funds to operate, maintain and revitalize the worldwide inventory 

of about 33,000 units total $594 million, $103 million less than the enacted fiscal 

2005 level (excluding the $9 million in the Emergency Hurricane Supplemental), 

due to a decline of over 18,000 homes from the fiscal 2005 level from our housing 

privatization efforts. The DoN continues to fund Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) 

at a level that eliminates average out-of-pocket housing expenses for service member. BAH makes finding affordable housing in the community more likely for our 

service members, and it helps our housing privatization efforts succeed. 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) includes military construction 

and Operation and Maintenance funds. Our fiscal year 2006 request is $71 million 

above the enacted fiscal year 2005 level without the Hurricane Supplemental. 

Sustainment funds the necessary maintenance and repairs needed to keep a facility 

in good working order over its expected service life. Facilities sustainment requirements are based on a DOD model. The fiscal year 2006 budget maintains 95 percent 

of the model requirement for Navy and Marine Corps bases. Restoration and Modernization funds regenerate the physical plant either through reconstruction or 

major renovation to keep the facility modern and relevant. 

Our environmental program of $1,149 million, comprised of a variety of operating 

and investment appropriations, climbs $123 million above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Within this broad category, compliance accounts decline as a result of 

fewer one-time projects; conservation and pollution prevention funds remain steady; 

research and technology development decline by $15 million as fiscal year 2005 congressional increases are not continued in fiscal year 2006; cleanup of active bases 

increases by $39 million, primarily to support cleanup of the former Vieques training range in Puerto Rico. Of particular interest to this Subcommittee, we have included $143 million in fiscal year 2006 appropriations to cover minimum required 

environmental cleanup and caretaker costs. In preparing the budget, we also included $133 million in estimated land sales revenue that would be used to accelerate cleanup efforts. 

Here are some of the highlights of these programs. 

HOUSING

Our fiscal year 2006 budget request reflects the DoN’s continued commitment to 

improve living conditions for Sailors, Marines, and their families. We have programmed the necessary resources and expect to have contracts in place by the end 

of fiscal year 2007 to eliminate our inadequate family and bachelor housing. 

Family Housing 

Our family housing strategy consists of a prioritized triad: 

—Reliance on the Private Sector.—In accordance with longstanding DOD and DoN 

policy, we rely first on the local community to provide housing for our Sailors, 

Marines, and their families. Approximately three out of four Navy and Marine 

Corps families receive a BAH and own or rent homes in the community. 
73 

—Public/Private Ventures (PPVs).—With the strong support from this Committee 

and others, we have successfully used statutory PPV authorities enacted in 

1996 to partner with the private sector to help meet our housing needs through 

the use of private sector capital. These authorities allow us to leverage our own 

resources and provide better housing faster to our families. 

—Military Construction.—Military construction will continue to be used where 

PPV authorities don’t apply (such as overseas), or where a business case analysis shows that a PPV project is not financially sound. 

We will be able to eliminate 77 percent of our inadequate inventory through the 

use of public/private ventures. As of 1 March, we have awarded 15 projects totaling 

over 26,000 units. As a result of these projects, almost 17,500 homes will be replaced or renovated. An additional 2,700 homes will be constructed for Navy and 

Marine Corps families. Through the use of these authorities we have secured almost 

$3.0 billion in private sector investment from $300 million of DoN funds for these 

15 projects. This represents a leverage ratio of ten to one. During fiscal year 2005 

and 2006, we plan to award projects totaling 29,000 homes at ten Navy and Marine 

Corps locations. This will allow us to improve our housing stock and provide more 

homes to Sailors, Marines and their families much faster than if we relied solely 

on traditional military construction. By the end of fiscal year 2007, the Navy and 

Marine Corps will have privatized 78 percent and 95 percent, respectively, of their 

worldwide housing stock. 

Our fiscal year 2006 family housing budget includes $219 million for family housing construction and improvements. This amount includes $112 million as a Government investment in family housing privatization projects. It also includes $594 million for the operation, maintenance, and leasing of DoN family housing. 

PLANNED PRIVATIZATION PROJECTS 

Fiscal year Location Number of 

homes 

USN 

2005 ................................................................................................ Mid Atlantic .......................................... 5,930 

2006 ................................................................................................ Midwest Regional .................................. 1,879 

2006 ................................................................................................ Southeast Regional I ............................ 4,437 

2006 ................................................................................................ San Diego Phase III .............................. 4,268 
74 

2Gang heads remain acceptable for recruits and trainees. 

PLANNED PRIVATIZATION PROJECTS—Continued 

Fiscal year Location Number of 

homes 

2006 ................................................................................................ Oahu II .................................................. 2,336 

Subtotal .............................................................................. ............................................................... 18,850 

USMC 

2005 ................................................................................................ Camp Lejeune/Cherry Pt ....................... 3,426 

2005 ................................................................................................ 29 Palms/Kansas City .......................... 1,510 

2006 ................................................................................................ MCB Hawaii .......................................... 1,136 

2006 ................................................................................................ Camp Lejeune/Cherry Pt II .................... 959 

2006 ................................................................................................ Camp Pendleton IV ............................... 3,359 

Subtotal .............................................................................. ............................................................... 29,240 

Bachelor Housing 

Our budget request of $184 million for bachelor quarters construction projects 

continues the emphasis on improving living conditions for our unaccompanied Sailors and Marines. There are three challenges: 

—Provide Homes Ashore for our Shipboard Sailors.—There are approximately 

18,400 junior enlisted unaccompanied Sailors worldwide who live aboard ship 

even while in homeport. The Navy has programmed funding through fiscal year 

2008 to achieve its ‘‘homeport ashore’’ initiative by providing ashore living accommodations for these Sailors. We will achieve this goal through a mix of military construction, privatization authorities, and, for the interim, more intensive 

use of our barracks capacity by housing two members per room. Our fiscal year 

2006 budget includes three ‘‘homeport ashore’’ projects: $7.8 million at Naval 

Station Mayport, FL (216 spaces); $50 million at Naval Station, Everett, WA 

(818 spaces); and $13.7 million at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, CA (800 

spaces), which is planned for privatization. The funds would be used as a Government cash contribution to a public/private entity. 

—Ensure our Barracks Meet Today’s Standards for Privacy.—We are building new 

and modernizing existing barracks to increase privacy for our single Sailors and 

Marines. The Navy uses the ‘‘1∂1’’ standard for permanent party barracks. 

Under this standard, each single junior Sailor has his or her own sleeping area 

and shares a bathroom and common area with another member. To promote 

unit cohesion and team building, the Marine Corps was granted a waiver to 

adopt a ‘‘2∂0’’ configuration where two junior Marines share a room with a 

bath. The Navy will achieve these barracks construction standards by fiscal 

year 2016; the Marine Corps by fiscal year 2012. We are pursuing a waiver of 

the ‘‘1∂1’’ standard to allow us to build an enlisted barracks project in Norfolk 

to private sector standards. We believe this will reduce construction costs, improve amenities, and facilitate opportunities to privatize barracks in the future. 

—Eliminate Gang Heads.—The Navy and Marine Corps remain on track to eliminate inadequate barracks with gang heads 2 for permanent party personnel. The 

Navy achieves this goal by fiscal year 2007, the Marines by fiscal year 2005. 

BQ Privatization 

We are applying authority provided to us by Congress to proceed with three pilot 

unaccompanied housing privatization projects. We issued a solicitation for our first 

project at San Diego in September 2004 and received very positive responses from 

industry. We will soon take the next step to narrow the field and invite up to four 

highly qualified offerors to submit detailed technical and financial proposals. We 

plan to select a single proposal by late Spring 2005 and make an award in January 

2006 after notifying Congress. 

We intend to notify Congress of our intent to issue a solicitation for our second 

pilot project—at Hampton Roads, Virginia—in the very near future. We have also 

initiated a concept development for our third pilot project to provide unaccompanied 

housing in the Pacific Northwest. 
75 

3The budget also incrementally funds a $14 million Marine Corps project. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Military Construction Projects 

The DoN fiscal year 2006 Military Construction program requests appropriations of $1,029 million, consisting of $830 million for Navy, $169 million for Marine 

Corps, and $30 million for planning and design. The authorization request totals 

$1,078 million. Our fiscal year 2006 budget uses $92 million in prior year savings 

identified during budget formulation to finance additional military construction 

needs above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation request. Fiscal year 2006 projects 

were properly priced consistent with the analysis that identified the prior year savings. The Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Military Construction appropriation and 

authorization request is $45 million. 

The active Navy program consists of: 

—$218 million for eight Chief of Naval Operations projects for Homeport Ashore, 

Great Lake Recruit Training Command recapitalization and the Naval Academy. —$215 million for seven waterfront and airfield projects. 

—$92 million for three special weapons protection projects. 

—$239 million for 12 projects supporting new weapons systems such as F/A 18 

E/F, V–22, H60R/S, and VXX. 

—$58 million for four mission enhancement projects such as the Pacific War fighting Center at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI; and —$9 million for one environmental compliance project at Naval Air Station Pensacola, FL. 

The active Marine Corps program consists of: 

—$58 million for two barracks, one mess hall and one fire safety quality of life 

project. —$25 million in a continuing effort to correct wastewater environmental compliance violations at Camp Pendleton, CA. —$54 million for three airfield recapitalization projects at Marine Corps Air Station Quantico, VA, including the second increment of funding to replace 1930’s 

vintage HMX maintenance hangars and a parking apron. —$18 million for four projects to provide maintenance facilities, including the new 

Assault Breacher Vehicle at Camp Pendleton, CA and Camp Lejeune, NC; hot 

refueling for rotary wing aircraft at MCAS Yuma, AZ; and critical training for 

Marines with a Multi-Purpose Machine Gun Range at Camp Lejeune, NC. —$14 million for five projects that cover a broad range of facility improvements, 

e.g., main gate access and inspection; encroachment remedies; missile storage. 

The Naval and Marine Corps Reserve program consists of two joint reserve centers, a Marine Corps reserve centers, a Marine reserve-training center, and a hanger modification. 

Fourteen Navy and two Marine Corps 3 projects have construction schedules ex- ceeding 1 year and cost more than $50 million, thus meeting the DOD criteria for 

incremental funding in the fiscal year 2006 budget. Seven Navy and one Marine 

Corps projects received full authorization in fiscal year 2004 or fiscal year 2005 and 

are being continued or completed in fiscal year 2006. The budget request new authorization to start seven Navy and two Marine Corps incrementally funded projects 

in fiscal year 2006. 

Outlying Landing Field, Washington County, North Carolina 

The new F/A–18E/F Super Hornet is replacing F–14 and older F/A–18C aircraft. 

A Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) examined alternatives for 

homebasing these new aircraft on the East Coast, opting to base eight tactical 

squadrons and a fleet replacement squadron at Naval Air Station Oceana, VA, and 

two tactical squadrons at Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC. 

This homebasing decision requires a new Outlying Landing Field (OLF) to support fleet carrier landing practice training. The current site near Virginia Beach, VA 

is not as effective for night-time training due to ambient light sources, and it lacks 

the capacity to handle a training surge such as experienced for the war on terrorism 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Navy selected a site in Washington County, 

North Carolina, about halfway between NAS Oceana and MCAS Cherry Point, as 

the best alternative from an operational perspective. 

A Federal District Court ruled last month that Navy did not fulfill its obligations 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before making the decision to 

construct the OLF, and has enjoined the Navy from taking further actions to plan, 

develop, or construct the OLF until it completes additional NEPA analysis. The 
76 

Navy continues to believe that the EIS that it prepared was based on sound science 

and rigorous analysis, and met all requirements of NEPA. Nonetheless, the Navy 

is carefully examining the court’s ruling and examining available alternatives. The 

fiscal year 2006 budget includes $23 million in available prior year funds to complete land acquisition in the OLF core area and commence horizontal construction. 

We continue to believe that these funds will be required for these purposes and will 

be executable in fiscal year 2006. 

VXX

We are pleased to report significant progress on VXX, the next generation helicopter transportation for the President, Vice President and heads of State. Marine 

Helicopter Squadron One (HMX–1), located at the Marine Corps Air Facility, 

Quantico, VA, performs these helicopter transportation mission using the VH–3D introduced in 1974 and the VH–60N fielded in 1989. These aircraft are approaching 

the end of their service lives, and do not have the growth margin to incorporate the 

improved capabilities required to meet evolving mission needs in the post 9/11 environment. 

The Navy awarded a System Development and Demonstration acquisition contract to Lockheed Martin in January 2005 to build and deliver eight VXX aircraft 

for test and evaluation and pilot production. The new aircraft will provide increased 

performance; improved mission, communication, navigation, and maintainability; 

and expanded potential for future growth. Developmental flight-testing will begin 

mid fiscal year 2005, with delivery of the first test article by April 2007. Initial operating capacity is set for the fourth quarter fiscal year 2009. 

The Navy also awarded a construction contract in January 2005 to build an eightbay test and evaluation hanger with laboratory, maintenance, and office space for 

a combined Lockheed Martin—Navy program management team at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. The Navy commissioned an independent study to consider 

alternate methods of providing in-service support for the aircraft. The study concluded that a government owned contractor operated facility at Patuxent River provided significant life cycle cost savings to the Navy. The $96 million, incrementally 

funded design/build facility will also include an in-service support capacity for the 

aircraft once operational. The current working estimate for construction is $10 million below the authorization request in the fiscal year 2005 budget. 

FACILITIES

Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) 

Sustainment.—The DOD uses models to calculate life cycle facility maintenance 

and repair costs. These models use industry-wide standard costs for various types 

of buildings and geographic areas and are updated annually. Sustainment funds in 

the Operation and Maintenance accounts maintain shore facilities and infrastructure in good working order and avoid premature degradation. The Navy and Marine 

Corps achieve 95 percent funding of the sustainment model requirements in fiscal 

year 2005 and fiscal year 2006, consistent with the DOD goal. The DoN funding increases by 1.4 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. 

Recapitalization.—Restoration and modernization provides for the major recapitalization of our facilities using Military Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 

Navy Working Capital Fund, and Military Personnel Navy funds. The ‘‘recap’’ metric is calculated by dividing the plant replacement value by the annual investment 

of funds and it is expressed as numbers of years. The DOD goal is to attain an annual 67-year rate by fiscal year 2008. Neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps attains the 67-year goal in the current FYDP due to affordability. 

SRM 

Fiscal Year 

2004 2005 2006 

Navy 

Sustainment (percent) ....................................................................................................... 75 95 95 

Recap rate (years) ............................................................................................................. 103 104 98 

Marine Corps 

Sustainment (percent) ....................................................................................................... 96 95 95 

Recap rate (years) ............................................................................................................. 109 82 103 
77 

The fiscal year 2006 recapitalization rate has improved substantially from that reported last year as a result of a recent DOD policy change that allows the military 

departments to take credit for centrally managed Service demolition programs. The 

Navy has $51 million and the Marine Corps $5 million for their fiscal year 2006 

central demolition programs, which combined is expected to demolish over 2.5 million square feet of outdated facilities. The new policy allows us to consider the construction of new facilities as part of the recap metric calculation as long as an equivalent square footage of old facilities are demolished anywhere else. We believe that 

this corporate view is a more accurate reflection of the age of our while inventory 

and the need for recapitalization. 

EFFICIENCIES

Naval Safety 

We remain committed to achieving Secretary Rumsfeld’s 2-year challenge to reduce fiscal year 2002 baseline mishap rates and accidents by 50 percent by the end 

of fiscal year 2005. At the end of calendar year 2004, 15 months into the 2-year 

challenge, the Department was on track to meet the SECDEF goal in over 70 percent of the targeted areas. 

The Secretary of the Navy has embraced improving safety as one of his top objectives for this fiscal year. Last year Secretary England convened the first semi-annual Navy and Marine Corps Safety Council, comprised of Senior Flag and General 

Officers, to review ongoing mishap reduction efforts. The DoN is pursuing Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) status at our shipyards and other industrial activities; over the last 16 

months, we have achieved an average 31 percent reduction in civilian lost workdays 

due to injuries at our three installations with the highest injury rates. Increased 

command emphasis for safety in Operation Iraqi Freedom has played a major role 

in reducing the percentage of Marine Corps non-combat fatalities to combat fatalities from 42 percent in fiscal year 2003 to less than 9 percent in fiscal year 2004. 

Our fiscal year 2006 budget includes $4.5 million to continue development of the 

Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance program. We want to adapt a successful commercial aviation program to analyze performance data (i.e., ‘‘black box’’ data) 

after every flight and allow aircrew and aircraft maintenance personnel to replay 

a high fidelity animation of the flight and associated aircraft performance parameters. That will allow them to recognize and avoid situations where flight safety tolerances are exceeded. In addition to the safety benefit, we expect significant future 

savings in reduced maintenance costs. 
78 

4 Represents about 5 percent of the DoN’s military and civilian workforce. 

Commander, Navy Installations 

Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNI) had a productive first year in its 

effort to transform the Navy shore establishment into centralized shore services and 

support structure. The Navy is now aligned to permit mission commanders to focus 

on their core mission to deliver combat power, while CNI focuses on shore infrastructure support. 

A key CNI accomplishment was to implement a Capabilities Based Budgeting 

(CBB) process. This annual, zero-based analysis links the delivery of specific shore 

functions to their resources, and allows managers to predict how varying resource 

inputs alter the performance capability of that shore function. Identifying the risks 

in delivering service at varying output levels allows Navy leadership to select the 

desired level of output and associated resourcing based on an evaluation of these 

risks. This process allows us to better align shore support services with mission customers’ requirements. CNI is now expanding this effort to derive common base support models with the other military services. 

Strategic Sourcing 

The DoN continues to seek efficiencies in its business processes. We want to focus 

on finding the most cost efficient means to support our war fighters. There are a 

number of approaches to achieve this goal, e.g., eliminating an unnecessary function 

or one with marginal benefit; re-aligning a function to improve efficiency; or competing a function to see if it can be provided more effectively or at a lower cost by 

private industry. We have committed to review over 30,000 4 positions for competition using the OMB Circular A–76 process by fiscal year 2008, although execution 

plans have temporarily slowed that pace as we adopt new OMB and Congressional 

direction on competition policies. We are focusing competitions on those functions 

that are not critical or core to our military operations, are readily available and can 

potentially be performed more effectively by the private sector. 

We recognize the difficulty these competitions have on employee morale. However, 

the gains in clearly defining the Government’s requirement with resulting savings 

warrant the continued use of competition to determine the most cost-effective service provider. Competition between the in-house and contractor work force benefits 

the DoN and taxpayer in the long run. OMB Circular A–76 competitions generate 

on average 36 percent cost avoidance. Our workforce is among the best in the world 
79 

and has responded to the challenge by winning over 80 percent of the A–76 competitions. 

Utility Privatization 

We are proceeding with efforts to privatize when economical our electricity, water, 

wastewater, and natural gas utility systems. Ten USC § 2688 provides the legislative authority to convey utility systems where economical. Privatization allows installations to focus on core missions, relieving them of activities that can be done 

more efficiently and effectively by others. Privatization can help us reap private sector efficiency while upgrading aged systems to industry standards without compromising safe and reliable services. 

As of February 1, 2005, DoN has privatized 15 of its 645 utility systems while 

exempting 73 utility systems. Approximately half of the Source Selections Authority 

(SSA) decisions have been achieved during the past year, with the rest expected by 

September 30, 2005. When the current round of utilities privatization concludes in 

September 2005, DoN intends to pursue other alternatives to enlist industry capability. In the end, we need safe reliable utility systems that are operated in the most 

economical manner, and that rely on private industry wherever practicable. 

PRIOR BRAC CLEANUP AND PROPERTY DISPOSAL

The BRAC rounds of 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 were a major tool in reducing 

our domestic base structure and generating savings. The DoN has achieved a steady 

State savings of approximately $2.7 billion per year since fiscal year 2002. All that 

remains is to complete the environmental cleanup and property disposal on portions 

of 17 of the original 91 bases. We have had significant successes on all fronts. 

Last year DoN relinquished over 71,000 acres at the former Naval Air Facility 

Adak, Alaska, to the Department of the Interior, which enabled Interior to exchange 

portions of the property with The Aleut Corporation for other lands. Additionally, 

the Navy achieved a significant milestone at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco by conveying the first parcel of 75 acres to the San Francisco 

Redevelopment Agency. Of the original 161,000 acres planned for disposal from all 

four prior BRAC rounds, we expect to have less than 5 percent (about 8,000 acres) 

left to dispose by the end of this fiscal year. 

Property Sales 

We have been very successful using property sales to assist in environmental 

cleanup and property disposal as well as recover value for taxpayers. We have used 

various methods to conduct these sales, including General Services Administration 

(GSA) on-site auctions, GSA Internet auctions, and Internet auctions using commercial real estate brokers. We used the GSA Internet web site in 2003 to sell 235 acres 

at the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, CA, for a net $204 million. We also 

sold 22 acres at the former Naval Air Facility Key West, FL, in January 2004 for 

a net $15 million. The City of Long Beach, CA, opted to pre-pay its remaining balance plus interest of $11.3 million from a promissory note for the 1997 economic 

development conveyance of the former Naval Hospital Long Beach. We applied these 

funds to accelerate cleanup at the remaining prior BRAC locations. 

Last month the DoN completed its largest public sale via Internet auction consisting of four large parcels that total 3,720 acres at the former Marine Corps Air 

Station, El Toro in Irvine, CA, with bids totaling $649.5 million. The Internet auction public sale of 62 acres at the former San Pedro housing site in Los Angeles, 

CA, is still in process with a top bid of $87 million as this statement was being prepared for printing. We expect to close these sales later this year. We will also soon 

close escrow on the public sale of approximately 20 acres in Orlando, FL, which is 

noteworthy as the first deed conveyance of property prior to completion of all environmental cleanup using the public sale process. 

Public sales of smaller parcels were completed in Charleston, SC, and Novato, CA, 

and we expect to proceed soon with the sale of property at the former Oak Knoll 

Naval Hospital upon resolution of legal issues stemming from a lawsuit by the local 

redevelopment authority. 

Land Sales Revenue Caution 

A word of caution is necessary regarding land sales revenue. Although the auction 

for El Toro has ended and the auction for San Pedro should end soon, it will be several months before these sales close escrow, and several additional months until the 

DoN receives the sale proceeds in the DoN prior BRAC account. Until then, litigation or default by the winning bidder can delay or cancel the sale, as happened with 

the sale of the former Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in 2003. The El Toro sale, planned 

to occur last year, was delayed for 1 year due to litigation and the need to resolve 
80 

redevelopment issues with the City of Irvine. That required us to conserve cash for 

fiscal year 2005 execution. 

Because of our experience with the risks associated with predicting future receipt 

of land sales revenue, our fiscal year 2006 budget includes an appropriation request 

of $143 million to cover minimum required environmental cleanup actions under enforceable schedules and ongoing program costs for properties not yet disposed. Notwithstanding these risks, we are optimistic that the El Toro and San Pedro sales 

will close and the funds will become available. 

Prior BRAC Environmental Cleanup 

The DON has spent over $2.5 billion on environmental cleanup at prior BRAC locations through fiscal year 2004. We estimate the remaining cost to complete cleanup at about $559 million for fiscal year 2007 and beyond, most of which is concentrated at fewer than twenty remaining locations and includes long-term maintenance and monitoring obligations for remedies already installed and operating at 

many locations. As we have done previously, the DoN will use any additional land 

sale revenue beyond that projected in our fiscal year 2006 budget to further accelerate cleanup at these remaining prior BRAC locations, which are primarily former 

industrial facilities that tend to have the most persistent environmental cleanup 

challenges. 

Closure of Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico 

In addition to completing property disposals from the four prior BRAC rounds, the 

Navy closed Naval Station Roosevelt Roads on March 31, 2004, as directed by section 8132 of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act. All military mission 

activities have been relocated. The DOD schools remained open through the completion of the 2003–2004 school year, as encouraged by the conference report accompanying the Act. Naval Activity Puerto Rico has been established to protect and 

maintain the property and preserve its value until disposal. 

As directed in the Act, the closure and disposal is being carried out in accordance 

with the procedures contained in the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

(BRAC) of 1990, as amended. Pursuant to these procedures, the Navy has approved 

property transfers to the Department of the Army for use by reserve components, 

and the Department of Homeland Security. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

formed a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA). Using grant funding from the DOD 

Office of Economic Adjustment, the LRA prepared a redevelopment plan for the 

property that envisions a mix of commercial, residential, and public uses, as well 

as conservation of large areas of mangrove forest and wetlands. As required by 

BRAC procedures, we are analyzing the potential environmental impacts of property 

disposal in accordance with that redevelopment plan. We expect that property disposal process will begin in 2006 and that substantial portions of the property will 

be disposed through competitive public sale. We do not expect this process to be 

completed until fiscal year 2007, and have requested $27 million in fiscal year 2006 

to cover caretaker costs and maintain the property in preparation for sale. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed Navy plans and progress in 

disposing of the former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads. GAO found that Navy was 

following prescribed procedures and completed their review with no recommendations. 

BRAC 2005

BRAC 2005 Decision Process 

A successful BRAC 2005 is most important to the DoN, the DOD, and the Nation. 

It may be our last opportunity in the foreseeable future to reduce excess infrastructure, move scarce dollars to areas that result in increasingly improved readiness, 

and transform our infrastructure consistent with our defense strategy. 

BRAC 2005 provides a fair process that will result in the timely closure and realignment of military installations in the United States. All military installations 

inside the United States must be considered equally without regard to whether the 

installation has been previously considered or proposed for closure or realignment. 

All closure and realignment recommendations must be based on certified data, the 

20-year force structure plan, and the published selection criteria that make military 

value the primary consideration. 
81 

For BRAC 2005, the Secretary of Defense directed that the analysis be divided 

into two categories of functions. Joint Cross Service Groups (JCSGs) are analyzing 

common business-oriented support functions while the Military Departments are focusing on analysis of service unique functions. The following seven JCSGs were established: Education and Training; Headquarters and Support; Industrial; Medical; 

Supply and Storage, Technical; and Intelligence. The JCSGs and the Military Departments will make their BRAC recommendations to the Infrastructure Executive 

Council (IEC), the DOD policy making and oversight body for the entire BRAC 2005 

process. JCSGs were also utilized in BRAC 1995 but in a substantially different 

manner. In BRAC 1995, JCSG analysis and recommendations were provided to the 

Military Departments for consideration in developing their BRAC recommendations. 

The creation of the IEC ensures that DOD senior leadership is directly engaged in 

making these important decisions. Analysis and evaluation by all of the BRAC 

groups are on-going, with a goal of supporting the Secretary of Defense’s delivery 

of a comprehensive set of base closure and realignment recommendations by May 

16th. 
82 

Despite what some may have read in the newspapers, seen on the Internet, or 

heard through the rumor mill, the DOD does not have a list of closures or realignments at this time. The number and location of such closures or realignments will 

only be determined after a comprehensive and rigorous analytical process that is 

now underway in the Military Departments and Joint Cross Service Groups. 

BRAC 2005 Implementation Funding 

DOD has programmed funds through the Future Years Defense Plan for implementing BRAC 2005 decisions. Discussions are underway as to how these funds may 

be allocated to the Military Departments for implementing BRAC 2005 decisions. 

Expectations are that BRAC 2005 implementation costs will be financed by a mix 

of (1) allocation of the DOD funds, realignment of funds from military construction 

projects and SRM funds no longer needed at closing locations, transfers from environmental restoration accounts, and if necessary, additional military service funds 

to implement BRAC 2005 decisions. 

Preparing to Implement BRAC 2005 

The DoN is building upon its experience in completing cleanup and disposal of 

property from prior BRAC rounds to prepare to implement BRAC 2005 decisions. 

Recently, the Secretary of the Navy approved formation of a BRAC Program Management Office (PMO) that reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment. BRAC PMO has assumed responsibility for completing 

cleanup and disposal of the remaining property from prior BRAC rounds, and it will 

become responsible for cleanup and disposal of property at installations closed or realigned in BRAC 2005. 

The DoN has examined lessons learned from cleanup and disposal of property at 

prior BRAC bases, especially recent successes using competitive public sales. Much 

has changed since the last BRAC round in 1995. Environmental contamination at 

remaining bases has largely been characterized, and cleanup has been completed or 

is now well underway. A close examination of existing statutory authority and Federal regulations for property disposal showed there were ample opportunities to improve the disposal process without the need for new legislation. Private sector capabilities have emerged and matured for ‘‘brownfield’’ redevelopment and insurance industry products to address environmental liabilities when there is a CERCLA early 

transfer of contaminated property. The DoN expects to take increased advantage of 

these private sector capabilities. 

We will continue to use all of the property disposal authorities in the right circumstances, as we have in the case of the disposal of Naval Station Roosevelt 
83 

Roads. Like Roosevelt Roads, however, we believe there will be more opportunities 

to quickly dispose, in cooperation with the local community, BRAC 2005 property 

requiring environmental cleanup in its existing condition. The Navy will dispose of 

property using public sale and will include the cleanup of that property with it, as 

is done in ‘‘brownfield’’ disposals nationwide. This will allow developers with the experience and expertise to complete the cleanup as they redevelop the property. That 

benefits communities by getting the property onto local tax rolls and redeveloped 

more quickly, with the local community controlling that development through traditional land use planning and zoning. It benefits DOD and the Federal taxpayer by 

divesting unneeded property sooner and reducing the environmental cleanup time 

and expense incurred by DOD. The DON goal for implementing BRAC 2005 is that 

the last Sailor or Marine leaving the closed base hand the deed to the property to 

the new owner. We are convinced that this goal is achievable is we start preparations for property disposal as soon as closure decisions are final. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we believe we have put forward a very strong fiscal 2006 budget 

request for our facilities and environmental efforts, while still recognizing the compelling needs of the Global War On Terror. We have funded x percent of Navy and 

y percent of Marine Corps expected base operating costs, funded 95 percent of predicted sustainment requirements, while the Navy makes progress on its facility 

recap metric. 

We are funding environmental programs to maintain compliance with all environmental standards while accelerating cleanup of past contamination and investing in 

research and development efforts to solve emerging environmental concerns. 

We are proceeding with the analysis and scenario development that will lead to 

the Secretary of Defense announcement of BRAC 2005 recommendations. We have 

carefully reviewed our implementation practices from the previous four BRAC 

rounds and are establishing, in cooperation with DOD, the necessary organizational 

structures and business policies and practices to accelerate closure, environmental 

cleanup, and property disposal. 

FAMILY HOUSING

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. I want to start the 

questioning with family housing projects that we have funded over 

the past few years, some of which have been canceled without notification in order to use the funds for privatization purposes. Now, 

we all support privatization, but I wanted to ask if there are any 

construction projects in the request that you are making that you 

anticipate might be diverted to privatized housing, and if you do 

decide to pursue any different programs after we do appropriate for 

construction, will you inform the committee of your decision to cancel a project? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chairman, we had that discussion just this 

morning with some of your staffers, and we have agreed we are 

going to work very closely with the members of your staff on this 

issue. 

Admiral, would you like to—— 

Admiral SHEAR. Ma’am, I would just say that family housing improvement and construction projects we have in the 2006 proposal 

are in Guam and Japan. So I think the concern that they might 

be diverted is probably not going to be due to privatization, since 

we do not have plans to privatize in those areas. 

But as the Secretary said, we also recognize we have a duty to 

keep the committee informed about how we are handling the 

money that goes to privatization, and we have some work to do in 

that regard. So we recognize there is an issue there. 
84 

JOINT RESERVE CENTER

Senator HUTCHISON. Secretary Penn, the Naval Reserve is a participant in the real property exchange that will result in moving a 

unit to Ellington Field in Houston, Texas, from another location 

closer to the city itself. I am very supportive of this process and the 

potential for joint opportunities that exist at Ellington between the 

services and also components of a homeland security unit of the 

Coast Guard. I wanted to ask if the Navy is satisfied with the 

progress on this move to Ellington and are you looking for other 

joint opportunities, particularly with the Coast Guard, that might 

be beneficial for both the Navy and Homeland Security. 

Mr. PENN. Madam Chairman, yes, ma’am, we are. The Department is very pleased to cooperate with the proposal to relocate the 

existing Reserve center, which will include Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. We are looking for opportunities to work with the Coast 

Guard. They are at several locations with us at this time, and we 

are looking for ways to enhance this opportunity. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I appreciate that very much because I think 

that with the Air Guard unit that is there, it really does provide 

an opportunity for a truly joint use, and I hope that everyone is 

going to be working together toward that goal. 

The issue of the sale of the land that you addressed we think is 

a very good way to go, and I think you have addressed the questions there about using the money for the environmental cleanup. 

Assuming that that final sale goes forward, that would be what we 

would expect, that the money would go toward environmental 

cleanup of both that and the previous BRAC requirements. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Penn. Now I will turn to my colleague, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

Mr. PENN. Thank you. 

EL TORO LAND AUCTION

Senator FEINSTEIN. I want to ask about the El Toro land auction. 

It was recently closed. The final bid was $649.5 million. Now, this 

is just half of the $1.2 billion that was forecast earlier in the process. My question really is why did the bids fall so short of the projections, and what does that portend, if anything, for other Navy 

BRAC land sales? 

Admiral SHEAR. Ma’am, the only comment is that my understanding is that the auction price of the land was in line with our 

assessments of earlier. We hired an independent agency to assess 

the value of the property. Some of the auction price had to be sent 

to fees for the local municipality. So the actual cost of the developer 

is higher than $649 million. My information is that it is in line 

with what we were estimating. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is my understanding it is not, that you 

said that it could bring as much as $1.2 billion. That was the forecast. Now, it may be in line with the assessments, but it also may 

well be that you made judgments that simply were not correct. To 

come 50 percent in a booming land market is, Admiral, kind of a 

sobering judgment. 
85 

Mr. PENN. Senator, if I may, we found in order to develop the 

property, the City of Irvine will require the purchaser to enter into 

development agreements that require the purchaser to spend an 

additional $400 million in developer fees and dedicate a substantial 

percentage of the property for public purposes. So an additional 

$400 million will come off that $1 billion figure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All I am saying is that you estimated—not 

you but the Department estimated—that this would bring in double what it does bring in. And now you are saying it is going to 

bring even less because you are going to have to pay a number of 

fees. So the entire $649.5 million is not available to the Navy. Is 

that correct? It is correct. 

Admiral SHEAR. My understanding is that the price was more on the order of $1 billion, of which $649 will be available to the Navy. 

We are not familiar with—or I am not—we will have to report back 

to you on—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you take a look at that? 

Admiral SHEAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Could you let our staff know? 

Admiral SHEAR. Yes, ma’am, we will do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would very much appreciate that. 

MARINE CORPS FORCE RESTRUCTURING

I would like to ask a question about the $75 million for Marine 

Corps force restructuring. The House in its draft report on the supplemental roundly criticizes the Pentagon for including this funding in a supplemental instead of in the regular budget process. 

However, the House proposes funding all but two of the projects requested in the supplemental to support this initiative. The two 

projects that were not funded were proposed for Camp Pendleton, 

California. The reasons cited in the committee report is that the 

final basing decision for the second new infantry battalion to be 

created by the force restructuring is still uncertain. 

General WILLIAMS. I might ask you this question. And welcome. 

Although the Marine Corps force restructuring plan was approved 

in 2004, this is the first time this committee has heard of any military construction requirements associated with it. So why was this 

sprung in a supplemental instead of being presented in the regular 

budget process? 

General WILLIAMS. First of all, Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, on behalf of the marines and sailors and all of their families, 

I really would like to just thank you for all that you have done in 

supporting them in their current effort. As you know, at the Marine Corps we are committed to ensuring that we have a welltrained, well-cared-for, and a ready force to go out and fight our 

Nation’s wars. And the Marine Corps is committed to ensure that 

we have the installations, that we appropriately invest in our installations that would ensure that they are capable of accomplishing such tasks. 

On the questions of the MILCON projects in the 2005 supplemental, when the Commandant of the Marine Corps directed a 

study of his force structure to ensure he had the capability that he 

needed in order to continue to support the global war on terrorism, 
86 

he in fact directed this force restructuring study group. When the 

group completed its work and the recommendations of the group 

were approved, it was after the opportunity to include those support requirements in the baseline budget. 

In addition, at the direction of the—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Did you say that it was going to be in the 

baseline budget? 

General WILLIAMS. No, ma’am. I said it was after the opportunity 

to include them in the baseline budget passed. 

In addition, with the 2005 authorization, we got the strength increased. It authorized an increase to 178,000, allowing then the opportunity to begin to bring forces on line during the summer of 

2005. Of course, now, what we were faced with is having units 

come on line without facilities and things to support them. The facilities and this entire restructuring was in support of the Global 

War on Terrorism. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I got that. I got your answer. 

General WILLIAMS. So at the direction of the administration and 

in accordance with the precedent that had been set by Congress in 

the past, the Department requested that those incremental funds, 

those incremental costs of war funds then would be included in the 

supplemental appropriation. So we, thus, included those in the submission. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, I understand. Thank you. 

What is the status of the site selection for the second infantry 

battalion, and if it is not at Pendleton, where is it going to go? 

SECOND INFANTRY BATTALION

General WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am. The siting of the second infantry 

battalion—that decision is being discussed and debated by senior 

leadership of our Commandant, as well as our Marine Forces Command, Atlantic and Marine Forces Pacific. As I understand it, the 

decision is, of course, based upon a number of things. Some of it 

is the installations’ ability to accept the additional sites as well as 

having all the support structure required to support the increased 

manning of those facilities. 

So as far as the actual location, we are looking at Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina. I would say that that decision has been made that 

we would certainly look at them first in order to get that—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It is awful humid in the summer there. 

General WILLIAMS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much and thank you for your 

service to our country. 

OUTLYING LANDING FIELD

Let me ask a question about the outlying landing field for Washington County, North Carolina. Mr. Secretary, Congress has provided a total of $57.6 million for land acquisition and construction 

of facilities for the proposed F–18 outlying landing field for North 

Carolina. 

You referenced in your prepared testimony last month’s Federal 

court ruling which has barred the Navy from continuing to acquire 

land for this project. Given this most recent legal setback for the 

Navy on this, as well as the extent of local opposition to the project, 
87 

is the Navy reconsidering its decision to locate the OLF in Washington County? Are you looking at any other sites? 

Mr. PENN. The Navy continues to believe that the EIS it prepared was based on sound science and rigorous analysis and met 

the requirements of NEPA. Nonetheless, the Navy is carefully examining the court’s ruling and examining available alternatives. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In your testimony, you note that the 2006 budget includes $26 million in available prior year funds for this 

project. As I mentioned, we have appropriated a total of $57.6 million. Are you saying that the Navy has already obligated $31.6 million for this project, or are you holding some of the previously appropriated funds in reserve for future activities beyond 2006? 

Mr. PENN. No, ma’am. Thus far, the Navy has obligated $8.1 million total, leaving $25.5 million unobligated before the district court 

halted further expenditures. The 2006 budget includes $23 million 

in prior year savings not related to OLF unobligated balances. We 

believe that the Navy will be successful in resolving the litigation 

and that these funds will be needed for execution in fiscal year 

2006. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you have spent $8 million. Is that what 

you are saying? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am, thus far. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that of the $30 million that we appropriated in 2005, or is it of earlier money? 

Mr. PENN. Fiscal year 2004 and 2005, $33.6 million in fiscal year 

2004, 2005. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have that we appropriated $30 million in 

2005, is that correct, for this project? 

Admiral SHEAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So that money is still there. Is that correct? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. That is correct. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And that money is not obligated. Is that 

right? 

Mr. PENN. To the best of my knowledge, yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So is there more than $30 million in unobligated funds for this project? 

Mr. PENN. No, ma’am, there is not. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay, just $30 million. Well, I was just told it is $27.6 million in 2004 that is unobligated. It is appropriated 

but not used. 

Mr. PENN. As I mentioned, ma’am, Congress appropriated a total 

of $33.6 million fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for OLF acquisition and horizontal construction. The Navy has obligated $8.1 

million total, leaving $25.5 million unobligated before the district 

court halted our further expenditures. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. See, we have different figures. Our total appropriation already done is $57.6 million, of which the Navy has 

obligated $31.6 million. And you are telling me that the $30 million 

which was appropriated in 2005, is still there. It has not been 

spent. I think we need to get together and go over this and see exactly where that is. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. I agree. I was told that fiscal year 2005 rescinded $24 million of the fiscal year 2004 funds. So we will get 

together and coordinate those numbers. 
88 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. So that would be appreciated. Thank 

you all very much. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. That ends the hearing. We 

thank you very much. Welcome aboard. After 1 week, you have just 

passed your first test, your rite of passage, and we very much appreciate the information we have gotten today. 

Mr. PENN. Well, thank you very much and thank you for all you 

are doing for our great country. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., Tuesday, March 8, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(89) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:32 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison, Craig, Feinstein, Byrd, and Murray. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. R. JAMES NICHOLSON, SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

JONATHAN B. PERLIN, M.D., Ph.D., MSHA, FACP, ACTING UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

HON. VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL L. COOPER (USN RET.), UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 

RICHARD A. WANNEMACHER, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION 

HON. TIM McCLAIN, GENERAL COUNSEL 

RITA A. REED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Our meeting will come to order. I will say 

that this is our first hearing for the Veterans Affairs Department 

for our new subcommittee. I am very pleased to be able to work 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of course, I have known 

the Secretary for a long time and have worked with the previous 

Secretary for this important Department. We are delighted that we 

now have this jurisdiction. 

I want to first tell you that we have votes starting at 3 o’clock, 

five votes. So I am going to dispense with my opening statement 

because I want to hear from you, and then I want to have time for 

questions. I think what we will do is get as far as we can until the 

vote starts, and then we will see where we are and perhaps have 

to take a small recess and come back. But I will dispense with my 

opening statement and put it in the record. 

Welcome to you. 
90 

Let me call on my distinguished ranking member with whom I 

work very closely. It is a great relationship. I think it is safe to say 

we are both very happy to have the Veterans Affairs Department 

in this subcommittee. With that, Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

echo your comments. I am delighted to work with you. It has been 

many years, and I do not think we have had a problem yet. So that 

is the good news. 

Additionally, I would ask that you allow me to join you in welcoming the lady and gentlemen assembled before us. I particularly 

want to welcome Secretary Nicholson. We look forward to working 

with you in this appropriation effort. 

This is a new chapter for the Military Construction Committee 

because we will be taking on the Veterans Affairs matters, and I 

think between the chairman and me, we represent two of the three 

States with the largest population of veterans in America. So we 

have a very unique opportunity to work on these challenges and 

opportunities. 

That said, I do want to let you know where I am coming from. 

I am very disappointed in the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget 

request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This budget assumes savings of over $1 billion by doubling prescription drug copayments and imposing a $250 enrollment fee on middle income 

veterans, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet as it is 

on incomes as low as $26,000 a year. More than 200,000 veterans 

would be adversely affected by these proposals. I think they are unrealistic assumptions. Congress has rejected them in the past and 

I hope we will continue to reject them. 

We are a Nation at war. The military has discharged more than 

244,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the VA has already treated nearly 49,000 of those returning troops. Yet, this 

budget turns a blind eye to the increasing demands on the VA 

health care system caused by the influx of new veterans, as well 

as the aging population of veterans from earlier wars. Instead of 

reaching out to veterans, this budget proposes to shut more veterans out of the health care system by charging enrollment fees, 

by hiking co-pays on prescription drug benefits, and by limiting 

long-term nursing home care. 

This is not how we should be treating America’s veterans. I know 

that money is tight, but the administration should not try to balance the books by forcing veterans to shoulder a greater share of 

the burden of health care costs. 

I know these are tough times, Mr. Secretary, but they must be 

addressed. My goal as the ranking member of this subcommittee is 

to do everything in my power to see that we keep the promises we 

made to our veterans and, in so doing, make the highest and best 

use of taxpayer dollars. 

Now, Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with you on 

this aspect of the budget. I also very much look forward to our taking over the mantel of the VA/HUD Subcommittee which I think 

did an excellent job in terms of appropriating for veterans and veterans affairs. Thank you very much. 
91 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Murray. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Madam Chairman, thank you. It is a delight 

to join you on this committee. 

Mr. Secretary, it is an honor to be in front of you again. We have 

seen each other I believe on three occasions now. I serve on the 

Veterans Committee, Budget, and Appropriations. I appreciate and 

understand the difficult task that is before you. 

Madam Chair, I know that you are short on time because of the 

votes, and I will submit my statement for the record. 

But let me just say this. I share the concerns of Senator Feinstein. I do not believe that we have budgeted for the care of our 

soldiers who are returning from war, nor for the ones that are already in long waiting lines. You have heard me before. You know 

that I am deeply concerned of the thousands of members who are 

coming home who will be discharged but will not have access to 

health care, particularly our Guard and Reserve members. We 

know that you are talking about community outreach clinics, but 

they are already turning poor patients away in our States. So they 

cannot take up the burden of this. 

Increasing co-pays, enrollment fees, closing our long-term care facilities is the wrong thing to be doing at a time when we have so 

many men and women who are serving us overseas. 

So I will submit my statement for the record, but I feel very 

strongly about this and will continue in any way I can to help us 

increase the budget for our veterans because I believe it is a promise that we have not kept and we need to follow up on. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Senator Byrd. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank those 

Senators who have preceded me. I wish to associate myself with 

their remarks. 

Mr. Secretary, during this time of war, few matters could be 

more important than the care that our Nation gives to our veterans. West Virginians are extremely proud of our veterans. Those 

men and women who have chosen to serve our Nation are owed an 

enormous debt. It is a moral responsibility that the United States 

carries, as President Lincoln said, ‘‘to care for him who shall have 

borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.’’ 

But the funding priorities outlined by President Bush in his 

budget undermine our country’s commitment to America’s veterans. The President proposes to double the co-payment for prescription drugs, impose a new $250 annual user fee for certain veterans, and continue a policy of turning away hundreds of thousands of veterans from VA hospitals because they are classified as 

low priority. According to the Congressional Research Service, continuing this policy on low-priority veterans will deny a staggering 

522,000 veterans care from VA hospitals by the end of this year. 

The American people must be told how many veterans will suffer 

under the President’s budget proposal. The more than 190,000 veterans in West Virginia receiving health care from VA medical cen-
92 

ters in the Mountain State are threatened by these significant 

hikes in fees and co-payments. The expected wave of combat veterans from the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars will add to the 

stress on our VA facilities. 

Yet, instead of strengthening the VA medical system, the Bush 

administration weakens it. The Nation’s three largest veterans organizations, the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 

and the Disabled American Veterans, have called the President’s 

proposals the most tight-fisted, miserly budget for veterans programs. And they are right. I note that the President’s $81.9 billion emergency supplemental 

does not include a single dime for veterans health care. Tax cuts 

and corporate giveaways are helping the super-rich to get further 

ahead, but the President’s budget leaves veterans health care far 

behind. For this Senator, ‘‘support the troops’’ means taking care 

of veterans after they come home. Our brave fighting men and 

women deserve much more from the White House than 

sloganeering and health care on the cheap. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Byrd. 

Senator Craig, who is the distinguished chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and a member of our subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and again, 

congratulations on chairing this newly structured committee and 

the authority within. Also, let me congratulate Senator Feinstein 

on her new position as ranking on this structure. 

To all of you from the Veterans Administration, Mr. Secretary, 

welcome before this most important committee. I have had the 

privilege, Madam Chairman, of being in each one of these lady’s 

and gentleman’s departments. I will go back better understanding 

the operations of the Veterans Administration. It is critically important for all of us to understand what it does and the role it 

plays as we work with this very difficult budget. 

Just this past week—I have held hearings now with all the veterans service organizations. The traditional joint hearings between 

the House and the Senate were obviously well attended and we 

heard from all of these marvelous organizations of their concern for 

veterans and the urgency of much of the service provided. 

I think it is also noteworthy that over the last 4 years, we have 

done more to improve veterans services than ever in the history of 

our country, tremendous commitments of resources, a 9.4 percent 

average increase on an annualized basis. For that, we can all be 

proud. 

We are now debating a budget that is different than what the 

President proposed by a substantial amount. We have a budget before us that does not have any of the co-pays in it, does not have 

any of the new fees in it. In fact, it is a straight plus-up of nearly 

$1 billion without any reconciliation instructions in it, Madam 

Chairman. That is a significant improvement that serves the veterans of our country the way we would want them to be served. 

Does it serve every veteran who once bore the uniform of a service of this country? It does not. Nor can we be expected as a coun-
93 

try to serve those who are not service-connected, who are the 7’s 

and 8’s, who may well have their own health care insurance, but 

now, because of the phenomenal work that the Veterans Administration has done to improve the quality of health care delivery 

within the system, we have created a system that is now sought 

after by all, in large part because if they can gain access through 

the front door, they gain free health care, even though they may 

be among the most wealthy in our country, but they have simply 

borne the uniform. 

That is a question that we have to ask ourselves in a fundamentally and fiscally responsible way, and that is the question that is 

now before us on the floor of the Senate. I do believe, Madam 

Chairman, we are going to be given a budget by the Budget Committee and instructions to this subcommittee that we can work 

with, that we can hand them to these administrators who sit before 

us in a way that does meet most, if not all, of the challenges, that 

addresses the concerns of Senator Murray, as I have, that we have 

a lot of new, incoming veterans with extraordinary needs because 

of the character of warfare today and because of the character of 

health on the front lines and medicine on the front lines of this 

war. 

So there are a lot of challenges out there that I trust, Madam 

Chairman, you and the ranking member can work with and work 

with those of us in the authorizing committees to make happen in 

defense of America’s veterans. That is our charge. It is our responsibility. 

Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And now, Mr. Secretary, we would be pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE R. JAMES NICHOLSON

Secretary NICHOLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. Good afternoon. 

Allow me, if you would, to start by introducing those experts that 

I have here and people who are far more experienced at the Veterans Affairs Department than I at this point. I would like to start 

on my far left with Tim McClain, who is the General Counsel. My 

immediate left is Dr. Jonathan Perlin, who is the Acting Under 

Secretary for Health. My far right is the Acting Under Secretary 

for Memorial Affairs, Dick Wannemacher. In the middle here on 

this side is Admiral Dan Cooper, who is the Under Secretary for 

Benefits, and my immediate right is Ms. Rita Reed, who is the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget. 

I would ask, Madam Chairman, if I could have my complete, 

comprehensive written statement be submitted for the record, but 

that I would be allowed to offer some highlights here of the President’s proposal before we take your questions. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Without objection. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Madam Chairman, President Bush is requesting a record $70.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2006: $37.4 billion for entitlement programs and 

$33.4 billion for discretionary programs. This total represents a 2.2 

percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The discretionary funding level would represent an increase of $880 million, 
94 

or 2.7 percent, over the enacted level for 2005. The proposed mandatory spending level represents a $639 million, or 1.7 percent, increase over 2005. This budget represents a total increase of 47 percent with a 44 percent increase in discretionary funding since the 

beginning of the Bush administration. 

The President’s 2006 proposal will allow us to meet the health 

care and benefit needs of all newly separated veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to maintain the high standards of 

health care quality, for which VA is now nationally recognized 

while treating 5.2 million patients. It will allow us to follow 

through on an historic realignment of our health care infrastructure through the CARES process, to reduce the backlog of disability 

compensation and pension claims, and to continue the largest expansion of the national cemetery system since the Civil War. 

In the area of health care, in recent years the Department’s successes in delivering top-notch health care have been stunning. I can 

brag about this because I had nothing to do with it. But this is 

really a magnificent organization of dedicated, competent, compassionate people. The VA exceeds the performance of private sector 

and Medicare providers for key health care quality indicators for 

which comparable data are available. A recent RAND Corporation 

study also shows that patients in VA’s health care system are significantly more likely to receive recommended care than our private sector patients. 

This is all the more impressive when you consider the explosive 

growth in VA health care usage. In 2006, the VA will treat about 

1 million more patients than were treated in 2001. The President’s 

budget will ensure there is no slippage in our high level of performance, even at these elevated patient levels. Ninety-four percent of 

the primary care appointments are scheduled within 30 days of the 

patient’s desired date, and 93 percent of the specialty care appointments are also scheduled within that time frame. 

The President’s 2006 budget asks that you enact two important 

provisions affecting only priority 7 and 8 veterans: an annual enrollment fee of $250 and an increase in pharmacy co-payments 

from $7 to $15 for a 30-day supply of drugs. 

The proposed enrollment fee is similar to the fee paid by career 

military retirees enrolled in the TRICARE system and some would 

argue even more justified. As you know, most TRICARE enrollees 

have served on active duty for at least 20 years and are former enlisted personnel with modest retirement incomes. The proposed enrollment fee would apply to those veterans who may have served 

as few as 2 years and who have no service-connected disability and 

who do have reasonable incomes. 

In addition, those veterans who are in priority group 8 have incomes above the HUD geographic means test. 

I would like to turn to long-term care. This budget provides all 

long-term care needs for veterans who are 70 percent or more service-connected. It also provides for patients requiring short-term 

care subsequent to a hospital stay and those needing hospice or 

respite care and those with special needs such as ventilator dependence or spinal cord injury. 

To ensure fairness and consistency, the VA proposes similar eligibility criteria across all institutional, long-term care venues, VA, 
95 

contract community, and State nursing homes. The Department 

would continue to expand access to non-institutional long-term care 

with an emphasis on community-based and in-home care. In many 

cases this approach allows veterans to receive these services in the 

comfort and familiar settings of their homes surrounded by their 

families. 

In order to be more prepared to care for our veterans returning 

from Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA’s 2006 medical care request includes $1.2 billion for the prosthetics program, which is $100 million over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This will support the 

increasing workload associated with the purchase and repair of 

prosthetics and sensory aids to improve veterans’ quality of life. 

The budget will also provide $2.2 billion, or $100 million over the 

2005 level, to standardize and further improve access to mental 

health services across the system, including PTSD. 

We are also proposing a number of program enhancements to 

cover out-of-pocket costs for emergency care for eligible veterans in 

non-VA facilities, to exempt former POW’s from co-payments for 

VA extended care and exempt veterans from co-payments for hospice care delivered in hospitals or at home. 

We have projected increased health care management efficiencies 

of 2 percent in 2006 which will yield about $600 million in savings. 

The $750 million requested for CARES in 2006 brings the total 

3-year investment to $2.15 billion. At its core CARES means greater access to higher quality care for more veterans closer to where 

they live. Its impact is already being felt in Chicago where the proceeds from an enhanced use lease of VA’s Lakeside Hospital property are being reinvested at VA’s Westside facility. This will lead 

to a new modern bed tower for Chicago’s veterans. 

Finally, the $786 million proposed in support of VA’s medical and 

prosthetic research program would fund about 2,700 high-priority 

research projects to expand knowledge in areas critical to veterans 

health care needs. The combination of VA appropriations and funding from other sources would bring our 2006 research budget to 

nearly $1.7 billion. 

Veterans benefits. The President’s request includes $37.4 billion 

for the entitlement costs associated with all benefits. Our request 

includes $1.26 billion for the management of the Department’s benefits program, which is 6.6 percent over the 2005 level. Veterans 

Benefits will continue to address an increased volume of compensation claims from separating service members and older veterans 

who had not previously submitted claims and from current recipients. 

The VA has made significant improvements to the claims decision process, but clearly more must still be done. VA takes seriously its obligation that every veterans claim must be treated fairly 

and equitably, regardless of the locality. We will and must be consistent. To address the issue of consistency, the IG is performing 

an independent system-wide review. 

Also, Veterans Benefits leadership is looking at training, medical 

exams, and other aspects of the system to ensure we clearly are 

working toward a consistent, fair, and equitable case-decision process for all veterans. 
96 

The President’s request would also permit us to continue the 

Benefits Delivery at discharge program. This program enables active duty service members to file disability compensation claims 

with VA staff at military bases, complete physical exams, and have 

their claims evaluated before their military separations or soon 

thereafter. 

Burial benefits. The 2006 budget includes $290 million in discretionary funding for VA’s burial program, including operating and 

maintenance expenses for the National Cemetery Administration, 

capital programs, the administration of mandatory burial benefits, 

and the State cemetery grants program. This total is nearly $17 

million, or 6.4 percent, over the 2005 level. It includes $90 million for cemetery construction projects. We are requesting $41 million in major construction funding for land acquisition for six new national cemeteries and $32 million for the 

State cemetery grants program. These resources would enable us 

to increase to 82 percent, the percentage of veterans having a veterans cemetery burial option within 75 miles of their homes. 

Madam Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not note that last 

year’s VA National Cemetery Administration earned the highest 

rating ever achieved by a public or private organization in the 2004 

American Customer Satisfaction Index, a rating of 95 on a scale of 

100. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So in closing, Madam Chairman, despite the many competing demands for Federal funding, the President continues to make veterans benefits and services a top priority of his administration. Our 

veterans deserve no less. 

We are now prepared to take your questions. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. JAMES NICHOLSON

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, good afternoon. I am happy 

to be here and I am deeply honored that the President has given me the opportunity 

to serve as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. My service in the United States Army was 

the defining experience of my life and instilled me with a strong sense of duty and 

esteem for my fellow veterans. I look forward to working with you and the thousands of dedicated employees who are carrying out the compelling mission of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by ensuring the timely delivery of high-quality 

benefits and services to those veterans in need of same earned through their sacrifice and service in defense of freedom. 

In his February 2 State of the Union Address, the President underscored the need 

for America to restrain spending in order to sustain our economic prosperity. As 

part of this restraint, it is important that total discretionary and non-security 

spending be held to levels proposed in the 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms in the budget are important components of achieving the President’s goal of 

cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009. This budget gives VA what it needs to 

accomplish our priority mission and we urge the Congress to support it. The 2006 

budget includes more than 150 reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense 

discretionary programs. The Department wants to work with the Congress to 

achieve these savings. 

I am pleased to be here today to present the President’s 2006 budget proposal for 

VA. The request totals $70.8 billion—$37.4 billion for entitlement programs and 

$33.4 billion for discretionary programs. Our budget request for discretionary funds 

represents an increase of $880 million, or 2.7 percent, over the enacted level for 

2005, and a 47 percent increase since the beginning of the Bush Administration. 

With the resources requested for VA in the 2006 budget, we aim to build upon 

many of the Department’s achievements that have dramatically improved benefits 
97 

and services to veterans and their families since the President came to office. The 

most noteworthy accomplishments are that VA: 

—provides health care to about 1 million more patients 

—improved the quality of patient care that sets the national standard of excellence for the health care industry 

—dramatically lowered the backlog of rating claims for disability compensation 

and pension from a high of 432,000 to 321,000 (for all claims the backlog peaked 

at over 600,000) 

—reduced the average length of time to process compensation and pension claims 

from a high of 230 days to approximately 160 days 

—continued the largest expansion of the national cemetery system since the Civil 

War to honor veterans with a final resting place and lasting memorial that commemorates their service to our country. 

With strong support from the President, VA has made excellent progress in sharpening its focus on more effectively meeting the needs of those veterans who count 

on us the most—veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with lower incomes, and veterans with special health care needs. I fully support this strategy and 

am committed to ensuring that our health care resources continue to be concentrated on care for veterans most in need of the Department’s services. As an integral part of this focused strategy, we will make it a top priority to provide ongoing 

benefits and services to the servicemen and women who served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. VA’s goal is to ensure that every seriously injured or ill serviceman or woman returning from combat receives priority 

treatment and consideration. We will continue to work closely with the Department 

of Defense (DOD) to develop ways by which to move records more efficiently between the two agencies, share critical medical information electronically, protect the 

health of troops stationed in areas where environmental hazards pose threats, process benefit claims as one shared system, and in every way possible, ease their transition from active duty to civilian life. 

MEDICAL CARE

The President’s 2006 request includes total budgetary resources of $30.7 billion 

(including $750 million for construction and $2.6 billion in collections) for the medical care program, an increase of 2.5 percent over the enacted level for 2005, and 

more than 47 percent above the 2001 level. The $750 million in construction will 

be devoted to the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) program, bringing the total Department investment to $2.15 billion over 3 years. 

Given the current fiscal environment, it is more important than ever that VA concentrate its resources, policies, and strategies on those veterans identified by Congress as high priority. The President’s 2006 budget request includes policies and 

strategies used successfully during the last few years to focus VA health care resources on veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with lower incomes, 

and veterans needing our specialized services. In particular, this budget assumes 

continued suspension of enrollment of new Priority 8 veterans, as this has proven 

to be the most effective vehicle through which to focus our health care resources on 

our highest priority patients. 

But maintaining the current enrollment policy will not in itself ensure us sufficient resources for the care of those who need us the most. The President’s 2006 

budget asks that you enact two important legislative proposals—an annual enrollment fee of $250 and an increase in pharmacy co-payments from $7 to $15 for a 

30-day supply of drugs, both pertaining to only Priority 7 and 8 veterans. This fee 

and the increase in co-payments pertain only to veterans who have no compensable 

service-connected disabilities and do have the means to contribute modestly to the 

cost of their care. This budget asks these veterans to assume a small share of the 

cost so that we may adequately care for high-priority veterans. 

The proposed enrollment fee is very similar to the fee the law requires retired career service members to pay in order to participate in TRICARE, and is arguably 

even more justified. As you know, TRICARE enrollees generally must have served 

on active duty for at least 20 years, and many of them are former enlisted personnel 

with modest retirement incomes. The proposed enrollment fee would apply to those 

veterans who may have served as few as 2 years and who have no service-connected 

disability. In addition, some of these veterans (those in Priority Group 8) have incomes above the HUD geographic means test. 

I recognize that Congress has not supported either of these proposals during the 

past 2 years. However, these two legislative proposals are consistent with the priority health care structure Congress enacted several years ago, and will help us 

meet the needs of our highest priority veterans. In addition, past utilization of VA’s 
98 

health care services has demonstrated that veterans with higher incomes (Priority 

7 and 8 veterans) rely less on VA for delivering their health care and usually have 

other health care options, including third party insurance coverage and Medicare. 

An annual enrollment fee of $250 and an increase in co-payments for pharmacy benefits from $7 to $15 would give higher income, non-disabled Priority 7 and 8 veterans the option of sharing a small portion of the cost of their care or utilizing other 

health care options. Our high-priority patients typically do not have other health 

care options, so we must act decisively to protect their interests by making sure that 

sufficient resources are available to handle their health care needs. 

With medical care resources of $30.7 billion, we project that we will treat more 

than 5.2 million patients. Those in Priorities 1 to 6 will comprise 78 percent of the 

total number of veteran patients in 2006. This will represent the third consecutive 

year during which our high-priority veterans will increase as a percentage of all veterans treated. In addition, about 9 of every 10 medical care dollars in 2006 will be 

devoted to meeting the health care needs of those veterans who count on us the 

most. 

Even with an increasing patient workload among our highest priority veterans, 

we will continue our steadfast commitment to providing high-quality and accessible 

health care that sets the national standard of excellence for the health care industry. Our two primary measures of health care quality—clinical practice guidelines 

index and prevention index—focus on the degree to which VA follows nationally recognized guidelines and standards of care that the medical literature has proven to 

be directly linked with improved health outcomes for patients and more efficient 

care. Our performance on the clinical practice guidelines index, which focuses on 

high-prevalence and high-risk diseases that have a significant impact on veterans’ 

overall health status, is expected to hold steady at the current high performance 

level of 77 percent. As an indicator aimed at primary prevention and early detection 

recommendations dealing with immunizations and screenings, the prevention index 

is projected to remain at its existing high rate of performance of 88 percent. VA continues to exceed the performance of private sector and Medicare providers for all 

15 key health care quality indicators for which comparable data are available. These 

indicators include cancer screening for early detection, and immunization for influenza and pneumonia. In addition, they cover disease management measures such 

as compliance with accepted clinical guidelines in managing diabetes, heart disease, 

hypertensive disease, and mental health. 

The Department has greatly improved access to our health care services during 

the last few years by opening additional outpatient clinics, applying information 

technology strategies to streamline administrative, business, and care delivery processes, and implementing pay policies and human resource management practices to 

facilitate hiring and retain sufficient health care workers to meet capacity demands 

across the full continuum of care. These initiatives have helped VA raise the percent 

of primary care appointments scheduled within 30 days of the patient’s desired date 

to 94 percent and the percent of specialty care appointments scheduled within 30 

days of the patient’s desired date to 93 percent. By continuing these types of strategies, improving clinical efficiencies, and effectively utilizing the resources requested 

in our 2006 budget, VA will maintain these high performance levels. 

The Department’s record of success in health care delivery is substantiated by the 

results of the 2004 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Conducted by the 

National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan Business School, 

the most recent ACSI survey found that customer satisfaction with VA’s health care 

system was markedly above the satisfaction level for Federal Government services 

as a whole. Results released in December 2004 revealed that inpatients at VA medical centers recorded a satisfaction level of 84 out of a possible 100 points, while 

outpatients at VA clinics registered a satisfaction score of 83. Both of these are well 

above the government average of 72. 

While VA is excelling compared to its private sector counterparts, we are committed to doing even better in the future. The results of a recent study conducted 

by the RAND Corporation revealed that patients in VA’s health care system were 

more likely to receive recommended care than private-sector patients. Quality of 

care was better for VA patients on all measures except acute care, for which care 

was similar for both patient groups. RAND researchers examined the medical 

records of nearly 600 VA patients and about 1,000 non-VA patients with similar 

health problems. They compared the treatment received by both groups to well-established standards for medical care for 26 conditions. They found that 67 percent 

of VA patients received care that met the latest standards of the health care profession compared with 51 percent of non-VA patients. For preventive care, such as vaccination, cancer screening, and early disease detection and treatment, 64 percent of 

VA patients received the appropriate care compared to only 44 percent in the pri-
99 

vate sector. The RAND researchers attributed the difference in patient care to technological innovations, such as VA’s computerized patient records, and to performance measurement policies holding top managers accountable for standards in preventive care and the treatment of long-term conditions. 

As another means by which to ensure sufficient resources are available to address 

the health care needs of those veterans who count on us the most, VA is proposing 

to revise the eligibility criteria for long-term care services to focus on the following 

groups of veterans: 

—those injured or disabled while on active duty, including veterans who served 

in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom 

—those catastrophically disabled 

—patients requiring short-term care subsequent to a hospital stay 

—those needing hospice or respite care. 

These eligibility criteria would be applied to VA-sponsored long-term care services, including VA, community, and State nursing homes. This long-term care strategy will save approximately $496 million that will be redirected toward meeting the 

health care needs of veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with lower 

incomes, and veterans with special health care needs. 

In 2006 the Department will continue to expand access to non-institutional longterm care services to all enrolled veterans with an emphasis on community-based 

and in-home care. In many cases this approach allows VA to provide these services 

to veterans where they live and to care for them in the comfort and familiar setting 

of their home surrounded by their family. During 2006 VA will increase the number 

of patients receiving non-institutional long-term care, as measured by the average 

daily census, to about 35,500. This total is over 50 percent above the number of patients receiving this type of care in 2001. Funding for non-institutional long-term 

care in 2006 will be about 67 percent higher than the resource level devoted to this 

type of health care service in 2001. 

VA’s 2006 medical care request includes $1.2 billion ($100 million over the 2005 

enacted level) to support the increasing workload associated with the purchase and 

repair of prosthetics and sensory aids to improve veterans’ quality of life. VA is already providing prosthetics and sensory aids to many military personnel who served 

in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Department 

will continue to provide them as needed. 

The President’s 2006 budget includes $2.2 billion ($100 million over the 2005 

level) to continue our effort to improve access to mental health services across the 

country. These funds will help ensure VA provides standardized and equitable access throughout the Nation to a full continuum of care for veterans with mental 

health disorders. The Department will place particular emphasis on providing care 

to those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service in 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

We have included a management efficiency rate of 2 percent which will yield 

about $600 million in 2006. We continue to monitor and emphasize the need for performance that results in minimizing unit costs where possible, and eliminating inefficiency in the provision of quality health care. To that end, we have included within 

this savings target, $150 million that will be achieved through implementation of 

improved contracting practices with medical schools and other VA affiliates for 

scarce medical specialties. This is a long-standing issue for which the Department 

is aggressively implementing management changes to ensure fair pricing for the 

services provided by our affiliates. 

As a result of continual improvements in our medical collections processes and the 

policy changes presented in this budget request, we expect to collect about $2.6 billion in 2006 that will substantially supplement the resources available from appropriated sources. This figure is $635 million (or 32.5 percent) above the 2005 estimate, with two-thirds of the increase due to the two important legislative proposals 

(the $250 enrollment fee and the increase in pharmacy co-payments), and is more 

than 48 percent higher than the 2004 collections total. VA has an expanded revenue 

improvement strategy that focuses on modeling industry best performance by establishing industry-based performance and operational metrics, developing technological enhancements, and integrating industry-proven business approaches, including the establishment of centralized revenue operation centers. There are two electronic data initiatives underway that will add efficiencies to the billing and collections processes. The electronic and insurance identification and verification project 

is providing VA medical centers with an automated mechanism to obtain veterans’ 

insurance information from health plans that participate in this electronic data exchange. We are pursuing enhancements which will provide additional insurance information stored by other government agencies. Our second initiative will result in 
100 

electronic outpatient pharmacy claims processing to provide real-time claims adjudication. 

CAPITAL ASSET REALIGNMENT FOR ENHANCED SERVICES (CARES)

The President’s budget request includes $750 million in 2006 to continue the 

CARES program that renovates and modernizes VA’s health care infrastructure and 

provides greater access to higher quality care for more veterans, closer to where 

they live. About $50 million of this total relates to the sale of assets and enhanced 

use proceeds of the Lakeside hospital in Chicago. The budget request provides a 3- 

year (2004–2006) investment total of $2.15 billion committed to this historic transformation of our health care system. These resources will be used to address our 

prioritized list of major capital investments. The proposed projects for 2006 will advance the CARES program by providing construction funding for five projects for 

which design work has already started, as well as two additional projects to be initiated in 2006. All of these capital projects support the recommendations included in 

the CARES Decision report. About half of the CARES funding requested for 2006 

will be devoted to three major construction projects: 

—Las Vegas, Nevada, New Medical Facility—$199 million to complete phase two 

construction, providing up to 90 inpatient beds, a 120-bed nursing home care 

unit, ambulatory care center, and administrative and support functions, all of 

which will expand capacity and increase the scope of health care services available; VA is working with DOD to ensure mutual needs are met 

—Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland-Brecksville Consolidation—$87.3 million to complete 

phase two construction; this project will consolidate and co-locate all clinical 

and administrative functions of a two-division medical center at the Wade Park 

VA Medical Center, leading to annual cost savings of more than $23 million and 

enhancing the quality of care 

—Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Consolidation of Campuses—$82.5 million to complete phase two construction; this project will consolidate a three-division health 

care delivery system into two divisions which will improve patient care by providing a state-of-the-art health care environment and reducing operating expenses. 

Our capital investment planning process and methodology involve a Departmentwide approach for the use of capital funds and ensure all major investments are 

based upon sound economic principles and are fully linked to strategic planning, 

budget, and performance measures and targets. All CARES projects have been reviewed using a consistent set of evaluation criteria that address service delivery enhancements, safeguarding assets, support of special emphasis programs and services, capital portfolio goals, alignment with the President’s Management Agenda, 

and financial priorities. 

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

The President’s 2006 budget includes $786 million to support VA’s medical and 

prosthetic research program. This resource level will fund nearly 2,700 high-priority 

research projects to expand knowledge in areas critical to veterans’ health care 

needs, most notably research in the areas of aging, acute and traumatic injury, the 

effects of military and environmental exposures, mental illness, substance abuse, 

cancer, and heart disease. 

The requested level of funding for the medical and prosthetic research program 

will position the Department to build upon its long track record of success in conducting research projects that lead to clinically useful interventions that improve 

veterans’ health and quality of life. Examples of some of the recent contributions 

made by VA research to the advancement of medicine are: 

—development of an artificial nerve system that enables a patient with upperlimb paralysis to grasp objects 

—creation of a new collaborative model for treating depression in older adults, the 

application of which potentially saves lives, reduces patients’ level of pain, and 

improves their overall functioning 

—the finding that proper intake of cereal fiber and vitamin D are among the best 

ways to prevent serious colon polyps that may lead to colorectal cancer 

—development of an oral drug that halts the deadly action of the smallpox virus. 

In addition to VA appropriations, VA researchers compete and receive funds from 

other Federal and non-Federal sources. Funding from external sources is expected 

to continue to increase in 2006. Through a combination of VA resources and funds 

from outside sources, the total research budget in 2006 will be nearly $1.7 billion. 
101 

VETERANS’ BENEFITS

The Department’s 2006 budget request includes $37.4 billion for the entitlement 

costs mainly associated with all benefits administered by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). This total includes an additional $812 million for disability compensation payments to veterans and their survivors for disabilities or diseases incurred or aggravated while on active duty. Recipients of these compensation benefits 

are projected to increase to 3 million in 2006 (2.7 million veterans and 0.3 million 

survivors, or 400,000 more than when the President came to office). 

The President’s budget request includes $1.26 billion for the management of the 

following benefits programs—disability compensation; pension; education; vocational 

rehabilitation and employment; housing; and life insurance. This is $77 million, or 

6.6 percent, over the 2005 level. As a result of the enactment of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108–447), an additional $125 million will be 

made available to VBA (through a transfer of funds from medical care) for disability 

benefits claims processing. Of this total, $75 million will be used during 2005 and 

the remaining $50 million will be used in 2006. The overwhelming majority of these 

funds will be used to address the increased volume of compensation claims from 

both separating service members and older veterans who had not previously submitted claims. 

As a Presidential initiative, improving the timeliness and accuracy of claims processing remains the Department’s top priority associated with our benefits programs. 

Last year the timeliness of our compensation and pension claims processing improved by 9 percent (from 182 days in 2003 to 166 days in 2004). While we were 

successful in reducing the time it takes to process claims for compensation and pension benefits, we were not able to improve timeliness as much as we had projected 

at the beginning of the year. Entering 2004, VA was well positioned to meet our 

performance goals pertaining to the timeliness of processing claims. However, a September 2003 decision by the Federal Circuit Court in the case of the Paralyzed Veterans of America et. al. v. the Secretary of Veterans Affairs required VA to keep veterans’ claims open for 1 year before making a decision to deny a claim. As a result, 

decisions on over 62,000 claims were deferred, many for as much as 90 days. While 

the President signed correcting legislation in December 2003, the impact of the 

court decision in the early portion of 2004 was substantial, as the number of pending claims had grown dramatically. VA made significant progress during the last 

half of the year, but we were not able to fully overcome the negative effects from 

this court decision on our claims processing timeliness. 

We have had to revise our claims processing timeliness goals for the next 2 years 

due, in part, to the lingering effect of the Federal Circuit Court decision. Also having an impact on the timeliness of processing is the increasing volume of disability 

claims and the complexity of the claims. In addition, VA will continue to face the 

retirement of staff members highly experienced in processing claims. While we have 

established a sound succession plan, the new employees we are hiring will require 

both extensive training and substantial claims processing experience in order for 

them to reach the productivity level of those leaving the Department. 

During 2005 we expect to reduce the average number of days to process compensation and pension claims to 145 days, an improvement of 12.7 percent from the 

2004 performance level. With the resources requested in the 2006 budget, we will 

be able to maintain this improved timeliness in support of this Presidential initiative. In addition, we will reduce the number of pending claims for compensation and 

pension benefits to 283,000 by the end of 2006, a reduction of 12 percent from the 

total at the close of 2004. 

We will increase our efforts to ensure the consistency of our disability evaluations 

from one regional office to another. VA has made significant improvements in both 

the accuracy and consistency of its benefit entitlement decisions due to increased 

quality assurance efforts and more focused training of claims adjudicators. However, 

more must be done to ensure the Department meets its commitment to treating 

every veteran’s claim fairly and equitably regardless of locality. A system-wide review of the rating program for disability compensation is underway. In addition to 

this independent review, the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission has been established to carry out a study of the statutory benefits that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. This commission is expected to examine and make recommendations concerning the appropriateness of these statutory benefits, the appropriateness of the level of the benefits, and the appropriate standard or standards 

for determining whether a disability or death of a veteran should be compensated. 

VA’s efforts to improve the consistency of disability evaluations are supported in the 

2006 budget by a request for $1.2 million for skills certification testing and $2.6 mil-
102 

lion for continued development of computer-based training tools. These initiatives 

will complement other ongoing efforts supported by our budget that address the 

issue of consistency and accuracy. Among these are: 

—revision of all of the regulations that govern the compensation and pension programs in plain language to ensure that the rules can be applied consistently 

and fairly 

—in-depth data analysis of benefit decisions to identify potential areas of inconsistency, increasingly possible with our new information technology applications 

and tools 

—centralized processing of appeals remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, 

and ongoing quality reviews of appealed claims decisions. 

An important and successful component of VA’s vision for providing a seamless 

transition for service members separating from active duty is the Benefits Delivery 

at Discharge (BDD) program. The BDD program enables active duty service members to file disability compensation claims with VA staff at military bases, complete 

physical exams, and have their claims evaluated before, or closely following, their 

military separation dates. Transitioning service members benefit greatly from the 

BDD program, which has been a vital part of the Department’s strategy for improving timeliness and accuracy of disability compensation claims processing. 

We believe the BDD program provides opportunities to not only benefit 

transitioning service members through timely and accurate claims processing, but 

also to bring new processing improvements and efficiencies to the system through 

consolidation of claims evaluation activities. An initiative is currently underway to 

consolidate disability compensation rating and authorization actions on all BDD 

claims to two sites nationwide. VA staff will continue work with transitioning service members at military bases to establish claims and arrange for timely medical 

exams, thereby retaining these successful aspects of the BDD program. 

In support of the education program, the 2006 budget proposes $7.8 million for 

continued development and implementation of the Education Expert System. The 

requested funds will be used to first transition education processing to VBA’s corporate environment, followed by the development and deployment of a processing 

system that receives application and enrollment information electronically and processes that information in the new corporate environment without human intervention. While it will be a number of years before this system is fully deployed, it will 

ultimately lead to substantial improvements in education claims processing timeliness. 

In April 2004 the Department’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Task 

Force released its report containing more than 100 recommendations on how to improve service to disabled veterans. The focus of the report was on development and 

implementation of a new, integrated service delivery system based on an employment-driven process. In response to the task force’s recommendations, VA is including $4.4 million in the 2006 resource request to be used for establishing a job resource lab in each regional office. These labs will include all of the necessary equipment, supplies, and resource materials to aid VA staff and veterans in conducting 

comprehensive analyses of local and national job outlooks, developing job search 

plans, preparing for interviews, developing resumes, and conducting thorough job 

searches. These self-service job resource labs will assist veterans in acquiring suitable employment through the use of a comprehensive on-line employment preparation and job-seeking tool. 

In order to make the delivery of VA benefits and services more convenient for veterans and more efficient for the Department, we are requesting $4.4 million for the 

collocation and relocation of some regional offices. This effort may involve collocations using enhanced-use authority, which entails an agreement with a private developer to construct a facility on Department-owned grounds and then leasing all 

or part of it back to VA. At the end of these long-term lease agreements, the land 

and all improvements revert to VA ownership. 

BURIAL

The President’s 2006 budget includes $290 million in discretionary funding for 

VA’s burial program, which includes operating and maintenance expenses for the 

National Cemetery Administration, capital programs, the administration of mandatory burial benefits, and the State Cemetery Grants program. This total is nearly 

$17 million, or 6.4 percent, over the 2005 enacted level. 

The 2006 request includes $167 million in administrative funding for VA’s burial 

program, an increase of $7.3 million (or 4.6 percent) from the 2005 enacted level. 

Within this total, $156 million is for the operations and maintenance of VA’s national cemeteries and $11 million is for the administrative processing of claims for 
103 

burial benefits. The additional funding will be used to meet the growing workload 

at existing cemeteries, primarily by increasing staffing and contract maintenance. 

The growth in workload is a direct result of the aging of the veteran population. 

The annual number of veteran deaths continues to rise and VA projects an increase 

in interments of about 4 percent a year for the next several years. 

Our budget request for the burial program includes $90 million for construction 

projects. Of this total, $65 million is for major projects and $25 million is for minor 

projects. Consistent with the provisions of the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 

2003, we are requesting $41 million in major construction funding for land acquisition for six new national cemeteries in the areas of Bakersfield, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; 

Sarasota, Florida; and southeastern Pennsylvania. The 2006 request also includes 

funding to develop an annex for the expansion of Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery 

in Miramar, California. In addition, this budget provides $32 million for the State 

Cemetery Grants program. 

Our resource investments in the burial program produce positive results in service 

delivery to veterans and their families. We will expand access by increasing the percent of veterans served by a burial option within 75 miles of their residence to 82.2 

percent in 2006, which is 6.9 percentage points above the 2004 figure. While our 

2004 performance was extremely high in several key areas, we will continue to improve our performance in 2006. We have established the following performance goals 

for 2006: 

—increase to 96 percent (from 94 percent in 2004) those who rate the quality of 

service provided by the national cemeteries as excellent 

—increase to 99 percent (from 98 percent in 2004) those who rate national cemetery appearance as excellent 

—increase to 89 percent (from 87 percent in 2004) the proportion of graves in national cemeteries marked within 60 days of interment. 

These performance improvements will further enhance the outstanding reputation 

of VA’s National Cemetery Administration which, in 2004, earned the highest rating 

ever achieved by a public or private organization in the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). These results demonstrated that the Department’s national 

cemeteries produced a customer satisfaction rating of 95 out of a possible 100 points. 

This is two points higher than the last survey conducted in 2001 when VA’s national 

cemeteries also ranked number one among Federal agencies in customer satisfaction. 

MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

VA continues to aggressively pursue a variety of initiatives aimed at ensuring we 

apply sound business principles to all of the Department’s operations. Two of our 

most successful management improvement efforts during the last year focus on the 

strategic management of human capital and capital asset management. 

As an integral component of our succession planning activities, we released a 

state-of-the-art ‘‘VA Recruitment’’ CD–ROM in September 2004 promoting the Department as an employer of choice. We distributed this to colleges and universities, 

military transition centers, veterans organizations, and VA vocational rehabilitation 

centers, offices, and medical centers. This initiative creates a corporate recruitment 

marketing approach that will give VA a competitive edge in attracting highly-qualified career applicants. The CD–ROM uses graphics and video streaming to present 

a wide spectrum of career opportunities and describes VA’s goals and services, occupations, and the benefits of working for the Department. We will continue to focus 

on creative marketing initiatives and outreach to prospective applicants. 

VA has also launched a Capital Asset Management System (CAMS) which is an 

integrated, Department-wide system that enables us to establish, analyze, monitor, 

and manage our portfolio of diverse capital assets through their entire lifecycle from 

formulation through disposal. CAMS provides a strategic view of existing, in-process, and proposed asset investments across all VA program offices and capital asset 

types. All offices now use this shared system to collect and monitor real property 

and capital asset information. In addition, VA has been approached by numerous 

agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and 

Interior to explore the replication of CAMS in their organizations. 

VA’s progress in this area places it in the forefront of other Federal agencies in 

terms of its ability to meet the real property performance measures and guidelines 

that were recently finalized by the newly created Federal Real Property Council. 

We are currently in the process of fully evaluating all of the information gathered 

during the operational tests of the Core Financial and Logistics System (CoreFLS) 

conducted last year. This year we will complete a comprehensive analysis of the 
104 

product and any existing configuration gaps, examine lessons learned from the pilot 

tests, and reevaluate our business processes. This will provide us with the information needed to refine the system as well as develop improved change management, 

training, and implementation procedures that are critical to successful deployment. 

In anticipation of an enhanced financial management system moving forward to full 

deployment at VA facilities nationwide, the Department’s 2006 budget includes 

$70.1 million for this project. 

In support of one of the primary electronic government initiatives for improving internal efficiencies and effectiveness, the Department’s 2006 budget provides $8 

million to continue the migration of VA’s payroll services to the Defense Finance 

and Accounting Service (DFAS). This initiative will consolidate 26 Federal payroll 

systems down to 2 Federal payroll provider partnerships. VA is working with DFAS 

on all required tasks to ensure successful migration. 

CLOSING

In summary, Madam Chairman, our 2006 budget request of $70.8 billion will provide the resources necessary for VA to: 

—provide timely, high-quality health care to more than 5.2 million patients; 78 

percent of all veteran patients will be veterans with service-connected disabilities, those with lower incomes, or veterans with special health care needs 

—maintain the 2005 performance level of 145 days, on average, to process compensation and pension claims 

—increase access to our burial program by ensuring that more than 82 percent 

of veterans will be served by a burial option within 75 miles of their residence. 

I look forward to working with the members of this committee to continue the Department’s tradition of providing timely, high-quality benefits and services to those 

who have helped defend and preserve freedom around the world. 

That concludes my formal remarks. My staff and I will be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I would like to have a 5-minute round. Each of us can have one 

round and then we will definitely have a second and maybe a third. 

First of all, Mr. Secretary, I certainly agree with the Veterans 

Administration’s principle that we should focus on care for priority 

1 through 6 veterans. I think everyone would agree that that 

should be our highest priority. Do you agree that we must have full 

funding for those priority 1 through 6 veterans, whatever else happens? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Yes, Madam Chairman. This budget reflects that. We have a mandate to take care of those veterans who 

need us the most, and that is those veterans who have been injured 

as a result of their service or become ill, including mental illness 

as a result of that service, those that are down and out, the poor, 

indigent, and those in need of unique, special care, and that is 

those categories. 

Senator HUTCHISON. This is my question. If the policy provisions 

regarding 7’s and 8’s with the added enrollment fees and co-payments were not enacted, would there still be full funding in this 

budget for priorities 1 through 6? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Yes, Madam Chairman, there would. We 

would still be able to take care of those priorities. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

THIRD PARTY COLLECTIONS

Along that line, I understand that you have the authority to collect payments from private health insurance for the cost of treating 

veterans’ non-service-connected disabilities. So when we are looking at the priority 7’s and 8’s, which have become really the growth 

area for the medical care for veterans, according to the GAO your 
105 

present collection rate is only 41 percent and your fiscal year 2006 

budget submission sets a target of only 41 percent. I wondered why 

this collection target seems low and if you are looking at trying to 

improve that collection rate and perhaps a different way to get 

more income from the 7’s and 8’s to make sure that we are doing 

the best we can with what we have. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Let me respond in part, Madam Chairman, and then I am going to ask Dr. Perlin to comment. It is 6 

weeks today that I have been Secretary, so there are just one or 

two things that I do not know yet. 

Senator HUTCHISON. We understand totally and we are not expecting perfection until next year. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. It is a very important question. You will 

note that in this budget proposal it shows collections being up by 

15 percent over last year. I will say that I think the VA has shown 

a commendable transformation in its culture, going from virtually 

no collections, a no-collection culture habit mandate, to in a very 

short time, collecting a significant amount of money. But it is still 

a work in process. It is very important. 

I will ask Dr. Perlin if he would comment further. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Dr. Perlin. 

Dr. PERLIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The Secretary is absolutely right in terms of our Veterans Health Administration 

learning how to collect, and the progress has been substantial. In 

fact, in 2001, our collections were on the order of $700 million. 

Today they will approach in the 2006 budget on the order of $2.1 

billion. That budget builds in an 11 percent increase, or collections 

of $211 million additional. 

I think the 41 percent is important because we need to keep 

moving up, but I would note that it is unadjusted for Medicare. As 

you know, we cannot collect for Medicare, but the figure actually 

reflects the funds that we are not able to collect. So actually it is 

artificially deflated. We do benchmark against private sector, and 

we have been using gross days revenue outstanding, and I am 

pleased to say that we are closing in on setting aggressive targets. 

But your point is well taken. We will continue to push the aggressive collections. 

[The information follows:] 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is not allowed (by law) to bill and collect 

from Medicare. The unadjusted billing to collection ratio of 41 percent reflects the 

large number of over-65, Medicare-eligible population that VA serves which cannot 

be billed or collected. VA maintains an adjusted billing to collection ratio which accounts for the Medicare-eligible population and this ratio has been in the 75 percent 

range for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 and provides a more realistic measure of performance. 

To improve the collections to billings Medicare-adjusted ratio, VA is taking the following actions: 

—Metric Calculation.—Collections to billings calculation attempts to quantify net 

billings by projecting net amounts due from third parties and secondary payors. 

The current calculation utilizes national data and does not fully reflect VISN 

differences in population compositions (veterans older and younger than 65) and 

Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) penetration that impacts this performance metric. 

—Action.—The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is working to enhance 

the metric calculation for fiscal year 2006 to incorporate population variations 

and HMO penetration differences that could impact overall results. Also, full 

implementation of the e-MRA (Medicare-equivalent remittance advice) system 
106 

throughout VHA will improve the specificity of predicting these net realizable 

amounts. 

—Denial-Management Tracking System.—The private sector approaches aggressively the identification, tracking, and resolution of third-party denials. VHA is 

presently establishing several best-practice denial-management initiatives at 

the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) level. 

—Action.—VHA is working to compile the best practices from the VISN pilots 

and roll out a comprehensive national denial-management strategy in the upcoming months. 

—Formalized Managed-Care Contracts.—The private sector has the ability to 

project net billings with great specificity due to established contract rates with 

managed-care payors, which can easily be loaded into their systems to track deviations due to over- and under-payments. 

—Action.—VHA has established a National Payor Compliance Office (NPCO) to 

assist VISNs in addressing negotiations strategically with managed-care 

payors. As this process matures, VHA will be able to track expected reimbursements better, similar to the private sector. 

—Enhanced Development of Revenue-Cycle Productivity Tools.—The private sector 

has invested considerable time and effort to ensure that the necessary staff and 

resources are dedicated to the revenue cycle. VHA actively monitors monthly 

performance of its facilities though use of a web-based system (POWER) that 

reports performance using a stop-light color-coded approach. This system is considered a best practice when compared to private-industry standards. The 

VISNs have also adopted monitoring tools to measure productivity and to ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to the revenue-cycle collection 

process. 

—Action.—VHA is taking a leadership role to extend nationally the best practices identified at the VISN level to improve overall effectiveness in the collection process. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I guess that would be my point. Would you 

continue to look for ways where there is an outside insurer, a private insurer, that we would make as many of those collections as 

absolutely possible to offset costs? 

My time is up, and I would like to give my colleagues a chance 

to have a first round of questions before this vote starts. Senator 

Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. I appreciate that. 

GRANTS FOR STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES

Mr. Nicholson, the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request for 

the VA suspends grants for the State extended care facilities. 

Could you explain to us why it is necessary to impose a 1-year moratorium on grants for construction of long-term extended care facilities when there is such a need for VA homes throughout this 

Nation? How would this affect the current priorities list for funding 

under this program? Do you anticipate altering this list in fiscal 

year 2007? 

California, my State, with three homes and 2.3 million veterans 

is one of two States classified under great need in regard to home 

funding. The State plans to request $125 million in fiscal year 2007 

under this grant program to fund its largest project to date which 

is the greater Los Angeles, Ventura County home which includes 

three separate facilities. How would the 1-year moratorium impact 

funding for this project? 

So there are essentially three questions in one. If you want me 

to go one by one, I will. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Thank you, Senator. It is an important 

area. Let me address the suspension of the grants. In this budget, 
107 

I think it would reflect a reduction of just over $100 million for this 

coming fiscal year 2006. I am going to ask Dr. Perlin if he would 

address the specifics as to California. 

Dr. PERLIN. Thank you, Senator. Let me start with the piece of 

the question you asked about the 2005 commitments. The commitments are proceeding as was planned. I would have to get back to 

you with the specific information on California. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And how will this affect 2007? 

Dr. PERLIN. I think I would be unable to speculate in terms of 

the future. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. So what you are telling me then is 

you do not know about California. You do not know about the future, and it is a 1-year moratorium essentially. 

Could you tell me what the rationale for a 1-year moratorium is 

when the needs are so great? 

[The information follows:] 

The fiscal year 2006 VA budget proposes a 1-year moratorium on new grants to 

States for construction and renovation of extended care facilities. This will permit 

VA to complete an assessment of its nationwide institutional long-term care infrastructure and ensure that future construction aligns with the areas of greatest projected need. Grants that have already been awarded will not be affected by the 1- 

year moratorium. 

VA has already committed to all planned fiscal year 2005 projects on the current 

Priority List. The States are currently completing the requirements for fiscal year 

2005 grant awards. VA has committed the maximum fiscal year 2005 appropriations 

and the remaining fiscal year 2004 carryover funds to these projects. 

The Priority List is revised annually, as of August 15th. All new and existing 

pending projects are ranked and included in the annual list. Once approved by the 

Secretary, the list is used to identify ranked projects and commit funding for 

projects for that fiscal year award or to finalize conditionally approved projects. For 

fiscal year 2007, VA would follow the same procedures and commit funds available 

at that time to the projects in rank order. VA cannot predict at this time how the 

California project will be ranked in fiscal year 2007 or whether there will be sufficient appropriations to fund it. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Well, I can address the issue in brief, Senator. If you take a look at the VA as a whole, it has gone through 

a major transformation from being a hospital-centered medical care 

provider to a clinical-centered provider and more outreach and 

moving out more to where the veterans are. 

The same philosophy is operating in extended care. We are finding that it is very often both more efficient and effective to treat 

institutional care people or what used to be institutionalized people 

in a non-institutionalized setting using the new tools that are 

available of telemedicine, telehealth, social workers, people being 

allowed to remain in their homes or closer to their homes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think I see where you are going, and correct me if I am wrong. Is this then an effort to begin to phase out 

long-term care for veterans and sort of go to an outpatient treatment process? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Well, I think there are certainly some people that will need long-term care. There are some people who are 

not candidates for the new capabilities that we have for extended 

non-institutionalized care. So no, I do not think it is a path toward 

the end of them, but it is a trend and one that is finding a lot of 

satisfaction among the people being treated that remain at home. 

They have a social worker come there and provide them with care 

and bathing. With the electronics that we have now, we can take 
108 

blood pressure, get their blood sugar, and all that on-line daily 

with a medical mentor talking to them in their home. If they need 

care, we can then move them. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me just, if I might, say a word on behalf 

of the 2.2 million veterans in my State. California is a very high 

cost-of-living State. The extended care facilities are very expensive 

for the most part, particularly if an individual does not have Medicaid or Medicare. I guess what I hope is that this is just not an 

effort to absolve us of the Federal responsibility to take care of veterans in later years who cannot take care of themselves and push 

it onto the State because I think the veterans are not then going 

to be well cared for. So I will leave you with that. 

Senator Craig. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much. I think we are going 

to run out of time rapidly here, Senator Feinstein, as it relates to 

a vote that is now underway. 

Mr. Secretary, from my initial visit with you and our initial hearing on your budget, we have proposed a variety of changes, somewhat different from what you proposed, which we think will offer 

a little more flexibility in funding and still meet all of the needs 

that you have projected are out there and the savings that you 

have projected are out there. 

PER DIEM PAYMENT POLICY TO STATE HOMES

There are many that concern me and I think concern all of us, 

but the State home program, by most accounts, has been a very 

successful partnership between the Federal and State governments 

for the care of aging veterans, and yet VA proposed to modify this 

past per diem payment policy, a change in policy the VA says 

would reduce the number of State beds by more than 50 percent. 

We have, obviously, disagreed on that and are proposing not to do 

so. 

Why does VA want the States to reduce the number of State 

home beds? I guess that would be the first question. Even if VA 

does not want to provide institutional care for the non-service-connected, why does it want to discourage States from attempting to 

meet that need? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Well, one of the things operating here, 

Senator Craig, is a goal of getting in uniform conformance with the 

law from the VA’s perspective, which is that those people eligible 

for long-term institutional care are those that are 70 percent disabled or more. The goal, as I have stated to Senator Feinstein, of— 

you know, realizing the benefits of the care more in the community 

where the people are. 

I am not sure that the VA is desirous of the States getting out 

of the long-term institutional care. 

Senator CRAIG. I guess then the question, does VA believe that 

it has the legal authority to simply stop paying per diem payments 

to the States for the care of veterans VA does not define as a priority? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. No, I do not think so. I think there would 

be a legislative piece needed. I could also say that this budget does 

not contemplate that a veteran that is in a facility who really needs 

to be there would be moved from that bed. 
109 

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. Well, I am going to run out of time, 

and I need to go vote. So I am going to put the committee at recess 

until the chairman returns. So with that, the committee will stand 

in recess. 

Thank you all very much for being here today. 

Senator HUTCHISON [presiding]. I am going to call the committee 

back to order. We will try to finish the questions. 

TRANSITIONAL PHARMACY BENEFIT PILOT PROGRAM

Let me ask you about the transitional pharmacy benefit pilot 

program. Last year the Department implemented the transitional 

pharmacy benefit pilot program to allow veterans on the waiting 

list to have their privately written prescriptions filled at the VA 

without seeing a VA physician. I think this makes great sense, and 

tying up VA doctors just to write a prescription when someone can 

get one outside probably is not the best use of their time. 

I understand the pilot did achieve its goal of improving access to 

VA prescription drugs, but there were implementation errors reported by the Inspector General. I am concerned that maybe the errors did not give an accurate assessment of whether this type of 

program should be continued. So I wanted to ask you what is the 

status of that pilot program and is it something that you are going 

to implement as a policy? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Madam Chairman, this budget does not 

contemplate that. There was that pilot program and it encompassed 48,000 people. What was most notable I think about that 

was that approximately half of those prescriptions that were presented for filling by the VA pharmacies were requesting pharmaceuticals that did not meet the formulary inventory of the VA. So 

it caused difficulties for people on both sides of that transaction, as 

well as the need then for VA functionaries who were very dutiful 

to call the prescriber, if they could find them, to see if they could 

prescribe a comparable for the patient that was in our formulary 

holding. 

I will ask Dr. Perlin, who was there and has been through that 

test, if he would like to elaborate. 

Dr. PERLIN. Madam Chairman, thank you for your interest in 

this area. I know it has been positive that the substitution of the 

ability to fill pharmaceuticals might relieve some of the waiting 

when, in fact, a patient wants just a prescription. 

By way of disclosure, I would need to indicate that we have 

learned from the transition pharmacy benefit a few facts. As Secretary Nicholson said, almost half of the prescriptions were off of 

our formulary. Even with negotiation, it was still a much, much 

higher rate of non-formulary, which meant that we did not achieve 

some of the efficiencies in terms of cost of the prescription that we 

would in our normal course of practice. So it is something that I 

think deserves further consideration, and I would want to consult 

with the Secretary in terms of his future thoughts on the topic. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I understand the point that was being 

made that perhaps it ends up not being a good tradeoff. You save 

the doctor’s time, but you make it harder for the pharmacies and 

maybe more expensive. So I would like for you to look at it again 

just to see if it is worth continuing a pilot or if you determine that 
110 

the good does not outweigh the bad. It just seemed like a good concept. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. So noted, Madam Chairman. It is something that we have discussed quite a bit actually in the few weeks 

that I have been there because on its face it does seem to have a 

lot of appeal, especially some of those prescribers have been Medicare paid doctors so the public is already paying for that service. 

MEDICAL PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me ask you a question on the research 

budget. The budget request proposes a $9.3 million cut to the medical and prosthetic research account. But I wanted to ask you if you 

feel that that is going to be enough. 

Further, Secretary Principi had made a commitment of $15 million a year for the Gulf War Syndrome research for a 4-year period 

for a total of $60 million. That is something that is very important 

to me because I think our veterans got very short-changed when 

they came home with these symptoms, that in a previous administration, were sort of swept aside as, well, it was post-traumatic 

stress syndrome type thing, and it turns out that there is a causal 

connection between brain damage and exposure to chemicals. We, 

through the Veterans Administration under Secretary Principi, 

were on the road to making that a larger study, with the long-term 

goal of, of course, getting antidotes for that or trying to determine 

if someone is predisposed because of a brain deficiency—an enzyme 

deficiency, that is—to not send someone to an area where there 

might be chemical weapons. 

My question is does this cut in the budget give you enough funding for your Department to do all of the things that are a priority 

and is Gulf War Syndrome research still going to get the full $60 

million commitment, in $15 million increments, that Secretary 

Principi had said he would do? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Madam Chairman, this budget is 

$1,653,000,000 for research in total. We are asking for an appropriation of $786 million. That is sufficient to underwrite something 

like 2,700 different research projects. 

As to your question, is there sufficient funding in here approved 

for the current year Gulf War illness research of $15 million, the 

answer is yes. 

We have had some discussion about the $60 million, the 4-year 

program, and counsel to me is that it is not a hard commitment. 

That has been discussed. What I will say to you is that the $15 

million is absolutely in here, and the subsequent years, as I get 

more familiar with it, I will take a very serious look at this. But 

we will probably be back to you in discussion with this. 

I think the answer to your question overall is that there is 

enough in this to do the research that we think should be done. 

There is a $100 million in this budget for prosthetics, and there 

is an increase of $100 million for PTSD research and application. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Could you clarify? You are saying that the 

$60 million over the 4 years is not a commitment. So are you saying that $15 million is in for this year but you are not making a 

commitment for future years? 
111 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Well, I am going to first ask the general 

counsel if he would address that from his perspective, and then I 

will respond. 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Madam Chairman, we do have $15 million in additional research funding for the Gulf War illnesses. That is for 

this particular year in unspecified projects but they will go toward 

Gulf War research. As far as future years, we really cannot speculate as to what might come out in future years for research dollars, 

but certainly we have been committed over several years now to 

putting additional resources toward Gulf War research. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Secretary, do you consider that the Gulf 

War Syndrome is a legitimate area for research? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Yes, I do. I know something about that. I 

have been briefed by a team of doctors on that, and I think that 

is a very legitimate area to try to understand. So that is not an 

issue for me, but we have to do it legally. 

I would like to ask Dr. Perlin, if I could, Madam Chairman, if 

he would comment a bit on the current status of the research. 

Dr. PERLIN. Madam Chairman, this is an absolutely critical area. 

Right now we have 146 separate projects on environmental exposures at a cost of about $35 million in the 2006 budget proposed. 

In the area of Gulf War illnesses, VA has funded 111 projects 

since 1991 and currently there are 48 ongoing. VA’s commitment 

to date has been $73 million. The Federal commitment has been in 

excess of $300 million. Of that $15 million, I can tell you that right 

now $5 million have been executed late this spring. There is a request for applications to make sure that we have the best research 

in that area. 

I think one of the most promising endeavors this year, something 

that we worked hard with the Research Advisory Committee on 

Gulf War Illnesses to develop is a new center for the study of promising treatments for Gulf War illness. While we may not have full 

insight into the mechanisms of what causes these unexplained 

symptoms, we passionately feel the obligation to care for these veterans to treat their symptoms. This new center promises to help us 

align our best tools to understand what treatments may be promising. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So you are not in any way saying it is not 

a priority. You will be saying that it is a priority. Is that what you 

are saying? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Yes, exactly. 

DALLAS VA MEDICAL CENTER

Senator HUTCHISON. I wanted to talk about a couple of local 

issues. First of all, in November of 2004, your own Department 

ranked the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center the worst VA 

hospital in the country. Of course, that was a revelation to many 

people in the Dallas area. I know improvements have been made. 

I know that the head of that hospital is no longer there. But I just 

wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, if you are satisfied that the 

changes being made there are bringing that VA hospital up to your 

standards. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Yes. That has been problematic. I noted 

that as soon as I began getting briefed for this job. As you noted, 
112 

some of the key management personnel have been replaced. There 

have been several reviews made of that internal. An accrediting association has looked at that. They found some deficiencies and have 

given recommendations to us to institute. I am satisfied that those 

corrective measures are underway. We have some good new people 

in place, but it is something that is very important and we are 

keeping an eye on. 

Senator HUTCHISON. That is what I was going to follow up and 

ask. Is there a mechanism by which, when you have a hospital that 

gets this low a rating, you would go in and check more carefully 

and more frequently to assure that the changes are being implemented? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. I am going to ask Dr. Perlin to answer 

that. 

Dr. PERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Madam Chairman, absolutely. We are following up with objective 

evidence of improvement. We have the performance measurement 

system throughout the VHA. As our Inspector General noted, the 

performance was not where the citizens of Texas and Dallas deserved. That is changing already objectively on the basis of data. 

We can demonstrate that there is significant improvement. 

In addition to a new director, Betty Brown, there is also a new 

associate director, Dan Heers, a new chief of staff, a new chief 

nursing executive. And my own calls to individuals down there tell 

me that the progress has been light-speed. 

I would note to you that I plan to make a visit to Dallas in April 

to assure myself that what I am seeing on paper is actually represented as the best improvements. 

I think it is important to note that while there have been some 

individuals who have been problematic, that part of my job is to 

encourage the 90 percent of the staff that really go above and beyond to give their best for the veterans. So I want to make sure 

that the message is complete, that we sanction and improve and 

hold accountable where we need to, but that we also encourage and 

support those individuals who really do give our veterans their 

best. 

WACO AND BIG SPRING, TEXAS SITES

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. I would be very interested, after 

your visit, in hearing what your findings are. 

There are two veterans sites that are in the 18 in the CARES 

plan that are cited as needing more study. One is in Waco. I have 

discussed this with you, Mr. Secretary. 

The Waco facility is a campus. It is a beautiful campus. It is 

under-utilized, that is for sure. The care that it gives is excellent. 

The mental health care, from everything that we could tell, did a 

very solid, good job. But the plan now is for there to be a master 

plan for the Waco facility that is supposed to be put together with 

the city leaders in Waco and the consultants from the VA. I just 

wanted to ask you if we can expect that you would continue the 

commitment to look for a master plan for that site so that it can 

be efficiently used. 

One of the things that I did not quite understand in the CARES 

Commission report is that they closed two smaller clinics and rec-
113 

ommended that there be a VA clinic built in Waco. It just seemed 

to me that with the facility there being under-utilized that perhaps 

having the clinic move to the long-term care facility that there 

might be an added benefit there and be the right thing for the veterans in the area as well as for the efficient operation that you 

would be seeking. 

So do you have any status report on that, or can you just at least 

say that we will have the master plan moving forward and that the 

Department will work with the community leaders for that plan? 

Secretary NICHOLSON. Absolutely I can say that, Madam Chairman. In fact, I am planning to go to Waco myself hopefully in 

April. I want to go down there and get on the ground and see the 

facilities, not to preempt the process but so that I know and have 

a feeling myself for the physical assets that are there. I know that 

the continued process out of the CARES process is underway, and 

I think that will run its course and have great community involvement. We are very committed and interested in that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I certainly am pleased that you are 

going there. I hope I can join you. So I would like to call your office 

and see if we can do that together. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. We will try to coordinate. 

Senator HUTCHISON. There is a second facility at Big Spring. It 

is a hospital that I visited a few months ago. It is in a central location which is 40 miles from Midland, 60 miles from Odessa, 87 

miles from San Angelo, and 110 miles from Abilene. The next closest VA hospital is 200 miles from any of those locations. 

I had asked Secretary Principi to consider a public/private partnership between the Big Spring VA and Scenic Mountain Medical 

Center to increase the services to the veterans in that area. It is 

the area that all of those communities support the VA hospital because it is the most centrally located. As you know, we have two 

Air Force bases, one in Abilene and one in San Angelo, that feed 

into that veterans hospital, plus Midland and Odessa feeding in. 

And if you put it in any of the other places, it would be much farther from other population centers. 

So I would ask that you also visit that one—it might be a good 

day to go to both of those at the same time—and look at the possibilities of, again, making your service more efficient but keeping it 

at the Big Spring facility where you already have a major investment. 

Secretary NICHOLSON. I will try to do that, Madam Chairman. I 

am committed to Waco. I will see if we can make it work at Big 

Spring. I would like to. I can tell you, as you probably know, I 

think the first open forum of that advisory board for Big Spring is 

scheduled to meet, I think, April 7 for the first time with our consultant, Price Waterhouse. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I know this is all pretty overwhelming 

and you have only been there a short time. But I would look forward to working with you to assure that the community has its 

input and that we can do the best for the veterans in the area. I 

think you will be pleased when you see both of those facilities. 
114 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

MAJOR CHALLENGES AND GOALS

Questions. I recognize you have been in office only a few weeks, but I would like 

to hear your preliminary observations about the Department. 

Specifically, what do you see as the Department’s main challenges? 

As VA Secretary, what are the main goals you would like to achieve before the 

end of your tenure? 

Answers. 

Challenges 

VA is a very large, multi-business organization requiring diverse management 

service delivery skills. More than 220,000 dedicated VA employees operate its 157 

hospitals, 134 nursing homes, 860 outpatient clinics, 57 regional benefit offices, and 

120 national cemeteries and receive pre-discharge claims for disability benefits at 

139 military sites. They strive to provide world- class service to America’s deserving 

veterans who seek (1) health care; (2) the benefits they have earned to restore their 

capability and ensure a smooth transition from active military service to civilian 

life; and (3) honor and fitting memorials in death. 

Our single greatest challenge is making sure our veterans receive the highest return on the taxpayers’ dollar. To do that, VA needs to make sure it operates with 

only the best business practices in place. This alone, will make it easier for our veterans to access the quality care and services we provide. We must continually improve our business practices, maximize sharing opportunities with DOD and others 

and focus our services on those most in need. I look forward to tackling the challenges of ensuring best practices in all areas of VA endeavor and building on today’s 

successes for even greater achievements in the future. 

Goals 

—I want to ensure that timely access to medical care continues to improve for 

those who depend on VA the most, and I want to ensure that significant improvements in both accuracy and consistency of benefit entitlement decisions 

are a primary focus across regional offices. 

—I want to achieve the right balance of informed, centralized policy decision-making with appropriate, responsible decentralized implementation at levels closest 

to the provision of day-to-day services to our veterans. 

—I want to lead VA to the forefront of integrating accountability systems based 

on results. VA provides essential, life-saving and life-enhancing services for 

America’s veterans, and I want the Department to be able to articulate, based 

on solid metrics, the incredible results that are achieved on an on-going basis 

for veterans, their dependents and survivors. 

—I want to continue to build on the objective measures currently being used to 

assess maximum resource-allocation efficiency so that every dollar is invested 

wisely toward the outcome of improving veterans’ lives. 

—I want to sharpen this organization’s focuses on improved information and 

knowledge management and human-capital development. 

Madam Chairman, there is so much more I could address, but first and foremost, 

I want to ensure that all 220,000 employees of this Department strive every day 

to improve the lot of those heroic, selfless Americans we are privileged to serve— 

our Nation’s veterans. 

VETERANS RETURNING FROM IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Question. There are concerns about VA’s ability and capacity to treat all returning 

service members from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). 

Further, there have been media reports of some returning veterans who are falling 

through the cracks and experiencing such things as delayed benefits and medical 

care and homelessness. 

For the record, do you have enough resources to meet the needs of all returning 

veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan for this current fiscal year 2005? 

Answer. 

Dr. PERLIN. Yes, VA has the necessary resources in fiscal year 2005 to continue 

meeting the needs of all returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
115 

Admiral COOPER. VA has the resources, capacity, and systems in place to provide 

priority care and claims processing for all seriously injured veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the resources available to continue our highly successful Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) program, through which service members are able 

to file disability compensation claims prior to their separation from service. Their 

claims are then processed expeditiously immediately upon the service members’ separation from service. Last year claims filed through the BDD program were processed in an average of 55 days, compared to the national average for all disability 

determinations of 165 days. We have the resources to conduct briefings for separating members of the active components and specialized outreach to demobilized 

reserve component forces. In fiscal year 2004 we conducted benefit briefings for 

more than 88,000 members of the Guard and Reserve. VA will continue to meet its 

responsibilities to America’s current returning war veterans while working to lower 

inventories, reduce claims processing times, and deal with high claims activity by 

veterans from earlier service periods. 

Question. Does the budget request for fiscal year 2006 provide adequate funding 

to meet the needs of all returning OEF and OIF veterans? 

Answer. 

Dr. PERLIN. Yes, VA requested the necessary resources in fiscal year 2006 to continue meeting the needs of all veterans who have suffered injuries or diseases as 

a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Admiral COOPER. The funding request for 2006 is adequate and will enable us to 

continue the efforts described in the previous response. 

Question. Has the VA exhausted all means to reach service members who may 

separate from active duty? Has the VA used public service announcements? 

Answer. While there is always more that could be done to reach veterans and 

their families, VA has extensive outreach programs for returning service personnel, 

including Reserve/National Guard members. 

News Releases.—Last year, VA produced a 30-second public service video entitled 

‘‘Our Turn to Serve’’ which was distributed to domestic viewing markets near or at 

major military transition and separation bases. It was placed as a streaming video 

file on the VA Internet Web site and marketed electronically to other domestic TV 

station programmers in markets with large military populations. It is now about to 

run on AFRTS outlets serving military based overseas. A new VA outreach video 

program, ‘‘The American Veteran,’’ is airing on the Pentagon Channel, which 

reaches military audiences at Department of Defense (DOD) installations, communities, and sites in this country and around the world. It is a half-hour video magazine featuring stories and information of interest to military personnel and veterans 

that focuses on their benefits and how they can access and use them. This is a continuing series of monthly programs that will be marketed domestically to cable systems, PBS stations, and community access cable. 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and Other Military Services Briefings.— 

From October 2002 through January 2005, VBA military services coordinators conducted transition briefings and related personal interviews in the United States as 

reflected in the chart below. These briefings include pre- and post-deployment briefings for Reserve and National Guard members. 

OVERALL BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees No. interviews 

2003 ........................................................................................................... 5,368 197,082 97,352 

2004 ........................................................................................................... 7,210 261,391 115,576 

2005 1 ......................................................................................................... 2,263 79,105 34,106 

1 Through January 2005. 

In addition to military services briefings in the U.S., VBA representatives conduct 

briefings overseas under arrangement with DOD. VBA provides two tours each year 

with 6 to 7 VBA representatives providing this service for each tour. Each is homebased at a major military site and provides services at the site and surrounding 

areas. The countries serviced are England, Germany, Japan, and Italy. Korea is 

serviced by staff from the Benefits Delivery at Discharge office in Yong San. A representative from the St. Petersburg Regional Office provides that service for Guantanamo Bay. We were recently requested by DOD to add Bahrain to our overseas 

schedule beginning with the May 2005 tour. The following chart reflects statistics 

regarding overseas briefings: 
116 

OVERSEAS BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees No. interviews 

2003 ........................................................................................................... 472 12,943 12,947 

2004 ........................................................................................................... 624 15,183 6,544

2005 1 ......................................................................................................... 36 1,278 464 

1 Through January 2005. 

Briefings for Reserve/Guard Members.—Outreach to Reserve/Guard members is 

part of the overall VBA outreach program. In peacetime, this outreach is generally 

accomplished on an ‘‘on call’’ or ‘‘as requested’’ basis. With the activation and deployment of large numbers of Reserve/Guard members following the September 11, 

2001, attack on America, and the onset of OEF/OIF, VBA outreach to this group 

has been greatly expanded. National and local contacts have been made with Reserve/Guard officials to schedule pre- and post-mobilization briefings for their members. Returning Reserve/Guard members can also elect to attend the formal threeday TAP workshops. The following data on Reserve/Guard briefings is a subset of 

the Overall Briefings data provided in the first chart: 

RESERVE/GUARD BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees 

2003 ........................................................................................................................................ 821 46,675 

2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 1,399 88,366 

2005 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 531 32,448 

1Through January 2005. 

Briefings Aboard Ships.—VA provided TAP briefings aboard the USS Constellation, the USS Enterprise, and the USS George Washington on their return from the 

Persian Gulf to the United States. VBA will continue to support requests from the 

Department of the Navy for TAP workshops aboard ships. 

Seamless Transition—Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) 

In 2003, VA began placing Veterans Service Representatives at key military treatment facilities (MTFs) where severely wounded service members from OEF/OIF are 

frequently sent. Representatives of the VBA Benefits Delivery at Discharge office in 

Germany work closely with the staff at the Landstuhl Army Medical Center to assist returning injured service members who are patients at that facility and family 

members temporarily residing at the Fischer House. 

Since March 2003, a VBA OEF/OIF coordinator is assigned for each MTF. Full 

time staff is assigned to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., 

and the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland. Similar teams work with patients and family members at three other MTFs serving as key medical centers for 

seriously wounded returning troops: Eisenhower, Brooke, and Madigan Army Medical Centers. Itinerant service is conducted at all other major military treatment facilities. As of January 2005, over 4,500 hospitalized returning service members were 

assisted through this program at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Eisenhower, Brooke, and 

Madigan. Since March 2003, each claim from a seriously disabled OEF/OIF veteran 

has been case managed for seamless and expeditious processing. 

Web Page.—As part of the Seamless Transition effort, VBA created a new web 

page for OEF/OIF, directly accessible from the VA homepage. Information specific 

to Reserve/Guard members who were activated is included, as well as links to other 

Federal benefits of interest to returning service members. The web page has been 

accessed over 340,000 times since its activation in December 2003. 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD).—VA’s BDD program operates in concert 

with the military services outreach program. Under BDD, service members can 

apply for disability compensation within 180 days before discharge. The required 

physical examinations are conducted and service medical records are reviewed prior 

to discharge. The goal is to adjudicate claims within 30 days following discharge. 

Upon receipt of the claimant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Release from Active Military 

Service), benefits are immediately authorized so that the recently separated veteran 

can receive his/her first disability check the month following the month of discharge 

or shortly thereafter. Currently, 141 military installations worldwide participate in 

this program, including two sites in Germany and three in Korea. Approximately 

26,000 BDD claims were finalized in fiscal year 2003; 40,000 in fiscal year 2004; 

and 12,000 in fiscal year 2005 to date. 
117 

Recently-Separated Veterans 

Veterans Assistance at Discharge System (VADS).—All separating and retiring 

service members (including Reserve/Guard members) receive a ‘‘Welcome Home 

Package’’ that includes a letter from the Secretary, a copy of VA Pamphlet 21–00– 

1, A Summary of VA Benefits, and VA Form 21–0501, Veterans Benefits Timetable, 

through VADS. Similar information is again mailed with a 6-month follow-up letter. 

Secretary’s Outreach Letter to Returning Service Members.—Outreach letters from 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs have been sent to approximately 240,000 returning 

service members who have separated/retired from active duty. Enclosed with the letters are copies of VA Pamphlet 21–00–1, A Summary of VA Benefits, and IB 10– 

164, A Summary of VA Benefits for National Guard and Reserve Personnel. 

PRIORITY 7 AND 8 VETERANS

Question. Clearly, we must ensure full funding for Priority 1 through 6 veterans, 

but I am also concerned about our Priority 7 and 8 veterans. 

Given the escalating costs of private health care insurance and cuts to other publicly funded programs, what is going to happen to the tens of thousands of uninsured Priority 7 and 8 veterans? Has the VA performed any analysis to project the 

outcomes of these veterans? Does the VA have a good understanding of who these 

veterans are, demographically, and what resources they may have in the event VA 

medical care is not available to them? 

Answer. VA has health insurance coverage data on veterans from the fiscal year 

2001 Survey of Veterans. VA also obtains health insurance coverage data for VA 

health care enrollees from the annual VHA Enrollee Survey. VA has also considered 

the impact of its proposed policies on uninsured veterans. For example, the costsharing policies (annual enrollment fee and increased pharmacy co-payments) in the 

fiscal year 2006 President’s budget will enable uninsured Priority 7 and 8 enrolled 

veterans to continue to have access to the VA health care system for a very modest 

amount of cost sharing. We expect that Priority 7 and 8 enrollees who are uninsured 

will pay the enrollment fee, while many Priority 7 and 8 enrollees who have other 

health care coverage are not expected to enroll because of their alternative sources 

of care. 

MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES

Question. This year’s request estimates savings of some $1.8 billion in management efficiencies—an increase of some $590 million over the fiscal year 2005 level. 

I support efforts by the Department to improve its management practices, and clearly the Inspector General’s office has identified a number of areas where savings 

could be achieved. But we haven’t seen a lot of detail or reliable data to back up 

these savings projections. 

For example, the budget projects saving $150 million through improved contracting practices with medical schools and other VA affiliates for scarce medical 

specialties. Can you explain exactly how you will achieve this $150 million in savings? 

Answer. VA anticipates that $150 million in savings will result from improved 

contracting practices. A new directive is about to be issued that encourages competitive contracting for services and provides contracting officers specific guidance on 

appropriate costs to include in a sole-source contract, when that vehicle is appropriate. In addition, there will be increased Office of Inspector General audits of sole 

source contracts with VA’s affiliates, which will result in further savings from originally negotiated rates. 

Question. Can you provide the committee with details on how the Department will 

achieve its overall management savings goal of $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. The $1.8 billion in management efficiencies is composed of recurring and 

anticipated new efficiencies in standardization of pharmaceuticals and supplies; inventory management; productivity; and administrative/clinical consolidations and 

VA/DOD sharing. 

HOMELESSNESS

Question. By some accounts, homeless veterans number around 200,000; even 

some veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are experiencing homelessness. 

Can you explain why there continues to be such a large number of homeless veterans in this country? 

Answer. While homeless veterans tend to be older and better educated than their 

non-veteran counterparts, they face the same vulnerabilities that increase their risk 

of homelessness. These liabilities include mental illness and substance use dis-
118 

orders, lack of adequate social supports, disadvantages associated with past histories of incarceration, and poor employment prospects. 

VA estimates that there may be 200,000 homeless veterans living on the streets 

or in shelters on any given day. Data from the National Survey of Homeless Service 

Providers and Clients conducted in 1996 indicates that the proportion of veterans 

among homeless men declined to 23 percent from an estimate of 34 percent identified in a similar study conducted in the mid 1980s. We believe that VA, working 

together with community-based and faith-based organizations, has put in place a 

wide range of services to address the needs of homeless veterans and this system 

of services is helping veterans move out of homelessness to independence and self 

sufficiency. 

Question. Why are some of our OEF and OIF veterans experiencing homelessness? 

Answer. From August through December of 2004, VA has reached out to 128 

homeless OEF and OIF veterans, about 1 percent of all homeless veterans contacted 

through outreach during those months. Review of intake assessment information 

about these veterans suggests that, for the most part, these homeless veterans have 

problems similar to those of homeless veterans from other eras and periods of service. However, homeless OEF/OIF veterans are younger and appear to have fewer 

problems with substance abuse and they seem to have more short-term situational 

problems such as changes in family status (e.g. separation or divorce). These veterans are less likely to be chronically homeless, which gives us hope that they can 

return more easily to self sufficiency. 

VISN STRUCTURE

Question. The President’s Task Force (PTF) found that the VA’s veterans integrated systems network (VISN) structure ‘‘resulted in the growth of disparate business procedures and practices.’’ Further, the PTF’s report stated that the ‘‘VISN 

structure alters the ability to provide consistent, uniform national program guidance 

in the clinical arena, the loss of which affects opportunities for improved quality, 

access, and cost effectiveness.’’ Due to these findings, the PTF recommended ‘‘the 

structure and processes of VHA should be reviewed.’’ 

Do you agree with the PTF’s findings? If so, what are your thoughts on altering 

the VISN structure? If not, what alternatives do you offer? 

Answer. There is always a tension between centralization and decentralization, 

such as we find in the current VA network structure. A system that is too centralized is grossly ineffective and inefficient. On the other hand, a system that is too 

decentralized loses the integration and cohesiveness that defines it as a ‘‘system.’’ 

Achieving the proper balance to avoid both too much centralization and too much 

decentralization requires continual monitoring and refinement where necessary. So 

to that extent, we agree that the structure and processes of the VISN structure require continual review. But continual review does not necessarily entail significant 

alterations. Nor is it clear that the VISN structure has impaired VA’s ability to provide consistent, uniform national clinical guidance. 

VA operates a large, integrated health care system that functions both efficiently 

and effectively. Improvements in quality, access, veteran satisfaction, and efficiency 

are measurable and have been widely recognized. Health care policy is established 

centrally in Washington and is expected to be executed uniformly throughout all 21 

VISNs. I expect the VISNs to address the unique challenges of their respective environments, and we will hold management at all levels accountable for implementing 

national policy consistently. I am a firm believer in the benefits of performance 

measurement, and I will hold all VISN directors accountable for the same set of performance measures and goals. The individual means to achieve the goals set may 

vary somewhat from VISN to VISN, depending on their individual circumstances, 

but the requirement for implementation of overall national health care policies is 

immutable. 

STATE HOME CONSTRUCTION

Question. The budget request proposes a 1-year moratorium on providing grants 

for construction of State nursing homes until the VA has completed a review of its 

long-term care needs. 

Since State veterans’ nursing homes account for more than half of VA’s nursing 

home workload, to what extent will the moratorium impact veterans access to long 

term-care? 

Answer. The proposed 1-year moratorium on grants for construction of State nursing homes will have a minimal effect on veterans’ access to long-term care. Nationally, State Veterans Homes operate at approximately 85 percent capacity; consequently the existing capacity can accommodate additional veterans. Moreover, 
119 

construction projects that are already underway are anticipated to add more than 

1,600 additional State Home beds nationally over the next 3–4 years. 

Question. Are there State nursing home projects with established and documented 

need that will be delayed because of the funding moratorium? 

Answer. There are nursing home projects for which the States have committed 

matching funds that will be delayed by the moratorium for 1 year. Because the Priority List is revised annually, VA cannot predict how many or which specific 

projects will be delayed. All new and existing pending projects are ranked as of August 15 and included in the annual list. 

VA–DOD COLLABORATION

Question. For several years, there have been numerous efforts to promote health 

care collaboration between the Department of Defense and the VA. The fiscal year 

2003 National Defense Authorization Act directed DOD and VA to establish a joint 

program to identify and provide incentives to implement, fund, and evaluate creative health care coordination and sharing initiatives between the two departments. 

Can you give us a status and any initial findings on this new program? 

Answer. Section 721 of Public Law 107–314, the fiscal year 2003 National Defense 

Authorization Act, requires that DOD and VA establish a joint incentives program 

through the creation of a DOD–VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund. The intent 

of the program is to identify, fund, and evaluate creative local, regional, and national sharing initiatives. 

A DOD–VA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed on July 8, 2004, assigned 

VA as administrator of the fund under the direction of the VA–DOD Health Executive Council (HEC). The HEC appointed the Financial Management Work Group to 

issue the calls for proposals, recommend the proposals to be funded, and monitor 

the projects selected. There is a minimum contribution of $15 million by each Department ($30 million total per year) each year for 4 years (fiscal year 2004-fiscal 

year 2007). 

In fiscal year 2004, 12 proposals were approved. Those proposals require $37.5 

million in funding over 2 years. Approved proposals involve a wide range of services 

including various tele-health projects, women’s health services, a joint cardiac catheterization lab, a joint dialysis unit, and a joint clinic. 

In fiscal year 2005, 56 proposals have been submitted, and they will compete for 

$22.5 million in funding for the first year. VA and DOD are currently reviewing the 

projects submitted for the fiscal year 2005 awards cycle. 

There has been a high level of interest by VA and DOD in submitting projects 

for funding. There have been many lessons learned in administering the program, 

such as allowing sufficient time to permit review up the chains of commands within 

both VA and DOD; the need for information technology projects to be consistent 

with the national level solutions being developed; and the need for projects to clearly 

identify a benefit to both Departments. The projects selected for funding in fiscal 

year 2004 have not been operational long enough to provide an individual project 

assessment of the results. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

SERVICES

Question. The 116th Calvary Brigade Combat Team of the Idaho Army National 

Guard are now stationed overseas in Iraq and fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Like all National Guardsmen, when they return from active duty they will resume 

their duties of working under the command of the Governor of Idaho. 

What will their eligibility be for VA services, including health care and benefits, 

when they separate from active duty service? 

Answer. Army National Guard personnel activated by Federal declaration and 

who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations which includes Operation Iraqi Freedom are eligible for hospital care, medical services, and nursing 

home care. Public Law 105–368 amended title 38, United States Code, to authorize 

VA to provide combat veterans with care for conditions potentially related to their 

combat service for a 2 year period following discharge. Care is cost-free for conditions that cannot be disassociated from combat service. Care for other conditions is 

subject to applicable copayments. Veterans who enroll with VA under this authority 

retain enrollment eligibility, regardless of any enrollment restriction that may be in 

effect after this 2-year post discharge period. Combat veterans who choose not to 

enroll with VA during the 2-year period would be able to enroll in the future only 

if they are otherwise eligible to enroll. 
120 

In addition to health care benefits, they are also eligible for a full array of benefits 

offered through the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to include: 

—Disability Benefits 

—Education and Training Benefits 

—Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment 

—Home Loans 

—Life Insurance 

—Burial Benefits 

—Dependents’ and Survivors’ Benefits 

Question. Does the Department have any programs in place that will continue to 

follow these Guardsmen after their completion of their combat mission and they return home to a civilian life? 

Answer. Under 38 U.S.C. § 1710(e)(1)(D) and § 1710(e)(3)(C), OIF/OEF veterans 

may enroll in the VA health care system and, for a 2-year period following the date 

of their separation from active duty, receive VA health care without co-payment requirements for conditions that are or may be related to their combat service. After 

the end of the 2-year period, they may continue their enrollment but may be subject 

to any applicable co-payment requirements. For OIF/OEF veterans who do not enroll with VA during the 2-year post-discharge period, eligibility for enrollment and 

subsequent health care is, of course, subject to such factors as a service connected 

disability rating, VA pension status, catastrophic disability determination, or financial circumstances. 

OIF and OEF veterans have sought VA health care for a wide-variety of physical 

and psychological problems. The most common health problems have been musculoskeletal ailments (principally joint and back disorders); diseases of the digestive system (with teeth and gum problems predominating); and mental disorders (predominantly adjustment reactions). The medical issues we have seen to date are those we 

would expect to see in young, active, military populations, and no particular health 

problem stands out among these veterans at present. We will continue to monitor 

the health status of recent OIF and OEF veterans to ensure that VA aligns its 

health care programs to meet their needs. 

Following is a brief description of VA initiatives that have been developed in response to the service needs of veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 

Enduring Freedom (OEF). Many of these are brand new programs that were developed to meet these needs. All of them represent ‘‘lessons learned’’ from VA’s experiences responding to the health care and other benefits needs of veterans returning 

from the 1991 Gulf War and from the Vietnam War before that. 

Immediate Health Care Needs for Combat Veterans.—In response to immediate 

health concerns for OIF and OEF veterans, on March 26 and 27, 2003, VA developed a program called ‘‘Caring for the War Wounded,’’ which was broadcast over the 

VA Knowledge Network satellite broadcast system. This program provided timely 

and relevant information about the anticipated health care needs of veterans of the 

current conflict in Iraq, included VA experts on treatments for traumatic injuries; 

chemical warfare agent health effects; infectious diseases; radiological health effects; 

and post-deployment readjustment health concerns, and was converted into a new 

Veterans Health Initiative (VHI) health care provider independent study guide, 

called ‘‘Caring for the War Wounded,’’ which is available online at vaww.va.gov/VHI/ 

and on the Internet at http://www.appc1.va.gov/vhi/. 

New Clinical Guidelines for Combat Veteran Health Care.—In collaboration with 

DOD, VA developed two Clinical Practice Guidelines on combat veteran health 

issues, including one general guideline to post-deployment health, and a second 

dealing with unexplained pain and fatigue. The new clinical guidelines give our 

health care providers the best medical evidence for diagnoses and treatment. VA 

highly recommends these for the evaluation and care of all returning combat veterans, including veterans from OIF and OEF. The value of the guidelines in providing care to returning veterans is described in a video ‘‘The Epic of Gilgamesh: 

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Post-Deployment Health Evaluation and Management,’’ at www.va.gov/Gilgamesh. 

New Specialized Combat Veteran Health Care Program.—In 2001, VA established 

two new War Related Illness and Injury Study Centers (WRIISCs) at the Washington, DC, and East Orange, NJ, VAMCs. Today, the WRIISCs are providing specialized health care for combat veterans from all deployments who experience difficult to diagnose but disabling illnesses. Concerns about unexplained illness are 

seen after all deployments including OIF/OEF, but VA is building on our understand of these illnesses. More information is available online at www.va.gov/ 

environagents under the heading ‘‘WRIISC Referral Eligibility Information.’’ 

Expanded Education on Combat Health Care for VA Providers.—In addition to the 

programs already described, VA has developed several Veterans Health Initiative 
121 

(VHI) Independent Study Guides relevant to veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: 

—‘‘A Guide to Gulf War Veterans Health’’ was originally on health care for combat veterans from the 1991 Gulf War. The product, written for clinicians, veterans and their families, remains very relevant for OIF and OEF combat veterans because many of the hazardous exposures are the same. 

—‘‘Endemic Infectious Diseases of Southwest Asia’’ provides information for 

health care providers about the infectious disease risks in Southwest Asia, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The emphasis is on diseases not typically 

seen in North America. 

—‘‘Health Effects from Chemical, Biological and Radiological Weapons’’ was developed to improve recognition of health issues related to chemical, biological and 

radiological weapons and agents. 

—‘‘Military Sexual Trauma’’ was developed to improve recognitions and treatment 

of health problems related to military sexual trauma, including sexual assault 

and harassment. 

—‘‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Implications for Primary Care’’ is an introduction to PTSD diagnosis, treatment, referrals, support and education, as well as 

awareness and understanding of veterans who suffer from this illness. 

—‘‘Traumatic Amputation and Prosthetics’’ includes information about patients 

who experience traumatic amputation during military service, their rehabilitation, primary and long-term care, prosthetic, clinical and administrative issues. 

—‘‘Traumatic Brain Injury’’ presents an overview of TBI issues that primary care 

practitioners may encounter when providing care to veterans and active duty 

military personnel. 

All are available in print, CD ROM, and on the web at www.va.gov/VHI. 

Outreach to Combat Veterans.—VA has many new products to offer combat veterans and their families. 

—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs sends a letter to every newly separated OIF 

and OEF veteran, based on records for these veterans provided to VA by DOD. 

The letter thanks the veteran for their service, welcomes them home, and provides basic information about health care and other benefits provided by VA. 

—In collaboration with DOD, VA published and distributed one million copies of 

a new short brochure called ‘‘A Summary of VA Benefits for National Guard 

and Reservists Personnel.’’ The new brochure does a tremendous job of summarizing health care and other benefits available to this special population of combat veterans upon their return to civilian life (also available online at 

www.va.gov/EnvironAgents). 

—‘‘Health Care and Assistance for U.S. Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom’’ is 

a new brochure on basic health issues for that deployment (also at www.va.gov/ 

EnvironAgents). 

—‘‘OIF and OEF Review’’ is a new newsletter mailed to all separated OIF and 

OEF veterans and their families, on VA health care and assistance programs 

for these newest veterans (online at www.va.gov/EnvironAgents). 

—‘‘VA Health Care and Benefits Information for Veterans’’ is a new wallet care 

that succinctly summarizes all VA health and other benefits for veterans, along 

with contact information, in a single, wallet-sized card for easy reference (also 

at www.va.gov/EnvironAgents). 

Special Depleted Uranium (DU) Program.—OIF veterans concerned about possible 

exposure to depleted uranium can be evaluated using a special DU exposure protocol that VA began after the 1991 Gulf War. This program offers free DU urine 

screening tests by referral from VA primary care physicians to veterans who have 

concerns about their possible exposure to this agent. 

Combat Veteran Health Status Surveillance.—Today, we can monitor the overall 

health status of combat veterans very efficiently by using VA’s electronic inpatient 

and outpatient medical records. This surveillance summarizes every single visit by 

a combat veteran including all medical diagnoses. VA has developed a new Clinical 

Reminder (part of VA’s computerized reminder system) to assist VA primary care 

clinicians in providing timely and appropriate care to new combat veterans. 

Question. What resources are being devoted this year to put into effect the co-location of the Boise VA Medical Center and Regional Office? What are projected for 

next year? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2005, staff resources in VBA will accomplish the following: 

—Secure a letter from the GSA initiating the transfer of the 2.13 acre parcel to 

VA and get VA Secretary’s signature accepting transfer and control of the property. 

—Complete a concept paper for the business case for a project to construct a new 

office building for the Boise Regional Office on the subject property. 
122 

—Complete an Exhibit 300 business case application for a project to construct a 

new office building for the Boise Regional Office on the subject property. 

—Select an Architect/Engineer (A/E) firm to prepare a preliminary design and a 

Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Design-Build contract for the construction of 

the new office building. Funds from the Minor Construction program will be allocated to this contract. 

—Begin the preliminary design for the new office building. 

In fiscal year 2006, staff resources in VBA will accomplish the following: 

—Complete the preliminary design and the RFP for the Design-Build contract. 

—Work with the VHA contracting officer to prepare the solicitation for the Design-Build contract. 

—Advertise the project in the FedBizOps for a contract award in early fiscal year 

2007. 

—Identify the necessary minor construction funds in the fiscal year 2007 budget 

for the construction contract. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Question. Last year, Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act which, for 

the first time, provides Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage. 

Has VA conducted any assessments of the impact this legislation will have on the 

number of veterans who rely on VA health care to provide prescription drug coverage? If so, what has this assessment shown? 

Answer. Milliman, Inc., the private-sector actuarial firm that develops projections 

of veteran demand for VA health care, has advised VA that the impact of the new 

Medicare drug benefit on VA enrollment, utilization, and expenditures is expected 

to be minimal. The biggest impact is expected to come from reductions in employerbased prescription drug coverage. However, the impact may not become significant 

until as late as 2016 since the most recent cutbacks have been for future retirees 

only; those eligible for retirement (over age 55) have been grandfathered into employer’s current plan. Based on recent estimates of retirees who could lose benefits, 

enrollment in VA health care could increase by an estimated 35,000 within the 10– 

15 year period following the start of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. VA currently treats about 5.2 million veterans per year. 

Question. Does VA believe that there is a way VA can work in concert with Medicare on the provisions of prescription medications for Medicare-eligible veterans? If 

so, has VA leadership approached the leadership of the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services to discuss and proposals? 

Answer. VA believes that VA and the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) can work together so that beneficiaries who chose to use both VA and CMS prescription benefits do so in a safe 

and cost-effective manner. 

To that end, VA Pharmacy Benefits Management staff and staff from the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have had preliminary discussions about 

potential VA /CMS patient safety and electronic prescribing initiatives. 

VA will continue to provide prescription medications to enrolled veteran patients 

who are also eligible for Medicare. VA will continue to provide this prescription coverage to Medicare eligible veterans who chose VA as their health care provider, even 

after Medicare Part D is fully implemented. 

STATE HOME PER DIEM PROPOSALS

Question. The State Home program, by most accounts, has been a successful partnership between the Federal and State governments for the care of aging veterans. 

Yet VA proposes to modify its past per diem payment policies—a change in policy 

that VA says will reduce the number of State home beds by more than 50 percent. 

Why does VA want the States to reduce the number of State home beds? Even 

if VA does not want to provide institutional care to the non-service-connected, why 

does it want to discourage States from meeting that need? 

Answer. VA is not proposing that the States reduce the number of State Home 

beds. State Veterans Homes are owned, operated, and financed by the States. VA 

provides limited financial assistance to the States in the form of per diem payments 

for nursing home, hospital, domiciliary, and adult day healthcare. Only the nursing 

home per diem is affected by the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. The cost of care 

in State Veterans Homes varies from State to State, as does the amount of assistance provided to the Homes by the State. Currently, costs not covered by the VA 

per diem payments are covered from various sources, including the veterans themselves and State and Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. VA’s proposal could increase the share of costs borne by the State, depending upon the 
123 

State’s own policies for coverage of the costs of State Home care. State Homes will 

continue operations to the extent that individual States discharge their fiscal responsibility for the operation and management of the Homes. VA does not have information on the plans of individual States to respond to the change in VA policy. 

The average daily census in State Veterans Homes on whose behalf VA pays a 

per diem payment would decrease from 17,328 to 7,217 from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2006. Over the same period, however, VA is projecting a substantial increase in both workload and funding for the non-institutional programs it supports. 

The average daily census in these home and community-based care (HCBC) programs is projected to rise from 25,523 in fiscal year 2004 to 35,540 in fiscal year 

2006 (a 39 percent increase). Funding is projected to increase from $287.3 million 

in fiscal year 2004 to over $400 million in fiscal year 2006 (also a 39 percent increase). The projected increases in HCBC programs will serve to offset some of the 

reductions in nursing home care. VA believes the proposals on long-term care in this 

budget provide an appropriate balance between congressionally mandated nursing 

home services and the national trend toward increased use of non-institutional 

home and community-based services in preference to nursing home care. HCBC is 

preferred by most patients and their families and is more cost effective than inpatient care. 

Question. Does VA assume bed closures will occur when payments for non-priority 

veterans (those without a service-connection) cease? Does VA believe that it has the 

legal authority to simply stop paying per diem payments to States for the care of 

veterans VA doesn’t define as a priority? 

Answer. VA is seeking legislative authority to align VA per diem payments to 

State veterans homes with VA’s revised long-term care eligibility policy. Enactment 

of this proposal would ensure fairness and consistency in how VA treats veterans 

needing long-term care across all venues, including VA nursing homes, community 

nursing homes, and State nursing homes. We are unable to comment on how the 

individual States would respond to this change in policy. 

Question. It seems to me that VA encouraged the States to build long-term care 

capacity by offering them construction subsidies. Would a change in the ‘‘rules of 

the game’’ after these State homes have been built not break the bargain that the 

Federal Government has struck with the States? 

Answer. The VA State Home Construction Grant Program assists States in construction and renovation costs for nursing homes, domiciliary facilities and adult 

day healthcare. The program does not require the state to participate in the State 

Veteran Home Per Diem Grant Program, or guarantee the ongoing subsidy of per 

diem payments. The law is separate for each of the programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

STATE EXTENDED CARE FACILITIES GRANTS PROGRAM

Question. Today I asked about the decision to impose a 1-year moratorium on 

funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Grants program. Specifically, I asked 

for the rationale behind the decision and if he could explain its impact on States, 

such as California, which critically need additional veterans homes. I also inquired 

about whether the moratorium was really a plan to ultimately phase out funding 

for State veterans homes. 

Can you explain to this committee why it is necessary to impose a 1-year moratorium on grants for construction of long-term extended care facilities when there is 

such a need for VA homes throughout this Nation? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2006 VA budget proposes a 1-year moratorium on new 

grants to States for construction and renovation of extended care facilities. This will 

permit VA to complete an assessment of its nationwide institutional long-term care 

infrastructure and ensure that future construction aligns with the areas of greatest 

projected need. Grants that have already been awarded will not be affected by the 

1-year moratorium. 

Question. How would this moratorium affect the current priorities list for funding 

under this program? 

Answer. VA has already committed to all planned fiscal year 2005 projects on the 

current Priority List. The States are currently completing the requirements for fiscal year 2005 grant awards. VA has committed the maximum fiscal year 2005 appropriations and the remaining fiscal year 2004 carryover funds to these projects. 

Question. Do you anticipate altering this priorities list for fiscal year 2007? 

Answer. The Priority List is revised annually, as of August 15th. All new and existing pending projects are ranked and included in the annual list. Once approved 
124 

by the Secretary, the list is used to identify ranked projects and commit funding 

for projects for that fiscal year award or to finalize conditionally approved projects. 

For fiscal year 2007, VA would follow the same procedures and commit funds available at that time to the projects in rank order. 

Question. Can you provide this committee a better sense of your plans going forward and how it would affect funding for future State veterans home projects? 

Answer. VA will complete its assessment for our nationwide long-term care infrastructure and assess the construction grants program priority during the fiscal year 

2007 budget deliberations. 

Question. Is the Administration considering a plan to phase out grant funding for 

State veterans homes? 

Answer. The Administration will reevaluate the funding for the State Extended 

Care Facilities Grant program during the fiscal year 2007 budget deliberations. 

Question. I also know that the State of California plans to request $125 million 

in fiscal year 2007 under this grant program to fund its largest project to date, the 

Greater Los Angeles-Ventura County Home, which includes 3 separate facilities. 

How would the 1-year moratorium impact funding for this project? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2006 VA budget proposes a 1-year moratorium on new 

grants to States for construction and renovation of extended care facilities. This will 

permit VA to complete an assessment of its nationwide institutional long-term care 

infrastructure and ensure that future construction aligns with the areas of greatest 

projected need. Grants that have already been awarded will not be affected by the 

1-year moratorium. 

VA has already committed to all planned fiscal year 2005 projects on the current 

Priority List. The states are currently completing the requirements for fiscal year 

2005 grant awards. VA has committed the maximum fiscal year 2005 appropriations 

and the remaining fiscal year 2004 carryover funds to these projects. 

The Priority List is revised annually, as of August 15th. All new and existing 

pending projects are ranked and included in the annual list. Once approved by the 

Secretary, the list is used to identify ranked projects and commit funding for 

projects for that fiscal year award or to finalize conditionally approved projects. For 

fiscal year 2007, VA would follow the same procedures and commit funds available 

at that time to the projects in rank order. VA cannot predict at this time how the 

California project will be ranked in fiscal year 2007 or whether there will be sufficient appropriations to fund it. 

MEDICAL CARE PROGRAMS

Question. The Administration’s overall request for Medical Care Programs is $30.8 

billion. However, if you discount the collections that you anticipate through the 

Medical Care Collections Fund, as well as the new fees that would be imposed on 

thousands of veterans, you are left with a base appropriation request for Medical 

Care Programs of $28.2 billion. Which is only 0.4 percent increase over last year’s 

enacted level. This falls well below the standard compounded medical inflation rate 

of 3.9 percent. 

Do you believe that this is sufficient funding given the number of veterans returning home from the Middle East? 

Answer. Yes, VA requested the necessary resources in fiscal year 2006 to continue 

meeting the needs of all veterans who have suffered injuries or diseases as a result 

of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH

Question. I am happy to see the fiscal year 2006 budget calling for $1.2 billion 

for prosthetics and sensory aids, a $100 million increase over fiscal year 2005, however, I am concerned about the cut to Medical and Prosthetic Research (from $402 

million in fiscal year 2005 to $393 million in fiscal year 2006). As you know, 11,000 

men and women of our Armed Forces have suffered injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and to many of them functional and efficient prosthetics will make all the difference 

in the world. The VA has made tremendous progress in developing new, state-ofthe-art prosthetics, but we should not stop there. We should continue to fund a robust prosthetic research program. None of us ever wants to have to explain to one 

of our soldiers who has lost a leg, that more could have been done. 

Can you please explain why the fiscal year 2006 budget reduces money in this 

area? 

Answer. The VA research program is funded by three funding sources—direct appropriation, private grant funding, and Federal grant funding. The overall estimated 

funding is expected to rise in fiscal year 2006 by $49 million or 3.1 percent to $1.7 

billion. The total research program level of effort and number of projects for vet-
125 

erans will be at a similar level to that of fiscal year 2005. VA, like other Departments across Government, must be a responsible partner in assisting to achieve 

many important, competing priorities. Reducing the deficit for the current and longterm strength of this country is very important. Therefore, tough choices had to be 

made in maximizing resource impact in a slower growth environment. Medical care 

for those who need VA the most and timely, consistent benefits delivery are also 

crucial services for veterans. A balanced approach in wisely investing resources was 

a guiding principle in the development of this budget. Research that enhances veterans’ lives continues to be an important priority of the VA. 

In terms of prosthetics research, VA is expanding its support of multidisciplinary 

research approaches and examination of enabling technologies that aim to ease the 

physical and psychological pain of veterans. The VA Office of Research and Development (ORD) is collaborating with clinical services to evaluate the delivery of care 

and help identify optimal utilization of all patient services including durable medical equipment for veterans. VA is also dedicated to the generation of the rigorous 

data required to formulate policy and establish clinical care guidelines. 

In addition to evaluating existing practices, VA is expanding upon its longstanding support for advances in surgical approaches to primary amputation to include operative revision and limb lengthening procedures that can potentially aid 

in fitting prostheses and enhance function beyond what is now possible. VA is also 

aggressively examining other techniques such as osseointegration, a procedure that 

replaces missing limbs with titanium rods inserted directly into residual bone. 

Examples of ongoing projects include: 

—partnerships with the Department of Defense and Walter Reed Army Medical 

Center to investigate immediate concerns of returning Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) veterans; 

—trials of current prosthetic designs and improvements for future designs; 

—use of telerehabilitation to prevent complications resulting from amputation; 

—bio-hybrid limb projects using regenerated tissue, lengthened bone, internal and 

external titanium implants, and sensors that allow amputees to use brain signals and residual limb musculature to move their prostheses; 

—new uses for sensory and implanted control devices and biological sensors for 

the detection of health and function including microelectro-mechanical or 

nanotechnologies; 

—evaluation and updates of rehabilitation strategies; and 

—examination of how best to implement research results and develop best practices across VHA. 

MEFLOQUINE (LARIAM) USE

Question. As you may be aware, I have been concerned about the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) use of the anti-malarial drug mefloquine (Lariam) and its impact 

on our service members. In June 2004, I wrote your predecessor Secretary Principi 

with my concerns about the use of this drug, especially after hearing that several 

service members had been diagnosed with permanent brainstem and vestibular 

damage from mefloquine toxicity. Shortly thereafter, the Veterans Health Administration issued an Information Letter outlining the potential for serious complications associated with mefloquine. 

The VA’s health care system is likely to be the first line of treatment for service 

members who have returned from active duty. And the VA will bear much of the 

cost and burden of treatment and rehabilitation for service members with 

mefloquine toxicity. 

Knowing that mefloquine was issued to active duty military in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will you take steps to actively monitor the impact this drug has 

on these veterans’ health conditions? 

Answer. VA is actively monitoring the DOD studies of possible adverse effects of 

mefloquine and is following the medical literature and reported studies. At DOD’s 

invitation, VA participated in a special meeting of DOD’s Armed Forces Epidemiology Board that DOD charged with helping to plan studies on long-term health effects among OIF and OEF veterans from mefloquine. VA regularly participates in 

DOD briefings on the status of DOD’s studies on this health issue. In addition, VA 

developed an Under Secretary for Health Information Letter that reviewed medical 

and scientific literature on known health effects from taking mefloquine (IL 10– 

2004–007), ‘‘Possible Long-Term Health Effects From The Malarial Prophylaxis 

Mefloquine (Lariam),’’ June 23, 2004). This information letter alerts VA health care 

providers to the range of possible long-term health effects from taking mefloquine. 

It is important to note that mefloquine is an FDA approved drug that is widely used 

in the civilian community and not just in the military. 
126 

Question. In the past, I have suggested that it is necessary for the Department 

of Defense (DOD) to immediately implement a program that will allow soldiers to 

report side effects and be evaluated, diagnosed and treated without fear of reprisal 

and that reporting such side effects not negatively affect their military service or 

careers. Would you be willing to implement such a program at the Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs and will you work with DOD on such a program? 

Answer. Mefloquine side effects begin while a person is actually taking the drug— 

in this case, while they were still on active duty. Side effects appearing while a service member was still on active duty may be recorded by DOD health care providers. 

Few if any veterans are still taking malaria prophylaxis after leaving active military 

duty and then enrolling for VA health care. VA’s Information Letter on mefloquine 

side effects (IL 10–2004–007) is intended to alert VA health care providers to any 

side effects that may persist in veterans after they have separated from military 

service. Any relevant findings then may be entered into the veteran’s health record. 

Moreover, no health problem identified by the VA would result in reprisals or harm 

to a veterans’ career because of the strict confidentiality and professionalism within 

the VA health care system. 

Question. As you may know, DOD is undertaking an investigation of the impact 

of mefloquine use by service members. What has the VA’s role been in this investigation and has the Department participated in DOD’s investigation? 

Answer. VA has been briefed on this study and actively supports DOD’s efforts. 

VA is actively monitoring the DOD studies of possible adverse effects of mefloquine 

and is following the medical literature and reported studies. At DOD’s invitation, 

VA participated in a special meeting of DOD’s Armed Forces Epidemiology Board 

that DOD charged with helping to plan studies on long-term health effects among 

OIF and OEF veterans from mefloquine. VA regularly participates in briefings on 

the status of various DOD studies on this topic. 

ENROLLMENT FEES

Question. The budget submission assumes a $250 enrollment fee on Priority 7 and 

8 veterans. 

How many veterans will have to pay the $250 enrollment fee? How many veterans 

will leave VA if they have to pay this premium? AND How does the VA plan to collect this fee from veterans? 

Answer. In 2006, 1.26 million Priority 7 and 8 veterans are expected to pay the $250 annual enrollment fee. This policy is expected to reduce enrollment for Priority 

7 and 8 veterans by 1.1 million and reduce the number of Priority 7 and 8 unique 

patients by 213,000. 

VA will notify all Priority 7 and 8 enrolled veterans of the requirement to pay 

the enrollment fee by letter with appropriate payment guidance. Veterans will be 

provided a specified period of time to pay the entire fee or to agree to a quarterly 

payment schedule with payment of the first quarterly payment by a specified date. 

Payments will be processed through a central ‘‘lockbox’’ utility separate from, but 

similar to, existing processes used for receipt of veteran co-payments. 

PHARMACY CO-PAY INCREASE

Question. The budget includes an assumption that the pharmacy co-payments for certain veterans will increase from $7 to $15. 

How did VA choose $15 as the amount for the prescription drug co-payment? 

Answer. This and the other proposed policies in VA’s 2006 President’s budget 

were designed to ensure that VA is able to fulfill its core mission—providing timely 

access to high-quality health care to veterans with serviced connected disabilities, 

low incomes, and those with special needs. The $15 pharmacy co-payment proposal 

and other cost-sharing proposals would only affect higher income, better-insured 

veterans in the lowest priorities and have been strategically priced to refocus the 

VA system on those veterans who need us most. The $15 drug co-pay would more 

closely align VA with other private and public health care plans. 

RETURNING TROOPS

Question. There are new challenges arising to ensure that returning troops are 

receiving their entitled benefits and services as veterans. The new challenges include reaching every veteran. 

What steps is the VA taking to reach out to all of our returning troops from Iraq 

and Afghanistan? 

Answer. Returning troops are provided information about VA benefits and services and assistance in applying for these benefits through the following VA outreach 

programs. 
127 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and Other Military Services Briefings.— 

From October 2002 through January 2005, VBA military services coordinators conducted transition briefings and related personal interviews in the United States as 

reflected in the chart below. These briefings include pre- and post-deployment briefings for Reserve and National Guard members. 

OVERALL BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees No. interviews 

2003 ........................................................................................................... 5,368 197,082 97,352 

2004 ........................................................................................................... 7,210 261,391 115,576 

2005 1 ......................................................................................................... 2,263 79,105 34,106 

1 Through January 2005. 

In addition to military services briefings in the United States, VBA representatives conduct briefings overseas under arrangement with the Department of Defense 

(DOD). VBA provides two tours each year with 6 to 7 VBA representatives providing 

this service for each tour. Each is home-based at a major military site and provides 

services at the site and surrounding areas. The countries serviced are England, Germany, Japan, and Italy. Korea is serviced by staff from the Benefits Delivery at Discharge office in Yong San. A representative from the St. Petersburg Regional Office 

provides that service for Guantanamo Bay. We were recently requested by DOD to 

add Bahrain to our overseas schedule beginning with the May 2005 tour. The following chart reflects statistics regarding overseas briefings: 

OVERSEAS BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees No. interviews 

2003 ........................................................................................................... 472 12,943 12,947 

2004 ........................................................................................................... 624 15,183 6,544

2005 1 ......................................................................................................... 36 1,278 464 

1 Through January 2005. 

Briefings for Reserve/Guard Members.—Outreach to Reserve/Guard members is 

part of the overall VBA outreach program. In peacetime, this outreach is generally 

accomplished on an ‘‘on call’’ or ‘‘as requested’’ basis. With the activation and deployment of large numbers of Reserve/Guard members following the September 11, 

2001, attack on America, and the onset of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 

Freedom (OEF/OIF), VBA outreach to this group has been greatly expanded. National and local contacts have been made with Reserve/Guard officials to schedule 

pre- and post-mobilization briefings for their members. Returning Reserve/Guard 

members can also elect to attend the formal 3-day TAP workshops. The following 

data on Reserve/Guard briefings is a subset of the overall briefings data provided 

in the first chart: 

RESERVE/GUARD BRIEFINGS 

Fiscal year Briefings No. attendees 

2003 ........................................................................................................................................ 821 46,675 

2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 1,399 88,366 

2005 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 531 32,448 

1 Through January 2005. 

Briefings Aboard Ships.—VA provided TAP briefings aboard the USS Constellation, the USS Enterprise, and the USS George Washington on their return from the 

Persian Gulf to the United States. VBA will continue to support requests from the 

Department of the Navy for TAP workshops aboard ships. 

Seamless Transition—Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) 

In 2003, VA began placing Veterans Service Representatives at key military treatment facilities (MTFs) where severely wounded service members from OEF/OIF are 

frequently sent. Representatives of the VBA Benefits Delivery at Discharge office in 

Germany work closely with the staff at the Landstuhl Army Medical Center to assist returning injured service members who are patients at that facility and family 

members temporarily residing at the Fisher House. 
128 

Since March 2003, a VBA OEF/OIF coordinator is assigned for each MTF. Full 

time staff is assigned to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., 

and the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland. Similar teams work with patients and family members at three other MTFs serving as key medical centers for 

seriously wounded returning troops: Eisenhower, Brooke, and Madigan Army Medical Centers. Itinerant service is conducted at all other major military treatment facilities. As of January 2005, over 4,500 hospitalized returning service members were 

assisted through this program at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Eisenhower, Brooke, and 

Madigan. Since March 2003, each claim from a seriously disabled OEF/OIF veteran 

has been case managed for seamless and expeditious processing. 

Web Page.—As part of the Seamless Transition effort, VBA created a new web 

page for OEF/OIF, directly accessible from the VA homepage. Information specific 

to Reserve/Guard members who were activated is included, as well as links to other 

Federal benefits of interest to returning service members. The web page has been 

accessed over 340,000 times since its activation in December 2003. 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD).—VA’s BDD program operates in concert 

with the military services outreach program. Under BDD, service members can 

apply for disability compensation within 180 days before discharge. The required 

physical examinations are conducted and service medical records are reviewed prior 

to discharge. The goal is to adjudicate claims within 30 days following discharge. 

Upon receipt of the claimant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Release from Active Military 

Service), benefits are immediately authorized so that the recently separated veteran 

can receive his/her first disability check the month following the month of discharge 

or shortly thereafter. Currently, 141 military installations worldwide participate in 

this program, including two sites in Germany and three in Korea. Approximately 

26,000 BDD claims were finalized in fiscal year 2003; 40,000 in fiscal year 2004; 

and 12,000 in fiscal year 2005 to date. 

Recently-Separated Veterans 

Veterans Assistance at Discharge System (VADS).—All separating and retiring 

service members (including Reserve/Guard members) receive a ‘‘Welcome Home 

Package’’ that includes a letter from the Secretary, a copy of VA Pamphlet 21–00– 

1, A Summary of VA Benefits, and VA Form 21–0501, Veterans Benefits Timetable, 

through VADS. Similar information is again mailed with a 6-month follow-up letter. 

Secretary’s Outreach Letter to Returning Service Members.—Outreach letters from 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs have been sent to approximately 240,000 returning 

service members who have separated/retired from active duty. Enclosed with the letters are copies of VA Pamphlet 21–00–1, A Summary of VA Benefits, and IB 10– 

164, A Summary of VA Benefits for National Guard and Reserve Personnel. 

Question. It is imperative for the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to work closely to ensure that troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan 

receive the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled. 

How do the VA and Department of Defense coordinate information on returning 

troops? Is the VA getting timely and accurate information from the Department of 

Defense on returning troops? In what manner is information on returning troops 

transmitted to the VA from DOD? 

Answer. VA’s Office of the General Counsel continues to negotiate with DOD to 

obtain the complete range of returning service member data VA needs for identification, tracking, and statistical/reporting purposes. A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between VA and DOD is still pending. 

However, a preliminary agreement has been reached that will allow VA to receive 

a flow of basic data from DOD on a regular basis, thus facilitating a seamless transition of seriously disabled service members into the VA system. As part of this 

agreement, VA will begin receiving data on those disabled service members who are 

entering the Physical Evaluation Board process. 

Question. What is VA doing to reach out to reservists and national guardsmen 

that were activated and deployed who are now returning home and are entitled to 

benefits? 

Answer. See the response above to the question concerning outreach to all of our 

returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Outreach to reservists and National 

Guard members is addressed in that response. 

COLORECTAL CANCER

Question. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the 

United States, yet survival rates are greater than 90 percent among those whose 

cancer is detected early. 

Roughly, what percentage of patients who receive their health care at a Veterans 

Administration facility undergoes routine screening for colon cancer? 
129 

Answer. Screening for colorectal cancer in the VA has increased significantly. In 

fiscal year 2004, 74 percent of the established veterans (those who received care 

from VA in the past 12 months) requiring colorectal screening received it. The percentage of veterans requiring colorectal screening has been increasing. In fiscal year 

1996, the percentage was 34 percent; in fiscal year 2001, 60 percent; in fiscal year 

2002, 64 percent; and in fiscal year 2003, 67 percent. 

Question. Many patients resist colon cancer screening tests due to the anticipated 

discomfort and inconvenience. On the other hand, those who choose to be screened 

by colonoscopy—the most accurate of the current modalities—must often wait 

months for access to a surgical suite and trained gastroenterologist. On average, 

how long must veterans wait for a screening colonoscopy at veterans’ hospitals and 

clinics? 

Answer. Diagnostic colonoscopies (for patients with symptoms or positive findings) 

are scheduled as soon as possible with an average wait time of 32 days. Screening 

colonoscopies (for asymptomatic patients) are scheduled for the next available appointment. VA does not measure specifically for screening colonoscopies, but we are 

providing the following waiting time information for diagnostic colonoscopies and GI 

clinics (which includes upper endoscopies and colonoscopies). 

VHA has completed 20,186 diagnostic colonoscopies for the first 4 months of fiscal 

year 2005 with an average wait time from the patient’s desired appointment date 

(from the date appointment created if a new patient) of 32 days. Half the appointments were completed within 17 days (median wait time was 17 days). 

VHA completed 55,933 appointments for the GI Endoscopy Clinic for the first 4 

months of fiscal year 2005. The average wait time from the patient’s desired appointment date (or the date the appointment created if a new patient) was 31 days. 

Half were completed within 7 days (median wait time was 7 days). 

Question. In the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriation, Congress urged the VA 

to pursue aggressively new technologies available for diagnosing colorectal cancer 

that are less invasive, less expensive and provide equal or better evaluations than 

older methods. What has the Administration done in response? 

Answer. VA is committed to improving the colorectal screening methods and overall percentage of screened veterans. In general, VA follows the evidence-based review of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in screening for colon 

cancer, which is found online at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscolo.htm. As 

noted in their conclusion, ‘‘It is unclear whether the increased accuracy of 

colonoscopy compared with alternative screening methods (for example, the identification of lesions that FOBT [fecal occult blood test] and flexible sigmoidoscopy 

would not detect) offsets the procedure’s additional complications, inconvenience, 

and costs.’’ However, the Task Force also found insufficient evidence that newer 

screening technologies (for example, computed tomographic colography) are effective 

in improving health outcomes. VA is still looking for evidence to show benefit of the 

newer technologies and works closely with USPSTF. 

VA offers screening for colon cancer using all recognized effective modalities. If 

a patient experiences symptoms or has positive findings on a screening by any other 

modality than colonoscopy, then a diagnostic colonoscopy is scheduled. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

MEDICAL HEALTH CARE

Question. Recently, I introduced the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care 

Act (S. 331). This bill would ensure adequate veterans health care funding is available by making VA medical care mandatory spending. This legislation has been endorsed by all of the leading veterans organizations. 

Do you support this legislation, and if not, why? 

Answer. An analysis of your proposed legislation would need to be made in light 

of the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget submission and overall guidance on the 

budget. 

That said, however, VA has not supported similar legislation introduced in previous Congresses. While mandatory funding may appear to be an interesting approach to provide resources to America’s veterans, VA has some serious concerns 

about its applicability to a very complex, highly dynamic and sophisticated health 

care delivery system such as the VA. A mandatory funding approach could inhibit 

VA’s ability to appropriately react to rapid advances in medical science and technology and the development of new drugs and equipment have dramatically changed 

treatment modalities and the manner in which health care is delivered over the last 

decade. It could also fail to keep up with the demographic or health status changes 
130 

among veterans and possibly create a false impression that VA would have full 

funding to enroll all veterans. Therefore, a mandatory funding system based upon 

static or untimely fixed indices may not be the best way to ensure that adequate 

resources are available to maintain the high quality of care that VA has become renowned for to care for our Nation’s veterans. 

Former VA Secretary Principi testified that the VA needs at least a 13 percent14 percent increase in medical funding each year just to maintain current health 

care services for veterans. The Bush Administration’s fiscal year 2006 budget request for VA medical care does not include such an increase in funding. 

Question. If the Administration’s proposed VA health care funding levels were enacted would there be a decrease in any veterans health care services or was Secretary Principi incorrect in his analysis? 

Answer. The Veterans Health Administration has received record budget increases over the last 4 years. With this budget proposal, the President, working in 

partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by 

more than 47 percent since fiscal year 2001. 

In fiscal year 2006, VA plans to operate within the level of the President’s Budget request of $30.7 billion (including $750 million for construction and $2.6 billion for 

collections) for the medical care program, an increase of 2.5 percent over the enacted 

level of fiscal year 2005. With this funding level, VA will be able to treat more than 

5.2 million patients and VA will focus its health care resources on veterans with 

service-connected disabled conditions, those with lower incomes, and veterans needing our specialized services. In 2006, nearly 80 percent of veteran patients are expected to be high priority—those veterans who count on VA the most. 

The President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans—a 15-member panel that was assembled to study the health care needs of 

our Nation’s veterans—released their recommendations in a report on May 28, 2003. 

The report stated clearly that the most pressing problem facing the VA health system is that funding is not keeping pace with the need for care. While the panel encouraged greater cooperation between the VA and the Department of Defense’s 

health care system, they recognized this would not address the fundamental problem. Instead, the panel recommended two solutions to the VA’s funding problems: 

create an independent board which will set the level of VA health care spending 

each year, or establish a formula and provide a mandatory amount of funding for 

VA medical care. 

Question. Do you plan to endorse or act on either of these recommendations from 

the President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans? 

Answer. Thank you for your question regarding the endorsement of mandatory 

health care funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. We are most appreciative of your interest and concern to ensure that sufficient resources are available 

to provide high-quality health care to our Nation’s veterans. 

The discretionary legislative process currently in place has provided for substantial increases for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care budget over the 

past several years, nearly a 47 percent increase since 2001. 

While mandatory funding may appear to be an interesting approach to provide 

resources to America’s veterans, VA has some serious concerns about its applicability to a very complex, highly dynamic and sophisticated health care delivery system such as the VA. A mandatory funding approach could inhibit VA’s ability to appropriately react to rapid advances in medical science and technology and the development of new drugs and equipment have dramatically changed treatment modalities and the manner in which health care is delivered over the last decade. It could 

also fail to keep up with the demographic or health status changes among veterans 

and possibly create a false impression that VA would have full funding to enroll all 

veterans. Therefore, a mandatory funding system based upon static or untimely 

fixed indices may not be the best way to ensure that adequate resources are available to maintain the high quality of care that VA has become renowned for to care 

for our Nation’s veterans. 

Since 2001 VA has been utilizing a professional actuarial model as a basis for the 

formulation of the budget. These actuarial forecasts also have been integrated into 

the VHA’s capital and strategic planning processes. This demand model has contributed significantly to the achievement of VA’s strategic goals and performance measures to provide enrolled veterans with access to timely, quality care. This has allowed decision makers to ensure that resources are available to meet the expected 

demand or develop policies to address any gap between the expected demand and 

available resources. This professional, businesslike approach to forecasting is similar 

to that employed by many large private-sector organizations such as major insurance corporations throughout our country. The model utilized is highly sophisticated 
131 

and is capable of predicting patient utilization, reliance, morbidity, etc. We continue 

to revise and update the model in order to assure that future projections will be as 

accurate as possible. 

VA therefore strongly believes that the utilization of a highly professional, scientific, actuarial model is a much more professional, effective, and businesslike approach for budget formulation and forecasting than those like mandatory funding. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. In May 2001, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13214 

creating the President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans. The PTF Task Force. This task force was charged to identify ways 

to improve health care delivery to VA and Department of Defense beneficiaries. One 

important recommendation of this task force was recently addressed in a letter sent 

to the VA Secretary and to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. This recommendation directed the VA to develop electronic medical records that are interoperable and bidirectional, allowing for a two-way electronic exchange of health information and occupational and environment exposure data. These electronic medical records should 

also include an easily transferable electronic DD214 forwarded from the DOD to the 

VA. This would allow the VA to expedite the claims process and give the service 

member faster access to health care and benefits. 

What progress has been made towards accomplishing this task which is necessary 

in order to ensure that servicemen and women have a seamless transition from military to civilian life? 

Answer. The Defense Personnel Records Image Retrieval System (DPRIS) is currently operational between the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 

Administration (over 3,000 users) and the Official Military Personnel File systems 

of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. DPRIS connects to the VA Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) and allows VA users to electronically request and 

receive official military personnel documentation. The interface with the Air Force 

will be completed in June 2005, and the VA will be able to retrieve imaged copies 

of military personnel records from the Air Force by September 2005. All of these 

systems contain the DD214 and many additional military personnel documents that 

VA uses. The most commonly requested form is the DD214, and although the performance parameter for DPRIS is to return the requested documents to VA within 

48 hours, it is currently operating in near real time. In addition to the interagency 

collaboration on DPRIS, DOD and VA are also collaborating on VA access to military personnel information that will be stored as data in the Defense Integrated 

Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS). VA requirements for military information have been an integral and on-going part of the requirements collection for 

DIMHRS, and the two departments are now moving into the technical integration 

phase which will determine the most efficient and expeditious way for VA to access 

information in DIMHRS when it comes on line in 2006. The electronic exchange of 

DD214 information will be fully implemented with DIMHRS. 

Question. According to a New England Journal of Medicine study published on 

July 1, 2004, dealing with Mental Health Problems and Barriers to Care with respect to Service Members Returning From Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, 

82 percent of veterans acknowledged a need for mental health treatment, however 

only 24 percent reported ever receiving any mental health treatment within 1 year 

after returning from combat. Among the concerns veterans reported after returning 

from combat, were depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder and almost 

one third reported the misuse of alcohol. With thousands of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan this year, these numbers will increase significantly. 

As you know, often times symptoms of post traumatic stress do not manifest themselves for months or even years after returning from combat. 

Given the importance of mental health issues and the impact that these concerns 

will have on not only the service member’s entire quality of life, as well as the quality of life of his or her family and community, what programs has the VA in place 

at present to deal with these matters and what plans do you have to deal with the 

increased numbers who will require this type of health care? 

Answer. Meeting the needs of our returning veterans and their families is among 

VA’s highest priorities. VA has indeed anticipated and prepared for the increased 

numbers of those requiring mental health services. VA’s approach toward the returning troops and their families emphasizes health promotion and preventive care 

principles. This approach is designed to identify and resolve problems in readjustment to civilian life, before they progress to problems requiring more intensive clin-
132 

ical interaction. For those that require clinical interaction, VA provides state-of-theart psychotherapy and psychopharmacology treatments. 

Based on VA’s experience and research we do not expect that a great majority of 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans will 

suffer long-term consequences of their war zone experience. However, many likely 

will have some short-term reactions to the horrors of war. Of those who do develop 

mental/emotional problems, PTSD will not be the only problem to be addressed. VA 

provides comprehensive care for veterans with mental disorders through a continuum of services designed to meet patients’ changing needs. 

Major depression and substance abuse are two problems that can be anticipated, 

and these disorders carry with them significant risk for dangerous behaviors such 

as suicide and family violence. VA provides care through 144 specialized PTSD programs throughout the country along with 206 (soon to be 207) Readjustment Counseling Centers (RCS), often called Vet Centers. In addition, Outpatient Clinical 

PTSD Teams, Specialized Inpatient PTSD Programs, and Residential Treatment 

Programs are located across the Nation. There are PTSD programs in all States. 

VA’s ongoing PTSD program evaluation indicates improvements in PTSD symptoms 

and functioning in patients treated by VA for PTSD. In fiscal year 2004, VA spent 

more than $3 billion on the provision of treatment services (medical and psychiatric) 

to veterans with a mental illness. 

The tasks for these teams are those of outreach, health promotion, consultation, 

and liaison. The working title for these programs is: Returning Veterans Outreach, 

Education and Care programs and there will be at least one program in every Veterans Integrated Service Network. VA’s National Center for PTSD is creating an 

educational program entitled ‘‘PTSD 101’’ specifically for clinicians who will be hired 

into the new PTSD programs. There will be basic and advanced care modules. 

Linked to the concepts of the PTSD Clinical Practice Guideline and the Iraq Clinician War Guide, it will ensure the provision of the latest evidence-based care to veterans with PTSD and associated mental disorders. 

Analysis of DOD data as of December 2004 shows that 244,054 troops had returned from Iraq, with 20 percent (48,733) receiving care in a VA medical center. 

Of those returned troops, 12,422 had a mental health diagnosis: 4,783 were previously diagnosed with PTSD, and 3,500 were diagnosed with a depressive disorder. 

An additional 2,082 veterans were diagnosed with PTSD at Vet Centers. 

Readjustment Counseling Service takes the lead in providing outreach and counseling services through the 206 (soon to be 207) community-based centers throughout the United States. Fifty additional Global War on Terrorism counselors have 

been added to these centers to meet this need. In addition the Secretary has assigned authority to RCS to deliver bereavement counseling to those in need. To position VA for future needs, we have allocated $100 million in fiscal year 2005 

to implement initiatives contained in the Department’s Mental Health Strategic 

Plan. The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget submission proposes an additional 

$100 million for mental health initiatives in fiscal year 2006. These initiatives will 

benefit all veterans receiving mental health care from VA and include OEF/OIF outreach programs designed to provide preventive health services that should, in many 

instances, identify problems and address them before they require more extensive 

clinical intervention. These enhancements will also address increased clinical needs 

of returning veterans and existing veterans who come to VA for PTSD care. 

Question. A core mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs is the provision 

of benefits to relieve the economic effects of disability upon veterans and their families. For those benefits to effectively fulfill their intended purpose the VA must process and adjudicate claims in a timely and accurate fashion. Rather than making 

headway and overcoming the chronic claims backlog and consequent protracted 

delays in claims disposition, the VA has lost ground to the problem, with the backlog of pending claims growing substantially larger. Historically, many underlying 

causes acted in concert to bring on this intractable problem. These dynamics acting 

in concert have been thoroughly detailed in several studies into the problem. While 

the problem has been exacerbated by lack of appropriate and decisive action, most 

of the causes can be directly or indirectly associated with inadequate resources. 

What steps does the Veterans Administration plan to take by virtue of this recommended budget in order to improve the quality, proficiency, and efficiency within 

the Veterans Administration with respect to claims processing and adjudication? 

Answer. The focus of the 2006 budget is to continue progress, in support of the 

President’s initiative, to improve the timeliness and accuracy of claims processing. 

Recipients of compensation and pension benefits are projected to increase from 2.62 

million in 2001 to 3.02 million in 2006, a 15.3 percent increase. The projected increase is due to a number of factors, including the current record levels of DOD active duty end strength resulting from the large number of activated reserve units. 
133 

—We continue to receive increasing numbers of claims. Between 2000 and 2004, 

the number of disability claims received annually rose from 674,000 to 771,000, 

or more than 14 percent. This budget conservatively estimates a 3 percent increase for 2005 and another 3 percent for 2006 in claims receipts. This increase 

is due to both the high active duty levels mentioned above, as well as an increase in the number of reopened claims due to various changes, including the 

addition of cardiovascular disease and residuals of stroke to the presumptive 

list for former Prisoners of War. 

—To address projected workload increases, this budget continues to ensure a sufficient workforce in our compensation and pension programs to meet our targets. The FTE in the compensation and pension programs will increase by 128 

in 2006. 

This budget also continues VBA’s goal to improve organizational designs and information technology investments to process claims as efficiently and accurately as 

possible. For example: 

—In 2005 VBA will begin the consolidation of the disability determination aspects 

of the Benefits Delivery at Discharge Program into two rating activities located 

in Salt Lake City and Winston-Salem. 

—In 2006 VBA will complete implementation of the Cooperative Separation Process/Examination initiative at the local level. This is a joint VA and DOD initiative that streamlines the military discharge process for separating 

servicemembers with disabilities. 

—Funds are provided to continue reorganizing our field financial functions to reduce overhead and realign critical resources to our business processes directly 

serving veterans. —$4.4 million is provided to begin implementation of the Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Task Force recommendations to establish self-service job resource labs at each regional office to aid VR&E staff and veterans in comprehensive analyses of employment opportunities. —Over $15 million has been allocated to support our highest priority IT initiative—VETSNET—and continue efforts in C&P, Education, and VR&E to move 

off the existing Benefits Delivery Network to the new corporate environment. 

VETSNET, when fully deployed, will greatly expand the information available 

to decision makers, reduce the number of times data must be entered both increasing efficiency and insuring that the same data is available throughout the 

Department. 

In addition, the 2006 budget submission will enable VA to continue its efforts in 

skill certification. Skill certification is a core initiative of the Department to insure 

that claims processors in regional offices have tested and validated competencies in 

the essential aspects of their positions. We believe that skill certification directly addresses quality and proficiency. 

VA will also continue its Benefit Delivery at Discharge (BDD) program. That program greatly simplifies the claims process and significantly reduces the amount of 

time required to process a claim. 

Question. There are 119 State Veterans Homes in 48 States and Puerto Rico. For 

more than 100 years the Federal Government has provided support for our State 

Veteran’s Homes in partnership with State governments. The Federal Department 

of Veteran’s Affairs budget for fiscal year 2006 would change the eligibility for Federal support excluding for the first time whole priority groups of deserving veterans. 

As a result, up to 80 percent of veterans in many States may no longer qualify for 

partial Federal support through per diem payments. Budget assumptions reduce the 

VA Per Diem grant by $293 million. The budget would also place a moratorium on 

Federal construction grants for renovations and new construction of State Veterans 

Homes. After decades of partnership with the States—during which State taxpayers 

across the country have contributed millions of dollars to build and maintain the 

State Veterans Homes—the President’s budget reneges on this commitment to our 

State homes, State taxpayers, and worst of all, our honored veterans. The impact 

of the proposal would be devastating for the residents of the State Veterans Homes. 

Of veterans currently residing in the Homes, approximately 20 percent would continue to receive the Federal per diem payments. 

What suggestions does the VA have for veterans who cannot afford to pick up 

these additional payments as a result of the per diem change and what plan do you 

have for Louisiana Veterans Homes which will be unable to meet their operating 

costs as a result of this massive blow? 

Answer. State Veterans Homes are owned, operated, and financed by the States. 

VA provides limited financial assistance to the States in the form of per diem grants 

for nursing home, hospital, domiciliary, and adult day healthcare. Only the nursing 

home per diem is affected by the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. The cost of care 
134 

in State Veterans Homes varies from State to State, as does the amount of assistance provided to the Homes by the State. Currently, costs not covered by the VA 

per diem payments are covered from various sources, including the veterans themselves and State and Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. VA’s proposal could increase the share of costs borne by the State, depending upon the 

State’s own policies for coverage of the costs of State Home care. State Homes will 

continue operations to the extent that individual States discharge their fiscal responsibility for the operation and management of the Homes. VA does not have information on the plans of individual States to respond to the change in VA policy. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Question. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 2003 decision by 

the Administration to suspend health care enrollments for the lowest priority veterans called Category 8 veterans will affect 522,000 veterans by the end of the current fiscal year. 

Secretary Nicholson, how many Category 8 veterans in West Virginia are no 

longer eligible to enroll in the VA health care as a result of the 2003 decision? 

Answer. As of the end of fiscal year 2004, VA estimates there were 78,688 veterans in West Virginia who were Priority 8 of which 24,649 were enrolled. VA 

projects there were 54,039 Priority 8 veterans in West Virginia who were not eligible to enroll with VA for health care. 

Question. If this policy continues, as your budget proposes, how many Category 

8 veterans in West Virginia will be affected in fiscal year 2006 and beyond? How 

many veterans will be affected nationally? 

Answer. VA projects there are 9,818 Priority 8 enrollees residing in West Virginia 

who will pay the enrollment fee in fiscal year 2006 and another 8,789 who will 

choose not to pay. At the national level, 642,772 Priority 8 enrollees would pay the 

enrollment fee and 579,929 would not. These new collections will allow VA to continue to refocus resources on veterans that fall under VA’s core medical care mission 

(those with service-related disabilities, lower incomes, and special health needs). 

The fees are more closely aligned with other public and private health plans. 

PROPOSED BECKLEY VA MEDICAL CENTER NURSING HOME

Question. Mr. Secretary, I made your predecessors acutely aware of my very 

strong support for the construction of the proposed Beckley VA Medical Center 

Nursing Home, and I want to take this opportunity to familiarize you of my interest 

in this project, as well. The nursing home was authorized by the Veterans Programs 

Enhancement Act of 2000, with the sponsorship of Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV. 

The project was originally authorized at $9.5 million. However, after further consultation with VA Headquarters officials, the estimates were reformulated, with a 

new total cost of approximately $18 million for a 120-bed, 71,300 gross-square foot 

facility. 

I have been supportive of this project since its inception. To aid in its development, I added $1 million to the fiscal year 2001 VA–HUD Appropriations bill for 

the design of such a nursing home on thirteen acres of available space owned by 

the Beckley VA Medical Center, a site for which I secured $100,000 several years 

ago in anticipation of increased demand for nursing home care in Southern West 

Virginia. Further, I have included language in the Senate reports accompanying the 

fiscal year 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 VA–HUD Appropriations bills to encourage 

that funds for the project be included in subsequent Administration budgets. 

I understand that the project has undergone the Capital Asset Realignment for 

Enhanced Services (CARES) review process and that it has been included in the 

February 2005 VA Five-Year Capital Plan, 2005–2010, which lists the VA’s highest 

priority major medical facility construction requirements over the next 5 years. 

While I am pleased that the proposed nursing home is on this list, I am disappointed that it is ranked #46 (out of 48 projects). 

Mr. Secretary, is the VA adhering to its capital investment methodology by funding construction projects in priority order? Have there been any exceptions made? 

What are they? 

Answer. The Department has adhered to the capital investment methodology 

when funding CARES projects. VA has only allowed projects to be funded out of 

order in extremely limited situations, based upon funding allocations, as described 

below. 

The only exception being: 

—To Allow for Maximizing of the Utilization of Major Construction Funds.—In fiscal year 2005 #29 San Diego, CA, $48.3 million was funded prior to #28 Dallas, 
135 

TX. Clinical expansion at San Diego was funded since it was less expensive and 

within VA’s funding allowance. This occurred again in fiscal year 2006 when the 

design for #6 project in Fayetteville, AR, was funded prior to other higher ranking projects because of the availability of funding. 

Question. At the current level of funding and the current rank of the Beckley 

VAMC Nursing Home, when do you anticipate that funds will be included in the 

President’s Budget for this project? What can be done to move Beckley up the list? 

Answer. When Beckley will be included in the President’s budget cannot be determined at this time as new projects are added (and some may drop out) to the review 

process each year. For example, for fiscal year 2006 two additional projects were reviewed as compared to the previous year. Existing projects which have not received 

CARES funding and new projects are rescored each year. Split funded projects that 

have received previous CARES funds (because of their higher score) retain their 

ranking. 

Based on the current capital decision criteria, it will be difficult for a project like 

Beckley to compete with other medical projects that clearly provide more access to 

care, or have a life-safety component (such as seismic) and/or provide for special disability services (spinal cord injury). How well a project addresses these criteria leads 

to an improved score. 

Question. Will the VA’s highest major construction priorities be reevaulated in the 

future, providing an opportunity for the proposed Beckley Nursing Home to move 

up on the list? 

Answer. The Department rescores and ranks major projects every year. In the 

next few months, VA will again review and rank major construction projects. The 

highest ranking will be included in the congressional budget submission for fiscal 

year 2007. 

Question. Since the proposed Beckley Nursing Home has already been designed 

with funds that I added in fiscal year 2001 and the land is already owned by the 

VA, why can’t this project be moved up on the list since it is ready to go to construction? 

Answer. The ranked list of projects are developed based on how well each project 

specifically addresses each of the main criteria and sub-criterion used for ranking 

CARES projects. It would not be equitable for the Department to move a project up 

this list simply based on the fact that it is designed. Our capital investment planning process and methodology involve a Department-wide approach for the use of 

capital funds and ensure all major investments are based upon sound economic 

principles and are fully linked to strategic planning, budget, and performance measures and targets. All CARES projects have been reviewed using a consistent set of 

evaluation criteria that address service delivery enhancements, safeguarding assets, 

support of special emphasis programs and services, capital portfolio goals, alignment 

with the President’s Management Agenda, and financial priorities. 

Question. What level of funding for the VA’s major construction program will be 

required annually and for what period of time to complete all of the projects listed 

in the VA’s Five-Year Capital Plan, 2005–2010? 

Answer. VA will need to reexamine its needs each year and determine the appropriate breakout between major and minor construction. The Department is unable 

to determine for what period of time it would take to complete all the projects listed 

in our Five-Year Capital Plan because the plan is a dynamic document which is updated each year based on competing new projects and priorities. In addition, VA is 

still developing cost estimates for the 70 outyear projects that are listed in the plan. 

Most of these conceptual projects require further refinement and development. To 

date, VA has committed $2.15 billion to implementing CARES plans, and additional 

funding will be requested in the outyears as specific capital plans are designed. 

Question. How many design awards has the Department made to date and for 

which projects? How many land purchases and for which projects? How many construction awards have been made and for which projects? 

Answer. There have been 16 design awards and 2 construction awards. There 

were no land purchases. 

Design Awards: 

—Atlanta, GA—Modernize Patient Wards—6/04 

—Chicago Westside, IL—Modernize Inpatient Space—11/02 

—Columbus, OH—Outpatient Clinic—8/04 

—Des Moines, IA—Extended Care Building—7/04 

—Durham, NC—Renovate Patient Wards—9/04 

—Las Vegas, NV—New Medical Facility—2/05 

—North Chicago, IL—Surgical Suite/Emergency—11/03 

—Pensacola, FL—Outpatient Clinic—1/04 

—Pittsburgh, PA—Medical Center Consolidation—12/04 
136 

—San Antonio, TX—Ward Upgrades and Expansion—1/05 

—San Diego, CA—Seismic Corrections—1/05 

—San Francisco, CA—Seismic Corrections—12/03 

—Tampa, FL—SCI—10/04 

—Tampa, FL—Upgrade Electrical—10/04 

—Tucson, AZ—Mental Health Clinic—8/04 

—Wes Los Angeles, CA—Seismic Corrections—3/03 

Construction Awards: 

—Chicago Westside, IL—Modernize Inpatient Space—9/04 

—North Chicago, IL—Surgical Suite Emergency—9/04 

—Pensacola, FL—Outpatient Clinic—3/05 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

REAL HEALTH CARE INCREASE

Question. This budget cites an increase of $522 million over last year; however, 

the number is much lower in reality—about $100 million. As is typical of this Administration, smoke and mirrors are used to deflect attention from the real number. 

Mr. Secretary, let’s be perfectly clear about what the President is offering as an increase for VA health care. Your testimony cites a 2.5 percent increase for medical 

spending. The Majority staff on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee provided a terrific 

chart which tries to make sense of the number and found that the requested increase is under $80 million. That’s only $80 million more for the nearly 7 million 

veterans who are enrolled in VA healthcare, for the 170 hospitals and hundreds of 

outpatient clinics, for medical inflation, and payroll increases for thousands of VA 

health care workers. Mr. Secretary, Washington state has nearly 700,000 veterans 

and the population is growing. The CARES commission and my VISN director have 

told these veterans that two outreach clinics—in North Central Washington and 

Whatcom County—are on the way. But now they are on hold because of funding 

shortages. 

Simply put: help me to understand how an $80 million increase keeps our promise 

to veterans? Set aside the possible increased revenue from insurance companies and 

the spending associated with new veterans’ fees. 

Answer. The President’s 2006 request includes budgetary resources of $30.7 billion which will enable VA to provide the high-quality health care services that VA 

has become renowned for to more than 5.2 million patients in fiscal year 2006. 

Question. The Budget proposes $30.7 billion (including collections) for medical 

care—a $0.8 billion (2.5 percent) increase over the 2005 enacted level—to treat over 

5.2 million patients. The Budget assumes that Congress will authorize new authority whereby veterans with higher incomes and no military disabilities will pay a 

$250 annual enrollment fee and higher drug co-pays (from $7 to $15). These will 

still be low and more aligned with other public and private health plans. 

What is the amount the President is requesting Congress appropriate for VA’s 

hospitals and clinics? 

Answer. VA is requesting the following appropriations in fiscal year 2006: 

[In thousand of dollars] 

Description Amount 

Medical Services .................................................................................................................................................. 19,789,141 

Medical Care Collections Fund ............................................................................................................................ 2,588,000 

Medical Administration ........................................................................................................................................ 4,439,124 

Medical Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 3,888,469 

Total 2006 Budget Request ................................................................................................................... 30,704,734 

Question. And again to be clear: what is the amount associated with payroll increases and inflation? The amount associated with payroll and inflation for VA 

health care is more than $1 billion, so the President’s request doesn’t even cover 

inflation. 

Answer. The 2006 budget request reflects an increase of $858.9 million for payroll 

increases and an increase of $539.7 million for inflation. These increases are offset 

by a decrease in requested appropriations of $1.1 billion from a comprehensive set 

of legislative and regulatory policy proposals and a decrease of $590,000 for management efficiencies. 
137 

INCREASED COSTS FOR MIDDLE-INCOME VETS/BAN ON PRIORITY 8S

Question. This budget includes an increase in the drug co-payment and an annual 

enrollment fee of $250 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. The threshold for Priority 7 

is only $25,163 a year, so veterans with incomes above this level would be required 

to pay these new fees. The budget also continues the ban on Priority 8 veterans, 

who in some regions of the country can be making as little as $28,000 a year and 

still not be eligible for VA care. The President’s co-pay increase and new enrollment 

fee are designed to literally drive veterans out of the system. Two years ago, the 

President had no qualms about prohibiting enrollment for new ‘‘middle-income’’ veterans. That policy continues today. In fact, the testimony touts that the President’s 

enrollment decision was the ‘‘most effective’’ vehicle to manage health care resources. This budget takes a different route, however. The goal is to make the cost 

of coming to VA for health care prohibitively expensive. Either way, I have to question the priorities of this Administration. As you know, my father returned home 

from World War II as a disabled veteran and during the Viet Nam War, I interned 

in the Seattle VA hospital. I know first-hand the scars and wounds that burden our 

veterans when they come back home. 

Mr. Secretary, our veterans—new and old—are some of our most important national security assets. Why not provide sufficient resources to care for all veterans? 

Is this care not part of the cost of past wars and the current conflicts in which 

we are engaged? 

Do you agree that VA healthcare for our soldiers returning home is a cost of war? 

Answer. In the Eligibility Reform legislation, Congress established a prioritybased enrollment system and required the VA Secretary, every year, to assess veteran demand for VA health care and determine whether or not resources are available to provide timely, quality care to all enrollees. Using this legislatively mandated system for prioritizing care to veterans, VA suspended enrollment in Priority 

8 and has proposed cost-sharing policies for Priority 7 and 8 enrollees as a means 

of balancing veteran demand for VA health care and available resources. These policies also refocus the VA health care system on those veterans who need us most. 

With the implementation of the enrollment fee for Priority 7 and 8 enrollees, VA 

expects that 71 percent of all those using VA’s health care system in 2006 will be 

veterans with service-connected medical conditions, special needs, and low incomes, 

up from 66 percent in 2004. The fees are more closely aligned with other public and 

private health plans. 

REAL EFFECTS OF INCREASING OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS

Question. The Administration’s budget calls for increasing the drug co-payment 

from $7 to $15 per 30-day prescription for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, as mentioned 

in an earlier question. It also would require these veterans to pay a $250 annual 

enrollment fee. At the bottom end of this spectrum, older veterans on fixed incomes 

could be making as little as $26,000 a year and still be subject to these increases 

in costs. 

I’d like to briefly discuss the potential impact of some of your proposals on veterans in the ‘‘middle-income’’ bracket. Some of these veterans could be making as 

little as $26,000 a year and still be subject to the increases in out-of-pocket costs 

that are built into your budget. And, for a veteran living on a fixed income in a city 

with a high cost of living, like Seattle, this is quite harsh. For example, an older 

veteran on an average of eight medications would see a cost increase per year of 

more than $1,000, just to continue getting his or her needed medications and continue enrollment in VA health care. 

How do you reconcile this with VA’s mission of providing care to all who have 

served? 

Answer. In the Eligibility Reform legislation, Congress established a prioritybased enrollment system and required the VA Secretary, every year, to assess veteran demand for VA health care and determine whether or not resources are available to provide timely, quality care to all enrollees. Using this legislatively mandated system for prioritizing care to veterans, VA has proposed cost-sharing policies 

for Priority 7 and 8 enrollees as a means of balancing veteran demand for VA health 

care and available resources. These policies also refocus the VA health care system 

on those veterans who need us most. With the implementation of the enrollment fee 

for Priority 7 and 8 enrollees, VA expects that 71 percent of all those using VA’s 

health care system in 2006 will be veterans with service-connected medical conditions, special needs, and low incomes, up from 66 percent in 2004. The fees are more 

closely aligned with other public and private health plans. 
138 

STATE VETERANS HOMES: ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK

Question. This budget contains proposals that will severely affect the State Veterans Home program. On the one side, the President will be seeking authority to 

restrict who can receive VA funding for care in these homes. While 50 percent of 

the veterans currently being cared for in Washington state’s three facilities, the 

State Home Association has told me that in many States, 80 percent or more of 

State Home residents will be excluded by this change. According to the VA’s average 

daily census for long-term care, there are estimated to be more than 19,000 individuals in State nursing homes. This budget would slash that figure to about 7,000— 

a 62 percent decline in 1 year. 

Explain to me how you believe these homes will remain viable if these proposed 

policies are accepted? 

Answer. State Veterans Homes are owned, operated, and financed by the States. 

VA provides limited financial assistance to the States in the form of per diem grants 

for nursing home, hospital, domiciliary, and adult day healthcare. Only the nursing 

home per diem is affected by the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. The cost of care 

in State Veterans Homes varies from State to State, as does the amount of assistance provided to the Homes by the State. Currently, costs not covered by the VA 

per diem payments are covered from various sources, including the veterans themselves and State and Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. VA’s proposal could increase the share of costs borne by the State, depending upon the 

State’s own policies for coverage of the costs of State Home care. In addition, VA 

long-term care has shifted from inpatient to outpatient, similar to the private sector. 

This is more convenient to patients and their families, and is more cost-effective 

VA NURSING HOMES: ALSO ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK

Question. The Administration would also like to reduce VA’s in-house capacity by 

almost 14,000 beds. 

What can you tell me about where VA is in meeting the non-institutional capacity 

called for by GAO, and relied upon so heavily in your budget, to make up for this 

loss? 

Answer. Non-institutional home and community-based care (HCBC) is part of the 

medical and extended care benefits package available to all enrolled veterans. We 

recognize that access to these services varies across VA’s health care system. Last 

year, VA adopted a policy of increasing HCBC capacity by 18 percent annually to 

meet the full need of enrolled veterans by 2011, and established a performance 

measure for Network Directors to meet that goal. Capacity growth is targeted to 

those regions with the greatest current and projected need for services in order to 

reduce variability in access to care. Progress so far has been excellent. Capacity 

growth exceeded 20 percent in fiscal year 2004 and is at 113 percent of target so 

far in fiscal year 2005. The number of individual programs is also expanding. For 

example, VA recently approved its 100th Home-Based Primary Care Program (up 

from 77 less than 5 years ago), and Care Coordination services have now been approved in all 21 VISNs. 

Care Coordination services involve the ongoing monitoring and assessment of selected patients using telehealth technologies to proactively enable prevention, investigation, and treatment that enhances the health of patients and prevents unnecessary and inappropriate utilization of resources. Care coordination provides patients 

a continuous connection to clinical services from the convenience of their place of 

residence. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator HUTCHISON. So with that, we are in our second vote and 

I am going to close this meeting. I thank you very much for your 

patience and look forward to working with all of you. And thank 

you, Dr. Perlin, for your comments as well. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., Tuesday, March 15, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(139) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:08 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison, Allard, and Feinstein. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MAJOR GENERAL GEOFFREY D. MILLER, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF 

STAFF, INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT 

MAJOR GENERAL WALTER F. PUDLOWSKI, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO 

THE DIRECTOR, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD 

BRIGADIER GENERAL GARY M. PROFIT, DEPUTY CHIEF, ARMY RESERVE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. I’ll call this meeting order. I’m very pleased 

to be able to have our second hearing on military construction. Last 

week, we had the first of our hearings, and today we are doing 

Army and Air Force. I want to welcome all of you to the Committee. My Ranking Member will be here shortly, but I wanted to 

go ahead and start so we could stay on time. 

This is a dynamic year in military construction, and especially 

for the Army. Surely, the Army is doing more than probably we 

could ever have expected, doing modularity, global restationing and 

BRAC, all at the same time, as we are fighting the war in Iraq 

with heavy Army effort. 

There are many demands on the Army right now, and a tough 

budget environment, but it doesn’t change the fact that every soldier who is reassigned, restationed, or realigned will need a place 

to eat, sleep, and train, and every family will need quality education and healthcare. 
140 

Also, the experience of our military families throughout the processes of moving will directly affect morale, readiness, and retention 

of our men and women at a time when we must have retention. 

So with all of these moving pieces, it seems to me that the Army 

should be investing heavily in infrastructure in order to have adequate facilities in place for its soldiers and their families when they 

arrive at the new post. Yet this year’s budget request is $1.48 billion, down 16 percent from last year’s request, 25 percent from last 

year’s enacted levels. 

I brought this up last week at the Defense Appropriations hearing, with both the Secretary and with General Schoomaker, so I do 

want everyone to know that I am concerned about the Army, the 

demands we’re putting on the Army, and a lower military construction budget at the same time. 

Having said that, I do so support where the Army is putting its 

increases, and that is in the Guard and Reserve. They are going 

up 23 and 22 percent, respectively, over their 2005 requests, and 

the Reserve request is 15 percent above enacted levels. That is, I 

think, a good thing. We have shortchanged Guard and Reserve facilities for many years. So, while we’re not nearly where we need 

to be, I do support those increases. But I will ask you, as the representative of the Department, Mr. Prosch, to take back the message that I really believe we are shortchanging the Army in military construction. 

On the Air Force, you have a 61 percent increase over fiscal year 

2005. And, while the Air Force is not facing quite the level of 

change as the Army in the coming year, it will be actively participating in BRAC, global restationing, and the global war on terror. 

So there will be infrastructure needs over the next few years as 

these changes play out. 

The Air Force has significantly boosted its family-housing budget 

request. It’s up 18 percent from last year. And, as ardent a supporter as I am of housing privatization, I am pleased to know that 

with the budgetary cap on the program lifted, the Air Force is now 

really fully engaged in privatization. I am concerned that in our desire to meet the fiscal year 2007 goal of eliminating inadequate 

housing to all Services, that we also don’t forgo responsible budgeting. I do think that the Committee, our Committee, needs to be 

kept apprised of the workings of the privatization, and, in cases 

where MILCON has been appropriated for certain projects that are 

now being converted to privatization, I think we need to be kept 

apprised of that and we need to have input when changes like that 

are made. 

With that, I’m going to turn to Senator Allard to see if he has 

an opening statement. And when Senator Feinstein comes, I will 

certainly recognize her. 

Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to thank 

the panel for testifying today. And I’d like to thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to welcome our guests from both the Army 

and the Air Force here today. 
141 

Too often, in Congress, we focus on our military’s fighting units 

and forget that significant combat-power multipliers are Defense 

installations. If we have the best installations and facilities, it will 

make it that much easier for our soldiers, sailors, and the airmen 

and marines to focus on their mission of defending our Nation. 

I’m pleased to welcome our guests here from the Army today. I’ve 

been impressed by the proactive approach the Army has taken to 

address many of the pressing problems facing its military posts, facilities, and training ranges. By thinking ahead, I believe the Army 

is a couple of steps ahead of other services, addressing difficult 

problems, like encroachment and shrinking utility of our training 

ranges. 

And, Madam Chairman, I’ll also say that we’ve got, there at Fort 

Carson—we have some privatization of the housing which seems to 

be working very well. And both Congressman Hefley and myself 

have been following it very closely. 

This praise does not mean the Army doesn’t have problems. In 

particular, I am concerned about the redeployment of our troops 

stationed overseas to the continental United States. I support this 

redeployment, as it better addresses our global posture, but I am 

concerned the Army has not thought this through. I look forward 

to asking the witnesses some—from the Army some questions on 

this particular issue, if I’m here. Madam Chairman, I’ve got to 

leave in about 15 minutes or so. 

Also, we’ll be hearing testimony from witnesses from the Air 

Force. And, Madam Chairman, I have serious concerns about the 

way the Air Force has handled the cleanup of one of Colorado’s 

former Air Force bases that was closed during a prior BRAC round. 

Once we’ve gone through BRAC closure, I think the follow-up in 

carrying through your commitments afterwards is extremely important. And so, I’ll be asking questions in regard to the Air Force’s 

lack of effort, and some issues regarding a closure that we had in 

Colorado. I may not be able to ask them in person, but, if not, we’ll 

maybe submit questions to the Committee. Or perhaps, we’ll submit them to the Army, and perhaps—maybe they can submit them 

back to the Committee for a response. 

I look forward to working with all of you as we go through some 

difficult priorities setting here on the Committee. And I want to 

thank you, Madam Chairman, for giving me the time to say a few 

words. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Allard. 

We have our first panel today, Mr. Geoffrey Prosch, the Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment; Major General Geoffrey Miller, Assistant Chief of Staff of 

the Army for Installation Management; Major General Walter 

Pudlowski, Special Assistant to the Director of the Army National 

Guard; and Brigadier General Gary Profit, the Deputy Chief of the 

Army Reserve. 

Mr. Prosch, I’m going to ask you to make your statement, but I 

do want to say how pleased I am with your accessibility. I have 

called on you many times, and you have responded, and I appreciate that very, very much. It helps for a very strong working relationship. 
142 

So if you—let me just see if my Ranking Member would like to 

make her opening statement now, or would you prefer to wait? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No statement, Madam Chairman, just to welcome everybody. I look forward to their presentations. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Senator Burns submitted a statement to be 

included in the hearing. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Thank you, Chairwoman Hutchison. Gentlemen, thank you for coming to brief our 

subcommittee this afternoon. Your service and work is critical to the development 

and maintenance of the facilities for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 

around the world. Since today, we are talking specifically about Air Force and Army 

military construction, I will restrict my remarks to those areas. I intend to honor 

our men and women serving and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for 

our country by ensuring that our active, reserve, and national guard have the resources they need to support the current and future requirements with which they 

have been tasked. 

Our military personnel are based in dangerous areas all around the world. It 

speaks well of the character of our young men and women, who, despite these dangers, accept this duty and continue their voluntary service to our Nation. We must 

ensure that we provide the resources needed to maintain their installations both at 

home and overseas. 

I hold firm in my belief that replacing dangerous and outdated facilities improves 

morale for our military forces worldwide, contributing to better-trained, more enthusiastic service members who can complete the mission more effectively and safely. 

Investing in facilities to support the fielding, training, operations, and quality of life 

of our forces pays dividends. When I chaired this subcommittee years ago, I did just 

that in my State of Montana. Our Air Force and Guard facilities were ‘‘vintage 

1940’’ buildings. Today Montana has state of the art facilities and it has made all 

the difference in the world for those men and women. So it is that I really feel our 

commitment to quality of life and modern facilities must not end with the active 

forces. We must continue to support essential infrastructure improvements for our 

National Guard forces, which are fighting alongside our active duty forces. 

Part of this quality of life includes physical fitness. It is clear that Air Force Chief 

of Staff, General Jumper, is making fitness a priority throughout the Air Force. I 

think this is a good thing. We are desperately in need of a new physical fitness center at Malmstrom Air Force Base (AFB), in Great Falls, Montana. Some of you may 

know that it can get a little chilly up in Montana during the year. . . . This, combined with the fact that Malmstrom AFB has the youngest average age of any Air 

Force base, has really accelerated the need for expansion of the existing facility. I 

hope you—Secretary Kuhn and Major General Fox—will work with me in finding 

a way to get this project accomplished as soon as possible. 

We have also had some problems with Air Force contractors over the years at 

Malmstrom AFB, on various family housing projects. It just shouldn’t be something 

that our airmen have to worry about—sinking foundations, front steps separating 

from the rest of the house, etc. While most of this is currently in litigation, I do 

look appreciate your willingness to continue discussions on these issues with you, 

should further steps need to be taken. 

Mr. Prosch, I also note with interest a specific initiative the Army is undertaking 

as part of an overall improvement to its facilities posture. As we listen to your testimony today, I would like to hear more about the Army’s ‘‘Range and Training Land 

Strategy’’ and hope we can discuss this further. Fort Harrison, in Helena, Montana, 

is a wonderful asset to not only the Montana National Guard, but the entire United 

States military. Various units from across the country love to come to Fort Harrison 

to train. I wonder if Fort Harrison could fit into this strategy somehow. 

You will continue to have my strong support in these areas, as we invest in training and quality of life measures. It is of utmost importance that we do what we can 

to maintain the proficiency, readiness, and morale of these soldiers and airmen, 

whom this Nation relies upon to protect freedom and our way of life. 

Again, I thank you for being here today and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Mr. Prosch. 
143 

Mr. PROSCH. Thank you, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH

Madam Chairman Hutchison, Ranking Member Feinstein, Senator Allard, I’m pleased to appear before you with my Army Installation partners, Major General Geoffrey Miller from the Active 

Army, Major General Walt Pudlowski from the Army National 

Guard, and Brigadier General Gary Profit from the Army Reserve. 

This is my fourth year to have this distinct honor to represent 

our great Army and to testify before Congress. It is wonderful to 

be here today with friends and Army supporters from this Committee. We look forward to the opportunities this Committee brings 

toward leveraging enhanced quality of life for our soldiers and families. 

We have provided a written statement for the record that provides details on our Army’s fiscal year 2006 Military Construction 

budget. On behalf of the Army Installation Management team, I 

would like to comment briefly on the highlights of our program. 

We begin by expressing our great appreciation for the tremendous support that the Congress has provided to our soldiers and 

their families who are serving our country around the world. We 

are a Nation and an Army at war, and our soldiers would not be 

able to perform their missions so well without your support. We have submitted a military construction budget of $3.3 billion 

that will fund our highest-priority active Army, Army National 

Guard, and Army Reserve facilities, along with our family housing 

requirements. This budget request supports our Army vision encompassing current readiness, transformation, and people. 

As we are fighting the global war on terrorism, we are simultaneously transforming to be a more relevant and ready Army. We 

are on a path with the transformation of installation management 

that will allow us to achieve these objectives. We currently have 

hundreds of thousands of soldiers mobilizing and demobilizing, deploying and redeploying. More troops are coming and going on our 

installations than in any era since World War II. Our soldiers and 

installations are on point for the Nation. 

And on a special note I would ask everyone here to keep our forward-deployed soldiers in your thoughts and prayers. New forces 

have rotated recently to Iraq. The 3rd Infantry Division and the 

3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment have returned for their second tour 

of duty. The 42nd Infantry Division, Army National Guard, the 

Rainbow Division, has deployed. Now, they are over there. The 

enemy will test them early on. So keep them in your prayers. 

The Army recently identified key focus areas to channel our efforts to win the global war on terrorism and to increase the relevance and readiness of our Army. One of our focus areas is ‘‘installations as flagships,’’ which enhances the ability of our installations to project power and support families. Our installations support an expeditionary force, where soldiers train, mobilize, and deploy to fight and are sustained as they reach back for enhanced 

support. Soldiers and their families who live on and off the installation deserve the same quality of life as is afforded the society 

they are pledged to defend. Installations are a key ingredient to 

combat readiness and well-being. 
144 

Our worldwide installations’ structure is critically linked to Army 

transformation and the successful fielding of the modular force. 

Military construction is a critical tool to ensure that our installations remain relevant and ready. 

Our fiscal year 2006 Military Construction budget will provide 

the resources and facilities necessary for continued support of our 

mission. Let me summarize what this budget will provide for our 

Army: new barracks for 5,190 soldiers, adequate on-post housing 

for 5,800 Army families, increased MILCON funding for the Army 

National Guard and the Army Reserve over last year’s request, 

new readiness centers for over 3,300 Army National Guard soldiers, new Reserve centers for over 2,700 Army Reserve soldiers, a 

$292 million military construction investment in training readiness, and facilities support and improvements for our Stryker Brigades. 

With the sustained and balanced funding represented by this 

budget, our long-term strategies will be supported. With your help, 

we will continue to improve soldier and family quality of life, while 

remaining focused on our Army’s transformation to the future 

force. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, Madam Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity 

to outline our program. As I have visited Army installations, I have 

witnessed progress that has been made, and we attribute much of 

this success directly to the longstanding support of this Committee 

and your able staff. With your continued assistance, our Army 

pledges to use fiscal year 2006 MILCON funding to remain responsive to our Nation’s need. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee and answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY G. PROSCH

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to appear 

before you to discuss our Army’s Military Construction budget for fiscal year 2006. 

Our request includes initiatives and sustainment of programs of critical importance 

to our Army, the Congress, and the Global War on Terrorism, and we appreciate 

the opportunity to report on them to you. We would like to start by thanking you 

for your unwavering support to our Soldiers and their families who serve our Nation 

around the world. Their courage and sacrifices remain the foundation of our Army, 

and they would not be able to perform their global missions so successfully without 

your steadfast support. 

OVERVIEW

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

force capabilities. The Department of Defense and our Army are working to ensure 

that we deliver cost-effective, safe, and environmentally sound capabilities and capacities to support the national defense mission. 

Today, United States forces are engaged worldwide in a war against global terror. 

Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom clearly underscore the need for 

a joint, integrated military force ready to defeat all threats to United States interests. To meet the security challenges of the 21st Century, we require the right blend 

of people, weapons, and support systems. Regarding support systems, we need a 

global framework of Army installations, facilities, ranges, airfields and other critical 

assets that are properly distributed, efficient, and capable of ensuring that we can 
145 

successfully carry out the roles, missions, and tasks that safeguard our security at 

home and overseas. 

The Army’s installations framework is multi-purposed. It must sustain the regular forward presence of U.S forces as well as their emergency deployment in crisis, 

contingency, and combat. It must have the surge capacity to support the mobilization and demobilization of our Army reserve component forces. It must also focus 

10 to 20 years into the future to develop technologically advanced, affordable, and 

effective joint systems and platforms and develop highly qualified and committed installation management personnel who will operate and maintain them. Our framework must provide a productive, safe, and efficient workplace and offer a decent 

quality of service and facilities for our Soldiers and their families (comparable to the 

American citizens off post they are pledged to defend). 

We recognize the enormity of the task to provide the right installations framework 

given the other competing funding programs. We are challenged to find the optimum management approach that balances the many purposes of our assets. For example, while our installations retain their primary military mission to organize, 

train and equip our forces, they also are home to rare species of plants and animals 

while experiencing encroachment from outside civilian communities. Our stewardship thus embraces the joint warfighting requirements of the Combatant Commanders with environmental management and stewardship of our Earth. 

DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS STRATEGIC PLAN

In August 2001, the Department of Defense issued the first-ever Defense Installations Posture Statement along with the initial Defense Facilities Strategic Plan. 

Those concepts and initiatives have guided the Department’s programs and budgets 

and enabled substantial improvements in the management and sustainability of our 

installation assets. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ongoing 

Global War on Terrorism significantly altered our requirement for homeland security. The Department of Defense 2004 Installations Strategic Plan significantly expands the scope and depth of the initial Strategic Plan. The expanded scope reflects 

the integral relationship between natural and manmade assets on our installations. 

It advances the integration of installations and the environmental, safety, and occupational health activities to enhance overall support of the military mission. 

Our vision is to ensure installation assets and services are available when and 

where needed, with joint capabilities and capacities necessary to effectively and efficiently support DOD missions. 

Our mission is to provide, operate, and sustain, in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, the installation assets and services necessary to support 

our military forces—in both peace and war. 

Our goals include the following. 

Right Size and Place.—Locate, size, and configure installations and installation 

assets to meet the requirements of both today’s and tomorrow’s force structure. 

Right Quality.—Acquire and maintain joint Army installation assets to provide 

good, safe, and environmentally sound living and working places, suitable base services, and effective support for current and future missions. 

Right Safety and Security.—Protect Army installation assets from threats and unsafe conditions to reduce risk and liabilities. 

Right Resources.—Balance requirements and resources—money, people, and 

equipment—to optimize life-cycle investments and reduce budget turbulence. 

Right Tools and Metrics.—Improve portfolio management and planning by embracing best business practices, modern asset management techniques, and performance assessment metrics. 

THE WAY AHEAD

Army installations are the home of U.S. combat power and are an inseparable element of the Nation’s military readiness and wartime effectiveness. From our installations, we generate the combat power required today and develop the combat power 

that will be needed in the future. To operate installations effectively and efficiently, 

we must sustain, restore, and modernize all of our installation assets and services— 

all the natural and manmade assets associated with owning, managing, and operating an installation, including the facilities, people, and internal and external environments. 

Our plan is to deliver a framework of installations, facilities, ranges, and other 

critical assets that is properly distributed, efficient, and capable of ensuring that we 

can successfully carry out the roles, missions, and tasks that safeguard our security 

at home and overseas. We have made good progress in many areas, but much remains to be done. America’s security depends upon installation assets that are avail-
146 

able when and where needed and with the right capabilities to support current and 

future mission requirements. As the guardians of Army installations and environment, we embrace transformation as the only way to guarantee these capabilities 

are delivered—effectively and efficiently. 

ARMY INSTALLATION STRATEGIES

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

to focus our resources on the most important areas—Barracks, Family Housing, Revitalization/Focused Facilities, Range and Training Land Strategy, and Current to 

Modular Force. 

Barracks Modernization Program.—Our Army is in the 12th year of its campaign 

to modernize barracks to provide 136,000 single enlisted permanent party Soldiers 

with quality living environments. The new complexes meet the Department of Defense ‘‘1∂1’’ or equivalent standard by providing two-Soldier suites, increased personal privacy, larger rooms with walk-in closets, new furnishings, adequate parking, 

landscaping, and unit administrative offices separated from the barracks. 

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

in our Soldiers and their families by supporting our goal to have contracts and funding in place to eliminate inadequate housing by fiscal year 2007 in the United 

States and by fiscal year 2008 overseas. For families living off-post, the budget for 

military personnel maintains the basic allowance for housing that eliminates out of 

pocket expenses. 

Revitalization/Focused Facilities.—Building on the successes of our housing and 

barracks programs, we are moving to improve the overall condition of Army infrastructure with the Focused Facility Strategy. The Installation Status Report is used 

to determine facilities quality ratings of C–1 to C–4 based on their ability to support 

mission requirements. 

We are a C–1 Army living and working in C–3 facilities. Our goal is to reach an 

overall Army average of C–2 quality by concentrating on seven types of C–3 and 

C–4 facilities. These focus facilities are general instruction buildings, Army National 

Guard Readiness Centers, Army Reserve Centers, tactical vehicle maintenance 

shops, training barracks, physical fitness centers, and chapels. 

Army Range and Training Land Strategy.—Ranges and training lands enable our 

Army to train and develop its full capabilities to ensure our forces are relevant and 

ready. Our Army Range and Training Land Strategy supports the Department of 

Defense’s training transformation goals, Army transformation, and our Army’s Sustainable Range Program. The Strategy identifies priorities for installations requiring 

resources to modernize ranges, mitigate encroachment, and acquire training land. 

Current to Modular Force.—The fiscal year 2006 budget includes projects to ensure that our ‘‘training battlefields’’ continue to meet the demands of force structure, 

weapons systems, and doctrinal requirements. As of fiscal year 2005, we have constructed or funded 80 percent of the Military Construction requirements for the 

Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. 

Leveraging Resources.—Complementary to these budget strategies, the Army also 

seeks ways to leverage scarce resources and reduce our requirements for facilities 

and real property assets. Privatization initiatives such as Residential Communities 

Initiative (RCI), Utilities Privatization, and build-to-lease family housing in Europe 

and Korea represent high payoff programs which have substantially reduced our dependence on investment funding. We also benefit from agreements with Japan, 

Korea, and Germany where the Army receives host nation funded construction. 

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

non-excess inventory under the Enhanced Use Leasing program and to trade facilities in high cost areas for new facilities in other locations under the Real Property 

Exchange program. In both cases, we can capitalize on the value of our existing assets to reduce un-financed facilities requirements. 

Looking toward the immediate future, we are aggressively reviewing our construction standards and processes to align with industry innovations and best practices. 
147 

In doing so, we hope to deliver more facilities capability at comparable costs and 

meet our requirements faster. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Our Army’s fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $3.3 billion for Military Construction appropriations and associated new authorizations. 

Military Construction Appropriation Authorization 

Request 

Authorization 

of Appropriations 

Request 

Appropriation 

Request 

Miltiary Construction Army (MCA) ................................................. $1,262,719,000 $1,479,841,000 $1,479,841,000 

Military Construction Army National Guard (MCNG) ..................... NA 327,021,000 327,012,000 

Military Construction Army Reserve (MCAR) ................................. NA 106,077,000 106,077,000 

Army Family Housing (AFH) ........................................................... 549,636,000 1,362,629,000 1,362,629,000 

Total .................................................................................. 1,812,355,000 3,275,559,000 3,275,559,000 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY (MCA)

The Active Army fiscal year 2006 Military Construction request is $1,262,719,000 

for authorization and $1,479,841,000 for authorization of appropriations and appropriation. As was the case last year, we have included only minimal, critical, overseas projects in this year’s budget. These projects will provide the infrastructure 

necessary to ensure continued Soldier readiness and family well-being that is essential throughout any period of transition. 

People Projects.—The well-being of our Soldiers, civilians, and families is inextricably linked to our Army’s readiness. We are requesting $759 million or 51 percent of our MCA budget for projects to improve well-being in significant ways. 

Our Army continues to modernize and construct barracks to provide enlisted single Soldiers with quality living environments. This year’s budget includes 19 barracks projects to provide new or improved housing for 5,190 Soldiers. With the approval of $716 million for barracks in this budget, 85 percent of our requirement 

will be funded at the ‘‘1∂1’’ or equivalent standard. We are making considerable 

progress at installations in the United States, but will only fund high-priority 

projects at enduring installations in Europe and Korea. 

We are requesting full authorization of $331 million for multi-phased barracks 

complexes, but requesting only $156 million in appropriations for these projects in 

fiscal year 2006. Our plan is to award each complex, subject to subsequent appropriations, as single contracts to gain cost efficiencies, expedite construction, and provide uniformity in building systems. 

We are also requesting the second increment of funding, $21 million for a Basic 

Combat Training Complex that was fully authorized last year. This Complex will 

house 1,200 basic trainees and provide company and battalion headquarters with 

classrooms and an exterior physical fitness training area. The fiscal year 2006 budget also includes a physical fitness center for $6.8 million and a child development 

center for $15.2 million. 

Current Readiness Projects.—Projects in our fiscal year 2006 budget will enhance 

training and readiness by providing arrival/departure facilities, maintenance facilities, and the second phase of a library and learning center. We will also construct 

combined arms collective training facilities, shoot houses, an infantry platoon battle 

course, a qualification training range, a multipurpose squad course, a digital multipurpose training range, urban assault courses, and a modified record fire range. 

These facilities will provide our Soldiers realistic, state-of-the-art live fire training. 

We are requesting a total of $424 million for these high priority projects. 

Modular Force Projects.—Our budget supports transformation of the Army to a 

modern, strategically responsive force. Projects include a road upgrade, a tactical vehicle wash facility, a battle area complex, a modified urban assault course, and a 

vehicle maintenance facility. Our budget contains $115 million for these projects. 

Other Worldwide Support Programs.—The fiscal year 2006 MCA budget includes 

$141 million for planning and design of future projects. As executive agent, our 

Army also provides oversight of design and construction for projects funded by host 

nations. The fiscal year 2006 budget requests $20 million for oversight of approximately $800 million of host nation funded construction in Japan, Korea, and Europe 

for all Services. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget also contains $20 million for unspecified minor construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements 

that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 
148 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (MCNG)

Our Army National Guard’s fiscal year 2006 Military Construction request for 

$327,012,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is focused on 

Current Readiness, Modular Force, and other worldwide and unspecified programs. 

Current Readiness Projects.—In fiscal year 2006, our Army National Guard has 

requested $71.6 million for six projects to support current readiness. These funds 

will provide the facilities our Soldiers require as they train, mobilize, and deploy. 

Included are one Readiness Center, two maintenance facilities, two training 

projects, and a training range environmental mitigation project. 

Modular Force Projects.—This year, our Army National Guard is requesting 

$201.7 million for 37 projects to transform to a Modular Force. There are 13 projects 

for our Army Division Redesign Study, three for Aviation Transformation to provide 

modernized aircraft and change unit structure, four for the Army Range and Training Land Strategy, and 17 for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team initiative. 

Other Worldwide Support Programs.—The fiscal year 2006 MCNG budget also 

contains $46.1 million for planning and design of future projects, along with $7.6 

million for unspecified minor military construction to address unforeseen critical 

needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE (MCAR)

Our Army Reserve’s fiscal year 2006 Military Construction request for 

$106,077,000 (for appropriation and authorization of appropriations) is for Current 

Readiness and other worldwide unspecified programs. 

Current Readiness Projects.—In fiscal year 2006, our Army Reserve will invest 

$56.4 million to construct four new Reserve Centers and the second phases of two 

other Reserve Centers; invest $15.4 million to construct the first phase of a threephase noncommissioned officer academy; and $5.4 million for a Public Safety Center—for a total facility investment of $77.2 million. Construction of the six Army 

Reserve Centers will support over 2,700 Army Reserve Soldiers. In addition, our 

Army Reserve will invest $11.5 million to construct six training ranges, which will 

be available for joint use by all Army components and military services. 

Other Worldwide Unspecified Programs.—The fiscal year 2006 MCAR budget request includes $14.4 million for planning and design for future year projects. The 

fiscal year 2006 MCAR budget also contains $3.0 million for unspecified minor military construction to address unforeseen critical needs or emergent mission requirements that cannot wait for the normal programming cycle. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION (AFHC)

Our Army’s fiscal year 2006 family housing request is $549,636,000 (for appropriation, authorization of appropriation, and authorization). It continues the successful and well-received Whole Neighborhood Revitalization initiative approved by 

Congress in fiscal year 1992 and supported consistently since that time, and our 

Residential Communities Initiative (RCI) program. 

The fiscal year 2006 new construction program provides Whole Neighborhood replacement projects at seven locations in support of 709 families for $231.7 million. 

In addition, we will replace 709 houses and upgrade another 1,112 using traditional 

military construction. 

The Construction Improvements Program is an integral part of our housing revitalization and privatization programs. In fiscal year 2006, we are requesting $162.4 

million for improvements to 1,112 existing units at three locations in the United 

States and five locations in Europe, as well as $138.0 million for scoring and direct 

equity investment in support of privatizing 3,606 units at three RCI locations. 

In fiscal year 2006, we are also requesting $17.5 million for planning and design 

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

Privatization.—RCI, our Army’s Family Housing privatization program, is providing quality, sustainable housing and communities that our Soldiers and their 

families can proudly call home. RCI is a critical component of our Army’s effort to 

eliminate inadequate family housing in the United States. The fiscal year 2006 

budget provides support to continue implementation of this highly successful program. 

We are leveraging appropriated funds and Government assets by entering into 

long-term partnerships with nationally recognized private sector real estate development/management and homebuilder firms to obtain financing and management expertise to construct, repair, maintain, and operate family housing communities. 
149 

The RCI program currently includes 45 installations with a projected end state 

of almost 84,000 units—over 90 percent of the family housing inventory in the 

United States. By the end of fiscal year 2005, our Army will have privatized 29 installations with an end state of 60,000 homes. We have privatized over 50,000 

homes through December 2004, and with your approval of the fiscal year 2006 budget, we will have privatized over 71,600 homes by the end of fiscal year 2006. 

ARMY FAMILY HOUSING OPERATIONS (AFHO)

Our Army’s fiscal year 2006 family housing operations request is $812,993,000 

(for appropriation and authorization of appropriations), which is approximately 59 

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

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

supporting management of the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. Operations ($138 million).—The operations account includes four sub-accounts: 

management, services, furnishings, and a small miscellaneous account. All operations sub-accounts are considered ‘‘must pay accounts’’ based on actual bills that 

must be paid to manage and operate family housing. Utilities ($132 million).—The utilities account includes the costs of delivering 

heat, air conditioning, electricity, water, and wastewater support for family housing 

units. While the overall size of the utilities account is decreasing with the reduction 

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

the increased costs of fuel. We continue to make steady progress in the privatization 

of utility systems/infrastructure on our installations. Maintenance and Repair ($309 million).—The maintenance and repair (M&R) account supports annual recurring maintenance and major maintenance and repair 

projects to maintain and revitalize family housing real property assets. Since most 

Family Housing operational expenses are fixed, M&R is the account most affected 

by budget changes. Funding reductions results in slippage of maintenance projects 

that adversely impacts on Soldiers and family quality of life. Leasing ($214 million).—The leasing program provides another way of adequately 

housing our military families. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes funding for 

13,190 housing units, including existing Section 2835 (‘‘build-to-lease’’—formerly 

known as 801 leases) project requirements, temporary domestic leases in the United 

States, and approximately 8,100 units overseas. RCI Management ($20 million).—The RCI management program provides funding 

for the implementation and oversight requirements for procurement, environmental 

studies, real estate support, portfolio management, and operation of the overall RCI 

program. 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC)

In 1988, Congress established the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission to ensure a timely, independent and fair process for closing and realigning 

military installations. Since then, the Department of Defense has successfully executed four rounds of base closures to rid the Department of excess infrastructure 

and align the military’s base infrastructure to a reduced threat and force structure. 

Through this effort, our Army estimates approximately $10 billion in savings 

through 2005. Our Army is requesting $93.9 million in fiscal year 2006 for prior BRAC rounds ($4.5 million to fund caretaking operations of remaining properties and $89.4 million for environmental restoration). In fiscal year 2006, our Army will complete environmental restoration efforts at four installations, leaving nine remaining BRAC installations requiring environmental restoration. We also plan to dispose of an additional 1,119 acres in fiscal year 2006. 

To date, our Army has disposed of 227,429 acres (88 percent of the total acreage 

disposal requirement of 258,607 acres). We have 31,186 acres remaining to dispose 

of at 21 installations. Our Army continues to save more than $900 million annually 

from previous BRAC rounds. To date, the Army has spent $2.6 billion on BRAC environmental restoration. 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2006 Operation and Maintenance budget includes funding for 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (S/RM) and Base Operations Support 

(BOS). The S/RM and BOS accounts are inextricably linked with our Military Construction programs to successfully support our installations. The Army has centralized the management of its installations assets under the Installation Management 

Agency (IMA) to best utilize operation and maintenance funding. 
150 

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization.—S/RM provides funding for the Active and Reserve Components to prevent deterioration and obsolescence and restore 

the readiness of facilities on our installations. 

Sustainment is the primary account in installation base support funding responsible for maintaining the infrastructure to achieve a successful readiness posture for 

our Army’s fighting force. It is the first step in our long-term facilities strategy. Installation facilities are the mobilization and deployment platforms of America’s 

Army and must be properly maintained to be ready to support current Army missions and future deployments. 

The second step in our long-term facilities strategy is recapitalization by restoring 

and modernizing our existing facility assets. Restoration includes repair and restoration of facilities damaged by inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes. Modernization includes alteration or modernization of facilities solely to implement new or higher standards, including regulatory changes, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components 

that typically last more than 50 years, such as foundations and structural members. 

Base Operations Support.—This funds programs to operate the bases, installations, camps, posts, and stations for our Army worldwide. The program includes municipal services, government employee salaries, family programs, environmental programs, force protection, audio/visual, base communication services and installation 

support contracts. Army Community Service and Reserve Component family programs include a network of integrated support services that directly impact Soldier 

readiness, retention, and spouse adaptability to military life during peacetime and 

through all phases of mobilization, deployment, and demobilization. 

Installation Management Agency.—The Installation Management Agency (IMA) is 

a result of the Army leadership’s vision to streamline headquarters, create more 

agile and responsive staffs, reduce layers of review and approval, focus on mission, 

and transform the Army. IMA brings together all installation support services under 

one umbrella to promote optimal care and support of Soldiers and families. IMA is 

at the center of the Army’s initiative to mold installation support functions into a 

corporate structure, enabling equitable, efficient, and effective management of Army 

installations worldwide. IMA supports readiness, promotes well-being, and preserves 

infrastructure and the environment. 

In its first 2 years, IMA has been successful in executing the tasks associated 

with growing a new organization, while simultaneously supporting the Global War 

on Terrorism. In the upcoming year, IMA will continue to develop a cadre of leaders 

to orchestrate excellence in installation management; manage installations equitably, effectively, and efficiently; support the well-being of the Army’s people; practice sound stewardship and resource management; deliver improved mission support 

to all organizations; and develop and sustain an innovative, team-spirited, highly capable, service-oriented workforce. 

HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE FUND, DEFENSE

Our Army is the Department of Defense Executive Agent for the Homeowners Assistance Program. This program provides assistance to homeowners by reducing 

their losses incident to the disposal of their homes when military installations at 

or near where they are serving or employed are ordered to be closed or the scope 

of operations reduced. For fiscal year 2006, there is no request for appropriations 

and authorization of appropriations. Requirements for the program will be funded 

from prior year carryover and revenue from sales of homes. Assistance will be continued for personnel at five installations that are impacted with either a base closure or a realignment of personnel, resulting in adverse economic effects on local 

communities. The fiscal year 2006 Homeowners Assistance Program budget does not 

include resources for potential requirements that the new Base Realignment and 

Closure 2005 process may cause. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST

The fiscal year 2005 Supplemental request funds facilities that directly support 

the Global War on Terrorism in both the United States and overseas locations. It 

contains $990.1 million in Military Construction for the Active Component Army. 

Within the Central Command area of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, there 

are $687.3 million for military construction projects. Projects in Afghanistan include 

barracks, a fuel storage tank farm and distribution system, Joint operations center, 

power generation plant, and an ammunition supply point. Projects in Iraq include 

barracks, a tactical operations building, medical facilities, an overhead cover system 

for force protection, an equipment support activity, a battalion and company head-
151 

quarters, a 60-mile supply route, and a project to encapsulate hazardous materials 

bunkers. 

Within the Southern Command area of operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

there is $41.8 million for two military construction projects—a detention facility and 

a radio range security fence. 

Within the United States, there is $261 million for military construction relating 

to modularity. The projects, distributed to seven different locations, include site 

preparation and utility work, an aircraft maintenance hangar, an aircraft hangar, 

and mobilization and training barracks. 

Additionally, the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental budget includes $248 million in 

Other Procurement, Army for relocatable buildings to provide temporary barracks, 

company operations, and dining and maintenance facilities at five locations in the 

United States. These are required to support our Soldiers as they prepare for battle. 

SUMMARY

Madam Chairman, our fiscal year 2006 budget is a balanced program that supports our Soldiers and their families, the Global War on Terrorism, Army transformation, readiness and Department of Defense installation strategy goals. We are 

proud to present this budget for your consideration because of what this $3.3 billion 

fiscal year 2006 budget will provide for our Army: 

—New barracks for 5,190 Solders 

—New housing for 5,800 families 

—Management of 71,600 privatized homes 

—Operation and sustainment of 48,000 government-owned and leased homes 

—New or improved Readiness Centers for over 3,300 Army National Guard Soldiers 

—New Reserve Centers for over 2,700 Army Reserve Soldiers 

—Three Aviation Transformation projects 

—$292 million investment in training ranges 

—Facilities support for two Stryker Brigades 

—Transfer/disposal of 88 percent of prior Base Realignment and Closure acreage 

Our long-term strategies for installations will be accomplished through sustained 

and balanced funding, and with your support, we will continue to improve Soldier 

and family quality of life, while remaining focused on our Army’s transformation. 

In closing, we would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before 

you today and for your continued support for our Army 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Prosch. You are the only 

one on the panel making a statement? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Then I would like to defer to Senator Allard, since he has to go, for the first questions. And then I will call 

on Senator Feinstein, and then I will go next. We are going to have 

a 5 minute time rule. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

EASEMENTS TO PREVENT URBAN ENCROACHMENT

One of the things that’s happening in Fort Carson is that we 

have an opportunity to begin to take advantage of some easements 

around the base there to prevent urban encroachment. This is a 

problem, when we were on Armed Services Committee, that we’ve 

addressed with some authorizing legislation. And it seems as 

though we have reached a consensus, as far as the community 

leaders are concerned; we have reached consensus as far as the 

base commander is concerned; and we have reached a consensus 

with the property owners around there. The owners are willing 

sellers. In fact, there’s only just a couple of property owners there 

who own very large ranches that border Fort Carson. There is 

urban encroachment that’s occurring on that area, and I think 

everybody’s concerned about it. 
152 

And so, I just want to inquire of you, Mr. Prosch, what sort of 

priority will these conservation easements have particularly when 

we have everything pretty well lined up. 

Mr. PROSCH. Sir, we think it’s a great program. And we’ve had 

some real successes in dealing with encroachment at Fort Bragg. 

We’re getting some great successes also at Fort Hood and at the 

National Training Center. We’ve found that at Fort Bragg, our 

pilot initiative with these easements, we were able to obtain land 

around Fort Bragg and work in close coordination with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and actually develop a nature habitat surrounding Fort Bragg, which allowed us to move endangered species 

habitat to that area and free up training area. 

We’re doing the same thing at Fort Hood. On the 16th of April, 

we’re going to commemorate a partnership with Central Texas that 

will allow us to free up 47,000 acres of land at Fort Hood for both 

training and cattle grazing. 

We’re doing the same thing at the NTC, with the leadership of 

Senator Feinstein. And I would welcome the opportunity to work 

closely with you and the great people in Colorado to help that. 

If you look at the challenges we have in the environmental 

arena, encroachment and endangered species are the two biggest 

challenges that we have, because they threaten readiness. And if 

we can not do live-fire training and maneuver training, we can not 

get your soldiers combat-ready in the way that the threat they’re 

going to see when they hit the ground in another area. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I thank you for that statement and agree 

with what you’re saying. 

RESTATIONING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS—FORT CARSON

The other thing that’s happening in Colorado is that the 2nd 

Combat Brigade Team, the 2nd Infantry is being permanently 

transferred from Korea to Fort Carson, Colorado. I understand that 

there may be some significant restationing facility requirements. 

These requirements may cost as much as 300 million in military 

construction. I think Fort Carson is not the only base facing these 

challenges. What is the Army’s plan to meet these requirements? 

Mr. PROSCH. Sir, we’re anxiously awaiting their arrival, in August. And I would turn it over to Geoff Miller, my active duty army 

assistant here, for the details. 

General MILLER. Thank you. 

One of the things, Senator, that’s going on—you know, we’re 

going to do a combination of things at Fort Carson, for example. 

We’re going to renovate 17 of our barracks to the ‘‘One-Plus-One’’ 

standard to welcome the 2nd Brigade Combat Team back in. We’re 

also going to do some interim facilities that will round out that capability. But we do—and we will need to come back to the Congress 

to ask for military—MILCON to be able to have permanent capability once the final stationing choices are made, after the BRAC 

announcements are made. So—— 

Senator ALLARD. So that’s a request you would make in the next 

budget year, in the 2007 budget year? 

General MILLER. Yes, sir, that’s correct. 

Senator ALLARD. I see. Okay. 
153 

Madam Chairman, that pretty well wraps up my questions. And 

I see my time’s close to running out. And I thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And we’re on a 5 minute rule. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

DECREASED BUDGET REQUEST

Why is the Army’s request decreased by 161⁄2 percent, when the 

Army’s overall facilities quality rating is C3? 

Mr. PROSCH. Ma’am, you’ll see a decrease in military construction in this budget over what we did last year. Some of the rationale on that is that, because of the great success in our privatization 

for housing, we don’t have to do as much military construction for 

housing. You can see that our OCONUS military construction is focused in our enduring installations. We’re going to ask for your 

support for that OCONUS construction. Our military housing overseas, we are now—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just stop you. As I understand, the housing request has a drop of $220 million, or 13 percent—actually, 12.9 percent—from last year’s request, but the overall 

MILCON is down 161⁄2 percent. In the time I’ve been on the committee, I’ve never seen anything quite like this, in terms of a decrease of the most active service engaged in war today. 

RCI PROGRAM

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. The family housing operations is 

dropped because of the success of the RCI program, because the operations are funded by Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) funds 

to our privatization partner now. So that’s one reason why you see 

a drop there. And that’s been very successful. And that accounts 

for several hundred million dollars in drop of the family housing 

operations piece. But if you look at the—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. You’re saying that the same number of housing units are built, but built this much more cheaply? 

Mr. PROSCH. We have 23 installations where we have privatized 

housing. One of the great success stories is at Presidio of Monterey. 

And what you see there is, we used the basic allowance for housing 

as the income stream to fund that. And our privatization partners 

construct and do the family housing operations for those programs, 

so that the Army is still funding it, but it’s a different stream; it’s 

not through the military construction program now. And—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I’m just wondering, can you say, then, 

that private building of military housing is a big enough savings 

to reduce your budget by 161⁄2 percent? 

Mr. PROSCH. I’m just talking about the operations of family housing right now. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Something—I mean, just something in the 

numbers don’t jive. 

Mr. PROSCH. Right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And maybe we could work together and see 

if—— 

Mr. PROSCH. Sure. 
154 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. We can get an understanding of 

those numbers. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Because I don’t understand it. 

I would like to ask you a question about—Senator Allard has 

similar concerns but about Fort Ord in—— 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

FORT ORD BURN—REMEDIATION FUNDING

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. California. The Army, according 

to this, intends to spend $4.8 million this coming year. And last 

year, range fires burned nearly 2,000 acres of Fort Ord at a location that the Army has had difficulty clearing because of native 

grasses. So the fire took care of it for you. Could you please describe for me the efforts taken by the Army last year at Fort Ord, 

and explain the funding and the time required to complete the remediation actions there? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

At Fort Ord, the Army had scheduled a 500-acre programmed 

burn to try to take out some of the chaparral, native species, endangered plant there. And it got out of control, but was contained 

on post, and 1,470 acres were, in fact, burned. We have been able 

to surface-clear all of that 1,470 acres. The unexploded ordnance is 

the biggest challenge that we have with the range there at Fort 

Ord. To date, the Army has spent $344.4 million at Fort Ord. So 

we are steadily making progress. Last year, we spent $26.9 million 

in order to try to continue to make steady progress at Fort Ord. 

We have cleared, so far, a total of 27,000 acres at Fort Ord. We 

have, remaining, 14,000. 

The biggest challenge is the impact area there, the 7,000 acres, 

in a range where the Army has been firing ordnance since 1917. 

The $4.8 million allocated for fiscal year 2006, we believe, is a balanced approach to try to deal with land that we’re prepared to turn 

over. Should we have an opportunity to have a more rapid turnover, we could put some more money into that. 

I would like to compliment Congressman Farr and the stakeholders there in the Monterey area. They have established a Strategic Management Assessment Requirements Technology Team, 

called a SMART Team. And we have very, very good cooperation 

with the stakeholders, the local people, the environmental community there. And we will continue to try to press on with this, as 

best we can. 

Anything you’d like to add, Geoff? 

General MILLER. I think one other thing, Senator, if we can add 

onto—is the SMART Team that’s come on. We’re using a new technology, which is an aerial survey technology using ground-penetrating radar to locate the ordnance in the old impact area so we 

can more rapidly make the decision. We think this is going to 

speed our ability to get at this last 14,000 acres, and then move 

back to public use of that land as quickly as possible. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you have adequate funding to do what you 

need to do. 

General MILLER. Yes, ma’am. 
155 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So if I watch, I’ll be very pleased by what I 

see? 

General MILLER. We believe that after we do this next survey, 

that we can more rapidly get in, and there may be an opportunity 

to invest in some—in the success that that will have. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. 

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS FUNDING

General Pudlowski, this committee has added funding each of 

the past 3 years to implement the construction program of the 

Army Guard’s Weapons of Mass Destruction CST program. How 

many facilities remain to be completed? And how much funding 

will be necessary? 

General PUDLOWSKI. Thank you, ma’am. 

First, let me thank you and the rest of the leadership, and tell 

you that the Guard soldiers are performing extremely well today in 

the Gulf and in other places throughout the world. And particularly 

from California, the number of soldiers that have come out of the 

40th Division have been tremendous in assisting other commands 

in their preparations and efforts—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. This committee anticipates that Guard soldiers from California and Texas are the best in America. 

General PUDLOWSKI. Ma’am, I will tell you that they are doing 

extremely well—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. And if you don’t mention Texas pretty fast, 

you’re going to be in big trouble. 

General PUDLOWSKI. I will tell you that the 56th Brigade and the 

36th Infantry Division is doing just as well in the environment 

today. Those comments are coming back daily. And the 36th Division’s got other missions ahead for their future, as well. And, sir, 

that’s not to take away from what Colorado has done and how 

they’ve contributed. 

Ma’am, to your question, the Civil Support teams are an important piece of what we have in the inventory of the National Guard, 

and how they’ve been employed. We have 23 additional units that 

still have to be organized. We’re in the process of organizing it from 

a facility perspective. We would need the facilities for those 23. 

Total cost is approximately $40 million. And if that resource was 

made available—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. So this is how many out of how many? 

General PUDLOWSKI. This is 23 out of 55. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. And so, you anticipate that it’ll 

be completed when? All 55. 

General PUDLOWSKI. At the current rate, it would take us the 

next 5 years of the FYDP to accomplish that. But for a cost of $40 

million—each one is approximately two-point-some-approximately 

$2 million apiece—we would be able to complete that whole operation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

RESERVES TRAINING—CALIFORNIA

Mr. PROSCH. Ma’am, may I just make one comment about a great 

contribution that Fort Hunter Liggett and Camp Roberts in California provide to all the Reserves in the western part of the United 
156 

States. Without Fort Hunter Liggett, we wouldn’t have a significant maneuver area for them to utilize, because the National 

Training Center is very busy with the active force. Camp Pendleton 

has encroachment challenges and they’re busy, and Fort Lewis is 

very busy. So it’s very important for our Reserve forces. And 

Hunter Liggett allows not only the combat brigades, but also the 

combat-service support and the logistical units to train there. So 

they have tremendous capability, and they also have good support 

with the local communities. So we thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So it’s reasonable to believe, Mr. Secretary, 

that the Army is going to retain Hunter Liggett. 

Mr. PROSCH. The Army is evaluating all installations fairly and 

squarely. You’ll be very proud of the process, when the list comes 

out on May 17, based on military criteria. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

GLOBAL RESTATIONING FUNDING

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Prosch, the Army is the service most affected by the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, and 

we’re looking at 60,000 to 70,000 troops coming home. That has 

been announced. You know, I advocated that initiative, and am 

very pleased that it is going forward. I don’t see very much in this 

budget request that supports restationing, aside from around $392 

million earmarked in the BRAC account for global restationing. My question is, first of all, is that $392 million in the BRAC account for the global restationing for the Army? That’s my first 

question on this subject. 

SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

Mr. PROSCH. We are going to be relying heavily on the supplemental to assist us with the standup of our ten new brigades and 

with the restationing of units that come from overseas. We are 

using BRAC as a strategic lever to determine the right location to 

put all these places. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Are you—you’re saying ‘‘supplemental’’—are 

you looking at a future supplemental, after BRAC, in which you 

would start the process of preparing bases that are going to take 

these people, or are you talking about a great big MILCON commitment in the next year’s budget for that purpose? 

Mr. PROSCH. When you look at the supplemental right now, you 

see that we’ve got money earmarked to support modularity—I have 

some handouts here that your people could perhaps show to you— 

that we’re using to provide facilities at the temporary locations 

where we put our ten new brigades. On the 17th of March, as part 

of the BRAC announcement, we will also include the locations of 

where we’re going to move the units that are coming from overseas. 

We are going to come to you, after the BRAC is announced, to 

get your support for the MILCON funding for the long-term answer 

to these organizations. But we’re using the supplemental now in 

2005, because we’re standing up new brigades, as we speak. 

Geoff, do you want to comment? 

Senator HUTCHISON. You meant May, sir. 

Mr. PROSCH. 16th of May. I’m sorry. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yeah, I was thinking, what’s today? 
157 

Mr. PROSCH. On the 15th of March, they’re going to announce 

the BRAC commissioners. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. 

Mr. PROSCH. So the 16th of May is—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Is the BRAC day. 

And you will be, in that BRAC announcement, making the 

choices of where the incoming brigades are going. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So I’d just—the reason I’m pursuing this is 

that I’ve gotten some mixed signals about funding for the moves. 

I just want to make sure that the commitment to the moves is 

made, it is there, and the money will follow. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Mr. PROSCH. I would just add that we have announced the units 

that are going to be returning. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. You just haven’t announced where 

they’re going. 

Mr. PROSCH. The when and the where—the where will be determined by the BRAC analysis. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Right. 

Mr. PROSCH. And the when—we’re going to try to make the right 

decisions, based on quality of life. We will want to coordinate with 

the local school districts. We’re going to want to make sure that we 

have adequate housing. But we’re going to want to make sure that 

we’ve developed brigade-sized facilities for these units when they 

come back. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes, I think all of that is absolutely essential and the correct way to approach it. I just have gotten mixed 

signals about the money being available to make these moves. And 

as long as you’re telling me the commitment is going to be kept, 

that those troops will be moving home, and that we will have the 

funding request to do it. That’s all I need to know. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And you have said yes. Correct? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

OVERHEAD AND COMPARTMENT PROTECTION LOCATIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. In the supplemental that is going to be before us shortly, the Army has requested $300 million for overhead 

and compartment protection at various locations, but no specificity. 

Could you elaborate on where those will be and what you’re envisioning the uses for that $300 million to be? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. Let me start, then I’ll turn it to Geoff 

Miller, who returned from Iraq about 3 months ago. 

As part of the supplemental, one of the requests from the combatant commander, General Abizaid, was to try to provide enhanced overhead protection for our soldiers in theater. And so, we, 

as the executive agent, are trying to support the combatant commander’s request. As you recall, there was a dining facility that 

was attacked recently. There is a distinct threat from mortar and 

rocket attacks. And so, they would like to provide enhanced protection for the large-density troop-soldier areas. It’s a two-level type 

of facility, to where the top level would absorb the blast, and the 
158 

second level would actually stop the fragmentation from hitting the 

troops. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And where—I understand that, and that’s a 

very good explanation, but as you are expanding, are you looking 

at doing these all throughout Iraq and also Afghanistan, or are we 

just looking at Iraq? 

General MILLER. Senator, right now they’re focused on Iraq. 

There are 41 different locations, and, as Mr. Prosch said, they’re 

in—where troops are concentrated—in living areas, in dining facilities. And kind of the rule of thumb, if there are more than 50 soldiers in an area, we wanted to put overhead cover, because we 

have a—we were having a fairly significant challenge in mortars. 

And that’s going down. But these went in. So they will go into the 

Afghanistan—really, around Baghram Airport—as we build that 

up. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just want to, on a personal note, say, I 

was privileged to give four Purple Hearts to those who were in that 

dining facility, and I was—it was during December—I was most 

struck by how quickly they got to Brooke Army Medical. I think 

they got there Christmas Eve, and the attack was maybe the 19th, 

something very quick. I was very pleased. And, of course, they were 

great. I met with each of them before I was able to give them their 

Purple Hearts, and they were great young people. Just amazing. 

General MILLER. Senator, if I can, for the record, we’ll come back 

and give you the 41 locations—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. 

General MILLER [continuing]. Where we’re going to put—be putting this overhead cover. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

OVERHEAD COVER LOCATIONS—IRAQ

The following list identifies the 41 facilities currently scheduled to receive overhead cover. U.S. Central Command is continuing to identify additional facilities that 

require overhead cover: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Facility Cost 

Anaconda ........................................................................ Dining Facility ................................................................ $14,590 

Anaconda ........................................................................ Post Exchange—East .................................................... 3,660 

Anaconda ........................................................................ Post Exchange—West .................................................... 3,000 

Fallujah .......................................................................... Dining Facility 1 ............................................................. 3,200 

Fallujah .......................................................................... Dining Facility 2 ............................................................. 3,200 

Fallujah .......................................................................... Post Exchange ................................................................ 800 

Marez .............................................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 12,000 

Kalsu .............................................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 1,450 

Freedom .......................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 2,129 

Hope ............................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 6,000 

Falcon ............................................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 7,278 

Taji ................................................................................. Dining Facility 1 ............................................................. 8,400 

Taji ................................................................................. Dining Facility 2 ............................................................. 8,400 

Diamondback .................................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 8,000 

Rustimiyah ..................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 3,090 

Brassfield ....................................................................... Dining Facility/Gym ........................................................ 200 

McKenzie ......................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 1,920 

Caldwell .......................................................................... Dining Facility 1 ............................................................. 2,077 

Caldwell .......................................................................... Dining Facility 2 ............................................................. 2,077 

Caldwell .......................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 804 

Warrior ............................................................................ Building 4098 ................................................................ 5,683 
159 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Location Facility Cost 

Warrior ............................................................................ Building 4088 ................................................................ 1,151 

Warrior ............................................................................ Building 4096 ................................................................ 172 

Prosperity ........................................................................ Dining Facility ................................................................ 2,000 

Victory ............................................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 6,626 

Victory South .................................................................. MWR Dining Facility ....................................................... 19,700 

Victory South .................................................................. Cafe Dining Facility ....................................................... 15,400 

Liberty ............................................................................. Dining Facility DeFleury ................................................. 6,750 

Liberty ............................................................................. Dining Facility Black ...................................................... 6,750 

Liberty ............................................................................. Dining Facility Pegasus ................................................. 3,129 

Gaines Mills ................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 160 

Speicher .......................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 3,710 

Speicher .......................................................................... Dining Facility Victory .................................................... 3,710 

Danger ............................................................................ Dining Facility ................................................................ 2,000 

Cobra .............................................................................. Dining Facility I .............................................................. 408 

Summerall ...................................................................... Post Exchange ................................................................ 50 

Summerall ...................................................................... Dining Facility ................................................................ 124 

Hurricane Point .............................................................. Dining Facility ................................................................ 846 

Hurricane Point .............................................................. Post Exchange ................................................................ 48 

Taqqadum ...................................................................... Dining Facility 1 ............................................................. 13,617 

Taqqadum ...................................................................... Dining Facility 2 ............................................................. 1,808 

Various Sites .................................................................. Miscellaneous ................................................................. 113,833 

TOTAL ................................................................ ......................................................................................... 300,000 

Senator HUTCHISON. My last question, and then I’ll see if Senator Feinstein has any others for this panel. 

JOINT BASING—ELLINGSTON FIELD

Mr. Prosch, as you know I am supportive of the service’s move 

toward joint basing, specifically Ellington Field. You are very familiar with what we’re doing there, and have been terrifically supportive. And I just wanted to ask you what the status is, from your 

standpoint, of the move of the Army over to Ellington Field from 

its present location, the Reserve unit in Houston, and see if you 

think that everything is going to go well there, and what you determine the status to be. 

Mr. PROSCH. Ma’am, I’m very pleased to announce that Ellington 

Field is on schedule. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Great. 

Mr. PROSCH. And I would like to thank the Members of Congress 

for giving us a really good tool, which is called the Real Property 

Exchange. And we have been able to use that in a lot of places 

around the country where you have old armories in an urban, central part of town, where the land is very valuable, but the facilities 

are antiquated, and then trade that land and build a modern joint 

facility out in the suburbs. And that’s exactly what we’re doing at 

Ellington Field. We’re taking some valuable land, we’ve got a partnership with the University of Texas Medical Association, and 

we’re going to get a fair market value and plow that into a joint 

facility, with both the Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Guard at 

Ellington Field, which is a very strategic location, critical for the 

defense of the petrochemical industry. 

And the land surveys are on track. We anticipate that the environmental studies will be completed in June of this year. We plan 

to complete all of the actual construction plans this summer. We 

anticipate to do an award in 2006, and actually break ground in 
160 

2006. We hope to have a memorandum of agreement signed with 

the Army and the University of Texas in August, and we’ll send 

you an invitation to that signing ceremony. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. I’m very pleased that 

it is going on track. I think what you’re doing there and in other 

places is so right. It’s right for the community, and it’s right for our 

Services to be in better locations. And particularly this one, with 

the unique security risk of those chemical complexes, I think it is 

just essential to have the Air Force, Army, and Navy and Marine 

components there. It will very helpful. Along with the Coast Guard. 

Mr. PROSCH. I might ask my colleagues from the Reserves to 

comment. 

Senator HUTCHISON. General Pudlowski? 

JOINT FACILITIES

General PUDLOWSKI. Ma’am, if I may, we, too, have seen, in the 

Guard, the opportunities that are presented by joint facilities. Last 

year when we came here, we had approximately 140 facilities that 

we had occupied in a joint fashion. By the end of the year, that had 

jumped up to 170 locations, and we’ve got 26 more projects that are 

scheduled in the FYDP. 

I’ll just give you a couple of examples of that. In Austin, Texas, 

we have two facilities, one of which will be a maintenance facility, 

that’ll be a joint maintenance facility shared with the Army Reserve. And we have an Armed Forces Reserve Center that’ll be 

shared with the Army Reserve, the National Guard, the Marine 

Corps Reserve, and the Naval Reserve, which gives us a greater 

approach and a greater appeal as to how we’re going to do that. 

In California, we have the Los Alamitos facility that’s going to be 

shared, not only with the Army Reserve, but also with the active 

Army. We continually look for those opportunities. 

We’re also seeing some others occur—for example, in West Virginia, where we have a training site—that we would look at the potential of that to be shared as a joint COOP site, with perhaps even 

the Department of Energy. 

So there are opportunities here, and each time we find this opportunity, we seek it because it, in effect, conserves some of the 

State cost for that additional 25 percent when we make it a full 

Federal project. 

Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. I’m so pleased that 

you’re doing that throughout the country. I just think it’s the right 

thing. 

General PROFIT. Ma’am, I would only add to what Mr. Prosch 

said about Ellington Field, that we’re proud to be leading that effort in the Army Reserve, and I think your leadership in this particular effort has been pivotal, and I appreciate it. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much. 

That’s all I have for this panel. 

Senator Feinstein. 
161 

MILCON PROJECTS IN SUPPLEMENTAL

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m still into the 161⁄2 percent. As I understand it, you took $138 million in MILCON projects and put them 

into the supplemental. And they include $100 million in these 

areas: the child development center for Fort Carson—I don’t know 

why that’s an emergency, if, in fact, it is in the supplemental; a 

barracks complex at Fort Lewis for $151⁄2 million; a barracks at 

Fort Leonard Wood for $14.8 million; and then you have the 

whole—I guess, the modularity thing worldwide, at $100 million. Is 

that all correct, what I’ve just read? 

Mr. PROSCH. I’m going to ask Geoff Miller to talk to specifics, and 

then let me try another try at why our MILCON request is down 

16 percent. 

General MILLER. Senator, the—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think I probably misspoke. And I still don’t 

understand it. But you have put an amount for modularity into the 

supplemental, right? 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. How much is that? Is that $100 million? 

Mr. PROSCH. Geoff? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. What is it? It’s $180 million? All for 

modularity, in the supplemental? 

General MILLER. Ma’am, we have a total of $559 million in the 

supplemental that is supporting modularity and movement through 

there. And it is a combination of OPA funds to buy modular facilities, interim facilities, in MILCON to do the preparatory work to 

allow these modular facilities that are barracks and headquarters. 

So this is startup money, as Senator Hutchison pointed out, because we will come back in the future and ask for MILCON as we 

make the permanent stationing choices then to be able to transition these troops that are coming back from overseas and in the 

modularity piece, so we can have permanent facilities there. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, just so—I don’t know whether this 

qualifies as an emergency, but, clearly, it’s certainly a way of doing 

it. I mean, what you did is, you took a part of out of this budget 

and simply put it in the emergency supplemental, if I understand 

it. 

MODULAR FACILITIES

Mr. PROSCH. Well, if I could just comment, we are growing 10 

new brigades to try to stretch out the OPTEMPO period that our 

soldiers have so they don’t have to go back to Iraq every other year. 

As we stand up these ten new brigade formations—we recruited 

soldiers at Fort Lewis, at Fort Bliss, at Fort Hood—and so, these 

soldiers, in order to not to have to put them inside gymnasiums 

and tents, we’re going to use these modular facilities. So, in a way, 

this is really helping us fight the war on terror, by stretching out 

the OPTEMPO, and we believe this is the right thing to do. And 

with this supplemental, we can do this in 2005, immediately, 

versus several years in the MILCON piece. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, is this going to continue to happen as 

more people come home, that the modulars are going to be in emergency supplementals and not part of the regular budget process? 
162 

Mr. PROSCH. I believe that, after we get these 10 brigades stood 

up, and this time next year when we’re testifying before you, we’re 

going to be able to lock into military construction, because we will 

have determined the end state for our 43 new active brigades and 

our 77 total brigades in the Army. And we’ll want to do it the oldfashioned way, with MILCON, with permanent facilities. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that statement, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I’m going to write it in indelible ink, and 

hopefully hold you to it. 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, and I think we could even do something before then. If, on May 17, we know where they’re going, we 

could start making preparations, depending on the timetable that 

you all have for them moving, but—— 

Mr. PROSCH. Yes, ma’am, that will be helpful. And we will come 

see you immediately, because it might make sense to do some reprogramming within—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. I think one thing that I gleaned from Senator Feinstein, and I will say I agree with, the fewer modular units 

and the more permanent construction we can get a head start on, 

the better off we are. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I really agree with that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just hate that you’re doing it right now, 

and it’s a huge expense that goes away in use. If we see, on May 

17, where people are coming back and we can start military construction, even if the moves are a year or two away, and we can 

have permanent facilities and not waste money on modular units, 

that would be my preference, for sure. And I think we’re seeing 

that on the committee. 

BARRACKS

Mr. PROSCH. I would like to, just for the record, thank you all 

for the steady progress and support you’ve made. This is our 13th 

year of our barracks program, and over one-half of our active Army 

MILCON budget is going towards barracks. And we are going to 

be 85 percent complete at the end of 2006 to build out to the OnePlus-One standard. And I’m sure you’re familiar with that. We 

now, as a standard in the Army, we want our soldiers to have a 

suite, where we have two private sleeping areas with a walk-in 

closet, and a common kitchenette and bathroom area—I took my 

son, when he was a college student, to one of these, and he said, 

‘‘Wow, where do you enlist, Dad?’’ 

Senator HUTCHISON. That’s true. I saw those at Fort Bliss, the 

new ones, and it is very, very nice, and so much better than what 

we had before. It’s great. They love it. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Thank you very much. We appreciate not only your accessibility 

and your work, but also your testimony today. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PROSCH. Thank you. 
163 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

BRAC ENVIRONMENTAL

Question. The Navy has sold portions of its previously BRAC’d property and 

ploughed that money back into environmental remediation. Has the Army experienced such sales, and, if so, do you have a similar agreement with the DOD Comptroller to use those funds for environmental remediation? 

Answer. Yes, the Army has received revenues for BRAC properties and used the 

proceeds for environmental remediation. 

ARMY MODULARITY

Question. Generals Pudlowski and Profit, do the National Guard and Reserves 

have additional MILCON requirements related to Army Modularity? 

Answer. Yes, for the Army National Guard there are additional requirements for 

transformation to the Army Modular Force. The Army National Guard is currently 

assessing and validating all the requirements. We will program for these needs once 

this process is complete. 

The Army Reserve does not currently have additional Military Construction requirements related to Army Modular Force transformation. However, as Army Reserve force structure in support of Modular Forces is determined, additional requirements may be identified. The Army Reserve will program for any such requirements 

as soon as they are known. 

GUANTANAMO PRISON

Question. DOD is requesting a total of $41.8 million, through the Army Supplemental request, for construction of a permanent prison and a new security fence at 

Guantanamo, Cuba. The justification documents for the Guantanamo construction 

do not make clear what will be done with the current temporary facilities once the 

new prison is constructed. Do you intend to remove or demolish these facilities, or 

are they to be kept in case the prison population exceeds the 220 capacity of the 

new facility? In other words, is DOD expanding the detention facilities at Guantanamo, or replacing them? 

Answer. The funding requested in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental Request is 

to construct a 176 cell, long-term maximum-security detention facility for 220 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This facility, known as the Camp 6 Detention 

Facility, will allow for the closure of temporary Camps 1, 2, and 3. Although these 

camps would be closed, they would not be destroyed, retaining capability for the 

Joint Task Force commander to reopen them should the detainee population surge. 

By ‘‘mothballing’’ these camps and constructing Camp 6, the commander will be able 

to reduce the total internal guard force by 124 military police. 

Question. If the new prison is to be strictly a replacement facility, does that mean 

the maximum capacity for housing detainees will be 220? 

Answer. Camp 6 will have the capacity for 220 maximum security detainees. The 

existing Camp 5, with a capacity of 100 maximum security detainees, and Camp 4, 

with a capacity of 200 medium security detainees, will be retained, providing a total 

capacity of 520. 

Question. What is the current capacity at Guantanamo, and what is the current 

detainee population? 

Answer. The current capacity in Guantanamo (GTMO) in Camps 1 through 5 is 

1,116. The current detainee population, as of March 16, 2005, exceeds 530. Camps 

1, 2 and 3 were designed as temporary medium-security detention facilities requiring robust forces to guard ‘‘must retain’’ maximum-security detainees. As temporary 

facilities, these camps are nearing the end of their life expectancy. Refurbishment 

and maintenance costs are becoming prohibitive. 

Question. How did DOD arrive at the 220 bed requirement? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Supplemental funding request is to build a 176 cell 

long-term maximum security facility with a capacity for 220 detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The facility will include 132 single cells and 44 double cells. In 

September 2004, the detainee population exceeded 580 detainees. One assumption 

was that 250 of those detainees would be classified as ‘‘retain in DOD control’’. The 

remaining 336 would be transferred for continued detention or released to their 

country of origin. The 250 ‘‘retain in DOD control’’ would require long-term deten-
164 

tion due to conviction by military commission, intelligence value, or because they 

are deemed too dangerous to transfer or release. The ‘‘retain in DOD control’’ number has since been revised upward to 300. 

A second assumption was that, as the Global War on Terrorism continues, small 

numbers of additional detainees will arrive for screening. Since March 2004, 10 additional detainees have arrived in Guantanamo Bay. 

The final assumption is that by building a facility with 220 beds, the Joint Task 

Force could close the temporary detention Camps 1, 2, and 3, reduce the number 

of personnel needed to guard the detainees. This will also maintain the capability 

to provide maximum security, long-term detention for up to 320 ‘‘retain in DOD control’’ detainees in Camps 5 and 6, and medium security detention for an additional 

200 detainees in Camp 4. 

Question. When do you expect the prison population to be reduced to that level? 

Answer. Based on detainee movement operations already approved by the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense, the number of detainees could be reduced to less than 520 by 

May 1, 2005. 

Question. What other MILCON will be required to support the permanent housing 

of detainees at Guantanamo? For example, what additional facilities will be required for the permanent stationing of the military personnel assigned to this mission? 

Answer. We do not plan to seek additional MILCON funding for permanent structures at Guantanamo Bay at this time due to other higher priorities. The fiscal year 

2005 Supplemental funding will be used to build the Camp 6 Detention Facility and 

the Radio Range Security Fence to allow for reduced force manning. 
(165) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

STATEMENT OF FRED W. KUHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 

THE AIR FORCE INSTALLATIONS 

ACCOMPANIED BY MAJOR GENERAL L. DEAN FOX, FOR AIR FORCE 

CIVIL ENGINEER, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR INSTALLATIONS 

AND LOGISTICS 

Senator HUTCHISON. And now we will turn to our second panel. 

That would be Mr. Fred Kuhn, the Acting Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force for Installations, Logistics, and Environment; Major 

General Dean Fox, the Air Force Civil Engineer and Deputy Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force for Installations and Logistics. 

Mr. KUHN. Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, distinguished 

members of the committee, good afternoon. 

This year’s Air Force MILCON budget is the largest in 14 years, 

with increases across the spectrum of Air Force operations throughout our Total Force. Our fiscal year 2006 military family housing 

submission is the largest in Air Force history. It keeps us on target 

to meet our goal of funding, to eliminate CONUS inadequate housing in 2007, and overseas inadequate in 2009. The Air Force remains committed to funding restoration and modernization to meet 

the OSD goal of a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2008 

and beyond. The Air Force is meeting OSD’s facilities sustainment 

goal by funding $2 billion this year, and will continue to fund 

sustainment in accordance with that DOD facility sustainment 

model. 

I sincerely thank the committee and the Congress for its efforts 

to lift the cap on housing privatization, because the Air Force 

would not have otherwise been able to meet our goal of funding the 

elimination of inadequate housing for Airmen and their families by 

2007. We thank you for providing the privatization tools that allowed us to leverage 173 million taxpayer dollars into nearly $1.6 

billion invested in 13 of our bases and in their local communities. 

This leverage of nine privatized dollars for every taxpayer dollar 

invested allows us to fix 11,000 homes now, and another 34,500 

homes over the next 2 years, rather than burdening the Federal 

budget with an additional $5.6 billion in MILCON funds. 

The success of our privatization program would not be possible 

without the authority you provided in Title 10, United States Code, 

Section 2883, which allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

military construction appropriations into the family housing improvement fund in order to fund these forward costs of our privatization projects. For example, Congress appropriated $15 million 

for Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, in fiscal year 2002 MILCON 

to renovate 102 units, but we were successful in awarding a privatization project with a portion of those MILCON funds to fix 1,356 

Hickam Air Force Base homes for Airmen and their families. That 

project had a project development value of $298 million invested in 
166 

the local economy at a leverage of 71-to-1. We were able to use the 

remaining MILCON dollars to award other privatization projects, 

like Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where we are providing 1,536 homes, totaling $109 million in development. 

Similarly, at Beale Air Force Base, in California, we are privatizing 1,344 homes and gaining $151 million in development 

with a government investment of $6.7 million, a 22-to-1 leverage. 

This project was in jeopardy following the fiscal year 2005 congressional rescission however, using the Section 2883 authority, we redirected funds from appropriations for Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and Travis Air Force Base, California, to cover the Government’s fund appeal. 

When using the Section 2883 authority, we always make the appropriate notifications to Congress. And I want to emphasize that 

we always fix housing only at locations directed by Congress. To 

that end, we will privatize 2,155 homes at Eglin Air Force Base 

and its neighbor, Hurlburt Field, and 1,179 homes at Travis Air 

Force Base, California, using the funds originally appropriated for 

replacement projects at those bases. 

The final example I would like to provide is Randolph Air Force 

Base, in Texas, where Congress appropriated funds for three 

MILCON projects in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. These three 

projects would have eliminated 406 inadequate homes at Randolph 

Air Force Base, in Texas. However, by delaying these projects and 

privatizing Randolph in a group with six other bases, we will now 

be able to fix the required inventory of 3,898 homes, while injecting 

$415 million into the local communities of these seven installations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

These examples are typical of how the Air Force has maximized 

the use of MILCON funds and transfer authority of Title 10 to accelerate our program and eliminate inadequate housing. As our 

program continues to execute and we look for additional opportunities to privatize, we will absolutely keep the Congress informed of 

every change we make in this area. 

On behalf of all of our Air Force men and women and their families, I thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED JOINT STATEMENT OF FRED W. KUHN AND MAJOR GENERAL L. DEAN FOX

Madam Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members of the committee, the strength and flexibility of airpower and our joint warfighting success in 

operations around the world is made possible by three interdependent factors; outstanding Airmen, superior weapons platforms, and an agile support infrastructure. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2006 military construction (MILCON) submission is our 

commitment to these three factors. It provides our Airmen and their families the 

proper facilities to work and live, which in turn will enable them to better execute 

our air and space missions. This year’s Air Force MILCON budget request is the 

largest in 14 years, over $4.7 billion, with increases across the spectrum of air and 

space operations and throughout our Total Force. Our fiscal year 2006 Military 

Family Housing (MFH) submission will keep us on target to eliminate inadequate 

housing. The Air Force is committed to funding facility restoration and modernization at a 67-year recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2008, and funding facility 

sustainment consistent with OSD’s Facility Sustainment Model (FSM). Sound investment in our installations allows us to take care of our people and their families 

through quality of life and work place improvements. 
167 

INTRODUCTION

Air Force facilities, housing, and environmental programs are key components of 

our support infrastructure. At home, our installations provide a stable training environment and a place to equip and reconstitute our force. Both our stateside and 

overseas bases provide force projection platforms to support combatant commanders. 

Because of this, the Air Force has developed an investment strategy focused on sustaining and recapitalizing existing infrastructure, investing in quality of life improvements, accommodating new missions, continuing strong environmental leadership, optimizing use of public and private resources, and eliminating excess and obsolete infrastructure wherever we can. Our total force military construction, family 

housing, and sustainment, restoration, and modernization programs are vital to supporting operational requirements and maintaining a reasonable quality of life for 

our men and women in uniform and their families. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget (PB) request of just over $1.3 

billion for Total Force military construction reflects our highest construction priorities. It balances the restoration and modernization of current mission facilities, 

quality of life improvements, new mission requirements, future project designs, and 

limited funding for emergency requirements. This request includes $1.07 billion for 

active military construction, $165 million for the Air National Guard, and more than 

$79 million for the Air Force Reserve. 

The Air Force fiscal year 2006 PB request of $1.2 billion for the Military Family 

Housing investment program balances new construction, improvements, and planning and design work. It will also advance our Housing Privatization program. But, 

while we continue to strive to eliminate inadequate housing, we cannot allow more 

housing to fall into disrepair. We need your support to keep our housing operations 

and maintenance submission intact. 

In fiscal year 2006, we will bolster our operations and maintenance (O&M) investment in our facilities infrastructure. This investment has two components: 

Sustainment (S) and Restoration and Modernization (R&M), which we refer to together as our SRM program. Sustainment funds are necessary in order to keep 

‘‘good facilities good.’’ R&M funding is used to fix critical facility deficiencies and improve readiness. In this request we have dedicated $2 billion to Total Force 

sustainment. That is 95 percent of the requirement from OSD’s Facilities 

Sustainment Model. However, in fiscal year 2006 the Air Force’s Total Force R&M 

funds is restricted to $173 million. This means we must defer some R&M requirements, which has a cumulative effect on Air Force facilities and infrastructure that 

we must reverse. In the out years we intend to invest more heavily in critical infrastructure maintenance and repair through our O&M program in order to achieve 

the Air Force goal of a facility recapitalization rate of 67 years by 2008. 

Overseas Military Construction 

The quality of installations overseas remains a priority. Even though the majority 

of our Airmen are assigned in the United States, 20 percent of the force is assigned 

to extended tours overseas, including 29,000 Air Force families. Overseas base infrastructure is old and progressively deteriorating, requiring increased investment to 

replace and maintain. Host nation funding helps, but it is not enough. We also must 

provide supplemental funding to support time-critical infrastructure necessary for 

the Global War on Terror. The fiscal year 2006 request for overseas construction includes $193 million for 18 separate infrastructure and quality of life projects in the 

United Kingdom, Germany, the Azores, Italy, Turkey, Guam, and Korea. All 

projects are in places designated as enduring locations by regional commanders, as 

described in the Global Basing Strategy. 

In addition, we want to thank you for the essential overseas fiscal year 2004 

MILCON funding you approved in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 

(H.R. 3289). The supplemental provided essential construction projects in Southwest 

Asia and at critical en-route airlift locations directly supporting ongoing operations 

in that region. 

Planning and Design/Unspecified Minor Construction 

This year’s Air Force MILCON request includes almost $96 million for planning 

and design (P&D), including $40.4 million for military family housing. The request 

includes $79 million for active duty, $12.9 million for the Air National Guard, and 

$3.8 million for the Air Force Reserve. These funds will allow us to complete the 

design work for fiscal year 2006 construction programs and to start the designs for 

fiscal year 2007 projects, allowing us to award contracts that year. However, P&D 

funds for Congressional inserts and directed designs are not funded in the President’s Budget request. They are accomplished at the expense of other Air Force de-
168 

signs. We would greatly appreciate your assistance ensuring adequate P&D funding 

for any Congressional inserts. This year’s request also includes $24 million for the Total Force unspecified minor 

construction (UMC) program, our primary means for funding small, unforeseen 

projects that cannot wait for the normal military construction process. Because 

these projects emerge over the year, it is not possible to predict the total funding 

requirements. When UMC requirements exceed our funding request, we augment 

them by reprogramming available MILCON construction funds. 

SUSTAIN, RESTORE, AND MODERNIZE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE

The Air Force remains focused on sustaining, restoring, and modernizing our infrastructure. In 2006, we have increased sustainment funding to keep our ‘‘good facilities good’’ and targeted limited Restoration and Modernization (R&M) funding to 

fix critical facility deficiencies and improve readiness. 

Our sustainment program is aimed at maximizing the life of our infrastructure 

by keeping our facilities in good condition. Without proper sustainment, our infrastructure wears out more rapidly. In addition, commanders in the field use O&M 

accounts to address facility requirements that impact their near-term readiness. 

When facilities require restoration or modernization, we use a balanced program 

of O&M and military construction funding to make them ‘‘mission ready.’’ Unfortunately, restoration and modernization requirements in past years exceed available 

O&M funding, causing us to defer much-needed work. The restoration and modernization backlog is projected to grow to nearly $9.8 billion in 2006. It is important 

for us to steadily increase the investment in restoration and modernization in order 

to halt the growth of this backlog, while fully funding sustainment to maximize the 

life of our good infrastructure The Air Force Total Force sustainment funding in fiscal year 2006 is $2.0 billion, 

95 percent of the amount called for by the Facility Sustainment Model (FSM) and 

consistent with established OSD goals. The fiscal year 2006 Total Force R&M funding is $173 million. This budget carefully balances sustainment, restoration, modernization, and military construction programs to make the most effective use of 

available funding in support of the Air Force mission. 

CONTINUE DEMOLITION OF EXCESS, OBSOLETE FACILITIES

In addition to modernizing and restoring worn out facilities, we also demolish excess and obsolete facilities. This ensures funds are spent on facilities we need, not 

on sustaining ones we do not. For the past seven years, the Air Force has aggressively demolished or disposed of facilities that are unneeded or no longer economically viable. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2004, we demolished 18.5 million square feet of non-housing building space. This is equivalent to demolishing 

more than three average size Air Force installations and has allowed us to target 

our infrastructure funding to maintain more useful facilities. While this demolition 

cost us $221 million in O&M funding in the short term, it saves us money in the 

long term. For fiscal year 2005 and beyond, the Air Force will continue to identify 

opportunities to eliminate unnecessary facilities. 

INVEST IN QUALITY OF LIFE IMPROVEMENTS

The Air Force sees a direct link between readiness and quality of life. When Airmen deploy, time spent worrying whether their families are safe and secure is time 

not spent focusing on the mission. Quality of life initiatives are critical to our overall 

combat readiness and to recruiting and retaining our country’s best and brightest. 

Family housing, dormitories, and other quality of life initiatives reflect our commitment to our Airmen. 

Family Housing 

The Air Force Family Housing Master Plan details our Housing military construction, O&M, and privatization efforts. It is designed to ensure safe, affordable, and 

adequate housing for our members. To implement the plan, our fiscal year 2006 

budget request for the family housing investment program is more than $400 million over the fiscal year 2005 budget. Consistent with Department of Defense Strategic Planning Guidance, the Air Force intends to eliminate inadequate family housing units in the United States by 2007, accelerate funding at four northern tier 

bases one year earlier than originally planned, and eliminate inadequate overseas 

family housing units by 2009. We thank you for your assistance in helping keep us 

on the path to meet these goals. 

For fiscal year 2006, the $1.2 billion requested for our housing investment program will provide over 2,900 new homes at 17 bases, improve more than 2,000 
169 

homes at 16 bases, and support privatization of more than 2,200 homes at three 

bases. An additional $767 million will be used to pay for maintenance, operations, 

utilities and leases to support the family housing program. 

Dormitories 

We are just as committed to providing adequate housing for our unaccompanied 

junior enlisted personnel. We are making great progress in our Dormitory Master 

Plan, a three-phased dormitory investment strategy. Phase I, eliminating central latrine dormitories, is complete and we are now concentrating on the final two phases 

of the investment strategy. In Phase II we are building new dormitories to eliminate 

our room shortage. In Phase III, we will replace existing dormitories at the end of 

their useful life with a standard Air Force-designed private room to improve our 

young Airmen’s quality of life. 

The total Air Force requires 60,200 dormitory rooms. It will cost approximately $711 million to fully execute the Air Force Dormitory Master Plan. That will replace 

all inadequate permanent party dormitory rooms by fiscal year 2007 and all inadequate technical training dormitories by fiscal year 2009. This fiscal year 2006 

budget request moves us much closer toward these goals, requesting $184 million 

for eight dormitory projects—creating 1,648 new rooms for unaccompanied personnel 

at both stateside and overseas bases. With this request, we will reach 47 percent 

of our final permanent party goal and 19 percent of our technical training goal. 

Fitness Centers/Family Support Centers 

Along with housing, fitness centers are a critical component of the Air Force’s 

quality of life. Our expeditionary nature requires that Airmen deploy to all regions 

of the world, and into extreme environments. They must be physically prepared to 

deal with these challenges. Our Airmen must be ‘‘fit to fight.’’ Under our new fitness 

program, Airmen are devoting more time and energy to physical fitness. As a result, 

fitness center use has increased dramatically. The Air Force Fitness Center Master 

Plan prioritizes requirements based on need, facility condition, MAJCOM input, Operations Tempo, and a location’s remoteness or isolation. The fiscal year 2006 military construction program includes two fitness centers: Charleston Air Force Base 

(AFB), SC and Vandenberg AFB, CA. 

Family Support Centers are also critical to the quality of life of our Airmen and 

their families. They provide needed support services and ensure a strong sense of 

community on our bases. This is especially important in overseas locations where 

our Airmen and their families are separated from cultural and community support 

networks they are accustomed to in the United States. For them, our Air Force family becomes their primary support structure, especially when a spouse is deployed. 

The fiscal year 2006 submission includes a new Family Support Center at Aviano 

Air Base, Italy. 

ACCOMMODATE NEW MISSIONS

Our Airmen are the best in the world, but superior weapons have also played a 

key role in recent joint warfighting successes in the Global War on Terrorism. Advanced weapon systems enable our combatant commanders to respond quickly in 

support of national security objectives. The fiscal year 2006 Total Force new mission 

military construction program consists of 40 projects, totaling more than $402 million, and supports core modernization, beddown of new missions, and expansion of 

existing missions. These include Global Hawks at Beale AFB, California; Predator 

force structure changes at Indian Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field, Nevada; Combat Search and Rescue aircraft beddown at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona and a 

HC–130P simulator facility at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; a Distributed Common 

Ground Station at Hickam AFB, Hawaii; and small diameter bomb facilities at RAF 

Lakenheath, United Kingdom. In particular, two new systems, the F/A–22 Raptor 

and the C–17 Globemaster III, require extensive construction support. 

The F/A–22 Raptor is the Air Force’s next generation air superiority fighter, but 

it is equally capable attacking ground targets or gathering intelligence data. Langley AFB, Virginia, will be home for the first operational F/A–22 squadrons. Flight 

training, weapons training, and aircraft battle damage repair training will be conducted at Tyndall AFB, Florida, Nellis AFB, Nevada, and Hill AFB, Utah. Our fiscal 

year 2006 military construction request includes one F/A–22 project at Langley 

AFB, one project at Tyndall AFB, two projects at Nellis AFB, and one project at 

Hill AFB for a total of $47.5 million. These projects support the F/A–22 initial beddown and training and will not be affected by the final aircraft purchase number. 

The C–17 Globemaster III is replacing our fleet of C–141 Starlifters. C–17s will 

be based at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; Travis AFB and March Air Reserve Base (ARB) 

in California; Dover AFB, Delaware; Hickam AFB, Hawaii; Jackson Air National 
170 

Guard Base, Mississippi; McGuire AFB, New Jersey; Altus AFB, Oklahoma; 

Charleston AFB, South Carolina; and McChord AFB, Washington. Thanks to your 

support, the construction funding requirements for Charleston and McChord are 

complete. The request for fiscal year 2006 includes two projects for $6 million at 

Dover AFB, three facility projects for $12.6 million at Travis AFB, and two facility 

projects for $54.8 million at Elmendorf AFB. 

OPTIMIZE USE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESOURCES

Housing Privatization 

We would also like to thank you for eliminating the cap on the Department of 

Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund. Our Airmen and their families appreciate your staunch commitment to their quality of life. To date, we have awarded 

thirteen privatization projects providing 10,977 privatized homes for our Air Force 

families. The Air Force has leveraged an investment of $173 million with private 

sector funding to yield $1.6 billion in total development. 

Last year, we completed three privatization projects (Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; 

Robins AFB, Georgia; and Dyess AFB, Texas) and have three more under construction (Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Patrick AFB, Florida; and Kirtland AFB, New 

Mexico). We recently awarded five new privatization projects at Moody AFB, Georgia; Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; Buckley AFB, Colorado; Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts; Hickam AFB, Hawaii; and awarded the second phase of the project at Elmendorf AFB. Two years ago we set a goal to privatize 60 percent of U.S.-based family 

housing by 2007. With this budget we are on track to beat that goal by an additional 12 percent. The fiscal year 2006 request includes $65 million to start 

privatizing more than 2,200 units at three more bases: Peterson AFB and the U.S. 

Air Force Academy in Colorado; and F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. 

Utility Privatization 

In addition to privatizing housing, the Air Force is interested in privatizing utilities where it makes economic sense and does not adversely affect readiness, security, or mission accomplishment. Our installations are key to our operational capabilities. Our network of bases provides necessary infrastructure for deploying, employing, and sustaining air and space operations and re-deploying and reconstituting 

the force afterwards. Our bases are also the training platforms from which skilled 

Airmen learn their trades and prepare for deployment. Reliable utility services are 

essential to operations at every Air Force base. 

To date, under OSD’s utilities privatization program, the Air Force has conveyed 

10 systems, with a plant replacement value in excess of $230 million. By the time 

the program is complete, we anticipate as many as 100 of about 500 systems could 

be privatized. We are on track to meet 95 percent of OSD’s milestone: completing 

Source Selection Decisions by September 30, 2005. During the course of this process, 

we expect that many competitive solicitations will end up as sole source procurements from local utility companies. 

CONCLUSION

The readiness of our fighting force, now and in the future, depends upon our infrastructure. We will continue to enhance our installations’ capabilities and our Airmen’s quality of life and ensure Air Force infrastructure remains ready to support 

our global operations. 

HOUSING PRIVATIZATION

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

I think the Air Force has come to privatization a little later than 

some of the other Services, and with some of the MILCON money, 

there has been a determination, after MILCON has been appropriated, that privatization would be the better route. My question 

is, How are you going to work with the committee in the future to 

come to us with a change, if you’re not going to use MILCON 

money where you told Congress you would? Where would this 

money go if there is a reprogramming request? If you’re going to 

go to privatization, we need to have some sort of notification. How 

would you propose to handle that? 
171 

Mr. KUHN. I think there are many ways that we have done this 

and we will continue to do this. One of the ways is, the gentleman 

to my right and the individuals in his office have come over to the 

Congress to talk about every housing privatization project in the 

Air Force, where the MILCON started for the projects, and how 

they interrelated. 

I also see that there are three points in which we also come to 

you under congressional notification. One is in the concept approval 

of the housing privatization program, in which we not only do a notification, but we offer to come over to talk to your staff about these 

issues. And we come back a second time, before award, to talk to 

you about the project itself, the dollars that were leveraged, any 

details that you would like. And then there’s the third notification 

when the money actually gets transferred into the family housing 

improvement fund. 

But I think my commitment to you, and General Fox’s commitment to you, is that we can, and have, offered to come over to talk 

to this issue on a systematic, periodic basis with your staffs, and 

they have been incredibly responsive to us in that, and it’s been a 

very helpful dialogue. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Bolling Air Force Base was going to be traditional construction but now it is going into privatization. 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am, into a group. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. My question is, you’re going to privatization for Bolling, and are you going to preserve the historic 

houses? How are you going to handle those historic homes? 

General FOX. Madam Chairman, we are looking at Bolling Air 

Force Base as a privatization candidate. And when we initially 

looked at Bolling and ruled it out the first time that we looked, it 

was because it was too good a deal for a developer, if you would. 

The basic allowance for housing was too high to make it feasible 

for the government to press ahead. So the only way that we look 

at it and say that it’s a smart move for the government is to group 

it with some other bases that might not be quite as good a deal. 

So, in essence, it becomes the way to carry some other bases that 

are not as good a leverage. 

As Mr. Kuhn mentioned, the great thing about privatization is 

the up-front capability that it gives us. We are now seeing nineto-one leverage across our entire housing privatization program, 

which means, for every dollar that the Government puts forward 

up front, we’re leveraging nine in private development. So that’s 

what makes the program successful for us. 

At Bolling Air Force Base, we’re looking at potentially grouping 

with five other bases. And so, as we look at those bases and what 

we press ahead with in privatization, certainly we will have the developer give us proposals that will include preserving the historic 

units. I believe that the developer who would then own those units 

will probably have other proposals, as well. But, at this point, I 

don’t think that we’re able to tell you what a proposer would give 

us, in terms of the different propositions that they might make to 

us. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Madam Chairman? 
172 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. At 2:30, we have a closed intelligence meeting on the defense intelligence budget. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Sure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I’d like to be excused. It’s the only 

chance I have—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Of course. Do you have a question before 

you leave? Whatever is your pleasure. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think—can I ask one question—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Sure. 

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, GERMANY

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. On Spangdahlem? Because 

we’ve gone over this before. There are two project requests for 

Spangdahlem, the large-vehicle inspection station, at $5.4 million, 

and the control tower, at $7.1 million. The question I wanted to 

know is, Do we know which air assets will remain at Spangdahlem 

following the global realignment that would support the infrastructure improvement? And, secondly, why haven’t we requested NATO 

funding for these projects? 

And another project that appears to be eligible for NATO funding 

is a warehouse at Aviano. 

General FOX. Senator Feinstein, the purpose for Spangdahlem, 

for the long term, it is an enduring base. Spangdahlem is one of 

two bases, coupled with Ramstein Air Base, also in Germany, that 

replaced the capability that Rhein-Main Air Base has provided us. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. General, we went over this. I think it was— 

was it last year? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Last year, so we’re relatively familiar with it. I mean, part of our problem has been that you folks 

change your mind periodically after we’ve begin a project. And I 

guess what I want to see is that there really is going to be the air 

assets there to support the improvements. 

General FOX. Senator Feinstein, there’s no change in 

Spangdahlem, nor Ramstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But that still doesn’t answer my question, because we’ve never really, to my knowledge, been really assured 

that the air assets are going to be there. 

General FOX. Both those bases, for the long term, replace the 

Rhein-Main capability that brings heavy airlift through Central 

Europe en route to other NATO locations or Southwest Asia. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So what you’re telling us is that, on a permanent basis, there will be sufficient air assets at Spangdahlem to 

justify these permanent improvements. 

General FOX. Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am. At Spangdahlem and 

Ramstein, both of those become airlift capabilities, to include widebody aircraft, C–5 and C–17 aircraft. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Have we asked for NATO funding for any of 

this? 

General FOX. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And is it forthcoming? 

General FOX. The vehicle inspection gate is not eligible for NATO 

funding, but the tower is partially eligible, and we have asked for 
173 

NATO recoupment of funds. So when we go forward with that 

project, we pre finance, and then go back to NATO and ask for 

recoupment of those funds. But Spangdahlem and Ramstein both 

are enduring locations. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And they will recoup $7.1 million? 

General FOX. No, ma’am. We—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. How much will they give you? 

General FOX. I would have to estimate, at this point. I’ll answer, 

for the—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I’d just like—— 

General FOX [continuing]. For the record. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. To get you on the record so we 

know the money comes back and that you don’t use it for something else. 

NATO PRECAUTIONARY PREFINANCE STATEMENT

General FOX. Senator, the money does not come back to us, and 

I can’t use it for something else. When—in a NATO scenario, we 

file a—what is known as a precautionary pre finance statement, 

which tells NATO we intend for them to pay back any and all 

funds that are eligible under NATO. NATO funds a minimum military essential requirement. So when they look across all NATO 

member countries, they say—if those NATO member countries 

have a very-much-smaller control tower requirement—and usually 

most countries don’t build to our standards—they will fund to the 

minimum standard. And so, we can expect to recoup whatever the 

minimum standard is that other countries—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Of that—— 

General FOX [continuing]. Would get. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. $7.1 million? 

General FOX. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Or in excess of the $7.1 million? 

General FOX. A portion of that $7.1 million. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I guess I don’t understand the word ‘‘recoup’’—does that mean—— 

General FOX. Recoupment—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. They pay you dollars? 

General FOX. Recoupment means that NATO applies, then, funds 

that they will fund against—a project that we pre finance—against 

the United States share to the NATO Security Investment Program. So then the following year, the United States does not contribute as much as it ordinarily would to NATO. 

NATO contributes—NATO’s budget, in Security Investment Program, is in the neighborhood of about $550 to $600 million per 

year. The United States share of—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. The question I think—— 

General FOX [continuing]. That’s about 25 percent. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Right. But what she’s saying is, okay, we 

fund it, NATO comes back, say, and gives us $4 million of the $7 

million in credits to other NATO accounts. So the Air Force has 

funded the NATO commitment, basically. 

General FOX. So—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So it’s taken off of—— 

General FOX. Basically, it buys down—— 
174 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. Our NATO commitment. 

General FOX [continuing]. It buys down our normal contribution 

in subsequent years to NATO. It reduces our share. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Is that same thing true for the warehouse at 

Aviano? 

General FOX. It would be. I can’t tell you exactly what percentage of the warehouse at Aviano Air Base qualifies for NATO, based 

on the minimum NATO standard. But it is exactly true, as a normal course of business in Europe, the U.S. Air Forces in Europe 

files a recoupment request for anything that is or might be eligible 

for NATO funding. NATO funds, normally, operational requirements only, and then to a common minimum standard across 

NATO. 

Where we’ve really leveraged NATO funding very well for the 

United States is when we went to Aviano and did the Aviano beddown. We convinced them that, since it was a replacement for 

Crotone Air Base that was not built, that they should also fund 

support facilities, as well. So we leveraged something like $350 million that NATO paid for the Aviano beddown, for example. So we 

do claim, for the U.S. Government, everything that NATO makes 

eligible across member nations. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But it’s just deducted from our contributions 

today—— 

General FOX. It just means that—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. So it’s just a fungible exchange. 

General FOX. Yes, ma’am. We do not get funding back; it just 

decrements the amount in subsequent years that we the United 

States would normally contribute. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you both very much. I appreciate that. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

GOODFELLOW AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS

I just have one more, and this is more of a local nature. 

Goodfellow Air Force Base, in San Angelo, Texas, is one of the 

good examples of true joint training facilities. All of the services 

are represented there. I wanted to ask you, it seems to me that 

Goodfellow has a lot of expansion room, and they’re doing this intelligence training and language training that is so essential right 

now. My question is, do you have any plans to expand that mission 

profile with the same type of intelligence and its cryptology and 

language training for intelligence services? Are you looking at any 

expansions of that at this time? 

Mr. KUHN. I don’t know of any expansions, vis-a-vis the Air 

Force. I don’t know what DOD or, for instance, the joint cross-service groups in the BRAC might be looking at for that. But I’ve met 

with the Goodfellow community on many occasions. We’ve talked 

about the lands, we’ve talked about their jointness in that area and 

in other areas, and they’ve been in the forefront of this issue for 

a lot of years. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, it seems that it has really picked up 

with our war on terrorism, because, of course, we’re recruiting 

more people who can, not only—— 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am. 
175 

Senator HUTCHISON [continuing]. Learn to speak Arabic, but to 

try to decipher signals. And I just—— 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am. Where jointness becomes even more important. Yes, ma’am, I agree with you. But just where I sit in the 

Air Force, I don’t know of any plans of the Air Force to do anything 

for that particular—— 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator HUTCHISON. But there is a lot of expansion room there. 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am, there is. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Have you been there to see their facilities? 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am. Had a barbeque there. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Oh, yes, that’s—— 

Mr. KUHN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, the barbeque is at Dyess, in Abilene, 

also. That’s another big one. 

Mr. KUHN. Been there, too. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO FRED W. KUHN

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

FAMILY HOUSING

Question. Mr. Kuhn, is the Air Force privatizing family housing at places where 

authorization and appropriation for the family housing requirements have not been 

received? 

Answer. No. All of the awarded AF housing privatization projects had MILCON 

projects (for significantly smaller scope or number of units) slated for them, including Patrick AFB, which had funds, authorized and appropriated that were rescinded 

by Congress. The Air Force uses the authority under Title 10, United States Code 

Section 2883, to transfer Military Construction appropriations into the Family 

Housing Improvement Fund in order to fund the scored costs of our privatization 

projects. During the March 16, 2005 Senate Appropriations MILCON and Veterans 

Affairs Committee hearing, Mr. Kuhn affirmatively answered Senator Hutchinson’s 

question regarding whether the Air Force would notify the committee in cases where 

MILCON would be used for privatization projects. As our Military Family Housing 

program continues to execute and we look for additional privatization opportunities 

we will continue to keep the committee informed of changes in our program. 

BUDGET OVERVIEW

Question. Mr. Kuhn, I understand you hoped to bring forward a $1.8 billion 

MILCON request, but it was reduced to $1.3 billion in the last rounds of the budgeting process. What did not get funded as a result of that cut? 

Answer. Many changes occurred from the fiscal year 2005 President’s Budget Request Future Year Defense Program (FYDP) to the fiscal year 2006 President’s 

Budget Request. Major Commands and Bases were forced to defer requirements to 

future years due to competing budget priorities. A list of deferred requirements is 

attached 

JOINT FUNDING/JOINT BASING

Question. Mr. Kuhn, the Defense Department consistently says it will emphasize 

jointness in the upcoming BRAC round which I think is exactly the right thing to 

do. The Air Force generally has the best facilities among the Services. How do you 

intend to embrace jointness and still ensure Air Force facilities are of the quality 

you believe you need to most effectively execute your mission? 

Answer. Thank you for the compliment regarding the existing infrastructure 

structure within the Air Force. The Air Force fully embraces the concept of jointness 

through the joint utilization of infrastructure assets. This is not a new concept for 
176 

us. This is something we are already doing at the majority of our installations, active, guard and reserve today. We strongly believe the responsibility to maintain the 

installation at these high standards belongs to the host unit commander. Prior to 

a new tenant from another service moving onto an Air Force installation, the potential tenant and Air Force personnel conduct a site survey. The host unit commander 

informs potential tenants of construction compatibility standards, the inter-service 

support agreement standards, and tenant funding responsibilities. Final approval 

for inter-service beddown activities is at the Secretariat-level where facility and 

inter-service support levels are addressed. This high-level review reinforces the expectation to support existing facility and installation services standards. The Installation Capability Council, which is chaired by OSD with members from the Services 

and their Secretariats have chartered a Joint Basing Group. This group is developing a policy for the Common Delivery of Installations Support. The policy will include standards, metrics and pricing or reimbursement rules for installations support. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE-HAZARDOUS WASTE

Question. All the developers at Lowry Air Force Base, save one, have had their 

claims for asbestos remediation rejected by the Air Force. The Colorado Delegation 

has been patient with the asbestos reimbursement cost process, but the Air Force’s 

response has been most unsatisfactory. What is remarkable is that the Air Force 

continues to talk up the Lowry Redevelopment as its shining example in the BRAC 

process, yet this glaring unresolved problem remains. Why has the Air Force refused 

to acknowledge its responsibility for the asbestos it left at Lowry Air Force Base, 

including the asbestos found in utility pipes? 

Answer. Our approach to asbestos, as well as to other unknown and undisclosed 

contamination on former Air Force property, is consistent with the law. We accept 

the full responsibility imposed by Federal law with respect to Air Force contamination that poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. 

Where—as at Lowry—the condition of the property was disclosed to and accepted 

by the Lowry Redevelopment Authority (LRA), and where much of the soil there has 

been relocated from other locations on Lowry or brought onto Lowry at the direction 

of the developers or the LRA, our obligations have changed. And where—as at 

Lowry—there has never been a credible, science-based assertion that a situation 

poses an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, the obligations 

of the Federal Government are nonexistent. With respect to your question on asbestos materials in utility pipes, the Air Force does not remove underground utility 

pipes from base closure property. The LRA and its builders have been aware that 

the Air Force did not remove the underground utility lines. It is the developer’s responsibility to ensure the proper management of such pipes during construction activities. 

Question. All the developers at Lowry Air Force Base, save one, have had their 

claims for asbestos remediation rejected by the Air Force. The Colorado Delegation 

has been patient with the asbestos reimbursement cost process, but the Air Force’s 

response has been most unsatisfactory. What is remarkable is that the Air Force 

continues to talk up the Lowry Redevelopment as its shining example in the BRAC 

process, yet this glaring unresolved problem remains. Why has the Air Force refused 

to reimburse the developers who used their own money to pay for the Air Force’s 

hazardous waste? 

Answer. Please be assured that the decisions to deny claims were made only after 

careful review of the facts and applicable law, and that the decisions were made 

with the full support of the U.S. Department of Justice. The privileged nature of 

the settlement discussions prevents us from discussing any details. 

Question. All the developers at Lowry Air Force Base, save one, have had their 

claims for asbestos remediation rejected by the Air Force. The Colorado Delegation 

has been patient with the asbestos reimbursement cost process, but the Air Force’s 

response has been most unsatisfactory. What is remarkable is that the Air Force 

continues to talk up the Lowry Redevelopment as its shining example in the BRAC 

process, yet this glaring unresolved problem remains. Don’t you find it embarrassing 

that this hasn’t been resolved particularly when communities from around the country are meeting at Lowry this Spring to discuss successful redevelopment strategies? 

Answer. No. The Air Force has followed Federal and State laws in its response 

to the discovery of asbestos at Lowry Air Force Base. The developers incurred their 

costs at the behest of a State agency that directed unprecedented sampling and re-
177 

sponse actions and then, without any basis, informed the developers that the Air 

Force would pay for it. It is not the Air Force’s responsibility to resolve such errors. 

We believe that Lowry is an excellent example of successful redevelopment and we 

applaud the LRA for the work it has accomplished to date. We also note that the 

meeting in question is sponsored by a non-Federal group, the National Association 

of Installation Developers (NAID). The announcement for the June 4–7, 2005 conference presents the following information: ‘‘. . . Lowry... has reached marketplace success must faster than anticipated, while driving an economic engine that 

is helping the region recover . . .’’ and ‘‘since closing in 1994, and then breaking 

ground in 1997, Lowry has become one of Denver’s hottest neighborhoods. Nearly 

3,000 new homes for 6,500 residents now command premium prices . . . to date 

the LRA estimates a $4 billion economic benefit to the State.’’ 

LOWRY AIR FORCE BASE-PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE

Question. I would also like to point out a good news story from Lowry, and that 

is the privatization initiative. This plan would allow the Air Force and the Lowry 

Redevelopment Authority to privatize the remaining environmental issues and to 

complete the conveyance of all the remaining land at Lowry. This effort would effectively end any Air Force involvement at Lowry, protect them against any future environmental clean-ups, and allow the LRA to privately contract out all of the remediation efforts left at the site. I believe that if this plan had been put in place prior 

to the discovery of asbestos in the soil at Lowry, the entire issue would have been 

taken care of in a much less confrontational manner. I hope that as we proceed with 

another round of BRAC that the DOD will push for these agreements. Will the Department of Defense continue to pursue privatization initiatives with the communities that are affected by the BRAC process? 

Answer. Yes, the Air Force will continue to pursue privatization initiatives at locations where it is economically feasible. In addition to Lowry, the Air Force Real 

Property Agency is pursuing privatization at the former McClellan AFB, CA. In coordination with the Department of Defense, the Air Force is developing criteria for 

the BRAC 2005 Handbook that will aggressively reflect privatization as a viable 

method under BRAC 2005. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST/KUWAITI AERIAL PORT

Question. Because of the timing of the President’s Budget Request, and the submission of the $75 billion Supplemental request, it’s impossible not to question 

projects included in the supplemental as emergencies. The Air Force has asked for 

an aerial port at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. The request is for $75 million 

and that’s just the first phase of an unspecified number of phases. First, can you 

give me the total cost and number of phases for this project, and secondly, why our 

location at Kuwait City Airport isn’t sufficient? These are temporary facilities, are 

they not? 

Answer. The $75.5 million MILCON request in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental 

is an emergency. It is intended to provide the minimum construction requirements 

necessary to move all flying operations out of the Kuwait City International Airport 

(Mubarak AB) and meet the current contingency requirements in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF). The project expands the runway, taxiway, aircraft 

parking, and fueling capability at Ali Al Salem (AAS) in order to enable the airfield 

to support wide-body aircraft. Additionally, the project provides only the basic facility needs to process passengers, handle cargo, plus billeting/dining facilities (using 

pre-engineered buildings). The $75.5 million project in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental was developed last year assuming continued commercial traffic into Kuwait 

City International Airport (KCIA). Current revised planning assumption is that all 

U.S. flights will be redirected to AAS vice KCIA. With this increased number of 

daily commercial landing and takeoffs, recent pavement/soil analysis done by the 

Corp of Engineers determined that the existing design and condition of the Host Nation (HN) airfield will require repairs ($18.3 million to $35 million depending on design) to the existing airfield pavements in order to support heavy aircraft beyond 

2 years. We will request HN funding for this effort, and if unsuccessful in obtaining 

HN funding will submit O&M funded repair under section 2811. Bottom line: the 

$75.5 million project will effectively move all operations out of KCIA in the short 

term, but the additional load on the AAS runway will cause it to fail unless it is 

repaired. Next, there is a four-phase plan to transition Ali Al Salem into an enduring base with permanent type facilities in accordance with the long range 
178 

CENTCOM Master Plan. These phases are not tied to OIF, (like the interim $75 

million Supplemental project mentioned above), and will be submitted for Host Nation funding/cost sharing and potential future U.S. MILCON funding. The preliminary scope of work and cost estimates for these future phases are reflected in detail 

in the below spreadsheet. 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title HN funding request 

Phase 1 Priority: 

Conc Strat Lift Ramp 8 wide/48 other ....................................................................................................... 75,300 

Connecting Taxiways ................................................................................................................................... 2,800 

Engine Runup & Maint Pad ........................................................................................................................ 3,100 

Fuel Hydrant Sys (8 Strat, 24 Other), Ph 1 ............................................................................................... 15,000 

Flightline/Satellite Fire Station ................................................................................................................... 3,000 

2 Lane Asphalt road, Ph 1 ......................................................................................................................... 2,000 

Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 2,200 

Supporting fac, utilities, demo, sitework ................................................................................................... 7,000 

Demining, Ph 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 7,000 

Phase 1 Total ......................................................................................................................................... 117,400 

Phase 2 Priority: 

Operational Fuel Storage ............................................................................................................................ 10,000 

Fuel Hydrant Sys (8 Strat, 24 Other), Ph 2 ............................................................................................... 24,900 

PAX Terminal ............................................................................................................................................... 5,000 

Fleet Service Warehouse ............................................................................................................................. 2,300 

Air Freight Terminal .................................................................................................................................... 5,000 

Wide body Maintenance Hangar ................................................................................................................. 22,400 

Maintenance Shops w/Hangar .................................................................................................................... 4,500 

Hangar Apron .............................................................................................................................................. 3,600 

Squadron Ops Facility ................................................................................................................................. 3,400 

AMU Facility ................................................................................................................................................ 3,400 

Fuels Ops & Testing Facility ....................................................................................................................... 1,100 

2 Lane Asphalt road, Ph 2 ......................................................................................................................... 800 

Army Fac (Troop Processing, Hospital, etc) ................................................................................................ 59,000 

Supporting fac, utilities, demo, sitework ................................................................................................... 7,000 

Demining, Ph 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 7,000 

Phase 2 Total ......................................................................................................................................... 159,400 

Phase 3 Priority: 

12,000′ × 200′ Runway w/50′ shoulders ................................................................................................... 23,000 

7,500′ × 100′ Taxiway w/50′ shoulders ..................................................................................................... 10,500 

Asphalt Overruns ......................................................................................................................................... 1,300 

Ladder & High Speed Taxiways .................................................................................................................. 16,900 

Hot Cargo Pad ............................................................................................................................................. 4,900 

Air Traffic Control Tower ............................................................................................................................. 1,800 

Airfield Lighting/NAVAIDS ............................................................................................................................ 11,200 

2 Lane Asphalt road, Ph 3 ......................................................................................................................... 800 

Supporting fac, utilities, demo, sitework ................................................................................................... 7,000 

Demining, Ph 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 7,000 

Phase 3 Total ......................................................................................................................................... 84,400 

Phase 4 Priority: 

80 km Pipeline from Refinery ..................................................................................................................... 38,400 

Flightline Dining Facility ............................................................................................................................. 2,700 

Housing (10×24 room) ................................................................................................................................ 8,400 

Repair old runway/taxiway after move ....................................................................................................... 24,600 

MWR & Support Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 2,800 

2 Lane Asphalt road, Ph ............................................................................................................................. 42,900 

Supporting fac, utilities, demo, sitework ................................................................................................... 7,000 

Demining, Ph 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 7,000 

Phase 4 Total ......................................................................................................................................... 93,800 
179 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Project title HN funding request 

Cost Sharing Totals ................................................................................................................................ 455,000 

The transition from Kuwait International Airport to Ali Al Salem serves two purposes. One, the Government of Kuwait (GoK) has requested that all Military operations relocate as they move to establishing a Free Trade Zone and increase tourism 

to their country. Second, by consolidating the Aerial Port of Debarkation APOD 

(currently at KCIA) with the passenger processing and tactical airlift (currently at 

AAS) the force protection risk of convoying deploying/redeploying forces between 

these locations is mitigated. Currently Military and U.S. commercial aircraft are 

parked adjacent to the uncontrolled freeway and accessible by commercial vehicles 

operating on KCIA. Bussing troops from KCIA to Camp Buehring for in processing, 

then on to AAS for airlift into Iraq exposes them to risk of attack. The fiscal year 

2005 Aerial Port project allows relocation of APOD from KCIA to mitigate force protection risks to troops, improves efficiency of logistics and troop movements, and satisfies HN request to allow KCIA civil aviation expansion. The facilities to be constructed are pre-engineered temporary facilities with anticipated life expectancy of 

5 to 7 years given the extreme temperature conditions of AAS. 

RECAPITALIZATION RATE

Question. Mr. Kuhn, as promised, the Air Guard’s request is up nearly 30 percent 

from last year’s request, but that still only represents a $38 million increase. When 

compared to the amount funded with Congressional ads, the Air Guard still falls 

$73 million below last year’s funded amount. The recapitalization rate for the Air 

Guard is 163 years—just slightly less than 100 years off the 67 year goal set by 

DOD. Given that only 24 percent of this year’s request buys current mission 

projects, how do you plan to buy down the recapitalization rate? 

Answer. The OSD goal for the Services to achieve a 67-year recapitalization rate 

is by fiscal year 2008; a goal which the Air National Guard is currently programmed 

to meet. The Air National Guard’s fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 MILCON 

programs continue to be dominated by new mission requirements for the beddown 

of the C–5 at Memphis, TN and Martinsburg, WV. Projects associated with these 

beddowns are primarily new footprint and do not count toward the recapitalization 

rate. The completion of these beddowns and the up-turn in funding projected for fiscal year 2008 will make this possible. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MAJOR GENERAL L. DEAN FOX

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

SUSTAINMENT/BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT (BOS)

Question. General Fox, your testimony notes your restoration and modernization 

(R&M) backlog will grow to nearly $9.8 billion in 2006. It also notes your request 

for R&M funds was restricted to $173 million in fiscal year 2006. How do you expect 

to make any progress against the backlog with such small R&M request? 

Answer. The readiness of our infrastructure remains an emphasis item for the Air 

Force; however, near-term fiscal constraints prohibited us from bringing forward a 

more robust R&M request. During the Program Review period, the Air Force was 

forced to react to major adjustments in the overall Department of Defense budget, 

including reductions of almost $4.8 billion to the Air Force budget in fiscal year 

2006. In developing options to source funding in response to this direction, we 

looked at the full range of Air Force programs, from flying programs to installation 

support programs. While our fiscal year 2006 budget request for R&M is less than 

we would prefer, in the out-years we intend to invest more heavily in critical infrastructure maintenance and repair through our R&M program in order to achieve a 

facility recapitalization rate of 67 years by fiscal year 2008. This strategy is in line 

with established OSD goals. This additional investment in our R&M program will 

assist in making progress against our R&M backlog. 

Question. General Fox, your testimony notes your restoration and modernization 

(R&M) backlog will grow to nearly $9.8 billion in 2006. It also notes your request 

for R&M funds was restricted to $173 million in fiscal year 2006. What funding 

strategy does the Air Force intend to employ to bring down this backlog? 
180 

Answer. Our strategy is to invest more heavily in the out-years in critical infrastructure maintenance and repair in order to achieve a facility recapitalization rate 

of 67 years by fiscal year 2008. This strategy is in line with established OSD goals. 

This strategy will assist in making progress against our R&M backlog. 

Question. General Fox, your testimony notes your restoration and modernization (R&M) backlog will grow to nearly $9.8 billion in 2006. It also notes your request 

for R&M funds was restricted to $173 million in fiscal year 2006. Given the backlog, 

why has the Air Force not asked for more R&M? 

Answer. Near-term fiscal constraints prohibited us from bringing forward a more 

robust R&M request. During the Program Review period, the Air Force was forced 

to react to major adjustments in the overall Department of Defense budget, including reductions of almost $4.8 billion to the Air Force budget in fiscal year 2006. 

Question. General Fox, your testimony notes your restoration and modernization (R&M) backlog will grow to nearly $9.8 billion in 2006. It also notes your request 

for R&M funds was restricted to $173 million in fiscal year 2006. Why has the Air 

Force not submitted a larger sustainment and BOS budget? 

Answer. Sustainment, Base Operating Support (BOS), and Restoration and Modernization (R&M) are three separate programs, each with separate requirements 

and associated funding goals. For Sustainment, the Air Force’s fiscal year 2006 

budget request is in keeping with established OSD goals; namely, it represents 95 

percent of the requirement derived from the OSD Facility Sustainment Model. For 

BOS, while our fiscal year 2006 budget request is less than we would prefer, nearterm fiscal constraints prohibited us from bringing forward a more robust BOS 

budget. During the Program Review period, the Air Force was forced to react to 

major adjustments in the overall Department of Defense budget, including reductions of almost $4.8 billion to the Air Force budget in fiscal year 2006. In developing 

options to source funding in response to this direction, we looked at the full range 

of Air Force programs, from flying programs to installation support programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

VANDENBERG AFB/MCCLELLAN AFB

Question. General Fox, the Air Force plans to spend $34.7 million in fiscal year 

2006 for environmental remediation at the former McClellan AFB. Could you please 

tell me, what is the extent of remediation efforts still required at McClellan, how 

much time and how much funding is still required? 

Answer. Former McClellan AFB is on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) list 

and is a very complex environmental site. There are nine operable units, which have 

been organized into 15 specific Records of Decision (RODs). Two RODs are completed. 2010 is the projected Final ROD date, with 2015 being the final remedy in 

place date. The Estimated Cost to Complete is $752 million. The Air Force is seeking to implement alternate contracting methods to buyout all or portions of the environmental program over the FYDP. Currently 11 percent of the property is conveyed. All conveyances are estimated for completion by end of 2016. 

FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE

Question. Maj Gen Fox, Your program notes the challenging foreign currency exchange rate. The dollar has been in decline for a couple of years now. When submitting requests for this budget, did your estimates take into consideration the weakened value of the dollar? If so, given a consistent dollar valuation, will exchange 

rates continue to be a challenge in fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. Yes, we have taken into consideration the weakened value of the dollar 

in developing the cost estimates of our fiscal year 2006 overseas projects. However 

our prior year projects were programmed at higher rates of exchange and the issue 

of exchange rates will remain a challenge when making payment for these projects 

in fiscal year 2006. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator HUTCHISON. Yeah. 

Well, thank you very much. Those are my questions. And I appreciate your being here and look forward to working with you. 

Mr. KUHN. Thank you very much. 

General FOX. Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 
181 

Our hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, the Subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 

(183) 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 4 p.m., in room SD–138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Hutchison, Allard, Feinstein, Johnson, and 

Landrieu. 

OVERSEAS BASING COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE AL CORNELLA, CHAIRMAN, OVERSEAS 

BASING COMMISSION 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MAJOR GENERAL LEW E. CURTIS, III, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

(RET.) 

VICE ADMIRAL ANTHONY A. LESS, UNITED STATES NAVY (RET.) 

BRIGADIER GENERAL KEITH MARTIN, PENNSYLVANIA ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (RET.) 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL H.G. TAYLOR, UNITED STATES ARMY (RET.) 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. The hearing will come to order. I apologize 

for being late, I thank all of you for being here and I’m very 

pleased that we now have our report and our hearing. The Commission has concluded that making the necessary changes in the 

report did not have a material affect on its conclusions and recommendations, thus the report has been edited in response to concerns of the Department, and we appreciate all of the cooperation 

by both the Department of Defense and the Overseas Basing Commission. 

The Overseas Basing Commission was created in November of 

2003 in the Military Construction Appropriations Act, Senator 

Feinstein and I were the authors of that legislation. We passed the 

legislation because we were concerned that the United States was 

pouring large amounts of money into overseas military facilities 

that were more appropriate to the Cold War than to the security 

environment of the 21st century. I also was concerned that the Department was not thinking boldly enough about the posture more 

appropriate to that new security environment, and creating the 
184 

Commission served a dual purpose—providing Congress with an 

independent view of our overseas basing needs, and working with 

the Department of Defense to tackle this effort vigorously. 

We have before us a fresh look at these important questions, not 

necessarily does it have all the right answers, but it is another 

independent view of the subject. I believe we’ll find that the Commission’s very existence will prove to have been as important as 

any of the specific recommendations it has to make. 

I’m pleased to note the Commission report overall is in support 

of the Global Basing Strategy of the Department of Defense, and 

while the Commission diverges from the Department on some of 

the specifics, its plan, in the words of the report says, ‘‘The Commission fully understands the need for change and endorses most 

of the initiatives undertaken in the Department of Defense’s Integrated Global Posture and Basing Strategy.’’ 

I will not read the rest of my opening statement, but just to say 

that I think the goal of the Commission and our goal in passing 

the legislation authorizing the Commission has been met, and I 

think that in the main it is also in agreement with the Department 

of Defense Global Basing Initiative. There are some differences, 

and we will discuss those. We will certainly want to hear from the 

Department of Defense as well, but I think when we are looking 

at some of the problems that we had in transporting troops during 

the run up to the situation in Iraq, and the training constraints 

that we have at overseas bases, that certainly the move now to 

having more troops at home and deploying from here is something 

that is in the works, thanks to a lot of effort on the part of the Department. 

So, with that, let me ask my ranking member, Senator Feinstein 

for her opening statement, and as the co-sponsor of the legislation 

to create the Commission, we’re very pleased that we now have a 

report, and we believe it will add to the body of knowledge to make 

all of our bases better training facilities, and better places for our 

service men and women to live and work. Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, 

and my thanks to the Commission, to its Chairman, Al Cornella, 

to the members, I really think you have done an excellent job. I 

had a chance at reading the classified version and have just received this new one now and look forward to looking through it. 

I am very pleased you’re working through the classification 

issues which have arisen in conjunction with the report, and we’ve 

reached the point where we can go forward with this hearing 

today. Senator Hutchison’s and my goal in establishing the Commission was really to enable and obtain an objective, informed 

overview of the global basing plan from the perspective of experts 

outside of the Pentagon. Your report offers precisely the type of 

overview we were hoping to achieve and it raises a number of valid 

and very thought-provoking questions. 

The timing of the report in conjunction with the ongoing BRAC 

process could not really be more propitious. I understand you’ve 

been invited to testify before the BRAC Commission, and I would 
185 

anticipate that your insight into the global basing plan will be a 

valuable asset to them in their deliberations. 

I agree with both you and the Defense Department that it is time 

to re-think the stationing of the United States military forces 

around the world, but I also share your concerns that the Pentagon 

may be moving too fast, too soon without giving enough consideration to America’s overarching foreign policy and national security 

objectives. This isn’t just an exercise of moving pieces on a chessboard. When, how and where we reposition existing military forces 

overseas has a far-reaching impact, not only on our national security interest, but also on a whole host of economic and political interests. The movement of troops from Europe and Korea back to 

the United States will have a huge impact on the communities to 

which they are returning, as your report rightly points out, quality 

of life is a key element of the global re-basing strategy, so the Department needs to be very careful to avoid returning American 

troops and their families to bases in communities that are not 

ready to receive them, and this is a major concern, I think, of Senator Hutchison, and certainly of my own. 

How the Pentagon expects to accomplish this in the midst of the 

wholesale realignment of domestic bases that will occur as a result 

of BRAC is a question that needs to be answered, and interestingly 

enough, I see where, in your report, you mentioned that costs, 

which are anticipated to be between $9 and $12 billion with only 

$4 billion currently budgeted from fiscal year 2006 to 2011. You 

mentioned that these may be understated, and that an independent 

analysis conducted for your Commission put the tab at closer to 

$20 billion. I think this is something that we need to come to grips 

with, I hope, Mr. Cornella, that you will talk about that in your 

remarks. 

Secondly, timing and synchronization are central themes, but 

your report is a great first step, I really want to thank you for it, 

and I certainly look forward to your testimony. Thanks, Madame 

Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Senator Allard. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. Madame Chairman, I would like to make my 

full statement a part of the record. 

But I would just like to just briefly make these comments. 

In some respects the Commission was critical of the manner in 

which the Department of Defense put together its current Integrated Global Basing Posture and Basing Strategy, and some may 

even be tempted to argue that the Commission’s recommendations 

indicate that we need to delay, or stop entirely, the BRAC process. 

Madame Chairman, I disagree with that assessment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I note that the Overseas Basing Commission stating it fully, 

agrees with the Department’s contention, that there’s considerable 

need for a rebasing initiative, in fact, the Commission strongly endorses most of the rebasing initiatives undertaken by the Department of Defense, and I look forward to getting to the heart of the 
186 

recommendations offered by the Commission, and I believe that 

this hearing will further demonstrate how important it is that the 

BRAC process move forward, and that the Department’s re-basing 

initiative is fully implemented, and I note with interest that there’s 

one bullet in your conclusions and recommendations where you 

state that the overseas basing posture of the United States and domestic base closure and realignment are closely related. Although 

the Commission calls for an overarching review of the overseas basing posture, you state that we believe that the BRAC process 

should move forward as scheduled, thank you, Madame Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Thank you, Madame Chairman for holding this important hearing. 

The Commission on the Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the 

United States has performed a great service for our country. The Commission’s report lays out several principles that should be considered when reviewing the Department of Defense’s overseas rebasing initiative. These principles include among 

others: 

—Ensuring that the rebasing initiative is tied to a master plan 

—Coordinating with agencies outside the Department of Defense 

—Assessing the impact of rebasing on intelligence, force protection, homeland security, and other important national priorities 

In some respects, the Commission was critical of the manner in which the Department of Defense put together its current Integrated Global Posture and Basing 

Strategy. Some may even be tempted to argue that the Commission’s recommendations indicate that we need to delay or stop entirely the BRAC process. 

Madame Chairman, I disagree with that assessment. I note that the Overseas 

Basing Commission stated it fully agrees with the Department’s contention that 

there is considerable need for a rebasing initiative. In fact, the Commission strongly 

endorsed most of the rebasing initiatives undertaken by the Department of Defense. 

I look forward to getting to the heart of the recommendations offered by the Commission. I believe that this hearing will further demonstrate how important it is 

that the BRAC process move forward and that the Department’s rebasing initiative 

is fully implemented. 

Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. I look forward to the testimony 

of our witnesses. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Senator Landrieu. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madame Chair, I have a full 

statement for the record. 

I would just like to add, I think it’s very important that our desires and needs as a Nation be brought into line with our budget 

and monies that we have to allocate, and I’m seeing, unfortunately, 

a pattern of setting out on a course underestimating the costs associated, and basically running up the debt. And so, I think we’ve got 

to be very practical in this approach, we have some strategic defense postures to keep in place, but we also have some very real 

budget constraints, and if the cost is going to be twice or three 

times as much as we had anticipated, then we’re going to need to 

find the money somewhere, and just can’t pretend that we can do 

this with minimal to no cost, and we’ve got to be able to be more 

realistic about that, and I’ll say more about that in the statement 

that I submit. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 
187 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Madame Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to review the Overseas 

Basing Commission recommendations. 

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has stood as the unrivaled military leader in the world. Our fighting men and women have preserved national security and served our foreign policy interests admirably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States highlighted the need to transform our national defense strategy to address the terrorist 

and extremist threats which seek to destroy our country’s influence in the world. 

Admiral Nimitz, one of our foremost Naval heroes defined the task for us. He 

noted that ‘‘whoever gets there firstest with the mostest wins.’’ That is our contemporary challenge which positions U.S. fighting men and women abroad. We must 

place them around the globe in such a way as to assure that U.S. forces are the 

first in the The Theater, and that they can bring overwhelming force to bear. 

Yet while our government contemplates a global strategy to keep our Nation more 

secure, we must also consider the personal impacts our decision-making will have. 

As we contemplate closing facilities in Germany and other places in Europe, we 

must keep a special focus on our military families. We are already asking them to 

make incredible sacrifices. We do not need to add the inevitable burdens of separation and worry by relocating our bases to places where it is unlikely or impossible 

for their families to follow. 

Another consideration for this process is ensuring that our allies and friends recognize that we aim to strengthen our commitment to secure our common interests. 

We must explore ways in which we can together transform our partnership in order 

to enhance our collective defense capabilities. It is time for our allies to work toward 

this goal together. Gone are the days when the United States can be expected to 

foot the bill for every cause. 

Madam Chairman, while I trust that all the members of the Overseas Basing 

Commission will provide valuable recommendations to strengthen the U.S. Global 

Defense Posture, I think it is important that this subcommittee keep in mind that 

managing this complex concept is a costly endeavor. While have put much effort into 

the building blocks of posture changes which include the facilities that make up our 

overseas footprint. However, we also need a new approach to managing the force 

which includes our permanent and rotational presence overseas must include our 

allies and their own accountability for the goals which they can no longer expect 

to achieve without their own proportionate investment. 

We must make certain that we keep our Nation’s obligation to those who have 

served and sacrificed in its defense. I believe that the U.S. Global Defense Posture 

is important and necessary. I also believe that our commitment to this endeavor 

must be tempered by realistic expectations to be achieved and by appropriate and 

responsible contributions to be made by the United States as well as our Allies. 

In its report, the Overseas Basing Commission expressed areas where the Department of Defense can provide for a more secure America. Suggestions in the report 

range from better communication and a wider spectrum of views by partners in the 

decision-making process to a more cohesive overall design which would be administered by a specific body that would be assigned responsibilities to both guide and 

monitor its implementation. Also, the Commission suggests Congress exercise its 

full authority in ensuring that plans and programs are appropriate to the task. 

The Commission’s recommendations are critical in the strategy of transformation 

which will change the face of national security for many years to come. It is essential we have an honest and open dialogue to insure America continues to preserve 

the lives of its citizens for generations to come. 

Thank you all for your testimony. Also, I hope that in the future we will be able 

to discuss one of the most important issues which faces this committee, the shortfall 

in Veterans Health Care funding. 

Madame Chairman, Senator Hutchison, thank you for your continued leadership 

on these issues. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I want to in 

particular welcome a fellow South Dakotan, Al Cornella, Chairman 

of the Commission, to the panel today and express my appreciation 

and the Senate’s appreciation for you leadership. Mr. Cornella is a 
188 

former BRAC Commissioner and has been willing to take on the 

very significant task of chairing the Overseas Basing Commission, 

and we’re appreciative of that, Al, we are proud of your service to 

the country. I welcome our other panel members here, as well, who 

have each of them, undertaken a very large scale, but very important undertaking, and will serve the Senate well, I’m certain. I will 

submit a full statement, Madame Chairman. 

I do, however, want to note that I believe that the Overseas Basing Commission recommendations and the ongoing quadrennial review are of such significance that it would have been my preference 

to have seen those issues resolved prior to going onto the BRAC 

Commission’s deliberations about the closure and the Department 

of Defense’s recommendations, frankly, for the closure of military 

bases around the country. I think that all of these interact with 

each other, and it is hard for me to imagine how the recommendation from the Department of Defense could be, well premised without in fact having prior access to the studies and reviews of the 

quadrennial review as well as the Overseas Basing Commission. 

Nonetheless, here we are, and I look forward to the testimony of 

the Commission, and I want to tell the Commission that I was very 

supportive of this effort I think that your work is going to be a very 

constructive and positive contribution to our overall review of 

America’s military posture in the world and domestically as well, 

thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Mr. Johnson. I would like to thank Chairwoman Hutchison and Ranking Member 

Feinstein for calling today’s hearing to discuss the Overseas Basing Commission’s 

interim report. 

I would also like to thank Chairman Al Cornella for appearing before the Subcommittee today. The work performed by the Overseas Basing Commission is vitally 

important to our national security and the long-term viability of our military force. 

Today the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee will hear testimony from Commission members about redeploying servicemembers from U.S. 

military facilities overseas. Their report could not come at a more important time. 

The threats facing the United States today are vastly different from those during 

the Cold War. Much has changed since that conflict ended and we must shift our 

security posture to confront new and emerging enemies. In addition, Secretary 

Rumsfeld has released his list of proposed domestic base closures and realignments, 

and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission has begun their important work to review and revise the Secretary’s list. Domestic base closures have a 

profound effect on our military force and the economic health of local communities. 

We should not close a single domestic base if it may unduly compromise our ability 

to defend our homeland. 

Currently, the Department of Defense is undertaking a monumental shift in overseas deployments. The threats confronting the United States have changed dramatically following the collapse of communism and the terrorist attacks of September 

11. In response, approximately 70,000 soldiers, as well as 100,000 family members 

and civilian employees, will be returning from overseas in the next decade. This 

shift in our military force abroad is long overdue. 

However, the Overseas Basing Commission’s interim report raises a number of 

important questions that must be addressed. For instance, the U.S. military plans 

to move troops stationed overseas back to American soil, but according to the Commission, if a crisis arises abroad, the military does not have enough sea and air 

transportation to rotate forces rapidly enough to respond. Just as troubling, the 

Bush Administration has projected it will cost $12 billion to redeploy soldiers back 

to the United States, but has only budgeted $4 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 

2011. The Commission believes these costs are understated and according to their 

independent analysis the price tag is closer to $20 billion. 
189 

Furthermore, if the Defense Department’s proposed changes in overseas bases are 

enacted, it will result in additional troop rotations. The Commission’s report argues 

that extended and more frequent rotations could strain U.S. military personnel and 

their families to the point where the United States is incapable of maintaining an 

all-volunteer force. I am extremely concerned with these conclusions. The military 

is already having trouble meeting recruitment and retention quotas. Creating more 

stress for our soldiers and their families will exacerbate this problem and irreparably damage our military. 

In response to these concerns, the Commission cautions the Department of Defense and urges them to reduce the speed of returning soldiers from overseas bases, 

and I believe this idea has merit. At a time when we are fighting wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, we must ensure the redeployment of American service members is in 

accord with our long-term strategic defense goals and should be thoughtfully 

planned and executed. 

Additionally, the Commission contends overseas redeployment should wait until 

the Department of Defense determines which domestic military bases will be shuttered during this round of base closures. If Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon 

continue to move forward with their plan to bring troops back to the United States 

from overseas deployments, I believe we must consider postponing this current 

round of domestic base closures. Simultaneously closing domestic and overseas 

bases may irrevocably damage our ability to defend against threats at home and 

abroad. 

I commend the Overseas Basing Commission for addressing the critical issues and 

concerns raised in preparation for shifting troops back to the United States. I 

strongly encourage Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense to seriously 

consider the Commission’s recommendations. We must reorganize our military force 

in order to respond to the threats of the 21st century. The challenge is to do so in 

a manner that is not detrimental to our national security and the men and women 

who proudly serve our country. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Johnson. I think that 

the Department in the next panel will discus how it took into consideration the troops that were coming back during the BRAC process, so we will get a chance to question them on that. 

Mr. Cornella, thank you for Chairing the Commission, I want to 

thank each Commissioner for all of the time and effort that you 

have put into doing this, you came to Washington many times, you 

went overseas, we appreciate the effort for this volunteer force that 

you gave us, and with that, let me ask you, Mr. Cornella, to give 

us the synopsis of the report, and whatever you would wish you 

say. 

STATEMENT OF AL CORNELLA

Mr. CORNELLA. Madame Chairman, Senator Feinstein, staff 

members, distinguished guests, members of the general public, my 

name is Al Cornella. As I was introduced, I serve as the Chairman 

on the Commission of Overseas Military Facilities Structure of the 

United States, thankfully more commonly known as the Overseas 

Basing Commission. 

I serve with five other Commissioners, four of whom are present 

today. From my far left, the Commission vice-Chairman Lou Curtis, Major General United States Air Force, Retired, Tony Less, 

United States Navy, Retired, Pete Taylor on my right, Lieutenant 

General, United States Army, Retired, and Keith Martin, Brigadier 

General, Pennsylvania Army National Guard, Retired. Dr. James 

Thompson, our sixth Commissioner and President of BRAC is out 

of the country and unable to be here with us today. 

I would also like to introduce the Commission’s Executive Director, Ms. Patricia Walker, seated behind me. 
190 

Madame Chairman, I would respectfully ask that the statements 

you received be entered into the record, and I be allowed to make 

a brief opening statement. 

The Commission’s talented staff included lead research analysts, 

a general counsel administrative staff, and analysts detailed from 

the Department of Defense and Government Accountability Office. 

The Commissioners and staff have worked diligently to prepare the 

May 2005 report. A final report will be provided to Congress and 

the President by August 15, 2005. We were asked to provide this 

early report so it might be used in conjunction with the domestic 

BRAC process. 

OVERVIEW

The Overseas Basing Commission was established by public law 

in fiscal year 2004. The Commission’s task is to independently assess whether the current overseas basing structure is adequate to 

execute current missions, and to assess the feasibility of closures, 

realignments or establishment of new installations overseas to 

meet emerging defense requirements. 

However, the Commission’s work is not intended to preclude the 

Department of Defense’s effort toward developing an integrated 

global presence and basing strategy, or IGPBS, and you’ll probably 

hear me use that acronym several times. Rather, the Commission 

report should assist Congressional Committees in performing their 

oversight responsibilities for DOD’s basing strategy military construction appropriations, and the 2005 base re-alignment and closure determinations. 

But one thing I would like to add as I note from your opening 

statements, that there are views about criticism of the Department. 

I do not believe that our report is offered as criticism of the Department, it’s offered as ways to strengthen the IGPBS plan, but we 

feel these are constructive thoughts that we’re sending forth. 

The Commission has been active since May 2004 and began with 

a thorough analysis of national security, defense and military strategies. The Commission completed a careful review, the Foundation 

for Global Reposturing, the 2004 Department of Defense, again 

IGPBS. It is important to note, at this point, the Department on 

several occasions has advised us that we are entitled to and have 

received all of the information that has been provided to Congress 

relative to overseas basing. 

Second, based on the Commission’s interview, interviews of key 

officials in the office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, 

the Combatant Commanders and the State Department, the Commission developed evaluation criteria to assess how effectively the 

current and future overseas basing posture support current and future national security and military operations. In addition, the 

Commission consulted with former senior military leaders, and 

other national security experts. We conducted four public hearings 

where we received testimony from former experts, military experts, 

defense analysts and experts on military family issues. At the final 

hearing, we had representatives from the Department of Defense 

and the State Department. We have engaged in briefings from the 

Department of Defense, the State Department, the Congressional 

Budget Office, Congressional research service, and other entities. 
191 

We visited military installations in many countries, meeting with 

U.S. forces, embassy representatives, foreign military officers and 

local officials. We have met with the majority of combatant commands, and in most cases, with the commanders and their staffs. 

We have made two trips to the Pacific Command, three to the European Command, and one to the Central Command. We spent 

about 2 months overseas traveling, the Commissioners also received briefings from U.S. Southern Commands, Special Operations 

Command, and Transportation Command. We have interacted with 

several thousand people over the past year, the vast majority from 

within the Department of Defense. All of the Commissioners and 

I have learned a great deal from these discussions, both here and 

abroad. 

Based on this review and analysis, the Commission has identified six major areas of concern—geopolitical considerations, timing 

and synchronization, operational requirements, mobility, quality of 

life and costs, and I will touch on a few of these briefly, and then 

we are prepared to address all of them in your questions. 

TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION

The Commission would like to make note that decisions have 

been made in regard to locations and force levels before the 2005 

Quadrennial Defense Review, QDR, and the 2005 Mobility Capability Study had been completed. The simultaneous activities of 

Service Transformation Army Modularity Operation Enduring 

Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terrorism, IGPBS, BRAC, resetting the forces and rebuilding, of prepositioned equipment—have all competed for funding within a limited budget, not to mention the stress that’s created on the forces, 

the current schedule of IGPBS moves will adversely impact the 

service’s ability to adequately fund modernization and readiness. 

In regard to mobility, strategic and infra-theater, lift and sea lift 

capabilities must be significantly upgraded. We have yet to meet 

the lift capabilities identified by the mobility requirement study of 

2005, which was conducted in the year 2000. In addition, announcements of global reposturing are being made before the presently ongoing Mobility Capability Study is concluded. Again, it 

would seem prudent to wait for the results of that study. It is clear 

that the mobility of our military forces being stressed by the current strain on strategic infra-theater lift and sea lift capabilities, 

the stress on strategic lift capabilities is being caused in large part 

by ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Strategic 

mobility is the key to our ability to respond to events worldwide, 

plans for sea and air lift capabilities as well as pre-positioned 

equipment sets must take into account the additional demands that 

IGPBS could place on an increasingly continental United Statesbased force. Surging forces from the continental United States will 

be problematic if strategic and tactical life capabilities and pre-positioned stocks are not in place. 

QUALITY OF LIFE

Next, I’ll briefly turn to quality of life issues. These issues are 

complex, but are also key concerns of the global positioning strategy, primarily because the United States relies on an all-volunteer 
192 

force. In order to sustain the military force both in numbers and 

in strength, the expectations of military personnel and their families with regard to active and reserve duty as well as redeployments must be met. If these expectations are not adequately met, 

then the U.S. military risks being severely compromised. Needless 

to say, this has enormous consequences politically, and in terms of 

maintaining national security. We have a moral obligation to our 

men and women in uniform and to their families to provide the 

quality of life support that they deserve. Returning forces and families should have housing, schools for their children and adequate 

medical facilities in place before they return, and the same should 

be maintained abroad until the last service member departs. 

The Commission calls this the ‘‘last day-first day’’ approach; not 

only does this have moral implications, but it will also be reflected 

in retention rates. The Commission notes with concern that the impact in recruiting and retention by IGPBS rotational forces has not 

been adequately evaluated, nor have associated risks to sustaining 

the voluntary force been assessed. We strongly recommend that 

this be given priority, and that necessary assessments be completed as quickly as possible. 

GEOPOLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the present era of the global War on Terror and the indisputable global competition in defense, intelligence, diplomacy, commerce and energy matters, the Commission feels it would be wise 

to broaden the underlying assumptions, scope and participation in 

the IGPBS process to include vital players involved in other areas 

of national security. The inter-agency process, for example, might 

include the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce and Treasury, the National Intelligence 

Director and others. After completing the interim report, we were 

advised that have a fourth Commission, but we of the fourth Commission have come to a similar conclusion—the others are in the 

9/11 Intelligence Commission—while moving troops back to the 

United States may be a political priority, force projection demands 

can only be met by developing a rebasing strategy and coordination 

with strategic U.S. alliances abroad, both existing and future. 

Many of our overseas basing capabilities rest on contingencies 

such as future political relations with bilateral partners involving 

fully negotiated and ratified legal agreements that support those 

relations. In many cases the status of forces agreements, Article 98 

agreements and other legal agreements are not in place at the proposed new locations. 

TROOP LEVELS

I will mention one specific recommendation, as it is the only one 

that has potential to change the number of returning troops, and 

we estimate this recommended change to affect roughly 4,000 

troops. In order to hedge against uncertainty in regard to nearterm threats, demonstrate aid and continued and enduring commitment to NATO, and allow for heavy force military-to-military contact with our NATO allies, at least one of the heavy brigade combat 

teams scheduled for return to the United States should remain in 

Europe, fully manned, until one, the Balkans support mission is 
193 

lifted to a ground-based defensive tank killing system is stationed 

in Europe and Operation Iraqi Freedom is mitigated. Additionally, 

heavy brigade combat teams’ equipment should be repositioned to 

float in the region. These recommendations are in addition to the 

Department’s plan for a Stryker Brigade in Germany, and the 

173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, and again, we offer these suggestions only to strengthen the Department’s plan, not as a criticism. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

As a final note, I wish to thank the members of the committee 

for inviting the Commission to appear today. It’s been my privilege 

to briefly describe the Commission work to date. Of course, the report has not been finalized and it is my hope that this will be the 

beginning of dialogue in this matter, so that the Commission can 

strengthen its analysis, conclusions and recommendations before 

submitting the final report on August 15. Please be assured that 

the Commission and staff are open to the views and concerns of 

Congress. 

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve your needs and 

those of the Nation, and we will be happy to answer any questions 

you may have at this time. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AL CORNELLA

My name is Al Cornella, and I serve as the Chairman of the Commission on the 

Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States, more commonly 

known as the Overseas Basing Commission (OSBC). 

I serve with five other Commissioners four of whom are present today—the Commission Vice Chairman, Lewis Curtis, Major General United States Air Force (Retired); Anthony Less, Vice Admiral, United States Navy (retired); Pete Taylor, Lieutenant General, United States Army (Retired); Keith Martin, Brigadier General, 

Pennsylvania Army National Guard (Retired). Dr. James Thomson, our sixth Commissioner and the CEO and president of RAND is out of the country and could not 

be here today. I would also like to introduce the Commission’s Executive Director, 

Ms. Patricia Walker. 

The Commission’s talented staff included lead research analysts, a general counsel, administrative staff, and analysts detailed from the Department of Defense and 

the Government Accountability Office. The Commissioners and staff have worked 

diligently to prepare this May 2005 report. A final report will be provided to Congress and the President by August 15, 2005. We were asked to provide this early 

report so it might be used in conjunction with the domestic BRAC process. 

The Overseas Basing Commission was established by public law in fiscal year 

2004. The Commission’s task is to independently assess whether the current overseas basing structure is adequate to execute current missions and to assess the feasibility of closures, realignments, or establishment of new installations overseas to 

meet emerging defense requirements. 

However, the Commission’s work is not intended to preclude the Department of 

Defense’s efforts toward developing an integrated global presence and basing strategy. Rather, the Commission report should assist Congressional committees in performing their oversight responsibilities for DOD’s basing strategy, military construction appropriations, and the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission determinations. 

This Commission has been active since May 2004, and has conducted four hearings where we received testimony from former military experts, defense analysts, 

and experts on military family issues. We have engaged in briefings from the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and other entities. The Commission has met with commanders and received extensive briefings on the transformation plan for the European Command, Pacific Command, and Central Command. The Commission has 

also met with the Transportation Command, Special Operations Command, and 
194 

Southern Command. The majority of our time was dedicated to the areas of greatest 

change. 

Main Testimony 

Congress created the Overseas Basing Commission as an independent, unbiased 

entity to produce a report that advises Congress on the current and future overseas 

basing structure of U.S. military forces. This is truly a daunting task. In order to 

explain the preliminary conclusions and recommendations that the Commission is 

prepared to offer to this committee today, let me begin by explaining the analytic 

approach we took examining and thoroughly studying various important aspects of 

the overseas basing structure. 

Analytic Approach 

First, the Commission began with a thorough analysis of national security, defense, and military strategies. The Commission completed a careful review of the 

foundation document for global reposturing, the 2004 Department of Defense Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS). 

Second, based on the Commission’s interviews of key officials in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the COCOMs, U.S. Transportation Command, 

and the State Department, the Commission developed evaluation criteria to assess 

how effectively the current and future overseas basing postures support current and 

future national security and military operations. 

In addition, the commission consulted with former senior military leaders and 

other national security experts. Commissioners and staff participated in six overseas 

trips to various commands. We conducted four public hearings where we received 

testimony from former military experts, defense analysts, and experts on military 

family issues. At the final hearing we had Mr. Doug Feith and Vice Admiral Robert 

F. Willard from the Department of Defense and Ambassador Rose Likens as a representative of the State Department. We have engaged in briefings from the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and other entities. 

We visited military installations in many countries, meeting with U.S. Forces, embassy representatives, foreign military officers, and local officials. We have met with 

the majority of Combatant Commands and in most cases with the commanders and 

their staffs. The Commissioners have received briefings from U.S. Central Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Transportation Command. We have made two trips to the Pacific Command, three to the 

European Command, and one to the Central Command. All the Commissioners, and 

I, have learned a great deal from these discussions, both here and abroad. 

Finally, based on its review and analysis, the Commission identified six major 

areas of concern: 

—Geopolitical Considerations; 

—Timing and Synchronization; 

—Operational Requirements; 

—Mobility; 

—Quality of Life; and 

—Costs. 

I will briefly address each area of concern, and explain the findings and conclusions of the Commission on each issue. 

Geopolitical Considerations 

The Commission has determined that the DOD’s IGPBS does not adequately address current and future geopolitical and strategic needs in response to existing and 

emerging security threats for two reasons. First, it is the view of the Commission 

that the IGPBS is too narrowly based on military concerns. While the Commission 

wishes to commend the Department of Defense on the design of IGPBS—which is 

a strategy that is directly aimed at addressing the matrix of existing and emerging 

threats—it is clear that the IGPBS has been almost exclusively designed by and for 

the military. 

In the present era of a global war on terror and the indisputable global competition in defense, intelligence, diplomacy, commerce and energy matters, the Commission feels that it would be wise to broaden the underlying assumptions, scope and 

participation in the IGPBS process to include vital players involved in other areas 

of our national security. The interagency process might, for example, include the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security (especially Immigration 

and Customs and Border Patrol), Justice (especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Commerce, and Treasury, the National Intelligence Director, and others. 

After completing the interim report, we were advised that we are the fourth com-
195 

mission to come to this conclusion. (Others are 9–11, Intelligence, and Roles and 

Missions Commissions) 

The basic concept of the IGPBS—as established by DOD—is fundamentally 

strong, and can be further refined to include issues related to homeland security, 

law enforcement, energy, non-proliferation, and other pressing national needs and 

priorities. Information sharing and inter-agency coordination among government 

agencies is a top priority of this Administration, and we feel that IGPBS can support this goal by broadening and diversifying its approach and implementation. 

Indeed, many of our overseas basing capabilities rest on contingencies such as future political relations with bilateral partners fully negotiated and ratified legal 

agreements that support those bilateral relations. In many cases, the Status of 

Forces Agreements (SOFA), access agreements, Article 98 agreements, and other 

legal agreements are not in place in proposed new locations. 

Timing and Synchronization 

Another reason the Commission feels that the IGPBS should be modified relates 

to more particular matters of the proposed timing and synchronization of IGPBS. 

The Commission has concluded that while the IGPBS is an ambitious plan to restructure our global posture, it does so without fully taking into account other dynamic, ongoing and, in some cases, unpredictable changes. 

If the IGPBS is based on the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), why 

would you not wait for the results of the current 2005 QDR—scheduled to be completed this fall—or the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) to be completed in 

August before announcing movements of forces? 

The simultaneous activities of service transformation, Army modularity, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Global War on Terrorism, 

IGPBS, BRAC, resetting the forces, and rebuilding of pre-positioned equipment sets 

all compete for funding within a limited budget. Not to mention the stress on forces. 

The current schedule of IGPBS moves will adversely impact the Services ability to 

adequately fund modernization and readiness. 

Operational Requirements 

The commission is concerned that heavy forces in Europe are being removed from 

the mix. We also note the strategic importance of Okinawa. Diminishing our capabilities on the island would pose risk to our allies and our national interests in the 

region. At the same time, we feel it is important to move from Futenma Marine 

Corps Air Station. 

Moreover, not enough attention has been given to our ability to train and exercise 

the force in the formulation of the overseas basing plan. Infrastructure is sparse in 

some regions and, capabilities for integrated training across services and with allies 

remain sketchy. 

The Commission notes with concern that the impact on recruiting and retention 

by IGPBS rotational forces has not been adequately evaluated, nor have associated 

risks to sustaining the volunteer force been assessed. We strongly recommend that 

this be given priority, and that the necessary assessments be completed as quickly 

as possible. 

Mobility 

It is clear that the mobility of our military forces is being compromised by the 

current strains on strategic lift, intra-theater lift, and sealift capabilities. The stress 

on strategic lift capabilities is being caused, in large part, by our on-going military 

operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, other tactical lift demands in terms 

of responding to political crises such as in Haiti and Sudan, as well as unanticipated 

natural disasters necessitating military intervention such as in the recent December 

2004 tsunami event, also play a factor in challenging DOD’s mobility capabilities. 

While moving troops back to the United States may be a political priority, force 

projection demands can only be met by developing a rebasing strategy in coordination with strategic U.S. alliances abroad (both existing and future). 

Strategic and Intra-theater air and sealift mobility capabilities must be significantly upgraded. We have yet to meet the lift capabilities identified by the Mobility 

Requirements Study 2005 (conducted in the year 2000). In addition, announcements 

of global reposturing are being made before the presently ongoing Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) is concluded. It would seem prudent to wait for the results of that 

study. 

Strategic mobility is the key to our ability to respond to events worldwide. Plans 

for sea and airlift capabilities, as well as prepositioned equipment sets, must take 

into account the additional demands that IGPBS could place on an increasingly continental United States (CONUS)-based force. Surging forces from CONUS will be 
196 

problematic if strategic and tactical lift capabilities and prepositioned stocks are not 

in place. 

Quality of Life 

Next, I would like to turn to quality of life issues. These issues are complex but 

are also key concerns of the global positioning strategy, primarily because the 

United States relies on an all-volunteer force. In order to sustain the military force 

(both in numbers and in strength), the expectations of military personnel and their 

families with regard to active and reserve duty as well as redeployments must be 

met. If these expectations are not adequately met, then the U.S. military risks being 

severely compromised. Needless to say, this has enormous consequences politically 

and in terms of maintaining national security. 

We have a moral obligation to our men and women in uniform—and to their families—to provide the quality of life support they deserve. Returning forces and families should have housing, schools for their children, and adequate medical facilities 

in place before they return and the same should be maintained abroad until the last 

service member departs. The commission calls this a ‘‘last-day, first-day’’ approach. 

Not only does this have moral implications, but will also be reflected in retention 

rates. 

Costs 

Now, with regard to the cost of changing the overseas basing structure and the 

realignment and closure of bases in general, the Commission recognizes that the 

costs are significant. In many cases, it is not even possible to predict the true costs 

of certain strategic changes. 

The cost of IGPBS is estimated at $8 to $12 billion. An independent analysis for 

the commission put the figure closer to $20 billion. Many costs are sunk into projected host nation support that may not come to fruition. In other cases, the services 

are expected to pay from within their service budgets. 

For example, costs need to be estimated and planned for troop and base relocations. Significant upgrades of main operating bases, forward operating sites, cooperative security locations, and pre-positioned combat support sites need to be planned. 

Let us also not lose sight of the fact that significant financial investments in new 

weapons systems, strategic lift capabilities, training, and integrated systems need 

to be made in order to keep the U.S. military as the premier fighting force in the 

world. 

Finally, these changes need to keep abreast of making Quality of Life expenditures in order to attract and keep a dedicated military force. Investing in the training of our military force is also a vital component of maintaining strategic capability, and requires the expenditure of enormous funds. 

In light of this, the Commission recognizes that Congress should be informed of 

realistic costs as to coordinate strategic and operational requirements with budgetary needs and constraints. The Congress needs accurate estimates to determine 

what is prudent, and must be prepared to support IGPBS if it is to succeed. 

Therefore, in light of the previously mentioned concerns, the Commission makes 

the following recommendations: 

—The detailed synchronization required by so massive a realignment of forces requires that the pace of events be slowed and reordered. We know of no nation 

asking us to leave. These moves should be conducted at a pace that does not 

place additional stress on our armed forces. 

—That the entire effort of overseas basing be integrated into one overarching design that is coordinated and synchronized with all ongoing initiatives. Furthermore, an interagency review process is put in place to periodically consider the 

impacts of the global force posture and to ensure that outcomes are consistent 

with overall national interests. 

—The Commission believes strongly that Congressional oversight of the global 

posture review is truly necessary. The Congress, including the Armed Services 

and Foreign Relations Committees, should provide more rigorous oversight (to 

include hearings) of the global basing process given the scope and cost of the 

DOD rebasing plans, their impacts on the individual services, the men and 

women of our armed services and their families, and to the political and trade 

alliances of the United States. Particular attention should also be paid to the 

timing and synchronization and cost of all the related efforts. 

—DOD must ensure that all necessary infrastructure and quality of life programs 

(such as housing, medical, schools, etc.) are retained at overseas bases until the 

last day the service members and their families depart. At the same time, Congress must ensure that the necessary infrastructure and quality of life programs 
197 

are already in place by the first day the first troops and families arrive from 

their overseas locations. 

—Moreover, the Commission strongly urges that the planned overseas basing 

structure be coordinated with strategic lift considerations, especially with regard to troop and equipment mobilization. We feel that this planning is necessary in terms of adequately meeting the demands of the overall global prepositioning strategy 

Additionally, the Commission recommends that: 

—Marine Corps air assets assigned to Futenma Marine Corps Air Station on Okinawa should relocate to Kadena Air Base and/or Iwakuni Marine Corps Air Station; all other Marine Corps assets should remain on Okinawa. 

—In order to hedge against uncertainty in regard to near term threats, demonstrate a continued and enduring commitment to NATO, and allow for heavy 

force military to military contacts with our NATO allies, at least one of the 

heavy brigade combat teams scheduled for return to the United States should 

remain in Europe fully manned until: (1) The Balkan’s support mission is lifted; 

(2) a ground-based offensive tank killing system is stationed in Europe; and (3) 

Operation Iraqi Freedom is mitigated. Additionally, a heavy brigade combat 

team equipment set should be pre-positioned afloat in the region. These recommendations are in addition to the current DOD plan for a Stryker Brigade 

in Germany and the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vicenza, Italy. 

—Further, there should be a commitment to support continuous rotational deployments to Eastern Europe and provide U.S. military-to-military presence in the 

new NATO countries. 

—The U.S should review its treaty with Iceland, and update it to reflect the postCold War security environment. 

—Greater depth is needed in Africa to secure long term United States interests 

against potential competitors. The Horn of Africa initiative should be replicated 

in those locations elsewhere on the African Continent that may prove to be of 

increasing importance to future strategic concerns. To some extent, similar initiatives are needed in Latin America. 

Final Remarks 

As a final note, I wish to thank the members of this committee for inviting the 

commission to appear today. It has been my privilege to describe the work of the 

Commission to date, and to express its preliminary recommendations. 

Of course, the report has not been finalized, and it is my hope that this will be 

the beginning of a dialogue in this matter so that the Commission can strengthen 

its analysis, conclusions and recommendations before submitting its final report on 

August 15, 2005. Please be assured that the Commission and staff are open to the 

views and concerns of Congress. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to serve 

the needs of the Congress and of the Nation, and we will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have at this time. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Cornella, and we 

will do 5 minute rounds so that everyone will have a chance, and 

then we’ll go back through for a second round. 

TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION

Let me start with the slowing of the plan, and that is the area 

that concerns me the most in your recommendations. I certainly 

agree that in a perfect world we would have everything right up 

to the last day overseas for a family, and then the first day they 

arrive everything would be in place, but I don’t know that that is 

realistic, nor do I think it is necessarily in the best interest of the 

families or the military, and here’s why. 

General Schoomacker has made modularity a priority for our 

forces to be trained for the kind of combat that they are seeing 

today, and I just wondered, if you are looking at the military capability, did you consider that moving the troops home, and having 

the modular brigades begin to train together so that they could go 

back into Iraq and Afghanistan, what impact slowing the process 

down, as you have suggested, would have on that capability? 
198 

Mr. CORNELLA. Well, I’m going to let some others answer as well, 

but I will start with your question, Senator. I think you point out 

exactly what may be the problem, in the sense that for modularity 

to occur, the timing is sensitive. And as forces are moved back from 

overseas for all of this to take place, it is intermeshed and it has 

to happen, but that is one of our concerns, that in order for that 

to happen on the schedule that has been put forth, we are very concerned that that infrastructure, as you indicate, will not be in place 

at those receiving locations, and we think that’s critical, both in regard to the moral obligation to our forces that I indicated, and to 

quality of life for those folks, and for retention. I’m going to see if 

any of the other Commissioners would like to respond; I do have 

a little more to follow up on. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’d be happy to hear from anyone else on 

that, but just if you could also direct your attention to the capabilities to do that overseas, versus on our own bases. 

Mr. CORNELLA. I’m not sure I understand your question, Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, if they’re trying to get these brigades 

trained and ready to go, and they designated the bases to do that, 

we don’t have that kind of capacity in Europe and Germany right 

now. 

Mr. CORNELLA. I would turn to General Taylor. 

General TAYLOR. Madame Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that. 

TROOP MOVEMENT

I think there may be a little bit of misunderstanding about what 

we have recommended. We’re not saying that the forces should not 

come back except in that one case, and we explained why we felt 

that was necessary, or suggested that the Department should consider leaving one heavy brigade there, but the majority of the 

forces, large majority of them, we’re in agreement, they should 

come back. All we’re saying is that, don’t do it until we have both 

the quality of life and the training capability at our bases here in 

the United States to receive these. The bases here in the United 

States are fairly well occupied right now, and it’s going to take 

some infrastructure, in both quality of life resources as well as 

training capability, new ranges—just a piece of desert is not necessarily enough to train forces, we’ve got to build the modern 

digistat ranges, we’ve got to make sure there’s adequate infrastructure there to receive them. 

Our forces in Germany are being trained right now, yes, and I’ve 

served there many years, and yes, there are some challenges, but 

we have been able to train some forces over there, our forces have 

given a good account of themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan that 

have been moved from Europe, but again, I emphasize that we’re 

not suggesting that they shouldn’t come back, we just want to synchronize with the preparation of the infrastructure here, at the receiving bases here in the United States before we do that. And 

maybe that’s going to happen, but based on the information that 

we were able to obtain through the conduct of our assessments, we 

didn’t see that the right resources had been allocated, or the right 

plans had been made for that. 
199 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, it just seems to me that building permanent facilities at a foreign base that you know you’re closing is 

certainly not a wise use of funds, and you cannot train the number 

of brigades that we’re talking about in Germany, which I’m not 

telling you anything that you don’t know, it just seems that maybe 

the focus should be more on getting the facilities ready in the bases 

that are going to take them here, and that would certainly be the 

more permanent use of the dollars that are going into this, because 

if you delay too long, you may be really affecting the capabilities 

to transform the military, which certainly, the Department is trying to do right now, and I think General Schoomacker’s whole theory is based on having them here and getting them trained so that 

they can deploy directly from domestic bases. 

General TAYLOR. Madame Chairman, I think we’re saying exactly the same thing, it’s just a matter of timing, and we encourage 

the Congress to put the right amount of resources into it to do it 

as quickly as we can, and as soon as that’s done, I think we’d be 

totally supportive of what you’ve said. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, the other thing is, pouring money into 

overseas bases that we know we’re going to abandon has to be 

looked at very carefully in this big picture, and the longer we wait 

the more things can happen that cause us to lose that focus. So, 

I think we are headed for the same goals, but I do think we have 

a difference in emphasis for what should happen when. From my 

standpoint, I know that others disagree with me, so we will certainly want to hear from them as well, and also the Department. 

My time is up, so I’m going to stop and go to Senator Feinstein. 

MOBILITY

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madame Chairman. I 

wanted to ask you about your comments on mobility. The reason 

I do this is because virtually wherever I go, and I talk particularly 

to Navy commanders, the question always comes down to strategic 

lift and our inabilities and deficiencies there, and you write that 

adequate strategic sea lift, airlift and pre-positioned equipment and 

stocks do not exist, and that current Intra-theater airlift is overstressed. Aside from the lift capability, the Commission is also concerned that the air and sea ports, inter-nodal connectivities and 

other mobility-enabling systems are not adequate to meet potential 

contingencies. Nor is there a budgetary plan to do so. And I’ve had 

this told to me by CINCs, by others, and I watch the budgets and 

we never seem to come to grips with it. 

Can you add, in any way, to what you’ve said, anybody who’d 

like to comment? 

Mr. CORNELLA. General Curtis, would you like to comment? 

General CURTIS. Senator Feinstein—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Don’t be shy, say what you think. 

General CURTIS. Senator Feinstein, I’ve watched the airlift mobility issues since I was a Captain at headquarters back when the C– 

5 was first introduced. It is always tough to find the space within 

the budget for the adequate procurement of lift, and every time we 

go through the mobility capability study, and the associated budget 

requirements, fitting everything in, our unconstrained requirement 

is difficult, and in my experience, there are trade-offs made. 
200 

But clearly, as we become a more CONUS-based force, and we 

re-do the Army, both up armor and more air mobile vehicles, like 

the Stryker, we need to balance those things very carefully with lift 

capability versus our other requirements for modernization. And 

there are no easy answers to that, nobody will be satisfied in the 

end, because there are never enough dollars to go around, but everybody within the equation that reaches a solution needs to understand that’s a very critical balance, and I’m sure you do. 

COST

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Could you expand on your comments on funding, that the cost may be understated, and tell us a 

little bit about the independent analysis that was conducted for you 

that put the tab at $20 billion? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Thank you, I will take that question. 

I left that out of the shortened version of the statement, and 

there’s not necessarily a great deal of explanation in the other 

statement we presented to you. There is in our long report, quite 

a bit of information in regard to the cost, but that assessment was 

done by a detailee from the Government Accountability Office, and 

estimated at $20 billion, and I think that information was validated on May 10th by a senior member of the Department when 

they said they did agree with our figures, but we had cast a wider 

net to draw those figures in. And so we were looking at areas other 

than what they were stating in the $10 to $20 billion, pardon me, 

the $9 to $11 billion. We also did have several—two to be exact— 

members of the Department say that the cost could be closer to $25 

billion, so we feel the $20 billion number is defensible. 

STRYKER BRIGADE

Senator FEINSTEIN. I understand your European concern, that replacing our heavy forces with a Stryker Brigade before we’ve developed the organic tank killing weapon system necessary. What kind 

of response has there been to that recommendation so far? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Response from the Department? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. 

Mr. CORNELLA. Well, we’ve not discussed that specific recommendation at length with the Department, we have had conversations in our travels with Commanders that made that suggestion to us, that they thought that that was a good idea that that 

take place, and General Taylor, do you have anything you want to 

add? 

General TAYLOR. There is an initiative on the part of the Army 

to have an offensive tank killing capability with the Stryker variant, but so far it has not come to fruition, and so our basic premise 

is that we definitely need to have an offensive ground tank killing 

capability there as well as the other issues that we mentioned, and 

we’re not saying that that Brigade should necessarily stay there 

forever, but until the criteria that we mentioned are realized. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. In terms of deployment of bases, and 

transitioning the military, what lessons do you think were learned 

in Iraq and Afghanistan? 

General TAYLOR. I would first state an opinion, primarily about 

Iraq that, while initially we felt that we could do this with much 
201 

lighter forces, we’re finding out more and more that heavy forces, 

even in a city environment is very necessary. I know of some people who fight in that area very well, and some of them are parts 

of my family, and they would clearly rather fight out of a tank as 

even an up-armored Humvee, and I think the reports coming back 

from some of the recent efforts in Iraq have been, and Baghdad, 

have shown that there is a place for heavy force, although the 

Stryker variant up in Mosul has been very valuable as well. So, I 

think we’re still learning, I think the decision on all of this is still 

out, but we haven’t lost the need for some of our heavy forces. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, my time is up, Madame Chairman. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Senator Allard. 

OVERSEAS SAVINGS

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

I noticed in your summary here that you hadn’t talked in detail 

as did Senator Feinstein, as to some of the costs. I wonder if you 

could give us just some bottom line figures, if possible, has the Department of Defense conducted an estimate as to how much money 

would be saved by reducing their basing overseas? 

Mr. CORNELLA. I’m not sure if we were provided with that number. Now it’s logical to assume that if bases are reduced overseas, 

there will be some savings, and they may be significant. At the 

same time, those facilities may have to be replicated within the 

United States; and also, I’m not sure that those figures that are 

being put forth include any mobility that might be required in 

order to surge out of the continental United States. And I can’t address that—those will be good questions for the Department in the 

next panel. 

Senator ALLARD. Did you try and conduct any kind of estimate? 

Mr. CORNELLA. I would have to ask staff about that; we will provide you with that information. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Is it correct to say that you do not recommend the Department of Defense go back and do its re-basing 

strategy? 

Mr. CORNELLA. I think that I would turn to my other Commissioners, but I don’t think that we mean to indicate that they do 

that. 

General TAYLOR. Again, Senator, it’s a timing issue, and a synchronization issue, not the fact that they shouldn’t do it. Unfortunately, it’s not 100 percent clear, at least up to the point when we 

completed most of our reports, exactly what the timing was, that 

was still a developing process. Remember, this was prior to the release of the BRAC report, so exactly where they were going, or that 

the Department was recommending they were going was not available to us at that time. Now, some of that at least portions of that 

information is available to us, and that will help as we complete 

our report and look at where they might be going here in the 

United States. 

FORWARD OPERATING SITES

Senator ALLARD. It seems to me like in one of the hearings on 

the Armed Services Committee, they talked about forward basing, 
202 

maybe in the Balkan states where we don’t have now, that you 

would end up basically with an air field with utilities, and if you 

put in temporary tents, they would be basically two by fours in tent 

structure, and then when your mission was done, you would move 

out, does that seem like a reasonable approach to you? 

General TAYLOR. You’re talking about both the security locations 

and the forward operating sites? Yes, and our only question about 

those is whether or not we have consummated the agreements with 

the host countries that we should have in place before we go too 

much farther, and that’s being worked by both the Department and 

others, but the concept is valid and we have no problem with that. 

Senator ALLARD. And do you have any reason to believe that 

those host countries wouldn’t cooperate with us? The last time I 

talked to most of them they were thrilled to death to be part of 

NATO, and even be part of the forward deployment effort. 

General TAYLOR. I would suggest that would be a question to ask 

the next panel. I’m sure they can enlighten you. We did not have 

verifiable information that these agreements have been consummated, but I’m sure the next panel can respond to that better. 

BRAC

Senator ALLARD. Okay. To what extent do you believe the Department of Defense used its IGPBS to formulate its recommendations for base closure and realignment? The Secretary of Defense 

admitted his recommendations for base closures and realignments 

to Congress and BRAC and it was in May, and the question is, to 

what extent do you believe that the Department of Defense used 

the IGPBS to formulate its recommendations for base closure and 

realignments, did you look at that? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Yes, and I think it had a great deal to do with 

the recommendations to the BRAC Commission. The numbers of 

returning troops from overseas impacted Army bases most significantly. 

Senator ALLARD. And the follow up, then, do you see any reason 

why the BRAC process should not go forward? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Or as we say in our report, we see no reason why 

that should not go forward. I just would like to add one thing to 

your previous question about the Nations where we might have lily 

pads, or CSLs or whatever you might like to call them. We have 

seen instances most recently, without mentioning the names of any 

countries, one where access to an Air Force base was either restricted or denied within the last few months. We also have seen 

instances during the Iraq War where certain Nations did not allow 

access. These are the types of things that we’re talking about in regard to making sure that those agreements are in place before you 

establish those locations in those countries. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Madame Chairman, I see my time 

has expired. 

COST

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Senator Landrieu? 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. Let me just see if I can summarize a couple of these questions, because I think the work you have 

done is extremely important, and we appreciate how difficult it can 
203 

be sometimes to really give an independent view, and we want to 

be sure that we have our ears open and are willing to hear the 

independent view, so let me just ask again—one of the bottom lines 

of your report, which is all documented here, Mr. Cornella, is that 

the cost associated with moving our troops back could be twice as 

much as what is currently estimated? Is that correct? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Yes, Senator. 

TIMING

Senator LANDRIEU. Is it also correct that you are suggesting that 

the time frame that is being adopted as we speak is probably too 

aggressive to accomplish the goal? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Well, I think again, it’s a timing issue. If all of 

this could be timed properly, and we had, maybe, an infinite pot 

of money, there probably would not be a problem, but there are a 

lot of things that are taking place, and I cited many of those in my 

opening statement. 

Senator LANDRIEU. But in your estimation of the summary of 

your report, there is a time frame that has been proposed, and you 

reviewed it and in your professional judgment, you all are saying 

that it is unlikely that the time frame can be met? 

Mr. CORNELLA. We have addressed it, we have talked to commanders in the field, and we feel it’s probably ambitious. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Would it be fair to say, then, that you have 

some serious concerns about meeting that time frame? 

Mr. CORNELLA. Well, I think we do in the sense that a lot of the 

moves are already taking place, and have started in regard to the 

Pacific, probably, without mentioning names of countries, more 

than have taken place in Europe, but I would agree with your 

statement, Senator. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Again, I’m not trying to put words in anybody’s mouth, I’m just trying to clarify for the record what I think. 

The goal of this hearing is, is to really hear what you are saying 

about your view, and if it is that we’ve underestimated the cost, we 

need to hear. 

Mr. CORNELLA. Two thousand eleven sounds like a long way off, 

it’s really not that far, and I guess my point was that a lot of the 

moves are already taking place as we rotate forces through Iraq 

and Afghanistan, and I think the plan is to bring the forces back 

from those rotations after they pick up their families in Germany 

and other locations, so the bulk of the moves may take place sooner 

rather than later, they may take place sooner, rather than towards 

the end of that 2011 time frame. 

Senator LANDRIEU. General Curtis, then I think Mr. Martin had 

something to add. 

General CURTIS. Yes, Senator, there are three numbers down 

here in the report, and they really measure three different things, 

as our numbers often do in government. And, the $4 billion is the 

number specifically tailored to this move within the palm through 

2011. The $9 to $12 billion, as I understand it from the material 

being given by the DOD is an estimate which includes other things 

of the total cost of this move, and some of this money, I’m given 

to understand, would come out of the general O&M accounts within 

the services, not specifically be identified within the POM itself. 
204 

Finally, the $20 billion number is a life cycle number beyond the 

POM, so it isn’t directly comparable to either one of the two previous numbers. The concerns I have after watching the process, 

how we execute our financial processes is that the moves with either be slipped because of an insufficiency of funding to do it right, 

we will move without doing it right, or we will take money out of 

the O&M accounts to pay for the move, and not know what we 

didn’t buy, what we gave up in terms of readiness or something 

else by forcing the Services to fund parts of the move internally. 

They’re three different numbers that all mean the same thing, but 

they could drive unforeseen consequences if we insist on meeting 

the schedule without fully funding it with identifiable funds, and 

that’s one of our big concerns. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you very much, Senator, Madame Chairman. 

In perspective, this is the most sweeping transformation and repositioning of U.S. forces since the late 1940’s, the Defense Reorganization Act of 1947. United States forces, the repositioning thereof, it should be positive for our national security and our national 

defense. The Department’s plan is a good plan, if fully coordinated, 

synchronized, it can and will enhance the Nation’s security and defense interests. But it should be and must be positive for our service men and women to the maximum extent possible. The bottom 

line of what we said on the quality of life is we shouldn’t be moving 

soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines any faster than we can build 

the new housing, the new medical facilities, new schools and training facilities as General Taylor pointed out, and certainly no faster 

than we can provide the air lift, sea lift and pre-positioned stockage 

to move them from their United States, now CONUS-based homes, 

to potential points of influence and engagement. We have an opportunity right now because of the Secretary’s vision to do the right 

thing, we need to do it the right way. It is an opportunity, and we 

believe, a responsibility, because if we don’t take care of the force 

we have now, we could face a future, and the enemies and threats 

of tomorrow with forces we won’t have, and options we don’t like. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Are there any other questions of this panel? 

If not, thank you very much for all of the effort that you made. We 

appreciate it and look forward to looking at it further, and now I 

would like to call the second panel from the Department of Defense 

forward. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CORNELLA. Thank you, Senator. 
(205) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RYAN HENRY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

PHILLIP GRONE, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 

INSTALLATION AND ENVIRONMENT 

ROSE LIKINS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU 

OF POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS 

Senator HUTCHISON. The next panel is Mr. Phillip Grone, Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, the 

Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Ambassador Rose Likins, Acting Assistant 

Secretary of State, in the Bureau of Political and Military Affairs. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN HENRY

Mr. HENRY. Thank you, Madame Chairman, Senator Feinstein, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity for 

appearing before you today, along with the Overseas Basing Commission and Chairman Cornella. Joining me today as you mentioned are Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Rose Likins, and 

Deputy Under Secretary, Phil Grone. And I want to say I appreciate the insightfulness of your opening remarks today. I would like 

now, if I may, to submit my full statement for the record, and 

make just a few brief remarks at this time. 

GLOBAL DEFENSE STRATEGY AND PROCESS

Madame Chairman, the Administration’s plan to strengthen 

America’s Global Defense Posture will result in the most profound 

re-ordering of military forces overseas since the end of World War 

II. The September 11 attacks clarified our understanding of the key 

security issues that we will face during the beginning of the 21st 

century. Simultaneously, we realize that much of our in-place force 

posture still reflected a Cold War structure. We had forward garrison forces configured to fight near and where they were based. Unlike the past century, today we no longer can predict where, when, 

or in what manner our forces may be called on to fight, therefore 

our forces need to be able to rapidly project power into theatres far 

from where they may be based. Through our Global Defense Posture Realignment, we have aimed to strengthen our ability, fulfill 

our international commitments to ensure that our future alliances 

are capable, affordable, sustainable and relevant. 

Then to focus on capabilities, and not just numbers. The Defense 

Department conducted our Global Defense Posture Review thoroughly and deliberately. We’ve collaborated with our inter-agency 

partners through broad and sustained deliberations. We’ve also 

consulted extensively with our allies and our partners to incor-
206 

porate their views. The Department of Defense and the Department of State have held joint consultations with relevant international partners, in over 20 foreign capitals, beginning in December 2003, and continuing on a sustained basis since then. We also 

have communicated with Congress, and personal and Committee 

staff members throughout the review. We’ve provided a detailed report to Congress in September of 2004, followed by the submission 

of detailed overseas master plans from each of the regional Combatant Commanders in February 2005. And over 40 times the Secretary of Defense, the Combatant Commanders, the members of the 

Joint Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have traveled 

here to Capitol Hill to consult with Congressional Committees and 

Members. 

Finally, as mentioned by Chairman Cornella, we have worked 

closely with the Overseas Basing Commission in its efforts to provide Congress with an assessment of a global presence, basing and 

infrastructure needs. 

A COMPLEX UNDERTAKING

Madame Chairman, as members of the Overseas Basing Commission have expressed, the United States Global Defense Posture is 

incredibly complex. It is a multidimensional field involving numerous areas; strategic analysis of geopolitical and military factors, facilities and infrastructure analysis, diplomatic and legal negotiations and arrangements, acquisition policies and transportation 

issues, operational plans and synchronization with the Base Realignment Commission, the QDR, the Army Modularity Transformation, the Mobility Capabilities Study, and the Navy’s Fleet 

Response Plan. We, in the Department, have thousands of people 

working on this complex endeavor, full-time in the military services 

and the combatant command, on the joint staff, in the acquisition 

community and other areas, all overseen by senior military and civilian officials and managed by Secretary Rumsfeld. 

Madame Chairman, we stressed in our discussions with the Commission that posture is more than just our footprint of facilities, it 

also includes the presence, force management, our surge capability 

and the pre-positioning of stocks among these building blocks of 

global posture. Quality of life concerns related to force management 

merit particular attention. Changing the way in which we posture 

our forces was driven in large part by the President and the Secretary’s desire to relieve stress on our military forces and their 

families by providing more security at home, with fewer overseas 

moves and less disruptions. Specifically, posture changes will help 

reduce double separations, those caused when accompanying dependents are separated from both the service member and the their 

loved ones in the United States. 

Additionally, our posture changes are phased over several years 

to help ensure quality of life is sustained. Equally important, the 

plan changes to our posture directly support service initiatives 

aimed at keeping pace with our military personnel, such as the 

Army’s Modularity and Unit Location concepts, the Navy’s Fleet 

Response concept, and the Air Force’s ongoing Force Management 

Improvement. 
207 

Madame Chairman, of particular importance in this complex undertaking has been our sustained effort to inject the Global Defense 

Posture into other ongoing defense transformation initiatives, specifically, the BRAC and the 2005 QDR. I welcome the Commission’s 

statement of support for the U.S. Global Defense Posture as important and necessary. The Commission’s report reflects their earnest 

effort to assess military facilities, and structure of the U.S. overseas facilities. The Commission fundamentally agrees with many of 

the aspects of the President’s posture plan, and it recognizes the 

importance of changing of posture to meet the 21st century’s security challenges. 

Madame Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to speak to 

you, and I look forward to answering your questions. And, if we 

may, Ambassador Likins would also like to have an opening statement. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Madame Ambassador. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR ROSE LIKINS

Ambassador LIKINS. Thank you, Madame Chairman, and Senator 

Feinstein. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to offer a few 

brief remarks. 

Since late 2003, the Department of State has been working closely with the Department of Defense and the National Security 

Council on reviewing and strengthening the U.S. Global Defense 

Posture. The Department has played an active role in the shaping 

and implementation of our future defense posture. We have been 

both participants in the inter-agency process, and have been spearheading the diplomatic talks and initiatives necessary to obtain the 

understanding and agreement of our friends and allies for this important initiative. The Department has and will continue to provide 

its frank assessment of these proposals, and to provide our views 

as to the best way forward. We’ve had a very good working relationship with our DOD colleagues on this issue, conducting all consultations together and jointly briefing Congress on several occasions. 

While the initial planning for the IGPBS was undertaken by the 

combatant commanders in the individual services, these plans were 

presented to the inter-agency for a full and thorough examination 

before their submission to the President. The Department has 

made its foreign policy views known on many occasions and will 

continue to do so. We firmly believe that we are taking the appropriate time to get this right, we continue to rigorously review proposals with our DOD colleagues, thoroughly examine the many facets of these plans, including the necessary legal arrangements, and 

have conducted numerous consultations with friends and allies 

around the world. 

While consultations in some parts of the world are quite advanced, others have not even begun, indicative of the fact that we 

will take whatever time is necessary to ensure that our plans are 

logical, workable, and that our engagement strategy makes sense. 

Consultations are proceeding carefully and deliberately to ensure 

that the arrangements put in place to host our forces are enduring 

and beneficial to a wide range of United States interests. Through 

the consultation process, we’ve received valuable feedback that has 
208 

enabled us to adjust proposals and calibrate our expectations. We 

have gained valuable insights throughout the process, and in many 

ways, the consultation process is one of the many mechanisms for 

re-thinking, and adjusting our defense posture plans. 

To use just one example, during the consultation process, we 

learned that the government of Germany was undertaking its own 

base realignment and closure process. This prompted us to accelerate the sharing of details with German officials related to our 

proposed posture changes in Germany and to undertake some additional coordination on our two initiatives. I want to assure you that 

we will not rush into a location where there are not adequate legal 

protections and guarantees for our forces, and for their freedom of 

action. We believe that proper legal arrangements are a fundamental requirement for any defense posture changes. The State Department believes these negotiations and DOD have substantially 

been involved in all talks. We have dedicated legal experts and a 

special negotiator working to ensure that the best legal arrangements are secure. We support the OBS’s view that their long-term 

strategic national objectives, beyond simply military objectives, 

somewhat to reassure you that our efforts on this issue are focused 

on results that make sense from both the defense and strategic foreign policy perspective. Thank you very much. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madame Ambassador. We’re 

going to just have about 10 minutes of questions because we have 

two votes called, and I don’t want to keep you waiting any longer. 

Let me say, first of all, I’m very pleased that both the Department of State and the Department of Defense are represented on 

this panel because I wanted to make sure, and I think it is very 

important, that the Department of State is a part of this process 

as we are looking at closing of bases, or forward deploying somewhere else, that we have both Defense and State involved. 

Mr. Henry, one of the Commission report findings says, ‘‘If unforeseen threats arise in either the near term or the mid-term, we 

could be caught in mid-stride, unable to meet them.’’ This is part 

of the reason they wanted to delay some of these moves. My understanding is that the entire reason for transforming our posture is 

because we’re not currently positioned to meet unforeseen threats, 

and we need to have the capability to meet them as soon as possible. I would just like to ask your comments on that part of the 

report, and if you think speeding up the process will cause transformation to occur better, or slowing it down would. 

Mr. HENRY. Yes, Madame Chairman, I would agree with your 

statement, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, uncertainty is part of the strategic landscape which we have in a post9/11 world. We no longer have the comfort or the certainty that we 

had during the Cold War when we had a single enemy and we 

could predict where we would probably have to meet him. In a 

world we live in today, we might need to use our forces through 

large expanses of the Earth’s globe, therefore, in the places we 

have our forces, we have to be able to move them quickly to where 

they might be needed to be employed. That’s a fundamental feature 

of the transformation, and our capability to meet it. We just can’t 

predict how we will have to fight with our forces, where or when. 
209 

As far as your question regarding transformation, this is a part 

of an integrated approach to transformation. The Secretary of Defense has published his National Defense Strategy which supports 

National Security Strategy, and from which the Base Realignment 

Commission, the Global Defense Posture, the Quadrennial Defense 

Review, all of the major movements that we’re making in the Defense Department stem from. This is key to transformation, all of 

these things supported simultaneously to move forward in a 

networked fashion. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Henry, in the previous panel there was 

concern raised, and also in the report, about our lift capacity. Do 

you think that we have a better capability for lift where we need 

to go by basing more of our troops in the United States, or do you 

think we have a lift problem that requires troops to stay in Germany and Korea? 

Mr. HENRY. One of the analyses we did post-the Iraqi major combat operations, was to look at the amount of lift that was needed 

to move forces from Europe and around to where they had to go, 

and to try to determine the amount of lift and the speed of lift with 

which to get into the theatre, and if it would make a difference 

coming from Europe or from the continental United States, and depending on how we might position ourselves as a part of the Base 

Realignment Commission, in some instances, we could actually 

move quicker from the United States. That was one of the considerations that drove the Global Defense Posture, as was spoken by the 

previous panel, combatant commanders and operators will never 

have as much lift as they would like to, to feel comfortable, it is 

a matter of adjudicating the risk overall of the contingencies that 

we might have to face. As was mentioned by the panel, we are also 

in the process of a Mobility Capabilities Study, something we do 

approximately every 5 years to look at the total lift requirements, 

and how we’re going to meet them. As this has been dovetailed into 

the Base Realignment work that we have been doing, they have 

first done one using the old structure and analysis. Now they’re 

looking and finishing up their analysis, using as a baseline the 

Global Defense Posture. As we presented the committee in our report back in September of 2004, and it looks like the impact will 

not be significant in roughly, in the same area that we would have 

had with the other structure. The details are still to be concluded 

on that, and we await the conclusion of the study, which will be 

integrated in the QDR. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. When troops are moved back to the United 

States, will they be accommodated in permanent or temporary facilities. 

Mr. GRONE. Depending upon the unit and depending upon the location and depending upon the time, there will be a mix of permanent or temporary, in the main it will be permanent. The discussion about whether or not facilities would be available for returning 

forces is a phased plan over a 4-year period, 5 years if you count 

the troops coming back from Korea this summer to Fort Carson between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009. We are working, particularly with the Army, on standardizing our facilities design so 

that they can be sited to any location to use commercial construc-
210 

tion standards, all of which is designed to make permanent facilities more quickly and more readily available to returning forces. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So, you will not be coming to this subcommittee or any other subcommittee to look for additional dollars 

for temporary housing? 

Mr. GRONE. There may be occasions where, depending upon the 

unit, there may be some temporary billeting for single enlisted personnel that is required, but in the main we are planning to move 

out aggressively to provide permanent facilities as quickly as we 

can. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. If you do that, then what type of coordination 

is being done with local school districts to mitigate the impact of 

thousands of soldiers coming back with many children? 

Mr. GRONE. Well, we have, the Army in particular, since the bulk 

of the returning forces are Army, are engaged in a series of intensive consultations with local school districts and State and local 

government on transportation, schools and other issues that might 

be affected by forces returning from abroad. Certainly, with regard 

to housing, our preference is to rely, as is our standard housing 

policy, on the community first, and based on what we know, particularly for the three locations, whether we have the bulk of the 

forces returning from abroad, Fort Carson, Fort Riley and Fort 

Bliss, based on that 5 year window between 2005 and 2009 that 

we have people coming back, based on our assessment of the market’s ability, the local market’s ability to adapt based on our existing housing privatization efforts at all three of those locations. We 

believe that there is sufficient market availability there to accommodate returning forces, and a phase-in for families as we have 

laid it out over the course of that 5 year period, so we are intentionally engaged with school systems, and with local governments. 

We’ll continue that consultation through the summer, so that when 

we get to the school year, 2006, next year, that we will be as integrated as we can be. That is not to say there won’t be challenges, 

there will. But we believe that we will have a quality of life piece 

well in hand, and we look forward to continuing to consult with the 

subcommittee as we move forward to make sure that you’re comfortable with the plans as we lay them out. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would really appreciate that, because I 

know in California, we have schools that are really overcrowded at 

present, and I think there needs to be some real planning done in 

that regard, but thank you. Let me ask you, Mr. Henry, because 

I’m really concerned with what I see as lift deficiencies, and everything I’ve heard from the field doesn’t jive with what you say. 

Would you be willing to share with our subcommittee your projected plans for specific lift—in other words, how many C–17s, new 

C–17s, et cetera, that kind of thing—because everything I read is 

that the lift capability of our country is severely stressed. 

Mr. HENRY. Yes, we would be glad to share that, one thing it will 

be part of the QDR that we’ll be reporting to the Congress, but 

we’ll be glad to come up here in the interim as the data becomes 

available and then as decisions are made as to how we’re going to 

proceed, we’d be glad to share that with the committee. 
211 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would certainly appreciate knowing what 

you’re planning is. I mean, in the next 10 years, how many C–17s 

will there be, for example? 

Mr. HENRY. Yes, Senator, and as those decisions are still awaiting the final report out of the Mobility Capabilities Study, as mentioned earlier, and so specific decisions still await the final analysis 

and data. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman, I 

think that does it for me. I would just like to conclude by saying, 

I know DOD doesn’t like helpful suggestions, or any suggestion, 

but I really think this is a good report, and I really ask you to review it with an open mind. I think they’ve raised some very good 

points, and these are all people who have served, who have been 

there, done that, I think they know what they’re talking about, period. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, I think they acknowledged that 

they will. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Not quite, but it was a nod, which is the best 

DOD ever does. 

Mr. HENRY. Senator, we’ve read the report with great interest 

and we look forward, hopefully, to being able to discuss with the 

Commission their conclusions prior, and we think that we can help 

them with information and analysis and insights that would make 

the final report even better. Perhaps correct inaccuracies and some 

assumptions that we think that we could help them with. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would just say that the biggest concern I 

have about the report is the slowing it down. I really believe that 

when you make a decision like this, that in order to be the most 

efficient, to use our taxpayer’s dollars wisely and to bring people 

home where they know it’s going to be permanent, it should be 

done quickly and not drug out. Now, obviously we do want to have 

the accommodations, we want the housing, and I think the public/ 

private partnerships make that much more able to be done than if 

we were just building them through MILCON. Certainly coordination with the school districts and health care facilities in a community will be very important, and I think that is valid, but I would 

rather see us gear up to do it quickly, than to slow down and have 

buildings in Germany and buildings in America that are duplicative. 

Mr. GRONE. In that regard, Madame Chairman, the most important potential impediment we have to implementation is not full 

authorization and appropriation of the budget requests to support 

the round, so if we had the resources available, we could certainly 

accelerate, and we will move out as expeditiously as you desire to 

ensure we have facilities in place for our people. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator HUTCHISON. We’ll work with you on that. Thank you 

very much, we’re going to go to our vote now. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 186 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 176 

Statements of........................................................................................... 4, 140, 185 

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator From Montana, Prepared Statement 

of ............................................................................................................................ 142 

Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 134 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 91 

Cooper, Hon. Vice Admiral Daniel L., (USN Ret.), Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs ....... 89 

Cornella, Hon. Al, Chairman, Overseas Basing Commission .............................. 183 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 193 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 189 

Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 119 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 92 

Curtis, Major General Lew E., III, United States Air Force (Ret.), Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 183 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California: 

Questions Submitted by............................................................. 123, 163, 177, 180 

Statements of............................................................................................. 3, 90, 184 

Fox, Major General L. Dean, Air Force Civil Engineer, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Installations and Logistics, Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense .................................................................................................... 165 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 166 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 179 

Grone, Philip W., Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Installation and Environment, Department of Defense ....................................................................... 1, 205 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 8 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 6 

Henry, Hon. Ryan, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment, Department of Defense ............................................... 205 

Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas: 

Opening Statements of .................................................................... 1, 89, 139, 183 

Questions Submitted by...................................................................... 114, 175, 179 

Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 188 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 129 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 187 

Jonas, Hon. Tina W., Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 5 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 4 
Page

ii 

Kuhn, Fred W., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Installations, 

Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense ...................................... 165 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 166 

Questions Submitted to .................................................................................... 175 

Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana: 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................................. 24, 187 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 131 

Statements of.................................................................................................. 23, 186 

Less, Vice Admiral Anthony A., United States Navy (Ret.), Department of 

Defense .................................................................................................................. 183 

Likins, Rose, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Political-Military 

Affairs, Department of Defense .......................................................................... 205 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 207 

Martin, Brigadier General Keith, Pennsylvania Army National Guard (Ret.), 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 183 

McClain, Hon. Tim, General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 89 

Miller, Major General Geoffrey D., Assistant Chief of Staff, Installation Management, Department of the Army, Department of Defense ............................ 139 

Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 136 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 91 

Nicholson, Hon. R. James, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of Veterans Affairs ............................................................................................... 89 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 96 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 93 

Penn, Hon. B.J., Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations and Environment, Department of the Navy, Department of Defense .................................. 69 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 70 

Perlin, Jonathan B., M.D., Ph.D., MSHA, FACP, Acting Under Secretary 

for Health, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 89

Profit, Brigadier General Gary M., Deputy Chief, Army Reserve, Department 

of the Army, Department of Defense .................................................................. 139 

Prosch, Geoffrey G., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for 

Installations and Environment, Department of the Army, Department of 

Defense .................................................................................................................. 139 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 144 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 143 

Pudlowski, Major General Walter F., Special Assistant to the Director, Army 

National Guard, Department of the Army, Department of Defense ................ 139 

Reed, Rita A., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of Veterans Affairs .......................................................................... 89 

Shear, Rear Admiral Wayne ‘‘Greg’’, Jr., Deputy Director, Ashore Readiness 

Division, United States Navy, Department of Defense ..................................... 69 

Taylor, Lieutenant General H.G., United States Army (Ret.), Department 

of Defense ............................................................................................................. 183 

Wannemacher, Richard A., Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, 

National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs ............. 89 

Williams, Brigadier General Willie, Assistant Deputy Commandant, Installations and Logistics (Facilities), U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Defense .. 69 
(iii) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Page 

A Complex Undertaking .......................................................................................... 206 

Army Military Construction .................................................................................... 27 

Base Realignment and Closure Overview ............................................................. 31 

BRAC 2005 ............................................................................................................... 34 

Budget Summary ..................................................................................................... 34 

Buffer Area Around Fort Carson, Colorado ........................................................... 22 

Business Transformation ........................................................................................ 15 

Chemical Weapons Demilitarization ...................................................................... 19 

DOD Base Realignment and Closure ..................................................................... 31 

Environmental Management .................................................................................. 14 

Facilities and Family Housing ................................................................................ 5 

Fiscal Year: 

2005 Supplemental Appropriations ................................................................. 6 

2006 BRAC Funding ........................................................................................ 30 

Global Defense Strategy and Process ..................................................................... 205 

Homeowners Assistance Program .......................................................................... 54 

Keeping Military Families Together ...................................................................... 26 

Managing Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 9 

Marine Corps Restructuring ................................................................................... 29 

Military Compensation and Health Care .............................................................. 5 

More Specificity for BRAC Funding ....................................................................... 17 

Perchlorate Contamination ..................................................................................... 61 

Permanent Construction at Guantanamo Bay ...................................................... 64 

Proceeds From Sales of Closed Facilities ............................................................... 18 

Renewable Energy Assessment of DOD Bases ...................................................... 61 

Restructuring U.S. Basing ...................................................................................... 5 

Revenue From the Sale of Land and Facilities ..................................................... 54 

Selling Excess Properties and Applying the Proceeds .......................................... 60 

Status of Global Rebasing ....................................................................................... 60 

Taking Into Account Other Federal Agencies in BRAC Analysis ........................ 25 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Accommodate New Missions ................................................................................... 169 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 175 

Budget Overview ...................................................................................................... 175 

Continue Demolition of Excess, Obsolete Facilities .............................................. 168 

Family Housing ........................................................................................................ 175 

Foreign Currency Exchange .................................................................................... 180 

Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas .......................................................................... 174 

Housing Privatization .............................................................................................. 170 

Invest in Quality of Life Improvements ................................................................. 168 

Joint Funding/Joint Basing .................................................................................... 175 

Lowry Air Force Base: 

Hazardous Waste .............................................................................................. 176 

Privatization Initiative ..................................................................................... 177 

NATO Precautionary Prefinance Statement ......................................................... 173 

Optimize Use of Public and Private Resources ..................................................... 170 

Recapitalization Rate .............................................................................................. 179 

Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany .......................................................................... 172 

Supplemental Request/Kuwaiti Aerial Port .......................................................... 177 

Sustain, Restore, and Modernize Our Infrastructure ........................................... 168 
Page

iv 

Sustainment/Base Operations Support (BOS) ....................................................... 179 

Vandenberg AFB/McClellan AFB ........................................................................... 180 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 162 

Army: 

Family Housing: 

Construction (AFHC) ................................................................................ 148 

Operations (AFHO) ................................................................................... 149 

Installation Strategies ...................................................................................... 146 

Modularity ......................................................................................................... 163 

Barracks ................................................................................................................... 162

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ................................................................ 149 

Environmental .................................................................................................. 163 

Decreased Budget Request ...................................................................................... 153 

Defense Installations Strategic Plan ...................................................................... 145 

Easements to Prevent Urban Encroachment ........................................................ 151 

Fiscal Year 2005 Supplemental Budget Request .................................................. 150 

Fort Ord Burn—Remediation Funding .................................................................. 154 

Global Restationing Funding .................................................................................. 156 

Guantanamo Prison ................................................................................................. 163 

Homeowners Assistance Fund, Defense ................................................................ 150 

Joint: 

Basing—Ellingston Field ................................................................................. 159 

Facilities ............................................................................................................ 160 

Milcon Projects in Supplemental ............................................................................ 161 

Military Construction Army .................................................................................... 147 

National Guard (MCNG) .................................................................................. 148 

Reserve (MCAR) ............................................................................................... 148 

Modular Facilities .................................................................................................... 161 

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................... 149 

Overhead: 

And Compartment Protection Locations ......................................................... 157 

Cover Locations—Iraq ...................................................................................... 158 

Overview ................................................................................................................... 144

RCI Program ............................................................................................................ 153 

Reserves Training—California ................................................................................ 155 

Restationing Facility Requirements—Fort Carson ............................................... 152 

Supplemental Funding ............................................................................................ 156 

The Way Ahead ........................................................................................................ 145 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams Funding ............................. 155 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BRAC 2005 ............................................................................................................... 80 

Efficiencies ............................................................................................................... 77 

El Toro Land Auction .............................................................................................. 84 

Facilities ................................................................................................................... 76 

Family Housing ........................................................................................................ 83 

Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Overview ........................................................................ 71 

Housing ..................................................................................................................... 72

Joint Reserve Center ............................................................................................... 84 

Marine Corps Force Restructuring ......................................................................... 85 

Military Construction .............................................................................................. 75 

Outlying Landing Field ........................................................................................... 86 

Prior BRAC Cleanup and Property Disposal ......................................................... 79 

Second Infantry Battalion ....................................................................................... 86 

VXX ........................................................................................................................... 76 

OVERSEAS BASING COMMISSION 

BRAC ........................................................................................................................ 202 

Cost....................................................................................................................... 200, 202 

Forward Operating Sites ......................................................................................... 201 

Geopolitical Considerations .................................................................................... 192 

Mobility ..................................................................................................................... 199 

Overseas Savings ..................................................................................................... 201 

Overview ................................................................................................................... 190
Page

v 

Quality of Life .......................................................................................................... 191 

Stryker Brigade ....................................................................................................... 200 

Timing ....................................................................................................................... 203 

And Synchronization ........................................................................................ 191 

Of Implementation ........................................................................................... 197 

Troop: 

Levels ................................................................................................................. 192 

Movement .......................................................................................................... 198 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 113 

Burial ........................................................................................................................ 102 

Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) .............................. 100 

Colorectal Cancer ..................................................................................................... 128 

Dallas VA Medical Center ....................................................................................... 111 

Enrollment Fees ....................................................................................................... 126 

Grants for State Extended Care Facilities ............................................................ 106 

Homelessness ........................................................................................................... 117 

Increased Costs For Middle-Income Vets/Ban On Priority 8s ............................. 137 

Major Challenges and Goals ................................................................................... 114 

Management: 

Efficiencies ........................................................................................................ 117 

Improvements ................................................................................................... 103 

Medical: 

And Prosthetic Research .................................................................... 100, 110, 124 

Care ................................................................................................................... 97 

Programs .................................................................................................... 124 

Health Care ....................................................................................................... 129 

Mefloquine (Lariam) Use ........................................................................................ 125 

Per Diem Payment Policy to State Homes ............................................................ 108 

Pharmacy Co-pay Increase ...................................................................................... 126 

Prescription Drugs ................................................................................................... 122 

Priority 7 and 8 Veterans ....................................................................................... 117 

Proposed Beckley VA Medical Center Nursing Home .......................................... 134 

Real: 

Effects of Increasing Out-of-Pocket Costs ....................................................... 137 

Health Care Increase ....................................................................................... 136 

Returning Troops ..................................................................................................... 126 

Services ..................................................................................................................... 119 

State: 

Extended Care Facilities Grants Program ..................................................... 123 

Home: 

Construction ............................................................................................... 118 

Per Diem Proposals ................................................................................... 122 

Veterans Homes: On the Chopping Block ...................................................... 138 

Third Party Collections ........................................................................................... 104 

Transitional Pharmacy Benefit Pilot Program ...................................................... 109 

VA–DOD Collaboration ........................................................................................... 119 

VA Nursing Homes: Also On the Chopping Block ................................................ 138 

Veterans: 

Benefits .............................................................................................................. 101 

Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan ........................................................... 114 

VISN Structure ........................................................................................................ 118 

Waco and Big Spring, Texas Sites ......................................................................... 112 

Æ